Trump's New Infrastructure Plan Calls For Selling Off Two Airports (politico.com) 406
The Trump administration has released an infrastructure plan on Monday that proposes that the federal government considers selling off Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport. According to Trump's blueprint, the administration wants to allow federal agencies to divest assets if they "can demonstrate an increase in value from the sale would optimize the taxpayer value for federal assets." It also includes the George Washington and Baltimore Washington parkways, the Washington Aqueduct and the transmission assets of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration on the list for "potential divesture." Politico reports: State and local agencies or the private sector may be better at managing assets currently owned by the federal government, the administration argues, and federal agencies should be able to "identify appropriate conditions under which sales would be made." They should also "delineate how proceeds would be spent." Under the administration's proposal, federal agencies would have to complete an analysis demonstrating an "increase in value from divestiture." Though technically owned by the federal government, both airports are operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority under a long-term lease agreement. The 53-page infrastructure plan lays out a vision to turn $200 billion in federal money into $1.5 trillion for fixing America's infrastructure by leveraging local and state dollars and private investment. "The White House says its plan will create $1.5 trillion for repairing and upgrading America's infrastructure," reports CNNMoney. "Only $200 billion of that, however, would come from direct federal spending. The rest is supposed to come from state and local governments, which are expected to match any federal allocation by at least a four-to-one ratio. States have gradually assumed more of the responsibility for funding infrastructure in recent years, and the White House says it wants to accelerate that trend."
As for how the money would be split up, the plan says that half of the new federal money, $100 billion, "would be parceled out as incentives to local government entities," reports CNNMoney. "An additional $20 billion would go toward 'projects of national significance' that can 'lift the American spirit,'" while another $50 billion will be designated "for rural block grants, most of which will be given to states according to a formula based on the miles of rural roads and the rural population they have," reports CNNMoney. "The rest of the money would support other infrastructure-related undertakings..."
As for how the money would be split up, the plan says that half of the new federal money, $100 billion, "would be parceled out as incentives to local government entities," reports CNNMoney. "An additional $20 billion would go toward 'projects of national significance' that can 'lift the American spirit,'" while another $50 billion will be designated "for rural block grants, most of which will be given to states according to a formula based on the miles of rural roads and the rural population they have," reports CNNMoney. "The rest of the money would support other infrastructure-related undertakings..."
Private ownership of public infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait for the "de-platforming" trolls to find out that "they own it, so you have to do what they say" becomes incredibly problematic in real world contexts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The next part is the total upgrade of the parts people look at and use. That 1960's styling that needs a lot of work and budget just to keep as is.
Other nations sell off their airports and let the private sector take that huge risk.
No more having to cover the costs of upkeep every year and new design work every few years, over the decades.
That tax money once used to
Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a huge risk, it's a money-making public asset. Airports are gold mines. Besides gate fees, there are lots of bucks to be made renting space, parking spaces, food/taxes, fuel/taxes, and far more.
Other nations might sell off their assets, and they're idiots.
Instead, sell off and stop the tax monies to private airports, thousands of them that serve general aviation, and make them stand on their own feet without tax dollar support. Make private aviation have to pay its own dues, rather than shifting the cost to the cattle car carriers we call airlines.
Re: (Score:3)
Making "money" would see every larger airport in the USA been brand new and be great looking.
The "lots of bucks to be made" will not cover a new design and total new look and keep an airport working.
Thats a risk the private sector can take on. The costs every year and the "lots of bucks to be made" do not add up to been able to build what is needed.
A lot of great looking new airports are needed.
So that flying into the USA and around the US
Re: (Score:3)
And governments and airport authorities do a fine job. Give it to the private sector and watch the costs become base*profit margin. The private sector shouldn't be necessary at all; they already are the contractors for lots of services. These are PUBLIC assets, not to be sold to the gleaners.
You're moving the argument into areas that have nothing to do with airports and public finance. Lots of great airports have come online in the past decade, along with stellar remodel jobs. It's folly to attempt to fines
Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
Airports are unsuitable for private ownership because there is little meaningful competition. It's not like a rival can open their own competing airport nearby.
Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Your citation doesn't take into account how they operate at all. Take a look at sunken capital costs vs depreciation vs their revenue model. It's true that financing helps them along, but not to the extent that you imply, at all.
And find me a private business that doesn't have investors, bank notes, lots of debt glue, and sunken costs. Comparing the two is pretty juvenile. I'm not a big fan of bonds, but they're tempered against ratings and underwriter considerations and are a viable method of f
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a huge risk, it's a money-making public asset. Airports are gold mines. Besides gate fees, there are lots of bucks to be made renting space, parking spaces, food/taxes, fuel/taxes, and far more.
Other nations might sell off their assets, and they're idiots.
This is the standard plan of modern conservative economists... find your best performing assets and sell them off for a pittance, screw the future. It's going to be the other guys who'll have to get us out of it.
John Howard in Australia did the same thing, selling off public assets and utilities including several major airports because that was the only way he could balance a budget.
Instead, sell off and stop the tax monies to private airports, thousands of them that serve general aviation, and make them stand on their own feet without tax dollar support. Make private aviation have to pay its own dues, rather than shifting the cost to the cattle car carriers we call airlines.
Whoa cowboy, that sounds like communism there. You don't want Communism in 'Merika do you?
Without public funds and tax m
Re: (Score:3)
Your wisdom is lost in your delivery.
Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure (Score:4, Interesting)
AC the problematic part is having the gov find the budget every year to keep everything working and presenting the USA as a modern nation. The next part is the total upgrade of the parts people look at and use. That 1960's styling that needs a lot of work and budget just to keep as is. Other nations sell off their airports and let the private sector take that huge risk. No more having to cover the costs of upkeep every year and new design work every few years, over the decades. That tax money once used to keep an airport looking nice can then go to bridges, roads around the USA and other vital work that really needs doing.
Ok so you sell off the airports this year because you have pay to upgrade them, and use that money on bridges instead. What do you do next year? Sell the bridges and roads?
Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
Other nations sell off their airports and let the private sector take that huge risk.
No they don't, because they need the airports. All that happens is that debts and long term contracts to private companies are hidden from the national debt figures and the government has to underwrite everything anyway because the airport is too important to go out of business.
It's just a way of privatising the profits while socalising the risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between a government-run road and a corporate-run road (where the corporation is heavily regulated, gets its charter from the government, is granted a monopoly by the government, tolls are approved by regulatory commission, etc)... it's basically an implementation detail. Depending on the state, they'll probably even force the corporation to use prevailing wage to keep the unions happy. The NJ Turnpike would likely be indistinguishable as an authority vs. a corporation. I don't think there is
Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
However as we do have groups that are referred to as neo-nazis, who follow the teachings and ideals of the nazis, and even use one of the nazi flags, we have fucking nazis.
If it looks like a nazi, talks like a nazi, and goosesteps like a nazi... I'm sure you get the idea...
The PepsiCo White House (Score:3, Funny)
The official home of Pepsi ... and the leader of the free world
Re:The PepsiCo White House (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that would be "Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator: It's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. It's the Diet Coke White House. I remember something about a red button fetching a Diet Coke.
Re: (Score:2)
On second thought, the Washington monument would be a way better Trojan purchase because they could display the product during sales rallies.
You don't get sales by making the customer feel inadequate.
"Say, can you guys breed a smaller kind of banana? Why? YOU KNOW WHY."
This sounds...familiar (Score:4, Informative)
This is how you turn the first world into the third world
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This sounds...familiar (Score:5, Informative)
It applies to water, prisons, and soon will apply to airports.
I hate to point this out, but the vast majority of airports in the US are not owned by the US government.
Even those that aren't owned by the feds are reasonably well controlled by the limits put on the availability of federal funds. Things like "if you accept federal money, the airport must be open to all users." There are some anomalies, like Chicago Meigs, but O'hare (along with Atlanta Hartsfeld) seem to run just fine without federal ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some anomalies, like Chicago Meigs . . .
And KSMO where the government completely rolled over on its back for a belly scratch by the SMO board.
User Fees (Score:5, Funny)
The private sector KNOWS how to run things. We just need a few user fees.
