PG Funding and Management StrategiesOverview of work done

8th meeting

Friday, 22 September 2008

Paris La Défense

22.09.2008 2

Tasks

• M1: To analyse public private partnership (PPP) for roads and road transport administration

• M4: Show the effect of road pricing on socio-economy

• M6: Show how best to access EU financial support and explore the financial procurement

• M7: Develop a best practice guide for the cost management for long-term investment

22.09.2008 3

M1: PPP-To analyse public private partnership for roads and road

transport administration

Expected output• A summary report shall be drafted. This report shall:

– list best PPP practice with a special focus on the road sector;– analyse the main mistakes made in this sector in order to

learn useful lessons;

• analyse the question of balance between partnership and competition raised by the creation of a PPP.

Time schedule• The project group will be established in autumn 2005 and

will present an analysis in early 2007.

22.09.2008 4

M1: PPPWhat has been done so far?

• At the seventh meeting 14th May 2008: Hannah Kandel gave a presentation on the web based Decision Support Tool (DST) on PPP prepared in Netherlands. The object of this web based tool is to provide information and facilitate decision making.

– The tool had 6 to 8 main branches and many sub-branches. – The DST is structured on a DBFMO (Design, Build, Funding, Maintenance,

Operation) contract. – To cover all the facets of PPP, the pre-requisitional issues of the structure

include Law, Strategy, Public-private comparator and Initiative and planning.

• Questions were asked – How to keep the model updated and dynamic? Last up dated in August 2007. – Should we use password to access the tool. – the group decided to include these questions in the final report and put

forward the pros and cons of having a password or not.

22.09.2008 5

M1: PPPWhat has been done so far?

• At the seventh meeting 14th May 2008: After the presentation and open discussion, the group agreed that:

– It is a very spectacular tool and it works well.

– In addition to the tool, a separate final report needs to be drafted in reply to the goal of Task M1 and the tool must be referred to for use in the report.

– A few mistakes made in PPP and the lessons learned should be analysed in the final report.

– The balance between partners and competition should be analysed in the final report as well as the pros and cons as to whether PPP really is a solution to financing road construction. (This is the sort of information that the Directors of Roads need to give to their ministers).

– The annexes will remain in the final report but without the web page block numbers.

– Updates: a time schedule to estimate what information should be updated when and stating the resources required will be included in the final report as well as a reasoned recommendation to update the information or not.

– The country specific information will be sent to each country to be checked/updated.

– The final report will mention that the data is as of December 2007.

– The final report will state if there is any necessity to continue this task in SP2. specifically on lessons learned from mistakes if this is required, or postpone to SP3, or state the task is complete.

22.09.2008 6

M1: PPPWhat has been done so far?

• At the seventh meeting 14th May 2008 the group had agreed on following steps: – Hannah Kandel will send out overviews to the respective countries to be checked and

corrected.

– Laurent Donato (Belgium), Oscar Álvarez (Spain), Anton Goebel (Finland), Samira Irsame (France), Sarantis Pantelias (Greek) and Inger Thrane (Norway) volunteered to test the DST with a real case by mid June 2008.

– Wim Leendertse will send all the updated questionnaires to CEDR to be kept on PG Funding/CEDR website for information for group members.

– Wim Leendertse will draft the final report over the next 2 months and send it to the group for their feedback by July 31st.

– Between 1st August – 10th Sept: Any amendments will be made and the updated report sent by chairman to the TDC who will give comments on the report before the groups next meeting 22nd September. Comments from TD will be discussed in the group’s next meeting and the report will be updated and sent TDC who will transmit the report to the EB members for discussion at the TD Management workshop in Reykjavik in December.

– Mid Nov: The report will be posted in CEDR’s website 2 weeks before the EB meeting in Reykjavik.

– Dec 2008: The EB members will provide their feedback that will be integrated into the report and write up the ‘consequences’ report to accompany the PPP final report by spring 2009.

22.09.2008 7

M1: PPPWhat has been done so far?

