It’s My Way or No Highway

V

irginia has long been in the forefront of using privatization as a way to finance public projects without draining public budgets. It has been touted as a way to have your cake and eat it, too, by both Democrats and Republicans.

But there have been big problems with the concept. Most recently, offers to buy out management of the Virginia Port Authority’s massive container shipping facility in Hampton Roads were rejected because private companies such as CenterPoint and Carlyle offered absurdly low ball figures. The Pocahontas Parkway near Richmond didn’t live up to its traffic volume expectations and its financial and managerial structure had to be quickly redone to preserve the state’s AAA credit rating status.

Now comes the latest twist. According to a Wall Street Journal story this morning, private companies are no longer waiting for states or localities to pitch public works projects, and are coming up with their own ideas and pushing them.

Just about the time earlier this month that the state dumped selling off VPA because of the lowball prices offered, Skanska Infrastructure Development and Kiewit Infrastructure among other firms pitched expanding the existing Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel from two lanes to four at a cost of up to $4.5 billion.

The bridge tunnel, as anyone who has ever traveled to Tidewater knows, is a horrible bottleneck that can result in long delays early on weekday mornings as commuters flock to jobs at the huge Naval bases nearby or on weekends when vacationers head to the beaches.

The two-lane tunnel has been around since 1957 and the bonds paid for by tolls were settled in 1976. The tolls were lifted long ago.

The problem is that many in the local community, including Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim are angry with the unsolicited private proposal because it would involve uprooting hundreds of homes and stick motorists with tolls of up to $6 one way. Thus, a commuter working at the Norfolk Naval Base who lives in Hampton would have to shell out an extra $240 a month just to commute to his or her job.

That’s a lot of dough just so some huge private firms can get their investment back. There have been proposals for third crossings not involving expanding the existing HRBT but funding has been scarce.

The Journal notes that events such as this are being repeated in other states and are taking the privatization concept to a new level.

It is a troubling development. Despite what the privatization fans think, the concept puts private business in the driver’s seat. They should not be making decisions about whose house gets to be condemned to make way for their project. And they should not be allowed to set toll rates without public input.

We’re not talking “magic of the market” nonsense here. Let’s say Skanska and friends get their way. If you are a commuter you do have a choice not to pay the toll, but it presents a ridiculous inconvenience. You would have to drive all the way to Newport News and take another bridge tunnel and then crawl to Norfolk from Portsmouth, adding maybe an hour one way to your commute. Or you could swim.

At last weekend’s celebrated Tea Party convention, the “patriots” had booths pushing information about eminent domain issues in which the state misused its power to force people from their homes a la the Kelo case in Connecticut.

I tend to be with the patriots on this one. But the bigger question is, if the bad guy is private business and not public government, will they have the nerve to fight that too.? What gives large corporations the right to shove people from their homes and set usury tolls?

Peter Galuszka


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “It’s My Way or No Highway”

  1. very good article – Peter!

    I wonder how many people know that in the Washington Area that many govt and govt contractors receive more than $200 a month in direct commuting subsidies from Uncle Sam?

    I'm not sure if the money comes from the Federal Gas tax or from the agency itself in the form of tax-exempt subsidy.

    I actually like the idea of the private sector building toll-operated infrastructure because the user fees have a strong nexus to actual use.

    It is curious to me that Va managed to directly finance and operate the CBBT and Powhite Parkway but then screwed up the projection traffic numbers for the Pocahontas.

    My "read" of Virginians is that even though they don't like tolls – they'd reluctantly support state-constructed and operated TOLL facilities but they don't like the idea of them being privately operated at all.

    The HOT Lanes in NoVa seem to play out this way in terms of public opinion.

    But it's painfully clear that VDOT's way of projecting future traffic on a toll facility is so bad as to be off by a factor of 2 that apparently no one in VDOT or the State Level wants to trust them for another go-around since the Pocahontas came close to default and only avoided default by Transurban/Fluor agreeing to take over that road.

    I'm sure that action did not hurt their prospects of selling the HOT Lane idea in NoVa, eh?

