The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment 2010 – 12

The Norwegian High Speed Rail
Assessment 2010 – 12
Stockholm 3rd June 2014
Liv Bergqvist/ Ove Skovdahl
Rejlers Railconsult
Common
premisses
Geography
Lesson
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Assessment in 3 Phases
Existing
knowledge
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
Existing
knowledge
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
The purpose of Phase I was to give an overview and
presentation of the HSR knowledge base already existing
in Norway.
This includes examining work already undertaken by the
Norwegian National Rail Administration, as well as work
from other stakeholders including Norsk Bane AS,
Høyhastighetsringen AS and Coinco North (the
Scandinavian 8 million city).
Also, included in this assessment is the work undertaken
on HSR in Sweden (SOU 2009:74 Höghastighetsbanor – ett
samhällsbygge för stärkt utveckling och konkurrenskraft)
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Existing
knowledge
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
International Experience
Market analyses
Technical parameters
Technical challenges in construction costs
Requirements for implementation and
financing
Social effects
Recommendations
COWI Report available in English (and Norwegian)
at jernbaneverket.no
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Phase 2
Existing
knowledge
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
Common
premisses
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
The purpose of Phase II was to identify common HSR
premises relevant for Norwegian conditions
The premises comprise a number of topics, including:
Market analysis (Atkins + Rand Europe, The institute of
Transport studies (Leeds) and Significance)
Rail Specific Planning and Development (WSP)
Technical and Safety analysis (Pöyry + Sweco, Karlsruhe
Institute of tec. and Interfleet tec.)
Financial and Economic analysis (Atkins + Faithful & Gould and
Ernst & Young
Environmental analysis (Asplan Viak + MISA, VWI GmbH and
Brekke & Strand)
Commercial and Organisational issues (PwC)
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
Four scenarios to be tested
Scenario A
a continuation of the current railway policy and
planned improvements
relatively minor works undertaken (the reference case to
which the other upgrades listed below are compared)
Scenario B
a more offensive development of the current
infrastructure
Refined to: 20 % uniform reduction in JT, increased
frequency (departure every 2 hours) and keeping today's
stopping pattern (regional trains)
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
Scenario C and D
End-to-end JT 3 hours or faster
Min. design speed 250 kph:
250 kph with freigt
250 kph without freight
330 kph with freight
North corridor (Oslo – Trondheim): all
departures stops at OSL
Alignment close to cities, communities
and transport connectivity hubs
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
Other findings from Phase II:
Neither the climate or topography of Norway is an obstacle to HSR as long as
one takes this into account in operations. Meaning choosing the right type of
train, build extra over where there is a risk of avalanches etc.
No large market for high speed freight trains (little is transported by air today)
There is not a greater risk for derailment, collision, fire etc. when introducing
HSR as these are built on a more secure way to begin with.
A SP-survey (stated preference) stated that most Norwegians are positive to
HSR. 7 out of 10 would choose HSR instead of air (with the exception Oslo –
Gothenburg)
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
26 reports from Phase II
Available on jernbaneverket.no
Norwegian and English summary reports
All other reports in English
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Phase 3
Existing
knowledge
Common
premisses
Corridor
analysis
Corridor
analysis
The purpose of Phase III was to conduct specific analysis of
action plans for the individual corridors, including
recommendations for long-term development strategies
From Phase II to III
Phase II provided overall and general studies with some
technical recommendations for Phase III Corridor Studies
Phase III Consultants challenged on common Phase 2
interpretations for all corridors.
