Skip to main content

Lease the Turnpikes to Transform Oklahoma’s Road Infrastructure


Oklahoma can make a game-changing improvement in the quality of its roads, highways, and other transportation infrastructure, and in short order. Here’s how.

Back in January, I proposed monetizing large state-owned assets and using the proceeds to fund long-term budgetary needs, like underfunded pensions and transportation infrastructure. A prime candidate for monetization is the turnpike system, which I proposed leasing to private investors on a long-term basis and using the substantial windfall to improve other transportation infrastructure. Other states (most notably, Indiana) have pursued this strategy to great success, with the result being not just a financial boon to road funding but also improved management and quality of the privately operated toll roads. I conservatively estimated leasing the turnpikes would generate north of a billion dollars.


A new study indicates it would probably generate more like four times that. The Reason Foundation released a study last month proposing nine states’ toll road systems as great candidates for private leasing, including Oklahoma’s. The study illustrates just how lucrative such a transaction would be to the state. Using data from similar transactions in the US and abroad (where private leasing is more common), the study estimated the “gross valuation” of Oklahoma’s turnpikes at between $4.3 billion and $6.4 billion. 


After paying off all debt (the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has inexplicably racked up extensive bonded indebtedness to continue building lightly-used toll roads to nowhere), the state would net an estimated $2.3 billion to $4.5 billion. Looking closely at the methodology, the low end estimates in this study were extremely conservative when compared to real-world transactions. The study points out that the few private toll road leases that have been put out to bid in the US in recent years have generated substantially more revenue than was estimated. So the actual figure for Oklahoma would likely be closer to the high end $4.5 billion estimate than the low end.


To put this in perspective, consider the following. Oklahoma’s “CIRB” (County Improvement for Roads and Bridges fund) has a 5-year plan that constitutes the state’s entire contribution to improving local roads and bridges, and the cost of every project on the 5-year plan totals less than $1 billion. The highest priority local road and bridge projects are on the CIRB plan, including 313 bridges and nearly 600 miles of roads. Leasing the turnpike system would fund CIRB four times over.


The Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s 8-year plan—the plan for all the critical highway and bridge projects ODOT intends to fund over the next 8 years—assumes a TOTAL expenditure of around $6 billion, including federal funds. A private lease of the turnpikes would fund nearly the entire 8-year plan, and would easily cover the state’s contribution. This is something the state could never otherwise hope to accomplish a single year, even with a massive tax increase or drastic shift in spending priorities. It would also annually free up state resources for other infrastructure projects or other spending priorities.


Leasing the turnpike system would generate massive funding for a core function of state government, improve the quality and operation of the turnpike itself for Oklahoma drivers, and offload state maintenance responsibilities. By my lights, that’s about as close to a win-win as we could hope for in state government.


Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org. 

Popular posts from this blog

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

No License, Sherlock: Licensing for Private Investigators

What does a private investigator do? Surely, we’re all familiar with various movies and shows featuring the exciting adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Magnum PI. However, reality is often disappointing, and the fact is private investigation is usually dull and relatively safe. Private investigators are tasked with conducting surveillance and fact-finding missions for their clients, but they gain no special powers to do so.  My recent paper deals with the licensing of private investigators. Oklahoma’s private investigator licenses are governed by the Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), which follows the advice of a committee made up of people who run private investigative agencies. Improved competition is not likely to be in the best interest of these agencies, so it is questionable whether they should be in a gate-keeping position they could easily turn to their advantage. Private Investigators must undergo a series of trainings and pas...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more

A Teacher Walkout Leader’s Distorted View of School Choice

The Tulsa World recently published a piece by a leader of the teacher walkout a few years ago predictably opposing Governor Stitt’s proposal to expand the Equal Opportunity Education Scholarship program. There is much to take issue with in the piece, which is full of disinformation, but perhaps the most preposterous claim is the following: You’ve probably also heard of “school choice.” The term is extremely misleading because it implies that parents don’t have a choice, when the reality is every parent already has school choice for their child. Parents can choose to send their child to a public school, private school, religious school or even home school. School choice isn’t about giving parents more options. It’s about using taxpayer dollars to give wealthy families a discount on their choice of school. (emphasis added) Try telling that to the truancy officer. The model of public education in America is that we assign every student to a government school base...
Read more