-Parking garage entrance fee
-Parking garage exit fee
-Airport entrance fee
-Airport exit fee
-Airport Security Fee
-Fee payment Fee
-Fee payment fee recovery fee
-Fee payment fee recovery fee surcharge
-Fee payment fee recovery fee surcharge levy
-Fee payment fee recovery fee surcharge levy premium
They should charge for WiFi bandwidth by the byte, say the same as a text message fee, but with a premium.
-Stuff at the airport is too cheap, as proof, even the poors can afford to fly. Poors should have to take the bus everywhere, or at least need a loan to fly.
-Passport fees should also increase.
Re: User Fees (Score:2)
These fees already exist! (Score:2)
Most of these fees are hidden by being included in your ticket price either directly as a fee you pay or as fees which the airline pays and so passes on indirectly (like landing fees) to you. Have a look at the list of fees on your next air ticket. Typical charges on mine are thi
Re:User Fees (Score:5, Insightful)
You misunderstand your own example. What brings costs down is competition. A lot of big pieces of infrastructure like airports do not have head-to-head competition. If you hate your local airport and need to fly cross country for business, are you going to take a train? If the major freeways around your home are privately owned, are you going to walk?
I know that it is fashionable to pretend that government is bad at everything and private enterprise is better, but it is simply not true in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand your own example. What brings costs down is competition. A lot of big pieces of infrastructure like airports do not have head-to-head competition. If you hate your local airport and need to fly cross country for business, are you going to take a train? If the major freeways around your home are privately owned, are you going to walk?
Except in this case, Reagan National and Dulles are only 58 miles apart. There's a shuttle between them. I've taken return flights into one when my original flight to the other was cancelled Then I took a cab to the parking garage to get to my car.
There's also BWI. It's 36 miles from Reagan and 58 miles from Dulles.
I'm not a big fan of doing this. But as long as the same company can't purchase both airports, then there will be competition. It would be interesting to see how it works with two different comp
Re: (Score:3)
There's 3 internet companies where I live, they all charge the same.
There are 3 main cell companies here, they all charge the same, even the other month when #4 tried to enter the market and they all offered the same cheap deal.
There's over a dozen gas stations owned by about 6 companies, they almost all charge the same price including going up and down together. The exception is far enough out of town that they can charge more.
There are 3 grocery stores and they got caught fixing the price of bread.
The gov
Lack of competition (Score:5, Informative)
Read up on all the controversies around the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Ontario... and get ready for owners of private infrastructure to pull that same crap hundreds of times over across hundreds of other bridges, roads, and waterways across America.
Want to build a competitor to DCA within reasonable distance of the Washington DC metro area? Good luck. In many places it's not just a question of land acquisition... there are many locations where local geography limits where airports can be built or where bridges can cross rivers. Look at the terrain around Pittsburgh... want to build another international airport there, maybe closer to the city? I'd like to see someone try.
I HATE planning roadtrips across Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma... not because of all the stereotypes about flyover country (I actually love the scenery), but because of all the damn toll roads. For each road, I have to figure out: do they take cash, are they toll by plate (with a hefty surcharge for being unregistered), or do they use any of a number of incompatible tolling systems? If I register my rental car's tags in one city will my registration be valid in another? And avoiding the tolls in places like Kansas just to cross the state means you have to go MILES out of your way on two lane roads. Is it reasonable to expect that someone will be able to raise enough money to build a competing toll road, parallel to an existing one? In contrast, I can drive anywhere in a dozen northeastern states and know that any toll road will take EZpass.
There's a big lake near my house that TVA sold off to a private company some years ago. Sure, the buyers spent money fixing up boat ramps and picnic areas... but then they decided to drain the lake for a year to do some maintenance on the dam. Now, if this were still government land it would be common sense to expect that you explore the lake bed at your own risk (people do that anyway when the lake is drawn down for the winter), but since the lake was now private property, the company used trespassing laws to enforce a complete closure of the entire lake and all adjacent land. And who did they use to enforce the closure? The local sheriff's department.
