Urban Transportation Public–Private Partnerships: Drivers of Uneven Development?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Around the world, public–private partnerships (PPPs) have been widely promoted as a model to expand the provision of critical urban transportation infrastructure. This paper examines the extent to which PPPs have actually been used to deliver urban transportation infrastructure, and whether this model of project delivery has redressed historically uneven patterns of global infrastructure investment. Through an analysis of over 950 transportation PPPs worldwide over the past quarter century, it is shown that only one third were projects built in urban areas. Of these urban projects, PPPs have been concentrated in the largest and wealthiest cities in a small number of countries, largely supported road projects rather than public transit, and been an unstable source of funding during periods of economic volatility. These uneven patterns of project development are explained by three interrelated factors: overlapping jurisdictions in urban governance, project risk profiles, and market interest. The paper concludes by reflecting on the theoretical and policy implications of these findings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it