Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:15:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
Of course. Legalizing corruption is a very popular thing to do for those that benefit.
What a shameful statement for a state DOT employee to make. I can't speak for every state, but in many places including in my state, while some of the economic benefits can be debated, there is certainly nothing inherently 'corrupt' about public-private partnerships. I see some projects which couldn't have been built without major amounts of private sector funding.
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:15:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
Of course. Legalizing corruption is a very popular thing to do for those that benefit.
What a shameful statement for a state DOT employee to make. I can't speak for every state, but in many places including in my state, while some of the economic benefits can be debated, there is certainly nothing inherently 'corrupt' about public-private partnerships. I see some projects which couldn't have been built without major amounts of private sector funding.
The private sector funding part of it is a sham.
The whole point of PPPs is to turn public roads over to private entities, who then make money off their "investment" (that "private sector money").
In the end, PPPs are design to streamline public funds and assets into the hands of private contractors. PPPs get states a step closer to contract steering and corruption, not further.
At NYSDOT, PPPs had a flash of popularity that died pretty quickly. Didn't hear the term again until this Republican Administration.
Of course, there was design-build in the interim as well, where literally a chosen few contractors get to bid on a project and everyone gets paid to some degree -- even the losers. I call that corruption as well.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 06:02:41 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:15:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
Of course. Legalizing corruption is a very popular thing to do for those that benefit.
What a shameful statement for a state DOT employee to make. I can't speak for every state, but in many places including in my state, while some of the economic benefits can be debated, there is certainly nothing inherently 'corrupt' about public-private partnerships. I see some projects which couldn't have been built without major amounts of private sector funding.
The private sector funding part of it is a sham.
The whole point of PPPs is to turn public roads over to private entities, who then make money off their "investment" (that "private sector money").
In the end, PPPs are design to streamline public funds and assets into the hands of private contractors. PPPs get states a step closer to contract steering and corruption, not further.
At NYSDOT, PPPs had a flash of popularity that died pretty quickly. Didn't hear the term again until this Republican Administration.
Of course, there was design-build in the interim as well, where literally a chosen few contractors get to bid on a project and everyone gets paid to some degree -- even the losers. I call that corruption as well.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Sounds like New York state may have screwed up on its P3s. If done properly the state retains ownership of the facility. Private sector funding has always been a major element of infrastructure projects around the world.
FHWA themselves is a major advocate --
"FHWA encourages the consideration of public-private partnerships (P3s) in the development of transportation improvements. Early involvement of the private sector can bring creativity, efficiency, and capital to address complex transportation problems facing State and local governments. The Center for Innovative Finance Support provides information and expertise in the use of different P3 approaches, and assistance in using tools including the SEP-15 program, private activity bonds (PABs), and the TIFIA Federal credit program to facilitate P3 projects."
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/
Large projects are being built all over the country --
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/p3_projects/maps/projects_new_build.aspx
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
What a shameful statement for a state DOT employee to make. I can't speak for every state, but in many places including in my state, while some of the economic benefits can be debated, there is certainly nothing inherently 'corrupt' about public-private partnerships. I see some projects which couldn't have been built without major amounts of private sector funding.
Former Va. Gov. Bob "Give me gifts!" McDonnell and his questionable U.S. 460 PPP plan say "Hi." That's money down the tubes that probably will never be totally recovered.
Of course, FHWA is for them. Secretary Chao said so right out of the gate. Like I said, they're back in vogue with this Republican Administration. We are back to encouraging private profit off of public investment and prioritizing that profit generation above service to the public.
Yeah, I was too simple with what I meant with "handed over." Meant all cases where a lease is set up or just an operating agreement...to actual transfer of ownership. In essence, wherever the private entity becomes really the main player with the project(s) and facilities.
PPPs just didn't catch on here because New Yorkers have been quite well-trained in detecting b.s. over the decades. :D
Glad NYSDOT hasn't jumped back aboard that bandwagon yet as well.
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2018, 09:15:22 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
Of course. Legalizing corruption is a very popular thing to do for those that benefit.
What a shameful statement for a state DOT employee to make. I can't speak for every state, but in many places including in my state, while some of the economic benefits can be debated, there is certainly nothing inherently 'corrupt' about public-private partnerships. I see some projects which couldn't have been built without major amounts of private sector funding.
A) He's speaking for himself. Not on behalf of the state.
B) Most state employees anywhere would say the same thing if something similar was going on.
Quote from: vdeane on January 25, 2018, 01:24:35 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:48:53 AM
Quote from: storm2k on January 25, 2018, 03:39:22 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 24, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
That is why they call them public private partnerships now (PPPs).
I think in another 10-15 years, we will be looking at P3's as the "what were we thinking" portion of road building in the early part of this century.
Actually in the last 30 years they have been becoming more and more prevalent all over the world for building highway projects.
I would think the debacle with respect to I-69 in Indiana as well as the bankruptcies of the Indiana Toll Road and TX 130 would show why PPPs are a bad idea.
(personal opinion)
The Indiana Toll Road was not a P3. It was a lease to a private consortium to operate the Toll Road for a number of years.
It may technically be a lease rather than the private operator building the road, but the problems are the same.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/11/18/the-indiana-toll-road-and-the-dark-side-of-privately-financed-highways/
I do think it's quite interesting that Beltway isn't saying anything about the collapse of Isolux Corsan's effort to build I-69. As my examples show, the government is always left holding the bag in the end. The profits may be privatized, but the losses are socialized. The idea of "transferring risk to the private sector" is an oxymoron, and it always costs more in the end. Simply having the private sector do something does not magically make costs shrink or vanish, but it does make profit a requirement.