• 5th June 2008: Wim Leendertse send out reminder of testing the DST before 16th June with asking to pay attention to some topics.

• 5th June 2008: Wim Leendertse send out peer country overview to fill in before 16th June.

• 23rd July 2008: Hannah Kandel did send the draft of the final report on PPP which was sent out to the group the same day for comments and amendments.

• 24th July 2008: Oscar Álvarez Robles sent his revised version of country profile of Spain for PPP report.

• 1st September 2008: PPP – Toolkit running on CEDR’s web site.• 3rd September 2008: Oscar Álvarez Robles sent his comments on PPP – toolkit

and report.• 3rd September 2008: Kristín H. Sigurbjörnsdóttir sent hers comments on PPP –

toolkit and report in answering Oscar.• 5th September 2008: Laurent Donato sent his comments on PPP – toolkit and

report.• 8th September 2008: Inger A Thrane sent hers comments on PPP – toolkit and

report.• 10th September 2008: Hannah Kandel did send an updated version of the PPP

report.• 16th September 2008: Samira Irsane sent hers comments on PPP report.

22.09.2008 8

M4: Road pricingShow the effects of road pricing

on socio-economics

Expected output• An inventory of existing or planned road pricing

systems in the Member States of CEDR. • A clear overview of the existing situation.

Time Schedule• The project group will be established in autumn 2005

and will present an analysis in early 2007.

22.09.2008 9

M4: Road pricingWhat has been done so far?

• At the seventh meeting 14th May 2008: Anton Goebel presented the status of the final report on ‘The Impacts of road Pricing on Socio-Economy’. Works needed to be done as following by chapter:

– Ch.1: Introduction: Anton Goebel volunteered to send a first version to the group.

– Ch. 2: Objectives, drafted by Oscar Alvarez. The table could be ‘switched’ to have the objectives in rows and not columns. The chapter should i) mention that the EU is doing a study on the external costs of Road Pricing and are trying to incorporate the external benefits as well and ii) integrate a guideline on the internalisation of external costs and benefits. The balance between the costs and the benefits, or why the costs and benefits may not be balanced, should be explained.

– Ch. 3: RP in Europe. Laurent Donato will merge points 3.2 and 3.3 and amend the text to add what is done in Europe along with a few examples from Europe. In 3.2, the advantages and disadvantages of the different types of RP schemes will add to the definitions already drafted. The tolls in Norway are working but a short text is required on the technical issues.

22.09.2008 10

M4: Road pricingWhat has been done so far?

– Ch. 4: Socio-Economic Impact Chains. Feedback on this chapter had been very positive by EB. It was suggested that the text on the examples could be shortened. It is difficult to find examples for each impact and Anton Goebel solicited the group to send him some.

– Ch. 5: Equity and Impacts of RP. The group agreed that the text is ready and should be used to for the conclusion. Anton Goebel would still think about the impact equity matrix, update it and send it to Morten Welde who drafted this chapter.

– Ch. 6: Acceptability and Impact of RP. The group agreed to give an example of informing or not informing the public of a future road toll with the impact of the public’s opinion on the project. Also, more facts and figures on the running costs versus the income should also be added. The group noted that the political will and vision of politicians in some cases (London) is essential for the introduction of a tolling system and in other cases (Norway) not essential.

– Ch. 7: Conclusions: Anton Goebel volunteered to send a first version to the

group.

22.09.2008 11

M4: Road pricingWhat has been done so far?

• At the seventh meeting 14th May 2008 after much discussion the group had agreed on following steps:

– The results of having the chapters written by different participants is good but for a harmonious style, one person must link all the chapters together. Anton Goebel will read through the report again and draw up a text to link the chapters together by the end of June 2008.

– The final product for this task must be a fairly concise report (around 40 pages) that gives the pros and cons and consequences of Road Pricing on the Socio-Economy for the Directors of Roads to use if interrogated by their ministers.

– Between 1st August – 10th Sept: Any amendments will be made and the updated report sent by chairman to the TDC who will give comments on the report before the groups next meeting 22nd September. Comments from TD will be discussed in the group’s next meeting and the report will be updated and sent TDC who will transmit the report to the EB members for discussion at the TD Management workshop in Reykjavik in December.

