Tag Archives: economics

Economic Benefits of Cycling Infrastructure

cycling-brisbane

Very pleased to see that my colleagues at Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads and Aurecon will be presenting our analysis on the economic benefits of cycling infrastructure at the National Traffic and Transport Conference of AITPM in mid-August.  The abstract is available here:

https://www.aitpm.com.au/economic-benefits-of-cycling-infrastructure/

 

Image: Southbank, Brisbane. Source: Brisbane Tourism.

Anatomy of an Economic Decision

touch-decisions

Clear thinking is a prerequisite for good economics.  This leads to improved decision making, and that creates better outcomes.

The next time someone claims to be making an economic decision or proposes an economic course of action; dissect their claim or assertion.  You do not need to be an economist to do that.  There are five simple signs for good economic decision making:

  1. Decision to be made is articulated
  2. Available choices are considered
  3. Measurable objectives are described
  4. Input variables are identified
  5. Relationship between variables is determined

Without these famous five, the risk is the economic decision may be dead on arrival.

Significance of O&M in Infrastructure

maintenance

Installation of new infrastructure assets creates streams of services and improvements to existing services for users. Benefits accrue to these uses as well as a wider set of stakeholders. Maintaining the service potential is a critical element in ensuring that value for money is achieved from the initial capital investment.

However, many governments and asset managers are under significant pressure to trim maintenance budgets and scrimp on operating costs. In some contexts, this emerges as an extreme build-neglect-build scenario. Many Pacific Island nations experience this, as do a number of smaller Australian local government authorities. The full lifecycle cost of infrastructure assets is not factored into the budget planning processes of these organisations. Similarly, many private sector operators of infrastructure have commercial and financial incentives to focus on next quarter financial performance rather than long-term service provision from these assets.

The back end of infrastructure is seen as much less interesting, but it is where all the benefits are generated. So approaches to operating and maintaining these infrastructure assets is as equally critical as the planning and investment decisions to deliver them.

Two broad maintenance strategies are predictive maintenance and condition based maintenance. Predictive maintenance is like regular scheduled servicing based on the design performance of an infrastructure asset. It is less costly to implement but also less likely to match the actual performance of the asset. Condition based maintenance requires the collection of data and information about the actual performance of the asset and provision of a tailored asset maintenance response.

The approaches set up an economic challenge. Should an infrastructure manager simply maintain its assets according to schedule and only collect data and information on condition at the times of regularly scheduled servicing? Or should some initial data costs be incurred to change and adapt design-based, predictive maintenance? Decisions to underfund reasonable maintenance activities need to be made with good information and in an appropriate strategic context.

So it depends. In one sector, for example, the response is clear but not clear-cut. Analysis of wind turbine maintenance to address gearbox, generator and blade failure scenarios shows that for small wind turbines, predictive maintenance is more cost effective than condition based maintenance. Condition based strategies were based on an array of sensor data (optical, oil, vibration and temperature). However, for larger turbines, condition based maintenance where there is a high expected gearbox failure rate is a much better approach. In that instance, the cost of collecting additional data and information enables timelier and more appropriate servicing of the turbines.

For these reasons, infrastructure owners and managers need to ensure there are effective asset management and maintenance policies included in their strategic asset management frameworks. It is not enough to supply the assets, as only the services from them will be able to generate the full suite of expected benefits. This can only be achieved when the design potential of these assets is realised over time.

Household Debt and House Prices

household-prices-debt

Lytton Advisory was at the Economic Society 2017 Business Lunch in Brisbane yesterday. RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, gave a very lucid presentation on Australian household debt and house prices.

Over 25% of mortgagees have a buffer of three or more years on their home loans.  The top two household quintiles by income are carrying the largest debt burdens.

Recent regulatory changes imposed on banks by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority will tighten up lending to property investors.  This may create some short-term breathing room to address fundamental supply-demand imbalances in some of the Australian property markets. It may also take a bit of the speculative heat out of the Sydney and Melbourne property markets.

The RBA Governor touched on a number of other issues as well.  Details can be found at:

http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2017/sp-gov-2017-05-04.html

Cross River Rail Dice Roll?

1489723898874

In this note we consider there is a 25% possibility that Cross River Rail may fail to achieve a positive economic net present value and explain how we arrive at that opinion.

Building Queensland reported in its cost benefit analysis summary that Cross River Rail produces a Net Present Value (NPV) of $966 million with a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.21. However, its summary did not publish the actual present value totals of the benefits or costs from the study. The full report is not available for public scrutiny.  Also, the government’s website for Cross River Rail has still not published the business case.

The BCR was expressed in terms of P50, which implies there is a 50% probability that it could be lower than 1.21. Similarly, if the NPV was expressed as P50 that implies a 50% probability the NPV could be less than $966 million. Interestingly, no formal sensitivity analysis was presented in the summary.

Is it possible to assess the probability that the net present value of the project could be less than zero or the benefit cost ratio less than one?

Using the NPV and BCR information from the summary we calculate the implied present value of benefits (B) and the present value of costs (C). Since NPV = B – C = $966 million, and BCR = B / C = 1.21, we can solve for C. This gives us a present value figure for C of $4,742 million. Therefore, the present value for B is $5,738 million.

Since we do not know the risk profile of these values, let’s assume variability in the estimates are normally distributed around the benefit and cost values implied by the NPV and BCR figures. This is a generous interpretation of the variability of the actual result compared to the estimate because we know that costs are typically skewed towards overruns and realized benefits fall short of estimates more often than exceed them.

We assume a standard deviation that is approximately 20% for each cost and benefit estimate. We assume in the absence of any guidance that the estimate is the mean for the purpose of this analysis. This applies both to costs and benefits. Under a standard normal distribution the estimate statistic is also a P50 estimate.

