1 COST Action TU1001 Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Trends & Theory P3T Discussion Papers Part II Case Studies Edited by Athena Roumboutsos Sheila Farrell Champika Lasanthi Liyanage Rosário Macário
2 2 COST Action TU1001 Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Trends & Theory P3T Discussion Papers Part II Case Studies Edited by A. Roumboutsos, S. Farrell, C. L. Liyanage and R. Macário This publication is supported by COST. Cover by Maria Stafida Original Cover Rail Photos courtesy of Niklas Alm Year of publication: 2013 ISBN , for the papers by Authors 2013, for the editing by A.Roumboutsos, S. Farrell, C. L.Liyanage and R. Macário COST Office, 2013 No permission to reproduce or utilise the contents of this book by any means is necessary, other than in the case of images, diagrams or other material from other copyright holders. In such cases, permission of the copyright holders is required. This book may be cited as: COST Action number- title of the publication. Legal Notice by COST Office Neither the COST Office nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use, which might be made of the information contained in this publication. The COST Office is not responsible for the external websites referred to in this publication.
3 3 Contents Foreword 7 The COST Programme 8 Preface 9 Introduction 11 Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Case Study Structure Athena Roumboutsos and Champika L. Liyanage
4 4 Case Studies Roads and Motorways A19 Dishforth DBFO, England, UK 21 Christopher Boles and Champika L. Liyanage Attica Tollway, The Athens Ring Road, Greece 28 Bill Halkias, Athena Roumboutsos and Aristeidis Pantelias Coen Tunnel, The Netherlands 39 Johannes, T. Voordijk Horgos-Pozega, Toll Motorway Concession, Serbia 47 Nevena Vajdican and Goran Mladenovic Ionia Odos Motorway, Greece 55 Nikolaos Nikolaidis and Athena Roumboutsos M6 Toll (BNRR), England, UK 62 Christopher Boles and Champika L. Liyanage M80 Haggs to Stepps, UK 73 Christopher Boles and Champika L. Liyanage Olympia Odos Motorway, Greece 81 Athena Roumboutsos and Nikolaos Nikolaidis Via-Invest Zaventem, Belgium 90 Martijn van den Hurk and Kit Van Gestel ARN-STO Rail link (Arlandabanan), Sweden 101 Robert Ågren and Stefan Olander FERTAGUS Train, Portugal 108 Rosário Macário, Joana Ribeiro and Rui Couchinho Rail
5 Ports and Airports Piraeus Container Terminal, Greece 118 Sheila Farrell Sines Container Terminal, Portugal 129 Sheila Farrell Valencia Cruise Terminal, Spain 141 Maria del Carmen Juan Martinez and Eva Pérez García Port of Antwerp Deurganckdock Lock, Belgium 154 Céline van Nieuwenhuysen and Thierry Vanelslander Larnaca and Paphos International Airports, Cyprus 161 Charalambos A. Christodoulou and Christos O. Efstathiades International Airport of Tirana 175 Ali Dedej and Vera Shiko 5 Urban Public Transport Brabo 1, Flanders, Belgium 186 Martijn van den Hurk and Kit Van Gestel The Caen' TVR, France 193 Géraldine Bonnet and Gilles Chomat Metro Sul do Tejo, Portugal 202 Rosario Macário, Joanna Ribeiro and Rui Couchinho The Reims' Tramway, France 208 Géraldine Bonnet and Gilles Chomat SEVICI, Spain 217 Sastre, Julián
6 6 Terminals and Depots Cargo Center Graz-Werndorf, Austria 225 Walter Scherrer Central Public Transport depot of the city of Pilsen, Czech Republic 234 Petr Witz
7 7 Foreword COST Action TU1001 on Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Trends and Theory (P3T3) is a research network, including over 100 researchers from 29 countries, funded by the EU COST Programme with the aim of developing the theoretical basis for Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the transport sector and making the shift from a descriptive approach to a normative one. More specifically, the objective is to develop theoretical models and tools needed to support the implementation of PPPs in the transport sector that take into account the different contexts in which projects are implemented. Research work within the network is conducted through the establishment of working groups, where research is accelerated by combining existing findings and setting common research agendas. Deductive and inductive research is applied within the network for theory building through in-depth analysis and model building to predict and forecast behaviour. Notably, case analysis is a powerful tool for both research approaches, particularly in environments characterized by the growing frequency and magnitude of changes. This is the case of PPPs in transport. The 2013 P3T3 Discussion Papers presented in Part I and Part II comprise a collection of cases following a specifically structured protocol. They are organised in country profiles with respect to PPP development (Part I) and transport projects at various levels of implementation (Part II). P3T3 Action researchers are well aware of the limitations of case research. Validity is a major concern, especially in terms of objectiveness and robustness but, also with respect to the timeliness of the information. This publication opens our initial collection to discussion and invites contributions. On behalf of the COST Action TU1001 members Athena Roumboutsos, Action Chair Thierry Vanelslander, Action vice-chair Nunzia Carbonara, Champika L. Liyanage, Geert Dewulf, Koen Verhoest, and Rosario Macário, Working Group Leaders Web:
