Should Transportation Systems Be Public Or Private?

In light of the recent sequester in Washington, I thought it might be interesting to think a little about the relationship between transportation systems and public policy. To what extent should the government manage and fund the design, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems? In one sense, it is a very philosophical topic, but it is also inescapably tied to the practical.

Let’s be clear right up front. I think many people, myself included, often fall into believing the idea that “private transportation system” means “cars” while “public transportation system” means “trains and subways.” This is not correct. For example, although the cars themselves are privately owned, the interstate highway system is most definitely a public roadway network, while much of the tracks that make up the Northeast Corridor are owned by the private, albeit heavily subsidized, company Amtrak.

The very nature of Amtrak as a publically-funded, for-profit corporation brings to light another interesting fact related to our topic – namely that in the vast majority of cases, transportation systems are not strictly “public” or “private,” but rather some combination of the two. The question, then, is truly not, “Should the government be involved in the transportation sector?”, but rather, “To what extent should the government be involved in the transportation sector?” What role should the government play? What should be its responsibilities? Hard to definitively answer – but interesting to think about.

The question of public vs. private is especially interesting due to recent events in Washington. Congress, along with the American people as a whole, is very much divided on the issue of the role of government, especially in the areas of economic and fiscal policy. As alluded to above, the recent standoff between conservatives and liberals regarding government spending and taxation lead to the budget cuts known as the sequester. In addition, as one ASCE blogger points out, “Congress will need to pass another continuing resolution (CR) before March 27 to keep the federal government funded.” Although this bill will almost certainly be passed, it is unclear what provisions it will contain with regard to new or maintained government spending on transportation. On top of all this, the federal government is expected to reach its debt ceiling (again!) by May of this year.

What does all of this have to do with transportation systems? Very simply, it takes a lot of money to construct and maintain a transportation system. At this point in time, the US federal government does not have a lot of money to spend on, well, anything really.

So we’re confronted with this problem, and several solutions present themselves.

  • Option 1: Enlarge the role of the federal government. Increase centralized planning, raise taxes, and encourage certain modes of transportation over others as a way to shape the future of the transportation system.
  • Option 2: Give the states more power over their respective transportation systems. (Note: This is similar to our current system.) Or, go even further and give more power to local authorities.
  • Option 3: Privatize the transportation system. Encourage companies to construct new infrastructure or take over responsibility for existing infrastructure using financial incentives or by decreasing existing regulations.
  • Option 4: Push Public-Private Partnerships. Invest in the development of a publically-subsidized, privately-run transportation system. The degree of privatization can vary to meet the needs of the area.

Each of these options has pro’s and con’s. In general, they are tied to the two extremes of entirely public vs. fully private.

An entirely public system gets its strength from its centralization. The government has (at least the potential for) more capital than private firms, and can therefore invest in large projects designed to meet future needs. In addition, it can more easily obtain the land needed for a project through the use of eminent domain. The government can also plan a uniform system for a large area, and is more able to plan around needs, rather than practically limiting constraints.

Despite all of its advantages, public systems have their fair share of problems. Government-managed programs are notoriously slow and not especially cost-effective. Because of the high levels of bureaucracy often present in government projects and the lack of financial pressure, there is often a lack of challenging, defined goals, insightful and revolutionary ideas, and visionary leadership. In a sense, too much oversight breeds a lack of effective oversight.

Private systems have their own challenges and drawbacks. Transportation systems, by their nature, call for extensive organizational and technological unity. If a transportation system is too decentralized, without any major players, it cannot adequately perform its primary function of effectively moving people and goods from point to point. For example, think of medieval Germany, where a trip up the Rhine involved stopping every few miles to pay a toll to some feudal lord (robber baron) in return for the right to pass through his section of river. Or, consider the many cases in which two transportation systems are geographically very close, but not connected due to poor planning and a lack of oversight. Increased financial concerns also mean that private companies may be hesitant to take on projects that are necessary to society, but may not be able to generate enough revenue to be self-sustaining or profitable. In addition, critics suggest that lack of government oversight may result in the endangerment of public welfare due to the implementation of cost-cutting measures.

Despite these drawbacks, private systems have a host of advantages over public ones. A private company’s efficiency in managing financial resources, manpower, and project time-scales is probably the greatest advantage of such an enterprise over its public counterpart. In addition, although the government has vast resources available to it for large-scale planning, private firms are generally more in-tune to the actual needs of society because they closely monitor the market, which is a rather good indicator of society’s needs and/or wants. While the government may have “experts” that can make recommendations (be they good or not) about what will be good for society as a whole and in the long run, for-profit companies do an excellent job at determining what society wants, and meeting that desire. Plus, as an added bonus, taxes decrease.

In many cases, the best option is to blend the two extremes of public and private. The exact organization can be determined on a case-by-case basis in order to maximize the benefits of each, while avoiding the drawbacks. Public-Private Partnerships may take a variety of forms. The system organization used perhaps most commonly in the US features government-subsidized companies responsible for system maintenance and operation. For example, many train, subway, and bus systems are operated by heavily-subsidized for-profit companies. However, in other cases, political opposition prevents the implementation of such systems. For example, efforts to turn control of the Pennsylvania Turnpike over to a private company failed when it was revealed that the company being considered (because it had the most competitive bid) was foreign-based.

