In 2002, one of the nation's biggest privatized toll road projects was introduced in the state of Texas: the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) plan. From the beginning, the proposal brought forth heavy criticism from people across party lines around issues of cost, access, transparency, and accountability. All of the contracts involved in the initial development of the TTC Plan were developed and signed without public input and contained many provisions that could be detrimental to the public. Originally envisioned as a series of newly constructed highways connecting major ports, interstate highways, and rail systems, growing public opposition and fiscal constraints have slowed down the development of the TTC. However, supporters of the TTC have recently taken a piecemeal approach in order to pass key legislation that would facilitate the continued development of the TTC and other similar privatization projects.
Access
• Loss of public access to services or assets
• Uneven services and inequitable access depending upon race, class, income, gender, or other factors.
Private contractors and operators are drawn to government contracts by the potential for profit. The governmental mission of making services and assets available to the public can take a back seat in privatization deals. Equitable public access often suffers as a result of fee increases designed to boost contractors’ profits. When private companies obtain multi-decade leases on highways, and significantly raise tolls, it becomes difficult for low-income drivers to continue using the roads. Many toll road contracts even limit the government’s ability to make other roads accessible, in order to maximize traffic and therefore profits on the toll road.
Problems with access also include uneven services and inequitable access based on race, class, income, gender, or other factors. Private companies often make changes to a system that precludes certain groups of users. For example, in public benefits eligibility, a private company may encourage clients fill out an application online, allowing the company to decrease the number of case workers required for information gathering. As a result, applicants who do not have access to the internet may lose access to vital public benefits.
In some instances, privatization diminishes access for everyone. For example, in many contracts with private park operation companies, the government will stipulate that certain areas must remain open to the public but the companies may build concession areas or cafes to increase revenues. Although the space may still technically be open to the public, tables and chairs for the concession stand or café may appear to only be accessible by paying customers. This loss of public space is a result of how the public perceives its access to commercialized areas.
Related Cases
In 2005, the Bush Administration embarked on a major effort to privatize Social Security. A coordinated campaign, including a variety of organizations, was able to mobilize many people to systematically apply pressure to halt this large national privatization proposal. Ultimately, H.R. 3304 failed to reach a vote in the House and the Bush Administration had to abandon its goal of privatizing the Social Security program.
In January 2006, the state of Texas hired a private consortium headed by Accenture LLP to develop, operate, and staff Texas's eligibility and enrollment system for Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Almost immediately, problems occurred such as high call center wait times, technical issues, insufficiently trained contractor staff, delays in application processing, and improper benefit denials. Many families eligible for public benefits failed to receive the assistance they needed when they needed it. In March 2007, the state cancelled the contract.
News and Commentary