The six teams included mostly firms that had been expected to bid-though noticeably absent were industry giants Ferrovial (which may have its hands full refinancing its costly acquisition of BAA) and Fraport (which had been rumored to be seriously interested). The six that did submit qualifications are:

* Abertis/Babcock & Brown/GECAS-Abertis owns TBI which operates Albany and Burbank airports under contract, and has long-term leases for the terminals at Orlando-Sanford.
* Macquarie Capital/Macquarie Airports/Macquarie Infrastructure Partners I and II-Macquarie already has a Chicago presence via its lease of the Chicago Skyway and holds stakes in Sydney, Brussels Charleroi, Bristol (UK), and Copenhagen airports.
* Hochtief AirPort/GS Global Infrastructure Partners I-Hochtief has major stakes in Athens, Budapest, Dusseldorf, Hamburg, and Sydney airports.
* YVR (Vancouver) Airport Services/Citi Infrastructure Investors/John Hancock Life Insurance-YVR operates airports in Chile, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Canada.
* Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners/Aeroports de Paris/HMS Host-ADP owns the three major Paris airports and operates other airports in Cambodia, China, and Europe.
* AirportsAmerica Group/Carlyle Infrastructure Partners-a somewhat mysterious group about which Carlyle has declined to provide details (except, presumably, to the city of Chicago).

The city has not released a timetable, but it's likely to announce the short-list within a couple of months, along with a formal invitation for the short-listed teams to submit their bids. Lisa Schrader, the city's deputy CFO, told Aviation Daily that they expect to close the lease transaction within 9 to 12 months, after approvals from the FAA, TSA, and the City Council.

There is much speculation as to how much will be offered for the 50-year lease. In Issue No. 32 of my Airport Policy Newsletter, I expressed skepticism that the figure would be in the $3 billion range that has been mentioned in many media reports, given the airport's small land area (one square mile), limited airside capacity, and already fairly well-developed retail operations. But in recent weeks I've had several knowledgeable people suggest to me that there is more potential than meets the eye at Midway. For example, as of now, there are 1,895 weekly airline departures, but as recently as 2004 that number was 2,449-so we know that a 30% increase (at least) is possible. An attorney advising one team suggested that his team had come up with a number of creative options to maximize value at the airport. Another told me that there has been recent interest by developers in acquiring land bordering Midway, in hopes of being able to negotiate joint-development deals with the winning bidder. So while I remain somewhat skeptical, I'd be pleased to be proven wrong.

If Midway does generate significant value for the city, the lease could be as precedent-setting as the city's January 2005 lease of the Chicago Skyway. That transaction focused global attention on the United States as a new market for privatization of toll roads. But for the same thing to be possible in the airport sector would require Congress to amend the Airport Privatization Pilot Program legislation it enacted in 1996 . Although it permits four air carrier airports to be leased, only one can be a large hub, which is how Midway is categorized by the FAA. The FAA's reauthorization proposal, which was largely ignored by Congress last year, had called for liberalizing the pilot program. It would probably take active lobbying by America's mayors to open up additional large-hub privatization opportunities.

Reason Foundation's Airport Policy and Air Traffic Control Research

But it turned out the intruder was actually Police Officer Ron Jones, raiding the home for drugs. Maye had no criminal record or past. The police did not find any drugs in his home at the time, but a few days later claimed to have found small amounts of marijuana. Police found marijuana, crack cocaine residue and scales at Maye's next-door neighbor's home, but never charged that person with a crime.

Instead of the cops admitting they had the wrong part of the duplex, received bad information from an unreliable confidential informant, and that Maye was protecting his family and acting in self-defense, they charged him with capital murder. Maye was convicted and sentenced to death. Thanks in part to the reporting of Reason magazine's Radley Balko, Maye's sentence was later reduced to life in prison.

More Drew Carey Reason.tv Videos

Here’s the Reason.tv Drew Carey video on the case: Footloose in Arizona.

Reason.tv Editor Nick Gillespie’s take.

Reason’s Transportation Research

NOT.

