|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
MAY 28, 2007
The Pros And Cons Of Private Roads And Bridges You raise legitimate concerns about fairness to the public and quality of service when infrastructure is privately owned ("Roads to riches," Cover Story, May 7). We have to find creative ways to finance new roads, including tolls, where appropriate. In many places, private toll roads can be built much sooner than public roads financed by gasoline taxes and other scarce government monies. By law, environmental and safety standards are the same regardless of who builds and operates the new roads. The public can be protected from exploitation by insisting on transparency when the projects to be privatized are selected and when the road concessions are awarded. Predictable, commercially fair rules for setting toll rates and operating standards can be embedded in concession terms, as they are in other countries. Indeed, these factors are prerequisites for attracting sufficient private capital. Private investors can provide urgently needed capital and expertise to meet critical mobility needs, supplementing limited public funds. The key is to make the terms of that trade fair and attractive to both sides so that drivers can ultimately benefit. Allan T. Marks Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy Los Angeles I doubt thatlong-term accountability for public safety will be maintained if critical infrastructure is privatized. I would expect that a private firm will set a much higher risk threshold before initiating, for example, a costly bridge repair—hardly a scenario that reflects the public's best interest. So how do we give government the capital injection it needs, maintain public accountability for safety, and open public infrastructure to private investment? What about a sale-leaseback? The public entity would get a large lump sum to use for infrastructure upgrades, social-program investments, etc., while private investors would get low-risk, long-term cash flows as the government leases back the infrastructure. Think of it as the public sector's version of a home-equity loan to leverage existing assets. The public entity would retain operating control of, and responsibility for, the infrastructure while the private sector would get a solid investment in a new asset class. Sounds like it would serve everyone's best interest. Greg Johnson Pelorus International Rensselaer, N.Y. Your story classifies infrastructure investment as "ultra-low-risk," yet of the major variables listed, public demand is not one. Given the multitude of moving variables, most notably the price of tolls, the challenge of forecasting automobile traffic over the next 10 years is daunting, not to mention the next 50 to 100 years. Compounding this are the unknowns of per-capita income, the inflation rate, and future advancements in technology that may greatly affect the level of auto traffic. Scrutiny of the high price of tolls on these roads may be overblown; the 460-mile round trip from Washington to New York can cost roughly $26 in tolls, and bridges in New York City can cost $9 round trip. On the plus side, higher toll rates are likely to address the growing problem of congestion, with private operators seeking appropriate economic equilibrium to maximize private returns and public enjoyment by reducing time spent sitting in traffic. James Gregoire Infrastructure Management Group Inc. Bethesda, Md. I know the government is not going to be able to understand the ethics of this argument, but things like the Brooklyn Bridge and other infrastructure assets are not owned by the governments that are selling them. They were bought and paid for by money taken from citizens under compulsion (i.e., taxes). That means selling them to wealthy interests is nothing more than stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. I hope everyone who buys these things understands that the day may soon come when some future government may re-nationalize these assets in the name of the common good. They are probably not going to like the price they're going to be offered in the buyback. Ron Tripp Cookson Electronics Assembly Materials Johnson City, N.Y. Why Wait To Make Cleaner Coal? Peabody Energy Chief Executive Gregory Boyce sounds like an experienced gambler, but this time he's betting against history ("Coal? Yes, coal," The Corporation, May 7). The longer he resists the low-carbon economy waiting at the end of this deck of cards, the longer his odds become. Boyce is right that demand for coal will remain, but he's wrong that America's energy future will look a lot like its past. Coal's place in that future will depend on the industry helping to design climate policies that target the problem—carbon emissions—not the coal. These policies are already a topic of discussion in Europe and elsewhere. History will not wait politely for Mr. Boyce. Peter Goldmark Director, Climate & Air Program Environmental Defense New York There are "clean" options for direct firing of coal, and Peabody CEO Boyce should know about them. One of these is known as CWF, or coal-water fuel. In this process, the coal is fine-ground, just as it is for use in a standard power plant. Then it is mixed with water and a wetting agent and spun to separate lower-density (combustible) organic matter—"real coal"—from higher-density inorganic or mineral matter. Another possible combustion step is known as HIC, for high-intensity combustion. With this approach, relatively small changes in burner design result in much faster- and cleaner-burning flames. Visitors to my lab who see this for the first time think they're seeing a gas flame, not a coal flame. CWF/HIC won't solve all of coal's problems, but they could go a long way, and they can be put to use almost immediately. Robert H. Essenhigh Mechanical Engineering Dept. Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio   Begging To Differ Over Resume Buzzwords I have had human-resources managers and recruiters from many top companies in to speak to fellow MBA students. Despite the advice in "The art of the online résumé," (Personal Finance, May 7), these HR managers say that certain buzzwords are overused, including "results driven," and that if someone uses these words, that résumé will be discarded. It's also risky to use Microsoft résumé templates or any other template. Some companies have software that detects templates and tosses out those résumés. MBAs also need to articulate their career objectives to avoid cookie-cutter statements. Derek Joseph MBA Assn. University of Cincinnati Cincinnati
| | |
 Copyright 2007, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version