Infrastructure plan

The president’s reliance on private toll roads creates a blueprint for failure.

Republicans usually like to stay away from anything that can be described as Chicago-style politics, so voters should be confused to see Donald Trump pitching an infrastructure plan that borrows from one of the Windy City’s worst experiments in public policy.

Back in 2008, Chicago tried to fill a funding gap by selling a 75-year contract that allowed a private consortium to run its downtown parking meter system. The result was nothing short of a disaster. The new owners raised prices by 800 percent and started charging for parking where it had once been free. Businesses were hurt. People were outraged. And the parking meters broke down in winter.

Turns out that private profit and public interests don’t always line up.

Nevertheless, Trump has put these sorts of questionable public-private partnerships at the core of his national infrastructure plan.

Gone is the campaign season proposal for a $1 trillion program. In a brazen bait-and-switch, Trump actually would cut infrastructure spending in the long run, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He even proposed slashing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ construction account by more than 50 percent.

Instead, Trump wants the nation to rely on private investors to fund projects. These wealthy investors would be repaid with $137 billion in tax breaks and then be allowed to collect tolls from users.

You could probably list “private tolls roads” alongside “mosquito bites” and “sunburns” on the short list of things that make your average Texan curse and spit in anger.

Voters made their opinion perfectly clear when Gov. Rick Perry’s attempt at a public-private Trans-Texas Corridor failed in the face of public scrutiny.

Nor were Texans keen on a local version of Trump’s public-private plan with State Highway 130 east of San Antonio. After four years of operations, the private toll-road operator ended up filing for bankruptcy. Turns out that people didn’t like paying tolls, and low traffic meant missed revenue projections.

All across the country, there’s a pattern of public-private infrastructure plans resulting in sky-high bills for users and conflicts between local governments and private investors. These problems arise from the same core conflict: The goals of public infrastructure and private investors are often irreconcilable. Public infrastructure exists to move people and commerce. Investors exist to make money.

And because these public-private deals only make sense where the private investors can find profit, Trump’s plan sticks local governments with the bill on necessary but nonlucrative projects. Investors aren’t exactly lining up to replace leadcontaminated water systems in poor neighborhoods. Wall Street banks aren’t champing at the bit to build a multibillion-dollar Ike Dike to protect Galveston Bay and the Houston Ship Channel.

No doubt that there is a role for private enterprise to play in public transit. For example, Mayor Sylvester Turner touted the Texas Central Partners’ high-speed rail project in his State of Mobility speech on Thursday. But those opportunities for private investment cannot cover the vast infrastructure needs facing our nation.

Trump had an opportunity to take the lead on a 21st century version of a national infrastructure program. Democrats and Republicans alike have been calling for an infrastructure bill — and Trump’s promise of a $1 trillion program was one of his most popular applause lines during the campaign. Now it is just another politician’s broken promise.

In a brazen bait-and-switch, Trump actually would cut infrastructure spending in the long run, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.