From the "you can't make this stuff up files," the San Francisco Chronicle reports on some San Francisco parents benefiting from some dubious First Five grants.

Scores of savvy San Francisco parents have tapped a pot of taxpayer dollars for everything from children's ice skating lessons and Monterey Bay Aquarium field trips to supplies for Halloween parties and chartered buses to the Jelly Belly factory in Fairfield.

Last year, about $564 million in Prop. 10 revenue was distributed by the state and its 58 county First 5 commissions, which have wide discretion over how the money is used. San Francisco's commission receives about $9 million annually and uses $200,000 each year to fund its unique Parent Action Grants program, which began in 2001.

A sampling of the grants:

-- "Families of La Piccola Scuola Italiana" included holiday party space rental and the purchase of a Babbo Natale (Italian version of Santa Claus) costume.

Check out these "savvy" parents justification ...

While she was grateful for the grant and its positive impact, she did feel uncomfortable knowing the funding came from a cigarette tax, which is regressive.

"Even though we're well-educated enough to apply for the grant and carry it out doesn't mean we have the financial resources to do this on our own," she said. "Families that are willing to go through the process - regardless of income - should be allowed to have it."

In his book, How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, Chris Goodall answers the question this way: “It makes more sense to drive than walk, if walking means you need to eat more to replace the energy lost.” [...]

The media have already repeated Goodall’s claims, with limited or no critical analysis. The Times (U.K.) stated: “Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.”

The Pacific Institute has just released their calculations for the walk vs. drive question, and the winner in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is: it depends. (That conclusion shouldn't surprise anyone who is familiar with comparative life-cycle analyses.)

According to the Pacific Institute, Goodall's calculations compared the greenhouse gas emissions associated with one of the most energy-intensive foods (top sirloin beef produced in Japan) with greenhouse gas emissions from a gasoline-fueled car that gets ~30.3 mpg.

In a more nuanced analysis, you could think of this more like a typical energy efficiency calculation, with the overall greenhouse gas emissions by mode a factor of both the carbon-intensity of the fuel/food and the fuel economy of the machine/person. We know that most humans (at least those who have not specialized in walking to the store and back) are not all that fuel-efficient themselves--we're constantly burning calories to run non-essential functions, like cognitive processes that allow us to invent cars and drive them. We also already know that fueling cars with corn ethanol is a losing proposition, so it's not shocking that feeding corn* to beef to fuel people to walk is no silver greenhouse gas bullet, either.

What about feeding a more average diet to an average person to walk, bike (said to be the "most efficient machine on Earth"), or drive an average car under average conditions? Pacific Institute calculates that "a typical person walking 1.5 miles in the U.S. would generate less than 25% of the GHG that would be generated if that person drove the same distance." Their calculation includes interesting assumptions such as beginning the automobile trip with a cold engine and the extra caloric demands on drivers having to navigate through congested traffic. The details are important, and in this case a good read. Unfortunately Pacific Institute doesn't appear to have run the specific calculations for pedicabs, which John Tierney requested on his blog earlier this year, but they do look at milk and other food sources.

The assumptions are also revealing. Goodall makes no secret of his agenda, which is to draw attention to the carbon-intensity of meat and dairy production. Livestock are thought to be comparable to transportation in greenhouse gas emissions at a global level. Car-lovers, car-haters, vegetarians, beef-eaters, environmental do-gooders, evil-dooers, and cynics will each have their own spin on these calculations. Mine is (still) that this is just yet another justification for making sure individuals are free to make their own decisions on how to personally economize on energy- and carbon-intensive activities--and possibly that my more physically-fit friends should run errands to the store for me in the future.

(*In the Japanese beef example, the animals were fed a mix of corn, wheat, soy and alfalfa.)

FDOT is requesting sealed Statements of Qualification from proposers desiring to receive the right to lease, maintain, operate and receive toll revenues from the project known as Alligator Alley through a public-private partnership concession agreement.

The primary objective of this concession is to maximize the value of Alligator Alley to Florida for reinvestment in transportation while maintaining the project’s high safety standards, service levels and overall quality.

. . . .

