Privatization Blog RSS

How to Avoid Closing Washington State Parks

Many thanks to the Washington Policy Center for publishing my legislative memo today on how to avoid the closure of dozens of Washington State parks, as Gov. Inslee has proposed if his tax increase package fails to advance. Here's an excerpt:

The threat of closing five dozen state parks is yet another variation on the well-worn “Washington Monument Syndrome” tactic designed to threaten closure or disruption of popular amenities if tax increases are not approved.

Political tactics notwithstanding, Washington’s state parks system does indeed face significant funding challenges. General fund appropriations for parks have been on the decline for years, a predictable circumstance in a fiscal football game in which funding for major spending priorities like education, healthcare, public safety and public-sector retiree benefits increasingly crowds out funding for the “nice-to-have” amenities like state parks. The sooner that policymakers and citizens understand this basic trajectory is only going to intensify — and that new solutions are needed to sustain the “nice-to-have” items like state parks — the better.

Some in Washington have begun to realize this when it comes to parks. In recent years, the legislature pushed the Washington State Parks Commission to pursue financial self-sustainability, and to its credit, the agency has pursued a range of strategies that include staff reductions, an increasing reliance on user fees and non-recreational leases, and expanding revenue-generating assets within the parks themselves. While these actions have not solved the funding challenge, they have been useful steps to keep the parks system afloat.

Short-term infusions of funding along the lines proposed by the governor are not a sustainable financial strategy if the goal is to keep parks open and thriving for the long term. Washington, like many other states, is due for a major rethinking of the structure and operation of the parks system itself. […]

Though it may be anathema to the preconceived visions held by some parks advocates, there is indeed a strong role for private-sector and non-profit operators in the state parks. For example, nonprofits played a major role in taking over operations of dozens of California state parks to help avoid closure amid 2012’s budget battles, and many municipal parks, zoos and aquariums, including New York City’s famed Central Park, have long been operated by nonprofit conservancies and “friends” groups.

Read the whole thing here or here for more on the role of the for-profit sector in operating Evergreen State parks.

Print This

Why is the CDC Being Anti-Science on State Liquor Privatization?

When policymakers in any of the liquor "control" states—the 17 states (plus parts of Maryland) that still, puzzlingly, retain Prohibition-era, psuedo-Soviet state-run liquor stores and/or a state-run liquor wholesale business—broach the subject of liquor privatization, government unions and anti-alcohol activist opponents raise fears that privatization will bring an increase in alcohol-related societal malaise, including more drunk driving, more binge drinking and more underage drinking.

The academic evidence for these predictions are thin at best, and more recent research from Duquesne University scholars Antony Davies and John Pulito suggests quite the opposite.

That hasn't stopped the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from stepping in to muddy the waters on privatization. In fact, the CDC's independent advisory board—the Community Preventative Services Task Force—has gone on the record officially opposing any further privatization of state liquor monopolies, a position now echoed by the CDC itself. (Forget for a moment that the cat's already way out of the bag, as 32 states have never had state-run liquor monopolies to begin with, and Washington State voters opted to privatize their state-run wholesale and retail systems last year).

The primary justification for the CDC's stance is an analysis the task force conducted reviewing 17 different studies on privatizing retail alcohol sales, which concluded that "[t]he evidence consistently showed that privatization of retail alcohol sales was associated with a substantial increase in per capita sales of the privatized beverages." (p.425) The report and task force recommendation has been received by government unions and anti-liquor activists as manna from heaven and has been widely used in states like Pennsylvania to scare policymakers, media and citizens into believing that privatization will bring untold social horrors (again, despite the lack of said horrors in the 33 states already privatized).

However, two recent media articles call the CDC report's analysis and findings into question. First, Forbes ran a lengthy article yesterday by contributor Trevor Butterworth that debunks several key aspects of the study. Here's a teaser:

In examining 17 studies on the effect of privatization, the Task Force found that the median consumption of alcohol increased by 44.4 percent. Did this increase lead to an increase in harm? The two studies addressing the issue had mixed results and “methodological limitations;” but “Single Distribution Theory,” for which the Task Force said there is “extensive evidence,” shows that a mean increase in alcohol consumption leads to an increase in overall risk.

This all sounds quite persuasive – and why would anyone not trust an independent expert task force advising the CDC on the best scientific evidence? Well, the first problem is the extensive evidence that Single Distribution Theory does not explain the relationship between the availability and consumption of alcohol – so extensive, in fact, that the theory was largely abandoned in the early 1990s for its inability to explain, and in many cases, fit the empirical data on alcohol consumption.

Read the whole thing for a rich debunking of the CDC's findings. Skipping to the punch line:

Of course, whatever way you parse the recommendations of the Task Force, and their adoption by the CDC, such reasoning is about as robust as Styrofoam. This is an astonishing abuse of data in the service of trying to sway legislation – and one which points to an agency being driven by politics and ideology, and not by science.

In addition to the Forbes article, The Inquirer in Philadelphia recently published an op-ed by a former chair of the American Medical Association, Dr. Raymond Scalettar, who is also a clinical professor of medicine at GWU Medical Center and a medical adviser to the Distilled Spirits Council. Dr. Scalettar writes that the studies reviewed by CDC do not support the claim that privatization would harm public health:

Robert Brewer, who leads the alcohol program in the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, has repeatedly pointed to a review by CDC's Community Task Force. It found a 44 percent median increase in per capita sales of privatized alcoholic beverages within jurisdictions that underwent privatization of retail alcohol sales.

Unfortunately, Brewer has never explained what the 44 percent estimate really means. This data, which has been presented out of context, is misleading and useless in the Pennsylvania privatization discussions.

The 44 percent figure was derived by analyzing 17 studies that looked at the impact privatization had on the privatized beverage. The 44 percent growth estimate is not an estimate of total alcohol consumption, nor is it an estimate of alcohol-related harms.

Of the 17 studies analyzed, six showed no increase in consumption, and four showed only moderate increases. This fact alone would give most researchers pause with regard to any kind of sweeping conclusion.

Importantly, the Community Task Force's review found no pattern of increased alcohol-related harms in the studies it analyzed, which ultimately is what the public is most concerned about.

Again, readers should review the whole article for Scalettar's full critique. He concludes:

The CDC has the imprimatur of a respected, science-based government organization. Brewer has the responsibility to honestly present research in an unbiased, forthright manner so the public and elected officials can make decisions based upon the best available evidence.

Both articles provide ample evidence that policymakers and citizens in the 17 "control" states like Pennsylvania should take the CDC's anti-privatization stance with a major grain of salt, as it rests on a dubious scientific foundation. But the big question that still remains unanswered is why is the CDC being so anti-science on liquor privatization? Could it, as Butterworth suggests, be driven more by political and ideological considerations? That would certainly be unfathomable in this day and age, right?

For more, see here for my recent writeup on developments on state liquor privatization from Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013.

Print This

Louisiana Republicans Introduce Bills to Replicate Massachusetts's Pro-Union, Anti-Privatization “Pacheco Law”

My latest column offers a critique of two bills introduced in the Louisiana legislature that are modeled after the Massachusetts "Pacheco Law," which is widely regarded as the most onerous and stringent anti-privatization law in the country. Here's a brief excerpt:

Two proposed bills introduced in the Louisiana legislature—and passed by a House committee earlier this week—raise serious barriers to fiscal responsibility, as the bills would effectively shut down the ability of the current and future governors to use the proven tool of competitive contracting to lower the costs of state government.

