1 evaluation of projects for the northern dimension partnership on transport and logistics martti...

1

Evaluation of projects for the Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics

Martti Miettinen

Transys Ltd, Helsinki, Finland

NETLIPSE Network Meeting, Vilnius, 17-18 May 2010

17 May 2010

Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics

NDPTL

17 May 2010 Martti MiettinenTransys Ltd

2

17 May 2010 Transys LtdMartti Miettinen

3

NDPTL is a Partnership between the Ministries of Transport

EU Member States:• Denmark• Estonia• Finland• Germany• Latvia• Lithuania• Poland• Sweden

+ EU Commission

Non-EU members:• Belarus• Norway• Russia


4

Main Developments in Organising the NDPTL

A two-year process came to an end in 2009:• Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by

all the Ministers of Transport by December 2009• 1st Steering Committee meeting was held in

Stockholm, December 18, 2009• 1st High-Level meeting between the Transport

Ministers will be held in Zaragoza, Spain, June 8-9• Lithuania has the first Chairmanship, Jan-Dec 2010• Permanent Secretariat will be established in early 2011

at the Nordic Investment Bank in Helsinki


5

NDPTL Aims

The main goal is to improve major transport connections and logistics to stimulate sustainable economic growth by focusing on a limited number of priorities that reflect both regional and national priorities.

The specific aims are to assist in:• Improving the major transnational transport connections between

the Parties• Accelerating the implementation of transport and logistics

infrastructure projects along the major transnational connections• Accelerating the removal of non-infrastructure related bottlenecks• Providing effective structures to monitor the implementation of the

proposed projects and measures.


6

COOPERATION FRAMEWORK

• High Level Meetings between the Ministers to take strategic decisions and to give political impetus, strategic orientation and direction to the Partnership.

• Steering Committee to co‑ordinate the joint work and to follow and monitor the implementation of the Action Plan

• Permanent Secretariat to provide administrative and technical support to the Steering Committee and the High Level Meetings

• Working Groups as deemed necessary


7

Main Transnational Transport Corridors – the Focus of the NDPTL


8

Consultancy Assignmentfor Preparing the NDPTL

Co-operation


9

The Assignment1. Trade and traffic analyses and forecasts

2. Minimum data set (for continuous and effective monitoring)

3. Guidebook on a sound methodology on project evaluation and appraisal

4. Preliminary list of infrastructure projects

5. Methodology for identifying non-infrastructure related bottlenecks

6. Methodology for drawing up a short list of projects and measures

7. Series of meetings and/or conferences

PRELIMINARY PROJECTS

Infrastructure projects(Non-infrastructure projects)

Guidelines for proposing project• Obvious significance for the international trade and transport in the

ND region; e.g. cross-border impact• Projects should not already:

– be in the construction phase, – have been awarded financing, or – be so advanced that the intervention of the NDPTL is not necessary

• Some political endorsement, such as an inclusion in the national transport investment plan

• Projects need not necessarily be on the priority axes. However, they should be considered projects of interest for the future NDPTL transport network

• Proposed projects should be located on the Northern Axis corridors with significant international trade and transport flows

• Projects should address physical and operational bottlenecks or contribute to their removal

• Projects, which cannot be implemented by a single country

Kari Lautso

Preliminary Classification

• Are the projects corridors (programmes) or distinct projects?• Have the projects been endorsed (proposed) by one or several

countries?• Has a project organisation of any kind been set up?

Preliminary Classification

Low High

(LEVEL OF COOPERATION)

Lo

wIM

PO

RT

AN

CE

H

igh

PERFORMANCE(MATURITY)

