PolicyBlog has moved!

Thank you for visiting, PolicyBlog has a new address.

Our new location is http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog

Please adjust your bookmarks. Archived posts will remain here for now.

Thanks




Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Another toll-road myth demolished

The myth that governments can access cheaper infrastructure financing than the private sector - propogated by "Just Say No" Joe Markosek and his hired guns - has been refuted. Len Gilroy has the details.

Get more of the facts and myths here.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

The issue at hand should be focused only on the quality of the lease bid at hand. Everything on this site compares Act 44 and a turpike lease, or states how poorly the turnpike is run. These issues have nothing to do with the actual lease deal. And under the winning bid the deal is way short. The money would be used up in less than ten years. Lets stay focused on the lease deal itself, not everything else that is on this site.

Nathan Benefield said...

Anonymous -

Eliminating the corrupt patronage-ridden Turnpike Commission is crucial to cleaning up state government.

And how can you evaluate the Turnpike lease without comparisions to Act 44 - i.e. the status quo? Comparison in terms of both revenue generated for the state and future toll increases on motorists are pretty valuable to determine if this is a good deal.

While you can quibble over whether "this is enough" - and I would concede the bids would have been higher had they been completed in 2007 (or had Governor Rendell not insisted on as many protections for employees) - the fact is that competitive bidding is the only way to determine the "true value."

Elizabeth A. Male said...

I agree with Anonymous. Undeniably....the Turnpike is run by a gentlemen named Pat Ronage. That alone does NOT justify blind support of the lease. You have to make the case FOR the lease, not simply point to the Turnpike and say "BAD." We know it is. That is not at issue.

The lease has several flaws. Not the least of which is that it will put 12.8 billion dollars into the hands of drunken sailors---without restriction. I searched the GA website earlier and found no evidence that a Constitutional Amendment to restrict the use of the proceeds has even been proposed, let alone voted on in the GA, advertised by the Secretary prior to the general election, etc..etc...all the requirements elucidated in Article XI of our Constitution.

You have to make the case that the lease is the best alternative AND you have to advocate laying the proper foundation. I am NOT convinced the lease is the best alternative. Without Constitutional restriction of the proceeds, I think it perfectly reasonable to dismiss it out of hand.