3 ms·

It's worth noting that public-private-partnerships can lead to some perverse situations that are pretty antithetical to democratically-led governance. Companie

It's worth noting that public-private-partnerships can lead to some perverse situations that are pretty antithetical to democratically-led governance. Companies that build the infrastructure typically have expectations around revenues in the long run. Very frequently there are provisions built in that prevent governments from turning around and building other infrastructure that competes with the privately operated infrastructure. Imagine a civil engineering firm builds a new highway funded by tolls. Now imagine 20 years from now, the city wants to build a transit link because the highway is at capacity and the government wants to shift travel to more ecological / efficient modes. What happens when the tollway operator hires some travel forecasters that show the new transit link cutting into their toll revenues? You end up in a strange circumstance where you're no longer just doing transportation planning balancing the desires of the citizens, the funding, and the technical challenges of transportation... you're now balancing all those things plus the business interests who are less interested in fixing transportation than they are interested in maintaining their maximum toll revenues. P3 infrastructure projects have many good aspects, but they have some really gnarly downsides as well.

mlindner 8y ago
If it's so profitable then why didn't any other companies set up a competing line in the first place? The perversion happened long ago if the city prevented any competition from stepping in before the city finally decided to move. In general companies are faster movers than governments in these types of things. If that didn't happen then something prevented them from being able to do so. The corrupted politicians are to blame here for blocking other companies from competing, not the business.
- peatmoss 8y ago
  Generally cities prevent people from building infrastructure willy nilly. Buldozing houses or seizing public land for a new highway isn’t something that companies are allowed to do... I’d posit for good reason. Typically P3 agreements are initiated by government and promised revenue exclusivity is the incentive to build.
- cornholio 8y ago
  The private sector is not a fast mover in infrastructure. It's the prototype public good, where the gains are vastly redistributed to society rather than being easy to isolate into a transaction. A road not only reduces your travel time from point A to B, a service worth $C to you. But also enables economic activity along it's path, makes it possible for you to get a job in B in the first place, etc. and all these are worth a large multiple (N * $C) for which nobody can be charged. The net effect is that there is drastic under-investment from the private sector compared to the needs or the economic potential of a society with good infrastructure.

mlindner 8y ago

If it's so profitable then why didn't any other companies set up a competing line in the first place? The perversion happened long ago if the city prevented any competition from stepping in before the city finally decided to move. In general companies are faster movers than governments in these types of things. If that didn't happen then something prevented them from being able to do so. The corrupted politicians are to blame here for blocking other companies from competing, not the business.

peatmoss 8y ago
Generally cities prevent people from building infrastructure willy nilly. Buldozing houses or seizing public land for a new highway isn’t something that companies are allowed to do... I’d posit for good reason. Typically P3 agreements are initiated by government and promised revenue exclusivity is the incentive to build.
cornholio 8y ago
The private sector is not a fast mover in infrastructure. It's the prototype public good, where the gains are vastly redistributed to society rather than being easy to isolate into a transaction. A road not only reduces your travel time from point A to B, a service worth $C to you. But also enables economic activity along it's path, makes it possible for you to get a job in B in the first place, etc. and all these are worth a large multiple (N * $C) for which nobody can be charged. The net effect is that there is drastic under-investment from the private sector compared to the needs or the economic potential of a society with good infrastructure.