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2018, 01:47:19 PM
It may technically be a lease rather than the private operator building the road, but the problems are the same.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/11/18/the-indiana-toll-road-and-the-dark-side-of-privately-financed-highways/
I do think it's quite interesting that Beltway isn't saying anything about the collapse of Isolux Corsan's effort to build I-69. As my examples show, the government is always left holding the bag in the end. The profits may be privatized, but the losses are socialized. The idea of "transferring risk to the private sector" is an oxymoron, and it always costs more in the end. Simply having the private sector do something does not magically make costs shrink or vanish, but it does make profit a requirement.
PPPs only help if the private company is 100% responsible for the ongoing maintenance and has strict legislative or contractual obligations to provide everything the DOT is obligated to do normally (a full DOT function outsource)
The cost inefficiencies in public sector are often in the operational expense, overhead, and project management, as well as costs lost to bidding basic maintenance functions out to third parties.
Neither of these strategies makes money out of nowhere. Public or private, the entity needs to move into the future to monetize the roads. Whether the revenue source is fiber transit, utility runs, business services (big blue signs, ads, adopt a highway), roadside solar or running profitable roadside services, the entity isn't going to make money without shedding the union, looking to the future, and bringing basic services (resurfacing, signage, most at-grade road building) in-house.
SM-G955U
You forgot screwing the public, for they are the ones providing the revenue to the private entities.
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 05:15:44 PM
You forgot screwing the public, for they are the ones providing the revenue to the private entities.
Id be up for a contract where public money gradually lowers to zero over time so the company becomes self-funded using the revenues I mentioned above. The fiber transit program alone could fund a huge portion out DOT expenses if done correctly.
SM-G955U
With the Robber Barons in control, obscene profits are the order of the day.📶
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2018, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 25, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
What a shameful statement for a state DOT employee to make. I can't speak for every state, but in many places including in my state, while some of the economic benefits can be debated, there is certainly nothing inherently 'corrupt' about public-private partnerships. I see some projects which couldn't have been built without major amounts of private sector funding.
A) He's speaking for himself. Not on behalf of the state.
B) Most state employees anywhere would say the same thing if something similar was going on.
Not me, I worked for 43 years for a state DOT and retired in 2017.
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 05:15:44 PM
You forgot screwing the public, for they are the ones providing the revenue to the private entities.
I don't know why you think that government largesse is the answer to everything, or that government funding can't be misappropriated and misused.
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:40:37 AM
PPPs just didn't catch on here because New Yorkers have been quite well-trained in detecting b.s. over the decades. :D
They are getting a critical megaproject built --
Goethals Bridge Replacement
Cost
$1.436 billion in eligible project costs
Funding Sources
TIFIA loan - $473.7 million (amount does not include $31.6 million in capitalized interest)
Private Activity Bonds - $453.3 million
Equity - $106.8 million
Port Authority Milestone Payments - $125.0 million
Pre-development costs funded by the Port Authority - $300.2 million
Project Delivery / Contract Method
DBFM (design, build, finance, and maintain)
Private Partner
NYNJ Link Partnership - Joint venture between Macquarie Infrastructure & Real Assets and Kiewit Development
Kiewit Infrastructure
Weeks Marine
Massman Construction
Parsons Transportation Group of New York
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ny_goethals.aspx
........
New York state really hasn't done much in the way of building new and expanded freeway projects in the last 20 years, period. That being the era of growth in P3 projects in the U.S.
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2018, 11:47:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 05:15:44 PM
You forgot screwing the public, for they are the ones providing the revenue to the private entities.
I don't know why you think that government largesse is the answer to everything, or that government funding can't be misappropriated and misused.
PPPs are an example of exactly that.
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 10:48:14 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 26, 2018, 11:47:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 05:15:44 PM
You forgot screwing the public, for they are the ones providing the revenue to the private entities.
I don't know why you think that government largesse is the answer to everything, or that government funding can't be misappropriated and misused.
PPPs are an example of exactly that.
Your biased and uninformed opinion. Do some research, Google is your friend. Thousands of P3 projects have been utilized successfully all over the world and the U.S.
FYI - if the discussed Long Island tunnel is to be built, I will wager that it will be a P3 project with at least several billion dollars of private funds.
Here is the problem: PPPs introduce a corrupt aspect to the contract letting process. As opposed to the design-bid-build process, which simply solicits bids from contractors and chooses the lowest -- unless extreme circumstances are brought to bear (e.g., proven misconduct on contractor's.part), PPPs introduce an insidious "you put up money and we will make it worth your while" factor. That is the definition of corruption.
PPPs are sold to the public as contractors putting up their own stake in the project when what is really happening in that they are sucking more public dollars into their profit than they would be otherwise.
This goes for design-build processes as well: Beware when processes are set up that circumvent the traditional, proven design-bid-build process, for they indicate benefitting private industry's interest being prioritized over the public's.
Your measure of success: Simple completion of the project, ignores the inappropriate and corrupt means by which such completion is realized.
This has nothing to do with the benefit of public employees (how the freak do I benefit either way? I don't) and therefore, this claim of bias is nonsense. As someone who has worked in financing transportation projects, both miniscule and gigantic, all I can say is that when the design-bid-build process is circumvented through "innovative" means is that huge contractors benefit and the public is left holding the bag.
Like I said, NY picked up on that pretty quickly and did not pursue that many PPPs and still does not (Goethals is PANYNJ -- a public authority outside of direct state government - now who is uninformed?). If other states fall for the hype and waste public funds on them, so be it.
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:40:37 AM
PPPs just didn't catch on here because New Yorkers have been quite well-trained in detecting b.s. over the decades.
If so, then why does the money waterfall called the PANYNJ still exist?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 27, 2018, 04:33:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:40:37 AM
PPPs just didn't catch on here because New Yorkers have been quite well-trained in detecting b.s. over the decades.
If so, then why does the money waterfall called the PANYNJ still exist?
Public authorities can be monsters. The money waterfall is exactly why it still exists, as well as their legal status.
