The Trade-Offs of Transferring Demand Risk on Urban Transit Public–Private Partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a long history of ridership on urban rapid transit projects failing to meet predevelopment forecasts. This article examines the trade-offs for government associated with transferring the financial risk of ridership demand shortfalls to the private sector through public–private partnerships (PPPs). First, the article develops a theory of the way that PPPs are designed to clamp down on the causes of transit ridership shortfalls. Second, it outlines technical, planning, and financial trade-offs associated with transferring ridership demand risk to the private sector. Third, examples are presented to show how these trade-offs manifest in the most popular models of allocating ridership demand risk in PPPs. The article concludes that transit projects have particular characteristics that challenge the effective transferring of ridership demand risk to the private sector. Governments should instead focus on project procurement models that encourage risk sharing between the partners.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".