The Commission also recommended more extensive use of Public-Private
Investments (PPI). Many states and localities have leased sections of
their highways and bridges to private investors. The investors get to
keep the revenues they receive from tolls or congestion pricing. In
Europe Public-Private partnerships have been tried with rail facilities.
There is no reason they can't be tried here as well. The Commission said
it could not support Public-Private partnerships if the investors were
from abroad. We believe only domestic PPIs should be permitted.
I frequently am asked which one of these solutions should be adopted by
States and localities. I tell the questioner, "all of the above." If
America is to invest in the level of mass transit needed to give
taxpayers a real choice to drive or take transit, revenues must increase
significantly at the state and local levels.
Some have claimed that the Commission is too pro-rail. That charge is
false. We are for giving citizens a choice. If they elect to drive they
ought to pay more of the actual cost of that decision. If they choose
transit we would need to face this fact. Half of America has no real
transit facilities available. Those which do offer an alternative are
often unattractive, do not keep a reliable schedule and in some cases do
not go where people want to go.
While the depletion of the Federal Highway (and Transit) Trust Fund is
causing major heartburn all across America, in the long run it may be a
blessing. States and localities will be obliged to face up to their
obligations and responsibilities to make transit the mode of choice for
the average American.