But before getting too excited about the magical powers of private firms, experts warn that there are potential pitfalls to these arrangements. For one, as Robert Puentes of Brookings noted in a recent paper (pdf), these are complicated multi-decade financial arrangements. And \u201cmany states,\u201d he notes, \u201clack the technical capacity and expertise to consider such deals and fully protect the public interest.\u201d For another, the deals need to be structured wisely \u2014 Maryland\u2019s bill, for instance, would prevent competitive bidding among private firms, which critics say could open the door to corruption and inflated contracts.<\/p>\n
Moreover, a road that\u2019s privately owned for 75 years has the potential to conflict with other public-policy goals. For instance, as a recent GAO report (pdf) found, four of the five privately-funded toll road projects in the last 15 years included non-compete clauses that prevented the government from building nearby roads. As Tim Lee notes, \u201creal-world privatization schemes are often explicitly protectionist.\u201d So what if a state, say, later decides that it wants to build a rail network that competes with the private road? All sorts of complications could arise.<\/p>\n