international seminar desafío para el diseño, … · challenges for design, construction and...

INTERNATIONAL SEMINARLONG TUNNELS

17, 18 y 19 de Octubre 2012Santiago, Chile

STRATEGIC ISSUES for BINATIONAL TUNNELS

Bernard FALCONNATPIARC – EGIS (France)

Desafío para el Diseño, Construcción y Operación

Challenges for Design, Construction and Operation

PIARC CHILE

PIARC Chile - International Seminar - Santiago de Chile – 17-19 / 10 / 2012

introduction

Presentation not focussed on a particular project

Presentation based on the experience of the participation to 9 bi-national tunnel projects between:

France and Italy

France and Spain

France and UK (45 km long road tunnel)

Chile and Argentina (alternative to JP II – Las Leñas)

France and Switzerland (large viaduct)

at all the stages of project Feasibility study

Design

Works supervision

Upgrading and refurbishment (Mont Blanc – high political pressure)

2


Location of the bi-national tunnels

There are more than 10.000 tunnels around the world,

But only 23 tunnels are bi-national, within 3 are today no moreunder operation

Their locations 20 in Europe

2 in South America

1 in North America

3


Location of the bi-national tunnels

Existing tunnels Others:

Road + Rail

Hydraulic

High Voltage link

Research (CERN)

Tunnels under development

4


Existing bi-national tunnels

Road tunnels – length and period of construction Most of them built during the last 50 years

5



A particular mention concerning Tende Road tunnel A long history

First try in 1614 without success: huge technical issues

Two other unsuccessful tries: technical and / or financial issues

Successful construction 2 ½ centuries later

Position on the edge of the Alps

Changing from one country to the other before being bi-national

130 years old – in operation - a new tunnel under development

6



Rail and other tunnels – length and period of construction Half of them are between 100 and 150 years old

7



A particular mention concerning Mont-Cenis Rail tunnel First large rail tunnel under difficult technical conditions: 13,7 km

Construction starts inside one country: states of Savoy Piedmont

Tunnel completed as bi-national tunnel between France and Italy

Development of new technologies for the excavation Introduction of drilling with compressed air instead manual

Improvement of the construction rates from 150 m/year to about 600m/year

Tunnel still under operation – has been widened in order to makepossible the transit of piggyback

8


Mont-Cenis rail tunnel Germain Sommeiller


9

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870

m /

anné

e


Tunnels in the past Major issues are technical difficulties and insufficient technology

2 ½ centuries tries for Tende tunnel before to succeed

Mont Blanc: first concept in 1787 ►construction starts in 1959

Channel : first project in 1801 ► construction starts in 1987

Very strong political will and huge boldness To be noticed: the four oldest tunnels launched as national tunnel and

being bi-national later with as advantage: A single and strong political power with a long term vision

A huge national interest for the development of the country

No fears concerning technical and financial issues

An adventure and a huge challenge

An impressive heritage still performing today

Some general comments

10


The precursors (pioneers)

Some general comments

11


All cross huge natural barriers (mountains – straits)With complex geology conditions

Important difficulties for construction

High technical and financial risks

Traffic volume is generally lowWith the exception of 4 of them: urban or inter city connections

The two more trafficked road tunnels are Mont-Blanc and Fréjus Around 1.000.000 cars per year

600.000 and 800.000 trucks per year

The three more trafficked rail tunnels are Mont-Cenis Simplon andChannel

common characteristics

12


Road tunnels A single bidirectional tube with the exception of four of them:

Urban or sub-urban tunnels: Detroit – Monaco

Major motorway inter-city links : A8 – Øresund

Toll collection for 2/3 of the existing road tunnels

Rail tunnels hundred-year-old tunnels: single tube with two tracks with the

exception of Simplon (2 tubes with a single track)

New tunnels or tunnels under development have 2 tubes with asingle track and eventually a service and escape gallery

Toll collection for 40% of the rail tunnels under operation

common characteristics

13


Bi-national tunnels have to face during their development 1 - Difficult natural conditions (mountains and straits)

2 - A major complexity, numerous difficulties and important inertiaassociated to their bi-national status

3 - A lack of long-term and bilateral vision

4 - The fears and lack of interest of the financial world for megaprojects

What stakes and what reefs today

14


1 - Difficult natural conditions The major projects have usually to face important natural barriers:

Mountains with complex geology - important overburden (till 3.000 m) -important water flow under high pressure – often very bad grounds

Sea straits with important tectonic movements, ground subsidence

Investigations may be very complex or eventually impossible

All the risks cannot be always eliminated and hazards during theconstruction works may occur – mandatory to be prepared

Improvement of the technology may possible to face very complexsituations

however the hazards may have important financial consequencesthat have not always been investigated and taken into account


15


2 - The complexity of the bi-national status The most important source of problems and a continuous brake

Position on the territory of two countries – a third political mainstakeholder may be involved (E.U.)