Benefits and costs in the tails of each distribution are likely to be extreme values. We assume that values in the 5% tails either side of the mean are not sampled. That is, values are drawn from a normal distribution that represents 90% of possible values for benefits and costs.

One final consideration – no correlation is assumed between benefits and costs. What it costs to build and operate Cross River Rail has no influence on the level of demand achieved. The same project is delivered irrespective of cost.

Running @Risk probability software over this, we find that running the NPV calculation through 1,000 iterations there is a 25% chance that the project will generate a negative NPV. No formal consideration is given to optimism bias, which would tend to increase this value.

Is this a risk worth taking? Hard to say because some of the fundamental information is still not in the public domain. Also, components of both benefit and cost may be well identified and estimated. As a consequence, their probability profiles might be within a much smaller range.

Within the project, further work would be required to minimise and mitigate risks that could affect benefit realisation or lead to increased costs. Release of further detail about the project would enable the public to assess this.

Image: Brisbane Times.

Ten Key Questions to Improve Red Tape

red-tape

Red tape is embodied in regulations created by governments.   Best practice in regulation is encouraged through Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). In Queensland and across the world, governments use RIA to understand the consequences of changing regulations. RIA’s help decision makers do more good than harm. Cost-benefit analysis is an essential part of that framework.

Different jurisdictions have procedural manuals for how to do RIAs.  This provides guidance to analysts.  But when a RIA presents you with a lot of technical data, how can you as the decision maker be sure the recommended course of action is the best one?

Thankfully a diverse group of experts convened by the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center has developed some tips to steer you through the RIA issues.

Next time you change some regulations, ask your regulatory analysts these questions:

  1. Does the RIA identify the core problem (compelling public need) the regulation is intended to address?
    1. What role do markets play when assessing regulatory policies?
    2. When are market forces inadequate?
    3. Are a lot of anecdotal or unrealistic justifications being supplied?
  1. Is there an objective, policy-neutral evaluation of the relative merits of reasonable alternatives?
  1. Does the RIA present a reasonable “counterfactual” against which benefits and costs are measured?
  1. Do totals and averages obscure relevant distinctions and trade-offs?
  1. Recognize that all estimates involve uncertainty and ask what effect fundamental assumptions, data, and models have on estimates?
  1. Is there sufficient transparency and objectivity of analytical inputs
  1. How do projected benefits relate to stated objectives?
    1. What is the evidence for and against a causal relationship?
    2. Does the analysis accurately characterize indirect benefits and costs?
    3. How does the law of diminishing returns affect the analysis?
  1. What “costs” are actually being considered?
    1. When are compliance costs an insufficient proxy for opportunity cost?
    2. Are estimated marginal costs increasing?
  1. How are benefits and costs being distributed?
  1. Are the benefits and costs are presented symmetrically?

Lytton Advisory provides cost-benefit analysis services to support regulatory impact assessment processes that address many of these questions. Contact us today to find out more.

Source: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/sites/regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/RIA-Consumers_Guide_Format_vf_1.pdf

Infrastructure Complexity

complex-infrastructure.png

Why does delivering infrastructure have to be so complex on so many different levels? It seems hard to correctly identify infrastructure, assess the need for services from those assets, discern which infrastructure to maintain, rehabilitate, replace or build new. Further, there are strong disagreements at the political level, between infrastructure agencies and, within infrastructure agencies, between different asset managers.

Complexity arises from the involvement of a broad array of participants in the provision of infrastructure assets, as well as the managers of the services provided from those assets.

It also arises from complex streams of benefits. In addition to benefits accruing to consumers of infrastructure services, there are often significant streams of benefits that are positive externalities. Wider benefits to society from improved health services, better access to education, cleaner water supplies, stable supply of electricity, and improvements to travel time and quality of the trip. A healthier workforce improves productivity. A more educated populace can generate higher disposable incomes. Purer water supplies enhance public health. Stable electricity supplies reduce business interruptions. Improved transport systems make labour markets function better and increase intra and inter city productivity. The benefits are multifaceted and often hard to quantify on cost-benefit analyses.

On the supply side, it is often too easy to overlook the range of solutions that are on offer. After a need has been identified, solutions could well include non-built options. This may involve active demand management, improving utilization and output of existing assets, repairing and rehabilitating existing infrastructure, changing the infrastructure asset operating environment to foster demand for alternatives.

The options analysis needs to be undertaken at the output/outcome level, rather than at the input/resource level. That is where actual economic value can be identified. To do otherwise creates the risk of estimating the cost of sub-optimal options.

Complexity also arises in terms of finding the financial resources to commission and operate infrastructure assets. Also, implementation through procurement and construction may have complexity.

Large, nationally significant infrastructure contains a lot of first pass risks. Getting the right scale and scope of infrastructure to match the most likely demand profile requires a lot of analysis.

Many infrastructure assets contain hiding optionality benefits. The ability to set the ultimate scale and scope, as well as the possible staging to achieve that is a significant real asset option. At the outset, a lot of choices can be made that close off options later on. Least cost solutions are not necessarily the best solutions where service quality between options can vary.

So what gets bought and how it gets built becomes critical.

Ultimately financial resources are committed. This is because small annual benefits are often realized over long periods. This is in contrast to large initial construction costs. Construction costs and some measure of operating expenses have to be funded. User charges do not always cover these costs. Finance addresses the imbalance of cash flows inherent in infrastructure. Ultimately, infrastructure must be paid for either by users or taxpayers. There is a significant range of public and private financing mechanisms. Financing choices are complex and can carry different risk profiles. This can affect asset valuation, as well as commercial risks around viability.

These are all significant touch points highlighting infrastructure complexity. They warrant detailed consideration and investigation in each infrastructure project.