House Bill 240 (sponsored by Rep. Kenny Havard) and House Bill 519 (sponsored by Rep. Cameron Henry) are two alternative versions of a “Privatization Review Act” designed to place significant hurdles in front of routine, sensible privatization efforts used by governors of all political stripes across the country. Given the similarity to a 1993 law enacted in Massachusetts at the behest of government employee unions—and which has stymied privatization efforts in that state for two decades since—a more appropriate title for the proposed Louisiana bills would be the "Louisiana Government Employee Protection Act."

Specifically, HB 240 and HB 519 would prohibit agencies from entering into privatization contracts without prior legislative review and approval, and they would subject routine contracting decisions to onerous pre-procurement and contract review processes clearly designed to protect state employee jobs and elevate the interests of government employee unions over those of taxpayers at large.

The proposed bills are modeled nearly word-for-word after Massachusetts’ “Pacheco Law” (named for its legislative sponsor) that “has basically shut down all privatization efforts in state government,” according to an April 2013 Boston Globe editorial, which also noted that, “the purpose of state government isn’t to be a jobs program, particularly one that turns a blind eye to opportunities for savings.”

[...]

In January 2011, the Globe's editorial board wrote that the anti-privatization Pacheco Law “doesn’t just keep government agencies from saving money by hiring outside contractors to perform certain services. It also sends a broad message: In Massachusetts, the demands of special-interest groups — in this case, public-employee unions — can outweigh the obligation to run government efficiently."

Louisiana taxpayers would be right to question why some of their own state legislators are trying to replicate the law that has been so counterproductive in the Bay State for decades. Does Louisiana really want to become a profligate, big-spending state like Massachusetts and remove proven cost-cutting tools from the toolbox?

Read the full article here.

Print This

Innovators in Action: Jacksonville, FL Commissioner of Public-Private Partnerships Renée Finley on Building the City's PPP Program to Drive Efficiency, Quality of Life

Soon after taking office in July 2011, Jacksonville, Florida Mayor Alvin Brown established the city’s first Office of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) as a means to leverage greater returns from public resources by cultivating new funding sources for city initiatives, forging new partnerships with the private and nonprofit sectors, and optimizing the use of public assets and city-owned real estate.

Consistent with the office’s mission, Mayor Brown looked to the private sector for leadership of the new PPP office, ultimately appointing Renée Finley—an executive-on-loan from Florida Blue (formerly Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida)—in November 2011 to build the new office and set a course for PPPs in Jacksonville. In less than two years, the PPP office has already generated some significant results, including tapping approximately $7 million in direct private sector donations and grants, and approximately $2 million in identified cost savings opportunities through efficiency and competition initiatives.

In our latest interview in the Innovators in Action 2013 series, I interview Finley on the origins and accomplishments to date of Jacksonville’s PPP program, lessons learned along the way, and more. Here's a brief excerpt of the interview:

Leonard Gilroy, Reason Foundation: What drove Mayor Brown's decision to launch the Office of PPPs so early in his administration?

Renée Finley, Commissioner of Public-Private Partnerships, City of Jacksonville, Florida: The concept started with the mayor and his vision to reform government. Coming into office, he was faced with a $53 million budget deficit, so he articulated a number of reform goals, one of which was to position the city government for the new economic reality that we were facing. And he had a second goal of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government. Mayor Brown believes that we can attain more efficiency in the delivery of public services and achieve better results by leveraging the strengths of both the private and nonprofit sectors.

Gilroy: What goals did the mayor have in setting up the Office of PPPs? What were the areas of focus?

Finley: There were really four key areas of focus. The first was around optimizing assets and services, and the thought was, “how do we leverage the strengths and resources of the private and nonprofit sectors in the delivery of public services and public works?” And furthermore, he wanted to explore opportunities to leverage city assets—in particular, real estate assets—by getting them in the hands of the private sector so they can drive additional private investment for further economic development for the city.

The second area of focus was around the facilitation of private interest in economic and urban development. The third area of focus was to facilitate private support and nonprofit involvement in education and workforce development initiatives. And, the fourth area focuses on delivering partnerships that improve the quality of life for Jacksonville citizens.

Check out the full interview here for details on the results of Jacksonville's PPP initiatives thus far, which will hopefully inspire other cities to pursue similar endeavors.

Other articles featured in the Innovators in Action 2013 series are available here.

Print This

New at Reason: Looking Back at the Last Year in Local Government Privatization

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the Local Government Privatization section—authored by Reason's Harris Kenny, Adam Summers and Steven Titch—which provides an overview of the latest on privatization and public-private partnerships in local government. Articles include:

  • Mayor Emanuel Establishes Chicago Infrastructure Trust
  • Public-Private Partnerships for Parking Assets
  • Yonkers, New York Pursuing Innovative School Partnership Approach
  • City of Austin Releases Surprising Outsourcing Study
  • Georgia Contract Cities Continue to Evolve
  • Finding New Ways to Provide Parks and Recreation Amenities
  • Water and Wastewater Privatization Update
  • Solid Waste Collection Update
  • Non-Profit Partnerships for Animal Shelters Grow
  • ANALYSIS: Is Managed Competition Dead in San Diego?
  • ANALYSIS: San Diego, San Jose Lead the Way in Local Pension Reform
  • ANALYSIS: Despite Glossy Reports, Muni Broadband is Still a Net Money Loser
  • Local Government Privatization News and Notes

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: Local Government Privatization
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Print This

New at Reason: Privatization Developments in Criminal Justice and Corrections

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the Criminal Justice and Corrections section—authored by Leonard Gilroy, Harris Kenny, Alexander Volokh and Andrew Livingston—which provides an overview of the latest on privatization and public-private partnerships in criminal justice and corrections. Topics include:

  • 2012 Corrections Privatization Overview
  • State and International Corrections Privatization Update
  • State and Local Correctional Healthcare Privatization Update
  • ANALYSIS: Recent Developments in the Federal Civil-Rights Liability of Federal Private Prisons
  • FOCUS: The Emergence of Social Impact Bonds: Paying for Success in Social Service Innovation
  • FOCUS: Colorado, Washington State Vote to Tax and Regulate Recreational Marijuana for Adults

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: Criminal Justice and Corrections
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Print This

Florida's Misstep on Capital Punishment

While a number of states are reconsidering or repealing the death penalty, the Florida Senate yesterday passed legislation to accelerate the state’s capital punishment process. Called the “Timely Justice Act,” the Senate passed the bill with a vote of 28-10.The Florida House passed the bill with an 84-34 vote last Thursday. Governor Rick Scott is expected to sign the changes into law.

Reuters reports:

The "Timely Justice Act" sets deadlines for condemned killers to file appeals, and for the state to proceed with issuing warrants after the Florida Supreme Court upholds death sentences.

It also sets competency standards for lawyers handling cases. To reduce the number of appeals alleging incompetent counsel, any attorney twice found to have provided "constitutionally deficient representation" will be suspended from handling death appeals for five years.

Reuters notes that Florida has more inmates on death row than any other state besides California, and has executed more inmates than any other state except for Texas. In Florida, it takes an average of thirteen years for a death row inmate to be executed after being sentenced to death. Moreover, Florida is the only state allowing juries to recommend death sentences by a simple majority of 7 to 5.

