Evaluation of Rail Infrastructure Investments Related to the New Rail Regulatory Environment in Some Countries
As for any transportation infrastructure project, rail investment projects are subject to appraisals, which traditionally include an economic evaluation to determine public benefits and a financial analysis to determine the purely financial returns. When the company that owns and manages the rail infrastructure, termed the “infrastructure manager,” is legally different from the company that provides the rail service, appraisals are typically carried out separately for the infrastructure manager and the train operator. The appraisal process is different from the process when the same legal entity owns and manages both infrastructure and train operations. The distinction is especially pertinent for European Union member states. This study proposed a comprehensive methodology for rail investment project appraisal for the case of rail infrastructure and train operations that were owned and managed by separate legal entities. The study defined the socioeconomic viability of a project from the infrastructure manager's perspective, which reflected social welfare, as well as the financial viability of the project from the perspectives of the infrastructure manager and the operator. It was recognized that a project would proceed only if the socioeconomic evaluation were positive. In the case of a negative financial appraisal, which was often the case for low-volume rail links, the study demonstrated how the use of subsidies could render the rail investment financially viable. The methodology was applied for a proposed investment in the western extensions of the railway network of Greece project.
Evaluation of Methodologies in Benefit–Cost and Economic Impact Analyses for Freight Rail Projects
Public investment in privately owned freight rail infrastructure is mutually beneficial if that investment benefits the public. Public–private partnerships are emerging as a viable procurement method to leverage public and private funding or financing in transportation projects to meet the mobility needs of an expanding economy. This paper summarizes the research conducted as part of a larger project to evaluate the state of the practice in methodologies that estimate the benefits generated by freight rail projects. The research examined existing research, case studies, and benefit–cost analyses and economic impact analyses of implemented, approved, and proposed rail projects. Much variation was found in the approaches, definitions, techniques, and level of detail employed. The research defined and characterized projects, developed a generalized benefit classification scheme, and analyzed and evaluated data sources, methodologies, and assumptions on which quantification and monetization of projected benefits were based. The paper draws conclusions about—and recommends improvements in—approaches and methodologies to allow more objective comparisons among projects, with a focus on the parameters underlying the calculation of benefits and performance measurement after the project is completed.
Deliberative Democracy and the Resource Curse: A Nationwide Experiment in Tanzania
Oil and gas discoveries in developing countries are often associated with short-sighted economic policies and, in response, calls to insulate resource management from populist impulses. We report on a randomized experiment testing methods to overcome this apparent tension between sound resource governance and democratic politics. Soon after Tanzania’s discovery of major natural gas reserves, we invited a nationally representative sample of voters to an intensive public deliberation of policy options featuring nationally recognized experts and small-group discussions. Democratic deliberation reinforced the public’s strong preference for rapid spending of gas revenues, but also increased support for various prudential and economically orthodox measures, including independent oversight of gas revenues, limits on government borrowing, and selling gas abroad rather than subsidizing fuel at home. These effects were driven by deliberation per se, rather than a pure information treatment, and show no evidence of contamination by facilitatoror peer-effects in group deliberations. www.cgdev.org Justin Sandefur, Nancy Birdsall, James Fishkin, and Mujobu Moyo