Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing

被引:30
作者
Love, Peter E. D. [1 ]
Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic [2 ]
Welde, Morten [3 ]
Odeck, James [3 ]
机构
[1] Curtin Univ, Dept Civil Engn, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
[2] Deakin Univ, Sch Architecture & Bldg, Geelong, Vic 3220, Australia
[3] NTNU Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Trondheim, Norway
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
CAPEX performance; Digitization; Future-proofing; Light rail transit; OPEX; INFRASTRUCTURE; PROJECTS; OVERRUNS;
D O I
10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.002
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
The cost performance of Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems have been scrutinized by the popular press and public sector infrastructure agencies as they have been prone to incurring cost increases in their capital expenditures (CAPEX). In tackling such increases, emphasis is placed on mitigating strategic misrepresentation and optimism bias, which has hindered the public sectors ability to embrace innovation, particularly with regard to the justification and adoption of LRT. More often than not, operational expenditure (OPEX) is neglected, and is not considered a part of the transportation cost performance literature. The aim of this paper is to examine the equivocality that surrounds the determination of cost performance of LRT projects. It is suggested that the public sector should move beyond focusing on strategic misrepresentation and optimism bias, as many governments worldwide now have in place mechanisms to address such issues, and instead focus on future-proofing their assets. It is suggested that the key enablers of future-proofing LRT are (1) private finance; (2) delivery strategy (e.g. design-build-finance-operate); (3) digitization (e.g. building information modelling); and (4) asset management (e.g. smart technologies). If the public sector is to provide an LRT system that is cost effective and able to respond to the demands imposed by climate change, then it needs to be considered from a life cycle perspective and funding sought from the private sector to ensure its viability. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 39
页数:13
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   Why do the design stage elemental cost plan and final tender sum differ in New Zealand? [J].
Adafin, Johnson ;
Rotimi, James ;
Wilkinson, Suzanne .
JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY AND CONSTRUCTION, 2015, 20 (02) :116-+
[2]  
Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission, 2011, ED TRAMS INT REP
[3]  
Autodesk, 2012, BUS VAL BIM INFR ADD
[4]  
Bain R., 2015, LOCAL TRANSPORT 0904, V680, P4
[5]  
Ben-Akiva M., 2002, Transport Policy, V9, P107
[6]   BIM for infrastructure: An overall review and constructor perspective [J].
Bradley, Alex ;
Li, Haijiang ;
Lark, Robert ;
Dunn, Simon .
AUTOMATION IN CONSTRUCTION, 2016, 71 :139-152
[7]   The project benefits of Building Information Modelling (BIM) [J].
Bryde, David ;
Broquetas, Marti ;
Volm, Juergen Marc .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 2013, 31 (07) :971-980
[8]  
Federal Transit Authority, 2008, ANN REP FUND REC FIS
[9]  
Federal Transit Authority, 2011, PROP ALL FUNDS FISC
[10]  
Federal Transit Authority, 2012, PROP ALL FUNDS FISC