Supporters of Florida’s Timely Justice Act say numerous people have sat on Florida's death row for longer than 30 years, and that such a long waiting period “makes a mockery of our justice system,” as Republican Sen. Rob Bradley has stated. However, of the current 406 inmates on Florida’s death row, less than thirty were sentenced before 1983.

Many opposed to the bill have raised concerns that speeding up the legal appeals process for death row inmates could lead to the execution of innocent prisoners. Indeed, Florida has a history of sentencing innocent men to death. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Florida has exonerated twenty-four inmates from death row since 1973—more than any other state in the country. What’s more, some of the inmates who have been exonerated were in prison for several decades prior to the emergence of additional evidence that proved their innocence. As Reason’s Adrian Moore put it in his California Voters' Guide, “We know the system is imperfect and sometimes condemns innocent people. Death is permanent; life in prison offers a chance.”

Recently, there has been a national trend away from capital punishment, with five states voting to repeal the death penalty in the past six years. According to Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., “The number of sentences imposed in the country has declined by 75 percent since 1990 and only nine states carried out an execution last year."

That trend is a welcome one. Unfortunately it is clear that lawmakers in Florida have chosen to go their own way—for now. According to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Shalimar), lead sponsor of the House bill, “Only God can judge. But we can sure set up the meeting.”

Print This

Like Obama said, Privatize the TVA!

Steve Esposito has some thoughts on President Obama's proposal to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority, a massive bureaucracy of electricity generation, flood control, jobs for cousins, patronage and waste. And some cautions about the idea's prospects. 

Republicans in Congress, who you might think would love the idea of privatizing a big federal agency that benefits few while costing many, was quick to oppose Obama's proposal. Esposito breaks down and answers some of the objections to privatization.

Read it all here.

 

Print This

New at Reason: Looking Back at the Last Year in Education Reform and School Choice

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the Education section—authored by Reason's Katie Furtick and Lisa Snell—which provides an overview of the latest on school choice, charter schools, student-based budgeting and more. Topics include:

  • 2012 School Choice Roundup In the States
  • School Choice Performance in 2012
  • Charter School Market Share for 2012
  • Charter Schools Nationally Recognized in 2012
  • Public Opinion of School Choice in 2012
  • High-Achieving Charter Schools Serve Diverse Demands of their Communities
  • Weighted Student Formula in the States

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: Education
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Print This

A Step Toward More Rational Sentencing Policy

On Wednesday, Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced a bipartisan bill titled the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013. Identical to the legislation introduced last month by Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), this bill would authorize federal judges to pass sentences below federal mandatory minimums in cases where assigning the mandatory sentence would be excessive, and where a shorter sentence would not endanger public safety.

A press release on Rep. Massie’s website reports:

The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 would expand the current “safety valve” provision to include all federal crimes, allowing federal judges to tailor sentences on a case-by-case basis. This would also reduce the bloated federal prison population.

Essentially then, this bill would return some discretion to federal judges by no longer requiring them to sentence first-time and/or low-level nonviolent offenders to prison terms intended for high-level drug kingpins and major criminals. The fact is that existing federal mandatory minimum sentences result in many low-level nonviolent drug offenders receiving lengthy prison terms that do not fit their crimes.

The introduction of this legislation comes at a time when the federal prison population is nearly nine times larger than it was in 1980, facilities are increasingly overcrowded (39% over the rated capacity in 2011), and the system has becoming more expensive to maintain. Mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are largely to blame for this, with inmates convicted for these type of offenses making up nearly half (47.3 percent) of all federal prisoners as well as the largest portion of newly admitted federal inmates.

The Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 would help ensure that these types of offenders are not sent to prison for longer than is necessary to keep society safe, therefore saving prison space and resources for those who pose a larger threat to society, such as violent criminals.

While the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013 neither repeals federal mandatory minimum sentences nor requires judges to ignore them if it would be appropriate to do so—both of which would be good policies—it nevertheless represents a welcome step toward reducing the size of the federal prison population, as well as the costs that come with maintaining it, all without compromising on public safety.

Print This

New at Reason: Looking Back at the Last Year in State Government Privatization

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the State Government Privatization section—authored by Reason's Leonard Gilroy and Lisa Snell—which offers an overview of the latest on privatization and public-private partnerships in state government. Topics include:

  • State Budget Update
  • Privatization of State Lottery Management
  • The Emergence of Social Impact Bonds: Paying for Success in Social Service Innovation
  • California Pioneers Public-Private Partnerships for Private Operation of State Parks
  • Higher Education Public-Private Partnerships Update
  • State Liquor Privatization Update
  • Social Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships Update
  • Child Welfare Privatization Update
  • State Privatization News and Notes

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: State Government Privatization
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Print This

New at Reason: Looking Back at the Last Year in Federal Government Privatization

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the Federal Government Privatization section—authored by Reason's Adam Summers, Anthony Randazzo, Steven Titch and Victor Nava—which offers an overview of the latest on postal service reform, space privatization, financial regulation, telecommunications and more. Topics include:

  • BCFC Outlines $795 Billion in Federal Budget Savings
  • Congress Takes on Postal Service Reform—Again
  • Space Privatization Update
  • ANALYSIS: Google, Facebook, Antitrust and the “Public Good”
  • ANALYSIS: Private Sector is Best-Positioned to Lead Cybersecurity Policy
  • ANALYSIS: Privatization of Financial Regulation is Not Impossible

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: Federal Government Privatization
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Print This

New Jersey Announces Lottery Privatization Contract Award

The New Jersey Department of the Treasury today announced its intention to award a 15-year contract for the private operation of the state's lottery that will bring a $120 million upfront payment to the state and an estimated $1.4 billion in additional net lottery revenue to the state over the life of the deal, relative to in-house operation. From the state's press release:

To ensure the future performance of the New Jersey Lottery exceeds its past record of providing essential support to State institutions and education programs, the Department of the Treasury’s Division of Purchase and Property has issued a Notice of Intent to award a 15-year contract to Northstar New Jersey Lottery Group to provide the Lottery with services to support its marketing and sales operations.

As part of the contract terms which guarantee the State a minimum amount of income, Northstar NJ will provide an accelerated payment of $120 million to the State upon the final award and execution of the contract. It has also committed to generating at least $1.42 billion of total additional net income for the State from Lottery operations over the life of the contract with a potential actual increase in net income of $6.88 billion. The $1.42 billion mark is above and beyond what the State could expect to see if Lottery operations remain unchanged.

Northstar NJ is a joint venture consisting of GTECH Corporation of Providence, Rhode Island, Scientific Games International of Alpharetta, Georgia, and OSI LTT NJ Holdings, a unit of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS). GTECH and Scientific Games are two of the world’s leading companies in lottery management and OMERS is one of the largest pension funds in Canada.

“For more than 40 years, the Lottery has provided critical financial support to New Jersey’s institutions and educational programs. The contract we plan to enter into with Northstar New Jersey protects that legacy commitment to New Jerseyans by positioning the Lottery for sustained growth and continued success in the face of an increasingly complex and competitive marketplace,” said State Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff.