Re: (Score:3)
I HATE planning roadtrips across Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma... not because of all the stereotypes about flyover country (I actually love the scenery), but because of all the damn toll roads. For each road, I have to figure out: do they take cash, are they toll by plate (with a hefty surcharge for being unregistered), or do they use any of a number of incompatible tolling systems? If I register my rental car's tags in one city will my registration be valid in another? And avoiding the tolls in places like Kansas just to cross the state means you have to go MILES out of your way on two lane roads. Is it reasonable to expect that someone will be able to raise enough money to build a competing toll road, parallel to an existing one? In contrast, I can drive anywhere in a dozen northeastern states and know that any toll road will take EZpass.
Google Maps has an "Avoid Toll Roads" option.
I admit I've used it once when I realised a route took me onto the M6 toll, one of the few toll roads in Britain.
Interesting notion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting notion (Score:4, Funny)
Only if they don't pay in Rubles this time.
Re: (Score:2)
My first guess was that these will be bought by some of Trumps' companies (the ones he 'divested' himself from by having his son manage them IIRC).
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, government agencies are now expected to put a dollar value on their historic icons, landmark infrastructure, and carefully-controlled limited-development areas, and sell them to the highest bidders, then turn around and give that money to the federal government to cover tax cuts for the companies who just bought our society.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatism has been redefined as taking what is owned by the public and giving it to multinational corporations for kickbacks and contributions. That's literally all they care to do now. They love uneducated voters. Nuff said.
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
The stimulus package went to the economy - there were lots of infrastructure projects (jobs!) that were funded from it and our economy went from being in a decline to growing (more jobs!).
Trump on the other hand is pissing away trillions to give to his wealthy friends while CUTTING infrastructure spending.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Logic and facts don't matter, for some people, it's who's team you're on and if they're winning. Leftcoastthinker spewed 9 posts today, 18 posts on Thursday, and 35 posts last Wednesday.
It doesn't matter how mind numbingly stupid it is to suggest that the current economic situation is the product of Trump. You wont' convince them that their team is against their best interests.
The examples of political kickbacks to counter the "ZERO" will just be met with moved goalposts and "but the Dims! virtue signalli
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Informative)
We never had a surplus. The national debt has increased every year since 1957 [treasurydirect.gov].
That's an interesting chart.
The only way for the debt to increase is to spend more than was brought in.
Actually, no. You seem to have missed the words "Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc."
The debt on that page can increase when the government prints more money.
The "surplus" was in name only, because it only dealt with some of the spending of the Federal Government. But we haven't had a surplus since 1957, back when Ike was rolling out the Interstate highway system.
According to the Congressional Budget Office [cbo.gov] there were real surpluses in the years 1969, and 1998-2001. You'll have to go to Historical Budget Data and open some Excel files to see the actual numbers, but if you do you will see that the debt held by the public decreased in each of those years.
However, that's neither here nor there. Quibbling over the exact numbers doesn't change the fact that Bill Clinton (and a Republican congress) either generated a surplus, or brought America as close as it has been since 1957. But in either case, George W. Bush (and a Republican congress) turned it into the largest deficits in America's history, through a combination of new spending, tax cuts and a disastrous recession.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We can't get this jackass and his cronies out of office fast enough. Now he's going to try to literally destroy the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Money-losing infrastructure"? Is our infrastructure supposed to be making money? Is that supposed to be the goal of our government? Are both failing if they are not profit-making machines? Is that how we are supposed to look at things now?
Infrastructure is a government provided service for the common weal. We-the-Citizens (and most non-citizens too, while we're at it) pay for it in order to make our lives better - and to help our business prosper too, if possible. I don't care if the local highway or park aren't profitable; the lack is made up by my taxes. I do have a concern if the taxes are poorly spent or self-serving pork projects get tax money they shouldn't... but the solution isn't too de-fund infrastructure in general.
Or are we now saying that things like Dulles Airport are unnecessary?
This whole thing reminds me of Ajit Pai's "solution" to the US's poor internet ranking: if not enough people are getting broadband, redefine broadband until it's slow enough that the statistics don't look as bad. Meanwhile, with Trump: If maintaining government infrastructure costs more than we would like to pay, sell it all until it matches our budget. It's all about moving the goalposts - at a cost to the citizen - rather than fixing the actual problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Airports should be breaking even, such that the users are paying for all the costs, while maintaining it and providing for any needed renovation and expansion. The US tax payer should not be subsidizing your air travel.
