References

some objectives will be common to all stakeholders; others will be specific to some groups. some stakeholders might have opposing objectives. common objectives typically involve improvements to transportation operations, including (a) reduced transportation costs, (b) reduced transportation-related global and local emissions, (c) reduced noise, (d) reduced congestion, and (e) improved road safety. Exclusive objectives depend on the specific interests of each stakeholder group and, where competing, will need to be balanced against one another by project planners. For instance, public transportation users will be interested in making transportation more affordable. They will also seek to maintain or improve service stops in their particular locales. A transportation authority may be interested in maximizing the quality of service, while the city or metropolitan area government will be interested in keeping user fares low. Incumbent operators, as well as other transportation service operators, will seek to maintain or improve the size of their business and their level of income. Private financiers and suppliers will focus on repayment. Meanwhile, businesses along transit routes will want increased access for their goods or services and minimal disruptions during project development.

Planners should identify stakeholders’ restrictions, especially as these relate to their capacity or willingness to deliver on the project’s objectives. For instance, the city government may be concerned about perceived negative effects on a specific group of transportation service providers or may want to minimize the loss of jobs. The national government may impose some limits on emissions, propose a particular vehicle technology, or require minimum private sector participation. similarly, incumbent operators may have a deal with a bus manufacturer or an operational structure that makes it cheaper to buy buses from a specific firm. similarly, financiers may feel more comfortable lending to an existing operator than to a special-purpose vehicle or, on the contrary, may not be able to lend to incumbent operators. It is critical to assess the capacity of incumbent operators in relation to corporate governance, operations, and access to finance. similarly, local financiers may not have the capacity to assess specific project risks, or local markets may not be deep enough to provide financing beyond a certain tenure.

REFERENCES

APMG International. 2018. “9.1 how to conduct the Market sounding.” In PPP Certification

Program Guide. Buckinghamshire, UK: APMG International. https://ppp-certification.com /ppp-certification-guide/91-how-conduct-market-sounding. World Bank. 2018. “Guidance note on conducting Market sounding and Project Marketing.”

World Bank, Washington, Dc.

3

Alternative Ways to Improve Urban Mobility without a Public-Private Partnership

Beginning with the goal of improving urban mobility, planners should, first, clearly distinguish between the reform objectives and the means to achieve those objectives and, then, look for the best means to their ends. For instance, structuring a successful public-private partnership (PPP) may be a good option to achieve more efficient service provision, improve risk allocation, or leverage private sector funding. All of these objectives can be a means to achieve transportation reform, together with the objectives of reducing externalities related to transportation congestion or providing improved public transportation services to boost productivity. Depending on the objectives and the context, a PPP may not be the best delivery model or conditions may not allow for its implementation. International experience shows that framing an intervention as a PPP when it is not the best alternative may lead to inferior results or even fail to meet project objectives.

A reform that does not improve public transportation services for users has a high risk of failing to meet other objectives (Hoyos Guerrero 2019). Making users happier ensures that the public transportation service will be used. From a financial point of view, having more users means more operating revenues, which are often required to leverage private sector resources and ensure longterm sustainability. From an economic point of view, having more users also means more benefits from the project—that is, improved productivity, fewer people using private cars, less congestion, less noise, and less pollution.

This chapter describes three objectives to consider while planning to improve the welfare of transportation users. Notably, none requires a PPP:

• Reducing the generalized cost of travel (which, in turn, depends on transportation financial costs) • Reducing overall travel times • Improving service quality (waiting times, transfers, general comfort; see chapter 10 for details).

To achieve these objectives, this chapter looks at three areas: (a) technology-related improvements, (b) infrastructure-related improvements, and (c) legal instruments. For each of the three areas, the analytical framework lists technical solutions that do not require structuring a PPP. It would be useful to consider these options during the planning process as part of efforts to