GROUP 1"Keep up the good work"SC: MonitoringIFI:s: Guidebook

Financing

GROUP 2"Concentrate here"SC: Main focus area

Project preparationEstablishment cooperation

GROUP 4"Low priority"SC: No activity

GROUP 3"Possible overkill"SC: Measures if required

Table 1a - CORRIDORS WITH SEVERAL ENDORSERS AND AN ORGANISATION

2006 2020 Growth

2 Rail Corridor II DE, PL 2230 Rail Corridor II PL, (DE) 5 - 10

5 Rail TEN-T Priority Project

FI, EE, LV, LT, PL

10 Road Corridor I LT, PL 2 - 4

4 Road, Rail TEN-T Priority Project

FI, NO, SE

15 Road TEN-T Priority Project

NO, SE

16 Road TEN-T Priority Project

NO, SE

23 Rail TEN-T Priority Project

NO, SE 8

21 Rail Northern Transport Axis

NO, SE 1 - 16

22 Rail Northern Transport Axis

NO, SE 16

Ministries of Transport (FI, SE, NO)

E6 (Oslo – Gothenburg)

E18 (Oslo – Stockholm)

Oslo - Swedish border

Nordic Triangle

International traffic, MtonnesManaging/sponsoring organisation

Corridor II Steering Committee (?)

European Coordinator; Ministries of TransportCooperation between the Baltic Road Administrations; Ministries of Transport



Corridor II Steering Committee (?)

Barents Link Forum

REMARKSNro on

mapNAME

BARENTS LINK:

Berlin - Frankfurt (Oder)

Via Baltica

E20 line Kunowice-Warsaw-Terspol (Minsk-Moscow-Niznyi Novogrod)

Rail Baltica

ENDORSING COUNTRIES

Barents (rail) Link

Narvik - Kiruna railway infratsructure improvement

MODEPriority Corridor

CORRIDOR II:

CORRIDOR I:


NORDIC TRIANGLE:

Tables 1a and 1b list the corridors, which have possibly advanced the best and longest. They have already a more or less functioning organisation for project development and promotion. For these reasons the corridors are likely to belong to GROUP 1 (Keep up the good work).

Question: (1) Are all these projects already sufficiently managed so that they need no assistance from the NDTPL Steering Committee?

Screening and PrioritisationMethodology

(A proposal by the Consultant)

EUROMED

Method

1. Points1.1 10

1.2 7

1.34

2.2.1 10

2.2 7

2.34

3.3.1 103.2 43.3 63.4 103.5 83.6 63.7 4

4.4.1 104.2 94.3 64.4 54.5 4

5. 5.1

105.2

85.3

85.4

65.5

85.6

65.7

65.8

4

6.6.1 86.2 106.3 66.4 66.5 46.6 66.7 46.8 66.9 4

Technical criteria

Increasing the capacity of the network:

Economic criteriaThe project has a developed financial plan where the private sector participation is expected and the project cost is between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDP

The contribution to the connection with other regions:Those projects that link the national netw ork w ith the border w ith a non-Mediterranean country

The contribution to integration based on improving the national network:The rest of the projects

The project is included among the country’s planning policies

Social criteria

Elimination of a missing link:

The feasibility study of the project has been drafted

Promotion of intermodality and interoperability:

Projects in major transport axes1 designed to allow for continuous channelling of international f low s at similar characteristics throughout the axis; new ports or airports located on these axes w ill also be considered

All port, airport or rail projects not considered a missing link; all road projects connecting the main transport axes to a port or airport

Rail signalling system installation projectsRail electrification projectsNew rail projects

The project has not a developed financial plan, the private sector participation is not expected but the project cost is between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDP

The preliminary feasibility study has been drafted on the projectA feasibility study has been drafted on the project, but it needs to be updated

The construction design for the project has been drafted

The rest of the projects

New road projects

Port projectsAirport projectsRehabilitation or upgrading roads projects

The project has not a developed financial plan, the private sector participation is not expected and the project cost is not between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDP

Environmental criteriaRail signalling system installation projects

Policy-based criteria

The project has a developed financial plan where the private sector participation isexpected but the project cost is not between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDP

The project has a developed financial plan where the private sector participation is not expected and the project cost is not between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDPThe project has not a developed financial plan and the project cost is not between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDP but the private sector participation is expected

The project has a developed financial plan where the private sector participation is notexpected and the project cost is between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDPThe project has not a developed financial plan but the private sector participation is expected and the project cost is between 0.02% and 0.5% of the country’s GDP

New airport projectsRehabilitation or upgrading roads projectsNew road projects

Rail electrification projectsNew rail projectsPort remodelling or expansion projects