  2. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, you're working yourself up in a lather over nothing. There is nothing wrong with private corporations *proposing* privately built and financed infrastructure projects. They may devise creative alternatives that had not been available before. Having choices is a good thing.

    There is something wrong only if public officials accept a bad deal. It sounds like the Third Crossing project may be a very bad deal, especially if, as you say, it entails harnessing the power of eminent domain to evict hundreds of people from their homes, and if it requires tolls on the other bridge-tunnels to work.

    There is a very simple solution: Just say, "Thanks but no thanks. But if you have any other ideas, let us know."

  3. For the most part, privatization is a way to add the cost of private company profits to public projects, with little risk to the private companies, and risk, after all, is the reason for profit.

    What private companies have done here is what private companies do best: sell. In many cases they are selling a bill of goods that sounds good, but has little long term value to the governmnet or the people that pay to support it.

  4. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    While you're working yourself up in a lather of reaction, I need to correct something in your comment.
    We're not talking a "THIRD" crossing but expanding the original crossing.

    Peter Galuszka

  5. if the "public" company has no money and has proven to be incompetent in previous attempts.. what do you do next if not private?

    I just don't see where the money is going to come from for these major infrastructure projects – and neither Gilmore, nor Warner, nor Kaine nor McDonald seemed to have answers either.

    so it appears that the private path is the default path.

  6. There is nothing wrong with harnessing the power of eminent domain, provided those evicted are paid a fair price.

    A fair price, does not mean "what it used to be worth" based on the previous use and previous assessment, which is what usually happens. A fair price has to consder the value of the potential new use.

    A hundred acres zoned agricultural is one price, but a hundred acres with 20 potential building rights is a different price, and it should be no different with the bridge project.

    Of course, some people will call any increase in land value due to public works a windfall. This idea is flat out wrong, and should be called out for the ridiculous precept that it is.

  7. with a private project – landowners usually fare much better because with a private company – time is money and they'll pay the extra to close the deal and get on with the project.

    With the govt.. they never sit down and figure out the legal costs incurred by delays with price.

    the private company has to account for the legal fees that take from it's bottom line.

    The govt has no such bottom line…..

    VDOT has proven itself to be incredibly obstinate and stupid about acquiring properties because it doesn't care about the costs of delays nor legal costs.

    so ..pick your poison –

    I assert that private is better than public when it comes to this issue.

  8. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, My bad. I accept your correction with equanimity.

  9. if the "public" company has no money and has proven to be incompetent in previous attempts

    ==================================

    Neither of these premises is proven. If the public company has no money it is because it has not been successful at selling its projects.

    In a private company you have a CEO and a board of directors and the shareholders don't get much voice. the company is free to make financial decisions.

    Even if a public company has a good project, its financial prospects are easily wrecked by too much public "participation". A public company has to sell its projects not only financially, but politically, which raises the costs spectacularly, and in todays climate may be impossible.

    You could have built and paid for the tri-county connector for what 40 years worth of lawsuits cost.

    Having private companies build toll operated facilities is a terrible idea because it puts too much of the burden on the physical users while everyone else who benefits from public infrastructure gets a free ride.

    Consider schools. Neighborhoods with good schools pay for those schools, and neighborhoods that cannot afford it get squat for schools. We have spent billions trying this that and the other to compensate for this. Montgomery county has a long standing policy of inclusionary zoning – projects in good neighborhoods must supply some affordable housing. We now know know that children from those houses do much better in school that children from similar income homes that are situated differently.

    Under your idea, we would have private companies build toll operated schools and only those who could afford the tolls would use them.

    It is a truly terrible idea, and the type of public facility makes no difference.

  10. "Neither of these premises is proven. If the public company has no money it is because it has not been successful at selling its projects."

    but they SOLD the Pocahontas Project guy and the results proved they were incompetent.

    "You could have built and paid for the tri-county connector for what 40 years worth of lawsuits cost."

    The ICC cost 2.6 BILLION dollars guy. Care to re-do your assertion?

    "Having private companies build toll operated facilities is a terrible idea because it puts too much of the burden on the physical users while everyone else who benefits from public infrastructure gets a free ride."

    maybe but you have to convince people of this and when push comes to shove – if you have no road/bridge/tunnel and it takes hours to get to work – people are going to agree to tolls.

