Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

6. Project flexibility categorisationsNarvikBodøKirunaBodenStockholmÅndalsnesTrondheimÖstersundStockholmBergenline projectHamarGardermoen lineBergenStavangerKristiansandLarvikOsloMossVestfoldline projectHaldenØstfoldline projectKarlstadStockholmGöteborgKøbenhavnFigure 12. The Norwegian rail network and location of studied projects (in grey).The size and location of the new built rail lines are only for illustrationalpurpose. (Paper 5, fig. 1)Table 2 presents a summary of the impact of the four railway projects studied. Acomparison was made between the forecast and actual outcome of selected variables:travel time, frequency, punctuality, and number of travellers. The analysis alsoincluded a comparison between the situation before and after the investments. Thestudy presented in Paper 5 indicates that the major drawback with section-by-sectioninvestments is that the traffic is not adjusted when each new railway section opens.Timetables must be adjusted to utilise new and potentially faster railway sections.Results presented in Paper 5 indicate that a critical mass of potential improvement isneeded to justify timetable changes that utilise new infrastructure. Investments thatare executed as integrated projects appear to be more likely to achieve timetableadjustments, compared to investments built and decided upon section by section.Actual projectapproachDevelopment innumber of travellers,compared to beforeTrain trafficcompared to beforeCostSection by section Small changes ModerateControlimprovementsIntegrated Major increase Major improvements OverrunsTable 2. Observed impact from the studied project strategies. (Paper 5, table 8)A real options approach to railway investment aims at maximising the benefit/costratio by sequenced decisions, continuously utilising updated information. The study in33