Добавил:

Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.

Вуз:

Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»

Предмет:

[НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

Файл:

guide2008_en

.pdf

Скачиваний:

Добавлен:

26.03.2016

Размер:

2.48 Mб

Скачать

☆

<<< < Предыдущая 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 / 2615 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > Следующая >>>

The results of the analysis are presented in the following Figures, which show that the project risks are high since there is a 44.9% probability that the ERR will fall below 5.5%. Therefore, the results of the analysis suggest that a risk management procedure should be incorporated into the project implementation.

Figure 4.2 Results of the risk analysis for ERR

25			X <=0,055				X <=0,10
25		44.9176%				100%

20				Mean=5,701966E-02



15




10



5



0




0,02	0,04	0,06			0,08	0,1

Figure 4.3 Results of the risk analysis for ERR

		X<=0,055		X<=0,10
1		44.9176%		100%
		Mean=5,701966E-02
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0,02	0,04	0,06	0,08	0,1

4.1.7Financial analysis

The financial analysis has been conducted for the free motorway solution and has been chosen as preferable from a socio-economic point of view.

The financial resources are planned as follows:

-EU grant => €129,000,000;

-National Public Contribution => €723,000,000.

The EU Grant is calculated applying a maximum rate approved by the Operational Programme (75%) to the total eligible cost (€172,000,000), which is a minor part of the total investment costs.

139

The financial performance indicators are:
- Financial Net Present Value (investment)		FNPV(C)	€−755,593,000
- Financial Rate of Return (investment)		FRR(C)	−5.0%
-	Financial Net Present value (capital)	FNPV(K)	€−641,616,000
-	Financial Rate of Return (capital)	FRR(K)	−4.6%

As shown by the economic analysis, the introduction of a tolling scheme would lower the socio-economic profitability of the motorway as part of the additional capacity provided by the new infrastructure would remain under-utilized. The net socio-economic loss can easily be measured: it represents the loss in consumer’s surplus due to the reduction in generated traffic and the difference from external benefits of the diverted traffic. For the traffic that will remain on the motorway, there is no loss of benefits as the price they pay for the use the motorway will represent cost for the users but there will be a benefit for the motorway operator. Thus the key issue here is the divergence between economic and financial criteria.

While the answer is clear from an economic perspective (the free of charge motorway should be preferred), it might still be interesting, from a financial point of view, to explore possible ways of having at least a partial cost recovery or a private involvement in the project financing.

On the one hand, having estimated the advantages and disadvantages from the introduction of a full cost recovery pricing scheme, it might be possible to assess whether there is an acceptable trade off, from a social point of view, between the advantages of introducing some level of tolls and the disadvantages in terms of benefits forgone. By running the demand model with different tolls it may be possible to find the tolls that generate a sum of revenues that outweigh the loss of consumers’ benefits due to the reduction in diverted and generated traffic.

On the other hand, in order to guarantee a flow of private capital to the project, it would be interesting to consider a shadow tolling (see Box below). Whenever a socially costly traffic diversion due to the introduction of tolls is outweighed by the decreased social costs of public sector funding because of the private equity involved in the project, the comparison would imply a careful evaluation of the marginal cost of public funds in the country.

As a third option, the concessionaire can take risk only for the state of the asset and bear no traffic risk. The Design Build Finance and Maintain (DBFM) is one of the options considered under the overall Public Private Partnership approach. This contract design puts a strong emphasis on timely completion of the project and on improvement of overall project management processes.

FOCUS: SHADOW TOLLING

Private financing of transport infrastructure requires that a revenue stream remunerates the project promoter. In the absence of a revenue stream, the private sector may be willing to finance an infrastructure, and subsequently to operate and maintain it on the basis of a service contract. In the framework of such a contract, the private company can design, build finance and operate (DBFO) a road and will receive payments linked to the traffic using the road, the so called ‘shadow tolling’, over the lifetime of the concession. The shadow tolling approach may be considered as an alternative to the traditional ‘pay as you go’ approach. The approach transfers both construction cost and traffic risk to the concessionaire, and therefore can be treated as a Public Private Partnership (see Annex G). Road users will not be charged, but traffic volumes would be metered in order to calculate the amount of money paid to the concessionaire.

