Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and Project Assessment
(HEATCO)
Contract FP6-2002-SSP-1/502481
Third plenary meeting
15/16 September 2005
ITS, Leeds
DRAFT Minutes
Attendees:
Adam Torok
Thomas Odgaard
Yngve Traedal
Christoph Lieb
Max Herry
Patrizia Fagiani
Charlotte Kelly
James Laird
Gerard de Jong
George Arampatzis
Ludek Sosna
Adela Krenkova
Arnaud Burgess
Alistair Hunt
Rainer Friedrich
Peter Bickel
BUTE
COWI
E-CO
Ecoplan
Herry (Friday only)
ISIS
ITS
ITS
ITS (Thursday only)
NTUA
Sudop
Sudop
TNO
UBath
IER
IER
Apologies:
Catharina Sikow
Ofelia Betancor
Peter Mackie
Gunnar Lindberg
DG TREN
EIT
ITS
VTI
Page 1 of 7
HEATCO
Third Plenary Meeting 15/16 September 2005
Thursday 15 September
Preliminary results of meta-analysis of VoT studies
Gerard presented preliminary results of a meta-analysis of VoT studies for passenger and
freight transport (see presentation). One of the remaining tasks is to test the applicability for
benefit transfer by applying the estimated equations to various countries and comparing with
national results from studies.
Current status of the project
Rainer presented the status of the project, including the timing. Going through the task list from
the kick-off meeting minutes he concluded that all tasks were carried out. There is some delay
in the overall schedule, in particular for the surveys in WP5, which is mainly due to administrative problems with transferring money.
Catharina provided feedback on the draft of deliverable D2, which were forwarded to the respective partners. One issue was clarification of the relationship between CBA and MCDA,
which Alistair addressed already. A revised draft will be circulated and submitted asap.
Yngve informed that there is some budget for surveys left and suggested to use a part of it to
carry out a survey on valuation of aircraft noise in Budapest. The study will be part of a PHDstudy at BUTE. The consortium agreed on this plan. Furthermore Catharina agreed in a telephone discussion with Rainer.
Action 3/1: Circulate revised draft of D2 and submit to the Commission
IER, asap
WP4 Proposal for harmonised guidelines
Alistair presented recommendations with respect to general issues (see presentation). Among
others the following issues were discussed:





discount rates
o include declining long-term discount rates in the recommendations;
o if local values for discount rates are used, the recommendation for trans-national
projects should be to use the average of the affected countries;
o a recommendation has to be given, whether different discount rates should be used
for different impacts;
non-monetised (better term than “non-monetary”) impacts
o present in qualitative or quantitative terms alongside evidence on the monetised impacts; do not recommend a sensitivity analysis based on switching values here;
decision criteria
o use NPV and RNPSS;
appraisal evaluation period
o what to recommend for time after the end of the appraisal evaluation period of 40
years: use eternal benefits/reinvestment or residual value?
risk and uncertainty
o sensitivity or scenario analysis for non-probabilistic risks,
o at minimum, use of expected values for probabilistic based analysis
Page 2 of 7
HEATCO


Third Plenary Meeting 15/16 September 2005
producer surplus
o include changes in revenues and fuel taxes  James can provide text ITS has written for the World Bank
marginal cost of public funds
o do not include shadow pricing
However, the final decision on the recommendations is with Alistair.
Arnaud can provide growth forecast data, which can be used as input for calculating future discount rates. Arnaud circulated the data after the meeting.
James presented the recommendations for VoT (see presentation). Among others, James defined a “minimum approach” for each category of values, on which the values must be based. In
this context it was discussed how to treat national values if they do not comply with this minimum approach. With respect to the acceptability of the harmonised guidelines by national
stakeholders it would be difficult to prescribe the use of default values based on benefit transfer
rather than the national values for example. Peter suggested recommending the obligatory use
of default values with the option to use own values in addition (see presentation). This would
ensure comparability of results between countries (e.g. for the European Commission) while
giving still the possibility to use national values.
For the specific recommendations for safety and environmental costs see Peter’s presentation.