Roads should be breaking even with the federal $0.18/gallon gas tax so that the users are paying for all the costs while maintaining and providing for needed repaving and any needed expansion. (That is breaking down with EVs, so we may need to go with some kind of road pass tracker that bil
Re: (Score:3)
What if the airport operating generates money for other parts of the economy? That way it could operate at a loss but still be a net benefit for the government's tax coffers. That's how infrastructure works - it is often directly unprofitable, but the profits to society (and the government) come later. This is how healthcare works in other countries, for example - it's understood that a sick workforce isn't going to be generating much tax revenue, and if money is spent on keeping the workforce healthy, i
Re: (Score:2)
FUCK JOHN BIRCH.
We only hail the hero
from whom we got our name.
We're not sure what he did,
but he's our hero just the same.
For those who don't get the reference. [youtube.com]
We've got Spirit, yes we do... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was Tata, that would be Bodacious!
Re: (Score:2)
Ronald Reagan's Tata National Airport?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they would just call it Comcast Airport. The new signs would be cheaper.
I'll take that easy half billion $ (Score:2)
> Comcast Ronald Regan Washington National Airport.
A couple of recent stadium naming deals have been for $400 million and $800 million. If Comcast wants to give us, the taxpayers, half a billion dollars for the right to add their name to the airport sign, that sounds like an easy win to me.
This has been known for months (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except these buildings and projects are 30 plus years old on a 40-50y planned life, which the government has not been even doing the minimum maintenance on in many cases while continuously losing money.
There are no losses being socialized, rather Trump is using the private sector profit motivation: you know, the thing that lets you get good products like your smartphone and good customer service, at least where there is competition and where you have the right to sue if you have an unresolved issue (no, you
Re:This has been known for months (Score:4, Insightful)
National Airport opened in 1941 and is currently expanding. It doesn't need a private business to "sink billions" into it.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the profit. Since much of this infrastructure will have monopoly level protection, they can charge what the market will bear without real competition. It's a massive giveaway. A real market needs competition not collusion.
Re: (Score:3)
"at least where there is competition"
Airports and highways are known for their high level of competition.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 3 major Washington DC airports, so it seems like they could have reasonable competition...
Please cite which roads Trump is proposing to sell off, because I am not seeing it.
Re:This has been known for months (Score:4, Insightful)
If the airports are operating at capacity, there won't be much competition, same if they're too spread out.
Roads and bridges would probably be private/public partnerships. Private business gets its loans guaranteed by the government as well as guaranteed income. Looks good on paper, the government doesn't actually borrow money or raise taxes and the business gets a guaranteed profit.
In reality, it turns out that people avoid tolls if they can and the government still has to subsidize the bridge to make up for the shortfall and the next election, the other party runs on a platform of eliminating the tolls, wins and has to pay off the bridge and the private company. Taxpayers lose.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Private business is going to sink billions much more efficiently to renovate, modernize and run
Just like they did in Flint, MI when the water supply was privatized [pittnews.com]?
Private business will do everything they can to take as much profit as they can while performing the bare minimum maintenance that they think will allow them to avoid lawsuits. They don't give a shit if the infrastructure completely crumbles because they're walking away with huge profits that they can use to buy something else to strip all the value out of.
We Know How Well Electricity Deregulation Worked (Score:5, Insightful)
So with regards to the selling of federal assets: It may be that the private market will game the system better with the extra control they have over the most valuable assets... they'll let buildings run down even more and charge even higher fees because it's really expensive and time consuming to build another airport near Washington DC... and if you start, they'll wait until you're underway and then cut their pricing to bankrupt your project and then raise prices even higher afterwards.
Yeah, sell the assets once to get a lump sum now, pay from now to eternity "leasing" it back. We'll see how the state's and city's budgets will look like in 10 years for the ones that sold their legislative offices to private enterprise so they can lease them back...
Ask Fukushima how that worked out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I think of good products and good customer service, I naturally think of airlines!
Re: (Score:2)
going to take decades to undo the damage this crap causes.
