Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 36


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 35
BREAKOUT SESSION 1 Delivering Transportation Programs Through PublicPrivate Partnerships Suzanne Sale, Federal Highway Administration (Moderator) Geoffrey S. Yarema, Nossaman, LLP Bovin Kumar, Halcrow Consulting India Private Limited Kevin Longenbach, Transurban Sasha Page, Infrastructure Management Group, Inc. S uzanne Sale of the Transportation Infrastructure any analysis. Several projects are deferred and incur the Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Joint Program losses associated with delay. Now that there are mul- Office in the Federal Highway Administration tiple delivery options, including designbuild, availabil- moderated the session. In her opening remarks, she com- ity payment and toll concessions, and predevelopment mented that publicprivate partnerships (P3s) are not agreements, the challenge is to match the right projects only a method of financing transportation infrastructure with the right delivery tools. but also an innovative method of program delivery-- Early P3 initiatives relied on the private sector to iden- lowering costs, accelerating project delivery, and reduc- tify projects. There was friction between these choices ing public-sector risk. She stated that there has been and the programmatic decision-making process. The significant progress in advancing projects through P3s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was also a over the past 10 to 15 years. Lessons have been learned sticking point since it involved project definition. The both at home and abroad, and insight has been gained private-sector solutions often required backtracking into important issues such as the balance between the with NEPA if they were advanced. Projects advanced by roles of the federal and state governments. She indicated using this approach include the following: that the session was designed to delve into these issues and experiences from both a national and an interna- Virginia Department of Transportation (late tional perspective. 1980s): unsolicited proposal, Dulles Greenway; California Department of Transportation (1989): Assembly Bill 680 call for project nominations, SR-91 Transitioning to a Programmatic Selection and SR-125; Approach for P3s Washington Department of Transportation (1993): call for project nominations, Tacoma Narrows Bridge; Geoffrey S. Yarema of Nossaman, LLP, discussed the Minnesota Department of Transportation (1995): evolution of P3s in the United States and how to select call for project nominations, Trunk Highway 212 (city projects for P3 delivery. There have been three genera- council veto); and tions of approaches to this issue over its 25-year history: Virginia Department of Transportation (1994 private-sector identification, public-sector identification present): PublicPrivate Transportation Act unsolicited on a one-off basis, and public-sector identification on a proposals processed per guidelines, Pocahontas Park- programmatic basis. way, Dulles Rail. Transportation planning requires decisions on many aspects germane to P3s. Most agencies assume that they Over time, there has been a trend away from private will use designbidbuild delivery without conducting identification of projects, with more states now identifying 25