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, September 16, 2008

Pennsylvania Turnpike Lease: Two years of deliberation

An anonymous poster remarks that "we don't want to rush into anything (like leasing the Turnpike)", and compares it to the rush to pass Act 44. He/she is correct about Act 44, passed within two weeks of its first introduction without public hearing.

However, Thursday will mark the second anniversary of my testimony in which the Commonwealth Foundation first proposed a lease of the Turnpike. Since that time, the Commonwealth Foundation has testified at 4 legislative committee hearings on leasing the Turnpike; hosted 2 luncheon discussions with lawmakers and the public on leasing the Turnpike; released a full length report on public private partnerships and a policy brief on the Turnpike lease; offered numerous op-eds and analysis of the Turnpike lease; launched a website compiling facts about the lease deal; appeared on 3 television programs discussing the Turnpike lease and had 4 programs of The BOX dedicated to discussing the lease deal.

And that's just our work. The media has vetted this story extensively, there have been other legislative hearings on the lease at which we did not testify, and other analysis (in particular from the Reason Foundation) has been produced on the lease deal. No one could possibly be accused of "rushing into" the Turnpike lease. Ironically, delaying the vote on a lease leaves Act 44—which was "rushed into" and has proven to be among the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted—on the books.

Commonwealth Foundation's Turnpike Lease Timeline

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Polls conducted by Quinnipiac show that the majority of taxpayers within the Commonwealth “DO NOT” support leasing our turnpike. In addition, approximately the same percentage of taxpayers opposed tolling I-80. With that said, the vetting process, no matter how extensive you claim it has been, has not changed the publics view. Assuming that the General Assembly’s job is to work on behalf of the taxpayers, a decision to lease our turnpike cannot be taken slow enough, especially in our current economic climate. People (this foundation) have been so blinded by their arrogance to shrink/reduce the size of government, they fail to realize that the majority of taxpayers do not support leasing the states turnpike.

Matt Brouillette said...

The polling questions are incomplete. When the public is informed of the options (as opposed to, "Do you want to pay tolls or not?"), they embrace the lease over higher gas taxes, vehicle fees and bonded debt. (see http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/newsreleases/poll-informed-voters-support-turnpike-lease)

Anonymous said...

Funny! You really think the taxpayers of this Commonwealth want to sell their infrastructure to a foreign country? Give me a break...Especially in our current economic state, it seems logical to hold-on to our assets.

Matt Brouillette said...

Most people understand the difference between a sale and a lease. Furthermore, an asset is only an asset if you use it as such. Under the control of the PTC, it is a cash cow for political patrons. Under a lease, it is way to pay for our roads, highways and bridges without raising taxes or going into more bonded debt. Bringing in new management of this asset is precisely what we are hoping to do so we can start getting a return on that investment.

Anonymous said...

Control of daily revenues for 75 years is more than your average lease (most people can understand this). At any rate, I am sure the taxpayers of this Commonwealth (a majority) would be opposed to “leasing” the turnpike to a foreign company. Can an invested, approx., $8-9B last for 75 years? This seems unreasonable. Is $12.8B a fair price? This seems unlikely? With the lease the state would not just be” bringing in new management”; it would be turning over total control of handling the toll money. A lease would send profits overseas; cut commonwealth jobs; and be quite embarrassing (considering the offered price) to the state.

Matt Brouillette said...

Anonymous:

We won't waste your time with showing you the numbers since you don't bother to read them anyway. But if the deal were as bad as you *think* it is or it *seems*, then we wouldn't be for it either.