Privately owned express roads in the US concept

[Ampera]

I want to make it clear that this is a personal concept, not something that exists.

I had an idea, and I've been wondering how feasible it is and why it has not been tried yet.

The idea is for a series of privately owned and maintained highways, build for the purpose of having a partially speed unlimited highway, similar to Germany's highway system. In my mind, the advantages would be numerous.

For a toll, you can drive at express speeds, not normally allowed by the local deciding government. In exchange the road would be repaired, controlled, and policed by the owner.

To my most likely incorrect legal knowledge, the cars utilizing the road would not need to confirm to traffic laws including licenses and registration (even though it would still be needed, assuming the highway starts and stops on public roads.)

I do not know the legality of such endeavors, or any of that, but I would like to see what people think about the idea.

[CatalinaWOW]

Blueskull beat me to this. 

Private toll roads exist, and have a long tradition here in the US, dating back to before we were a country.  They are pretty thin on the ground these days.  Unlimited speed may not be an option since at least some entities will claim that you are violating pollution laws.  Others will be waiting in the wings to sue for negligence after the inevitable accidents happen.

[MK14]

I want to make it clear that this is a personal concept, not something that exists.

I had an idea, and I've been wondering how feasible it is and why it has not been tried yet.

The idea is for a series of privately owned and maintained highways, build for the purpose of having a partially speed unlimited highway, similar to Germany's highway system. In my mind, the advantages would be numerous.

For a toll, you can drive at express speeds, not normally allowed by the local deciding government. In exchange the road would be repaired, controlled, and policed by the owner.

To my most likely incorrect legal knowledge, the cars utilizing the road would not need to confirm to traffic laws including licenses and registration (even though it would still be needed, assuming the highway starts and stops on public roads.)

I do not know the legality of such endeavors, or any of that, but I would like to see what people think about the idea.

I can't think of anything, that could possibly go wrong with that idea 

[Ampera]

I can't think of anything, that could possibly go wrong with that idea 

Germany has managed just fine. However they are a hell of a lot less forgiving when it comes to being allowed to drive.

[Rick Law]

Unlimited speed may not be an option since at least some entities will claim that you are violating pollution laws.  Others will be waiting in the wings to sue for negligence after the inevitable accidents happen.

But since you can practically drive at up to 80mph on major interstates (unless you meet a really angry cop), why unlimited speed is needed?
It might be just a personal preference, but I feel very uncomfortable driving at 75mph+ due to the demand of highly concentrated focus. It's just too exhausting to drive at such high speed.

Pre Jimmy Carter days, many States doesn't even impose a speed limit.  Drivers are trusted to not drive faster than what they feel comfortable with.  55mph nation-wide during the Carter era or loose federal highway money

I thought Montana was speed-unlimited daytime, but I can't confirm it after web search.

Actually there is two sides to that "safety" coin.  Sometimes, going slow (55mph) for hours and hours and hours put people to sleep.  Sleep or not, it certainly extends your exposure.  While typical was 75mph, using an easier-math 110mph.  110mph means (approx) half the time comparing to 55mph.  One is exposed to danger only half as long.  So, lower risk with longer exposure, or higher risk for a shorter time, a trade off.

[cdev]

Well, of course the idea is being pushed now because trade deals make privatization virtually irreversible.
It begun with the 1994 WTO "GATS" agreement, which makes privatization and globalization of committed services mandatory if they are partially commercialized already,(for example, schools going private because of charter schools and for profit colleges make a educational commodity commercial, eliminating the 'right' to education)  its advocates claim its opt in (for example the US committed to privatize/globalize health insurance - actually, health insurance being a financial service, changes are being rolled back, because we committed to freeze regulation of financial services at 1998 levels.)


SOME OF THE FOLLOWING IS SARCASM...



--------

Toll roads only open to expensive self driving cars would be an "au natural" way to restrict travel between poor and wealthy areas in the job-sparse future.

See below..

This text is from an article archived on the IATP website. The graphics are from a presentation given to PSI by Jane Kelsey (of New Zealand).

