Czech Railway corridors Need Strategic Planning

Transcription

1 Funds earmarked for railway infrastructure development Jiri PRIKRYL SAO Czech Republic

2 Introduction Supreme Audit Office 2

3 Introduction Financing of transport infrastructure in the Czech Republic State Fund for Transport Infrastructure The Fund's income: Transfers of revenue from privatisation; Road tax revenue; Revenue on consumer tax on hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants; Revenue on toll fee and motorway coupons (vignettes); Contributions from the European Commission via the relevant European fund; Subsidies from the state budget. 3

4 Railway corridors in the Czech Republic 4

5 Introduction Audit No. 09/19 Use of financial resources provided for modernization of railway corridors No. III and No. IV. Conventional railway corridors and planned highspeed railway network. Audit conclusion approved 11 th of May Acknowledged by the government 12 th of July

6 Undervalued financial needs Modernization of the corridors approved by the Government: 3 rd corridor (2002) 2,4 bil 4 th corridor (2001) 1,6 bil MoT (2005): 3 rd 3,1 bil 4 th 1,7 bil SAO (2009): 3 rd 3,6 bil 4 th 1,9 bil 6

7 Lack of financial resources and its cause Investment needs should have been covered by the State Fund for Transport Infrastructure (SFTI) and loans. Ministry of Transport approved too many projects for implementation (not only rail, but road, water, etc.). SFTI funds insufficient. Ministry of Finance didn t approve more loans for Ministry of Transport. 7

8 Projects falling behind schedule Ministry of Transport decided to extend the schedule and postpone the deadlines for realization until 2016, so the realization should take 13 instead of 7 years. The Ministry increased the costs by 29 % for the 3 rd corridor and by 9 % for the 4 th corridor. 8

9 Expected rise of costs and more projects behind schedule The Ministry didn t take any measures to ensure the implementation according to the revised funding. Investment needs will increase by further 16 % for the 3 rd corridor and 13 % for the 4 th corridor. The schedule will be extended by at least 2 years. Nearly 50 % of the realization period passed, only 25 % of the expected funds were used and 28 % of the total building length of corridors were finished. 9

10 Low net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) Source Year NPV (mil ) IRR (%) 3 rd corridor Feasibility study ,6 8,95 Government revision ,5 5,60 4 th corridor Feasibility study ,2 8,00 Government revision ,1 4,98 10

11 Modernization (upgrade) vs. optimization Modernization: o 9,6 mil per km average speed 155 km/h Optimization: o 7,3 mil per km average speed 110 km/h 11

12 Delays of projects in their early stages of preparation Delays and increases of costs occurred mainly during the early stages of preparation of documents and projects. Complications with planning inquiry and building control processes. Needs and requests from the individual parties had to be settled. Owners of the estates didn t want to sell their land. Inquiries due to technical and other reasons. 12

13 Planned high-speed railway network Many studies since No socio-economic analysis. Long time territory protection. Due to current economic state of the Czech Republic no possible funding. 13

14 Thank you for your attention. 14