I'd argue it'll never get undone. All of these privatization changes aren't going to get rolled back because they'll be way too expensive to do so. It's easy to sell off public things, hard to maintain, and impossible to buy back. Let's say DC sells off the airports or some of the Interstates to private companies. Companies will bump prices or add tolls in order to cover the costs of fixing up these deteriorating items. Now lets say that 20 years from now the public is frustrated with how the private indust
You don't buy back (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the thief usually end up with the money after stealing it?
So who's getting the money... THAT'S your thief!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't sell infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, of selling critical infrastructure to businesses, make sure the bidding process to build & maintain those things is based on solid business foundations. There's too much crony-ism in the bidding process, too much bias toward existing contractors regardless of performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, of selling critical infrastructure to businesses, make sure the bidding process to build & maintain those things is based on solid business foundations. There's too much crony-ism in the bidding process, too much bias toward existing contractors regardless of performance.
This is the epitome of cronyism. Are you kidding me? Why give out lucrative contracts to maintain the infrastructure when you can give away billions in assets for pennies on the dollar and t he new asset holder can then turn that critical infrastructure into a goose that lays a golden egg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's too much crony-ism in the bidding process, too much bias toward existing contractors regardless of performance.
That's why they usually avoid this by single bid contracts to brand new companies.
Trumps red hole (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a red hole in the budget caused by reducing corporate taxes, allowing companies to screw the government.
And it's really sore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fiscal conservativism (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump could do anything. Especially run up bills on the joint's credit. And why not? Nobody's gonna pay for it anyway. And as soon as the deliveries are made in the front door, you move the stuff out the back and sell it at a discount. You take a two hundred dollar case of booze and you sell it for a hundred. It doesn't matter. It's all profit. And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You light a match.
Fuck you, pay me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As long as he doesn't set up a golden shower in my head. That's nasty.
In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, Trump isn't doing a goddamned thing, is doing his standard trick of making other people spend their money and take the risk while he puts his name on it, and is going to transfer public assets into private assets. This is pretty much how he built all of his other failed ventures.
This is such a bullshit 'plan' it defies belief ... because Trump is a crook and thief who apparently can't do math.
But in the mean time he'll be sure people are dying in the streets because they have no healthcare, but his rich asshole friends all get tax breaks.
I swear, the economics trotted out by Republicans is a complete fantasy most of the time.
Mythology (Score:2, Interesting)
According to David Harsanyi at Reason, our "crumbling infrastructure" is a myth [reason.com].
Re: (Score:2)
And then bridges collapse because they concrete rotted away and nobody fixed it.
Economy 101: You invest in your own economy, you increase the value of your country, you increase work force that spends money in the economy, this allows you to practically print money. It's how the space race (NASA) created $14 for every dollar it spent (ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson) or how having the Interstate project returns a double digit percentage every year on the investment.
Imagine our modern economy (delivery of groceries
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I'm sure someone will point to a bridge or two that is in need of repair, or provide some anecdotal evidence regarding the potholes they must suffer through on their morning commute. It's part of the idiocracy that's formed: outliers become evidence for broad trends. Just look at all the FUD surrounding terrorism. Even though terrorist attacks are very rare, it's the one thing people are afraid of and want protection from. If people wanted protection from real life dangers they would demand more train
Re:Mythology (Score:5, Informative)
Yep, I'm going to point out a bridge. I drove over the I35 bridge in Minneapolis nearly every day coming home from work prior to it's collapse. It was dumb luck I didn't leave work 10 minutes later that day or I would likely have been on it when it went down.
But hey, if you don't want to take my anecdotal example, you can just go check transportation.gov and get a state by state breakdown of structurally deficient bridges yourself:
https://www.transportation.gov... [transportation.gov]
Now maybe you don't take much stock in their numbers, but personally after watching the bridge I made my daily commute over for years catastrophically collapse, I think it's worth at least considering that there may be some truth to these claims.
Re: (Score:3)
That bridge is literally the example in the article Jodka cited.
