Traditionally, infrastructure in the United States including bridges, highways, electrical grids and water systems has been controlled by city and state governments. States and cities maintain the infrastructure through money obtained from tolls and usage fees. However, with increasing frequency, governments. Are selling or leasing the infrastructure and the right to collect revenue from private companies. Supporters of privatization of infrastructure argue that it can result in several benefits. First, by selling infrastructure, city or state governments can quickly raise large amounts of money. For example, the city of Chicago made 2 billion dollars by leasing the Chicago Skyway, a toll road, to a private company for 99 years. The money from the lease allowed Chicago to immediately address issues that would have otherwise gone unfunded, from balancing the budget to improving public schools, Second, private companies will maintain the condition of infrastructure better than cities or states do. City and state politicians tend to spend tax money on projects that will get them votes. Building new things or supporting new services is more attractive to voters than the almost invisible maintenance of infrastructure, like bridge or water system repair, which is why city-or state-owned infrastructure is often poorly maintained. Private operators, however, are in the business of running the infrastructure successfully, so it is in their best interest to maintain the long-term health of the infrastructure. Third, private firms are likely to introduce new technologies that will make infrastructure operate better and more efficiently Private companies have in interest in making the financial investment in new technologies that will ultimately pay off with cost-saving efficiencies, and hence profit. Government bureaucracies have no such incentive, and as a result, many new technologies go unimplemented.