Accordingly the purpose of this scanning study was to (1) examine programs, policies, and practices used by other countries that actively solicit and involve the private sector in the delivery of highway infrastructure; (2) document lessons learned; and (3) make implementation recommendations that will improve U.S. policy and practice. Further, this scan represented an opportunity to collect information from public agencies administering mature agreements with private contractors developing and operating public roads.
For the purposes of this report, a public-private partnership is defined as a contract between the public and private sectors for the delivery of a project in which the private partner has the responsibility for acquiring the majority of the necessary financing. This characterization of PPPs is the result of the information provided by the host nations during the scanning study. The preliminary information sent to the host nations before the trip did not define PPPs; rather, the countries visited described program aspects and project examples that prompted this definition.
The scope of the investigation involved sending a team from the United States to Australia, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom to collect and evaluate information about PPP programs and projects for highway infrastructure. The team met with representatives of the public and private sectors involved in PPP arrangements, as illustrated in table 1 (see next page). Most information exchange occurred during presentations by host agencies or private sector representatives, but roundtable discussions, social events, and site visits also provided opportunities for information collection.
Within each country, PPPs play an important role in facilitating national and regional mobility. Each country also has a relatively mature PPP program for highway and road infrastructure. While PPP strategies, policies, and practices across the countries were similar in many respects, significant differences in several areas were identified. This variety is beneficial to the scan's objectives because it provides a broader spectrum of perspectives for consideration as the PPP market in the United States continues to evolve.
At this stage, one cannot conclude whether one particular policy or practice is better than another. In fact, such conclusions may be impossible to reach, given the complex sociopolitical environment in which highway infrastructure resides. But differing approaches should give both policymakers and decisionmakers the opportunity to appraise their advantages and disadvantages and determine if implementation resolves a need and is in the public's interest.