Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Transport Reviews, Vol. 26, No. 5, 557–569, September 2006Impact Analysis of Railway Projects in aFlexibility PerspectiveNILS O. E. OLSSONDepartment of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Trondheim, NorwayTaylor TTRV_A_155806.sgmand Francis Ltd(Received 31 August 2005; revised 21 November 2005; accepted 5 January 2006)10.1080/01441640600558231Transport 0144-1647 Original Taylor 0000002006 NilsOlsson nils.olsson@ntnu.no& Article Francis Reviews (print)/1464-5327 (online)ABSTRACT In a multiple case study, using both quantitative and qualitative data, thetraffic impact of four Norwegian railway investment projects was analysed, focusing on thedevelopment of punctuality, frequency, travel time, number of travellers and constructioncost. Front-end ex-ante predictions are compared with observed ex-post outcome. Keysuccess criteria for realization of planned benefits in the studied railway investmentprojects have been a combination of infrastructure development and acceptance for timetableadjustments. Investments that are executed in a large-scale continuous constructionprocess appear to be more likely to achieve such acceptance compared with investments builtand decided upon section by section. Of the studied projects, section-by-section commitmentto investments provided a better cost control than what was the case for continuousconstruction projects. In addition, this study points to challenges in realizing travel timereductions in a system with a combination of single tracks and high capacity utilization ofdouble tracks. It is advised to clarify in appraisal documentation that benefits related torailway infrastructure investments are depending on appropriate timetable adjustments.The results indicate that a flexibility option (to sequence a decision process) may actuallyreduce the benefit potential of an investment.IntroductionThe purpose of this paper is to analyse the impact on the railway traffic of fourrailway investment projects. The study includes a comparison between the frontendex-ante predictions and the observed ex-post outcome, with an emphasis onpunctuality, frequency, travel time and the number of travellers. According toSmall (1999), reductions in travel time typically represent the dominant componentof benefits from transportation investments, and the choice to focus on scheduledtravel time, frequency and punctuality was made with this in mind. Ananalysis of project costs is also included. By comparing the ex-ante, expected andCorrespondence Address: Nils O. E. Olsson, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology, Høgskoleringen 7A, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway.Email: nils.olsson@ntnu.no0144-1647 print/1464-5327 online/06/050557-13 © 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/01441640600558231
558 N. O. E. Olsson et al.ex-post situations for the selected project parameters, the paper is a contribution toex-post analysis of transport projects, as recently asked for (Short and Kopp, 2005).A special interest of this paper is related to the effect of sequencing of decisionsto commit to railway investment and the corresponding sequencing of the actualconstruction. The possibility to divide a large project into sections, and commit tothe sections one by one, is seen as a strategy for flexibility that is applied by thefinancing party of the projects. Hall (1980) favours such stepwise developmentsdue to the unpredictability of major investments, both on the cost and benefitside. In ex-ante analysis, real options can be used to estimate the value of futureflexibility. Bergendahl (2002) shows how a real options approach can be used toview investments in railway infrastructure as a series of options. While the principlesof real options are well established (e.g. Brennan and Trigeorgis, 2000), thereare fewer studies of the ex-post effects of different decision approaches related tocommitment and sequencing, and this paper aims to make a contribution here.Mackie and Preston (1998) identified 21 sources of error and bias in theappraisal of transport projects. They particularly pointed to a systematic tendencyto appraisal optimism. More recently, Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) have made comparisonsbetween ex-ante forecasts and ex-post outcome of major transportationinvestments, including analyses of the development of cost and number of travellersfor railway projects (also Skamris and Flyvbjerg, 1997; Flyvbjerg et al. 2005).Their work shows significant deviation between predicted and actual trafficvolumes, especially for railway projects. According to Flyvbjerg et al. (2003), theaverage number of travellers on new railway lines was 39% lower than estimated.SIKA (2000) found that the actual number of travellers on three studied Swedishrailway lines was between 58 and 79% of the estimated. According to SIKA, possibleexplanations for the differences include an increase in ticket prices, changes inthe services on the lines, a generally lower economic growth than expected andpossible inaccuracies in the applied estimation models. Fröidh (2003) shows anincrease in the number of travellers related to introductions of new railwayservices in Sweden. In four studied projects, the increase ranged from a factor of1.4 to 6.0. New services were typically a combination of new infrastructure, newtrains and increased frequency.Flyvbjerg et al. (2004) point out that cost escalation is highly dependent on thelength of the project implementation phase. Longer implementation causeshigher cost escalation. The analyses carried out by Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) arefocused on mega-projects. In Norway, many railway investments are decidedupon and built section by section in contrast to many of the mega-projects.The marginal benefit of a transport investment is declining as the completenetwork is getting increasingly more complete (Guiliano, 1995). This has particularlybeen documented for highway investments. Major investments in newinfrastructure may, however, give significant effects. Rietveld and Nijkamp(2000) claim that infrastructure systems show identifiable life cycles. Largechanges, such as the introduction of new high-speed trains, give higher impactthan gradual, stepwise development. Based on their argumentation, it can beexpected that a sequenced commitment to large projects, by deciding upon onesection at a time, may result in a low impact. However, such sequenced commitmentcan provide the project owner with room for manoeuvre to adjust if theprerequisites for the project change, including political priorities, the availabilityof funds and the observed impact. This type of incremental commitment issupported by Hall (1980).
