Slashdot Mirror
Trump's New Infrastructure Plan Calls For Selling Off Two Airports (politico.com)
The Trump administration has released an infrastructure plan on Monday that proposes that the federal government considers selling off Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport. According to Trump's blueprint, the administration wants to allow federal agencies to divest assets if they "can demonstrate an increase in value from the sale would optimize the taxpayer value for federal assets." It also includes the George Washington and Baltimore Washington parkways, the Washington Aqueduct and the transmission assets of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration on the list for "potential divesture." Politico reports: State and local agencies or the private sector may be better at managing assets currently owned by the federal government, the administration argues, and federal agencies should be able to "identify appropriate conditions under which sales would be made." They should also "delineate how proceeds would be spent." Under the administration's proposal, federal agencies would have to complete an analysis demonstrating an "increase in value from divestiture." Though technically owned by the federal government, both airports are operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority under a long-term lease agreement. The 53-page infrastructure plan lays out a vision to turn $200 billion in federal money into $1.5 trillion for fixing America's infrastructure by leveraging local and state dollars and private investment. "The White House says its plan will create $1.5 trillion for repairing and upgrading America's infrastructure," reports CNNMoney. "Only $200 billion of that, however, would come from direct federal spending. The rest is supposed to come from state and local governments, which are expected to match any federal allocation by at least a four-to-one ratio. States have gradually assumed more of the responsibility for funding infrastructure in recent years, and the White House says it wants to accelerate that trend."
As for how the money would be split up, the plan says that half of the new federal money, $100 billion, "would be parceled out as incentives to local government entities," reports CNNMoney. "An additional $20 billion would go toward 'projects of national significance' that can 'lift the American spirit,'" while another $50 billion will be designated "for rural block grants, most of which will be given to states according to a formula based on the miles of rural roads and the rural population they have," reports CNNMoney. "The rest of the money would support other infrastructure-related undertakings..."
As for how the money would be split up, the plan says that half of the new federal money, $100 billion, "would be parceled out as incentives to local government entities," reports CNNMoney. "An additional $20 billion would go toward 'projects of national significance' that can 'lift the American spirit,'" while another $50 billion will be designated "for rural block grants, most of which will be given to states according to a formula based on the miles of rural roads and the rural population they have," reports CNNMoney. "The rest of the money would support other infrastructure-related undertakings..."
According to David Harsanyi at Reason, our "crumbling infrastructure" is a myth.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
AC the problematic part is having the gov find the budget every year to keep everything working and presenting the USA as a modern nation.
The next part is the total upgrade of the parts people look at and use. That 1960's styling that needs a lot of work and budget just to keep as is.
Other nations sell off their airports and let the private sector take that huge risk.
No more having to cover the costs of upkeep every year and new design work every few years, over the decades.
That tax money once used to keep an airport looking nice can then go to bridges, roads around the USA and other vital work that really needs doing.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Sydney's airport was sold to Maquarie bank and now has the dubious distinction of having the most expensive parking of any airport in the world!
They also financially engineered the transaction so they haven't spent on taxes in the history of the project.
Don't do it.
As an Australian that moved to the US a few years ago and does a lot of flying for work, I'm on the fence when it comes to airport privatisation proposals. One of the interesting differences between the US and Australia is that, despite the fact that the US is generally more in favour of private sector delivery of services (think healthcare etc.), it has overwhelmingly kept its airports publically owned. Most major airports in the US are publically owned, whereas I think every major Australian airport was privatised many years ago.
On the one hand Australian airports are wayyyy nicer than US airports. More modern and up to date, cleaner, more spacious, better and more facilities etc. Nicer places to be in by a long shot. US airports, especially some of the major ones (Newark and O'Hare spring to mind) are very overcrowded at peak times, straining at the seams and generally just more unpleasant places to be in (e.g. what's with those disgusting old seats and claustrophobically low ceilings in Concourses E/F at ORD?)
But why are they so much nicer? Because they charge a lot more and thus have a lot more money to pump into improvements. US airport parking fees, even in a major city, are a small fraction of what they are in Australia for instance. I could park at Chicago for a week for what it could cost for a few hours at SYD or MEL. Australian airports no doubt also charge the airlines more than their US counterparts too (landing fees etc.), which indirectly affects ticket prices etc.
So in terms of user experience, private airports seem nicer, but in terms of equity of accessibility to travel itself, publicly owned is the way to go. Prices go through the roof when airports are privatised, if Australia is anything to go by. Travel should not be only for the wealthy.
Logic and facts don't matter, for some people, it's who's team you're on and if they're winning. Leftcoastthinker spewed 9 posts today, 18 posts on Thursday, and 35 posts last Wednesday.
It doesn't matter how mind numbingly stupid it is to suggest that the current economic situation is the product of Trump. You wont' convince them that their team is against their best interests.
The examples of political kickbacks to counter the "ZERO" will just be met with moved goalposts and "but the Dims! virtue signalling! derp!"
What you won't hear is a single intelligent statement about Trump's policies.
AC the problematic part is having the gov find the budget every year to keep everything working and presenting the USA as a modern nation. The next part is the total upgrade of the parts people look at and use. That 1960's styling that needs a lot of work and budget just to keep as is. Other nations sell off their airports and let the private sector take that huge risk. No more having to cover the costs of upkeep every year and new design work every few years, over the decades. That tax money once used to keep an airport looking nice can then go to bridges, roads around the USA and other vital work that really needs doing.
Ok so you sell off the airports this year because you have pay to upgrade them, and use that money on bridges instead. What do you do next year? Sell the bridges and roads?
Fanatically anti-fanatical