Cost–Benefit Indicators and Transport Programming*

Quinet, Émile

doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.2011.00130.x

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… transportation systems exist as a long-term continuum that can extend far beyond the initial design life of the hard assets (Quinet, 2011); and therefore  strategy is formed incrementally through a non-linear and concurrent process of analysis, formulation and implementation (Thiry & Deguire, 2007).…”

Section: Cmb150717_ementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic intent and the management of infrastructure systems

Blom¹,

Guthrie

2019

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefit-cost ratio. BT Business technology. CAPEX Capital expenditure or the costs of building new infrastructure. Audit New Zealand (2010, p. 76) uses the following definition from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors "one-off expenditure on major items which have a life of longer than one year (e.g. land and property) [...] with current expenditure implications". CAPEX can include rebuilding older infrastructure if the cost Strategic intent and the management of infrastructure systems CMB150717_E xxiii FOREWORD I have spent 25 years integrating the principles of sustainability into a diverse range of infrastructure projects and strategies in New Zealand, Australia, and the Pacific.Over that time, I observed that, even where the projects involved innovative solutions to address whole-of-life matters, it was often difficult, subsequently, to sustainor even deliverall the intended outcomes once the project was handed over for routine operation. At first, I treated these problems simply as challenges to be overcome. However, it became clear to me that not only were there issues with the integration of project assets and services into the wider physical system, operational practices often did not align with, and support, some outcomes. This was particularly evident where infrastructure: served several functions: For example, a constructed wetland delivering stormwater treatment, and cultural, amenity, and ecological benefits; and/or  could not be managed using existing asset management tools: For example the inability of conventional (linear) road asset management systems to capture non-linear assets (e.g. public transport facilities), or non-standard materials/solutions (e.g. constructed wetlands). Issues were exacerbated where there was a reliance on, and/or assumption that those same systems had captured all ongoing operational requirements.These were not the only examples, and issues that had the potential to erode longterm outcomesor had already done sowere encountered at all stages (strategic, project, operational).These problems are not unique to my experience. For example: Clarkson, Barton, and Joshi (2013) describe 'follow-through' issues with ecological compensation practice. New Zealand infrastructure development is often subject to conditions, which may require ecological compensation. Aside from being a matter of non-compliance, failure to followthrough on conditions can erode the outcome(s) upon which that infrastructure was predicated. Strategic intent and the management of infrastructure systems xxiv CMB150717_E  IPENZ (2010) identified issues in areas of infrastructure performance reporting, and questioned whether society was actually getting the levels of service being reported. As will be seen, industry interviews completed as part of this research provided yet more examples of eroded outcomes: of water treatment plants becoming ineffectual because investment and design decisions are not well understood; of perverse outcomes arising from coupling with personal and/or project or organisa...

show abstract

Section: Cmb150717_ementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic intent and the management of infrastructure systems

Blom¹,

Guthrie

2019

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Transportation systems exist as a long-term continuum that can extend far beyond the initial design life of the hard assets (Quinet [13]); and therefore • Strategy is formed incrementally through a non-linear and concurrent process of analysis, formulation and implementation (Thiry & Deguire [14]). This suggests that whilst benefits might be expressed in terms of broad, societal (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An argument for infrastructure system stewardship: A new zealand transportation case study in benefit management

Blom¹,

Guthrie²

2017

Int. J. TDI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefits are intrinsic to infrastructure and the public sector, yet these remain a problem for many infrastructure sectors (including transportation), organizations and countries. Much of the focus upon benefit management targets project delivery; by contrast, this study considers system-level benefit management using a transportation case study from New Zealand. In so doing, it investigates why the matter of benefits might be so problematic, and in what way this might affect the integration of projects into the extant system. The research shows system-level coordination and integration are being lost within the 'tactical strategy' of programmes and initiatives. In turn, this is creating a 'red queen'-like busyness without a real understanding of whether anything has been achieved relative to the intended or necessary outcomes being sought. System stewardship has therefore been advanced as an appropriate response to systemlevel complexity and a potential enabler of strategic agility and adaptive capacity.

show abstract