FDOT is seeking a private partner that is experienced in operating and maintaining large toll roads under a concession approach and that is willing to share risks.

The successful proposer must have proven ability to arrange and close financing on favorable terms as well as demonstrated skill in managing and operating toll roads on behalf of public sector owners.

The concessionaire will be required to fund an upfront payment of rent and periodically share toll revenues with FDOT in accordance with the requirements of the public-private partnership statute, and be obligated to operate and maintain the project during the concession period.

More details are available at the project's website, www.alligator-alley.com/.

A move in Congress to limit the role of private firms in doling out food stamps is dead for now, allowing Texas to move forward with its privatization plans.

U.S. House and Senate negotiators voted late last week against including a privatization ban in a $300 billion farm bill that lawmakers hope to finish this week. The ban would have prevented states from allowing employees of private companies to interact with people who are applying for food stamps or to decide someone's eligibility.

The House included the ban in a farm bill last year in response to problems in Texas, where some families were improperly denied food stamps, Medicaid and cash assistance during a 2006 privatization test in the Austin area.

But the Senate did not put the ban in its version of the farm legislation, and negotiators from the two chambers voted to keep it out of the final bill.

More in the Austin American-Statesman.

The bad news is...there's still a farm bill coming, and it doesn't look like we're going to see any major reforms of our Depression-era farm program.

Nearly six months after its debut, San Diego County's first tollway is living up to its promise of giving harried commuters badly needed breathing room.

The privately run South Bay Expressway draws an average of 30,000 drivers each weekday, about what state transportation officials expected.

Ben Monzon of Chula Vista said the road has cut about 20 minutes off his morning drive to his Rancho Bernardo office. “And to me, time is everything,” he said.

. . . .

According to the Macquarie Infrastructure Group, the parent company of South Bay Expressway, the tollway generated an average of $54,600 in daily revenue from mid-January through March, or about $2 per vehicle. The road attracts an average of 26,500 vehicles daily, including weekends. Nearly four out of five motorists pay through FasTrak.

Greg Hulsizer, chief executive officer of South Bay Expressway, said most of the revenue goes back into tollway operations, including covering CHP patrol costs. “It's been a very good start-up,” Hulsizer said. “It's performing pretty much like we thought it would.”

What's particularly striking in the article are the early results on the congestion front:

Transportation experts say the tollway is having a noticeable ripple effect on other major roads.

According to Caltrans, the volume of morning traffic on northbound Interstate 805 in Chula Vista has dropped 11 percent in the past six months. Driving speeds average 65 mph, up from 45 mph.

“Obviously the effect on I-805 through the Chula Vista area has been very good, and that's where we expected the major benefit to be,” said Joe Hull, a Caltrans deputy district director.

He said congestion has increased, however, at two interchanges north of the tollway: at state Route 125 and state Route 94, and at Route 125 and Interstate 8 in La Mesa.

Hull said the agency may adjust the timing of the ramp meters at both interchanges to improve the flow of cars.

Frank Rivera, a civil engineer with the city of Chula Vista, said he has noticed a decline in crosstown commuter traffic since the opening of the tollway.

“The traffic doesn't back up as much as it used to,” Rivera said.

The city is conducting a detailed traffic study to assess the tollway's impact on East H Street and other major roads. The results are due in a few weeks.

I look forward to seeing the results of that study. The South Bay Expressway is one of those premier projects that demonstrates so many important things in one package: (1) you can indeed build new capacity and reduce congestion; (2) you can accellerate road development and stretch limited tax dollars through private financing and public-private partnerships (PPPs); (3) you can successfully build environmental protection and mitigation into PPP projects; and (4) highways run like businesses will focus on delivering value to customers--in this case, time savings and a state-of-the-art road. And even in an economic downturn with high gas prices, the success of the South Bay Expressway demonstrates that there's still a significant percentage of people out there willing to pay a premium for improved mobility.

For more on the South Bay Expressway, see Reason's recent interview with Greg Hulsizer, the Expressway's CEO, here. We also discuss ithe project in the recent Reason/Show-Me Institute transportation paper here (page 26).

