California Legislative Analyst Blasts Public Private Partnership

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The California legislature’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) blasted a public-private partnership deal between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and investors for the development of Doyle Drive. The plan was to give a private company, Golden Link, a 30-year lease on this vital southern route to the Golden Gate Bridge to perform needed renovation to the route. The state would pay the consortium $173 million for finishing the road, followed by $28.5 million in “availability payments” each year the road is open.

“Overall, our analysis finds that the Golden Link agreement does not meet all the goals Caltrans intended and is not likely to be a good fiscal deal for the state,” Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor wrote. “In light of these findings, we think that the state should consider not signing the contract with Golden Link, and instead build the project with a more traditional approach.”

The total cost of the project is estimated at $594 million on the partnership model, while traditional methods would cost around $490 million — not counting a number of potential cost overruns on the riskier partnership model. In terms of bearing risks, the deal put state taxpayers on the hook if any discoveries of endangered species threatens roadside construction. It offered no guarantee that the companies undertaking the project would finish on time. Because the interest rates that will apply are not yet known, the analyst was unable to estimate the final cost with more certainty.

“Based upon our own analysis, we disagree with Caltrans’ conclusion that the agreement results in a lower lifecycle cost,” Taylor wrote. “As described in detail in another section below, we have concluded that a traditional design-bid-build procurement would be less expensive in this particular case than under the Golden Link agreement.”

The analyst recommended dropping the public-private partnership contract. A copy of the letter is available as a 450k PDF at the source link below.

Public Private Partnership letter (Office of the Legislative Analyst, 12/22/2010)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 9 comments
  • Obbop Obbop on Dec 24, 2010

    Over the decades when government intrudes or intermingles with the private sector or vice versa or however the entanglement occurs it seems that pert-near always it is the taxpayer who pays the financial penalty while a few folks scurry away with pockets full of cash. And local, state and federal governments never seem to learn. Hereabouts, in hillbilly heaven/haven, I have witnessed numerous fiascoes over the past three years along with culminations of prior events that rear their ugly heads to bite the taxpayer. Ozark, Missouri just HAD to have a city-based owned and operated multi-million dollar "recreation center" with an indoor water park, gym, and other accouterments akin to the offerings provided by private firms in areas where research and past experiences offers hints to private investors that investment in such an attraction can result in a profit. But, the local politicos, for whatever reason, decided THEY could concoct such an offering and the local voting idiots believed the contrived propaganda and bleating merrily informed the local elites to proceed. Now, a little over a year after completion, as memberships do not meet expectations, local taxpayers are being told to expect higher property taxes to meet the multi-million dollar shortfall. I have seen the same or similar event across the USA for many decades. What a travesty!!!!!!!!! But, obey your leaders/masters and accept the propaganda/brainwashing the "better class" inundates you with. Rant and rave mode off. Merry Xmas herd. Santa shuns the shanty but that's okay!!!!! I didn't buy a present for anybody this year... not even an orphan!!!! Hum Bahbug. Will grab a few of the saved bucks after Xmas when donations decline and buy a batch of those Ramen noodle packs on sale and toss them at the local food pantry so that a few waifs won't have to rummage through dumpster for grub(s). Fifty bucks will buy a lot of on-sale ramen and it does sate appetites and provides some basic nutrients and is amenable to dumping in of various add-ons such as hunks of cheap hot dogs, various veggies, etc. oh yeah!!!!!!!!!! Even an Old Coot can share a little wealth. How about you?

  • Toad Toad on Dec 24, 2010

    Remember, the bureaucrats and public employee unions in California want to kill any public/private partnership in the crib, including the unionized engineers at Caltrans. No government employee wants to work under the expectations that private employers have. If California outsources road engineering to the private sector, who will pay state employees to sit in their idling state issue cars all day to watch other people work? Caltrans officials estimate that the traditional method of construction would cost $635 million while the public-private partnership would run about $488 million. A legislative analyst says the private company bid will end up costing more, but remember that the California legislature is bought and paid for by public sector unions. There is more to this story than "The Newspaper" has reported. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/22/BABC1GUE6R.DTL#ixzz193vGx0RW

    • SexCpotatoes SexCpotatoes on Dec 25, 2010

      Sorry, Toad, but I feel The Newspaper has a lot more respectability than the sort of thieves in CalTrans and the bought and paid-for media that continuously support illegal Red Light Camera schemes, even when they are PROVEN to INCREASE accidents and injuries more often than not. Private companies wanna build and maintain the roads at a cheaper cost than the state? FINE. Let them, but their estimates better come in lower than the State cost, and they should be contractually obligated to stick to them, and pay ALL "cost overruns" out of their own goddamned salaries. Let's see if they still want to play in the state infrastructure sandbox with THOSE rules.

  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
  • Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”
  • TheEndlessEnigma Poor planning here, dropping a Vinfast dealer in Pensacola FL is just not going to work. I love Pensacola and that part of the Gulf Coast, but that area is by no means an EV adoption demographic.
  • Keith Most of the stanced VAGS with roof racks are nuisance drivers in my area. Very likely this one's been driven hard. And that silly roof rack is extra $'s, likely at full retail lol. Reminds me of the guys back in the late 20th century would put in their ads that the installed aftermarket stereo would be a negotiated extra. Were they going to go find and reinstall that old Delco if you didn't want the Kraco/Jenson set up they hacked in?
Next