They all use the following problematic definition of what their scope can be.

(Basically "everything you cannot drop on your foot".)
---------

The GATS "governmental authority" exclusion

Article I:3 of the agreement states:

"For the purposes of this Agreement...

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of
governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied
neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."

The "governmental authority" exclusion is very narrow

This exclusion is far narrower than it may at first appear.

Firstly, in order for a service to be excluded, both criteria must apply.

That is, in order for the exclusion to apply, a service must be supplied on a non­commercial basis and its delivery must not be in competition with another service supplier. Thus, the exclusion does not apply to services that are supplied on a non­commercial basis but which are
supplied in competition with another service provider.

 Similarly, the exclusion does not apply to services that are supplied on a commercial basis even where these services are supplied in the absence of competition with any other service supplier. Hence, only a small sub­set of services ­­ those that are provided by completely non­commercial,
absolute monopolies ­­ appear to be protected by this exclusion.

Secondly, the exclusion is narrow by virtue of the ordinary definition of its terms. The agreement does not define the
phrases "on a commercial basis" and "in competition with one or more service suppliers". However, the ordinary
definitions of these terms are broad, making the set of services that they describe very large, and the set of services
that falls outside them ­­ and hence outside the scope of the agreement ­­ quite small.


"Commercial" is defined variously as: "Engaged in commerce; trading" 5 ; "Of or pertaining to
commerce or trade" 6 ; "Of, engaged in, or concerned with, commerce" 7 ; or "concerned with
commerce" 8  (emphases added).

The definition of "commerce" includes: "financial transactions, esp. the buying and selling of
merchandise, on a large scale" 9 , "the exchange of goods" 10  or "buying and selling together; trading;
exchange of merchandise" 11 .

The definition of "trade" includes: "the business of distribution, selling and exchange" 12 , "buying and
selling ... buying and selling conducted between nations etc.; the exchange of goods between
peoples" 13  and "the buying and selling or exchange of commodities for profit; commerce, traffic,
trading" 14 .

"Competition" is defined as: "Rivalry in the market, striving for custom between those who have the
same commodities to dispose of" 15 ; "the act or an instance of competing or contending with others (for
supremacy, a position, a prize, etc.)." 16

"Compete" is defined as: "to try to get what others also seek and which all cannot have, to compete
for export markets". 17

Source:
http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm

In short, privatization of roads is an ideal way to make society more unequal and less mobile.

[CatalinaWOW]

Montana succumbed to Federal pressure and now has speed limits.  As did Nevada.

Germany has limits on many roadways, though I have driven on roads with 200 kph (125 mph) posted speed limits.  High speed can be comfortable and relatively safe, but it depends on the car, the road, and traffic.  I have been terrified at 114 mph (185 kph)  in one compact car I was testing, and have cruised for hours at 120 mph (195 kph) comfortably in a large sedan designed for that.  But it is rare for me to find a road these days which makes that comfortable.  Limited curves, good road surface and little or no traffic is an unusual combination.  The ones with little traffic usually have terrible road surfaces and/or are twisty narrow things.

It is also impossible to deny the physics.  The square law on kinetic energy means that when something goes wrong (which will happen from time to time either due to random acts of god, the idiocy of other people, or dare we say it, a mistake on the drivers part) the consequences will be much worse.

[CopperCone]

this looks annoying.

What's going to end up happening is that you will need RFID to drive on those roads.. hello surveillance.

[MK14]

I can't think of anything, that could possibly go wrong with that idea 

Germany has managed just fine. However they are a hell of a lot less forgiving when it comes to being allowed to drive.

How can I phrase this, so I don't offend anyone, especially from the US ?

Germany, spend money, and engineer a quality Motorway (autobahn) system, along with high quality, well trained and disciplined drivers. So I think it is said, that statistically, the German Autobahn system, is significantly safer than the US's similar roads. For the reasons above and other reasons.

