Maybe it's time to privatize transportation planning, design, & operations

Traffic violence on public streets is crushing. Urban renewal rips apart communities. Cars are prioritized at the expense of all other modes. What will it take to seriously consider new management?

Americans are bombarded with rhetoric about the country’s failing transportation infrastructure. We hear horror stories about crumbling bridges, eroded pavement on highways, and a lack of sidewalks connecting communities.

Here’s a reminder of what local streets look like in American neighborhoods. These are right in the heart of population clusters.

These are all examples of publicly owned and operated streets that “accommodate walking and bicycling as the fundamental modes of transportation” by agencies that boast safety is their top priority.

---

Republicans in power, Democrats in power…nothing ever changes but the date. Peel away the partisan talking points and there’s a common thread among most lobbying efforts: Everyone assumes that the government will own and operate roads. Not just the local bus, but the streets themselves.

What if government agencies (local, state, regional, or federal) didn’t own any roads at all? What if entrepreneurs, retail developers, small businesses, large businesses, trusts, and other private corporations owned and operated transportation networks? 

Downtown city streets, rural highways, and everything in between owned and operated by a wide variety of financially invested parties. Some visceral reactions may burst out of you. Outrageous. Impossible. Anti-American. Awesome idea, but it’ll never happen. 

I’ve got three key reasons why any urbanist should explore privatization, even if you don’t admit it to your colleagues. I’m thinking in terms of societal outcomes, not planning theory or political science trends.

Outcome #1: save lives and reduce injuries

Public officials are not held accountable when users of their product are hurt or killed. If private entities owned and operated roads, there would be an accountability process in place. Walgreens mops up spills in the store so you don’t fall. Bush’s Beans keeps poisons out of their cans so you don’t get sick. Anderson Windows makes sure their product doesn’t shatter during installation. 

I wrote this paragraph 12 years ago:

In 2010, more than 30,000 people were killed in vehicle crashes. More than 400,000 people were killed in the decade 2001-2010. A whopping 24% of those people weren’t even in a car! 

It should sound familiar because it’s basically copypasta for modern American infrastructure. We’ve been trained to accept massive roadway carnage as an acceptable cost of transportation. Most people shrug it off as accidents. What are you gonna do except offer thoughts and prayers.  

Private enterprise would take real and measurable steps to reverse the horrific loss of life on public roads, whether they operated in a single city or multiple states. The current one-size-fits-all mentality that turns community streets into raceways would be rejected as unsafe and unwise for communities, and by extension—bad for business. 

It’s been well-documented that modern American streets have been designed to encourage reckless driving, and essentially forbid walking or bicycling. Suburban drivers feel comfortable steering with their knees while balancing a hamburger, soda, and mobile phone. Narrow streets, wider sidewalks, smaller intersections for people to walk across, well-lit bus stops—all possible ways that private enterprise would make streets safer for people using any mode of travel. 

This is a challenging theory to prove, because we currently have no examples of truly privatized systems large enough to make meaningful comparisons. Interstate toll roads procured through design-build contracts have government influence throughout. When you hear about public-private partnerships, know that government agencies are inseparable from big business. State design standards must be maintained, government permits must be acquired, for starters. 

Saving lives—tens of thousands of lives—is not partisan politics. Privatization of roads to save lives is not a partisan proposal. It is simply a proposal. 

Outcome #2: use limited resources wisely 

Doing anything in the name of “the greater good” is a bold statement. Whose good, exactly? Every single resident of a county? A majority? A vocal minority? Even if the government had the power to provide sunny days for everyone, what about the people trying to grow gardens waiting anxiously for rain? Struggling to define the greater good is a pointless exercise. 

Many transportation projects have been initiated in the name of the greater good. Robert Moses became synonymous with urban renewal in the 20th century. Charlton Heston played a different Moses in The Ten Commandments. He raised his staff and the Red Sea parted, leaving a wide swath of dry land for the Israelites to cross. That’s probably what it was like to witness expansive highways divide communities in New York City under the staff of Robert Moses. 

Government-funded renewal projects were devised and executed as a way to help some people at the expense of others. But let’s not completely demonize Robert Moses as an individual, when it was the government system that made it possible for highways across the United States to rip cities apart, creating desolate wastelands. Planning and highway departments were operating with a seemingly endless cash supply, unbothered and unconstrained by the existing social, natural, and built environments.

In a privatized system roads would be constructed, widened, or narrowed based on market demands. Customer service would be the highest priority. The idea of “the greater good” would become measurable for transportation networks, just like with any other product or service. Residents of a particular city might see the installation of 10 new EV charging hubs “for the greater good” when their sister city across the river only has demand for one. 

Owners of roads would try to please communities, earn their business, and make a profit. Owners would be as careful as possible when using natural resources or impacting adjacent land uses. A system that values private property wouldn’t tolerate colossal environmental damage, excess water runoff to neighboring parcels, or highways shredding city centers. Prospective road owners would want to make financial investments where they saw long-term value. To use modern planning and engineering lingo, privatization promotes sustainability. 

A modern day Robert Moses Inc. would go bankrupt as a private owner/operator of public street networks if the company followed the patterns of its namesake. 

Outcome #3: freedom of choice

Publicly-run transportation has overwhelmingly favored one mode of travel for decades: the personal automobile. 

All the little details associated with a transportation network point back to moving as many vehicles as possible, as quickly as possible. The status quo system plays out at the community level in terms of wider roads that bring more traffic jams, and more dangerous conditions for people walking and bicycling. There’s virtually no consideration given for shuttles, transit, and trains. Mass transit is funded as a clunky annex that’s not at all useful for customers. 

The publicly-run system does not support freedom of modal choice because the system is not set up to meet the needs of the end user. It doesn’t matter if the customer base wants to emulate European villages where people, bikes, and cars all share space in the streets. Customers are forced to pay for a system that fits government’s definition of the greater good. 

Privatization could end discrimination against those who choose alternate modes of travel. With all the rhetoric about innovative ways to improve transportation infrastructure, it’s disappointing that this topic never gets due consideration. Privatization isn’t some fringe idea–we enjoy it daily. But to their credit, those in authority have persuaded the masses that private business has no business planning, designing, building, or operating street networks.

A profit motive, rather than a spend-up-to-the-budget-cap motive, would naturally lead transportation owner/operators to the highest ROI. You’d see private DOTs bragging about how bicycling is great for business, how delightful the commercial corridors are, how quiet the residential streets are, and maybe even how they reached Vision Zero goals for traffic safety.

How can low income families afford to use private streets?

The funding and financing topic needs its own post because there’s such a large flow chart of possibilities. But in the meantime, ask yourself how it’s possible that low income families are able to secure food, clothing, and running water. 

Don’t limit your thoughts to how transportation is paid for today.

Let’s talk!

I’m opening this post up for anyone to comment, whether you’re a subscriber or you’re new to Urbanism Speakeasy. I want to hear your thoughts. 

Why would privately owned roads be an improvement on the status quo? Why would they be worse?