8 8 The COST Programme COST- the acronym for European COoperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research- is the oldest and widest European intergovernmental network for cooperation in research. Established by the Ministerial Conference in November 1971, COST is presently used by the scientific communities of 35 European countries to cooperate in common research projects supported by national funds. The funds provided by COST - less than 1% of the total value of the projects -support the COST cooperation networks (COST Actions) through which, with EUR 30 million per year, more than European scientists are involved in research having a total value which exceeds EUR 2 billion per year. This is the financial worth of the European added value, which COST achieves. A bottom up approach (the initiative of launching a COST Action comes from the European scientists themselves), à la carte participation (only countries interested in the Action participate), equality of access (participation is open also to the scientific communities of countries not belonging to the European Union) and flexible structure (easy implementation and light management of the research initiatives) are the main characteristics of COST. As precursor of advanced multidisciplinary research COST has a very important role for the realisation of the European Research Area (ERA) anticipating and complementing the activities of the Framework Programmes, constituting a bridge towards the scientific communities of emerging countries, increasing the mobility of researchers across Europe and fostering the establishment of Networks of Excellence in many key scientific domains such as: Biomedicine and Molecular Biosciences; Food and Agriculture; Forests, their Products and Services; Materials, Physical and Nanosciences; Chemistry and Molecular Sciences and Technologies; Earth System Science and Environmental Management; Information and Communication Technologies; Transport and Urban Development; Individuals, Societies, Cultures and Health. It covers basic and more applied research and also addresses issues of pre-normative nature or of societal importance. Web:
9 9 Preface Private sector involvement in the delivery of major public infrastructure is not new, but in the past it was either restricted to financing or long-term provision of services. Returns were achieved either directly from the consumers of services or through government payments on behalf of tax payers. Public Private Partnerships have become more popular since the mid-1980s, as governments have sought to tap into private sector finance and its technical, management and entrepreneurial skills. Over time infrastructure projects, especially in the transport sector, have become larger and more complex in terms of the activities bundled into the contractual arrangements, and the number of parties involved in transactions. So the diversity of PPP projects, even in the relatively small number of cases following, is not surprising: it s to be expected. Part II of the 2013 P3T3 Discussion Papers includes 24 cases originating from 13 countries in Europe: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. The largest group, nine cases in total, are road and motorway projects: one of the best known application areas for PPPs. Cases presented range from conventional toll motorways in Greece through a road tunnel in the Netherlands financed by availability payments, to an airport access road built by the Flemish Government using a public sector corporate entity and a shadow DBFM agreement. Rail projects have found it harder to attract private finance, particularly for track and other basic infrastructure. This has been partly because of the scale of investment required, the complexity of rail networks, uncertainties surrounding the interface with rail services, and the high level of regulations. In this collection of case studies, rail has two representatives, in Sweden and Portugal. Ports and airports often find it easier than roads to attract private finance because of the ease with which profitable terminal operations can be separated from expensive items of infrastructure from which it is difficult to generate revenues, like channels, breakwaters and runways. However, the BOT contract for Larnaca and Paphos Airports in Cyprus and the International Airport of Tirana show that there can be strong private sector interest in whole airports when demand is strong and competition limited. The four case studies from the ports sector highlight the difference between the standard approach to terminal concessioning adopted at Sines and Piraeus, and the more public-sector