The consultants’ discipline experts working together in several
cross corridor working groups
One concluding note from each WG as basis for all corridors
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Værnes
Trondheim
Rambøll
Støren
Oppdal
Environment and climate
Asplan VIAK
Market and Economy
Atkins (UK)
Tynset
Otta
Lillehammer
Voss
Gjøvik
Hamar
Geilo
Bergen
Gardermoen
Sweco
Odda
Hønefoss
Stord
Lillestrøm
Drammen
Kongsberg
Haugesund
Oslo
Ski
Norconsult
Notodden
Sarpsborg/Fredrikstad
Porsgrunn/Skien
Stavanger
Sandnes
Multiconsult
Arendal
Egersund
Mandal
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Kristiansand
Risk and Safety
Pöry
THE SWEDEN CORRIDORS
Corridor
analysis
Cross corridor working groups, on:
Alignment
Civil works
Stations
Construction processes/methods
Quantum's for cost estimations
Mapping and environment
Traffic noise
+ Cooperation between corridor consultancies’ experts a success……
- Lack of JBV involvement
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
WG 1 Alignment
Design principles for Phase III consultants:
B: 20% end-to-end travel time reduction (Scenario B)
2*: Design speed 250 P+F Trains (Scenario C)
D1: Design speed 330 P+F Trains (Scenario D)
D2: Design speed 330 P Trains Only (Scenario D)
Deviations accepted where recommendable
Technical parameters
Design Speed 250- 330 km/h: TSI
Design Speed <250 km/h: JBV Technical Rulebook
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
WG 2 Civil works
Common approach for:
Base foundation
Bridges
Other constructions
Tunnels
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
WG 3 Cost and quantum
Common approach for:
Understanding the cost model
Classification principles
Quantum calculation principles
Costs for site specific installations
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
WG 4 Mapping and environment
Common interactive mapping system - Avinet
Common approach to the environmental impact analysis:
Landscape/cityscape
Cultural heritage
Natural environment
Natural resources
Community life
Common approach for input to the environmental analysis
Energy consumption
Climate consequences
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
WG 5 Alignment search: Basic assumptions
Phase II documentation
Alignment close to possible HS market
KVU Intercity project coordination
Included in WG scope:
Mapping of existing situation
Alignment search
Description of alignments, tunnels, bridges and EIA
Quantums for cost estimation and economic appraisal
Not included:
Stopping patterns, JT and cost estimates
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
CASE ALIGNMENT 250
Corridor
analysis
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
All the lines are
identified as
feasible and
realistic with
acceptable
consequences
for the physical
environment.
3 challenges…
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
1
2
3
Corridor
analysis
Demand, revenue and JT Oslo - Trondheim
Trondheim: 2739
Værnes: 893
Oppdal: 956
2024
Annual HSR
passengers
HSR pkm
HSR tkm
Revenue
JT 2011
JT core
JT Express
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
B
169 140
increase
5:16
C
D
4.4m
4.3 m
1610m
10.0m
1480mNOK
6:36
2:59
2:48
1660m
9.2m
1610mNOK
2:11
2:03
Otta: 1027
Hamar: 933
Oslo: 4136
Gardermoen:
1059
Corridor
analysis
Demand, revenue and JT Oslo - Bergen
Bergen: 3378
Year 2024
Annual HSR
passengers
HSR passenger
km
HSR train km
B
168 220
increase
Revenue
JT 2011
JT core
JT Express
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
5:10
C
D
4.5m
4.2m
1250m
1200m
7.6m
1390mN
OK
6:28
2:37
2:20
7.0m
1390mN
OK
2:06
1:54
Voss: 1208
Myrdal: 73
Geilo: 549
Oslo: 4334
Kongsberg: 1607
Drammen: 1097
Corridor
analysis
Demand, revenue and JT Bergen - Stavanger
Year 2024
Annual HSR
passengers
HSR passenger
km
HSR train km
Revenue
JT core
JT Express
D
1.9m
330m
4.4mNOK
400mNOK
1:22
1:19
Stord: 281
Haugesund: 858
Stavanger: 2306
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Bergen: 1793
Year 2024
Annual HSR
passengers
HSR pkm
HSR tkm
B
72 040
increase
Revenue
JT 2011
JT core
JT Express
6:09
C
D
5.1m
5.6m
1530m
10.2m
1470mN
OK
7:42
3:31
3:18
1620m
9.5m
1580mN
OK
Demand, revenue and JT Oslo - Stavanger
3:02
2:52
Oslo: 4917
Drammen: 797
Stavanger: 2434
Porsgrunn: 1789
Sandnes: 1070
Egersund: 643
Arendal: 1321
Kristiansand: 1577
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Mandal: 668
Corridor
analysis
Demand, revenue and JT Oslo - Stockholm
Year 2024
Annual HSR
passengers
HSR pkm
HSR tkm
B
C
D
n/a
4.2m
4.4m
n/a
n/a
Revenue
n/a
JT 2014
JT core
JT Express
n/a
n/a
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
1130m
1100m
9.7m
9.3m
1150mN 11460mN
OK
OK
5:59
2:56
2:47
2:51
2:44
Corridor
analysis
Impact on freight
In both Scenario C and D (depending
gradient) freight trains can run on
the new line in 120 km/t
(conventional freight trains –
intermodal)
Whilst some higher speed rail
freight traffic will be generated by
the construction of a high speed
line, the absolute number of freight
trains is likely to be low.