140

Table 4.9	Economic analysis (Millions of Euros) - Tolled motorway
		CF		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8		9	10	11	12	13	14	15
BENEFITS
Consumer’s surplus			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	13.4	14.7	16.1	17.5		18.8	20.2	21.5	22.9	24.2	25.6	26.9
Time Benefits			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	37.1	38.7	40.3	42.0		43.6	45.2	46.8	48.5	50.1	51.7	53.3
Vehicle Operating Costs (perceived)			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-23.7 -24.0 -24.2			-24.5		-24.8	-25.0	-25.3	-25.6	-25.9 -26.1 -26.4
Gross Producer and Road User Surplus			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	23.8	24.0	24.2	24.4		24.6	24.8	25.0	25.2	25.4	25.6	25.8
Tolls			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	28.4	28.8	29.1	29.5		29.8	30.2	30.6	30.9	31.3	31.6	32.0
Vehicle Operating Costs (not perceived)			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-4.7	-4.8	-4.9	-5.1		-5.2	-5.4	-5.5	-5.7	-5.8	-6.0	-6.1
Net revenues for the State			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.6		2.7	2.8	2.9	3.0	3.1	3.1	3.2
Net Environmental Benefits			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1		-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1
Accident reduction			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1		0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
TOTAL BENEFITS			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	39.5	41.2	42.8	44.5		46.1	47.8	49.4	51.1	52.8	54.4	56.1

COSTS
Investment Costs
Works		0.794	87.3		120.7	129.4	95.3
Junctions		0.794	45.6		45.6	45.6	45.6
Land acquisition		1.000	14.7		14.2	14.7	14.7
General Expenses		0.998	10.5		10.5	10.5	10.5
Other expenses		0.998	4.5		4.5	4.5	4.5
Total investments costs			162.6		195.5	204.7	170.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Operating Costs (motorway operator)
Maintenance		0.573	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7		0.7	0.7	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
General Expenses		0.998	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.4		3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.5	3.5
Total operating costs			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	4.0	4.0	4.1	4.1		4.1	4.1	4.9	4.9	4.9	5.0	5.0
TOTAL COSTS			162.6		195.5	204.7	170.6	4.0	4.0	4.1	4.1		4.1	4.1	4.9	4.9	4.9	5.0	5.0

NET BENEFITS			-162.6 -196.0 -204.7				-170.6	35.5	37.2	38.8	40.4		42.1	43.7	44.5	46.1	47.8	49.4	51.0

		CF	16		17	18	19	20	21	22		23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
BENEFITS
Consumer’s surplus			28.3		29.6	31.0	32.3	33.6	34.8	36.1		37.3	38.6	39.8	39.8	39.8	39.8	39.8	39.8
Time Benefits			54.9		56.6	58.2	59.8	59.8	62.7	64.1	65.5		66.9	68.4	68.4	68.4	68.4	68.4	68.4
Vehicle Operating Costs (perceived)			-26.7		-26.9	-27.2	-27.5	-27.7	-27.8	-28.0	-28.2		-28.4	-28.6	-28.6	-28.6	-28.6 -28.6 -28.6
Gross Producer and Road User Surplus			26.1		26.3	26.5	26.7	26.8	27.0	27.1	27.3		27.4	27.6	27.6	27.6	27.6	27.6	27.6
Tolls			32.3		32.7	33.0	33.4	33.6	33.8	34.0	34.3		34.5	34.7	34.7	34.7	34.7	34.7	34.7
Vehicle Operating Costs (not perceived)			-6.2		-6.4	-6.5	-6.7	-6.8	-6.8	-6.9	-7.0		-7.1	-7.1	-7.1	-7.1	-7.1	-7.1	-7.1
Net revenues for the State			3.3		3.4	3.5	3.6	3.6	3.7	3.7	3.7		3.8	3.8	3.8	3.8	3.8	3.8	3.8
Net Environmental Benefits			-0.1		-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1		-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1
Accident reduction			0.1		0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2		0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
TOTAL BENEFITS			57.7		59.4	61.0	62.7	64.1	65.6	67.0		68.5	69.9	71.4	71.4	71.4	71.4	71.4	71.4

