March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 1
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Project overview
This evaluation presents the results of the ex post cost-benefit analysis for the
construction of a new double-track standard-gauge railway between Thriasio and
Kiato in Greece. The line has replaced a former single track metric line passing
through a number of urban areas, including Megara and Korinthos. The
improvements (funded by 4 applications for cohesion funding) form part of
longer term proposals to upgrade the Piraeus – Athens – Patra line. Three of the
sub-projects related to the section of track running from Thriasio to Korinthos.
An additional funding application was made for the section of track between
Korinthos and Kiato. Details of each funding application are shown below in
Table 1.
Table 1. Details of Funding Applications
Project Ref. Description Total
(€’000s)
C.F
(€’000s)
Date of
Decision
Thriasio – Korinthos
94.09.65.010
(A)
Project name: Construction of new
Thriasio-Pedio-Elefsis-Corinth
railway line (Phase A)
120,000 60,000 23/07/99
1994GR16
CPT110 (B)
Project name: Construction of
Thriasio-Elefsina-Corinth section
(Phase B)
165,000 82,500 22/03/01
2003GR16
CPT001 (C)
New Railway Track Thriasio–
Elefsina–Korinthos (Phase C) 92,000 46,000 15/12/03
Korinthos - Kiato
2000GR16CPT
003 (D) New Railway Korinthos-Kiato 99,800 49,900 29/12/00
*The extension of the modern line from Kiato to Patra will not be assisted by the EU Cohesion Fund.
Technical information supporting all applications is provided in a feasibility study
(TRADEMCO on behalf of ERGOSE) dated 20th November 2000. This study
provides a combined analysis of the forecast costs and benefits for improvements
along the entire Thriasio-Patras railway, including a section not yet opened
2 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
between Kiato and Patras. However, it does not include a sequential economic
analysis for each section of the route. As such this ex post evaluation also
considers the cumulative impacts of the four projects and attempts to qualify the
differences caused by a shorter route being constructed compared to forecast.
Location
The 220km-long rail line linking Athens to Patra forms part of the European
TEN-T network, which runs parallel to the Priority Motorway Axis 7
(Igoumenitsa/Patras-Athens–Sofia-Budapest). Athens is situated on Rail Priority
Axis 22 (Athens-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nuremburg/Dresden). Patras is
on rail priority axis 29 (Ionian/Adriatic international corridor). An overview of
the project is shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Project Location and Overview
Source: Openstreetmap.org
Description
The new fully grade-separated 112km1 double-track railway replacement line
follows a more direct alignment, bypassing a number of urban areas between
1 91km Thriasio-Korinthos + 21km Korinthos-Kiato
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 3
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Thraisio and Korinthos. The line is no longer disrupted by the presence of a
large number of level crossings that characterised the old line, which has now
been discontinued. The new alignment, following the main highway, has resulted
in new stations being less centrally located than their predecessors. Figure 2
below shows the old and new track alignments passing through Megara, and
highlights some of the above features. Figure 3 gives a visual comparison of the
old and new tracks.
Figure 2. Old and New Rail Alignment through Megara
Source: Openstreetmap.org
4 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Figure 3. Old Metric Line (left) and New Standard Gauge double line (right)
Source: Site Photographs
The first three sub sections relate to the Thriasio-Korinthos section which
opened in September 2005. In addition to the new station in Korinthos, four new
stations became operational at this time, namely; Nea Peramor, Megara, Kinetta
and Agioi Theodori. Three additional new stations were incorporated from July
2006 being; Ano Liosia, Aspropyrgos and Magoula. The line terminated in
Athens until June 2007 when it was extended to Piraeus including the three
intermediate stops at Lefka, Rentis and Rouf. The fourth sub-project relates to
the section between Korinthos-Kiato, this became operational in July 2007.
The new line, including more than 5km of tunnels, is a modern double-track
standard gauge railway, and is compatible with the wider rail network in northern
and central Greece. The top speed on the improved line is 160km/h. The old line
consisted of outdated infrastructure with the general line speed of 90km/h falling
to 25km/h in places. The initial assessment considered that the project would a
vital intervention to prevent the decline of the railway, and to allow the line to be
compatible with the remainder of the standard gauge rail network in central and
northern Greece.
7.1.2 Context
Socio-economic context
Table 2 presents summary data showing Greece‟s economic position compared
to the EU as a whole over the period 2000-2009. The GDP per capita of Greece
is presently 88% of the EU average. Growth in GDP has been particularly strong
over the previous decade growing by 37% in real terms compared to 16% for the
EU as a whole between 2000 and 2010. Despite this substantial growth, it is
worth considering this against a backdrop of more recent trends where year-on
year-growth in GDP has declined from a peak of 4.5% in 2006 to -2.3% in 2009
and -4.6% in 2010 (Business Monitor International, Q3 2010). This economic
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 5
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
decline is important in the process of ex post evaluation as it will result in lower
than expected travel demand when compared to ex ante forecasts.