Page 1 and 2:
ISBN 82-471-8121-5 (printed ver.)IS
Page 3:
Preface and AcknowledgementsThe wor
Page 7 and 8:
Table of ContentsPreface and Acknow
Page 9 and 10:
Paper OverviewThe following papers
Page 11 and 12:
AbstractTraditionally, projects ten
Page 13 and 14:
alternative use. There are indicati
Page 15 and 16:
1. Introduction1. IntroductionThis
Page 17 and 18:
1. IntroductionFlexible projects ar
Page 19 and 20:
1. IntroductionA literature review
Page 21 and 22:
2. Study design2. Study designThe r
Page 23 and 24:
2. Study designInformation Content
Page 25 and 26:
3. Flexibility in different project
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
4. Project stakeholders4. Project s
Page 33 and 34:
4. Project stakeholdersmandatory qu
Page 35 and 36:
4. Project stakeholdersBased on res
Page 37 and 38:
5. Effectiveness and efficiency5. E
Page 39 and 40:
5. Effectiveness and efficiencyconf
Page 41 and 42:
5. Effectiveness and efficiencyDegr
Page 43 and 44:
6. Project flexibility categorisati
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
7. Conclusions7. ConclusionsThis th
Page 51 and 52:
7. ConclusionsProject phasesFlexibi
Page 53 and 54:
7. ConclusionsEnablersThis thesis r
Page 55 and 56:
7. Conclusions16, Figure 17, and Fi
Page 57 and 58:
7. Conclusions4. AbsorptionAbsorpti
Page 59 and 60:
7. ConclusionsThere appears to be a
Page 61 and 62:
ReferencesAbbot, A. & Banerji, K. 2
Page 63 and 64:
Gareis, R. 2004. Maturity of the Pr
Page 65 and 66: Miller, R. & Lessard, D. 2000. The
Page 67 and 68: Part 2.
Page 69 and 70: Paper 1.Olsson, N.O.E. 2006. Manage
Page 71 and 72: N.O.E. Olsson / International Journ
Page 79 and 80: Paper 2.Magnussen, O.M. & Olsson, N
Page 81 and 82: 282 O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson /
Page 89 and 90: Projects trapped in their freedom:
Page 91 and 92: 1. IntroductionThe purpose of this
Page 93 and 94: project phases: preparation, freezi
Page 95 and 96: establish realistic cost and time f
Page 97 and 98: 4. ResultsIn the following, the emp
Page 99 and 100: lowered the quality but the volume
Page 101 and 102: Percent ofproject onSize of remaini
Page 103 and 104: flexibility is introduced by the us
Page 105 and 106: 100 %First official estimateApprova
Page 107 and 108: ReferencesAndersen, B., Fagerhaug,
Page 109 and 110: Paper 4.Olsson, N.O.E. 2004. ‘Fle
Page 111 and 112: The concept of project flexibilityF
Page 113 and 114: 3. CONCLUSIONSWhat seems to be impl
Page 115: Paper 5.Olsson, N.O.E. 2006. ‘Imp
Page 119 and 120: 560 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 1.O
Page 121 and 122: 562 N. O. E. Olsson et al.and actua
Page 123 and 124: 564 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 3.
Page 125 and 126: 566 N. O. E. Olsson et al.Table 7.S
Page 127 and 128: 568 N. O. E. Olsson et al.with a wi
Page 129 and 130: Paper 6.Henriksen, B., Olsson, N. &
Page 131 and 132: In this paper we use the process an
Page 133 and 134: PROCESS ANALYSIS IN THE PLANNING OF
Page 135 and 136: final framework for expected patien
Page 137 and 138: User involvement also generated exp
Page 139: Paper 7.Olsson, N.O.E. & Samset, K.
Page 155 and 156: Project flexibility and front-end m
Page 157 and 158: uncertainty. External flexibility c
Page 159 and 160: 5.2. Flexibility in decision proces
Page 161 and 162: Degree of redundancySlackPrecisionC
show all

Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?