COSTS
Investment Costs
Works		0.794
Junctions		0.794
Land acquisition		1.000
General Expenses		0.998
Other expenses		0.998
Total investments costs			0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	-293.5
Operating Costs (motorway operator)
Maintenance		0.573	1.5		1.5	1.5	2.2	2.2	2.2	3.3	3.3		4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0
General Expenses		0.998	3.5		3.5	3.5	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.4	4.4		4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7	4.7
Total operating costs			5.0		5.0	5.0	6.6	6.6	6.6	7.7	7.7		8.7	8.7	8.7	8.7	8.7	8.7	8.7
TOTAL COSTS			5.0		5.0	5.0	6.6	6.6	6.6	7.7		7.7	8.7	8.7	8.7	8.7	8.7	8.7	-284.8

NET BENEFITS			52.7		54.3	56.0	56.0	57.5	58.9	59.3		60.7	61.3	62.7	62.7	62.7	62.7	62.7	356.2

Discount Rate		5.5%
ENPV		-41.3
ERR		5.0%
B/C ratio		0.9

141

Table 4.10 Economic analysis (Millions of Euros) – Free Motorway

	CF	1		2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12		13	14	15
BENEFITS
Consumer’s surplus		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	53.7	56.1	58.4	60.8	63.2	65.6	68.0	70.3		72.7	75.1	77.5
Time Benefits		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	59.9	62.5	65.0	67.6	70.1	72.6	75.2	77.7	80.3		82.8	85.3
Vehicle Operating Costs (perceived)		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-6.3	-6.4	-6.6	-6.7	-6.9	-7.1	-7.2	-7.4	-7.6		-7.7	-7.9
Gross Producer and Road User Surplus		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-10.3	-10.6	-10.8	-11.1	-11.3	-11.6	-11.8	-12.1	-12.3		-12.6	-12.8
Tolls		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
Vehicle Operating Costs (not perceived)		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-10.3	-10.6 -10.8 -11.1			-11.3 -11.6 -11.8			-12.1	-12.3 -12.6 -12.8
Net revenues for the State		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	10.3	10.5	10.8	11.0	11.3	11.6	11.8	12.1	12.3		12.6	12.8
Net Environmental Benefits		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3		-0.3	-0.3
Accident reduction		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1		0.1	0.1
TOTAL BENEFITS		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	53.4	55.8	58.2	60.6	63.0	65.4	67.7	70.1		72.5	74.9	77.3

COSTS
Investment Costs
Works	0.794	77.2		115.7	113.8	91.9
Junctions	0.794	45.6		45.6	45.6	45.6
Land acquisition	1.000	14.7		14.2	14.7	14.7
General Expenses	0.998	10.5		10.5	10.5	10.5
Other expenses	0.998	4.5		4.5	4.5	4.5
Total investments costs		152.5		190.5	189.1	167.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
Operating Costs (motorway operator)
Maintenance	0.573	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	1.5	1.5	1.5		1.5	1.5
General Expenses	0.998	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	3.2	3.2	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.4		3.4	3.4
Total operating costs		0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	3.9	3.9	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.8	4.8	4.9		4.9	4.9
TOTAL COSTS		152.5		190.5	189.1	167.2	3.9	3.9	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.8	4.8		4.9	4.9	4.9