Read The Power Broker.
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 01:05:36 PM
Here is the problem: PPPs introduce a corrupt aspect to the contract letting process. As opposed to the design-bid-build process, which simply solicits bids from contractors and chooses the lowest -- unless extreme circumstances are brought to bear (e.g., proven misconduct on contractor's.part), PPPs introduce an insidious "you put up money and we will make it worth your while" factor. That is the definition of corruption.
PPPs are sold to the public as contractors putting up their own stake in the project when what is really happening in that they are sucking more public dollars into their profit than they would be otherwise.
This goes for design-build processes as well: Beware when processes are set up that circumvent the traditional, proven design-bid-build process, for they indicate benefitting private industry's interest being prioritized over the public's.
Your measure of success: Simple completion of the project, ignores the inappropriate and corrupt means by which such completion is realized.
This has nothing to do with the benefit of public employees (how the freak do I benefit either way? I don't) and therefore, this claim of bias is nonsense. As someone who has worked in financing transportation projects, both miniscule and gigantic, all I can say is that when the design-bid-build process is circumvented through "innovative" means is that huge contractors benefit and the public is left holding the bag.
Like I said, NY picked up on that pretty quickly and did not pursue that many PPPs and still does not (Goethals is PANYNJ -- a public authority outside of direct state government - now who is uninformed?). If other states fall for the hype and waste public funds on them, so be it.
You're wrong about many things here. DB and PPP projects tend to have lower overall cost and faster project completion than DBB for major, major projects. Look at how quickly K-Bridge and Goethals were replaced. Speaking from the design side, 70% plans are already going to the contractor to figure out how to build within 2 months of the project award, and 100% plans follow just a few weeks later as construction gets underway. Not only does that shave YEARS off the typical process - not an exaggeration - but your design costs are considerably lower, and by having a contractor work together with the designer in the design phase, there is a much greater chance of finding economies and innovations to lower cost and add benefits to the project. I don't know where you get your figures in your rant, but when you say "the old way is best" that just sounds like reactionism. I've seen both, I know DBB well, and I see advantages to DB in many aspects - again on the largest projects.
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 01:05:36 PM
how the freak do I benefit either way? I don't
It's been theorized that the reason why many positions formerly filled by analysts are now being filled by engineers is a way to promote certain engineers out of the Design bureau and keep them safe from Design-Build.
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2018, 04:36:14 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 01:05:36 PM
Here is the problem: PPPs introduce a corrupt aspect to the contract letting process. As opposed to the design-bid-build process, which simply solicits bids from contractors and chooses the lowest -- unless extreme circumstances are brought to bear (e.g., proven misconduct on contractor's.part), PPPs introduce an insidious "you put up money and we will make it worth your while" factor. That is the definition of corruption.
PPPs are sold to the public as contractors putting up their own stake in the project when what is really happening in that they are sucking more public dollars into their profit than they would be otherwise.
This goes for design-build processes as well: Beware when processes are set up that circumvent the traditional, proven design-bid-build process, for they indicate benefitting private industry's interest being prioritized over the public's.
Your measure of success: Simple completion of the project, ignores the inappropriate and corrupt means by which such completion is realized.
This has nothing to do with the benefit of public employees (how the freak do I benefit either way? I don't) and therefore, this claim of bias is nonsense. As someone who has worked in financing transportation projects, both miniscule and gigantic, all I can say is that when the design-bid-build process is circumvented through "innovative" means is that huge contractors benefit and the public is left holding the bag.
Like I said, NY picked up on that pretty quickly and did not pursue that many PPPs and still does not (Goethals is PANYNJ -- a public authority outside of direct state government - now who is uninformed?). If other states fall for the hype and waste public funds on them, so be it.
You're wrong about many things here. DB and PPP projects tend to have lower overall cost and faster project completion than DBB for major, major projects. Look at how quickly K-Bridge and Goethals were replaced. Speaking from the design side, 70% plans are already going to the contractor to figure out how to build within 2 months of the project award, and 100% plans follow just a few weeks later as construction gets underway. Not only does that shave YEARS off the typical process - not an exaggeration - but your design costs are considerably lower, and by having a contractor work together with the designer in the design phase, there is a much greater chance of finding economies and innovations to lower cost and add benefits to the project. I don't know where you get your figures in your rant, but when you say "the old way is best" that just sounds like reactionism. I've seen both, I know DBB well, and I see advantages to DB in many aspects - again on the largest projects.
I am not that familiar with the Goethals project, but I definitely am with the K Bridge. Keep in mind the K Bridge is not completely done and phases are left to complete.
There are definitely schedule benefits, no doubt, when you let final design and construction together as is how DB works in NY (albeit not "YEARS"). However, this mantra that DB projects are less expensive is less founded. In fact, although NYSDOT has pursued DB for a decent number of projects, I have heard mixed reactions to the cost benefits. In NY, there is a set, limited pool of contractors that can bid on such projects and it is not half the competitive process that design-bid-build process is. Again, this was sold to the Legislature and public by stating that the law would keep unqualified contractors out of the bidding process altogether and therefore save time and lessen risk. In reality, a precious few, large contractors can bid on them and the reimbursements to losing contractors borders on criminal. It simply flies in the face of the economic principle that competition ensures appropriate prices. The whole DB framework is set up to limit competition, not encourage it.
Combine that with the fact that you don't have two separate processes to compare on a particular project, I find these claims of cost savings to be more rhetorical than actual.
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2018, 05:41:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 01:05:36 PM
how the freak do I benefit either way? I don't
It's been theorized that the reason why many positions formerly filled by analysts are now being filled by engineers is a way to promote certain engineers out of the Design bureau and keep them safe from Design-Build.
First, that doesn't make sense to me since we would contract out the design anyway on such projects.
