Literature Review WP2.6 Name of the study RAILPAG Railway Project Appraisal Guidelines /project/guideline Full title (if applicable) “ Relevant deliverable “ Publication Year 2005 Partners European Commission; European Investment Bank (EIB) Funded by/prepared for European Commission; European Investment Bank (EIB) Project Reference „RAILPAG‟ Web address http://www.railpag.com/ Methodology Main focus: e.g. methodological Appraisal guidance. - general development, application study Type of methodology: e.g. Socio-economic impact (CBA) for whole society, and for stakeholders (using an „SE Matrix‟). cost-benefit analysis, multi criteria analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis Client and type of client Type: EIB is an International Financial Institution (IFI), similar to The World Bank. Verification of methodology Yes – 10 case studies given (http://www.railpag.com/index.php?mod=cstudy&act=view). by case studies (if applicable): yes/no Short description using Do-Minimum scenario versus with-project scenario. keywords: e.g. use of scenarios, time horizon, geographical scope Complementary analyses: Financial analysis. e.g. sensitivity tests, stakeholder Simple indicators for non-monetised impacts (colour-coded green for mild effects; yellow for analyses, financial analysis moderate; and red for those which may have significant weight in the decision). Input data - system specific data Data 1 (a) Short description of data needed Multimodal passenger and freight flows, journey times, costs. (b) Any requirements on the nature of the Forecast years suitable for the project‟s time horizon. data (e.g. level of detail, year of collection & application) (c) Sources / Collection method Demand and network supply models – passenger and freight. (d) Step in Method where data is used User Benefit estimation; Operating cost and revenue estimation. (e) Any other relevant information (e.g. availability; geographical scope ...) Data 2 Data 3 (a) Project specific cost data: investment, operation and maintenance. (b) Forecast years suitable for the project‟s time horizon. (c) Engineering / feasibility study estimates. (d) CBA; Financial Analysis. (e) Input data - generic data Data 1 (a) Short description of data needed Cost-benefit values for time savings, safety, emissions, etc. (b) Any requirements on the nature of the Suitable for the countries and markets involved, and the appraisal period / time horizon. data (e.g. level of detail, year of collection & application) (c) Sources / Collection method RAILPAG Appendix A for Safety and Emissions. (d) Step in Method where data is used User Benefit estimation; CBA (e) Any other relevant information (e.g. availability; geographical scope ...) Data 2 Data 3 (a) Economic lifetimes of infrastructure elements. (b) (c) RAILPAG Annex B (d) CBA; Financial Analysis (e) Methodology e.g. Safety Impacts estimation Investment costs. - inputs → outputs Traffic Flow Impacts estimation Maintenance and operating costs of the infrastructure. System Costs estimation Vehicle operating costs. Market Penetration forecasts Journey times. Scaling up to network level Accessibility/Time/Reliability/ Safety – “By convention, safety is treated separately from the other components of user benefits. Comfort/Vehicle Operating Cost Expected changes in accident rates for the different modes and alternatives are used to estimate estimation economic benefits, multiplying them by the relevant unit values per accident and per casualty. These values consist of a part usually paid by users through insurance, which is thus internal to Emissions cost estimation the transport system, and general expenditure from the public sector and suffering, which are CBA externalities.” Stakeholder Analysis: Macroeconomics, Distribution, Externalities, such as environmental externalities. Financials, Acceptability, etc Outputs e.g. Snapshot Benefits and Costs ERR, NPV, B/C Ratio Net Present Value Benefit:Cost Ratio Stakeholder distribution of effects. Financial rate of return Stakeholder acceptability incl. public GDP Employment change Accessibility indicators Other data issues Data quality and validity (information or guidance) Data management Presentation of summary SE Matrix (appended below) output data / results Relevant items for FOT FOT explicitly addressed: No. yes/no Findings relevant for / Yes – general framework for socio-economic assessment of rail projects. applicable to FOT, e.g. scaling up procedure Problems encountered Little detail on safety analysis. Additional comments Appendix: SE Matrix QuickTime™ and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are neede d to see this picture. Appendix: SE Matrix QuickTime™ and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are neede d to see this picture.