No need to regulate private toll roads
Posted by BrianMany in the Montgomery area are upset about the Alabama River Parkway toll bridge and Emerald Mountain Expressway raising their tolls by fifty cents. I’ve heard people ask how the government can let this happen. The answer is simple: the toll routes are privately owned and it you don’t support the toll increase then don’t use them.
Well, that is exactly what area residents are doing.
Days before the scheduled boycott of the Emerald Mountain toll bridge, alternate routes into Montgomery are so gridlocked that sheriff’s deputies have been posted at the busiest intersections.
In the past, many of these commuters used the toll bridge, but it appears they now are using U.S. 231, observed Elmore County Sheriff Bill Franklin.
“There is no doubt this traffic backup is a direct result of the boycott already being successful,” Franklin said.
If the owners of the toll roads lose a significant amount of revenue for a while they’ll be forced to drop their rates to what the market will bear. If people abandon the boycott (and the congestion it has created) and return to the bridge at the new rate, then the new rate isn’t too high.
Related content:
March 6th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
The problem with the private ownership argument is that it overlooks the effect of the toll bridge on the ALDOT (as well as other reports that suggest Montgomery and Elmore Counties provide maintenance on some of the approaches to the bridge). ALDOT will not build additional bridges across the river because there is no need for them that would make such a project a priority. Priority is lacking, however, because of the existence of a $1.50 bridge, where the state should be concerned with providing infrastructure with tax dollars.
Would the private ownership argument hold up if police departments decided not to patrol commercial districts where alarm systems and private security officers are employed, because there is less of a need? What if they didn’t respond to calls at private subdivisions because they are gated and (theoretically) don’t need as much protection? Elmore and Autauga Counties need additional infrastructure connecting them to Montgomery. The fact that a private company build a toll road doesn’t change the state DOT’s obligation to provide a non-commercial alternative, considering the amount of congestion (meaning this project should be a priority).
March 6th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Let me get this straight, you think that the government should provide services uniformly without regard to need due to existing private infrastructure?
You’re essentially arguing that you, as a commuter who would use the bridge, shouldn’t have to pay a toll that is used to finance the structure. You would rather pay a hidden toll in the form of taxes that would almost certainly be as much or more than the private toll due to the inherent inefficiency of government.
The police analogy seems sound at first, but it is apples and oranges. Alarms and private guards cannot legally perform the same functions as sworn police. A private toll road, however, can convey the public in the exact same manner as a public road.
Would you be making the same argument if a philanthropist opened two private, but absolutely free, toll bridges that could adequately handle the traffic? Would ALDOT still have to build a bridge to satisfy their duty to provide public roads even if there was absolutely no demand?
None of us like to pay tolls since we are used to getting the proverbial cow for free. But, supply and demand will determine if toll roads are viable alternatives. If the public refuses to use them and the owners stubbornly refuse to lower rates, then yes, the government should provide a road. But, I don’t think we’re entitled to “free” roads, considering that we’re paying for them one way or the other, be they public or private.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:49 am
User-based taxes (tolls) are fine, but with private development they are not user-based taxes, they are user-generated profit forever and ever. Tolls are great. Look at Florida, where several toll routes have reverted to free transit after the roads were paid off with user-based taxes. Fort Walton and Sannibel Island both come to mind. Here, however, the users do not “pay” for the road. They pay for the road and then they pay for profits to be distributed by Alinda to its shareholders.
As for the hypothetical philanthropist, you present a false analogy. If someone built infrastructure and presented it to the public for free, then there is nothing for the AL DOT to worry about as far as need/priority. But the bottom line is, we do pay taxes, whether there is a toll bridge or not. If we are paying taxes, why should a rapidly expanding area (Elmore County, one of the fastest growing regions in Alabama) be ignored by AL DOT as needing new state-provided infrastructure just because you CAN go to Montgomery through Emerald Mountain by paying a $1.50 toll (of which some is “profit” or else there would be no private interest in the project).
You may not think that we’re “entitled” to free roads, but considering infrastructure is one of the original Constitutional duties of government (interstate commerce and all that), how is it that we are not entitled to free infrastructure (where justified by demand and need), but we are “entitlted” to Medicare, medicaid, social security, and all of the more recently created entitlements? Again, you are paying taxes whether the toll road is there or not. Under your argument, the state should give Emerald Mountain residents a tax-credit for tolls paid as they are getting the benefit of a road “we’re paying for.” The sum of your argument is that double taxation on Emerald Mountain/Elmore County residents is okay.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I need to clarify my concluding sentence in my previous comment. I do think the government is responsible for ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure for the citizenry to use. That doesn’t mean that the government must be the one that provides the infrastructure. If private enterprises serve the public through toll bridges or roads AND demand is being met then I see no reason why the government should build a competing road or bridge.
The key element is the need. In this case if the citizens of Elmore County can maintain their boycott then one of two things will happen. The private bridge will be forced to reduce their toll to a level viewed as reasonable by the market. Otherwise, the state will, and should, respond to the overcrowding on the existing public bridge by expanding it or building a new one. In either case the needs of the citizens are being met.
You’re point about double taxation is salient and it is quite unpleasant. Such is the nature of a mixed system of user specific financing and general public financing. If there were a feasible way to credit the people who use private toll roads (make those tolls tax deductible?) I would support it.
I don’t have a problem with a private company making a profit on the tolls. They are putting their capital at risk.