• Pennsylvania thoroughly identified its infrastructure needs and conducted due diligence before negotiating with bidders.
The funding debate stemmed from a comprehensive assessment of the state's highway and transit needs conducted in 2006. That report indicated that Pennsylvania needs to spend $1.7 billion more each year to maintain its current transportation system. The state commissioned additional reports on the turnpike's finances, condition and traffic to help inform and guide state officials in the bidding process.
• The bidding process was well-run and produced the highest possible bid, given the lease terms set by the state and prevailing market conditions at the time.
Pennsylvania managed a competitive bidding process. The state whittled 14 original bidders down to a final round of three, and through a best and final offer round, generated a $2 billion increase in the highest bid.
• Detailed performance standards were set for the life of the lease.
Although the proposed three-member board for overseeing the lease drew criticism for not including legislative and public representatives, the lease proposal itself set out copious performance measures that the private operator would have had to meet. Similar to the public-private partnerships in Chicago and Indiana, the turnpike lease established both routine condition standards and the condition in which the private operator would have to hand the road back to the state at the end of the lease.