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.
AlbalateA.BelG. (2008). Regulating concessions of toll motorways: An empirical study on fixed vs. variable term contracts. Transportation and Research Part A, 43, 219-229.
DanielsR. J.TrebilcockM. (1996). Private provision of public infrastructure: An organizational analysis of the next privatization frontier. University of Toronto Law Journal, 46, 375-426.
8.
De RusG.NombelaG. (2004). Flexible-term contracts for road franchising. Transportation Research Part A, 38, 163-179.
9.
EngelE.FischerR.GaletovicA. (2001). Least-present-value-of-revenue auctions and highway franchising. Journal of Political Economy. 109, 993-1020.
10.
FlindersM. (2005). The politics of public-private partnerships. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7, 215-239.
11.
FlyvbjergB. (2007). Cost Overruns and Demand Shortfalls in Urban Rail and Other Infrastructure. Transportation Planning and Technology, 30, 9-30.
12.
FlyvbjergB. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies, 16, 3-21.
13.
FlyvbjergB. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25, 344-367.
14.
FlyvbjergB.BruzeliusN.RothengatterW. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GarvinM. (2010). Enabling development of the transportation public-private partnership market in the United States. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136, 402-411.
16.
GarvinM.BossoD. (2008). Assessing the effectiveness of infrastructure public—private partnership programs and projects. Public Works Management and Policy, 13, 162-178.
17.
GeddesR. R. (2010). The road to renewal. Washington, DC: Rowan and Littlefield.
18.
GilB. (2011, January12). Trends and issues of PPP models in transport focused on South Korea and the UK. In Public private partnerships in transport: Trends & Theory—Research Roadmap. Symposium conducted at the meeting of COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) at Lisbon, Portugal.
19.
GrimseyD.LewisM. (2004). Public private partnerships. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
20.
Her Majesty’s Treasury. (2006). Value for money assessment guidance. London, UK: Author.
21.
HodgeG. (2004). Risks in public-private partnerships: Shifting, sharing or shirking?Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 26, 155-179.
22.
HodgeG.GreveC. (2010). Public-private partnerships: Governance scheme or language game?Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69, S8-S22.
KainJ. F. (1990). Deception in Dallas: Strategic misrepresentation in rail transit promotion and evaluation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56, 184-196.
25.
KoppenjanJ. F. M.EnserinkB. (2009, March/April). Public-private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private sector participation and sustainability. Public Administration Review, 284-296.
26.
KPMG. (2009, September17). Implementation of PPPs for transit. Paper presented at the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships Annual Conference, Boston, MA.
MorallosD.AmekudziA. (2008). The state of the practice of value for money analysis in comparing public private partnerships to traditional procurements. Public Works Management and Policy, 13, 114-125.
31.
National Audit Office. (2004). Improving public transport in England through light rail. London, UK: The Stationary Office.
32.
National Highway Cooperative Research Program (NCHPR) Synthesis. (2009). Public sector decision making for public-private partnerships. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
33.
OrtizI. N.BuxbaumJ. N. (2008). Protecting the public interest in long-term concession agreements for transportation infrastructure. Public Works Management and Policy, 13, 126-137.
34.
PhangS-Y. (2007). Urban rail transit PPPs: Survey and risk assessment of recent strategies. Transport Policy, 14, 214-231.
35.
PickrellD. H. (1992). A desire named streetcar: Fantasy and fact in rail transit planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58, 158-176.
36.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2009, March26). PPPs and use of availability payments. Atlanta, GA: Federal Transit Authority/National Council for Public Private Partnerships.
ShaoulJ.StaffordA.StapletonP. (2007). Partnerships and the role of financial advisors: Private control over public policy?Policy & Politics, 35, 479-495.
42.
SiemiatyckiM. (2006). Implications of private-public partnerships on the development of urban public transit infrastructure: The case of Vancouver. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 379-393.
43.
SiemiatyckiM. (2007). What’s the secret? The application of confidentiality in the planning of infrastructure using private-public partnerships. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73, 388-403.
44.
SiemiatyckM. (2010). Delivering transportation infrastructure through public-private partnerships: Planning concerns. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 43-58.
45.
SoliñoA. S.VassalloJ. M. (2009). Using public-private partnerships to expand subways: Madrid-Barajas international airport case study. Journal of Management in Engineering, 25, 21-28.
46.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Public Transportation: Federal project approval process remains a barrier to greater private sector role and DOT could enhance efforts to assist project sponsors. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1019.pdf
47.
ViningA.R.BoardmanA.E. (2008). Public-private Partnerships: Eight Rules for Governments. Public Works Management and Policy, 13, 149-161.
48.
WachsM. (1988). When planners lie with numbers: An exploration of data, analysis and planning ethics. Los Angeles: University of California.
