• No results found

The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment Project

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Norwegian High Speed Rail Assessment Project"

Copied!
23
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

The Norwegian

High Speed Rail Assessment

Project

2010 – 2012

Tom Stillesby

Project Manager

Stavanger

29th. June 2012

(2)

Content

Main Objectives

Assumptions

Market

Capital Costs

Environment

Appraisals

Summary

(3)

Main Objectives

JBV shall assess which of the alternatives that are best

suited to fulfill the main objectives of the Norwegian transport policy in the

various corridors:

A - Reference alternativet: A continuation of the current railway policies

B - A more offensive development of the existing infrastructure

C - High Speed concepts which partly are based on existing infrastructure

D - Mainly new high speed lines

(4)

Routes - Assumptions

Trondheim

Stockholm

Gothenburg

Oslo

Kristiansand

Stavanger

Haugesund

Bergen

Journey time between Oslo and the main cities – not longer than 3 hours

All trains in northern corridor to stop at Oslo Main Airport station (Gardermoen)

Parts of lines already in operation or planned for <250 kph should be used if not in conflict with 1)

New alignments should be as close as possible to towns and junctions in order to facilitate for stations close to existing populations.

Double track and double tube tunnels

All lines to be designed for: 330 kph w/freight trains 330 kph wo/freight trains 250 kph w/freight trains

(5)

Markets in 2024

Assumptions:

- Freq. : 1 train per hour

- Ticket price : 60% of average Air Fare

(equals current Train Fare)

(6)

Routes, Journey Times and Market 2024

Trondheim

Stockholm

Gothenburg

Oslo

Kristiansand

Stavanger

Haugesund

Bergen

Oslo – Trondheim

JT : 2:10 – 2:59

Market : 4,3 M/Yr

Oslo – Bergen

JT : 2:06 – 2:36

Market : 4,3 M/Yr

Oslo – KrS - Stavanger

JT : 3:01 – 3:31

Market : 5,0 – 5,5 M/Yr

Bergen - Stavanger

JT : 1:23

Market : 1,9 M/Yr

Oslo – Stockholm

JT : 2:47 – 2:56

Market : 4,3 M/Yr

Oslo – Gothenburg

JT : 1:40 – 2:20

Market : 3,7 - 4,6 M/Yr

(7)

Impact of fare assumptions

7

Impact of HSR fare assumptions on HSR revenues: Example Oslo – Trondheim Eastern route alternative

• Financial viability improves significantly with higher HSR fares.

• In reality, fares need to be optimised for all journey movements depending on

journey length and journey purpose mix.

(8)
(9)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Construction Cost per Km Average Rail Data Average Model

West

South North

Construction Cost per Km (mNOK) – 2011 values

(10)

0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000

GO3:Q GO1:S ST5:U ST3:R S8:Q S2:P N1:Q Ha2:P H1:P BS1:P G3:Y O2:P Risk On Costs Direct Costs

5 5 7 7 9 9 7 7 10 6 10 8.5 West North South

East

Construction Period (Years)

(11)
(12)

CO2e emissions - 60 years – various

sources of energy

Example – High speed line : Oslo – Trondheim through Østerdalen

12 mill tonnes

6 mill tonnes

4 mill tonnes

Construction

Operation

(13)

CO2e emissions during construction

(14)

CO2e – years to balance

(15)
(16)

Appraisal

Norwegian standard

North G3Y Oslo – Trondheim (Hamar & Gudbrandsdalen) - 250kph South S8Q Oslo – Stavanger (via Vestfold) - 250kph

O2P Oslo – Trondheim (Østerdalen) - 330kph S2P Oslo – Stavanger (direct) - 330kph West N1Q Oslo – Bergen (Numedal) - 250kph East ST5U Oslo – Stockholm (via Ski) - 250kph

Ha2P Oslo – Bergen (Hallingdal) - 330kph ST3R Oslo – Stockholm (via Lillestrøm) - 330kph

H1P Oslo–Bergen (Haukeli)/Oslo–Stavanger/Bergen–Stavanger - 330kph GO3Q Oslo – Gothenburg (via Moss) - 250kph

BS1P Bergen – Stavanger (coastal route) - 250kph GO1S Oslo – Gothenburg (direct) - 250kph

-250000 -200000 -150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000

N

_

G

3

Y_

1

2

N

_

O

2

P

_

1

2

W

_

N

1

Q

_

1

2

W

_

H

A

2

P

_

1

2

W

_H

1P

_1

2

W

_B

S1

P_

1

2

S_

S8

Q

_

1

2

S_

S2

P

_

1

2

E_

ST

5

U

_

1

2

E_

ST

3

R_

1

2

E_

G

O

3Q

_1

2

E_

G

O

1

S_

1

2

N

PV

M

ill

ion

N

O

K,

2

00

9

Pr

ic

es

,

25

y

ea

r

appr

ai

sa

l

pe

ri

od

NPV Public Sector/Operator Impacts NPV User Benefits and Third Party Impacts Overall NPV

(17)

-400000 -350000 -300000 -250000 -200000 -150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000 N _ G 3 Y_ C 2 .0 % 5 .5 % 2 5 y r 6 0 y r W _ H A2 P_ C 2 .0 % 5 .5 % 2 5 y r 6 0 y r S_ IC _ C 2 .0 % 5 .5 % 2 5 y r 6 0 y r N PV , M n N O K , 2 0 0 9 p ri c e s , v a ri a b le a p p ra is a l p e ri o d

NPV Public Sector/Operator Impacts NPV User Benefits and Third Party Impacts NPV

Appraisal

Sensitivities

(18)

Financial Analyses

North G3Y Oslo – Trondheim (Hamar & Gudbrandsdalen) South S8Q Oslo – Stavanger (via Vestfold)

