Reprinted courtesy of Car & Travel magazine, copyrighted 2007 by AAA New York

The privatization of our nation’s highways is being touted in some quarters as the Big New Idea of the 21st century. In fact, it’s not so new—or necessarily a good idea.

Back in 1792, a group of investors received permission from the Pennsylvania state

government to build a stone and gravel road connecting Philadelphia to Lancaster. Completed two years later at a cost of $450,000, the privately held turnpike was outfitted with toll gates every 10 miles of its 62-mile length, with conestoga wagons carrying agricultural products from farm to city among its biggest users.

More than 200 years later, financially strapped state and municipal governments from coast to coast are implementing or considering “public-private partnerships” with renewed vigor. They see it as a way to unburden themselves of ever-rising costs in highway maintenance and operations and argue that the private sector will be able to do a more cost-efficient job of moving traffic. High-profile, long-term lease agreements for existing toll roads in Chicago, Indiana and Virginia have helped put such partnerships on the fast track. In the past year, lawmakers in 11 states, including New Jersey, have introduced legislation to award long-term leases to private companies to run and manage toll roads.

Greatly adding to the momentum has been the U.S. Department of Transportation’s recent release of model state legislation designed to advance road privatization, evidently reflecting the Bush Administration’s belief that such plans are the preferred solution to projected shortages in highway funding.

AAA has responded to this federal initiative with an urgent appeal: Not so fast! In a letter to DOT Secretary Mary E. Peters, AAA and six other major national highway-user groups have warned that promoting public-private deals “in isolation from an overarching transportation strategy” could undermine the safety and efficiency of the Interstate Highway System.

When it comes to privatization, the risks, as well as the benefits, to the public must be weighed, and the interests of motorists as well as governments must be considered.

These are not abstract concerns. Will motorists end up paying ever-higher tolls for decades to come under privatization? What role will current fuel tax revenues play in the scenario? Will motorists be paying twice—both to the government and the private sector—for using highways?

If ensuring a profit for private companies and quick cash for state and local governments remain the top priorities, is there not a danger that these plans could actually lead to a decline in safety and mobility? Could such negative results affect not only privatized but parallel public roads as for-profit companies seek “non-compete” clauses in their agreements with government agencies?

In fact, what safeguards are there that funds gained from long-term lease agreements will not be diverted to nontransportation uses that hold little or no benefit for those paying the fees?

Answers to these questions can only come through mechanisms that require transparency for public input and critical review from the Administration and Congress.

Many state and local governments may see public-private partnerships as the proverbial “pot of gold” at the end of the highway, a quick way to raise significant amounts of money without the political baggage of raising taxes or tolls.

Motorists have good reason to take a more critical view.

To be sure, the transportation-financing mechanisms of the past half-century are overdue for re-examination. We need to consider every reasonable structural and financing proposal for highways, including privatization. But we need to conduct this discussion now—and in public.

back to top | back to archive