All told, the question of public vs. private is not an easy one. Many complex factors are involved, both practical and philosophical. However, it is a question that demands an answer one way or another. If no answer is intentionally and specifically given by society, the government, and private companies, the result will be the continuation of the status quo. Fortunately, in our society, we as citizens and consumers have a say in deciding the future of our transportation system. So, if you want to change something, work to make it happen.






852 thoughts on “Should Transportation Systems Be Public Or Private?

  1. I found this post incredibly detailed and insightful. There is very little for me to add to this great analysis on the topic of public vs. private transportation policy. I agree that public systems are slower and perhaps more expensive than private transportation. I also agree that public systems have the potential to be more unified and meet future needs. One of the most vital points that you made is that, in an more privatized system, it is likely that smaller roads in less populated areas would be overlooked. While they are important to that area, they would not generate enough revenue to be a valuable investment for a private firm. How could we overcome this huge drawback of private transportation? Your idea was to use a mix of public and private to manage and develop these systems. I think this has potential and I wonder what you think the private role should be. Since it is unlikely they would work on underused but necessary roads, would the public sector develop and manage them or would it pay the private sector to do so. If they are paid a set income to manage the road, the private firm probably would not maintain it as well unless it is supervised, but it would be better than tolls on such a road. I agree that this is a complicated, but necessary issue to address and was definitely interested in your post.

  2. I also agree on the slow and often inefficient nature of publicly controlled systems, and that is my predominant reason for leaning towards the privatization of the US transportation network side of things. If the current transportation system is any indicator, it seems like a change is in order. I wouldn’t exactly say that our transportation system is very organized or even logical sometimes, and I think that the nature of a publicly controlled system inhibits innovation and ingenuity. These are the two things that I think it would take to improve current transportation issues. A private industry has incentive to develop new technologies to get ahead of the game and continue to make money; I’d say people like money, and I’d also say that government red tape is excessive and an achilles heel to the US. Therefore, privatize! But I also dont know a lot of things and people are often unpredictable, so maybe I’m wrong.

  3. The question of what to do about smaller roads is a difficult one. It seems like a public-private partnership would be a good option here. However, I’m not quite sure what exactly that would look like. A potential option (I’m not sure what my opinion on it is yet) would be to use toll money collected from other, more heavily trafficked roads to pay for the maintenance of the small roads. They have done this with the PA turnpike tolls. Or, you could make the maintenance of a small road the responsibility of a particular company as part of a larger contract.

  4. Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all people you actually recognize what you are speaking approximately!
    Bookmarked. Please additionally consult with my
    website =). We may have a hyperlink trade contract among us

    • Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with you. Although the cars themselves are privately owned, the interstate system is definitely a public road network, while most of the tracks that make up the Northeast Corridor are owned by the private, albeit heavily subsidized, Amtrak. I was able to gather this information from informative posts on Instagram in which the authors talk about the transport system of America. I saw more than a dozen posts of this nature there and noticed that in most cases such posts gained about 63 thousand likes! I am sure this is because their authors used the services of to increase their number.

  5. An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing slightly analysis on this. And he in reality purchased me breakfast as a result of I found it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to debate this, I really feel strongly about it and love studying more on this topic. If potential, as you become experience, would you thoughts updating your blog with more particulars? It is highly useful for me. Big thumb up for this blog submit!

  6. I idea it might be interesting to assume a little approximately the connection between transportation structures and public coverage. To what volume have to the authorities control and fund the layout, operation, and maintenance of transportation structures? In one feel, it is a totally philosophical topic, but it is also inescapably tied to the practical. Assignment writing UK

  7. Simfoni’s Spend Analytics solution is a new breed of Machine Learning enabled Spend Analytics Tool. Virtuosi™ Analytics – built for procurement professionals, by procurement professionals is the tool used by Spend Analysis Consulting specialists at Simfoni. Contact Simfoni today to know more about how Simfoni’s technology and processes can help your organization achieve world-class Spend Analytics, Savings Tracking & Tail Spend Management Solutions

  8. That is very interesting, You are an overly professional blogger.
    I have joined your feed and stay up for looking for extra of
    your excellent post. Additionally, I’ve shared your web site in my social networks

    • saba-tile
      صبا کاشی
      یکی از پرکاربردترین مصالحی که در ساختمان‌سازی از آن استفاده می‌شود کاشی و سرامیک است که خود انواع متعددی دارد و در قسمت‌های مختلف یک ساختمان ازجمله آشپزخانه، حمام و سرویس بهداشتی، حیاط، پارکینگ و حتی نمای ساختمان، گلخانه و حوض‌های

      تزئینی کاربرد دارند.

  9. Your website is so cool. Thank you for sharing a superb informations. I am impressed by the details that you have on this blog.
    I have one question, how do i get more information about this topic?

  10. adalah sebuah situs download film dan nonton film yang dikembangkan oleh perusahaan layarkaca21 dan dianungi oleh beberapa situs streaming film lainnya seperti INDOXXI LK21 DUNIA21 dan lain-lain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *