2Nd Transport Working Group Meeting

Athens, 8 February 2012

COST Action TU1003 MEGAPROJECTS

2nd Transport Working Group Meeting

Minutes

6 February 2012 (15:00 – 20:00) 7 February 2012 (09:00 – 13:00)

Venue: University of the Aegean, Athens, Greece Athens Administration Building Local host: Dr. Athena Roumboutsos

AGENDA

1. List of Participants 2. Welcome to participants 3. Adoption of agenda 4. Case studies preliminary presentation & discussion 5. Main conclusions about the case studies presented and the adequacy of the case study protocol & discussion 6. Final case study protocol for transport megaprojects – accounting for transportation specificities 7. Publications, dissemination and outreach activities 8. Action planning 9. AOB 10. Closing

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. List of Participants

Country Official MC delegate Present Apology Absent

Portugal Abreu E Silva, João X

Spain Alfalla-Luque, Rafaela X

Poland Lukasiewicz, Agnieszka X

Spain Medina-López, Carmen X

Greece Nikolaidis, Nikos X

Kroatia Radujkovic Mladen X

Greece Roumboutsos, Athena X

Germany Spang, Konrad X

Sweden Westerlund, Håkan X

UK Antony Francis X

1. Welcome to participants Dr. João Abreu e Silva & Dr. Athena Roumboutsos welcomed all participants.

2. Adoption of agenda The agenda was adopted unanimously by the members.

3. Case studies preliminary presentation & discussion HSR line Seville – Madrid Rafaela and Carmen presented the case of the HSR line connection between Seville – Madrid. They also introduced the next case of Madrid – Barcelona. The project has been completed. Highlight: the political pressure for South – Madrid connection over Madrid – Barcelona. The Case in the proposed template is attached. Norra länken (the Northern Link) Håkan presented the case of the northern link of the Stockholm peripheral road. The project is under construction. Highlight: the great number of contractors involved in the project. The Case in the proposed template is attached. HSR Portugal João presented the setup for the initiation of HSR lines in Portugal. Highlight: The impact of Project Champion. The project(s) are under consideration. The Case in the proposed template is attached. Athens Ring Road

3 Athena introduced three (3) megaprojects (2 road & 1 bridge) with different interests and presented the Athens Ring Road. Highlight: Concession initial considered not-bankable showing traffic well above forecasts. The project has been completed. The Case in the proposed template is attached. HSR line Nuremberg – Ingolstadt Konrad presented the HSR line Nuremberg – Inglostadt. Highlight: the position of the DB and the financing model. The project has been completed. The Case in the proposed template is attached. In addition, Konrad posed the following issues: i. Stakeholder Management – SHM (which groups, typical topics and problems, lessons learned, best practice) ii. Legal process (typical problems, time, what needs time, lessons learned, best practice) iii. Organisation client side (LL- lessons learnt, BP – Best Practices) iv. Type of contracts (LL, BP) v. Maturity of PM / does a structured PM exist (not only Y7n, how, details)? Which elements? (PC, RM, SHM, ConfM) vi. Cost performance (base? Reasons for cost changes/overflow) vii. Systematic of cost fixing viii. Time performance (base? Reasons for time changes/overflow) ix. Did the project fulfill the project targets, scope, ROI? x. Life cycle aspect xi. Cultural influence

At this point the meeting was adjourned for the next day

4. Main conclusions about the case studies presented and adequacy of the case study protocol & discussion The group noted the concentration on rail (4 cases) and road (2 cases) and discussion focused on differences and similarities between cases and contextual settings and the ability to “compare” and benchmark. Questions put forward concerned: . Cost overrun . Schedules overrun . Life cycle costs . Policy issue – are impacts closer to the ones envisaged in the beginning? . Are rail and road based projects different (public opinion, structure of organizations – builders and promoters rail operators) . Levels of influence – political influence – policy issues – stakeholders . Comparing megpaprojects with other type of projects are megaprojects worse than smaller projects or better? . Project design – is the contractor is the client? . Project leadership – how could it be dealt with? . Showing similarities and differences in megaprojects . Definition of a more defined stakeholder relationship graph . Stakeholders varies according to timeline

4 . Are external stakeholders more important than others bounded by contracts . Ways of working together, cultural issues, how they approach the stakeholders . Scope, configuration and contextual changes for cost overflow evaluation . Decision process should be more clear (who decides what?) There was also a discussion as to the need to extend to other cases (example airports etc.).

5. Final case study protocol for transport megaprojects – accounting for transportation specificities The Group discussed in detail the Case Protocol with respect to transport projects and the cases at hand. Their considerations are as follows: . Relevant physical dimensions: Should include capacity and level of service . Stakeholders: Should be defined in different project phases, life cycle stages – conception planning/project, construction and operation . Stakeholder graphs need specifications. Differentiate the types of relations; Power; Influence; Contractual influence versus informal influence (specifying different symbols for different types of relations) . External stakeholder analysis: Scale of intensity . Proposal to include a column with the lifecycle stage in slide External Stakeholder Attitude Analysis . Slide -Aspects of Performance Concerned with Doing the Right Project: o Logical framework approach - Is the project aligned with the strategy as defined in official documents? o House of Quality (capacity and level of service ex ante and ex post) – for later . New Slide: Decision processes and how are they framed (at each phase which stakeholder has the final decision power?) . New slide: Policy process and procedures . The Time line Slide should be a summary with: o The activities o The scope o The configuration o The stakeholders o The context (the environment) o The cost estimates . Sustainability Slide: not clear

6. Publications, dissemination and outreach activities . Prepare a comparative review paper for the “Organisation, Technology and Management in Construction: An International Journal” Special Issue on Megaprojects. . João to send an abstract by 28 February 2012 (Abstract deadline) Full sketching of paper during the Bratislava Meeting. . TRB potential: To be discussed in Bratislava (May 2 & 3, 2012)

5 7. Action planning The Group considered the following action plan building up to the Bratislava meeting:

6 Action Schedule 2012 Activities Comments F M A M J J Cases based on proposed Protocol 15 March  Case Study protocol consolidation Case studies completed and distributed 15 April  To be distributed between WG members for identification of benchmarks Proposals for Review Issues/Topics 22 April  Consolidation of Review issues 2-3 May – Bratislava meeting  Preparation of Sp. Issue submission    Preparation of TRB Submission   

8. AOB . Discussion on potential research proposed by Athena on indicators of stakeholder pressure and comparison to indicators of transport infrastructure uniqueness, project success etc. . Discussion of project funding opportunities by Konrad.

9. Closing The WG Leader thanked all members for their participation and contribution in the meeting.