The Planning and Appraisal of Mega Transport Infrastructure Projects Delivered by Public–Private Partnerships: The Case for the Use of Policy-Led Multi-Criteria Analysis

Open access

Abstract

Mega transport infrastructure projects are frequently perceived as critical to the “success” of major metropolitan, regional and national development because of their potential to affect significant socioeconomic and territorial changes. However, the mega infrastructure development literature tends to focus upon the frequent failures of such projects because of their inability to meet their original expectations.

A major cause for such perceived underperformance has been attributed to the inadequacies of ex-ante project appraisal methodologies. In particular, their excessively narrow focus has prompted growing calls for broader and more transparent project appraisal frameworks. These calls coincide with a period where public private partnerships (PPPs) are growing in importance globally as the favoured procurement route for governments looking to undertake new mega transport infrastructure developments. Some see the practicalities of PPPs as placing them at odds with aspirations for more inclusive and open project appraisal with adequate consideration of the public interest.

It is the authors’ contention that if introduced with broader and more systematically presented sustainability concerns, PPPs can remain compatible with such ambitions. Towards this end, this paper presents the rudimentaries of a policy-led multi-criteria analysis (PLMCA) approach to project appraisal as a means by which PLMCA can contribute to more holistic PPP procurement practices. The authors contend in the latter part of the paper that PLMCA addresses many of the limitations associated with the application of narrower decision-making and project appraisal approaches currently supporting PPPs and other more conventional procurement practices.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aldcroft D. H. (1968). British Railways in Transition [online]. Available at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-349-00708-0 on 23 December 2017.

  • Alexander E. R. (2006). Evolution and status: Where is planning evaluation today and how did it get here? In: Alexander E. R. (ed.) Evaluation in Planning – Evolution and Prospects. Ashgate Press Aldershot pp. 3-16.

  • Allport R. J. (2011). Planning Major Projects. Thomas Telford Limited London.

  • Altshuler A. & Luberoff D. (2003). Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment. Brookings Institution Press Washington D.C.

  • Barfod M. B. (2012). Optimising transport decision making using customised decision models and decision conferences. Ph.D. dissertation Department of Transport Technical University of Denmark Copenhagen.

  • Belton V. & Steward T. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston MA.

  • Bickerstaff K. Tolley R. & Walker G. (2002). Transport planning and participation: The rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography 10(1) pp. 61-73.

  • Brown M. Milner S. & Bulman E. (2001). Assessing transport investment projects: A policy assessment model. In: Giorgi L. & Pohoryles R. J. (eds.) Transport Policy and Research: What Future? Ashgate Burlington VT pp. 44-89.

  • Capka R. J. (2004). Megaprojects – They are a different breed. Journal of Public Roads 68(1) pp. 2-9.

  • Colomb C. (2010). ‘The Perspective of the Social Planner: Incorporating Principles of Sustainable Development within the Design and Delivery of Major Projects An international study with particular reference to Mega Urban Transport Projects for the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Actuarial Profession OMEGA Working Paper 6 OMEGA Centre University College London London.

  • Daniels R. J. & Trebilcock M. J. (1996). Private provision of public infrastructure: An organizational analysis of the next privatizationfrontier. University of Toronto Law Journal 46(3) pp. 375-426.

  • Dean M. (2017). Assessing the applicability of participatory multi-criteria analysis methodologies to the appraisal of mega transport infrastructure. PhD thesis submission Bartlett School of Planning University College London London December.

  • Dimitriou H. T. (2009). Globalization Mega Transport Projects and Private Finance. In: Paper presented at 4th VREF International Conference on Future Urban Transport’ Volvo Research Volvo Research and Educational Foundations Gothenburg Sweden April 19-21.

  • Dimitriou H. T. (2016). Editorial. Research in Transportation EconomicsSpecial Edition 58 pp. 1-6.

  • Dimitriou H. T. & Field B. G. (2017). The Use of Policy-Led Multi-Criteria Analysis (PLMCA) in the planning and appraisal of mega infrastructure projects. In: 2nd IPMA Megaproject Special Interest Group (SIG) Meeting International Project Management Association Porec Croatia September.

  • Dimitriou H. T. Wright P. G. Ward E. J. & Dean M. (2013). ‘Policy-led multi criteria analysis in the appraisal and delivery of mega infrastructure: dissemination to key stakeholders’ NLE OMEGA Workshop University College London London.

  • EPEC. (2016). Hurdles to PPP Investments: A contribution to the Third Pillar of the Investment Plan for Europe. European Investment Bank Luxembourg.

  • EPEC. (2017). Welcome to EPEC [online]. Available at http://www.eib.org/epec/on 22 December 2017.

  • European Investment Bank. (2015). Multi Criteria Analysis Methodology for Project Appraisal in Regional and Urban Development Report Prepared by OMEGA Centre Consultants for Projects Directorate European Investment Bank Luxembourg June.

  • Flyvbjerg B. Bruzelius N. & Rothengatter W. (2003). Megaprojects and Risk – An Anatomy of Ambition. Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK.

  • Haezendonck E. (2007). Transport project evaluation in a complex European and institutional environment. In: Haezendonck E. (ed.) Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social Cost– Benefit Approach. Edward Elgar Cheltenham pp. 1-8.

  • Hall P. (1980). Great Planning Disasters. University of California Press Berkeley CA.

  • HM Treasury. (2015). Valuing Infrastructure Spend – Supplementary guidance to the Green Book [online]. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191524/Valuing_infrastructure_spend.pdf on 24 December 2017.