Second, this replacement of analysts with engineers from the design bureau is fantasy: I have also been involved with hiring a decent number of new analysts at NYSDOT and we have not hired anyone out of the design bureau or even any NYSDOT engineers anyway for the hires I have been involved with.
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:07:20 PM
Combine that with the fact that you don't have two separate processes to compare on a particular project, I find these claims of cost savings to be more rhetorical than actual.
You may wish to add a disclaimer to your posts that your views are not necessarily those of your employer. May be sound advice to us all. :popcorn:
The disclaimer shows up on the web version of this, but not if you're on Tapatalk on your phone. Just got lazy emphasizing it, but it's covered.
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2018, 09:02:53 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:07:20 PM
Combine that with the fact that you don't have two separate processes to compare on a particular project, I find these claims of cost savings to be more rhetorical than actual.
You may wish to add a disclaimer to your posts that your views are not necessarily those of your employer. May be sound advice to us all. :popcorn:
And even then, it might not be enough.
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2018, 04:36:14 PM
You're wrong about many things here. DB and PPP projects tend to have lower overall cost and faster project completion than DBB for major, major projects. Look at how quickly K-Bridge and Goethals were replaced. Speaking from the design side, 70% plans are already going to the contractor to figure out how to build within 2 months of the project award, and 100% plans follow just a few weeks later as construction gets underway. Not only does that shave YEARS off the typical process - not an exaggeration - but your design costs are considerably lower, and by having a contractor work together with the designer in the design phase, there is a much greater chance of finding economies and innovations to lower cost and add benefits to the project. I don't know where you get your figures in your rant, but when you say "the old way is best" that just sounds like reactionism. I've seen both, I know DBB well, and I see advantages to DB in many aspects - again on the largest projects.
I certainly don't have an absolutist position on public-private partnerships, while I am generally favorable I would have to look at individual projects. With proper governmental controls they can work successfully in development as well as in implementation. I have seen how it has worked here in Virginia, and I am generally satisfied with the ones that have been built, and I and many others have personally benefited from facilities that probably otherwise would not exist today - I-495 HOT Lanes, I-95 HOT Lanes, Dulles Greenway, Route 895 and ERT Tunnels.
As far as limited bidding opportunities, that is the case with large bided projects as well, for example how many contractors can bid on $1 billion underwater tunnel project in the first place?
I am well aware that PANYNJ is a bi-state interstate compact and owns the Goethals Bridge.
Nevertheless the NY state government is a major partner in it.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) is a joint venture between the U.S. states of New York and New Jersey, established in 1921 through an interstate compact authorized by the United States Congress.
The Port Authority is jointly controlled by the governors of New York and New Jersey, who appoint the members of the agency's Board of Commissioners and retain the right to veto the actions of the Commissioners from his or her own state. Each governor appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, who are subject to state senate confirmation and serve overlapping six-year terms without pay.
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 12:16:12 AM
I am well aware that PANYNJ is a bi-state interstate compact and owns the Goethals Bridge.
Nevertheless the NY state government is a major partner in it.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) is a joint venture between the U.S. states of New York and New Jersey, established in 1921 through an interstate compact authorized by the United States Congress.
The Port Authority is jointly controlled by the governors of New York and New Jersey, who appoint the members of the agency's Board of Commissioners and retain the right to veto the actions of the Commissioners from his or her own state. Each governor appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, who are subject to state senate confirmation and serve overlapping six-year terms without pay.
Were that compact being written today, it would be nice if there were one member appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to represent the significant federal interest in the Port Authorty's crossings, airports and seaports.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 28, 2018, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 12:16:12 AM
I am well aware that PANYNJ is a bi-state interstate compact and owns the Goethals Bridge.
Nevertheless the NY state government is a major partner in it.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) is a joint venture between the U.S. states of New York and New Jersey, established in 1921 through an interstate compact authorized by the United States Congress.
The Port Authority is jointly controlled by the governors of New York and New Jersey, who appoint the members of the agency's Board of Commissioners and retain the right to veto the actions of the Commissioners from his or her own state. Each governor appoints six members to the Board of Commissioners, who are subject to state senate confirmation and serve overlapping six-year terms without pay.
Were that compact being written today, it would be nice if there were one member appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to represent the significant federal interest in the Port Authorty's crossings, airports and seaports.
Can't imagine why the states wouldn't want a federal rep on the board. </sarcasm>
I see their current involvement enough: Oversight whenever federal funding is involved, like TIFIA grants and loans.
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:12:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2018, 05:41:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 01:05:36 PM
how the freak do I benefit either way? I don't
It's been theorized that the reason why many positions formerly filled by analysts are now being filled by engineers is a way to promote certain engineers out of the Design bureau and keep them safe from Design-Build.
First, that doesn't make sense to me since we would contract out the design anyway on such projects.
Second, this replacement of analysts with engineers from the design bureau is fantasy: I have also been involved with hiring a decent number of new analysts at NYSDOT and we have not hired anyone out of the design bureau or even any NYSDOT engineers anyway for the hires I have been involved with.
There certainly are occasional STA and ATA postings where management wants to promote someone without a PE, but by and large there are many roles within the department that used to be filled ATAs, PCPAs, etc. but are now being posed for PE2s.
(personal opinion)
Quote from: Beltway on January 27, 2018, 11:44:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2018, 04:36:14 PM
You're wrong about many things here. DB and PPP projects tend to have lower overall cost and faster project completion than DBB for major, major projects. Look at how quickly K-Bridge and Goethals were replaced. Speaking from the design side, 70% plans are already going to the contractor to figure out how to build within 2 months of the project award, and 100% plans follow just a few weeks later as construction gets underway. Not only does that shave YEARS off the typical process - not an exaggeration - but your design costs are considerably lower, and by having a contractor work together with the designer in the design phase, there is a much greater chance of finding economies and innovations to lower cost and add benefits to the project. I don't know where you get your figures in your rant, but when you say "the old way is best" that just sounds like reactionism. I've seen both, I know DBB well, and I see advantages to DB in many aspects - again on the largest projects.