    "Under your idea, we would have private companies build toll operated schools and only those who could afford the tolls would use them."

    Under my idea – the academic parts of schools would be paid for by taxpayers – at all 3 levels – Fed, State and Local.

    As it stands right now – the Feds and the State pay for ONLY academic curricula.

    I'd extend that to the local level and let people pay user fees for the things over and above academic.

    "It is a truly terrible idea, and the type of public facility makes no difference."

    there are privately operated schools that do just fine. There are privately operated EMS and Fire services… water/sewer systems, libraries, prisons, etc.

    Even the National Park Services contracts out the operation of it's public facilities to private companies.

    It works well if done right.

    you put the user fees on the people that create the demand and the fees cover the costs and keep the demand within the levels people are willing to pay for.

    When you provide anything "free" which has a demand – the incentive is to use as much of it as you wish – no matter how much it costs to provide it.

  11. with a private project – landowners usually fare much better

    =================================

    Which landowners are we talking about: those whose land is immediately part of the project, or those five miles away?

    Put up a new road five miles from my house and I will benefit whether it is a toll road or not. If it is not a toll road then I will help pay for my benefit. with a toll road, I might still benefit and never use the road.

    No wonder they are politically popular: they are a license to steal.

  12. private entities are allowed to buy whole parcels and then sell the excess.

    DOTs can't do that and they often end up with what is called a 'constructive taking' which is polite talk for not full compensation of the damages.

    A private entity would buy up the needed parcels – at a willing seller – willing buyer price – to move the project forward and then later.. split the parcels into right of way and salable properties – often with better access than if the DOT acquired piecemeal.

    As far as being 5 miles away.. forget it.. you're off in La La land again with your bizarro property rights philosophies.

    Let's keep the talk within realistic parameters.

    I'm not going to engage you in yet another endless dance about really dumb ideas that are not acceptable by virtually anyone else in the context of public infrastructure.

    You can do that on the property rights blogs – not here.

  13. The ICC cost 2.6 BILLION dollars guy. Care to re-do your assertion?

    it cost that much today PLUS all the costs for all the lawsuits (costs on both sides) plus the costs of all the hearings, plus the higher acquistion costs for land etc.

    What would it have cost 40 years ago when it was first proposed? The ICC alone isn't costing that much, but considering the entire system from start to finish it cost even more than you claim.

    If they had just built it forty years ago, it would be a BARGAIN today.

    ———————————

    I on't know much about the Pocahontas Parkway. maybe it should not have been uilt. Maybe it would have failed under private ownership, too. Now it is a "success" in the same way as the japanese railroads. The current owners are successful only because the previous ones went bankrupt and were bailed out by the government, which then took the loss and resold the assets at a price that could make money.

    Hell, if I could get government to guarantee me land at $200 an acre, I could even make money farming! but to do that, government would have to buy the land at $30,000 and acre and take the loss. "Oh, but we have to save these farms because they pay twice as much in taxes as they cost us in services."

    You can see how utterly stupid that is, but you can't see it when it comes to roads.

  14. re: " f they had just built it forty years ago, it would be a BARGAIN today"

    hells bells guy. you can say that about virtually ANY road today.

    The Wilson Bridge and Springfield Interchange could have been built for a fraction of what they cost today.

    blather on……guy

    re: "Pocahontas"

    The road would not have been built the way it was if it had been a private project because they would have first looked at realistic projects for traffic and tolls and determined what the project cost could not exceed.

    VDOT screwed up the traffic/toll projections and way overbuilt the road – and still did not direct connect it to the airport – which a private sector company would have done from the get go – to boost the traffic drawing potential.

    Transurban/Fluor took it over by refinancing it over an 80 year horizon – apparently something that VDOT/VA cannot legally do.

  15. As far as being 5 miles away.. forget it.. you're off in La La land again with your bizarro property rights philosophies.

    ================================

    This is not property rights philosophies nor is it bizarro.

    We can MEASURE these sorts of things, and we do it all the time. It is called hedonic valuation. We KNOW how much more the value of a home is, based on its distance to shopping. We KNOW how much more the value of a home is, based on its distance from open space.