Carole Hedinger, executive director of the Lottery, said the contract will immediately strengthen its operations. “GTECH and Scientific Games have outstanding records of success in helping public lotteries grow their revenues and improve their operations. Their business plan for the Lottery is solid, well-researched and builds upon our existing strengths.”

New Jersey now becomes the fourth state—after Illinois, Indiana and Pennsylvania—to move forward with a private management agreement for lottery operations in recent years. The shift to private management has already occurred in Illinois and Indiana, while officials in Pennsylvania continue to renegotiate their contract after the state's Attorney General raised several legal concerns in February, which has slowed the process in the Commonwealth.

Check back to reason.org in the coming weeks for my state lottery privatization roundup as part of our Annual Privatization Report 2013.

Print This

Margaret Thatcher was the Master of the Free Market

A roundup of some of Reason's commentary on the impact Margaret Thatcher:

Thatcher was the Master of the Free Market 
In USA Today, Kim Hjelmgaard writes: "As prime minister for more than 11 years, Margaret Thatcher stood up to communism, transformed the United Kingdom's welfare state, liberalized its financial markets and wrought political changes that inspired and divided generations alike.

“But on the home front perhaps most of all she changed the way people in Britain lived every day, especially how they conducted business. 'Virgin wouldn't be flying from Heathrow if it wasn't for her believing in competition,' said Richard Branson, the English businessman and chairman of the Virgin Group, on Monday.

"Thatcher explained her vision years later for Reason magazine. 'Privatization shrinks the power of the state and free enterprise enlarges the power of the people,' she said. 'The policies we introduced ... were fiercely opposed. Too many people and industries preferred to rely on easy subsidies rather than apply the financial discipline necessary to cut their costs and become competitive. But we understood that a system of free enterprise has a universal truth at its heart: to create a genuine market in a state you have to take the state out of the market.'"
In Her Own Words:Read Margaret Thatcher's Column for Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report

How Thatcher Liberated Western Europe
"Like all the geopolitical giants of the 1980s—Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, Helmut Kohl—Thatcher was a flawed character who made grievous mistakes. But to her lasting credit—and to the lasting fury of her staunchest ideological enemies—Thatcher fatally discredited the notion that governments in the West have any business owning business, and did so with both word and deed at a time when the outcome was anything but certain. May we continue to heed that lesson." — Reason magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch

What America Can Learn From Thatcher Today
At Reason.com, Ira Stoll writes: "In today’s America, mere minor reductions in planned growth in government spending trigger paroxysms of political opposition, and the prospect of reducing government’s share of the economy, as Thatcher did, by eight percentage points seems remote. But it probably seemed remote in the late 1970s, too, that Britain’s first woman prime minister, who had grown up in an apartment above her father’s grocery store, would reshape a failing post-colonial power into an exemplar of liberty."
Ronald Bailey: Timeless Quotations from Margaret Thatcher

Explaining Reason's Role in the Thatcher Revolution
John Blundell, author of the book Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady, writes, "Let me use this sad day not to mourn but to celebrate the $30 billion a year Reason’s Bob Poole has saved the U.K. taxpayer for decades now. Why the Queen has not given him an honorary knighthood is beyond me."
Video: John Blundell on The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher

Comparing the Real Thatcher and the Symbolic Thatcher
Reason Senior Editor Jesse Walker offers a different take: "Thatcher did enact some genuine market reforms, most notably when she privatized enterprises her predecessors had nationalized. But at a time when countries all over the world were liberalizing their economies in one way or another—even nominally left-wing governments like Manley's in Jamaica or the Labour Party's in New Zealand—Thatcher's emergence as a symbol of the transformation was a matter more of cultural perception than political reality.”
Margaret Thatcher Decentralized the British Economy But Centralized Politics

Margaret Thatcher, Meryl Streep and The Iron Lady: Fact vs. Fiction
Fact checking the Oscar-nominated bio-pic The Iron Lady

Kurt Loder Reviews The Iron Lady
"We want to see more of this woman and her unbending convictions"

Print This

Margaret Thatcher: "Privatisation shrinks the power of the state and free enterprise enlarges the power of the people"

Margaret Thatcher, Britain's first female prime minister, has died at the age of 87 after suffering a stroke.

Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report published this piece by former Prime Minister Thatcher in 2006:

All too often the state is tempted into activities to which it is either ill-suited or which are beyond its capabilities.

Perhaps the greatest of these temptations is government's desire to concentrate economic power in its own hands. It begins to believe that it knows how to manage business. But let me tell you, it doesn't as we discovered in Britain in the 1970s when nationalisation and prices and incomes policy together deprived management of the ability to manage. And when we came to privatise and deregulate in the 1980s it took some time before these skills returned.

A system of state control can't be made good merely because it is run by "clever" people who make the arrogant assertion that they "know best" and that they are serving the "public interest" interest which of course is determined by them. State control is fundamentally bad because it denies people the power to choose and the opportunity to bear responsibility for their own actions.

Conversely, privatisation shrinks the power of the state and free enterprise enlarges the power of the people.

The policies we introduced in the 1980s were fiercely opposed. Too many people and industries preferred to rely on easy subsidies rather than apply the financial discipline necessary to cut their costs and become competitive. Others preferred the captive customers that a monopoly can command or the secure job in an overmanned industry, rather than the strenuous life of liberty and enterprise.

But we understood that a system of free enterprise has a universal truth at its heart: to create a genuine market in a state you have to take the state out of the market.

For Britain, the 1970s was a decade of decline: even worse than that, our people seemed to accept it. Our nationalised industries were inefficient, overmanned and weakened by restrictive practices. Government had no business being in business.

We tackled privatisation in the way which best suited us.

First, we had to put the balances of the industries we wanted to sell in good order. Where redundancies had to be made because of overmanning we were determined to ensure that those who lost their jobs would receive a capital sum related to the length of their service. For the first time in their lives this put capital into their hands and each industry helped them to find other jobs or to set up businesses of their own. Thus we made clear our concern to look after those who were losing their livelihoods as well as those who were staying on.

Read Thatcher's full piece here

Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report is here. 

Print This

New at Reason: Looking Back at the Last Year in Toll Roads, HOT Lanes, Infrastructure Finance

The rollout of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report 2013 continues today with the release of the Surface Transportation section—authored by Reason's Robert Poole—which provides a comprehensive overview of the latest on toll roads, HOT lanes, infrastructure finance and other news on privatization and public-private partnerships in surface transportation. Topics include:

  • Federal Reauthorization—MAP-21
  • State Public-Private Partnership Enabling Legislation
  • Transportation Infrastructure Finance 2012
  • Private Activity Bonds
  • Major Public-Private Partnership Highway Projects
  • Leasing Existing Toll Roads
  • Managed Lanes and Networks

And in case you missed it, Reason Foundation released the Air Transportation section of the Annual Privatization Report 2013 last week, also authored by Poole. It offers an overview of the latest on privatization and public-private partnerships in air transportation, with topics including airport privatization, U.S. airport security, and air traffic control.

» Annual Privatization Report 2013: Surface Transportation
» Complete Annual Privatization Report 2013

Print This

Discussing Prison Privatization on HuffPost Live (VIDEO)

I recently had the opportunity to appear on HuffPost Live, The Huffington Post's new Internet-based video streaming network, to discuss how federal and state policymakers partner with private prison operators (video embedded below).

