MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059813853 · doi:10.1080/01944360903329295

Delivering Transportation Infrastructure Through Public-Private Partnerships: Planning Concerns

2009· article· en· W2059813853 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Planning Association · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)BusinessTollFinancePublic infrastructurePrivate sectorIntegrated project deliveryGovernment (linguistics)Transportation planningProject financeProject sponsorshipFlexibility (engineering)Public administrationPublic–private partnershipPublic sectorPoliticsGeneral partnershipEconomicsProject planningProject managementEconomic growthTransport engineeringEngineeringPolitical scienceManagementProject charter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem: The types of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in which private sector partners take on increased responsibility for project design, construction, financing, and operation have become popular in the United States and around the world as means of delivering large-scale transportation infrastructure. However, it is unclear what implications this model of project delivery has for planning theory and practice as distinct from public policy more generally. Purpose: I aim to develop a set of criteria on which to evaluate the procedural, spatial, design, public policy, and political implications of these PPPs from a planning perspective, and then to examine whether their proposed benefits are matched by real-world experiences. Methods: I examine in depth three case studies of transportation projects delivered through such PPPs: the Croydon Tramlink in London, UK; the State Route 91 toll lanes in Orange County, CA; and the Cross City Tunnel in Sydney, Australia. Results and conclusions: The short-term and long-term impacts of such PPPs on infrastructure project delivery were different. In the short term, the model was effective at raising funds for new facilities and transferring financial risks to the private sector, but its limited transparency minimized meaningful community engagement in project planning. Over the longer term, noncompetition clauses in the concession agreements restricted government flexibility to respond to changing conditions, lawsuits were common as relationships between the partners deteriorated, and all three concessions were ultimately sold under duress, two to public sector agencies. Takeaway for practice: These PPPs profoundly affected the planning processes for public infrastructure and the outcomes achieved once such facilities were operational. This research identifies the need for new ex ante evaluation tools, risk transfer mechanisms, community engagement processes, and data tracking and performance monitoring procedures, to prevent negative consequences from transportation PPPs. Research support: None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it