HIGH SPEED RAIL AND THE CRC

Transcription

1

2 HIGH SPEED RAIL AND THE CRC Introduction 1. Strategic Information Scoping Study Prof Robert Weatherby 2. Financing of HSR Liesel Henn

3 High-speed Rail: Strategic information for the Australian context Neal Ryan (SCU) Tania von der Heidt (SCU) Chris Hale (UQ) Alex Wardrop TTG) Charles Waingold (DoT) Ian Rossow (QR) Bala Ramasokeran (QR) Michael Taylor (UniSA) Phil Sochon (ARA) Pat Gillett (SCU) Philip Laird (UoW) Robert Weatherby (SCU) Michael Charles (SCU) Dale Coleman (TTG) Rocco Zito (UniSA) Adrian Pollock(QR)

4 Contributors Study was completed in 2010

5 HSR Worldwide Passenger rail service operating at speed faster than conventional rail Speed > 250 km/h Dedicated lines and trainsets Special signalling required 10,000 km dedicated high speed line in 2009, expected to be 37,500 km in 2025 Currently operating in Japan, China, France, Spain, other parts of Europe and Asia

6

7 Advantages of HSR For passengers Speed, frequency, comfort, safety, reliability, central city/airport accessibility, competitive pricing Social and Economic Increased transport capacity, reduced airport and road congestion, increased mobility, enhanced energy security, economic development, reduction in road accidents Environment Reductions in greenhouse gas and particulate emissions, improved land-use impacts, greater energy efficiency

8 Aim An early-stage assessment of the potential or otherwise of reconsidering HSR in Australia Research work plan was: 1. Examine examples of international best practice 2. Gain an overview of previous HSR initiatives in Australia 3. From international examples + previous initiatives, determine key lessons + challenges to build HSR in Australia

9 1. - International Best Practice Government support in both leadership and policy at all levels eg waves of adoption, publicly-owned rail systems, multi-level governance, multi-level policy networks HSR needs to be adapted to local context Germany (more frequent stops, shorter distances), France (endto-end, longer distance), cf Australia Requires appropriate and flexible funding models Mostly government, govt agencies with some private funding

10 2. Previous Australian initiatives 1980 s 1990 Coastal route Melbourne-Sydney VFT (Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney) 1993 Speedrail (Sydney-Canberra) Government was not heavily involved in these proposals which contrasts with international experience

11 Previous Australian initiatives -2

12 Previous Australian initiatives -3

13 Previous Australian initiatives - 4 Difficulties Securing Government support Balance of public + private sector funding Land acquisitions/infrastructure/environmental issues Perception that viable HSR was at limit of technological capability on East Coast of Australia

14 3. Context Changes in Australia Since Previous VFT/Speedrail proposals Geodemographic - growth of capital cities Competition - airlines, private car Social - more comfortable/productive travel Health and Safety - savings in health costs, < aircraft noise Enviromental - rail more energy efficient Economic - development, employment Technological - power:weight ratio Topographical - Seville Madrid similarity Political - Nation-building project, success so far of reform of rail industry + rail freight

15 CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY Major contextual changes have occurred Population growth - (major political interest in infrastructure) Increased environmental pressures Airport + Highway congestion Technological improvements in HSR (proven models in Europe + Asia)

16 CONCLUSION - 2 A further concept study should be carried out to address: Market forecasts Estimated benefits + costs Financing options Route + staging options Potential transformational impact on Australian society + the economy

17 OUTCOMES OF SCOPING STUDY Report has been credited with re-igniting the debate on the feasibility of HSR in Australia A $20m in-depth study was commissioned by Federal Government in October Phase 1 was completed in August 2011 The final report (Phase 2) was released in April 2013

18 Public Infrastructure Financing: A Hot Topic Productivity Commission 2014 HSR Advisory Group 2013 HSR Study (AECOM) 2011, 2013 Infrastructure Finance Working Group 2012 Productivity Commission 2009

19 Exploratory Thesis - Findings Literature not rigorous or careful in the use of the terms financing, funding and delivery Financing appraisals are less mature and developed than project and delivery appraisals No readily available comprehensive appraisal framework for financing alternatives Choice of financing instruments appear to have evolved in response to the environment, not through conscious and rigorous economic appraisal

20 Evolution of French HSR Financing in response to environmental pressures Public Debt (SNCF) TGV South-East TGV Atlantic TGV North TGV Mediterranean Full Public Financing Public Debt (RFF) + Regional Subsidies LGV East (Phase 1) LGV Rhin-Rhône (Phase 1) TGV East Phase 2 PPP PPP Concessions (LGV SEA; Perpignan Figueres) Partnerships (LGV BPL & CNM) National pride Nation-building Public benefits Political pressure Regional growth EU mandate Corporisation, privatisation Maastricht criteria

