Most highway PPPs in the United States, with the significant exception of a few projects that receive availability payments in Florida, Colorado, and Massachusetts, derive their revenue from tolls.11
This raises a frequent criticism of PPPs in terms of their impact on different income segments. For example, a common complaint against HOT lanes built under PPPs is that they are "Lexus lanes." More generally, the argument is that toll roads are unfair to lower-income users. This is an argument for rationing (by congestion) and against a market solution.
In fact, there are several ways in which lower-income users benefit from the existence of new or improved toll roads. First, these roads divert some users from the original roads to the toll highways, thus reducing congestion in the remaining roads. Second, whenever there is an urgent need for rapid transportation, there is the option of paying for it, which must be better than not having the option. Tird, those who benefit most directly from the new or improved highway pay for it, so the burden does not fall on other users of the road system. Finally, even in the case of HOT lanes, there is little evidence for a preponderance of expensive cars among users. A study of the SR-167 HOT lanes showed that the most common makes of car using the lanes were Ford, Chevrolet/GMC, Toyota, Honda, and Dodge..
The case of leases, where there is temporary transfer of property but no improvement to the facility, is different and cannot be of justified on distributional grounds. Usually, as part of the lease user fees are allowed to rise after the contract is signed and users end up paying more without the benefits of new infrastructure. Unless the proceeds from the lease are used to invest in socially productive projects, the government will overspend and "mortgage its future." In terms of public policy as well as to avoid hostile public reactions, it is wise to explain the benefits of new or improved toll roads to the public. For example, he Commonwealth of Virginia, specifically the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department of Rail and Public Transportation, developed an extensive public outreach and public information campaign to inform the public of the project's purpose and benefits when it introduced HOT lanes. This campaign changed the perception of the public, initially 75 percent against the introduction of HOT lanes, to a 65 percent approval rate. This change was accomplished by clearly explaining the project benefits to users: new travel choices e.g., dedicated HOT lanes), first-capacity enhancement of the Beltway in a generation, congestion relief, improved safety and performance, and replacement of aging infrastructure.12
Summing up, some of the arguments in favor of PPPs have little merit, while others are valid. Thus, PPPs provide better incentives for adequate maintenance relative to public provision. PPPs also help governments avoid the temptation of charging inefficiently low user fees. Bringing in the private sector has not done a good job of filtering waste, possibly because high demand uncertainty has facilitated opportunistic behavior by various agents promoting this organizational form. PPPs often have beneficial distributional impact when they involve new infrastructure or a major improvement of existing infrastructure, as long as they are financed with user fees, since those who do not use the project do not pay for it but may benefit from less congestion on free alternatives. Finally, contrary to widespread belief, PPPs do not relieve strained budgets: they just change the timing of revenues and disbursement.