10 10 oriented PPP approach used for the provision of basic infrastructure in a traditional landlord port such as Antwerp. The Valencia Cruise Terminal is included to highlight trends in a new and rapidly growing part of the sector. Urban public transport PPPs have been dominated by franchises or management contracts for bus networks, and schemes involving private investment in metros or light rail, as illustrated by the Brabo 1 tramway system in Antwerp. But the need to improved interoperability has led the French to bundle the entire urban public transport network into one concession, as illustrated by the case studies for Caen and Reims. Bundling can also be used to fund smaller scale initiatives such as the Sevici cycle hire and mobile advertisement scheme in Seville. Small, free-standing projects such as the Graz-Werndorf cargo center in Austria have faced fewer problems in finding private investors, but some like the public transport depot in Pilsen have been difficult for the public to accept. All of the case studies follow a pre-specified structure, which facilitates systematic data collection and cross-comparisons. The introductory paper provides a guide to this structure and explains the specific protocol. The cases are organized by mode of transport. They could have equally well been organized by country, project size, award procedure, or many other different aspects. Part II of the 2013 P3T3 Discussion Papers summarises some of the Transport PPPs we have been looking at, but does not extend as far as their analysis. However, it challenges readers to identify clusters of similar approaches, the underlying reasons for their development, and their suitability for application elsewhere. They have been set up to answer the why, what, and which-way issues of Public Private Partnerships in transport. They also highlight the need to continue observing cases as they evolve over their contract life cycle, influenced by external events such as the economic crisis and internal events such as changes in ownership. Sheila Farrell Athena Roumboutsos
11 11 Introduction Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Case Study Structure Athena Roumboutsos University of the Aegean Champika Liyanage University of Central Lancaster 1 Introduction Usage of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model for project delivery, especially for infrastructure projects, has increased over the past decades. Along with PPPs growing economic importance for society, research interest has equally grown over the past decades reflecting on both the understanding of relationships and their cause-and-effect phenomena and resulting in theory building and theory testing (Tang et al, 2010). Case study analysis has been an important part of this research. Notably case research is a powerful research method, particularly in the development of new theory, in environments characterized by the growing frequency and magnitude of changes (Lewis, 1998). This has been equally significant for PPPs in transport. In many instances, the central notion is to use case studies as the basis from which to develop theory inductively. The theory is emergent in the sense that it
12 12 is situated in and developed by recognizing patterns of relationships among constructs within and across cases and their underlying logical arguments. According to Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) a major reason for the popularity and relevance of theory building from case studies is that it is one of the best (if not the best) of the bridges from rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research. The challenge is in developing theoretical constructs that are derived and could be tested through case research completing a circle of inductive theory building from cases and deductive theory testing by using cases to test theory. This discussions series is based on an on-going project funded by COST. The targets of this project, i.e. COST TU1001 on Public Private Partnerships in Transport: Trends & Theory (P3T3), include the identification of clusters of similar approaches and their underlining reasons of development and suitability for knowledge transfer but also the testing of theory developed. Therefore, sample cases for case research had to be developed so as to both serve for inductive and deductive research. The challenges of this task are presented in the following section. The proposed case protocol is presented in the third section. This paper concludes with a discussion on the validity and applicability of this protocol over time. 2 Addressing the Case Study Challenges in Transport PPPs According to Yin (2009), case studies are the preferred research strategy when, a how or why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control. Case research may be on a single case (see Flyvbjerg (2006) for an interesting reference to Galileo pg. 225) or multiple cases. In this sense each case serves as a distinct experiment that stands on its own as an analytic unit. Like a series of related laboratory experiments, multiple cases are discrete experiments that serve as replications, contrasts, and extensions to the emerging theory (Yin, 2009). Taylor et al. (2009) suggest that case study research should attempt to achieve depth by including multiple, polar cases and including multiple, analytically similar cases. What is achieved through this approach is the element of verification or testing of theory as it shifts from deductive to inductive or the need to apply replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989). Scholars over the years have identified the challenges facing case research, especially as research relying on rich qualitative data is becoming more common and, thus, care is needed in drawing generalisable conclusions from a limited set of cases and in ensuring rigorous research.