I certainly don't have an absolutist position on public-private partnerships, while I am generally favorable I would have to look at individual projects. With proper governmental controls they can work successfully in development as well as in implementation. I have seen how it has worked here in Virginia, and I am generally satisfied with the ones that have been built, and I and many others have personally benefited from facilities that probably otherwise would not exist today - I-495 HOT Lanes, I-95 HOT Lanes, Dulles Greenway, Route 895 and ERT Tunnels.
As far as limited bidding opportunities, that is the case with large bided projects as well, for example how many contractors can bid on $1 billion underwater tunnel project in the first place?
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:12:18 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 27, 2018, 05:41:48 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 01:05:36 PM
how the freak do I benefit either way? I don't
It's been theorized that the reason why many positions formerly filled by analysts are now being filled by engineers is a way to promote certain engineers out of the Design bureau and keep them safe from Design-Build.
First, that doesn't make sense to me since we would contract out the design anyway on such projects.
Second, this replacement of analysts with engineers from the design bureau is fantasy: I have also been involved with hiring a decent number of new analysts at NYSDOT and we have not hired anyone out of the design bureau or even any NYSDOT engineers anyway for the hires I have been involved with.
There certainly are occasional STA and ATA postings where management wants to promote someone without a PE, but by and large there are many roles within the department that used to be filled ATAs, PCPAs, etc. but are now being posed for PE2s.
(personal opinion)
I just haven't seen that play out. In NYSDOT's Policy and Planning Division and Division of Finance, for example, which are where a ton of the analyst titles are housed, there has been no replacement of those analysts with engineers (i.e., actual title switches from analyst to engineer ladders or even the hiring of engineers from the Design Bureau) insofar as I've been aware.
That said, I don't know exactly how things are playing out in the Highway Data Services area. There might be more tension between engineers and analysts in that area of the Department, but, if anything, there is a huge reliance on temps and a few of those temps became analysts in recent years (not engineers). I suppose the area where I can only think of this happening is with the pavement, bridge and traffic modeling groups down there, but if those titles switched over to engineers, then that switch-over happened long ago, possibly prior to the advent of design-build.
Without the title switch as well (i.e., just taking an engineer and giving him an analyst title rather than changing the title to an engineer), an engineer might balk at that, since the PE ladder is at least somewhat more beneficial than an analyst, salary-wise. Analysts tap out at Grade 27 and then have to go M/C; PEs have that weirdo PE4 title they can be promoted into above that (FYI, this is all public info, for those worry-warts above :D).
Anyway, I don't see design-build affecting in-house engineers. The smallest design-build projects are in the $20m range (I believe) and, like I said, the design is mostly done through contracting out, with NYSDOT only operating in an oversight role which isn't going to go away, design-build or otherwise.
(personal opinion emphasized, just like it says in my signature :D)
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:12:18 PM
I certainly don't have an absolutist position on public-private partnerships, while I am generally favorable I would have to look at individual projects. With proper governmental controls they can work successfully in development as well as in implementation. I have seen how it has worked here in Virginia, and I am generally satisfied with the ones that have been built, and I and many others have personally benefited from facilities that probably otherwise would not exist today - I-495 HOT Lanes, I-95 HOT Lanes, Dulles Greenway, Route 895 and ERT Tunnels.
As far as limited bidding opportunities, that is the case with large bided projects as well, for example how many contractors can bid on $1 billion underwater tunnel project in the first place?
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
That is a broadsweep statement that is untrue or partially true depending on the facility. On a given project there would be a determination made as to whether a 'compensation event' would occur, and then if it did then how much compensation would be warranted. If a truly 'needed' improvement was present then there would be a probability that it would not negatively impact the P3 facility in that it might be on the verge of unacceptable congestion itself.
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:12:18 PM
I certainly don't have an absolutist position on public-private partnerships, while I am generally favorable I would have to look at individual projects. With proper governmental controls they can work successfully in development as well as in implementation. I have seen how it has worked here in Virginia, and I am generally satisfied with the ones that have been built, and I and many others have personally benefited from facilities that probably otherwise would not exist today - I-495 HOT Lanes, I-95 HOT Lanes, Dulles Greenway, Route 895 and ERT Tunnels.
As far as limited bidding opportunities, that is the case with large bided projects as well, for example how many contractors can bid on $1 billion underwater tunnel project in the first place?
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
That is a broadsweep statement that is untrue or partially true depending on the facility. On a given project there would be a determination made as to whether a 'compensation event' would occur, and then if it did then how much compensation would be warranted. If a truly 'needed' improvement was present then there would be a probability that it would not negatively impact the P3 facility in that it might be on the verge of unacceptable congestion itself.
Egads. I see the operator suing to ensure that everything done on parallel routes be considered a compensation event. Oh, you're adding a lane? That's competition with my facility. Pay up. Oh, your synchronizing traffic lights? Pay up. Yikes.
Quote from: Rothman on January 28, 2018, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:12:18 PM
I certainly don't have an absolutist position on public-private partnerships, while I am generally favorable I would have to look at individual projects. With proper governmental controls they can work successfully in development as well as in implementation. I have seen how it has worked here in Virginia, and I am generally satisfied with the ones that have been built, and I and many others have personally benefited from facilities that probably otherwise would not exist today - I-495 HOT Lanes, I-95 HOT Lanes, Dulles Greenway, Route 895 and ERT Tunnels.
As far as limited bidding opportunities, that is the case with large bided projects as well, for example how many contractors can bid on $1 billion underwater tunnel project in the first place?