    Thee is no reason to undertake a public project unless the people generally will be better off. that much is written public policy.

    Given that people generally will be bettter off they SHOULD have no objection to paying for their share of the benefit. Toll facilities deny that premise.

    And, given that some people will be better off and some people not, those that are better off should have no problem in taking PART of their gain to pay fair compensation to the losers.

    That second part is exactly your argument when it comes to development: "Oh, we are ALLOWING these big developers to make a windfall, which is costing us money in taxes. They OWE us proffers to make us not incur a loss."

    Philosophically, I don't have a problem with that. I even agree with the idea.

    But I simply don't think that the costs and benefits have been calculated correctly, and unfair claims are being made.

    And that observation is supported by your (uneducated) claim that someone far away does not benefit, or your belief that such things cannot be measured.

    They can be measured, and once we decide to do something or not they WILL be measured, whether we are smart enough to see the results or not.

    The people that support and propose toll roads have figured this out,and plan to use our stupidity to their advantage.

    It is a frigging dumb idea, and yet weare going to spend millions on stakeholder education programs until we work ourselves into a suitable groupthink position that it can be agreed to. It is still going to be a frigging dumb idea.

  16. The Wilson Bridge and Springfield Interchange could have been built for a fraction of what they cost today.

    ==================================

    We agree then.

    The only variable that needs to be considered is the time value of money. if you plot the cost of building the road at any point intime against its likely utility 40 years in the future you will likely find only one best point in time to build it.

    That is how you should make the decision, and that is not hwo we do it.

    Did Fluor extend Pocahonatas to the airport? Don't forget, when they extended the payment plan out to 80 years, a bunch of people took a bath. Those people are all taxpayers, in addition to being investors. No doubt they wrote off part of their loss, and that part of the bill gets distributed to everyone, whether they use the road or not.

    It is a REALLY dumb way to distribute the costs, unless you are a lawyer or financier working for FLUOR.

  17. "DOTs can't do that and they often end up with what is called a 'constructive taking' which is polite talk for not full compensation of the damages."

    ==================================

    So we write the rules and then we complain government is incompetent.

    In this case the rules were written precisely so that we would not have to make full compensation. We AUTHORIZED the government to steal in the utterly mistaken idea that it was to our benefit.

    We do not need a major overhaul of government. All we need is strict philisophical enforcement of a handful of basic ethical principles.

  18. Eminent domain isn't the problem.

    Not paying a fair price is the problem.

    What prevents us from paying a fair price is not having an ethical prcedure for determining the price to be paid.

    Not paying a fair price is what allows us to pursue projects which never should have seen the light of day.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    How about we cut down on commuting by building loft apartments in the garrets at the shipyard.

    For $4.6 billion you culd build a lot of them and let them out rent free for a very long time.

  19. " hedonic valuation " = bizarro property rights LA LA land.

    everyone knows that location determines value including those who specialize in knowing where new transportation infrastructure is planned.

    what you are suggesting is that everyone who has property NEAR a planned road would have to pay up for their paper gains even though they do not have any $$$ in hand.

    which is bizarro… no where in the world does this happen.

    The State DOT – by law cannot buy up the land around a planned project – they can only buy the land that is required.

    A private entity on the other hand, could buy up the entire footprint – willing-selling, willing-buyer without arguing about what is a "fair" price for chopping up landowners parcels and "constructively" taking what they don't actually buy – harming the attributes which are harder to affix a firm value on – like noise.

    Landowners generally fare much better with private entities who know that delays cost big bucks an are worth paying a premium to get the land quick and move on.

    VDOT doesn't work that way and as a result most landowners don't fare very well with VDOT especially when Imminent Domain is involved. The primary winners in those circumstances are lawyers, not the landowners and not the taxpayers.

  20. what you are suggesting is that everyone who has property NEAR a planned road would have to pay up for their paper gains even though they do not have any $$$ in hand.

    =================================

    What I'm suggesting is that everyone pays for roads whether they use them or not – same as for schools and for the same reasons.

    I am not suggesting what you say at all, because that kind of thinking has the same flaws as thinking that allowing a landowner to build something is somehow giving him a windfall.