NET BENEFITS		-152.5		-191.0	-189.1	-167.2	49.5	51.9	54.2	56.6	59.0	61.4	62.9	65.3		67.6	70.0	72.4

	CF		16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28		29	30
BENEFITS
Consumer’s surplus			79.8	82.2	84.6	87.0	88.9	90.9	92.9	94.9	96.9	98.9	98.9	98.9	98.9		98.9	98.9
Time Benefits			87.9	90.4	93.0	95.5	97.6	99.7	101.7	103.8	105.9	108.0	108.0	108.0	108.0		108.0	108.0
Vehicle Operating Costs (perceived)			-8.1	-8.2	-8.4	-8.5	-8.6	-8.7	-8.8	-8.9	-9.0	-9.1	-9.1	-9.1	-9.1		-9.1	-9.1
Gross Producer and Road User Surplus			-13.1	-13.3	-13.6	-13.8	-14.0	-14.1	-14.3	-14.4	-14.6	-14.7	-14.7	-14.7	-14.7		-14.7	-14.7
Tolls			0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
Vehicle Operating Costs (not perceived)			-13.1	-13.3	-13.6	-13.8	-14.0	-14.1 -14.3 -14.4			-14.6 -14.7 -14.7			-14.7	-14.7		-14.7	-14.7
Net revenues for the State			13.1	13.3	13.6	13.8	14.0	14.1	14.3	14.4	14.5	14.7	14.7	14.7	14.7		14.7	14.7
Net Environmental Benefits			-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3	-0.3		-0.3	-0.3
Accident reduction			0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2		0.2	0.2
TOTAL BENEFITS			-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	-0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0
BENEFITS			79.7	82.1	84.5	86.8	88.8	90.8	92.8	94.8	96.8	98.8	98.8	98.8	98.8		98.8	98.8

COSTS
Investment Costs
Works	0.794
Junctions	0.794
Land acquisition	1.000
General Expenses	0.998
Other expenses	0.998
Total investments costs			0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	-279.9
Operating Costs (motorway operator)
Maintenance	0.573		1.5	1.5	1.5	2.2	2.2	2.2	3.3	3.3	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0	4.0		4.0	4.0
General Expenses	0.998		3.4	3.4	3.4	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6		4.6	4.6
Total operating costs			4.9	4.9	4.9	6.5	6.5	6.5	7.6	7.6	8.6	8.6	8.6	8.6	8.6		8.6	8.6
TOTAL COSTS			4.9	4.9	4.9	6.5	6.5	6.5	7.6	7.6	8.6	8.6	8.6	8.6	8.6		8.6	-271.3

NET BENEFITS			74.7	77.1	79.5	80.3	82.3	84.3	85.1	87.1	88.3	90.2	90.2	90.2	90.2		90.2	370.1

Discount Rate		5.5%
ENPV		212.9
ERR		7.8%
B/C ratio		1.3

142

Table 4.11 Financial return on investment (Millions of Euros)

	1	2		3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15

REVENUES	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Works	97.2	145.7	143.4		115.8
Junctions	57.5	57.5	57.5		57.5
Land acquisition	15.0	14.5	15.0		15.0
General Expenses	10.5	10.5	10.5		10.5
Other expenses	4.5	4.5	4.5		4.5
TOTAL INVESTMENTS COSTS	184.7	232.7	230.9		203.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Maintenance	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7
General expanses	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	3.2	3.2	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1	6.1
TOTAL OUTFLOWS	184.7	232.7		230.9	203.3	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1	6.1

NET CASH FLOW	-184.7	-232.7		-230.9	-203.3	-4.4	-4.4	-4.5	-4.5	-4.5	-4.5	-6.0	-6.1	-6.1	-6.1	-6.1

	16	17		18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30

REVENUES	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	340.6
Works
Junctions
Land acquisition
General Expenses
Other expenses
TOTAL INVESTMENTS COSTS	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Maintenance	2.7	2.7	2.7		3.9	3.9	3.9	5.8	5.8	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0
General expanses	3.4	3.4	3.4		4.3	4.3	4.3	4.4	4.4	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS	6.1	6.1	6.1		8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6
TOTAL OUTFLOWS	6.1	6.1		6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6

NET CASH FLOW	-6.1	-6.1		-6.1	-8.2	-8.2	-8.2	-10.2	-10.2	-11.6	-11.6	-11.6	-11.6	-11.6	-11.6	329.0

Discount Rate		5.0%
FNPV (C)		-755.6
FRR (C)		-5.0%

143

Table 4.12 Financial return on capital (Millions of Euros)