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
That is a broadsweep statement that is untrue or partially true depending on the facility. On a given project there would be a determination made as to whether a 'compensation event' would occur, and then if it did then how much compensation would be warranted. If a truly 'needed' improvement was present then there would be a probability that it would not negatively impact the P3 facility in that it might be on the verge of unacceptable congestion itself.
Egads. I see the operator suing to ensure that everything done on parallel routes be considered a compensation event. Oh, you're adding a lane? That's competition with my facility. Pay up. Oh, your synchronizing traffic lights? Pay up. Yikes.
Isn't that what happened with the 91 Express lanes in Orange County, CA?
Quote from: Rothman on January 28, 2018, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:12:18 PM
I certainly don't have an absolutist position on public-private partnerships, while I am generally favorable I would have to look at individual projects. With proper governmental controls they can work successfully in development as well as in implementation. I have seen how it has worked here in Virginia, and I am generally satisfied with the ones that have been built, and I and many others have personally benefited from facilities that probably otherwise would not exist today - I-495 HOT Lanes, I-95 HOT Lanes, Dulles Greenway, Route 895 and ERT Tunnels.
As far as limited bidding opportunities, that is the case with large bided projects as well, for example how many contractors can bid on $1 billion underwater tunnel project in the first place?
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
That is a broadsweep statement that is untrue or partially true depending on the facility. On a given project there would be a determination made as to whether a 'compensation event' would occur, and then if it did then how much compensation would be warranted. If a truly 'needed' improvement was present then there would be a probability that it would not negatively impact the P3 facility in that it might be on the verge of unacceptable congestion itself.
Egads. I see the operator suing to ensure that everything done on parallel routes be considered a compensation event. Oh, you're adding a lane? That's competition with my facility. Pay up. Oh, your synchronizing traffic lights? Pay up. Yikes.
The PPTA agreements are contracts that have tens of thousands of words to cover every aspect of the project development process, including exactly want constitutes a compensation event and how it will be negotiated if the private partner thinks one has occurred.
https://www.driveert.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Interim-Agreement.pdf
Quote from: Rothman on January 26, 2018, 09:40:37 AM
Of course, FHWA is for them. Secretary Chao said so right out of the gate. Like I said, they're back in vogue with this Republican Administration. We are back to encouraging private profit off of public investment and prioritizing that profit generation above service to the public.
Yeah, I was too simple with what I meant with "handed over." Meant all cases where a lease is set up or just an operating agreement...to actual transfer of ownership. In essence, wherever the private entity becomes really the main player with the project(s) and facilities.
PPPs just didn't catch on here because New Yorkers have been quite well-trained in detecting b.s. over the decades. :D
Glad NYSDOT hasn't jumped back aboard that bandwagon yet as well.
PPP = Private project, publicly funded
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 12:06:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 28, 2018, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 27, 2018, 06:12:18 PM
I certainly don't have an absolutist position on public-private partnerships, while I am generally favorable I would have to look at individual projects. With proper governmental controls they can work successfully in development as well as in implementation. I have seen how it has worked here in Virginia, and I am generally satisfied with the ones that have been built, and I and many others have personally benefited from facilities that probably otherwise would not exist today - I-495 HOT Lanes, I-95 HOT Lanes, Dulles Greenway, Route 895 and ERT Tunnels.
As far as limited bidding opportunities, that is the case with large bided projects as well, for example how many contractors can bid on $1 billion underwater tunnel project in the first place?
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
That is a broadsweep statement that is untrue or partially true depending on the facility. On a given project there would be a determination made as to whether a 'compensation event' would occur, and then if it did then how much compensation would be warranted. If a truly 'needed' improvement was present then there would be a probability that it would not negatively impact the P3 facility in that it might be on the verge of unacceptable congestion itself.
Egads. I see the operator suing to ensure that everything done on parallel routes be considered a compensation event. Oh, you're adding a lane? That's competition with my facility. Pay up. Oh, your synchronizing traffic lights? Pay up. Yikes.
The PPTA agreements are contracts that have tens of thousands of words to cover every aspect of the project development process, including exactly want constitutes a compensation event and how it will be negotiated if the private partner thinks one has occurred.
https://www.driveert.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Interim-Agreement.pdf
I was a paralegal for a couple of years. Our court system makes contract language nearly irrelevant, since it is set up to encourage settlement between the parties.
Therefore, if I were a contractor under such a contract, I would view such clauses as another, albeit minor, revenue stream. You sue and settle; that's all there is to it. Doesn't matter what the contract says; that is what my lawyer is for. As long as there is something called a compensation event, I will have my lawyer argue that nearly everything (probably not pothole repairs :D) is one and get settlements out of the state.
Quote from: Buffaboy
PPP = Private project, publicly funded
Read the rest of this thread to see why that overly simplistic view is wrong. Both posts for and against PPPs show that this party line is incorrect.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 12:06:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 28, 2018, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
That is a broadsweep statement that is untrue or partially true depending on the facility. On a given project there would be a determination made as to whether a 'compensation event' would occur, and then if it did then how much compensation would be warranted. If a truly 'needed' improvement was present then there would be a probability that it would not negatively impact the P3 facility in that it might be on the verge of unacceptable congestion itself.
Egads. I see the operator suing to ensure that everything done on parallel routes be considered a compensation event. Oh, you're adding a lane? That's competition with my facility. Pay up. Oh, your synchronizing traffic lights? Pay up. Yikes.
The PPTA agreements are contracts that have tens of thousands of words to cover every aspect of the project development process, including exactly want constitutes a compensation event and how it will be negotiated if the private partner thinks one has occurred.
https://www.driveert.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Interim-Agreement.pdf
I was a paralegal for a couple of years. Our court system makes contract language nearly irrelevant, since it is set up to encourage settlement between the parties.
Therefore, if I were a contractor under such a contract, I would view such clauses as another, albeit minor, revenue stream. You sue and settle; that's all there is to it. Doesn't matter what the contract says; that is what my lawyer is for. As long as there is something called a compensation event, I will have my lawyer argue that nearly everything (probably not pothole repairs :D) is one and get settlements out of the state.
