Coping with Risk in Highway Megaprojects

Aubrey Layne explains the concept of fiduciary risk.
Aubrey Layne explains the concept of fiduciary risk.

by James A. Bacon

As Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne has had more time to dig into his job, he has developed an ever more nuanced appreciation of how things went wrong with the U.S. 460 Connector. There was more to the fiasco, which could cost the Commonwealth up to $300 million, than a simple failure to acquire necessary wetlands permits before opening the spending spigots and then discovering that the permits were not forthcoming. The McDonnell administration, he says, negotiated a public-private partnership deal without sufficient appreciation of risks entailed with the project.

“I can’t tell you if they didn’t know they weren’t transferring the risk [to the private-sector partner] and got out-foxed, or whether they didn’t give a damn,” Layne told Bacon’s Rebellion in an interview today. Either way, the Commonwealth was left holding the bag when plans for the 55-mile Interstate-quality highway linking Petersburg and Suffolk had to be redrawn to do less environmental damage. He still hopes to recover some of the $250 million paid to U.S. 460 Mobility Partners (over and above $50 million in sunk design and engineering costs) for pre-construction work, but that outcome is uncertain.

Layne is optimistic that public-private partnership (P3) reforms enacted with bipartisan cooperation this year will prevent recurrences of the U.S. 460 debacle and help the state negotiate better terms in future deals than it got with the Interstate 495 and Interstate 95 express lanes projects in Northern Virginia, which effectively capped bus transit on the highways for the next half century. The McAuliffe administration’s big test will be to do a better job structuring the financing and risk of $2 billion in proposed improvements to Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia.

Before 1995, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) had one way of building roads. It designed them, put construction out for competitive bids, arranged its own financing, operated them, maintained them and absorbed the risk of anything going wrong. The system got the job done but it had drawbacks. It overlooked potentially creative solutions to engineering and design problems, and it was prone to cost overruns. Then the General Assembly passed legislation enabling public-private partnerships, which provided the Commonwealth a whole new range of options for financing big projects and shifting selected risks to the private sector.

Facing a severe transportation budget crunch, the McDonnell administration made the strategic decision early on to use P3s to leverage scarce public dollars with private capital. From a high-level perspective, this made sense because the Commonwealth had limited capacity to issue road-building bonds without jeopardizing its AAA bond rating and then-Governor Bob McDonnell had not yet pushed through tax increases to bolster transportation funding. Moreover, the administration wanted to take advantage of historically low interest rates on long-term bonds.

But politics and ideology were pushing P3s as well, says Layne. There was a bias that something is always better if the private sector does it. Sometimes the private sector can do things better than VDOT, he says, and sometimes the private sector is better suited to take on certain risks than the state. But not always. The McAuliffe administration’s goal is to find the best fit — the best balance of cost and allocation of risk — on a case by case basis.

The devil is in the details. Layne, a Republican and a McDonnell supporter at the time, backed the governor’s mega-project funding priorities and voted to approve them while serving on the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Indeed, he chaired an independent bonding authority that issued bonds for the U.S. 460 project.  But now that he’s transportation secretary, he realizes the issues were far more complex than presented to him and the CTB board.

The McDonnell administration first proposed a public-private partnership for the U.S. 460 project with the hope that outsiders could devise a more creative way of building and financing the highway than VDOT could come up with. Three consortia took a look and came up with similar conclusions — there would be insufficient toll revenue to finance more than a fraction of the construction cost with bonds. The McDonnell administration then switched gears, deciding to pay for most of the project with state funds but retaining the P3 structure in order to outsource the design and construction of the project to a private-sector partner, which turned out to be U.S. 460 Mobility Partners. The state should have gone back to square one and started over, says Layne, re-defining the project and putting it up for bids instead of using the P3 structure. Instead of getting multiple bidders to compete, the state wound up negotiating with a single player, U.S. 460 Mobility Partners. Even worse, Governor McDonnell had signaled that U.S. 460 was his highest priority, and there was no back-up plan — the administration had to reach a deal with U.S. 460 Mobility Partners or the project would never get built during McDonnell’s term. U.S. 460 Mobility Partners had all the bargaining leverge.

Negotiations took place within the P3 structure, which meant that the deliberations were secret and the contract not released to the public. VDOT briefed the CTB, the state’s transportation oversight board, but failed to disclose the information that critical wetlands permits had not been obtained and might not be obtainable.

The final contract for the U.S. 460 deal was more than 700 pages long. Layne says he can’t imagine than anyone in state government read the whole thing. “I’m confident that no one person understood it all. No one person could tell you what the deal was, what risk was transferred, and what risk the state was taking. And that’s a recipe for disaster” when negotiating with sophisticated business people on the other side of the table.

The dynamic would have played out very differently, says Layne, if the McDonnell administration had set up U.S. 460 as a design-build project.  First, VDOT would have opened up the proposal to competitive bids, very likely getting a lower price even while the private contractor took on the risk of delivering the project on budget and on time. Second, VDOT guidelines would have ensured that all necessary permits were granted before the project commenced and the state started shelling out money.

Layne doesn’t blame U.S. 460 Mobility Partners for negotiating the best deal for itself that it could. It’s not a charity. The company’s managers had a fiduciary responsibility to get the best deal for its shareholders that they could. But elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to the public. The challenge for the Commonwealth is to bring to bear an equally acute understanding of risks and rewards and to cut the best deal possible for the taxpayers. That’s where the state failed utterly with U.S. 460. If he’d had negotiated such a disastrous real estate sector when he worked in the real estate business, he says, he would have been fired.

