An Opinion Page column in today’s TJN and on LoHud examines the ideas floating around for a public-private partnership to replace and run the Tappan Zee Bridge. Here’s the column.

For more on PPPs, which are growing in popularity around the nation, look here at a USA Today wrap up of states taking an interest in PPPs for operating everything from parks to airports to roads and bridges. (South America, Europe, Canada, etc. have scores of such arrangements, big and small.) BTW, I’ve heard from many experts on this that “selling” isn’t really in the cards, but leases are.

Thre was one comment on which I wanted to elaborate. (Yeah, hard to believe there’s more; it’s kinda long … but this is a very complex and interesting concept, and much more information is out there on PPPs.) When talking with Jon Peters, the finance prof. from The College of Staten Island, he illustrated the importance of the profit part to attract investors. Looking at the TZ, he said, the state could expect plenty of investors because it has a proven track record of attracting traffic (tolls, tolls, tolls) and links to major metropolitan areas with lots of destination points. He recalled the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere” plan for Alaska, which would only be done as a public works project. Because, after all, who would want to pay for something that would attract such little use? Where’s the investment return? After all, a PPP only works if there’s something worth investing in.

On the flipside, governments have to be aware of that value. And, contracts have to be written with every possible variable included, or you end up paying to park in the shade at an airport, or not getting potholes filled frequently enough, or rates that jump sky-high 20 years into a deal, with 79 more to go.

Tricky stuff, PPPs. If this is the future of the TZ, let’s hope we get some really smart people reading the fine print.