Absolutely there is more control under traditional contracts, but an important point has been brought up. I agree with what Michael has said: it is important to look at the life-cycle costs, make sure there is money in hand for maintenance and repairs, and make sure that these aren't starved simply to provide money for new capital projects.
Some of the proponents of P3s now admit they may cost more or admit that the risk isn't transferred, but they say, “But you're guaranteeing money for future years.” That's a current argument for P3s. I would say that if you're paying a 25% premium just to have your hand held, forcing future governments to pay these high amounts is an awfully expensive way of doing it.
Yes, you need to consider life-cycle costs in government, and that's a benefit from it, but you don't need to pay an outside party 25% or 50% more in order to do it.