However, the indirect impact on the
potential for conventional rail
freight (or even higher speed rail
freight) on the existing network
could be at least as significant.
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Risk and safety
HST are safer than conventional trains
The difference between today's situation and
after introducing HST is small, and one can
conclude that traffic safety in total will not be
affected significantly by adopting HST
The order of goods transferred to rail is small
Transfer from air to rail (air is extremely safe)
An increase in passenger km as HST
generates lots of new traffic
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Construction cost per km
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Life cycle costs
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Economic appraisal
Assessment methods according to:
Guidance from the Ministry of Finance
Alternativ method:
Longer assessment period
HST treated as a separate mode of Transport
Differing discount rate 2 -5,5 %
Wider economic benefits 15 and 30 %
Result: All alternatives have a negative NPV,
regardless of method and assumptions.
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
NPV Million NOK, 2009 Prices, 40 year appraisal
period
100000
50000
0
-50000
-100000
-150000
NPV Public
Sector/Operator Impacts
NPV User Benefits and
Third Party Impacts
Overall NPV
-200000
-250000
-300000
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
E_GO1S_1
2
E_GO3Q_1
2
E_ST3R_1
2
E_ST5U_1
2
S_S2P_1
2
S_S8Q_1
2
W_BS1P_1
2
W_H1P_1
2
W_HA2P_1
2
W_N1Q_1
2
N_O2P_1
2
N_G3Y_1
2
-350000
Corridor
analysis
Some conclusions (short list 1/2)
It is possible to construct and operate high speed lines
in Norway
Further cooperation and communication with
Sweden needed
Large end-to-end and intermediate market
Significant construction costs in the Norwegian
corridors
Lower in Sweden, but there is still the Swedish risk
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Corridor
analysis
Some conclusions (short list 2/2)
In total, there will be an reduction in CO2 emissions, but the
payback period varies.
When not competing with air and lower demand, payback
period = ∞
NPV negative for all corridors
Room for optimizing to improve the financial case
Which parameters that performs better varies between the
corridors
As there is no consistency between the results we cannot
reccomend which corridor that performs the best and therefore
should be constructed first if decided so. It will depend on which
parametres one choose.
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
RETROSPECTIVE:
• Due to history before 2010 Jernbaneverket had limited HSR
assessment credibility.
• HSR assessment project organised independent from
Jernbaneverket core organisation.
• Externally recruited project manager and consultants.
• Limited JBV core organisation involvement during
assessment process.
• Limited post HSR assessment political interest.
• Limited JBV knowledge about the HSR assessment.
• Limited JBV HSR assessment benefit.
AND THE CONCLUSION (?)
NTP 2014-23:
Develop intercity network
around Oslo 2014-30.
This will also be first parts of
future HSR
Corridor
analysis
REJLERS RAILCONSULT
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected]
Liv Bergqvist