Airport remodelling or expansion projectsNew port projects

The contribution to the South-South connection or the South-North connection:Those projects that link the national netw ork w ith the border of another Mediterranean country, a project for a port or the extension/remodelling of a port, or an airport project or the expansion/remodelling of an international airport

General criteria

Problems with EUROMED • Social criteria and environmental criteria do not

reflect the traditional impacts of project development, as they are expressed as project types (e.g. New rail project). This will:– predetermine the types of projects selected– give double weight to selected project types

• Cannot be applied to non-infrastructure projects• Use of Project Maturity concept (IPAT) ?

Methodology for Drawing up a Shortlist of Infrastructure Projects

Version 1: • Northern Dimension methodology based on

EUROMED

Version 2:

• Northern Dimension methodology

Methodology Version 1

(based on EUROMED)

1. 1.1

1.2

1.3

2.2.1

2.2

2.3

3.3.13.23.33.4

4.4.14.24.34.44.55.

5.15.25.35.45.55.6

6.6.16.26.36.4

Environmental criteria: Tons of pollution eliminated/generatedResource conservation: Changes in total fuel consumptionChanges in modal split: Freight and passengers: road/rail/sea

Environmental and resource conservation criteriaImpact on nature protection areas: NATURA; Other protection areas

Proportion of infrastructure investments from private sourcesFinancial plan has been developed (and approved)Affordability: Total cost of the project vs. GDP

Economic criteriaTravel time of international transport decreased/increasedTravel cost of international transport decreased/increasedCost / Benefit ratio

Feasibility study has been drafted on the project, but it needs to be updatedPreliminary feasibility study has been drafted on the projectProject is included among the country’s planning policies

Policy-based criteriaConstruction design for the project has been draftedFeasibility study of the project has been drafted

Accidents eliminated

Social criteria: Economic development and quality of life(International) tonneges moved or (International) passengers movedGrowth of (international) freight/passenger traffic 2005-2030Direct/indirect jobs suported or created; Rate of unemployment

All port, airport or rail projects not considered a missing link; all road projects connecting the main transport axes to a port or airport

Increasing the capacity of the network:The rest of the projects

Technical criteriaElimination of a missing link:Projects in major transport axes1 designed to allow for continuous channelling of international flows at similar characteristics throughout the axis; new ports or airports located on these axes will also be considered

Promotion of intermodality and interoperability:

Those projects that link the national network with the border with a non-Northern Dimension country

Contribution to integration by improving the national network:The rest of the projects

General criteriaContribution to East-West or North-South connections:Those projects that link the national network with the border of another Northern Dimension country, a project for a port or the extension/remodelling of a port, or an airport project or the expansion/remodelling of an international airport

Contribution to connections with other regions:

Potential revisions

Methodology Version 2:Aims of the NDPTL

Memorandum of Understanding:Within the general aim of promoting international trade, the specific aims of

the Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics are to assist in:

• Improving the major transnational transport connections between the Sides with the view to stimulate sustainable economic growth at the local/regional and global levels;

• Accelerating the implementation of transport and logistics infrastructure projects along the major transnational connections, and facilitate the approval of projects of mutual interest;

• Accelerating the removal of non-infrastructure related bottlenecks, affecting the flow of transport in and across the region, and facilitate the improvement of logistics in international supply chains;

• Providing effective structures to monitor the implementation of the proposed projects and measures.

Requirements

• Clarity with regard:– Fulfilment of the aims of NDPTL (Improvement of transnational transport

corridors) => Goals indicator– Project progress (Accelerating project implementation) => Maturity indicator

• Non-infrastructure measures analysed similarly• Provision the basis for future monitoring => Maturity

• Support for ready incorporation of ”Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool (IPAT)” developed in Netlipse project

• Direct incorporation of regional and global environmental impacts possible (not yet included)


• Goals indicator measures the compatibility of the project against the NDPTL goals and objectives

• Maturity indicator measures how well the needs of project development have been addressed at the time of evaluation

Group 2 Group 1

Group 4 Group 3GO

AL

S IN

DIC

AT

OR

MATURITY INDICATOR

Martti MiettinenTransys Ltd


Goals Indicator 0 B A 10

Maturity Indicator 0 B A 10

EnvironmentalIndicator 0 B A 10

Partnership aims

Project progressIPAT/Netlipse?