[cdev]

People will not be driving, the cars will be driving. The passengers, who will mostly be wealthy people,  will be catching a nap or surfing the net. Or whatever. Many vehicles probably will be autonomous so wont have people in them. Old fashioned cars, bicycles, motorcycles, etc, will be limited to back roads and antique car shows. Most classic cars that hold their value will probably be sold to people in other countries where people can still drive them.

[Nusa]

I hadn't touch the wheels in China at all, and after 10 hours of training, I got a driver's license form NC DMV.

Which explains why you're so uncomfortable at 75+ mph on highways. You haven't been driving for enough years that your subconscious fully handles the routine parts of driving. e.g. Scanning the mirrors, looking ahead and remaining aware of cars around me is not something I have to think about...I just do it automatically.

[MK14]

I hadn't touch the wheels in China at all, and after 10 hours of training, I got a driver's license form NC DMV.

Which explains why you're so uncomfortable at 75+ mph on highways. You haven't been driving for enough years that your subconscious fully handles the routine parts of driving. e.g. Scanning the mirrors, looking ahead and remaining aware of cars around me is not something I have to think about...I just do it automatically.

I believe in being a very safe driver, and obeying all applicable laws. I make especially sure that I'm never distracted by anything or do anything inappropriate like texting or using a phone in my car. Like now, I'm in full control of it, and can see perfectly in the mirrors and windows. Wait a minute my pesky laptop computers crashed again while I was making this post, and I was watching that movie on it. What's that coming up in my rear-mirror, ^&^*(^%&&*&(&()(&)(crash bang...

[cdev]

Self driving cars are very sophisticated. They use multiple redundant technologies to navigate. Plus, since its an urgent priority for American business the manufacturers will probably be exempt from legal action. Subrogation of winnings will of course apply so insurers will be able to sue one another based on the insured's one's lost income and expected remaining lost wages/ though. And of course if they suffered. It varies by state and country now but those rules will probably be harmonized.


Also, who knows, we may not need cars, we may have quantum teleportation.



Remember "The Fly"?


Quote from: CopperCone on Yesterday at 23:21:28

this looks annoying.

What's going to end up happening is that you will need RFID to drive on those roads.. hello surveillance.What

[MK14]

Also, who knows, we may not need cars, we may have quantum teleportation.

But, but ...

It is a form of COMMUNICATIONS, not physical teleportation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

Although the name is inspired by the teleportation commonly used in fiction, there is no relationship outside the name, because quantum teleportation concerns only the transfer of information. Quantum teleportation is not a form of transport, but of communication; it provides a way of transporting a qubit from one location to another, without having to move a physical particle along with it.

Anyway, I would not advise you to hold your breath on it being invented, implemented and cheaply available, in the near future.

[tooki]

It might be just a personal preference, but I feel very uncomfortable driving at 75mph+ due to the demand of highly concentrated focus. It's just too exhausting to drive at such high speed.

It's personal preference. I find low-speed driving to be far more tiring.

Highway driving in general is far less tiring for me (as with many people), because there are far fewer things to keep track of - no intersections, lights, oncoming traffic, pedestrians, etc. The worst is side streets where kids can pop out of nowhere at any moment.

My mom is the opposite, she finds the "high" speed of highway driving stressful (though she now tops out at 55mph…).

[Koen]

Germany has managed just fine. However they are a hell of a lot less forgiving when it comes to being allowed to drive.

Have you driven in Germany ? On long highway stretches ?

Germany, spend money, and engineer a quality Motorway (autobahn) system, along with high quality, well trained and disciplined drivers. So I think it is said, that statistically, the German Autobahn system, is significantly safer than the US's similar roads. For the reasons above and other reasons.

I much prefer UK roads. Clear and abundant signage on both roads and panels, cat's eyes, clear round-abouts, clear road works, low density except a few bottlenecks, fine drivers, most major roads in great condition. By far my favourite network.

[cdev]

Everything changed on Jan. 1, 1995 with the creation of the WTO.

The agreement that changed everything is the General Agreement on Trade in Services, or "GATS".