Your understanding of the law and contracts seems rather deficient, or maybe this just shows the deficiencies of how the courts operate in New York. For starters even in your framework two can play that game, the highway agency can sue the private partner over any major or minor thing, and apply litigation pressures to extract various forms of compensation from the private partner.
In such an adversarial environment you probably won't see any P3 agreements being negotiated in the first place. Properly written contracts are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 08:22:52 AM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 12:06:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 28, 2018, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 28, 2018, 10:20:41 PM
That is a broadsweep statement that is untrue or partially true depending on the facility. On a given project there would be a determination made as to whether a 'compensation event' would occur, and then if it did then how much compensation would be warranted. If a truly 'needed' improvement was present then there would be a probability that it would not negatively impact the P3 facility in that it might be on the verge of unacceptable congestion itself.
Egads. I see the operator suing to ensure that everything done on parallel routes be considered a compensation event. Oh, you're adding a lane? That's competition with my facility. Pay up. Oh, your synchronizing traffic lights? Pay up. Yikes.
The PPTA agreements are contracts that have tens of thousands of words to cover every aspect of the project development process, including exactly want constitutes a compensation event and how it will be negotiated if the private partner thinks one has occurred.
https://www.driveert.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Interim-Agreement.pdf
I was a paralegal for a couple of years. Our court system makes contract language nearly irrelevant, since it is set up to encourage settlement between the parties.
Therefore, if I were a contractor under such a contract, I would view such clauses as another, albeit minor, revenue stream. You sue and settle; that's all there is to it. Doesn't matter what the contract says; that is what my lawyer is for. As long as there is something called a compensation event, I will have my lawyer argue that nearly everything (probably not pothole repairs :D) is one and get settlements out of the state.
Your understanding of the law and contracts seems rather deficient, or maybe this just shows the deficiencies of how the courts operate in New York. For starters even in your framework two can play that game, the highway agency can sue the private partner over any major or minor thing, and apply litigation pressures to extract various forms of compensation from the private partner.
In such an adversarial environment you probably won't see any P3 agreements being negotiated in the first place. Properly written contracts are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.
"Who's being naive, Kay?"
If you do not think our legal system is already adversarial, then you really haven't been that involved in its inner workings. I was a paralegal in both DC and Minnesota so my experience is not limited to NY, although I have been involved in a couple of legal matters here as well.
The State doesn't have an incentive to sue over compensation events since those clauses are put into place to mainly protect the operator. The State probably dictated the circumstances, but the responsible party to fight for compensation events is the operator.
I don't care how "properly written" the contract is, you can always fight almost everything to get paid. Summary judgment motions are very rarely granted. Heck, the idea that all you need is a properly written contract to avoid lawsuits flies in the face of how much litigation proceeds despite contracts written by teams of lawyers!
As I have argued all along, the PPPs are to line the pockets of private industry. The contracts are geared to do exactly that.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 12:49:55 PM
Your understanding of the law and contracts seems rather deficient, or maybe this just shows the deficiencies of how the courts operate in New York. For starters even in your framework two can play that game, the highway agency can sue the private partner over any major or minor thing, and apply litigation pressures to extract various forms of compensation from the private partner.
In such an adversarial environment you probably won't see any P3 agreements being negotiated in the first place. Properly written contracts are designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place.
"Who's being naive, Kay?"
If you do not think our legal system is already adversarial, then you really haven't been that involved in its inner workings. I was a paralegal in both DC and Minnesota so my experience is not limited to NY, although I have been involved in a couple of legal matters here as well.
The State doesn't have an incentive to sue over compensation events since those clauses are put into place to mainly protect the operator. The State probably dictated the circumstances, but the responsible party to fight for compensation events is the operator.
I don't care how "properly written" the contract is, you can always fight almost everything to get paid. Summary judgment motions are very rarely granted. Heck, the idea that all you need is a properly written contract to avoid lawsuits flies in the face of how much litigation proceeds despite contracts written by teams of lawyers!
So you are not a lawyer. FWIW lawyers are all over the place in how they interpret legal matters.
I can't speak for all other areas, but in Virginia since PPTA began in 1995 there have been zero compensation events litigated.
Obviously if a new road is going to be financed by toll revenue bonds then the tollroad operator would have a concern about what would happen if the government built a toll-free facility in parallel. So in theory the tollroad operator is entitled to a legal agreement with the government about what happens if this takes place.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 01:19:26 PM
As I have argued all along, the PPPs are to line the pockets of private industry. The contracts are geared to do exactly that.
You're trolling. P3 agreements can take almost infinite variations depending on how and where they are negotiated.
End-to-end state turnpikes that never have their tolls removed are intended to rip off and gouge the pocketbooks of the motoring public. The vast majority of states find the whole concept of end-to-end state turnpikes to be repugnant. Now prove that statement to be wrong.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 02:33:28 PM
So you are not a lawyer. FWIW lawyers are all over the place in how they interpret legal matters.
Which is why we have such a massive amount of litigation cases in this country. Laws and contracts are open to interpretation. Take it from the one guy out of the two of us that actually worked in law firms, whether with 300 lawyers or 3.
Quote
I can't speak for all other areas, but in Virginia since PPTA began in 1995 there have been zero compensation events litigated.
Even if this is true, it would only prove that Virginia has been paying them out, which means that they are lining the operator's pockets with public money, which I said was the purpose of such contracts.
Quote
Obviously if a new road is going to be financed by toll revenue bonds then the tollroad operator would have a concern about what would happen if the government built a toll-free facility in parallel. So in theory the tollroad operator is entitled to a legal agreement with the government about what happens if this takes place.
Yep, protecting the interests of the operator above that of the travelling public, also like I said.