EnvironmentGreenhouse gasesCO2

Carbon


Scoring

Project A: 9,1 / 5,2 / 1,0

5,1

Goals / Maturity / Environment

Project B: 1,0 / 5,2 / 9,1or


Rating

A A A

Goals Maturity Environment

A A B

A B B

B B B



(Projects/programs > 5 years)

AA11-11.21.31.41.5

A22.12.22.32.4

A33.13.23.3

A44.14.24.3

BB11.11.21.31.41.51.6

Risk of delayInclusion in the National Transport Plan or in another development program

Affordability: Total cost of program vs. GDP (or national investment program)

Adjoining programs/measures planned or implemented similarly in neighbouring countriesRisk of impact on nature protection areas: NATURA or other significant protection area

MATURITY BENCHMARKSMaturity related benchmarks

Travel cost of international transport decreased/increasedOther EU-wide economic impact (e.g. employment, access to resources etc)

Implementation years: (i) starting in the next 5 years; (ii) in 5-10 years; (iii) after 10 years

GOALS BENCHMARKSLocational benchmarksProgram is located on a HLG Priority Corridor (Nordic Triangle, Rail Baltica)Program is located on a branch of the Northern Transport CorridorProgram is located on other significant international freight/passenger corridor

Program location is other than any of the aboveProgram establishes a basic connection/service across borders (high flow not expected)

Functional benchmarksCreates a new connection or a facility (e.g. seaport, airport)

Improves an existing connection or a facility in a significant way (capacity, travel time & Promotes intermodality (Creates or improves an existing connection to/from an internationally important intermodal/freight/passenger terminal)

Completes construction or eliminates a missing link on an existing corridor/service

Operational benchmarks

Travel time of international transport decreased/increased

International tonneges moved in 2020International passengers moved in 2020

Economic development benchmarks

Change in modal split


Methodology Version 2(Projects < 5 years)

AA11.11.21.31.41.5

A22.12.22.32.4

A33.13.23.3

A44.14.24.3

A55.15.25.3

BB11.11.21.31.41.5

B22.12.22.32.42.52.6

B33.13.2 Other legal requirements met and manadatory permits obtained

Feasibility study has been prepared, but needs to be updated

Construction plan for the project has been prepared

Preliminary feasibility study has been prepared

EIA has been prepared and approvedPermitting and the environmental benchmarks

Feasibility study of the project has been completed

Inclusion in the National Transport PlanFinancial plan has been developed (and approved)

No studies, but the project is included in the country’s project development program

Environment: Tons of pollution eliminated/generated

Planning status benchmarks

Affordability: Total cost of the project vs. national investment programCost / Benefit ratioProportion of infrastructure investments from private sources

Functional benchmarksCreates a new connection or a facility (e.g. seaport, airport)

Improves an existing connection or a facility in a significant way (capacity, travel time & Promotes intermodality (Creates or improves an existing connection to/from an internationally important intermodal/freight/passenger terminal)

Project is located on a branch of the Northern Transport CorridorProject is located on other significant international freight/passenger corridorProject establishes a basic connection/service across borders (high flow not expected)Project location is other than any of the above

Economic development benchmarksTravel time of international transport decreased/increasedTravel cost of international transport decreased/increasedOther EU-wide economic impact (e.g. employment, access to resources etc)

Adjoining projects/measures planned in coordination with neighbouring countries

Resource conservation: Changes in total fuel consumption

MATURITY BENCHMARKSEconomic and financial benchmarks

International tonneges moved in 2020International passengers moved in 2020Change in modal split

GOALS BENCHMARKS

Quality of life benchmarksSafety: Accidents eliminated

Operational benchmarks

Completes construction or eliminates a missing link on an existing corridor/service

Locational benchmarksProject is located on a HLG Priority Corridor (Nordic Triangle, Rail Baltica)



Goals benchmarks:• Location benchmarks indicate whether the project is located

e.g. on a previously prioritised corridor.• Functional benchmarks reveal whether the project finalises

an already started program, or it only launches one.• Operational benchmarks look into the expected usage of the

project. i.e. what is the future volume of international traffic.• Economic development benchmarks are indirect indicators

using expected changes in travel time and costs.• Quality of life benchmarks are included to take into account

some special project goals, such as traffic safety and environmental impact mitigation.