    What I am suggesting is that everyone benefits and therefore the idea that there is a fair nexus between tolls and physical users is bogus.

    What I am suggesting is that the true benefits are diffuse, and so should be the payments.

    What I'm suggesting is that we need billions to stay even, let alone make progress,and that kind of money is going to require everyone's participation.

    Hedonic valuation is not bogus. We Know what those value are for many things. I'm not suggesting that we use it as a basis for payment – the fuel tax shoudl do that. But I am suggesting that it is proof of benefits sufficient that we can fairly claim that everyone benefits frome new construction.

    Tolls were a dumb idea the first time and they are a dumb idea now.

  21. The primary winners in those circumstances are lawyers, not the landowners and not the taxpayers.

    ==================================

    I'm glad to see you agree with me that we need stronger property rights.

    Lawyers very seldom get much involved in eminent domain cases. in virginia the same judicial panel that allows eminent domain to proceed sets the prices. That is an obvious flaw and one that needs to be fixed.

    A few years ago a blue ribbon panel made that suggestion and several others which were ignored by the clown show in Richmond.

    Should you engage a lawyer and win a higher settlement, which is unlikely, you do not get reimbursed for you legal expenses, hence the low participation of lawyers in eminent domain cases.

  22. Before you even go there, yes, we need a better sysem for distributing and figuring out how best to use raod money.

    We will have that problem no matter what the source of money is, so it is not a discriminator.

  23. " What I'm suggesting is that everyone pays for roads whether they use them or not – same as for schools and for the same reasons."

    and in both cases, we have no checks and balances than discriminates between needs and wants and in both cases we waste money hand over fist for specific individuals who benefit directly on the bogus idea that there will never be too much money spent to help "everyone".

    And in fact – we don't spend the money for what it should be spent for – academics and transportation utility.

    both are scams in their current form in the way they collect and spend money.

    taxes for schools should be for academics and taxes for roads should be for transportation not economic development or property values.

  24. Every worthwhile infrastructure project, reasonably well executed, creates 2, 3, 4, 5 or more times its cost in increased land value.

    If it doesn't create awesome amounts of increased land value, why did we do it?

    The obvious question, then, is, why we currently finance such projects via taxes on someone's labor, or purchases, or buildings, or hotel stays or car rentals, or anything other than land value!!

    When a public project creates many times its cost in land value, why should we ask people to pay for it in proportion to what they buy, or what their labor is worth, or the value of their buildings or machinery, or ANYTHING other than land value?

    It is true that the little old lady who lives downtown, in a single-family home on a lot suitable to 1930 or 1950, may really really not want a subway stop or commuter highway exit close to her home, particularly if it increases her land value and therefore her share of the costs of providing all the services which make her town or city a good place to live. Her heirs might be thrilled; they have a larger asset to sell after her death.

    Should our poor (land-rich) widow on a choice site be able to hold up infrastructure enhancements, or shift the cost of providing them off onto workers, or consumers, or anyone else whose benefits from community investment are less than hers? I don't think so.

    What do you think?

    It seems to me to be the natural public revenue source.

    It doesn't discourage productive activity, and it doesn't take from anyone value that they individually created.

    Fair is fair.

  25. "When a public project creates many times its cost in land value, why should we ask people to pay for it in proportion to what they buy, or what their labor is worth, or the value of their buildings or machinery, or ANYTHING other than land value?"

    =================================

    Because the only thing they have to pay with is their income. You cannot paqy a bill with land value.

    My land has increased in value many times, and every time aI have to pay increased taxes out of my income.

    It is unfair to ask people to pay with what they donot have.

  26. "Should our poor (land-rich) widow on a choice site be able to hold up infrastructure enhancements, or shift the cost of providing them off onto workers, or consumers, or anyone else whose benefits from community investment are less than hers? "

    ==================================

    If it is truly a public works project, then that is what we have eminent domain for. But if we think her home is so valuable for some other purpose that we are willing to take it, then we whould be willing to pay her (proportionaltely) for the value of the new purpose, and not just the previous value of her home.

    At a minimum, we should pay her enough to replace it with a similar home equally located. Many times, such a thing is impossible to find or very expensive.