The idea of partnering with for-profit operators can be challenging to some, however it is important to note public sector agencies (and their employees) don't work for free. In fact, as the host of this program notes, they share many of the same incentives as for-profit prison operators. Meaningful criminal justice reform seeks to change these incentives and move towards performance-based outcomes on critical metrics like inmate education, recidivism reduction and more. My colleagues Adrian Moore and Leonard Gilroy outlined this new approach, dubbed Corrections 2.0, in a study of the same name available online here. Well-structured public-private partnerships also allow accountability through rigorously enforced contracts.

For more of Reason Foundation's work on corrections and criminal justice, see the Prisons and Corrections Research Archive online here.


 twitter-bird-blue-on-white_small Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny

Print This

Parks 2.0: Operating State Parks through Public-Private Partnerships

Yesterday we had the privilege of having our new policy study—“Parks 2.0: Operating State Parks through Public-Private Partnerships” (Parks 2.0) —published by the Conservation Leadership Council (CLC). Our paper is one of six commissioned by CLC on a range of environmental topics intended to offer a set of actionable recommendations that focus on private sector and market-based policy initiatives reflecting the CLC’s principles of limited government, community leadership and public-private partnerships.

The papers were launched yesterday at an event hosted by CLC in Washington, D.C. that included Gale Norton, former U.S. Interior Secretary and former Colorado Attorney General; Ed Schafer, former U.S. Agriculture Secretary and former North Dakota Governor; and Lynn Scarlett, former Deputy Secretary of the Interior (and former Reason Foundation president). The event was recorded by C-SPAN and is available online here.

Parks 2.0 acknowledges that the ongoing fiscal challenges facing state governments are creating an existential crisis for state parks. With budgets stretched increasingly thin, state parks must compete for limited funds with other (usually higher) policy priorities like education, health care, public pensions and public safety. These budget pressures have prompted policy makers in California, New York, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts and other states to close or significantly reduce services in hundreds of state parks, or at minimum reduce parks budgets, nationwide. In other states, like Washington and South Carolina, governors and legislatures have recently launched efforts to require parks to become self-sufficient to wean them off state appropriations, in seeming recognition that parks funding will increasingly be crowded out by other spending priorities.

Yet state parks remain popular while their maintenance needs continue to worsen; according to America’s State Parks Foundation, state parks received 725 million visitors at over 6,000 sites around the country in 2010 alone. Can this popularity be turned from a cost into a benefit? One way to keep state parks open without imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer is to utilize public-private partnerships (PPPs). 

Many states already successfully use private concessionaires to provide piecemeal services within parks—including food, retail, lodging, marinas, and other commercial activities—so a shift to more extensive involvement can build on that. Such a whole park operation PPP would transfer the responsibility of maintaining the park to a private operator, while enabling that operator to raise revenue through entrance and other fees. The U.S. Forest Service has used this PPP model for over 25 years to operate thousands of its developed recreation areas nationwide, and in 2012 California began the first state to turn over the operation of state parks to private recreation management companies to avoid closure.

Parks 2.0 seeks to describe such a PPP model and explain how it can best be applied to the operation of state parks. Reason Foundation has been on the forefront of this issue for years, both by conducting research and engaging in policy implementation. For example, last year we outlined the state of California’s decision to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for private operation of five state parks. Our Annual Privatization Report 2011: State Government Privatization detailed steps taken towards partnering with for-profit and nonprofit operators for state parks operation across the U.S. And a 2010 ReasonTV video suggested that PPPs, not a proposed new tax on car registration, offered a more sustainable solution to the state’s park funding challenges. Watch the full ReasonTV video below:

To learn more about the Conservation Leadership Council visit their website and watch the CSPAN event here. To learn more about Parks 2.0, read our study “Parks 2.0: Operating State Parks through Public-Private Partnerships,” available online here and visit Reason Foundation’s Parks and Recreation Research Archive here

 

Print This

Top 12 Transportation Stories of 2012

The start of the new year provides a great opportunity to look back at the major transportation stories of the past year. 2012 was an active year in transportation. Below are the top 12 stories of 2012 in order of importance. 

1) Passage of MAP-21 Surface Transportation Bill: The U.S. had been operating on the tenth extension of SAFETEA-LU--the last multi-year transportation bill that expired in 2009. Most observers believed that a new transportation bill would have to wait until 2014 since transportation was not a big priority for decision makers. In addition Congress lacked the financial resources and the House instituted a moratorium on earmarks. However, many failed to realize how hard Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman John Mica would work for a bill. The new bill had several noteworthy aspects. It did not include a major increase in funding. In fact in order to keep the same funding levels, the 2-year bill borrowed against the next 10 years of revenue. Still, holding the line on funding increases is a big deal--especially in Washington D.C. The bill also expanded the TIFIA program from $150 million in funding to $1 billion. In addition, the bill slightly expanded the tolling provisions. 

2) Passage of a new Federal Aviation Administration Bill: Often overshadowed by the new surface transportation bill, the U.S. had been operating under the 23rd extension of the last FAA bill that expired in 2007. The new bill creates a framework for the needed Next-Generation radar system. But without much funding, implementation of the system will be slow. The bill also forced TSA to resume accepting applications that want to opt-out of federal screening. This option was written into the original post 9/11 TSA bill. However, clarification was needed after TSA Administrator John Pistole refused to allow any additional airports to opt out of federal screening. The new bill also creates rules for future drone flights. 

3) Hurricane Sandy, Natural Disasters and Transportation: Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the vulnerability of much of the East Coast to major storms. A Senate bill to provide $60 billion in aid died in the House leaving the region in limbo. House Republicans refused to pass the Senate bill for two reasons. First, because of the size of the bill, most of the Sandy revenue came from the general fund not the transportation fund. Second, much of the $60 billion in funding had little to do with emergency relief. While the logical long-term fix would be for the government to stop backing mortgages to residents who live in flood plains, this country seldom does logical. Since future disasters are inevitable and the Northeast’s run of good luck may be over, the U.S. should provide a realistic level of emergency funding, fund infrastructure directly affected by the storm only, and decide how best to distribute such funding. More info is available here. 

4) Managed Lanes Momentum: The concept of adding priced capacity continues to gain momentum. Transportation Planners know that widening highways in fast-growing metro areas can be a frustrating exercise. While mobility is enhanced in the short-term, growth and the resulting additional trips return the highways to its congested state in approximately 2-5 years. Priced lanes offer a long-term congestion reduction strategy and in some cases help fund new improvements. The biggest opening was the I-495 lanes in Virginia from I-95 to the Dulles Toll Road. These lanes provide much needed new capacity for one of the busiest interstates in the country. Virginia is also converting the I-95 HOV lanes from Dumfries to I-495 to Managed Lanes and extending the lanes south to Stafford. Texas added Managed Lanes on the North Tarrant Express in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. California is in the process of converting many of its HOV lanes to HOT lanes. While political challenges remain, managed lanes continue to be the most realistic way to add capacity in urban and suburban areas.