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Revenues		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Residual value
TOTAL INFLOWS		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Local contribution
Regional Contribution
National Contribution		156.8	197.5	196.0	172.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
TOTAL NATIONAL PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION		156.8	197.5	196.0	172.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Maintenance		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7
General expanses		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.2	3.2	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1
TOTAL OUTFLOWS		156.8	197.5	196.0	172.6	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1

NET CASH FLOW	-156.8		-197.5	-196.0	-172.6	-4.4	-4.4	-4.5	-4.5	-4.5	-4.5	-6.0	-6.0	-6.1	-6.1	-6.1

		16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
Revenues		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Residual value																340.6
TOTAL INFLOWS		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	340.6
Local contribution
Regional Contribution
National Contribution		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
TOTAL NATIONAL PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Maintenance		2.7	2.7	2.7	3.9	3.9	3.9	5.8	5.8	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0
General expanses		3.4	3.4	3.4	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.4	4.4	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS		6.1	6.1	6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6
TOTAL OUTFLOWS		6.1	6.1	6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6

NET CASH FLOW		-6.1	-6.1	-6.1	-8.2	-8.2	-8.2	-10.2	-10.2	-11.5	-11.5	-11.5	-11.6	-11.6	-11.6	329.0

Discount Rate	5.0%
FNPV (K)	-641.6
FRR (K)	-4.6%

144

Table 4.13 Financial Sustainability (Millions of Euros)

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
EU Grant	27.9	35.2	34.9	30.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Local contribution
Regional Contribution
National Contribution	156.8	197.5	196.0	172.6
Total national public contribution	156.8	197.5	196.0	172.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Operating subsidies					4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1
FINANCIAL RESOURCES	184.7	232.7	230.9	203.3	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1
Passenger vehicles
Goods vehicles
TOTAL REVENUES	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
TOTAL INFLOWS	184.7	232.7	230.9	203.3	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1
Works	97.2	145.7	143.4	115.8
Junctions	57.5	57.5	57.5	57.5
Land acquisition	15.0	14.5	15.0	15.0
General Expenses	10.5	10.5	10.5	10.5
Other expenses	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5
Total investments costs	184.7	232.7	230.9	203.3
Maintenance	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7	2.7
General expanses	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.2	3.2	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.3	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4
Total operating costs	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1
TOTAL OUTFLOWS	184.7	232.7	230.9	203.3	4.4	4.4	4.5	4.5	4.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	6.1	6.1	6.1

NET CASH FLOW	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
CUMULATED CASH FLOW	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
EU Grant	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Local contribution
Regional Contribution
National Contribution
Total national public contribution	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Operating subsidies	6.1	6.1	6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6
FINANCIAL RESOURCES	6.1	6.1	6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6
Passenger vehicles
Goods vehicles
Residual value
TOTAL REVENUES	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
TOTAL FINANCIAL INFLOWS	6.1	6.1	6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6
Works
Junctions
Land acquisition
General Expenses
Other expenses
Total investments costs
Maintenance	2.7	2.7	2.7	3.9	3.9	3.9	5.8	5.8	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0	7.0
General expanses	3.4	3.4	3.4	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.4	4.4	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6	4.6
Total operating costs	6.1	6.1	6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6
TOTAL OUTFLOWS	6.1	6.1	6.1	8.2	8.2	8.2	10.2	10.2	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.6	11.6	11.6	11.6

NET CASH FLOW	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
CUMULATED CASH FLOW	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

145

4.2Case Study: investment in a railway line

4.2.1Introduction

A government of a country eligible for Cohesion Fund assistance has planned to improve the rail connection along a corridor that runs across one of its most densely populated regions. Currently the transport supply in that area includes a relatively old single-track railway line, 215 km in length and a well developed, but congested road network. The railway line has been losing its freight traffic in favour of faster truck transportation and passenger traffic to private cars.