Reason has covered the financial disaster that Provo was becoming in two reports, the latest issued last month. Through the end of its fiscal year last June 30, iProvo had lost $7.4 million, and has been on pace to lose another $2 million this current fiscal year. The system was built in 2005 with a $39.5 million loan backed guaranteed by local taxes.

Nonetheless, the sale comes as something of a surprise. Separate reports from two consulting firms issued the week after the Reason policy study urged continued city funding of iProvo, although they recommended substantial changes in organization and operations. Up to last month, Provo Mayor Lewis Billings was expressing confidence in the system and stated that the city planned to stay the course.

Billings should be commended for his reversal. He’s unloading the system while there is still value to be derived for the city as well as Broadweave. Other cities, particularly Ashland, Ore., have stubbornly held on to losing operations as growing debt drained any net value. They’ve become white elephants.

Moreover, the $40.6 million sale to Broadweave Networks demonstrates that significant investment dollars exist for fiber-optic development. The market for small-city fiber has not failed. If incumbent cable and telephone companies do not meet local demand it is apparent that other companies will step up. And Broadweave is no fly-by-night. It’s an exciting, growing local company funded by Sorenson Capital, one of Utah’s most respected venture capital firms.

That makes it all the more important for cities to pursue policies that encourage telecom infrastructure investment: franchise reform, low taxes and deregulation. These do a much better job at bringing viable broadband service that consumers actually want to buy to cities like Provo, while at the same time nurturing entrepreneurship, capital and job growth. This doesn't happen when government attempts to compete with the private sector through municipally-funded schemes.

Finally, Provo’s decision to privatize coincides with the decision by (so far) 10 of 11 other Utah communities to refinance UTOPIA, the statewide fiber-to-the-home initiative with a new 33-year bond that could end up costing $505 million. It will be interesting to see how government-provided in these cities fare compared to Provo. Chances are residents of Provo, with a private sector provider, will have better choices, better prices, better service and higher take rates in 12 months than any of the UTOPIA cities.

To return soaring food prices to earth and placate irate consumers (read: voters): India announced a temporary ban on some varieties of rice; China slapped export taxes on rice; Pakistan imposed a 35 percent duty on wheat; and Russia quadrupled wheat-export taxes to 40 percent.

But the problem with such measures is that the relief they provide will be temporary – and the pain they cause more enduring. Why? Farmers who can’t command the market price for their produce will have little incentive to invest in yield-enhancing technologies, making it much harder for food production to catch up with demand. Farmers will certainly lose out -- but so will consumers.

The only country that seems to understand this is South Africa which has refused to jump on the export-ban bandwagon. “We don’t believe banning exports will help us in the long run,” noted Lulu Xingwana, the South African agricultural minister.

Bonus:
Check out Noble laureate and Chicago econ prof Gary Becker's brilliant analysis of the Malthusian fallacies underlying the discussion of this issue here.

Critics of LRT point out that it is not theoretical capacity that is crucial, but actual ridership and the cost incurred to garner this ridership. National figures indicate that on average, LRT carries about 5,000 people per track-mile per day, while urban freeways carry over 20,000 per lane-mile per day. So, in actual numbers of people served, freeways seem to handle over four times as much traffic as LRT does.

Also, Semmens points to an excellent 2006 study by the Arizona Transportation Research Center that analyzed freeway, light rail and alternative transportation projects based on cost effectiveness: Multimodal Optimizaiton of Freeway Corridors.

"Virginians, hold on to your wallets. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and the General Assembly are looking for ways to close the large and growing transportation funding gap, and the only ideas we’re hearing in Richmond these days involve variations on the tax-hike theme. Before considering a variety of sales tax increases of 20 percent and higher, there should be a fundamental rethink of current transportation policy and planning to ensure that we’re taking advantage of every opportunity for more efficient infrastructure delivery.

Where do we start?"

You'll have to read the whole thing for the long answer, but the short answer is performance-based planning to prioritize congestion relief, more contracting for highway and bridge maintenance, and a far more aggressive pursuit of PPPs for new capacity.

See Reason's other transportation work here.