– Mid Nov: The report will be posted in CEDR’s website 2 weeks before the EB meeting in Reykjavik.

– Dec 2008: The EB members will provide their feedback that will be integrated into the report and write up the ‘consequences’ report to accompany the PPP final report by spring 2009.

22.09.2008 12

M4: Road pricingWhat has been done so far?

• 21th May 2008: Inger Thrane sent her comments on the draft report of road pricing.

• 27th May 2008: Oscar Álvarez Robles sent his revised version of the chapter about objectives of road pricing.

• 12th June 2008: Laurent Donato sent his revised version of the chapter on road pricing in Europe.

• 8th August 2008: Anton Goebel did send the draft of the final report on road pricing to the group for comments and amendments.

• 13th August 2008: Oscar Álvarez Robles sent his revised version of the chapter on road pricing in Europe.

• 8th September 2008: Inger A Thrane sent hers comments road pricing report.

• 11th September 2008: Anton Goebel did send an updated version of road pricing report.

• 16th September 2008: Samira Irsane sent hers comments on road pricing report.

22.09.2008 13

M6: Show how best to access EU financial support and explore the

financial procurement strategies

Expected output• An inventory of all community funding programmes that

could be of interest to NRAs.• A guide containing methodologies and examples of best

practice that would allow NRAs to make the most of these opportunities;

• A clear overview of the situation and an understanding of the potential involved.

Time schedule• Work on this task would begin in late 2006 and would be

finished after approximately two years in 2009.

22.09.2008 14

M6: Access EU financial support What has been done so far?

At the seventh meeting 14th May 2008: Vytautas Lingaitis gave a presentation on the existing EU funds: 2007-2013 and their objectives.

The group again observed the difficulty of collecting information on eligibility and on mistakes that are not publicised or admitted to, in order to collect data on ‘lessons to learn from’ for this task.

Sarantis Pantelias said that there are two categories of countries that are allocated funds, the

Members States of the EU and the non Member States. He proposed to use the data collected by Vytautas Lingaitis to draft a document for Directors

of Roads that separates the options for Member State and non Member State and then in each category, refer to practical issues concerning road projects only.

After much discussion on how to move forward, Michel Egger read out the goal and output of

this task. In view of the difficulty to answer the task, the group concluded that the report would be drafted as follows: “This is what the group has done and this is what we have learned”.

Sarantis Pantelias volunteered to draft a paper by mid June based, where possible, on the requirements of strategic plan and on what had been discussed today.

22.09.2008 15

M7: Asset ManagementTo develop a best practice guide for the cost management for

long-term investment Expected output• Summary report on the effective management of long-term

investments;• Guide to best practices in Europe.

Time schedule• Work on this task will begin in 2007.• The analysis phase will take approximately 6 months to

complete.• It is estimated that the best practice guide and the final

report will be produced by early 2009.

22.09.2008 16

M7: Asset ManagementWhat has been done so far?

• At the seventh meeting 14th May 2008: Hans-Josef Boos informed the group that this task had been transferred to SP2 for a new group because of GB interest.

• Whether this task should be part of the maintenance and operation costs survey

initiated by the French was questioned and Michel Egger said that this would be discussed the following day in the Strategic Plan ad hoc Group meeting.

• General opinion of the group was that the added value of work on asset

management could only be achieved by members who have experience with asset management.

• The new group would need a mixture of financial specialists and maintenance

specialists to ensure that the right questions are asked.

22.09.2008 17

M7: Asset ManagementWhat has been done so far?

• Michel Egger said that PIARC are also doing a huge study on the management of investments and that the group should be careful not to duplicate this interesting work already done. He added that most countries are starting to think about how to maintain their assets and it would be useful for CEDR to collect what is being done and to learn from the best practices.

• • Hans-Josef Boos informed the group that the TD ad-hoc group will structure the

same task in SP2 and he will inform the group of the result