  • Jacobson C. & Choi S. O. (2008). Success factors: Public works and public-private partnerships. International Journal of Public Sector Management 21(6) pp. 637-657.

  • Macharis C. & Bernardini A. (2015). Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy 37 pp. 177-186.

  • Macharis C. De Witte A. & Ampe J. (2009). The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis Methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects. Theory and Practice. Journal of Advanced Transportation 43(2) pp. 183-202.

  • Macharis C. & Nijkamp P. (2013). Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects. In: Priemus H. & van Wee B. (eds.) International Handbook on Mega-Projects. Edward Elgar Cheltenham pp. 242-266.

  • Marin P. (2009). Public-Private Partnerships in Transport Trends and Policy Options. The World Bank Open Knowledge Series Washington D.C.

  • Medda F. Carbonaro G. & Davis S. (2013). Public Private Partnerships in transportation: Some insights from the European experience. IATSS Research 36(2) pp. 83-87.

  • Metz D. (2008). The myth of travel time saving. Transport Reviews 28(3) pp. 321-336.

  • Miller L. & Lessard D. R. (2000). Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects: Shaping Institutions Risks and Governance. The MIT-Press Cambridge MA.

  • Morris P. W. G. & Hough G. H. (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of Project Management. John Wiley & Sons Winchester.

  • Naess P. (2006). Cost-benefit analyses of transportation investments: Neither critical nor realistic. Journal of Critical Realism 5(1) pp. 32-60.

  • OECD. (2008). Public-Private Partnerships: In Pursuit of Risk Sharing and Value for Money. Organisation for Economic Development Paris.

  • OMEGA Centre. (2008). OMEGA Project 1: Generic Lessons for Improving the Treatment of Risk Uncertainty and Complexity in the Planning for Mega Urban Transport Projects OMEGA Working Paper 4 OMEGA Centre University College London London.

  • OMEGA Centre. (2010). OMEGA Project 3: Incorporating Principles of Sustainable Development within the Design and Delivery of Major Projects: An International Study with particular reference to Major Infrastructure Projects Report prepared for the Institution of Civil Engineering and the Actuarial Profession OMEGA Centre University College London London.

  • OMEGA Centre. (2011). OMEGA Project 2: Lessons for Decision-makers: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Large-scale Transport Infrastructure Projects in Europe USA and Asia-Pacific OMEGA Centre University College London London.

  • OMEGA Centre. (2012). OMEGA Project 2: Lessons for Decision-makers: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Large-scale Transport Infrastructure Projects in Europe USA and Asia-Pacific - Executive Summary Report OMEGA Centre University College London London.

  • OMEGA Centre. (2013). OMEGA Project 7: Development of a Policy-Led Multi-Criteria Analysis (PLMCA) Framework for the Appraisal of Mega Infrastructure Projects OMEGA Centre University College London London.

  • OMEGA Centre. (2014a). OMEGA Project 8: Study for the Application of Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Appraisal of Urban Projects Report prepared for the European Investment Bank European Investment Bank Luxembourg.

  • OMEGA Centre. (2014b). OMEGA Project 9: Study on the Applicability of a Policy-Led Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Planning Appraisal and Delivery of the London Underground Northern Line Extension Project Report of OMEGA Centre NLE Workshop University College London London.

  • Quiggin J. (2004). Risk ‘PPPs and the public sector comparator’. Australian Accounting Review 14(2) pp. 51-61.

  • Rodrigue J. P. (2017). Risk Transfer and Private Sector Involvement in Public-Private Partnerships [online]. Available at https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch7en/appl7en/risk_transfer_ppp.html on 22 December 2017.

  • Samset K. (2012). Beforehand and Long Thereafter – A Look-Back on the Concepts to Some Historical Projects. Ex Ante Academic Publisher Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway.

  • Schutte I. C. (2010). The appraisal of transport infrastructure projects in municipal sphere of Government in South Africa with reference to city of Tshwane Ph.D. dissertation Department of Transport Economics Logistics and Tourism University of South Africa Pretoria.

  • Shaoul J. Stafford A. & Stapleton P. (2006). Highway robbery? A financial analysis of design build finance and operate in UK roads. Transport Reviews 26(3) pp. 257-274.

  • Siemiatycki M. (2006). Implications of public-private partnerships on the development of urban transit infrastructure. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26(4) pp. 137-151.

  • Siemiatycki M. (2009). Delivering transportation infrastructure through public-private partnerships: Planning concerns. Journal of the American Planning Association 76(1) pp. 43-58.

  • Stough R. & Rietveld P. (1997). Institutional issues in transport systems. Journal of Transport Geography 5 pp. 207-214.

  • Ward E. J. Dimitriou H. T. & Dean M. (2016). Theory and background of multi-criteria analysis: Toward a policy-led approach to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal. Research in Transportation Economics Special Edition 58 pp. 21-45.

  • Weaver P. (2009). ‘The Demise of the Iron Triangle’ Mosaicproject’s Blog Available at http://mosaicprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-demise-of-the-iron-triangle/ on 15 April 2014.

  • World Bank. (2015). A Framework for Disclosure in Public-Private Partnership Projects Available at http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/773541448296707678/Disclosure-in-PPPs-Framework.pdf on 30 December 2017.

  • World Economic Forum. (2015). Strategic Infrastructure: Mitigation of Political and Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Projects World Economic Forum Report prepared in collaboration with The Boston Consulting Group The World Economic Forum Geneva.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 239 239 34
PDF Downloads 174 174 34