It makes all "privatizations" (I think a more accurate term is "disinvestment".) irreversibly costly to reverse (countries (in GATS) or corporations (in the newer US style agreements) must be paid compensation based on the value of their expected future lost profits, no matter how badly the privatization has turned out. 

Its my opinion that we should "first, do no harm".

Its insanity to spend trillions to build things - and then give hem to corporations. We should consider the falling rates of car ownership and he fact that if roads are privatized, the logical outcome is a freezing in place of lives and a reduction in opportunities.

More than anything else, it was the privatization and decimation of public transit that created the US underclass.

We will repeat that future if we forget it. (or are prevented from learning it) An uncertain economic future and a ending of public educational subsidies will pull theladders to opportunity up, making it unaffordable for more and more people to travel.

Thanks to GATS mandates to steal, Corporations get to take over immensely valuable, often irreplaceable public resources for free or via "eminent domain".  And they are getting the greenlight to do this for reasons which are totally unsavory. In no small part to hide a big lie. (that the WTO requires public works jobs be globalized)

This is nuts.

Also, the fact is, the reasons why we had the infrastructure we had in the past are different enough from our needs today to really require a rethinking of our entire way of doing them.

Big industrial complexes and a need for huge infrastructure in some areas was a product of the need for large numbers of workers to man the machines of industry and large numbers of office workers to man the typewriters and telephones and now computers of services firms.

But a great deal of that work is shifting overseas due to cost pressures and a perceived need to funnel certain kinds of jobs to developing countries- its framed as a way of helping the developing world while increasing profits at home (by shedding high wage workers who would be cheaper in other countries, turning their jobs into subcontracts. the shift gives the developed countries increasing bargaining power in trade negotiations to get things, for example, stronger IP protections for Rx drugs, and the elimination of cheap generics, that previously had eluded them.

At the same time, although some manufacturing is returning o the developed countries like the US, its returning because it now can be automated. (The norm is now to have huge factories that are almost completely automated.)

Look at the main selling point of "unlimited highways". More traffic being able to use existing highways where they have bottlenecks, typically in the approach to central cities. By shifting to computer control, we would be able to allow a signficantly higher volume of cars. They would be able to take advantage of current highway rights of ways in urban areas and that's true, automation would be able to do that.

But at the cost of personal control over vehicles.

It makes more sense to re-invest in better public transportation, especially for for those last few miles.

Also, the business case for them is based on a model which is changing - the original model was that millions of people needed to get up early in the morning every morning and travel - in many cases for more than an hour, to "work" in central cities, hubs. A case in point is the US, at one time, the US, had the best public transit system in the world. Then it was dismantled, truly a huge mistake. Now its being rebuilt at tremendous cost.

The needs of society are shifting. We have to avoid a cargo cult or target fixation mentality that associates certain activities with productivity. Also, as the economic and technological needs of the future are increasingly unpredictable, (that's the only thing we can predict with certainty) we should be very careful about doing anything that is carved in stone, as GATS and its progeny intentionally make all deregulation of any kind incredibly well nigh impossible to reverse except at tremendous costs. The reason jobs are vanishing is because jobs are vanishing everywhere. Armies of people in businesses running back and forth are just needed in fewer and fewer situations.

For this reason, the GATS needs to be dumped, and we should dump the "US style" agreements that attempt to do similar things - except be even more radical.  From what I know about RCEP, it should be dumped too.

The Indian TFS proposal in so much that it also seems to be attempting to carve the clearly illegitimate GATS in stone before people realize its there, is also a bad idea.

 GATS and its ilk was and are nothing less than an attempt to steal the entire future world from its people, silently.

This push to privatize everything is poison to society, and its been the cause of so many disasters already, and knowledge of this has been hidden by the media and government from us.

Lots of effort is being devoted to hiding the very existence of this programme from the people everywhere until its changes are made irreversible.