Road congestion particularly affects the network near the main cities and the railway line cannot offer a competitive service: train speed is low and the services provided are unreliable. The main objective of the project is to develop a high-quality rail connection for passengers and freight by improving the existing line. The improved rail link is expected to benefit the environment and to reduce the need to further increase road capacity. The shift of passengers and goods traffic from road towards the railway is one of the objectives of the National Transport Plan in order to reduce congestion and limit CO2 emissions and air pollution the latter, particularly in densely populated areas where exposure is higher. There is also an expectation that the improved rail line will accelerate regional development. The improvement of the line is further encouraged by the introduction of the Eurovignette, which implies a taxation system for road heavy goods vehicles, foreseen for the near future.

In order to achieve these goals, the government has decided to investigate the feasibility of different investment options. The technical feasibility of the project has been confirmed since no specific barriers or other particular physical constraints have been found on the ground. A pre-screening of a number of technical development options on the basis of the preliminary assessment of investment costs and traffic potential has allowed the selection of two main options to be assessed against the BAU scenario:

-business as usual: the railway line will continue as it is and will lose further shares of its passengers and freight traffic. This implies that in the future some congestion is foreseen, particularly around the main cities due to freight traffic growth in the region. The main problem will be air pollution, that is expected to increase significantly as a consequence of the dominance of road mode in freight transport;

-‘option 1’: a solution with limited investments which secures an improvement in the line reliability, although this will have only marginal benefits in terms of modal shift and reduction in environmental and social costs;

-‘option 2’: a solution which reflects a more ambitious plan for the full modernisation of the existing railway line.

The existing railway services are operated by two private companies; one for passengers and the other for freight transport whilst the infrastructure is owned by the government and is managed by a state owned company.

4.2.2Traffic analysis

The two selected options have been analysed with respect to what effect they will have on passengers and freight flows in comparison to the business as usual scenario along the whole corridor. Some sections of the existing line are presently in a very bad shape, and this is having a negative affect on the capacity of the railway infrastructure and the reliability of the services. The line is currently operating at its maximum capacity. No additional trains can be provided although there is a potential demand, particularly for freight going towards the regional port, which will shift from road to rail if further capacity is made available.

146

Investment in Option 1 is likely to result in a moderate increase in passenger and freight demand. It would bring to a halt the decreasing competitiveness trend of the rail and the modal share of the rail will be slightly lower than currently but will take advantage of the expected growth in the overall transport demand.

Option 2 however, will result in a further increase in demand from both passengers and freight, as the capacity will be significantly higher than in Option 1, with the rail modal share showing a limited positive trend.

The following Table shows traffic forecast and service provided in the two options.

Table 4.14 Traffic and service forecasts

		BAU	Option 1		Option 2
	Per day	Per year	Per day	Per year	Per day	Per year
Expected traffic volumes
Tons
Opening year	1,400	308,000	7,200	1,584,000	14,400	3,168,000
Year 15	1,400	308,000	8,113	1,784,860	16,226	3,569,720
Passengers
Opening year	17,500	6,300,000	30,000	10,800,000	48,000	17,280,000
Year 15	17,500	6,300,000	33,805	12,169,800	54,088	19,471,680

Number of trains
Freight
Opening year	2	440	12	2,640	24	5,280
Year 15	2	440	14	3,080	28	6,160

Passengers
Opening year	70	25,200	100	36,000	160	57,600
Year 15	70	25,200	112	40,320	180	64,800

4.2.3Investment costs

The second step in the appraisal is the calculation of the financial costs of the rail upgrading. Preliminary estimates of financial investment costs have been provided by the project engineers and are shown to be compatible with the expected volume of traffic. Having checked the opportunity to further develop the technical feasibility, detailed estimates of the costs of two options have been made available.

Table 4.15 Investment Costs (€)

	Option 1			Option 2
	Millions	%	Millions	%
Works	506.0	65.2	1058.1	63.7
Equipments	126.5	16.3	293.9	17.7
Contingencies	77.6	10.0	166.9	10.1
Other expenses	66.0	8.5	141.3	8.5
Total	776.1	100.0	1660.2	100.0

Maintenance costs of the rail line include all costs for maintaining tracks, signalling, telecommunication, catenary systems and surrounding areas. The costs have been estimated on an annual basis, split into the main components (personnel, materials, freight and carriage costs) for the BAU and the two options, taking into account the expected volume of traffic in each case. The estimates reflect the costs of carrying out the necessary maintenance work that is required to ensure the specific level of service.