13 Yin (in 2009 and previous publications) has described in detail case research design. Glaser and Strauss (1967) described the grounded theory method. Eisenhardt (1989) brought together much of the previous work on building theory from case research. Voss et al (2002) provide a roadmap for designing, developing and conducting case-based research. The present work draws on that of Yin (2009) and Voss et al (2002). According to the latter it is important to identify when to use case research. The authors propose a template to guide researchers. In table 1, their proposal is extended to address P3T3 working group (WG) and auxiliary working group (AWG) objectives. Transferability of results (table 2) is an additional feature required and addressed in the proposed approach. More specifically, WG1 addresses decision making within PPPs in transport, WG2 identifies Key performance indicators and links them to PPP success factors, WG3 identifies the impact of institutions and market drivers, AWG1 reviews findings with respect to country/national perspectives and, finally, AWG2 reviews and tests theory developed in the various WGs with respect to PPP implementation in the various modes of transport infrastructure and service. Based on table 1, P3T3 research objectives require and could be based on case research. However, the challenge is for all working groups to benefit from the similar data sets that can be compared against each other. The next important challenge is developing the design of case studies (Yin, 2009) or otherwise the research framework, constructs and questions (Voss et al, 2002). This challenge includes the study questions, its propositions, its unit(s) of analysis, the logic linking the data and, finally, the criteria for interpreting the findings. This ultimately leads to developing a theory with respect to the subject under study or identifying the basic factor connecting the various actors and elements of the study. In PPPs there is substantial institutional, archival and popular literature and debate concerning the political, social and economic acceptance of the scheme. The latter has been generally focused in varying forms around the issue of Value for Money (VfM), loosely defined as the optimum combination of life cycle costs and quality to meet user requirements (Grimsey and Lewis, 2005; Akintoye et al., 2003; Debande, 2002). However, at the heart of it, there remains a risk-sharing problem between two (or more) risk-averse agents. In PPPs this has been the factor. This factor is identified in both research (cf Tang et al, 2010) as well as in basic policy documents (cf. EU Green Paper; EIB, 2005). Furthermore, it is also important to consider the specificities of transport PPPs with respect to risk (Roumboutsos et al, 2011). 13
14 14 Purpose Exploration Uncover areas for research and theory development Theory building Identify/describ e key variables Identify linkages between variables Identify ``why these relationships exist Table 1: Matching research purpose with methodology (Extended from Voss et al (2002) Research Research P3T3 needs Questions Structure Is there something interesting enough to justify research? What are the key variables? What are the patterns or linkages between variables? Why should these relationships exist? In-depth case studies Unfocused, longitudinal field study Few focused case studies In-depth field studies Multi-site case studies Best-in-class case studies Potential similarities and differences between country and modal applications of PPPs. Changes over time and with respect to external events (e.g. economic crisis) [WG2, WG3, AWG1 and AWG2] Identify such key factors is the primary objective of WG2 and AWG1 Finally, case research needs to be based on constructs, internal and external validity and reliability. These issues are addressed in the structure protocol of the case studies as presented in the next section. Notably, extra rigor is placed on this item, as cases are collected within different environmental contexts and comparability of cases is challenged both on the subject (various modal applications of PPPs) and cultural perception level of the actual application and its investigators.