For example, on health care in the US. how many people realize that it wont be possible to reverse any of the GOP's "deregulation" and that international rules will lick in that will tell us where we have to buy whatever is paid for by government money even if the subsidy is only a few pennies. (Likely it will have to be minimally trade restrictive as defined by the OECD in its STRI index.)

That means that public highways when built will be built by public bidding with many countries firms participating. US firms, despite the much higher costs they have (When US firms employ workers they will have to be paid at least the US minimum wage, and I suspect Federal contractors may need to be paid prevailing wages. This is good because US minimum wages are very low, but in the services liberalization context, they will not be allowed, in a debate that goes back more than two decades, other countries have successfully framed them as a trade barrier to their firms entry into our markets, a form of protectionism practiced by the US to strip them of their main advantage.) So its likely that engineering firms from other countries will successfully underbid them and get the work, and they have successfully been able to frame this sea change as a sort of entitlement.

[MK14]

Germany, spend money, and engineer a quality Motorway (autobahn) system, along with high quality, well trained and disciplined drivers. So I think it is said, that statistically, the German Autobahn system, is significantly safer than the US's similar roads. For the reasons above and other reasons.

I much prefer UK roads. Clear and abundant signage on both roads and panels, cat's eyes, clear round-abouts, clear road works, low density except a few bottlenecks, fine drivers, most major roads in great condition. By far my favourite network.

I agree that the UK road system, has many good features. But what I find annoying (which is NO fault of the road system itself), is how crowded UK roads are, a lot of the time. Over many decades it has got worse and worse (which I've experienced), it was much quieter, a long time ago. Making long journeys much more fun, than they are today, in my experience/opinion.

This is partly because the UK is a limited sized island, and has got increasingly more crowded over the years. But I agree, the road systems are good, and generally the drivers are well behaved as well.

Part of it may be human psychology, which may be making me think that things were a lot better, a long time ago. Whereas things have not really changed that much, it is just that the good part of my memories have remained intact, and the bad (experience) parts have diminished over the years. This mechanism is maybe present in most people.
I'm not sure about this either way, as it is difficult to be truly impartial about it.

[EEVblog]

I don't know about the speed limits aspect helping or hindering, but we have private toll roads here in Sydney and it's nothing short of a disaster for the taxpayer.
The idiot politicians sign these ridiculous lucrative agreements with the private companies, some of which include a "no compete" public transport clause.
They'll sign anything so they can appear to be "getting things done" by building new roads at no expense.
So we (the taxpayer) have to pay the private companies a penalty if we want any public transport infrastructure installed that can in any way compete with their business.
The politicians who agreed to this crap should be sacked, but instead they get a pat on the back and a lifetime pension, whilst the tax payer foots the bill to all involved.

[tooki]

Germany has managed just fine. However they are a hell of a lot less forgiving when it comes to being allowed to drive.

Have you driven in Germany ? On long highway stretches ?

What does it matter where and for how long s/he's driven? It's not subjective opinion that Germany has tough requirements for drivers, and that its highway fatality rate is very low. Those are simple facts.

As for me, I earned my chops driving in USA in one of the areas with the worst traffic. And I've driven in Germany. German driver discipline is just dreamy. It's not the free-for-all that it is in USA.

[cdev]

(Note: I'm sorry about the typos here, this issue gets me angry, and I lose continuity of thought sometimes..)

This is truly the most outrageous thing.


Dave says:

>The idiot politicians sign these ridiculous lucrative agreements with the private companies, some of which include a "no compete" public transport clause.

These "non-compete clauses" which limit improvements a government can make to other needed infrastructure, are a huge problem with these so called "Public Private Partnerships" or PPPs.

By capturing an entire function- in a defined area, they attempt to force the relinquishment of local control, basically private companies, gain an ability to veto or even set policy, and it is an inherently unequal situation with, thanks to trade agreements, the corporations hold all of the cards. In the case of toll roads, its been the effect in Australia that they have gotten to block improvements in non-toll roads!


Similar issues impact services of all kinds because of the GATS agreement and others that use its definition of "services supplied as an exercise of governmental authority" or similar...

