Looks like Major Moves was a shrewd move after all.

[CathyInBlue]

Failed toll road privatization leaves Indiana in driver's seat | Fox News

The Indiana Toll Road Consession Company is going bankrupt, but their contract insulates Indiana taxpayers from any liability for their inability to collect enough taxes to remain solvent. Absolute worst case, the ITR reverts to state government ownership and the state highway dept. resumes operation, with all profit going straight into the state highway fund. Regardless who ends up operating the ITR, the state keeps every penny of the up front monies paid by ITRCC for Indiana's roadway and bridge upkeep.

 

[findingZzero]

The wiley frugal uncle Mitch Daniels got it right!

 

[churchmouse]

Our man Mitch was no fool.

 

[pudly]

Wasn't this program one of the things Mitch was most criticized for? Good to see him vindicated.

I thought one of the options was interesting:

someone else will step in and buy - for perhaps pennies on the dollar - the rights to collect tolls for the next seven decades

How about this? We put together an INGO consortium, offer them 10% of the cost or so, collect revenues for the next 70 years and offer discounts for people who flash their LTCH?

 

[jedi]

Wasn't this program one of the things Mitch was most criticized for? Good to see him vindicated.

too bad most won't remember this...

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If Mitch was just a smidge taller, had better hair, and an uneventful family history, he'd be our President.

 

[The Keymaster]

Perhaps someone can help me with this one. I believe the same consortium leased the rights to the Chicago Skyway. My pea sized brain tells me that if traffic is down on the Indiana Toll Road, it must also be down on the Chicago Skyway. Yes, I understand that the toll to drive the Skyway is MUCH higher, and the stretch of road is MUCH shorter, but the end to end tolls on the Indiana Toll Road would seem to make up for that...especially when it comes to trucks. How are they making ends meet in Chicago, but not in Indiana? Perhaps mismanagement withing the corporation that runs the Indiana side?

 

[eatsnopaste]

The state also gets to approve any future buyer. Some people are still saying it was a horrible deal. This company raised tolls, stopped or slowed toll plaza maintenance yet still couldn't turn a profit BUT the state (well known for it's business acumen) should have turned down the 4Billion up front no return money to keep something that only lost money?

 

[Fred78]

Having just seen how bankruptcy really works, you fellows celebrations could possibly be premature.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I remember, back when this was rolled out, that I could not see how this was a money maker for that company. Obviously, I didn't have access to the due-diligence data the parties involved did but just from a gut feel stand point, I didn't see it.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Having just seen how bankruptcy really works, you fellows celebrations could possibly be premature.

Time will tell, you're right.

But one of the parts of the lease deal was that if they (The Consortium) couldn't hold up it's end of things -that the lease would be nullified and everything transferred back to the State of Indiana.

 

[Twangbanger]

It would be cool as hell if the State of Indiana ended up at the front of the line to buy it back at a discount, with Major Moves intact and everything back to square one. But as some mentioned, there are still some details to be worked out on how the insolvency will shake down. I suspect that like in many cases of this type, the court will make every attempt to create a safe landing area where this turns into a money-maker for somebody, likely a "private" somebody. And yes, tolls would likely be raised after the trigger period to a level that makes it profitable, and yes, the folks in N. Indiana could end up paying more. But when you balance that against the benefits to the entire state from Major Moves, it still looks like a great deal for the Citizens of Indiana.

One thing I'd like to point out, for those of you "Republicans are the Same as Democrats" types: this deal NEVER COULD HAVE HAPPENED under a Democratic Governor, because the Democrats are so beholden to their state employee constituency. Remember that, next time you are driving over your improved highways and interchanges, and hear Democrats crowing on the radio about the "need to improve our infrastructure." What they really mean is, do it in a way that benefits our Union Contractor Campaign Donors, who will recycle that money back into the Dem. party...any other way - not gonna happen. (Incidentally, I suspect this is a major component to the opposition to Right to Work: the Union Shops can no longer essentially be assured of getting all those contracts).

You can have a reasoned debate with points on both sides about whether the specifics of this deal were good or not. But that entire discussion would have been completely shut down & non-existent with a Democrat in charge. (That shriveled hag Ann-whatserface on Indiana Politics is not going to tell you that).

 

[KLB]

It would be cool as hell if the State of Indiana ended up at the front of the line to buy it back at a discount, with Major Moves intact and everything back to square one. But as some mentioned, there are still some details to be worked out on how the insolvency will shake down. I suspect that like in many cases of this type, the court will make every attempt to create a safe landing area where this turns into a money-maker for somebody, likely a "private" somebody. And yes, tolls would likely be raised after the trigger period to a level that makes it profitable, and yes, the folks in N. Indiana could end up paying more. But when you balance that against the benefits to the entire state from Major Moves, it still looks like a great deal for the Citizens of Indiana.

