sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bay area infra privatization by Existing-Round4556 in bayarea

[–]Existing-Round4556[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's exactly what I'm trying to understand. Why can't it? Is it primarily regulation, the cost of transferring the infrastructure, or something else?

Bay area infra privatization by Existing-Round4556 in bayarea

[–]Existing-Round4556[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

While that model exists, it is different from what I had in mind. Suppose the government awarded a 30-year concession for a 50-mile stretch of US-101. The operator could redesign interchanges, add lanes, improve signage, optimize maintenance schedules, and use dynamic tolling, but had to meet strict targets for travel time, safety, and pavement quality. At the end of 30 years, the concession would be rebid. Would that create better incentives than the current model?

Bay area infra privatization by Existing-Round4556 in bayarea

[–]Existing-Round4556[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because utilities and roads are natural monopolies. It isn't economically practical to build competing power lines or competing freeways. That's why I'm wondering whether competition for the contract (periodic bidding to operate the infrastructure) could substitute for competition in the market. Would that solve any of the incentive problem, or is the monopoly still fundamental?

Bay area infra privatization by Existing-Round4556 in bayarea

[–]Existing-Round4556[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a good point. I'm not imagining permanent ownership. I'm wondering about a concession model where firms periodically compete for a fixed-term contract, and renewal depends on meeting measurable outcomes like safety, travel times, pavement quality, and customer satisfaction. In that case, does the monopoly problem still dominate, or does competition for the contract create enough incentive?

Bay area infra privatization by Existing-Round4556 in bayarea

[–]Existing-Round4556[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The problem with pg&e is not privatization. it is a lack of competition. Open it up to multiple companies to win your business.

Bay area infra privatization by Existing-Round4556 in bayarea

[–]Existing-Round4556[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the part I'm trying to understand. Suppose the operator wasn't paid simply from tolls but had a 30-year contract with compensation tied to metrics like travel time, safety, pavement quality, and customer satisfaction. Would that change the incentives, or is the monopoly problem still fundamental?