O2P Oslo – Trondheim (Østerdalen) S2P Oslo – Stavanger (direct) West N1Q Oslo – Bergen (Numedal) East ST5U Oslo – Stockholm (via Ski)

Ha2P Oslo – Bergen (Hallingdal) ST3R Oslo – Stockholm (via Lillestrøm)

H1P Oslo–Bergen (Haukeli)/Oslo–Stavanger/Bergen–Stavanger GO3Q Oslo – Gothenburg (via Moss) BS1P Bergen – Stavanger (coastal route) GO1S Oslo – Gothenburg (direct)

-60000

-40000

-20000

0

20000

40000

G3Y

O2P

N1Q HA2P H1P

BS1P

S8Q

S2P

ST5U ST3R GO3Q GO1S

N

P

V

M

n

N

O

K

, 2

0

0

9

pr

ic

e

s,

2

5

Y

e

ar

a

ppr

ai

sa

l

pe

ri

od

Total Revenue Revenue - Infrastructure & Service Operating/Maintenance Costs Revenue - Infrastructure & Service Operating/Maintenance Costs & Renewals Revenue - Infrastructure & Service

Operating/Maintenance Costs, Renewals & Cost of Taxation

(19)
(20)

Overview – High Speed Rail

Lines description

JT

Net

benefits

FI stndr

t:min

´1000

BNOK

MNOK / km

BNOK

ratio

BNOK

years

Oslo - Lillehammer -

Trondheim 02:59 4420 185,5 414,0 -142,2 -0,77 2,1 >60

Oslo - Tynset - Trondheim 02:11 4340 145,4 355,4 -99,1 -0,68 4,8 37 Oslo - Kongsberg -Bergen 02:37 4470 158,9 438,9 -137,2 -0,86 4,2 35 Oslo - Hønefoss -Bergen 02:06 4210 167,8 457,2 -137,1 -0,82 5,6 50 Oslo - Bergen Oslo-Stvgr Stvgr - Bergen 02:16 02:27 01:29 7470 262,1 493,5 -194,7 -0,74 8,2 >60

Bergen - Stord - Stavanger 01:22 1910 114,7 498,7 -109,4 -0,95 -2,5 Oslo - Tønsberg - Kr.Sand -

Stavanger 03:31 5060 218,9 519,9 -178,7 -0,82 0,8 >60

Oslo - Porsgrunn -

Kr.Sand - Stavanger 03:02 5550 222,1 504,7 -169,9 -0,77 3,0 >60 Oslo - Askim - Stockholm 02:56 4230 129,3 390,7 -94,4 -0,73 0,9 47 Oslo - Lillestrøm - Stockholm 02:47 4400 114,2 358,1 -77,7 -0,68 1,3 39 Oslo - Fredrikstad - Gøteborg 02:18 4670 66,3 360,4 -59,4 -0,90 1,1 >60 Oslo - Sarpsborg - Gøteborg 01:40 3720 69,0 353,9 -48,5 -0,70 1,0 >60

Oslo - Bergen - Stavanger - Kristiansand - Oslo 11930 495,7 480,3 -416,5 -0,84 4,7

Capital Cost

#

Passengers

2024

Net

benefit/cap

costs

Financial

Analyses

CO2e

Balance

Capital cost / km

(21)

Summary

It is feasable to construct lines and operate high speed trains in all corridors

There is a large end-to-end and intermediate market

Capital costs are significant for all alternatives. Tunnels are the dominant contributor to the high

costs

Net positive income. However, capital costs have to be funded by the State.

There will be reduced emission of CO2.

High Speed lines may be developed as an extension to the Intercity network around Oslo.

There are no conflicts between a IC network with 250 kph and using this as a base for high

speed lines to the main cities.

Net benefits are all negative

(22)

16 Stavanger Sandnes Egersund Mandal Kristiansand Arendal Porsgrunn Torp Tønsberg Drammen Oslo 00:14 02:59 02:37 02:29 02:13 01:40 01:21 01:09 00:37

03:31 Oslo – Drammen Existing line

Sandnes – Stavanger Existing line Order of Development: 1. Drammen – Tønsberg 2. Egersund – Sandnes 3. Porsgrunn – Kristiansand 4. Kristiansand - Egersund

Preferred :

(23)

The Norwegian

High Speed Rail Assessment

Project

2010 – 2012

http://www.jernbaneverket.no/no/Prosjekter/Hoyhastighetsutredningen

/

Tom Stillesby

Project Manager

Stavanger

29th. June 2012

References

Related documents

(2004): International labour mobility and uneven regional development in Europe, European Urban and Regional Studies, 11(1): 27-46... (2002): International petty trading:

I understand that I am not to leave my child at the YMCA or program site unless a YMCA staff or volunteer is there to receive and supervise my child. I understand that my child

In order to make the restaurant different from other Korean barbeque restaurants, the restaurant is going to provide extra sauces for customers.. Other Korean restaurants only have

Thus, changeability and diagnosticity should represent boundary conditions for self-affirmation, such that negative feedback should be changeable and diagnostic for self-

The comparison is done to determine the schedule system that would be optimal for powering base stations at the given loads range through: (1) levelised cost of energy (LCOE);

Appendix 7 – Estimated parameters for the best fitted GARCH models for the OMXS30 index Appendix 8 – Estimated parameters for the best fitted GARCH models for the MIB30 index

Customer Information- processing Customer-related digital real-time data use Customer knowledge process Customer responsiveness Competitor responsiveness Technological

Though students has given their opinion on most effective communication media is Facebook but they like to see their advertising (priority wise) in Television, Newspaper, Facebook