5) Failure of Georgia Transportation Investment Act in 9 of 12 regions: While 2/3 of local transportation ballot measures pass, some fail and some that fail do so in spectacular fashion. The latter describes what happened in the metro Atlanta region. While the poor state of the economy and the state’s conservative electorate were factors, the entire process was a mess. The Georgia legislature, which could have increased funding by itself, punted the issue to local governments. These governments made political decisions, not transportation decisions on which projects to add. The MPOs attempted to create the best list of projects but were told by politicians which projects to choose and how much those projects would cost. The top-down campaign antagonized the tea party, the Sierra Club, and the NAACP. The advertising campaign was a failure; the more times citizens saw the pro-tax adds, the less likely they were to vote for the tax. While most experts expected the tax to fail, the 37%-63% margin was surprising. What are the takeaways? The defeat is not necessarily transferrable to other areas. But other metros should ensure that any proposed tax actually funds merit-based transportation projects. Funding economic development through a transportation tax was not popular in metro Atlanta. And the Atlanta community needs to find a better way to explain and promote transportation.

6) San Juan Airport Privatization: Most airports in the United States are publicly owned and operated. Most cities resist privatization of their airports at all costs. This is unfortunate since running an airport is a specialized skill in which most public entities do not excel. However Governor Fortuno of Puerto Rico approached the situation differently. Fortuno led the process by approving a concession agreement with American Airlines and a request for proposals in 2011. In 2012, the Commonwealth accepted bids. While the deal has not yet reached financial close, its new Governor Padilla, from a different political party, supports the privatization and is trying to finalize the transaction. This bipartisan effort may lead more cities to consider airport privatization in 2013. Privatizing airports may be especially intriguing to struggling cities, which can make a lot of money from leasing or selling their airport. These cities can use those funds to support education, public works or unfunded pension programs. 

7) High-Speed Rail--The Saga Continues: High-speed-rail remains in the news both domestically and internationally. California continues to be the biggest U.S. story. Legislators approved Governor Brown’s request to begin selling $4.5 billion in voter approved bonds including $2.6 billion that will fund the central valley line. This occurred after the CA HSR Authority approved another new business plan that allows its high-speed rail trains to share the track with local commuter rail trains in San Francisco and Los Angeles. This reduces the total price tag from $98 billion to $68 billion. But that plan still relies on billions from the federal government, revenue from an untested cap and trade plan that is intended for environmental uses and a private partner that would fund this money-losing venture. The circuitous route from Los Angeles to San Francisco is another major flaw. The most logical HSR route in the United States is the northeast corridor. While construction on this route would be expensive, its density may justify its high costs. Yet President Obama seems to have little interest in this corridor. Fortunately other countries seem to be a little more logical. Portugal has abandoned its high-speed rail plans. Spain has halted construction on most new lines. China may be the biggest country to watch. While the country halted construction as a result of its latest HSR crash, it appears to be building HSR again with a lower top speed of 186 miles per hour. Most average Chinese cannot afford the train and remain opposed to the construction. China’s central government does not concern itself with whether its citizens approve of its spending but the $640 billion debt from building HSR might cause China to slow down future construction.

8) Growth of BRT over Rail: While intercity HSR continues to be popular, intracity Bus-Rapid-Transit continues to gain popularity over new rail. BRT is often less than a tenth the cost of rail. And BRT comes in many different forms. Expressway BRT makes use of managed lanes, either HOT or HOV, to offer a reliable travel time on highways. Arterial BRT makes use of queue jumpers and special lanes to move faster than the regular traffic on busy arterials. And a new concept called managed arterials would allow buses to use arterials with tolled grade separations to provide a faster, more reliable travel speed. Such a BRT network can be coupled with a robust local bus network to create a comprehensive transit system. Over the past five years, the implementation of new BRT lines has been increasing while the implementation of new light-rail lines has been decreasing. 

9) Obama White House MIA in Transportation: Discussing the White House’s lack of involvement in transportation is like beating a dead horse but the lack of realistic ideas from Pennsylvania Avenue remain a major problem. The White House has proposed stimulus style spending and infrastructure bank grants. But neither of these ideas helps transportation. Stimulus spending is bad economic policy but it is especially foolish for transportation. Most of the needed transportation projects are long and take multiple years. Short term spending only funds repavings and minor repairs. In order to make such spending effective, state DOT’s and MPO’s have to move money around, a convoluted approach for sure. The President’s infrastructure grant program chooses projects on a political basis. If the selection criteria were merit based that might help, but most transportation watchers are not interested in another TIGER based stimulus grant program. The President’s lack of interest in transportation has had negative consequences for fellow Democrats. The White House’s failure to pass a new bill in 2009 helped lead to the defeat of many moderate democrats in 2010; this year the President had to accept a much less urban-friendly bill. Replacing Ray LaHood with someone with both a background and passion for transportation would help. 

10) Tidewater Tunnels: It was a busy year for transportation in the Commonwealth. VDOT reached a deal with Elizabeth River Crossings to begin construction on the new Midtown tunnel. The deal doubles capacity of the Tunnel and improves both the quality and quantity of bus and ferry transit service between Portsmouth and Norfolk. While the tunnel will have a toll between $1.59-$1.84, this is 40% lower than the initial estimate. The project also makes substantial upgrades to the Downtown Tunnel and extends the Martin Luther King Expressway from London Blvd to I-264. Both projects will help relieve traffic congestion on the area’s bridges. And the user-pays user-benefits nature of tolling is fairer for taxpayers. Virginia advanced two lesser projects in the I-95 reconstruction and the new expressway between Petersburg and Norfolk. I-95 tolling for reconstruction is a promising idea but the current plan to have one tollbooth near the North Carolina border needs to be reworked. Building an unneeded expressway with money the state does not have is a bad idea and should be abandoned. 

11) Chicago Infrastructure Bank: In contrast to his former boss, former White House Chief of Staff and current Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is heavily involved in transportation. In April, Emanuel and the city council approved a new infrastructure bank to increase private investment. The Infrastructure Trust would review projects that generate revenue and projects such as a BRT system could be funded by the private sector. Many investors have already put up more than $2 billion for the Infrastructure Trust. The Infrastructure bank provides access to funds the city could not otherwise obtain and is also a hedge against risk. The city can offload risk to private investors for projects with uncertain benefits. At the same time, Chicago has to create well-structured deals. Chicago undervalued its parking meters in 2008. As a result the city negotiated a poor deal for itself. True infrastructure banks are an excellent way to increase funding without raising taxes. In today’s economy more cities may look at Chicago’s example. 

12) TSA In the News: The Transportation Security Administration is like a bad song on Top 40 radio. Every time it makes news it annoys and yet nobody can find a way to get rid of it. TSA screeners steal personal items and abuse thier power. But more significantly the agency has failed to improve security. Why? The TSA concentrates on screening passengers at the front of the airport but leaves the back door wide open. There is no protection from intruders entering the secure side of an airport through a fence or waterway as happened earlier this year at Kennedy International Airport. In Newark a knife-wielding intruder got onto the tarmac by scaling an eight-foot fence. In Dallas a group bypassed all security and posted a video of themselves on YouTube. These problems could be remedied if airports and not TSA oversaw screening on their property. Currently, TSA has dual purposes—conducting the screening and overseeing the screening process. Having airports run security screening and allowing TSA to focus on overseeing screening would end this conflict.

Print This

[Interview] Conversation with Colorado's High Performance Transportation Enterprise

On Monday, I chronicled the year in review for Reason Foundation's Innovators in Action 2012. Today, I'm publishing the first interview of Innovators in Action 2013, available here. I recently had the privilege to sit down with Michael Cheroutes, director, and Nick Farber, enterprise specialist, of the Colorado Department of Transportation's High Performance Transportation Enterprise (HPTE) to discuss their work.

