There are quite a few high-volume intersections this path would cross. Will MV drivers expect bicycle traffic coming in the opposite direction? I'm sure DoT with address this with new traffic signals but why the need? Is DoT just designing it this way knowing that cyclist would simply salmon around the circle if they didn't? The circle is NOT so big that it is unreasonable to expect bicyclists to ride 3/4 of the way around it.

Plus that path seems almost too narrow for two-way bike traffic even without the puddles and other debris as pictured above. If traffic was one-way there would be plenty of room to navigate around these hazards. As is, to avoid these hazards one would need to navigate into oncoming bicycle traffic.

I do hope there is a clearly reasonable reason for this designing the bicycle facility this way. Besides this one concern, it looks like an excellent project.

I hope you email all or part of it each week to our new DA Elect, whether you think he already reads it or not.

To name just two reasons, the term is way too long (meaning mistakes made in favor of the concessionare are compounded over decades), and, any operational efficiencies are so small that they'll likely be overwhelmed by the private sector's higher debt and equity costs (including the equity requirement to make a profit).

PPPs are just a government tool; they are not a panacea. And as John says above, PPPs do not eliminate, or even much reduce, governments' need to prioritize infrastructure spending.

In fact, the worst PPPs are often those that seem to save the government the most money; look at the London tube deal.

http://www.citiesonahill.org/infrastructure/

If rates had remained the same (probably if the city were in charge), how much money would we be talking about?

I understand basic finance perfectly well. The current generation of leaders has the highest discount rate in history. What's yours?

Mine is zero.

After New York goes under, perhaps they'll sell the schools and future New Yorkers will have to rent them, in addition to paying debt service and pensions, before a dime of their taxes goes to their children's education.

Eliminate the up front payments, and just have ongoing revenue sharing, and the pols lose interest in the deals.

Greenwashing in that it was sold to some as a progressive policy, because it properly priced parking.

Kind of like selling the Brooklyn Bridge as a way to get tolls implemented without the political objection of providing a revenue stream for the MTA -- we can spend it all right now!

Give the future a nickel, take a dollar away.

There is a lot to say about PPP's and another piece is forthcoming on how to avoid the mistakes of the Chicago deal when pursuing one. Perhaps this piece suggests too strongly that PPPs must rely on upfront or "one shot" payments. Of course they could have structured the deal to have a much smaller upfront payment and on-going profit sharing. But the political foundation of the deal was getting the max possible upfront, in the shortest possible time frame.

Why don't we just turn over the National Parks the the Chinese? If they raise the prices high enough and do enough strip mining, travel will be discouraged and greenhouse gasses will be reduced. And the deal can always defer strip mining for 15 years, and require that those born before 1955 be allowed in for free.