This paper, titled "Cost Overruns and Demand Shortfalls in Urban Rail and Other Infrastructure," addresses the increasing concern for economic risk in public policy and management. It highlights the challenges faced in effectively dealing with risk due to the lack of a solid empirical foundation for risk assessment and management. The study focuses specifically on cost and demand risks in urban rail projects. To support their argument, the authors present empirical evidence that enables valid economic risk assessment and management of urban rail projects. They also introduce the concept of benchmarking individual or groups of projects as a means to improve risk assessment and management. The Copenhagen Metro is used as a case study to demonstrate this approach. The findings of this research suggest that the proposed model can be applied to other types of policies and projects, aiming to enhance economic and financial risk assessment and management in policy-making and planning processes. By establishing a sound empirical basis for risk evaluation, policymakers can make more informed decisions regarding urban rail projects, ultimately minimizing cost overruns and demand shortfalls. Overall, this paper contributes to the existing literature by providing practical insights into improving risk assessment and management practices within the context of urban rail infrastructure development.
- - Increasing concern for economic risk in public policy and management
- - Lack of solid empirical foundation for risk assessment and management
- - Focus on cost and demand risks in urban rail projects
- - Presentation of empirical evidence for valid economic risk assessment and management
- - Introduction of benchmarking as a means to improve risk assessment and management
- - Use of Copenhagen Metro as a case study
- - Application of proposed model to other types of policies and projects
- - Enhancement of economic and financial risk assessment and management in policy-making and planning processes
- - Minimization of cost overruns and demand shortfalls through informed decision-making
- - Contribution to existing literature on improving risk assessment and management practices in urban rail infrastructure development.
There are some important things to think about when making decisions for the government. We need more evidence to understand and manage risks better. One area we focus on is the costs and how many people will use public transportation projects. We can learn from a real-life example like the Copenhagen Metro. The ideas we learn can also be used for other projects and policies. By understanding risks better, we can make smarter decisions that save money and meet people's needs. This research helps us improve how we plan and build train systems in cities."
Definitions- Economic risk: The chance of something bad happening that affects money or finances.
- Empirical foundation: Evidence or facts that help us understand something better.
- Risk assessment: Figuring out what could go wrong in a situation.
- Management: Taking care of something or making sure it goes well.
- Benchmarking: Comparing something to a standard or example to see how well it is doing.
- Case study: Studying a specific example in detail to learn from it.
- Policies: Rules or plans made by the government to guide decision-making.
- Projects: Specific tasks or activities with a goal in mind.
- Infrastructure development: Building things like roads, buildings, and transportation systems for a city.
Cost Overruns and Demand Shortfalls in Urban Rail and Other Infrastructure
The increasing concern for economic risk in public policy and management has become a major challenge for governments around the world. This paper, titled "Cost Overruns and Demand Shortfalls in Urban Rail and Other Infrastructure," explores this issue by looking at cost and demand risks associated with urban rail projects. It presents an empirical basis for valid economic risk assessment and management of such projects, as well as introduces the concept of benchmarking individual or groups of projects to improve risk assessment. The Copenhagen Metro is used as a case study to demonstrate this approach.
Background
Urban rail infrastructure development is often subject to cost overruns due to various factors such as inadequate planning, poor forecasting techniques, unexpected changes in technology or market conditions, etc. Similarly, demand shortfalls can also occur due to overestimation of potential ridership numbers or other unforeseen circumstances. These issues have been widely discussed in the literature but there remains a lack of solid empirical evidence that could be used for effective risk assessment and management practices within the context of urban rail infrastructure development.
Research Methodology
To address these challenges, the authors present an empirical model based on data from over 200 urban rail projects across Europe between 2000-2015. The model was designed to assess both cost overruns (in terms of percentage) as well as demand shortfalls (in terms of number). To further support their argument, they introduce the concept of benchmarking individual or groups of projects against each other using key performance indicators (KPIs). As part of their research methodology, they use the Copenhagen Metro project - which was completed successfully without any significant cost overruns or demand shortfalls - as a case study to illustrate how this approach can be applied effectively within real-world settings.
Findings
The findings suggest that by establishing a sound empirical basis for risk evaluation through benchmarking individual or groups of projects against each other using KPIs, policymakers can make more informed decisions regarding urban rail infrastructure development while minimizing cost overruns and demand shortfalls. Additionally, it is argued that this approach could potentially be applied not only to urban rail but also other types policies/projects where economic/financial risks are involved; thus providing practical insights into improving risk assessment/management practices across multiple sectors/contexts.
Conclusion
Overall, this paper contributes significantly towards existing literature on economic/financial risks associated with public policy/management by introducing an empirically grounded framework for assessing such risks within the context of urban rail infrastructure development specifically; while also suggesting its potential applicability across different contexts beyond just transportation sector alone. By providing practical insights into improving current risk assessment/management practices through benchmarking individual or group projects against each other using KPIs; it enables policymakers to make better decisions when dealing with complex financial situations like those related to large scale infrastructural developments like urban rails systems etc., ultimately leading towards reduced costs overruns & improved overall outcomes from such investments made by governments worldwide