One thing I'd like to point out, for those of you "Republicans are the Same as Democrats" types: this deal NEVER COULD HAVE HAPPENED under a Democratic Governor, because the Democrats are so beholden to their state employee constituency. Remember that, next time you are driving over your improved highways and interchanges, and hear Democrats crowing on the radio about the "need to improve our infrastructure." What they really mean is, do it in a way that benefits our Union Contractor Campaign Donors, who will recycle that money back into the Dem. party...any other way - not gonna happen. (Incidentally, I suspect this is a major component to the opposition to Right to Work: the Union Shops can no longer essentially be assured of getting all those contracts).

You can have a reasoned debate with points on both sides about whether the specifics of this deal were good or not. But that entire discussion would have been completely shut down & non-existent with a Democrat in charge. (That shriveled hag Ann-whatserface on Indiana Politics is not going to tell you that).

So, it is OK for the citizens in the North of the state to get screwed since it benefits those in the rest of the state? That sounds familiar.

 

[KLB]

Perhaps someone can help me with this one. I believe the same consortium leased the rights to the Chicago Skyway. My pea sized brain tells me that if traffic is down on the Indiana Toll Road, it must also be down on the Chicago Skyway. Yes, I understand that the toll to drive the Skyway is MUCH higher, and the stretch of road is MUCH shorter, but the end to end tolls on the Indiana Toll Road would seem to make up for that...especially when it comes to trucks. How are they making ends meet in Chicago, but not in Indiana? Perhaps mismanagement withing the corporation that runs the Indiana side?

A good question overall. I can tell you that the Skyway has raised rates a lot more than the ITR has. I used to drive both, but the cost got to be too much.

One thing that has hurt both is the construction that was completed on 94 in NWI. Traffic is able to travel much better on 94 now, which removes one of the big reasons for taking the toll-roads. It takes me about 10 minutes longer to take 94 now, which is worth saving the $5 each way I would spend on the toll roads.

 

[The Keymaster]

A good question overall. I can tell you that the Skyway has raised rates a lot more than the ITR has. I used to drive both, but the cost got to be too much.

One thing that has hurt both is the construction that was completed on 94 in NWI. Traffic is able to travel much better on 94 now, which removes one of the big reasons for taking the toll-roads. It takes me about 10 minutes longer to take 94 now, which is worth saving the $5 each way I would spend on the toll roads.

Yep, I switched to 94 in January of 2012 when the Skyway went to 4 bucks. It is an additional 6 miles each way, but it still makes sense financially. I used to drive to and from Chicago 5 days a week, and that was a lot of money. I only go to the office 2 days a week now. I know the Skyway deal was done a couple of years before the Toll Road. Maybe the financing terms were better at that time.

 

[hooky]

It would be cool as hell if the State of Indiana ended up at the front of the line to buy it back at a discount, with Major Moves intact and everything back to square one. But as some mentioned, there are still some details to be worked out on how the insolvency will shake down. I suspect that like in many cases of this type, the court will make every attempt to create a safe landing area where this turns into a money-maker for somebody, likely a "private" somebody. And yes, tolls would likely be raised after the trigger period to a level that makes it profitable, and yes, the folks in N. Indiana could end up paying more. But when you balance that against the benefits to the entire state from Major Moves, it still looks like a great deal for the Citizens of Indiana.

One thing I'd like to point out, for those of you "Republicans are the Same as Democrats" types: this deal NEVER COULD HAVE HAPPENED under a Democratic Governor, because the Democrats are so beholden to their state employee constituency. Remember that, next time you are driving over your improved highways and interchanges, and hear Democrats crowing on the radio about the "need to improve our infrastructure." What they really mean is, do it in a way that benefits our Union Contractor Campaign Donors, who will recycle that money back into the Dem. party...any other way - not gonna happen. (Incidentally, I suspect this is a major component to the opposition to Right to Work: the Union Shops can no longer essentially be assured of getting all those contracts).

You can have a reasoned debate with points on both sides about whether the specifics of this deal were good or not. But that entire discussion would have been completely shut down & non-existent with a Democrat in charge. (That shriveled hag Ann-whatserface on Indiana Politics is not going to tell you that).

Just a point of clarification, there is nothing to "buy back" as their was nothing sold. It was a lease.

 

[MadBomber]

The wiley frugal uncle Mitch Daniels got it right!

Our man Mitch was no fool.

Wasn't this program one of the things Mitch was most criticized for? Good to see him vindicated.

I thought one of the options was interesting:

How about this? We put together an INGO consortium, offer them 10% of the cost or so, collect revenues for the next 70 years and offer discounts for people who flash their LTCH?

too bad most won't remember this...

If Mitch was just a smidge taller, had better hair, and an uneventful family history, he'd be our President.

 

[bwframe]

If Mitch was just a smidge taller, had better hair, and an uneventful family history, he'd be our President.

Agreed. Nothin' in the way of him being a solid and productive VP though. The standards have been lowered for both positions.

 

[Twangbanger]

Just a point of clarification, there is nothing to "buy back" as their was nothing sold. It was a lease.

Good point, I slipped up there.

There seems to be general consensus Mitch put his foot right on this.