If user fees go into effect I'm done

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:09:16 -0500, "Blueskies"
wrote in
:

I should have said govment provided service, rather than 'free', but that is the same as saying that you would
rather only ride on toll roads, rather than the freeways we have today. Some things are best as a govment service
because private providers will only do things that satisfy the profit motive.


http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_R...%20by%20JJ.htm
OOIDA has been very vocal in its opposition to auctioning off the
interstate system. For example, the Association took a strong stance
against the 75-year lease of the Indiana Toll Road. The Association is
also lobbying hard in other states where privatization is being
considered, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ighwaymen.html
The deal to privatize the Toll Road had been almost a year in the
making. Proponents celebrated it as a no-pain, all-gain way to
off-load maintenance expenses and mobilize new highway-building funds
without raising taxes. Opponents lambasted it as a major turn toward
handing the nation's common property over to private firms, and at
fire-sale prices to boot.

The one thing everyone agreed on was that the Indiana deal was just a
prelude to a host of such efforts to come. Across the nation, there is
now talk of privatizing everything from the New York Thruway to the
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey turnpikes, as well as of inviting
the private sector to build and operate highways and bridges from
Alabama to Alaska. More than 20 states have enacted legislation
allowing public-private partnerships, or P3s, to run highways. Robert
Poole, the founder of the libertarian Reason Foundation and a longtime
privatization advocate, estimates that some $25 billion in
public-private highway deals are in the works—a remarkable figure
given that as of 1991, the total cost of the interstate highway system
was estimated at $128.9 billion.