Country “biorhythm” and periods of possible “convergence” Essential during the development and the launching stages


16

-2

-1

0

1

2

0 5 10 15 20

period of possibleconvergence

possibleconvergence


2 - The complexity of the bi-national status (continuation) Stage of development and launching

Long period of the project “maturing” (20 years LTF - Brenner –Andes crossing – v/s Lötschberg Gotthard in Switzerland)

Low level of traffic – high financial costs – not a short term priority forthe two countries – pure national issues have priority

Populations are also volatile (“greens” for LTF)

Negotiation of the bi-national treaty follows the long diplomatic waywith numerous arbitration agreements concerning the sharing, thecommitments and the deadlines – treaty’s approval by parliaments numerous brakes due to some national selfishness and the play of the

diplomacy

numerous stumbling blocks concerning the financial issues


17


2 - The complexity of the bi-national status (continuation) Stage of design and construction

Usual organisation – synthetic sketch


18

Country A Country BAgreement/ Treaty

Inter-governmentalcommission

Ministry A Ministry B

contracts

Contractor A Contractor B Or single JV

Operator A Operator B Or single operator

PPP or Concession


2 - The complexity of the bi-national status (continuation) Inter-governmental commission has a strategic mission

Organ of discussion and negotiation between the two countries Define the strategic criteria of the project: alignment – cross section – base

of ventilation, safety, major technical basis – financial discussions

Frequently inflation of the price: envelop of the national requirements

Organ of control during construction works and the operation

However all details are not resolved & managed by the commission Hundreds of technical and legal issues have to be managed in parallel

in the two countries, with very often important discrepancies

as the devil always hides in the details ►huge impact Blockage or delaying ► global deadline – construction costs

Additional requirements ► budget


19


3 - lack of long term and bilateral vision Basic considerations

Major project in the range of 2 to 4 b-USD (road tunnel 8/12 km)

Mega project in the range of 10 to 15 b-USD (rail tunnel 50/60 km)

Potential traffic usually low – increasing subject to the economicaldevelopment (2% traffic volume increase for 1% GDP growth)

Risks may be important: technical – delaying – costs increasing –traffic volume – financing conditions

The results on the economical development are not immediate

Long time of maturing and construction: 20 / 30 years

Without financial public commitment (direct participation – guaranteeof a minimum of traffic – risk sharing – etc.) project is rarely feasible


20


3 - lack of long term and bilateral vision (continuation) As consequences

Not the first priority for the two countries

Return on political point of view is at long term

Project put in stand-by as soon as difficulties appear or nationalfinance restrictions

4 - financial world fearful in front of mega projects Difficult to find the financing for such huge projects

Important amount of financing required

Level of risks remains high even if well managed

Return on investment starts 25 / 30 years after opening

High revenues between 40 and 70 years (usual duration ofconcession)


21


4 - financial world fearful in front of mega projects (continuation) These fears are often well founded

frequent under evaluation of the construction costs (factor 2 / 2,5):lobbying for a non fair evaluation – lack of experience or competency ?

Under evaluation of all the consequences of the bi-national tunnel

Insufficient or unrealistic analysis of the risks and their financial impact

On-evaluation of the traffic and its growth

The return of the painful experience of the Channel link Costs multiplied by two

Huge difficulties for financing the additional costs during theconstruction

Disaster for the shareholders


22


An ambitious topic because the list is very long

However strategic recommendations could be A strong vision of the long term effort is mandatory

Acceptance of the impact on the economical development at longterm – has to be supported by additional measures

This vision has to be supported at the highest level of the twocountries and to remain a priority across the political legacy

Project has to be shared by the population not as a “fashion” but asefficient tool for economical development

What recommendations

23


The mission of the inter-governmental commission is strategic –commission has to be strong and invested with real powers to “maintain the flame” across all the difficulties and volatility

to restrict oneself against all excesses into the “always more”

adapt the project to its functional requirements and to the real situation

to be the guarantor for the optimisation of the project in order to makeit really financially feasible – the most beautiful project doesn’t have asense or reality if it cannot be bankable

Fair, reliable and professional costs evaluation is mandatory

Very detailed risks assessment and analysis of the financialconsequences

Realistic analysis of the traffic forecast and growth


24


Realistic evaluation of the beneficial effects on the economy andimplementation of measures to promote the development

Any under- estimation of the costs, or gambling with the costs, therisks or with the traffic volume leads directly and surely to adisaster


25

Thank you for yourattention

As conclusion Bi-national tunnel for crossing a strong barrier is challenging The success requires:o long term vision and long efforto strong continuous political commitment during a long periodo fair and professional evaluation of the costs and revenueso strict management for the risks mitigation

And will be the achievement of this long route

international seminar desafío para el diseño, … · challenges for design, construction and...

Documents