Maturity benchmarks (projects/programs >5 years):• Status with regard the national Transport Plan or equivalent

• Affordability

• Risks with regard the nature preservation areas, especially Natura areas

• Coordination of the projects on the same corridor with neighbouring countries

Additional benchmarks for immediate projects (< 5 years):• Economy and finance reveal the financial feasibility and status of

the project

• Planning status indicate the preparedness of the plans and engineering documents of the project

• Permitting and environment describe the attainment of legal and regulatory permits and approvals


Project RatingBy using multi-criteria analysis

GG11.1 Yes No1.2 Yes No1.3 Yes No1.4 Yes No1.5 Yes No

G22.1 Yes No2.2 Yes No2.3 Yes No2.4 Yes No

G33.13.23.3

G44.14.24.3 Yes No

MM11.1 < 5 years 5-10 years > 10 years1.2 Yes No1.3 None Low High1.4 < 0,02% 0,02-0,5% >0,5%1.5 Yes No1.6 Yes No

Risk of delay

GOALS BENCHMARKSLocational benchmarksProgram is located on a HLG Priority Corridor (Nordic Triangle, Rail Baltica)Program is located on a branch of the Northern Transport CorridorProgram is located on other significant international freight/passenger corridorProgram establishes a basic connection/service across borders (high flow not expected)Program location is other than any of the above

Functional benchmarksCreates a new connection or a facility (e.g. seaport, airport)Completes construction or eliminates a missing link on an existing corridor/serviceImproves an existing connection or a facility in a significant way (capacity, travel time & Promotes intermodality (Creates or improves an existing connection to/from an

Operational benchmarksInternational tonneges moved in 2020

Maturity related benchmarks

International passengers moved in 2020Change in modal split

Mill. tons/yearMill. passengers/year

Economic development benchmarks

Road to rail in %

Hours/day/vehicleTravel time of international transport decreased/increasedEUR/ton or passenger

Adjoining programs/measures planned or implemented similarly in neighbouring countries

Affordability: Total cost of program vs. GDP (or national investment program)Risk of impact on nature protection areas: NATURA or other significant protection area

Travel cost of international transport decreased/increased

Implementation years: (i) starting in the next 5 years; (ii) in 5-10 years; (iii) after 10 yearsInclusion in the National Transport Plan or in another development program

Other EU-wide economic impact (e.g. employment, access to resources etc)

MATURITY BENCHMARKS


Grouping of Projects

• Projects vs. programs. For the purposes of this study the distinction between a project and a program is probably necessary

• Timing. Time-specific groups that can be applied are such as <5 years, 5-10 years, and >10 years

• Transport mode. This classification is not proposed

• Previous priority lists. The projects located on the priority corridors should be automatically placed on the shortlist of projects? However, this rule has not been proposed


Addressing Environmental Concerns

Methodology addresses:• Project specific environmental concerns, which are

stated in the current national laws and regulations (e.g. FS, EIA, public participation)

Methodology does not address:• General environmental considerations, which are

ND-wide or global and go beyond the current national laws and regulations. They are primarily new systemic and regulatory concerns, e.g. caps on greenhouse gases.


Work to Be Done

• Selecting the method for developing the final methodology

• Selecting benchmarks/criteria and defining them in detail

• Setting weights for each benchmark/criteria• Applying the selected method to the

preliminary list of projects

How to Benefit from IPAT?


35

Maturity - Long term

Maturity - Short term

Decision PhaseIPAT?

1 evaluation of projects for the northern dimension partnership on transport and logistics martti...

Documents

implementation of transport

ministers of transport

transport ministers

major transport connections

evaluation of projects

steering committee meeting

northern dimension partnership

proposed projects