21 Research Objective Develop a comprehensive, multi-dimensional, systematically consistent economic appraisal framework to aid selection of a financing alternative for public infrastructure megaprojects which is in the best interest of taxpayers, with an application to proposed Australian East Coast HSR project Literature Reviews: Towards a framework for evaluating financing alternatives for High Speed Rail along the East Coast of Australia (ATRF 2012) European case study on the Financing of High Speed Rail (ATRF 2013) Liesel Henn (SCU), Dr. Keith Sloan (SCU) & Dr. Neil Douglas (Douglas Economics) Submission to Productivity Commission Draft Report, Public Infrastructure (March 2014)

22 Define Public Infrastructure Decisions Investment Which projects delivers the highest ratio of benefits to costs compared to other alternatives? Financing How should upfront capital be raised? Funding How should the upfront capital be repaid? Delivery Who should be responsible for providing the infrastructure? Informed by Chan et al. (2009) and Vander Ploeg (2006)

23 Categorise Financing Instruments Capital markets Debt markets Reserves Loans Bond markets Equity markets Budget appropriations sourced from taxes, fees, asset sales Accumulated special upfront property levies Other reserves and reserve funds (retained earnings, asset sales) Government equity injections into GTEs/ SPV (PPP), etc. Government loans Development bank loans (e.g. EIB, World Bank) Commercial bank loans, etc. General purpose bonds (GO bonds, corporate bonds) Specific purpose bonds (Government revenue bonds, project bonds), etc. Publicly raised (Listed infrastructure and utility stocks, listed and unlisted infrastructure equity funds) Privately raised (Superannuation direct equity investments in infrastructure co/project; unlisted infrastructure funds), etc. Internal Hybrids: e.g. Converting infrastructure bonds 1 External Internal = Delivery vehicle constructs capital assets from financial resources currently at its disposal External = Raise capital from private sources. 1. Initial government debt, which is transferred to the long term investors and off the government s balance sheet once construction is completed

24 Towards Financing Appraisal Framework Objective impacts (taxpayer perspective) Reserves Loans Bond markets Equity markets Potential benefits: - Full claim on potential future project revenues remains with taxpayer - Preserves / improves credit rating (lower gearing) Potential costs: - Opportunity cost of funds no longer available to finance other projects 1 - Full contingent liability 2 (financial claims of investment) remains with taxpayer - Cost of delay - Admin costs Potential benefits: - Full claim on potential future project revenues remains with taxpayer Potential costs: - Cost of servicing finance (interest rates) - Credit rating downgrade (increase gearing) - Full contingent liability (financial claims of investment) remains with taxpayer - Transaction costs Informed by Chan et al When funds are no longer available to finance other projects 2.Arising from financial claims associated with infrastructure investment, such as construction cost overruns Potential benefits: - Access to future project returns (less for revenue bonds) Potential costs: - Cost of servicing finance (bond yields) - Credit rating downgrade (increase gearing) - Full contingent liability 1 (financial claims of investment) remains with taxpayer - Transaction costs - Any taxes foregone on corporate bonds Potential benefits: - Preserves / improves credit rating (lower gearing) Potential costs: - Forego some/ all potential future project revenues - Reduced contingent liability 1 to taxpayer - Transaction costs

25 Towards Financing Appraisal Framework Potential Objective Impacts (Taxpayer perspective) Financing: How capital is raised to construct Public Infrastructure Reserves Loans Bond markets Equity markets Dept GTE PPP Dept GTE PPP Dept GTE PPP Dept GTE PPP Finance servicing cost N/A N/A 0 Claim to project revenues N/A N/A - Opportunity costs of funds N/A N/A 0 Contingent liabilities N/A N/A - Cost of project delay N/A N/A 0 Admin/ transaction costs N/A N/A - Credit rating impact N/A N/A + Taxes forgone N/A N/A 0 Informed by Chan et al When funds are no longer available to finance other projects 2.Arising from financial claims associated with infrastructure investment, such as construction cost overruns

26 Taxpayer Impacts (Objective) Reserves Bond markets Equity markets Dept/ GTE Credit rating improvement Dept/ GTE (e.g. General Purpose Bonds) PPP (Shared Private & Government finance) Access to all project revenues Opportunity costs of funds 1 Retain all contingent liabilities 2 Cost of delay Administrative costs Access to all project revenues Finance servicing cost (Interest rate, yield) Retain all contingent liabilities Admin/ Transaction costs Credit rating downgrade If tax advantaged, taxes foregone Credit rating improvement Forego some project revenues Retain some contingent liabilities Large Transaction costs Informed by Chan et al When funds are no longer available to finance other projects

27 Sample Subjective Impacts Effectiveness (certainty) Efficiency Equity (e.g. intergenerational) Stability Flexibility Accountability Transparency Stakeholder support (political impact) Market and other disciplines Appropriate degree of public control/ownership

28 Next Steps Define Categorise (MECE) Develop measures (criteria) Develop metrics (KPIs) Apply to Australian HSR case study