by fishingrampa

NO. SB448 will set up the really bad idea of public-private partnership to construct and operate transportation toll facilities.

Sect 15 of this bill would allow taking, by eminent domain laws, private property for a private person to construct and operate a  “transportation facility”.  The supreme court has already ruled that eminent domain cannot be used to take private property in this manner.

It would also allow commingled and mutual financing of the “transportation facility”.
If an investor cannot raise the capital or the property for a project we should not risk tax money on the project.  We are not New Jersey,  we should not be allowing private ownership of “transportation facilities”.

Sections 9 and 15 talk of establishing and collecting TOLLS.  We are not New Jersey we should not be having TOLL roads operated by private companies. Section 17 removes toll roads and toll bridges from the excluded definitions, in other words they are now included in the accepted facilities.

Here is the list of “transportation facilities in and added to the law:

Sec. 17. NRS 338.161 is hereby amended to read as follows: 338.161 [As used in NRS 338.161 to 338.168, inclusive, unless  the context otherwise requires,] “Transportation facility” means a facility, including an existing, enhanced  improved, expanded, extended, upgraded or new facility that is:

1. Used or useful for the safe transport of persons information or goods via one or more modes of transport, whether involving a highway, road, railroad, bridge, tunnel, overpass, airport, mass transit [facility,] monorail, bus system, guided rapid transit, fixed guideway, ferry, vessel, intermodal or multimodal system or any other mode of transport, including a mode that uses autonomous technology; or

2. Related or ancillary to, or used or useful to provide, operate, maintain or generate revenue for, a facility identified in subsection 1, including, without limitation, an administrative  building and other buildings, a parking facility [for vehicles] or similar commercial facility [used for the support of or the transportation of persons or goods, including, without limitation,] ,rest area, maintenance yard, rail yard, port of entry, storage facility, vehicle, rolling stock, control system, communications system, information system, energy system and any other related equipment or property [that is needed to operate the facility.] The term [does not include a toll bridge or toll road.] includes and necessary rights-of-way.

I think I smell a rat.  This bill sets up the new Highway 11 or Harry’s railroad to be private operations funded by your tax dollars.

Philosophically, any bill that is 17 pages long is to be suspect and any bill that (as this bill does) more than doubles the size of the existing law is by default a bad idea.  This bill proves this beyond any doubt.

by peter5427

What’s the point of this bill? I know of no toll roads or bridges or tunnels in this area, but I don’t get out much.

Freeways are named that way for a reason. I don’t see I-11 set up that way. I think federal law prohibits turning a freeway into a toll road. Back east they call them “turnpikes” when you have to pay a toll.

What roads, etc. are they proposing to turn into a toll operation? Who would be the private operator? You bet you smell a rat.

by fishingrampa

Considering the lengthy list of new eligible facilities I don’t think they want us to know what they are talking about.  This bill goes on and on about financing and constructing so it is a setup for a future project.  That is why I suspect U.S.11 or the train to LA.  I don’t know about federal law disallowing toll roads but with the expense of U.S. 11 and its intended use as a commercial (trucking) route I suggest it will be a pay to play at least for truckers.