(Unless a service is completely free and stays free.) 

 Its even possible that by creating toll roads, a situation may emerge like the one in health insurance (because its a "committed service") where all new roads would have to become toll roads in order not to devalue the rights, compete with the owners of the rights to the market.
This is an unprecedented shift that nobody is aware of.

Its not sane for a government which is supposed to be of by and for the people, to guarantee a future revenue stream for corporations.

Corporations don't have to be so, but the trend in these agreements also seems to be to attempt to force a gutting of regulatory protections - pushing them down to the lowest common denominators, with no concern for the people or human needs whatsoever.

How do trade agreements like GATS and its progeny (TiSA is going to be part of GATS, but its much more aggressive in what it includes, basically everything that is not explicitly excluded in advance!)

Can people see how these deals function as huge international "non-compete clauses"?

Here is a link to an article that discusses the flawed G ats Article I:3(c) definition of scope.

If you want to read more, an author who has written a lot on this is Markus Krajewski. In the US, Lori Wallach's work is the most US specific.. In Australia, Matthew Rimmer of ANU and Jane Kelsey in New Zealand. Also, Sanya Reid Smith of Geneva based NGO Third World Network has a bunch of informative videos on YouTube.

If you want to read a pro-WTO/FTA perspective, I would suggest Rudolph Adlung (of the WTO)'s work.

This 20 year old video is informative on this capture of the commons issue.

[Ampera]

I can't think of anything, that could possibly go wrong with that idea 

Germany has managed just fine. However they are a hell of a lot less forgiving when it comes to being allowed to drive.

How can I phrase this, so I don't offend anyone, especially from the US ?

Germany, spend money, and engineer a quality Motorway (autobahn) system, along with high quality, well trained and disciplined drivers. So I think it is said, that statistically, the German Autobahn system, is significantly safer than the US's similar roads. For the reasons above and other reasons.

I whole heatedly agree with you, but this is why I think a private road would be necessary. A company can come in an produce a quality road, control licensing and registration on the roads, and have them up to spec with Germany's road network. This could even improve traffic in other parts of the US, since there would be incentive to train and become a better driver, while now people just take a few tests and get through.

[MK14]

I whole heatedly agree with you, but this is why I think a private road would be necessary. A company can come in an produce a quality road, control licensing and registration on the roads, and have them up to spec with Germany's road network. This could even improve traffic in other parts of the US, since there would be incentive to train and become a better driver, while now people just take a few tests and get through.

I like and agree with your concept, intentions, and enthusiasm, in order to create some of the high quality and very safe roads, based on how they work in some other countries of the world.

But sadly, I think that in practice, it would be unpopular, and not really work out as intended. For a number of reasons. Such as needing to have a second, considerably harder to get driving licence, just for these new road(s), would be both highly unpopular (especially for people who already have driving licences), and cause all sorts of legal headaches, because normal private individuals, who make the new roads "Police force", would NOT have the powers of arrest, etc etc. Potentially needed to enforce the new rules and stuff.

I have quite a lot of respect for the hard working German population. Simply building a similar road, to what they have, is only PART of what would need to be done, to get similar levels of safety. Changing the characteristics of major populations, is NOT that easy.

[cdev]

I'm sure people realize that toll roads function as a highly regressive tax. One which impacts the working poor the highest, proportionately.


They arent always economic successes, either. Sometimes they end up being colossal failures.
This road in Texas is a good example..

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/editorials/article/Texas-seldom-traveled-toll-road-9887527.php

[Koen]

Have you driven in Germany ? On long highway stretches ?

What does it matter where and for how long s/he's driven? It's not subjective opinion that Germany has tough requirements for drivers, and that its highway fatality rate is very low. Those are simple facts.

As for me, I earned my chops driving in USA in one of the areas with the worst traffic. And I've driven in Germany. German driver discipline is just dreamy. It's not the free-for-all that it is in USA.

Wait what ? I asked if he drove in Germany. Why make up a new question while quoting mine just above. There's a good reason I'm asking this question.