15 15 Purpose Theory testing Test the theories developed in the previous stages Predict future outcomes Theory extension/ refinement To better structure the theories in light of the observed results Purpose Transferability To identify the extent that theories may be applied to other sectors and/or subject areas Table 1: Matching research purpose with methodology (Extended from Voss et al (2002) continued Research Research P3T3 needs Questions Structure Are the theories we have generated able to survive the test of empirical data? Did we get the behaviour that was predicted by the theory or did we observe another unanticipated behaviour? How generalisable is the theory? Where does the theory apply? The primary scope of WG1 is theory building. Cases should provide adequate cases and data to test theories over time. All WGs and AWGs should be able to test theories through case sets. Table 2: Transferability as an additional need Research Research P3T3 needs Questions Structure Under which conditions to theories apply in other sectors or subjects Experiment Quasiexperiment Multiple case studies Large-scale sample of population Experiment Quasiexperiment Case studies Large-scale sample of population Experiment Quasiexperiment Multiple case studies Large-scale sample of population Input from other PPPs sector applications and output from transport PPPs to other sectors. The same applies for countries and/or regions.
16 16 3. P3T3 Case Study Protocol The development of the P3T3 Case Study Protocol was effected in phases and elaborated through a continuous process of irritations and piloting in order to address the needs of its working groups at their various levels of research development. One of the key challenges, as may be identified from table 1 above, is the different levels of analysis and data coding needed to understand all issues investigated. The devil is in the detail was an expression commonly used to describe the importance of in-depth descriptions of cases. However, numerical data were required to verify theoretical developments. Roumboutsos (2010) presented a contextual framework based on the transport PPP context for risk analysis in order to compare and identify the potential of knowledge transfer between the road and port transport subsectors. This contextual framework based on a set of what, why, who, whom, whichway, where, when and the whole compromise the proposed contextual Ws Risk Analysis Framework (figure 1) and forms the basis of the P3T3 Case Study Protocol. The framework taken to reflect a PPP case, allowed for a structured story telling description necessary to WGs and AWGs undertaking research on an exploration level. Figure 1: Contextual Ws Risk Analysis Framework (source: Roumboutsos, 2010) In order to apply the framework to the next levels of research, a linguistic (pre-fuzzy analysis) approach was undertaken by Vaneslander et al (accepted article) in order to address the comparison of transport PPP case studies from
17 different sub-sectors. This approach concerned the identification of key variables under each W of the Ws Framework and their qualitative quantification on a Likert Scale. These sets of variables have been further elaborated in the P3T3 Case Study Protocol and set under the fundamental headings of the PPP setup. This work was further advanced to include narratives, in order to provide the required detail and justify the assessment of respective variables. In addition, one more element of PPP importance is added: performance, how it is measured and how it is monitored (ex-ante, ex-post and on-going). 4. Conclusions and Further Research The process described in this introduction reflects on the structure of the cases presented in Part II of the 2013 P3T3 Discussion Papers, where some cases of the Transport PPPs P3T3 Action is studying are summarised. They have been set up to answer the why, what, and which-way issues of Public Private Partnerships in transport. They also highlight the need to continue observing cases as they evolve over their contract life cycle, influenced by external events such as the economic crisis and internal events such as changes in ownership. References Akintoye, A., Beck, M., Hardcastle, C. (2003) Public-Private Partnerships: Managing Risks and Opportunities, Blackwell Science, Oxford COM (2004) 327 final, Green Paper on Public-Private Partnerships and Community Law on Public Contracts and Concessions Debande O. (2002) Private Financing of Transport Infrastructure: An Assessment of the UK Experience Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 36(3): European Investment Bank (2005) Evaluation of PPP Projects Financed by the EIB. EIB Publications. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, Eisenhardt K. M. and Graebner M. E. (2007) Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges, Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research, Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2),
18 18 Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K. (2005) Are Public Private Partnerships value for money? Evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views Accounting Forum 29: Lewis, M.W. (1998), Iterative triangulation: a theory development process using existing case studies, Journal of Operations Management, 16, Roumboutsos, A. (2010) A Ws Contextual Risk Analysis Framework: Mapping knowledge transfer potential between Road and Port Public Private Partnerships, CIB World Congress, The Lowry, Salford Quays, United Kingdom Roumboutsos A., Pellegrino, R., Vanelslander, T. and Macario, R. (2012) Risks and Risk Allocation in Transport PPP projects: a literature review In Roumboutsos Α. and Carbonara, N. COST Action TU1001, Public Private Partnerships: Trends & Theory, 2011 Discussion Papers, ISBN Taylor, J., Dossick, C. and Garvin, M. (2009) Conducting research with case studies, in Proceedings of the 2009 Construction Research Congress, Seattle, WA, ASCE, Reston, VA, 5 7 April. Tang, L. Y., Shen, Q., Cheng E. W. L. (2010) A review of studies on Public Private Partnership projects in the construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, 28 (7), Yin, R. K. (2009) Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Applied social research methods V.5, SAGE Publications Inc.