States are struggling to adequately invest in infrastructure, a challenge compounded by the declining purchasing power of revenue from the federal gas tax and lower revenue from more fuel efficient automobiles. Meanwhile, continued deadlock at the federal level fails to inspire confidence that help is coming. Innovative policymakers, like the ones at HPTE, are applying new approaches to solve these problems. 

Read an excerpt from the interview below:

Harris Kenny, Reason Foundation: How is HPTE unique from the rest of the Colorado Department of Transportation?

Michael Cheroutes and Nick Farber, HPTE: HPTE is unique because it is the innovative transportation finance arm of CDOT. HPTE’s vision is to pursue public-private partnerships (and other innovative and efficient means of financing multimodal projects), make sure innovative projects are properly prioritized and accelerate delivery of those projects to facilitate the state’s economic recovery – we’re much more than just a tolling agency. 

Kenny: What is one of HPTE’s most successful projects underway today?

Cheroutes and Farber: One would be Phase 2 of the US 36 Project, which is currently underway. The US 36 Project is an eighteen-mile (from downtown Denver to Boulder), 50-year DBFOM project. Construction for the project is an estimated $100 million, in addition to operation and maintenance. US 36 is funded in part by tolls paid to the concessionaire. CDOT, the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) and some local governments are also contributing funds to help finance the project. In other words, private equity is playing a role, but it’s not all private equity.

Kenny: What are some upcoming projects that HPTE is excited about?

Cheroutes and Farber: We issued an RFP for the I-70 East project, which, among other things, will replace a viaduct going into Denver on the east side of the city that was built in 1964. The RFP is specifically seeking a financial advisor to help evaluate options on how to finance the preferred for the I-70 East project. 

For more, read the full interview here. Stay tuned to reason.org/innovators for new content, or visit here to read our interviews from 2012.

 


 

twitter-bird-blue-on-white_small Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny

Print This

Innovators in Action 2012, Year in Review

Reason Foundation's Innovators in Action series profiles innovative policymakers in their own words, highlighting good government efforts that are delivering real results and value for taxpayers. In 2012, these thought leaders joined us from across the United States--and even Puerto Rico--to share insight into their process. Check out our year in review, below:

Innovators in Action kicks off again in the new year with my interview with Michael Cheroutes, director, and Nick Farber, enterprise specialist, for the Colorado Department of Transportation's High Performance Transportation Enterprise. Visit reason.org/innovators for the latest content.

 


 

twitter-bird-blue-on-white_small Follow Harris Kenny on Twitter @harriskenny

Print This

Innovators in Action: FDOT Secretary Ananth Prasad on Delivering Florida's 21st Century Transportation System Through Tolling, Managed Lanes and Public-Private Partnerships

Like most states, Florida faces a significant challenge in delivering future transportation infrastructure, given the declining purchasing power of the federal gas tax, uncertain future revenues resulting from the increasing efficiency of automobiles, and other challenges that are making it increasingly difficult for most states to even maintain the infrastructure they already have, much less expand and modernize their transportation systems to meet the demands of the 21st century economy.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has been working to meet that challenge in recent years, increasingly embracing innovations in project finance, road pricing and other areas of transportation policy that allow them to better control costs, as well as deliver major projects to reduce congestion and improve mobility amid an uncertain transportation funding future.

In our latest interview in the Innovators in Action 2012 series, I sat down with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Secretary Ananth Prasad to discuss how his agency has embraced innovations like public-private partnerships, cutting-edge tolling projects, private highway maintenance and more.

Here's a brief excerpt from the interview:

Leonard Gilroy, Reason Foundation: Florida has become one of the leading states in the U.S. with regard to embracing innovations like public-private partnerships, private infrastructure financing and cutting-edge tolling projects. What challenges prompted this shift? And can you explain why partnering with the private sector makes sense for FDOT?

Ananth Prasad, Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation: As you know, Florida is a very outsourced state, and we rely on the private sector to deliver a lot of our projects. As with most states, 100% of the construction is done by the private sector in Florida, but we’re also at upwards of 80% when it comes to planning, design, engineering, inspections and the like. So in our work, we rely a significant amount on the private sector to help us deliver.

When it comes to public-private partnerships (PPPs), I think it’s just another tool in the toolbox, trying to leverage what private investment is out there, what innovations may be there when it comes to a procurement or contract management or a delivery technique. That’s basically what prompted us going into PPPs.

At the outset, Design-Build was our first foray into trying to take a traditional design function that was done by a department—either in-house or by consultants—and combine it with a construction contractor and package it together. And that evolved into “OK, if you can do design and build together, why can’t you operate and maintain together?” And that morphed into “why can’t you finance it, if it’s a long-term, corridor-type project?” It’s a natural evolution of what various departments of transportation do, and we’re just trying to make sure that we utilize all of the tools in the toolbox to deliver infrastructure improvements.

When we look at unfunded transportation needs, we estimate Florida would need in excess of $131 billion for the state’s most critical assets between now and 2040. PPPs are not going to close that gap, but they can help us deliver long corridors today by leveraging private equity and financing, and then also bringing innovations through combining the design and the operations and maintenance into a contract so that we’re designing and building a project with a holistic view rather than just designing it or just building it or just operating and maintaining it.

When it comes to tolls, we obviously have a long track record with our toll road—the [Florida] Turnpike—and in the last few decades with the various expressway authorities. Tolling allows us to diversify the revenue stream to fund transportation. As you know, the gas tax is not keeping pace and while Florida’s gas tax is indexed [to inflation], the federal gas tax is not. And with fuel efficiency standards going up and with alternative fuel vehicles, people will be driving the same amount of miles but not contributing to the upkeep and future improvements to the infrastructure. Toll roads answer that question because if you use it, you pay for it.

The full interview is well worth a read and is available here. The topics discussed include the state's current public-private partnership projects, the expansion of managed lanes in different regions, the use of "toll lanes within toll lanes," the state's efforts to capitalize on the expansion of the Panama Canal, and much more. 

[Note to readers: In previous years, we have published Innovators in Action in an annual report format, the last edition having been released in early 2010. The publication was on a temporary hiatus in 2011, but we have resumed publication in a slightly different format. In order to deliver timely content to our readers on a more frequent schedule, we're publishing one Innovators article per month on reason.org. Other articles featured in the Innovators in Action 2012 series are available here.]

Print This

Innovators in Action: ODOT Director Jerry Wray on Addressing Ohio's Transportation Funding Challenges Through Streamlining, Public-Private Partnerships

State departments of transportation are increasingly cutting costs and seeking new ways to finance and deliver transportation projects as revenues from traditional funding sources—primarily federal and state fuel taxes—continue to erode. In our latest interview in the Innovators in Action 2012 series, I sat down with Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) director Jerry Wray to learn how the agency is trying to address its long-term challenges by innovating today through streamlining measures, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and other strategies.

Facing an estimated $1.6 billion highway funding gap in coming years, Ohio policymakers began taking concrete steps to develop new cost-saving and project financing tools in 2011, passing legislation authorizing a potential long-term lease of the Ohio Turnpike to private investors and granting ODOT the authority to enter into PPPs to finance and develop new transportation projects.