So "crumbling infrastructure" peddlers play on this concern by habitually agonizing over things like the impending outbreak of tragic bridge collapses that will kill thousands. They bring up tragedies like the 2007 disaster with the Interstate 35 bridge over the Mississippi River in downtown Minneapolis even though, according to federal investigators, the collapse was due to a design flaw rather than decaying infrastructure. Many outlets and politicians simply ignore the inconvenient fact that the rare fatality involving infrastructure typically has nothing to do with "crumbling" and everything to do with natural elements or human error.
Re: (Score:2)
Two train crashes that would have been prevented had the Congress not been preventing the new safety system from turning on for many years, and in between the first and second crash delayed yet again
It is the only way... (Score:4, Informative)
It is the only way you are ever going to see Trump International Airport.
It worked so well in Australia (Score:2, Interesting)
Sydney's airport was sold to Maquarie bank and now has the dubious distinction of having the most expensive parking of any airport in the world!
They also financially engineered the transaction so they haven't spent on taxes in the history of the project.
Don't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Privatized sodiers ... (Score:2)
. is already a thing.
When asked, "How many soldiers do we have?" the military does not include contractors who have taken the jobs formerly filled by military personnel.
Think Blackwater, Snowden, Winner and recent "civilians" killed in Afghanistan.
Private airports are usually 'nicer', but... (Score:5, Interesting)
As an Australian that moved to the US a few years ago and does a lot of flying for work, I'm on the fence when it comes to airport privatisation proposals. One of the interesting differences between the US and Australia is that, despite the fact that the US is generally more in favour of private sector delivery of services (think healthcare etc.), it has overwhelmingly kept its airports publically owned. Most major airports in the US are publically owned, whereas I think every major Australian airport was privatised many years ago.
On the one hand Australian airports are wayyyy nicer than US airports. More modern and up to date, cleaner, more spacious, better and more facilities etc. Nicer places to be in by a long shot. US airports, especially some of the major ones (Newark and O'Hare spring to mind) are very overcrowded at peak times, straining at the seams and generally just more unpleasant places to be in (e.g. what's with those disgusting old seats and claustrophobically low ceilings in Concourses E/F at ORD?)
But why are they so much nicer? Because they charge a lot more and thus have a lot more money to pump into improvements. US airport parking fees, even in a major city, are a small fraction of what they are in Australia for instance. I could park at Chicago for a week for what it could cost for a few hours at SYD or MEL. Australian airports no doubt also charge the airlines more than their US counterparts too (landing fees etc.), which indirectly affects ticket prices etc.
So in terms of user experience, private airports seem nicer, but in terms of equity of accessibility to travel itself, publicly owned is the way to go. Prices go through the roof when airports are privatised, if Australia is anything to go by. Travel should not be only for the wealthy.
Re:kidding me... (Score:4, Informative)
So his way of paying for it is by forcing the states to match him at least 4:1?
This works incredibly well. For example, the federal Department of Education doles out a minuscule fraction compared to state and local spending but every school district fights tooth and nail and adopts basically whatever testing procedures, etc, the feds dictate for those incremental funds.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a big difference between selling excess unused assets (e.g. closed military bases) and selling active assets (e.g. TVA). The former is just not letting buildings rot. The latter is potentially privatizing essential services.
The thing is, this is one of those ideas that sounds a lot better in theory than in practice. I mean, in theory, selling it to the various states that buy power from TVA might work. The problem is that you'd have no single legislative body that could control it, and getting
Re: (Score:2)
The TVA doesn't fit in a "small government" model, and likely should have been privatized a long time ago. They actually run at a profit, which is a pretty good sign that they shouldn't be a government entity. Looking at their mix of power sources, it seems like they are also going to have some significant capital costs in the future that the government doesn't need to be on the hook for.
Hopefully, they can divest themselves of it in a logical way so that the benefits of what is in place are not completel
Re:It's funny (Score:4, Informative)
Divesture of surplus military bases from the WW2 and cold war eras has been going on for decades, spanning the tenure of presidents of various stripes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure/ [wikipedia.org]
This is a whole other kettle of fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the landlord will neglect all those facility updates and just squeeze all the money they can out of their investment, making sure to bust unions and reduce pay along the way.
Chicago
Re: (Score:2)