19 19 Roads and Motorways
20 20 Contents A19 Dishforth DBFO, England, UK Christopher Boles and Champika L. Liyanage Attica Tollway, The Athens Ring Road, Greece Bill Halkias, Athena Roumboutsos and Aristeidis Pantelias Coen Tunnel, The Netherlands Johannes, T. Voordijk M80 Haggs to Stepps, UK Christopher Boles and Champika L. Liyanage Horgos-Pozega, Toll Motorway Concession, Serbia Nevena Vajdican and Goran Mladenovic Ionia Odos Motorway, Greece Nikolaos Nikolaidis and Athena Roumboutsos M6 Toll (BNRR), England, UK Christopher Boles and Champika L. Liyanage Olympia Odos Motorway, Greece Athena Roumboutsos and Nikolaos Nikolaidis Via-Invest Zaventem, Belgium Martijn van den Hurk and Kit Van Gestel
21 21 A19 Dishforth DBFO United Kingdom Christopher Boles University of Central Lancaster Champika L. Liyanage University of Central Lancaster
22 22 Project Overview A19 Dishforth Project Profile, UK Project Type: Brownfield Greenfield Both Contract duration: 30 years (including construction period) Budget: GBP 29,4M Cost to upgrade to the prescribed standard Project time Line Tender: 1995; Contract award: 14 October 1996; Construction start: 24 February 1997; Start of operations 02 September1998. Highways Agency. (n.d.). A19 Dishforth to Tyne Tunnel Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) Contract. Retrieved 04 30, 2013, from Highways Agency.gov.uk: Figure 1: A19 PPP road as part of the area network
23 23 1 Introduction The A19 project was one of several PFI road projects let in the mid-1990s as part of the government s Tranche 1A PFIs (Partnership UK, 2009). This tranche was more sophisticated than its predecessors, with scope for the private partner to improve the road through innovation and better service delivery. The road is 118km in length and consists of 2 and 3 lane carriageways. The project is a DBFO scheme within the existing A19 carriageway alignment. The project upgrades and maintains a vital economic link to Tyneside in the North East of England. The areas of Newcastle, Sunderland and Middleborough are major conurbations, and the A19 provides the main link between them. The road required upgrading to meet capacity targets and industrial needs. The project also provides an alternative route to the more important A1(M), which is part of the East Coast route to Scotland. 2 The Contracting Authority (Public Party) The government department with controlling responsibility is the Department of Transport. The regulatory body responsible for contractual aspects on behalf of the government is the Highways Agency. Following the formal inception of road PFIs by the Highways Agency in initially for the maintenance and upgrading of existing road infrastructure - the Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) procurement model was adopted in 1994 (Highways Agency, 2012). The Highways Act 1980 and the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 allow the award of concessions for road infrastructure, and also permit tolling, although this was deemed to be impractical in this case. As this was a wholly private investment, the Government s role is that of the regulatory and legislative authority for the project. The Highways Agency has no stake in the special purpose vehicle (SPV). 3 The Concessionaire (Private Party) The current owner of the SPV is Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd., although the original consortium included a number of companies.