ODOT took another major step earlier this year in establishing a new internal Division of Innovative Delivery to identify alternative transportation funding solutions. Among its early initiatives, the Division is exploring PPPs to modernize the Ohio Turnpike, develop non-Interstate rest areas, and establish a corporate sponsorship program for state-owned rest areas, bridges, interchanges and sections of highway. Further, the Division is also exploring innovative financing approaches for several different state transportation projects, including the Brent Spence Bridge over the Ohio River in the Cincinnati area, the Portsmouth Bypass in Scioto County.

Here's a brief excerpt from the interview:

Gilroy: Can you describe some of the solutions you’re advancing at ODOT today?

Wray: We have to produce projects at the retail level: quick delivery of projects is what people want from us. Everything we do—from plowing snow to building new interchanges and highways—our citizens want faster and better.

To help us meet citizens' expectations, we've been exploring many different ways of saving money since January 2011. For example, we've reduced staff by over 400 through attrition and saved over $34 million annually, a savings that will repeat year after year. We expect further staff reductions through attrition in the coming years as well, which we expect will generate further savings.

We've also moved to zero-based budgeting this year. ODOT used to carry forward lots of money as a cushion for future years, but we can't afford to let that money sit on the books when we can use it to build projects around the state. We will free up millions of dollars this year alone.

We've also re-budgeted $150 million off of our previously adopted biennium budget, taking a hard look at areas like equipment usage, overtime control, and vehicle usage and purchasing. We believe we could reduce our vehicle fleet by up to 40 percent, for example.

That's what we can do internally, as an agency, to identify areas where we can deliver the same great service ODOT is known for and do it at a lower cost to our customers. But we’re not stopping there. I oftentimes tell groups of people when speaking at public events that, “this isn’t your grandpa's ODOT.” And it isn’t. We’re embarking on a new program—the Division of Innovative Delivery—that will allow us to essentially do two things: 1) reduce construction costs by partnering with the private sector, and 2) generate additional money by leveraging the value of state-owned assets.

For instance, we are conducting a top-to-bottom review of all of ODOT’s assets that could potentially generate money for the department. We have a website that provides real-time traffic information to the motoring public. Is there a market for ODOT to sell advertising space on that website? We’re about to find out. We have thousands of bridges, interchanges and other transportation features that private businesses could pay us millions of dollars to sponsor. So, we’re pursuing an aggressive sponsorship and advertising program.

We're also looking at new and innovative ways to finance transportation projects, and we see great value in engaging the private sector through public-private partnerships.

The full interview is well worth a read and is available here.

[Note to readers: In previous years, we have published Innovators in Action in an annual report format, the last edition having been released in early 2010. The publication was on a temporary hiatus in 2011, but we have resumed publication in a slightly different format. In order to deliver timely content to our readers on a more frequent schedule, we're publishing one Innovators article per month on reason.org. Other articles featured in the Innovators in Action 2012 series are available here.]

Print This

Understanding Correctional Privatization in Florida

In a recent piece Andrew Marra of The Palm Beach Post ominously warns:

The specter of privatizing more (Florida) state prisons makes many uncomfortable. For-profit companies would want more inmates in prison, despite bipartisan calls for sentencing reform. Then there are questions about security and accountability.

However, Marra's piece misses the mark in several important ways. I submitted a letter to the editor that was not published in print, but is available online here. In short, my piece explains that correctional outcomes in Florida are improving, in part because of privatization.

First, these improvements can be measured in cost savings:

The Florida Department of Management Services recently reported that privately operated facilities cost taxpayers 10-27 percent less to operate than comparable state prisons.

Second, they can be measured in improved quality:

A Florida Chamber of Commerce evaluation of private and public facilities in south Florida finds private partners have four times as many inmates participating in educational, vocational and life skills programming (79.3 percent versus 21.3 percent). 

My piece concludes:

(Privatization) is an effective policy tool that has been thoughtfully integrated into the system over decades; making all Floridians—not only taxpayers and inmates—better off.

For related work, see Reason Foundation's Prisons and Corrections Research Archive.

Print This

21st Century Schools Require 21st Century Finance

Today my colleague Leonard Gilroy and I had a piece on Real Clear Markets entitled, "21st Century Schools Require 21st Century Finance." The piece begins:

Recent teacher protests in Chicago show that students and parents suffer when public employee unions and elected officials fight over how to run schools. But there is one issue that should unite both sides: Tapping private sector capital to build schools - whether traditional or alternative - and other education-related infrastructure, leaving more public dollars for the instructional needs of children. Yonkers, a school district in New York State, is doing just that by deploying a solution that has worked well for transportation and other types of public infrastructure: Public-private partnerships (PPPs).

We go on to explain that school districts are out of money, so they can't simply finance, build and operate the new capacity they need on their own. Meanwhile taxpayers are unwilling to approve tax increases. PPPs are an emerging third strategy that addresses these issues. The piece continues:

PPPs usher in private sector capital upfront, which is repaid in exchange for maintenance of the facilities over the course of the contract. Maintenance costs over the long-term are lumped in and included as a payment for a set period. Schools use the resources they would have used to repay municipal bonds and maintain the facility to repay a private partner instead, and more cost effectively. Rigorous procurement allows competing private firms to drive down costs within a framework that protects taxpayers.

This is in contrast to the traditional approach, which requires school districts to fulfill many duties that are beyond the scope of their mission and core competencies, specifically:

Under the traditional model, school districts are responsible not only for overseeing education, but also for finance, building/property maintenance and asset management. In contrast, well-structured PPPs can drive down construction costs and lower life-cycle maintenance costs, freeing up resources that can be deployed in the classroom. These benefits should unify school administrators and unions, not to mention parents and children. Superintendent of Yonkers Public Schools Bernard P. Pierorazio recently explained, "(The PPP allows us to) concentrate on what we do best - preparing students to achieve."

We go on to detail success stories in Yonkers and Puerto Rico. For example in Yonkers, the district hired PPP advisors to determine the feasibility of a $1.7 billion procurement to rebuild 38 schools. The district's buildings are in dire disrepair, with over 95 percent labelled "unsatisfactory" by the State. In Puerto Rico, Governor Luis Fortuño's PPP Authority is overseeing a partnership for approximately 100 schools in 78 municipalities across the island. It's easy to understand why this tool is so appealing to policymakers:

Yonkers, Puerto Rico and others are using PPPs because they tap the strength of the private sector to deliver and maintain facilities (which is not a strength of school districts, whose core mission is academic), based on the public sector's need for good learning environments. Their approach is based on rigorous, well-structured PPP contracts that often span hundreds of pages that transfer key financial, project delivery and operational risks from the public sector (read: taxpayers) to the private sector. Exemplary PPP contracts incorporate enforceable provisions that make the private vendor responsible for everything from future repairs and maintenance, to the scope and timing of projects. Policymakers also sometimes include language to incentivize private partners to finish on (or even ahead of) schedule or hedge against both predictable and unpredictable changes in circumstances like inclement weather or fluctuating commodity prices.

The piece later explains other benefits of PPPs and concludes by saying that PPPs represent an opportunity to improve - if not reinvent -the American education system. Read the full piece, available here on Real Clear Markets.

Print This



Privatization Blog Archives RSS