1 / 15

Gunnar Alexandersson Staffan Hultén

Gunnar Alexandersson Staffan Hultén. Jørgen Aarhaug Frode Longva. The impact of deregulation and cost-benefit analysis on infrastructure investment decisions – a comparison between Sweden and Norway. Workshop on Contemprorary Issues in CBA in the Transport Sector 16 March 2011.

becka
Download Presentation

Gunnar Alexandersson Staffan Hultén

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gunnar Alexandersson Staffan Hultén Jørgen Aarhaug Frode Longva The impact of deregulation and cost-benefit analysis on infrastructure investment decisions – a comparison between Sweden and Norway Workshop on Contemprorary Issues in CBA in the Transport Sector 16 March 2011

  2. The Research Problem • The overall question is to what extent the regulatory features of, and the actors involved in, train operations affect the prioritising of infrastructure investments. • We look at how infrastructure investments are financed and organised in Norway and Sweden, • How the decision making processes – in particular the use of cost-benefit analyses – differ in the two countries and the effects of the investments in terms of transportation volumes and/or the market share of the railway system.

  3. General Comments

  4. The Swedish System

  5. The Swedish System: investments

  6. The Swedish System: transport volumes

  7. The Swedish System: market shares The market share of the railway sector in passenger transport 1970-2007 Share of the pasenger market 9,0% 8,0% 7,0% 6,0% 5,0% 4,0% 3,0% 2,0% 1,0% 0,0% 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

  8. The Norwegian Case • The NTP is a common ten year plan for all transport sectors and the chronological successor of the earlier sector specific plans. • Before the introduction of NTP (National Transport Plan), each transport sector had a sector specific plan. • The last railway plan was for the period 1998-2007. • NTP introduced a more significant role of CBA in the planning of investments project.

  9. The Norwegian Case • There seems to be a very unclear relationship between CBA and specific rail investment projects. A priority list of projects is produced after their CBA ranks, but there are several layers where political and interests of other stakeholders influence investment decisions. • Three decision making stages which all involve considerations beyond the rankings of the CBAs: (i) the JBV (Norwegiaan rail administration) list of projects to be included in the NTP work, (ii) the list of projects to be included in the final NTP, (iii) the decision to finance a specific investment projects through the annual national budget negotiations. • The linkages between the initial CBA rankings provided by the JBV and investment projects finally decided upon are weak.

  10. The Norwegian Case

  11. Comparison

  12. Comparison

  13. Långväga buss: samarbeten och ägarskap

  14. Conclusion • Sweden has built more new lines and upgraded more lines to higher speeds than Norway. • Sweden has built more than 300 kilometres of new railway lines while Norway has built 130 kilometres • Sweden has also built a number of regional railway lines near the biggest cities – the most important are Arlanda line, Mälardalen line, Svealandsbanan and the Öresunds bridge.

  15. Conclusion • The two countries utilize different approaches to CBA and have changed the use of CBA over the last two decades. • The differences seem to be relatively smaller today as both countries use a system in which the socioeconomic value of a railway infrastructure investment is compared with competing investments in other transport sectors. • In addition in both countries political interests directly influence the ranking of the projects which effectively decreases the importance of the CBA.

More Related