    When my wife's family beach home was taken under eminent domain, the family was paid nowhere near enough to purchase another equivalent beach house. How, then, can we claim that they were paid fair value?

    If it is a project that is a win/win for all then the winners ought to be willing to FULLY compensate the losers. When e do that, there will be alot less resistance to eminent domain takings.

    On the other hand, if we are taking the land merely to turn it over to a developer, then our widow should have absolute right of refusal. It is her property and we can afford to let her live out her life in peace. Or, let the developer offer her a price she cannot refuse, that's up to him.

    In the Kelo case, those people lost their homes in a moderate income waterfront community. There is no such thing anymore as a moderate income waterfront community and they can never replace what they had.

    Besides that, the developer went bust and the proposed project never happened. The city should be held responsible and made to give each landowner their land back. The houses were bulldozed, but they can be replaced. the location cannot.

  27. "Value individually created"

    ================================

    I hate that idea.

    When the plan was to put a power line across my farm, I did not individually create that new value.

    Neither did anyone else.

    But, had it happened, I would have been paid only for the value of a strip of pasture – that produces a couple of hundred dollars in income every year. i would have been paid almost nothing, based on the previous use.

    But, it was in that use to begin with, only because the land is restricted to agriculture by zoning. The artificially low value caused by such zoning makes farms a logical place for anything no one else wants.

    And, the cost to me in POTENTIAL value was many times higher than I would have been paid. The agricultural zoning will go away someday and the land will be worth much more, but not with a power line across it.

    I don't know how to get around this, but I suggest that the answer lies in my first response above. If my property is so valuable that it is the only place to put a power line, then I should be paid a portion of the revenue thw power oline brings: pay me out of the power company's income, same as I have to pay my taxes.

    Let the payment be recurring, just as the new use is recurring, and not allow them to get a constant revenue stream based on a low-ball one time payment.

    All of the recommendations I have made regarding eminent domain takings have already been implemented in other states, and they were recommended by a blue ribbon commission here, but ignored by the legislature and governor.

  28. taxes for roads should be for transportation not economic development or property values.

    ==================================

    But transportation increases property value. How do you avoid it?

  29. I think there should be a tax on property value that is dedicated to transportation, but I think it should be capped as a proportion of the income the owner has or the property produces.

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    Great website gentlemen. Let me introduce some other points here that may provoke more thought on this issue and why we may need to be further concerned over the I-64 proposal.

    As you are aware, the Skanska team recently submitted an "unsolicited" PPTA proposal to expand the facility. The submission of the unsolicited proposal was quite anticipated and encouraged by Delegate Glenn Oder, who had mandated a bill this past general session that VDOT must accept unsolicited PPTA proposals for the widening of the existing tunnels. So, low and behold, Skanska submits, and now VDOT finds themselves scrambling to develop a NEPA document to support the PPTA (Just research the recent "5 million dollar study" article in the Virginian Pilot).

    The problem I see is this – the team that submitted the proposal is actually a mega consortium consisting of Skanska, Kiewitt Construction, Parsons Brinckerhoff, MacQuarie Holdings, and another financing arm of Skanska. This is the same, and only team, that is currently in the comprehensive agreement phase for the expansion of the Midtown Tunnel PPTA. There is no other competition as these team members have managed to form a mega-company that has distinct advantages over other competitors. So much in fact that it is very doubtful that there will be any other competition when it comes time to progress from the unsolicited phase to the solicited phase of the PPTA project. This is exactly what happened on the Midtown Tunnel PPTA project, which is moving forward now full speed ahead.

    How do we know we're getting a good deal when we're dealing with a monopoly and a current administration that seems to be pushing PPTA's forward without any further consideration?

  31. One way would be for those who don't like the PPTA route to put up their own competitive counter-proposal and insist on a straight-up comparison.

    The problem is that no one wants to propose a solution that has public support so the issues just drags on and no resolution can be seen as far as the eye can see.

    It could be, in the absence of any publically-like counter proposals and dislike of the PPTA proposal that what the public is really saying is – leave it alone and let us put up with the congestion.

    no?

    I say. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Leave a Reply