Only private citizens and corporations can legitimately own anything. The government has no business in the transportation industry, nor does it have any business in communications, healthcare, nutrition, or any other area outside of protecting our individual political rights. Only 100% privatization of so-called public infrastructure will resolve this conflict.
To answer the question, government shouldn't have any burden because it should have basically no spending. The miniscule responsibilities it does legitimately have are not that expensive and could be made up by voluntary contributions. Obviously investors would benefit and so would every consumer of the services in question, since the revenue would stay in the hands of private individuals rather than be forcefully taken by governmental authority.
100% privatization. NOW.
I agree to letting banks and private lenders buy transportation infrastructure, because it will allow banks and investors to personalize many of the services infrastructures that are provided by states and government. By personalizing services, there will be increased quality. Government and states should still monitor these items to ensure standards and a minimum quality.
Permitting banks or other private firms to buy transportation infrastructure will ease the burden government feels with its finances. It is an immediate solution to debt. It would also benefit the investors as they will undoubtedly make money off of the purchase or lease as transportation will always be necessary in society. The general public may benefit, especially in the beginning, when the investors put money in to transportation, which may better the quality of buses and subways.
Having our roads and other transportation structures under the care of the government has been a complete failure. The government is too powerful. They don't fear the public. Companies do. They want to make the public happy, because it's their goods and services that the average Joe will be purchasing. The upkeep of these structures will be done quickly and with very little disruption to the public. Plus, consider all the money that would be saved by taxpayers. That's one less headache for the government to deal with.
Privatizing transportation infrastructure will only burden the general public. Costs of maintenance would immediately increase, because there would be profits to be made, board members to please, and bonuses to hand out. The only corporations that could afford to buy or lease certain infrastructures are the ones already running on shady business ethics, and possess total lack of care for the general public.
Private firms and banks invariably want positive returns for their investments. While some may have long-term goals, their investors and stockholders want results that they can see on the bottom line now. Money will be quickly infused into the economy to improve and expand the infrastructure that all agree needs to be repaired, upgraded, and modernized. Private organizations will work to maximize their investments with necessary improvements, and not just dump money into a project that may only reflect a political decision.
There are certain things such as schools, hospitals and public transportation, that are best financed by the public or non-profit institutions. Citizens of a country should share the cost, via taxes and basic government institutions of society that make a decent and safe life for people. When these kinds of structures are owned and run for profit, then motivation to keep costs down, using cheap materials or offering fewer services is prioritized over the public good and the view of what will make a country stronger economically. When one compares transportation infrastructure in a country like the United Kingdom, where much has been privatized, to Germany, where it has stayed in the public sector, one can see that the latter has not only a much better transportation system, but a stronger economy unharmed by the costs of supporting the infrastructure.
Permitting banks and private firms to buy or lease transportation infrastructure would ease government burdens and benefit investors and the general public because it's a sure thing to make money. Private owners could be required to give the government a cut of their profits, thereby decreasing the national deficit. The conditions of our roads is just getting worse and worse because the government doesn't have enough money to allocate toward fixing them. Private owners won't have to go through all that red tape to get things fixed. Corporately owned highways and bridges is a good solution to our crumbling infrastructure.
There is nothing wrong with private firms and banks helping public infrastructure, but it should never take it over. Private firms and banks' main objective is profit, and great public transportation methods that work well for the public may become too pricey for those who want to use it, because of profit issues.
Buying or leasing means owning, and owning would give them the right to do whatever they see fit for the benefit of themselves and their property. History has shown us that we cannot trust the welfare of the general public to a few rich people. Besides, transportation infrastructure belongs to the collective public. No one person or entity should own it.
The Great American Streetcar Scandal is an example of the privatization of public transportation seriously diminishing the effectiveness of public transportation. GM was convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses, after they bought and took down trolleys and rail lines in major cities. Some people believe they took this action to increase automobile sales.
I do not think that private companies or investors should be allowed to purchase government infrastructure assets. History shows that most privately owned roads and bridges end up charging a toll in order to maintain themselves. In a country so dependent on long-range transportation of goods and so accustomed to inexpensive freedom of transit from state to state, increased transit costs would dramatically impact the price of goods and decrease travel for business and pleasure.
If you hear someone arguing that the government works better than business does, or that business works better, you are listening to a fool. Government and business are both needed, because each does some things better than private businesses can. When it comes to ownership of transportation infrastructure, there is a clear case that the government is the better choice. The reason for this is that transportation infrastructure tends to be something close to a monopoly: there generally is only a single road along a given route. Handing monopolies to private industry is a very poor idea. What can be done, however, is to contract out certain services related to maintenance of the infrastructure. Private industry can compete for those contracts, and it is this competition that could result in simultaneous benefit to investors, government, and the public.
I have seen corruption and witnessed the public not served properly in Chicago when they adopted a policy of private firms taking over control of the parking meters exclusively around the city in the last 2 years. At $2.00 an hour now for parking, the local neighborhoods are not visitor friendly any more. People who used to park downtown are now taking buses and trains because of the high cost. I would say there should be no privatizing or big bank involvement because the public will not be served.
With the housing market the way it is partly in thanks to banks and their bad investments and decisions, Bank of America and others are getting in trouble for their poor use of money, our money that they do with what they please.