Quote
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 01:19:26 PM
As I have argued all along, the PPPs are to line the pockets of private industry. The contracts are geared to do exactly that.
You're trolling.
No, just stating my position, which is now supported by the information you yourself provided.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 03:56:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 02:33:28 PM
I can't speak for all other areas, but in Virginia since PPTA began in 1995 there have been zero compensation events litigated.
Even if this is true, it would only prove that Virginia has been paying them out, which means that they are lining the operator's pockets with public money, which I said was the purpose of such contracts.
No, that is for you to prove. You made the claim, you are the one with absolutist claims about P3 projects that they are universally bad (I only claim that if properly managed one can be good for the public), now prove it or hush.
I listed 6 projects that would not have been built yet if not for $3 billion in funding that the state did not have. That is the purpose of such contracts, provide the funding package needed to build them, and provide the extra incentive for a private partner to get them built on time and on budget, which is what they did including some extremely complex and expensive projects.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 05:12:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 03:56:19 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 02:33:28 PM
I can't speak for all other areas, but in Virginia since PPTA began in 1995 there have been zero compensation events litigated.
Even if this is true, it would only prove that Virginia has been paying them out, which means that they are lining the operator's pockets with public money, which I said was the purpose of such contracts.
No, that is for you to prove. You made the claim, you are the one with absolutist claims about P3 projects that they are universally bad (I only claim that if properly managed one can be good for the public), now prove it or hush.
I listed 6 projects that would not have been built yet if not for $3 billion in funding that the state did not have. That is the purpose of such contracts, provide the funding package needed to build them, and provide the extra incentive for a private partner to get them built on time and on budget, which is what they did including some extremely complex and expensive projects.
Actually, you made the claim regarding compensation events. I am just following the moving goalposts that keep moving around in this thread.
Like I said above, completion of the project should not be the measure of success. The cost of the "extra incentive" does not justify the means.
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 02:33:28 PM
End-to-end state turnpikes that never have their tolls removed are intended to rip off and gouge the pocketbooks of the motoring public. The vast majority of states find the whole concept of end-to-end state turnpikes to be repugnant. Now prove that statement to be wrong.
And yet allowing states to toll the interstates is a bipartisan consensus, and many states have proposed such, only backing down because it became a political third rail (as in NC) or because FHWA wanted the funds to be used for the road in question and not as a cash cow (PA). Seems to me the end result of this would be to make turnpikes a lot more common, perhaps even the norm.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 03:56:19 PM
Even if this is true, it would only prove that Virginia has been paying them out, which means that they are lining the operator's pockets with public money, which I said was the purpose of such contracts.
That or they just aren't making improvements on nearby facilities.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 06:27:27 PM
Quote from: Beltway on January 29, 2018, 05:12:04 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 03:56:19 PM
Even if this is true, it would only prove that Virginia has been paying them out, which means that they are lining the operator's pockets with public money, which I said was the purpose of such contracts.
No, that is for you to prove. You made the claim, you are the one with absolutist claims about P3 projects that they are universally bad (I only claim that if properly managed one can be good for the public), now prove it or hush.
I listed 6 projects that would not have been built yet if not for $3 billion in funding that the state did not have. That is the purpose of such contracts, provide the funding package needed to build them, and provide the extra incentive for a private partner to get them built on time and on budget, which is what they did including some extremely complex and expensive projects.
Actually, you made the claim regarding compensation events. I am just following the moving goalposts that keep moving around in this thread.
Like I said above, completion of the project should not be the measure of success. The cost of the "extra incentive" does not justify the means.
You made the claim about VDOT possibly paying penalties, that is what prompted my first comment about compensation events.
I not only discussed completion of the project, but also the implementation, meaning basically the whole life cycle. Design, construction, construction management, operation, maintenance.
Completion on budget and on schedule is not to be dismissed, as it was not long ago, 10 to 15 years ago, that mega projects typically blew way out on both categories. System tools that can routinely get mega projects built on time and on budget, or very nearly so, are a huge benefit to everybody.
And again, the schedule benefits may not be worth the additional costs of ensuring that private interests have their due profit in the variety of methods discussed herein, for such costs are not in the public interest.
And there are a whole host of reasons now available in this thread as to why compensation events are not in the public's interest.
Quote from: Rothman on January 29, 2018, 09:25:36 PM
And again, the schedule benefits may not be worth the additional costs of ensuring that private interests have their due profit in the variety of methods discussed herein, for such costs are not in the public interest.
Broadsweep statement, sometimes may be true, but basically irrelevant to discussing any specific project.
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
In a sense, though, this is just an inherent reality of having a tolled facility with a parallel free facility. There is perverse incentive to not provide or improve a free alternative even when a government agency is operating the toll road. DOT won't want to lose the revenue any more than a private company will.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 31, 2018, 01:06:52 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
In a sense, though, this is just an inherent reality of having a tolled facility with a parallel free facility. There is perverse incentive to not provide or improve a free alternative even when a government agency is operating the toll road. DOT won't want to lose the revenue any more than a private company will.
Probably, but in these cases the DOT is actually creating a competitor and giving them a serious advantage through inflicting a cost that is detrimental to the public.
Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2018, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on January 31, 2018, 01:06:52 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2018, 07:13:45 PM
Meanwhile, those facilities also come with contract terms that prohibit VDOT from making needed improvements to parallel roadways without paying penalties.
In a sense, though, this is just an inherent reality of having a tolled facility with a parallel free facility. There is perverse incentive to not provide or improve a free alternative even when a government agency is operating the toll road. DOT won't want to lose the revenue any more than a private company will.
Probably, but in these cases the DOT is actually creating a competitor and giving them a serious advantage through inflicting a cost that is detrimental to the public.
Broadsweep statement, sometimes may be true, but basically irrelevant to discussing any specific project.