147

4.2.4Economic analysis

The benefits of the two options are measured in terms of:

-time savings for the existing passengers rail traffic, fares being equal in all the alternatives;

-costs saving for the existing freight traffic, due to fares reduction on account of the reduced marginal costs made possible by the railway upgrading61;

-time and operating costs savings for the passenger traffic diverted from road to rail;

-air pollution reduction as a result of the shift of freight and passenger traffic from road to rail;

-CO2 emission reduction as a result of the shift of freight and passenger traffic from road to rail

-accident reduction owing to the shift of freight and passenger traffic from road to rail

The economic benefits of the two options can be summarized in the following categories:

-changes in consumer’s surplus , represented by the changes in users generalised costs;

-changes in producer’s surplus (railway operator) and in user’s surplus;

-reduction of the negative externalities as a result of the diverted traffic from road to rail (air pollution, CO2 emissions, accidents).

Table 4.16 summarises the unit generalised costs per trip for passengers and freight

Table 4.16	Costs per trip (€)

		BAU Scenario	Option 1		Option 2
Passangers
Rail
Time costs		28.6	25.0	22.3
Tariffs		16.7	16.7	16.7
Generalised costs		45.2	41.7	39.0
Road
Time costs		25.1	24.9	24.3
Operating costs (including taxes)		17.6	17.6	17.6
Generalised costs		42.7	42.4	41.8
Freight (per ton)
Rail Tariffs		11.6	6.5		6.5
Road Tariffs		12.9	12.9	12.9

4.2.4.1Consumer’s surplus

Passenger’s consumer’s surplus has been calculated according to the so-called ‘rule of half’ for all the rail users and for users remaining on the road network that benefit from a reduction in congestion. The following Table shows the volumes of traffic in the three options (Business as usual, 1 and 2) and the unit benefits for the different flows. The unit benefits for the existing traffic are calculated as the difference between the generalised costs (tariffs for freight) with and without the project62. The unit benefit for freight is the difference in rail tariffs63, no value of time for goods has been considered given the low value of the goods and the limited time saved. For the modal shifters and the users remaining on the road, the unit benefit is half of the difference of the generalised costs of the rail and the road, respectively64.

61In this illustrative example we assume that pricing rules for the operator are given by a fixed mark-up on marginal costs. See case study motorway and Chapter 4 for an explanation of unperceived users operating costs.

62For instance, the unit benefit for initial users of Option 1 is (€45.2 - €41.7) = €3.6. The total benefit is € 3.6 * 6.3 Million passengers = 22.6 Millions of Euros.

63For instance, the unit benefit for rail freight service users of Option 2 is (€11.6 - €6.5) = €5.1

64For instance, the unit benefit for the modal shifters under Option 2 is (€45.2 - €39) = €6.2/2 = €3.1

148

<<< < Предыдущая 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 / 2615 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > Следующая >>>

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

#
26.03.2016240.13 Кб8Grazhdansky_protsess.doc
#
27.11.2019753.66 Кб1Group3_Case.doc
#
24.11.20196.54 Mб1Gruppa_3_itog.doc
#
02.06.201540.95 Кб5Gruppy_dlya_MirEK_1_kurs.docx
#
31.08.201935.24 Кб2GRYaZNOVA.docx
#
26.03.20162.48 Mб14guide2008_en.pdf
#
02.06.201514.94 Mб26G_Menkyu_-_Makroekonomika.djvu
#
02.06.201516.81 Mб14Hall_opciony.djvu
#
02.06.201514.62 Кб9Hello.docx
#
02.06.201541.98 Кб12help3-1.doc
#
02.06.2015424.44 Кб15Hemmingway, Ernest - Men Without Women.pdf