Friday 16 September
WP4 continued
Thomas presented the recommendations for costs and indirect impacts of infrastructure investment (see presentation). Max asked whether the new EU guideline on calculation of construction, maintenance and operation cost would be considered in the recommendations. It was
agreed that it is beyond the scope of the HEATCO project to provide concrete values according
to the EU guideline. However, the same terminology should be used. Max agreed to send the
document to Thomas.
With respect to optimism bias following suggestions of Bent Flyvbjerg are relevant for us:
 benchmark projects and use reference class forecasting (recommend “side analysis”; if
problematic: possibility to get independent reviews of all cost and benefit analysis
undertaken for the project).
Action 3/2: Send EU guideline document to Thomas
Max, asap
Peter presented a suggestion for outline and scope of deliverable D5 (see presentation).
It was agreed to avoid the term “handbook”, because this could raise expectations beyond what
HEATCO will be able to provide. The HEATCO guidelines will be a proposal, which, in order
to be broadly accepted and applied, will go through a process of detailed discussion with na-
Page 3 of 7
HEATCO
Third Plenary Meeting 15/16 September 2005
tional authorities, resulting in a number of revisions. The final product of this process would be
a handbook, but will only be finished after the end of HEATCO.
With respect to the suggested outline it was agreed
 to go for the main text (“part 2” in the draft outline) first; if this is not too long we can skip
the short version (“part 1”). Worked examples (“part 3”) will be subject of deliverable D6;
 to give recommendations and a short justification; a detailed justification can be given as
annex or reference; however, the document should be understandable to people familiar
with infrastructure assessment in itself;
 to provide simple examples for illustration where helpful
In a phone discussion with Rainer after the meeting Catharina confirmed the following:
The guidelines should be a stand alone document, i.e. it should contain recommendations about
the methods/ approaches to use and also concrete default values for parameters. In addition,
an explanation or justification for the recommendations should be included, which could, if it is
rather lengthy, be transferred to an annex. A reference to another deliverable (D2) of HEATCO
is not possible. If the workshop results in some recommendations to change the guideline, D5
could and should be changed/adjusted afterwards (even if it is already accepted). The main use
of the guidelines should be for projects where a financial contribution from the EC is wanted,
and for transnational projects. The comparison or ranking of different projects (in different
parts of the EU) is at least officially not a central purpose.
Following schedule was agreed for the preparation of D5:
 partners send their contributions to IER by 18 November;
 IER compiles the deliverable and circulates the draft by 25 November;
 partners send their comments within a week;
 IER revises draft if necessary and submits.
Action 3/3: Prepare contributions to D5 and send to IER
Alistair, Peter Mackie, James, Peter B., Thomas, 18/11/05
Action 3/4: Compile D5, circulate for comments
IER, 25/11/05
Action 3/5: Send comments on D5 draft
all partners, 02/12/05
Action 3/6: Revise D5, submit to EC
IER, 09/12/05
WP2 Support consensus
Arnaud summarised the work so far and suggested to hold the second workshop (as the first
one) as a one day event, with a consortium meeting on the following day to discuss the results.
The date suggested is 30/31 March 2006 (Thursday/Friday), with 23/24 March as fallback option.
In a phone discussion after the meeting Rainer and Catharina agreed the following:
To the second workshop we will invite only country representatives (from respective ministries
or from administration) for an intensive discussion with member states. Catharina will advertise this workshop in the next TEN committee meeting. To get some attendance, it is of utmost
importance, that the HEATCO partners personally contact the representative partners for the
countries, that have been allocated to them, and motivate them to come. For a limited number
of participants, especially from the new member states, it is possible to offer some funding for
travel costs, if necessary. Catharina might be able to provide a meeting room in the EC confer-
Page 4 of 7
HEATCO
Third Plenary Meeting 15/16 September 2005
ence center, if we would need it. Preliminary date (March 30) is ok, Catharina will however
check, whether there are other events at that date.
For the final conference, we should invite a broader audience and have to look for a conference room ourselves. One or two presentations from member states would be welcome. A date
in May should be fixed as soon as possible.
James suggested for the workshop that we might consider giving a platform to representatives
from case study countries to give their view on the case studies.