Now it’s Layne’s turn. He has to structure a mega-project deal for I-66. Tomorrow, I’ll describe how he is approaching that task.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. larryg Avatar

    Excellent commentary and Kudos on getting the interview with someone I have a great deal of respect for – given his performance since he came on the job.

    He’s an honest broker trying to get the job done – right.

    It’s easy to say “someone” did not tell others about the wetland permits but I see it the other way – no one – out of all the players was asking that question and getting confirmation?

    That sounds more like the institutional process itself – failed because do you ever really want one single person as the fail-safe?

    Layne is also (I think) the guy who plays a big role in HB2 and there are unhappy folks these days with HB2 -including most of Fredericksburg local elected and the MPO… but I do note that the other day Bill Howell said it was the right approach, not only no apologies – strong support.

    Not all new mega roads can operate stand-alone on tolls.

    I’m not sure what that means because intuitively one would think a road that cannot be self-sufficient on tolls probably can’t be justified financially – at least as a toll road -but more than that – it calls into question in my mind ANY road in terms of ROI… one would think – perhaps mistakenly – that the real ROI test is in the people who “need” the road – are willing to pay for it.

    So some states like Florida and Maryland have state-wide toll road authorities where some of the cash cows -essentially subsidize the marginal ones. I’d be curious to know how Jim Bacon and others feel about that concept.

    Finally – what do you do when govt does a bad job at something? Seriously?

    Is it the case that the State of Virginia has inadequate financial expertise to configure a P3 or is it that VDOT lacks in house expertise or what?

    As much as I admire Mr. Lane – how will we know that he has figured out how to do it right? what signs should we look for to reassure us that we finally have it under control?

    and P3s obviously have a serious issue with transparency and accountability because they are inherently proprietary and as much as we talk about the necessity of transparency and accountability – it is an absolute anathema to private corporation in competition to each others. How do you get transparency and accountability on that?

    and I further note that on the RT66 expansion -they are now considering a VDOT-operated toll road..

    There’s another guy I thought/think highly of in VDOT that he is now part of the Route 29 Project in Charlottesville and that is Philip Shucet who made some important initiatives at transparency and accountability when he was there.

    Remember what a mess the Rt29 bypass issue was? I won’t say everyone is happy – but the issue is resolved, decisions made, and now plans being executed.

  2. There’s nothing inherently more efficient about private sector corporations vs public agencies. All things being equal, I would probably trust private sector groups even less. What makes them efficient and effective is that they are constrained by a market system that forces them to create value or die.

    While the bid process theoretically provides some competition to mimic the market, it’s still woefully insufficient. The construction companies are still doing public projects and the same sets of incentives that make public agencies ineffective are there to make private sector companies inefficient.

    In my brief experience, it seems like P3 can sometimes just lengthen projects by requiring a long bid process, make them more complex by adding additional layers of oversight (we had to hire an independent engineering group to supervise the engineering group actually doing the work), and limit cities. I saw one project where a construction company bid on some street work. Because of state law, it was very difficult to not take the lowest bid for the exact same services offered, but one of the companies bidding had a reputation for doing a poor job and not delivering on time, which was important for that particular project. Luckily another company just barely outbid them.

    As much as the state tried to construct a market-like bidding process, it had to become rigid in order to prevent favoritism and corruption. In the process, it made the market not work by eliminating the company’s main incentive to do good work.

    1. Bottom line — all systems are imperfect. The goal of public policy is to find the least imperfect.

  3. TooManyTaxes Avatar
    TooManyTaxes

    And what is important is competition. It would be good to see VDOT make an in-house proposal against bids from 3rd parties on projects. As I recall, when Richard Hudnut (?) was mayor of Indianapolis, he regularly had in-house departments (with the help of business consultant) to prepare bids to perform city services internally. These bids competed against those of 3rd party contractors. Both “sides” won bids and taxpayers got a break.

    1. larryg Avatar

      well , VDOT contracts out almost all of the construction and design and what VDOT really does is contract monitoring – which requires expertise equivalent to being able to do this or to monitor someone else doing the task.

      think of it like a code enforcement guy – who looks over what an electrician did but the inspector has to be fully qualified as a master electrician in order to be able to monitor what another electrician does.

      VDOT does this all the time with routine design and construction.

      but on larger projects, mega projects – it gets into what is known as Cost Engineering – which is a complex high stakes endeavor where small lapses in judgement can have huge financial consequences.

      an example might be the Springfield Interchange or the Wooddrow Wilson bridge or the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel..

      and that’s a discipline that assumes programmatic funding from the state and feds..

      all of that gets pushed even further if the funding is based on projected toll revenues.. and that’s where it gets …difficult… trying to figure out how much someone is willing to pay for a value proposition.

      Many a private sector venture has gone belly up by badly estimating what a product is worth to consumers – which is often independent of what it cost to produce that product.

      so you have nickel bottles of coke that sell for a 1.25 – in the same store where other products sell almost at cost or sometimes even less.

      so that’s the interesting thing to me about the US 460 project. it is said almost as if it’s the gospel – that multiple companies said it could not pay for itself with tolls alone – but do any of us have a clue what process was followed to arrive at that conclusion – and if VDOT did that process in house that they’d come up with the same answer as the private sector?

      the irony there is that is what businesses do – they ascertain risk and while not all of them are perfect at it – it’something most know how to do whereas it’s almost like a foreign culture to government workers.

      right?

      😉

Leave a Reply