Arnaud commented on the draft “5-pager” that it was not appropriate to be distributed to the
country contacts. He agreed to draft a revised version (cut down, less technical) within ca. 6
weeks.
Action 3/7: Contact country contacts (ministries and administration) and convince to attend
the workshop
all partners, as soon as workshop details are fixed
Action 3/8: Send revised version of “5-pager” to partners and Catharina
Arnaud, 04/11/05
WP5 Surveys
Yngve gave an overview of the surveys conducted in terms of content and organisation (see
presentation). The issue of transferring money to EIT for paying a survey firm, was solved in
the meantime.
Alistair gave an overview of preliminary results (see presentation).
It was agreed to submit deliverable D4 in time, even if it is not complete. Catharina will then
reject the deliverable and give some time to close the gaps. A draft of D4 has been circulated in
the meantime.
As mentioned above, it was agreed to carry out a survey on aircraft noise in Budapest.
WP6 Case studies
Peter presented an overview of the suggested case studies (see presentation). He will circulate a
revised note on the suggested case studies to the partners involved. Then he will send it to
Catharina, hoping to get the “ok” as soon as possible to be able to start with the data collection.
In addition, Peter will circulate a list of required input data for calculation of safety and environmental costs.
James suggested, when collecting case study data, asking people on specific problems encountered, because projects are European projects (e.g. problems with different legislation/regulations in different countries). This would provide added value to the work package
results.
Action 3/9: Send revised note on case study selection to partners involved and to Catharina
Peter, 04/11/05
Page 5 of 7
HEATCO
Third Plenary Meeting 15/16 September 2005
Action 3/10: Circulate list of input data required for safety and environmental costs
Peter, 09/11/05
Next meeting
ISIS offered to host the next consortium meeting on 07/08 February 2006 in Rome. Main objective of the meeting will be discussion of deliverables D4, D5 and D6, and preparation of the
workshop.
Action list
Meeting No Action
3
1 Circulate revised draft of D2 and submit to the Commission
3
2 Send EU guideline document to Thomas
3
3 Prepare contributions to D5 and send to IER
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
7
Responsible
IER
Max Herry
Alistair, Peter
Mackie,
James, Peter
B., Thomas
Compile D5, circulate for comments
IER
Send comments on D5 draft
all partners
Revise D5, submit to EC
IER
Contact country contacts (ministries and administration) all partners
and convince to attend the workshop
8 Send revised version of “5-pager” to partners and Catharina Arnaud
9 Send revised note on case study selection to partners in- Peter
volved and to Catharina
10 list of input data required for safety and environmental costs Peter
Page 6 of 7
Target date
asap
asap
18/11/05
25/1105
02/12/05
09/12/05
as soon as
workshop
details are
fixed
04/11/05
04/11/05
09/11/05
Annex
Third Plenary Meeting
Developing Harmonised European Approaches for Transport Costing and
Project Assessment (HEATCO) - Contract FP6-2002-SSP-1/502481
15th/16th of September 2005
ITS Leeds
Agenda
Thursday 15 September
13:30 h Welcome
Peter M., James
13:40 h Current status of the project
Rainer
13:50 h Preliminary results of meta-analysis of VoT studies
Gerard de Jong (ITS)
WP4: Proposal for harmonised guidelines
main principles and values recommended:
14:50 h
general issues
Alistair
15:10 h
value of time
James
15:20 h
safety + environment
Peter B.
15:35 h
infrastructure costs
Thomas
15:45 h Coffee break
16:00 h discussion (consistency, gaps ...?)
16:30 h
all
scope and form of the guidelines (D5): level of detail,
length, form of presentation
18:00 h Administrative issues
Peter B., all
Peter B.
18:30 h End
Friday 16 September
WP2: Support consensus
9:00 h - information of national contacts ("5-pager")
- preparation of 2nd workshop (date, …)
10:15
Coffee break
10:30
WP5 Surveys - status and preliminary results
Arnaud
Yngve, Alistair
12:00 h Lunch
12:30 h
WP6 Case studies - decision on case studies, distribution
of work, schedule
14:00 h End
Page 1 of 7
Peter B., Patrizia, Thomas, James,
George, all