The overall mode share of rail in Greece is generally low. Moreover, in recent
years the mode share of rail and bus passenger travel in Greece has fallen
considerably, against a background trend of increasing passenger travel as a
whole and of increasing car ownership.
The project appraisal noted that the poor state of the rail network in Greece was
one of the main problems with the nation‟s transport sector. In particular, the
different gauge in the Peloponnese compared to the rest of Greece necessitated
interchanges. Large sections of the track had low-capacity lines and safety issues.
In addition a large part of the network did not have modern electrical signalling,
and there was a requirement for a large number of staff increasing operating
costs. It was noted that the Hellenic Railways Organisation‟s (OSEs) total
revenue only accounted for 51% of the total operating costs, and consequently
the rail network was operating at a loss.
Over the past decade there has been significant investment in the modernisation
of both the rail and highway networks within Greece. However, recent data
shows that the overall financial position of the railway has not improved. In
2008, OSE reported losses of €937m on revenues of €174m. During the same
period the subsidiary operating trains on the network reported a turnover of
€108m against costs of €312m2. From 2000 to 2009 the companies staffing costs
increased by 50 percent even though personnel decreased by 30 percent.
With regards to the financial status of the railway, OSE‟s 2009 annual report
notes that a reorganisation of the Greek railways is proposed for 2010. This will
attempt to address the profitability of the network through:
a rationalisation of personnel necessary for the operation of the OSE
network;
a review of the OSE network to minimise the loss from parts of the
network with low demand; and,
managing the real objectives of investments both in terms of feasibility
and in terms of economic profitability.
2 Source: Hellenic Railways Organisation S.A, Annual Financial Statements 2009
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 7
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 2. Details of Funding Applications
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
GDP/capita (market prices, €)
European Union (27 countries) 19100 19800 20500 20700 21700 22500 23700 25000 25100 23600
Greece 12600 13400 14300 15600 16700 p 17500 p 18800 p 20200 p 21000 p 20700 p
Real GDP/capita growth (% p.a.)
European Union (27 countries) 3.9 2 1.3 1.3 2.5 2 3.2 3 0.5 -4.2
Greece 4.5 4.2 3.4 5.9 4.4p 2.3
p 4.5
p 4.3
p 1.3
p -2.3
p
Model Split of Passenger Transport (%)
Greece
Rail 2.2e 1.9
e 1.9
e 1.6
e 1.6
e 1.7
e 1.6
e 1.6
e 1.3
e -
Car 72.8e 74.3
e 75.1
e 76.4
e 77.5
e 78.3
e 79.2
e 79.9
e 80.8
e -
Bus 25.1e 23.8
e 23.0
e 22.1
e 20.9
e 20.0
e 19.2
e 18.5
e 17.9
e -
Rail (mpkm) 1,583 1,783 1,836 1,574 1,668 1,854 1,811 1,954 2,003 -
Cars (per 1000 people) - - 331 348 368 388 409 429 - -
Notes: e = estimate, p = preliminary, - = no data available
Source: Eurostat http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home & The World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.RRS.PASG.KM
(accessed 27nd September 2010)
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 9
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Strategic policy context
The old line between Thriasio and Kiato had poor geometric features, an old
infrastructure, different gauge from the rest of Greece, and a lack of modern
telecommunications and signalling. The line also passed through a number of
built up areas and contained a number of level crossings in these locations. As a
result, although track speed was generally 90km/h, it dropped to as low as
25km/h in places. Consequently the line, along with the wider Peloponnesian
network, was in an unfavourable situation in terms of demand and financial
results. This section of the network was stated as comprising 34% of all OSEs
operating costs but only 6% of total revenue.
The stated objectives of providing a standard gauge double line track with a
design speed of 160km/h were to:
reduce travel times between Athens and Korinthos by 40 minutes from
an original time of 1 hour 40 minutes. (And by 1 hour 20 minutes from
Athens to Patra with the final project3);
increase revenue and decrease operating costs on the railway;
improve safety by installing modern automatic signalling and eliminating
level crossings;
allow the Athens – Patra railway to connect into the wider network of
central and northern Greece removing the need for interchange (the
incompatibility of the Athens-Patra metric line was regarded as a major
problem with the countries rail network);
provide socio-economic benefits through mode shift from road to rail;
improve working conditions and the movement of trains by increasing
line capacity and improving reliability; and,
provide employment during construction.
In its entirety the line is the only available rail link from Greece to Western
Europe connecting through a port (Patra). The old line was of a low standard
with decreasing demand. Ultimately the construction of a new standard gauge
line, in conjunction with the rebuild of the port of Patra, was intended to increase
the potential for rail freight between Patra and Athens with positive effects to the
railway and the national economy. Patra in itself is the fourth largest city in
Greece and also provides good connections to ports in Italy such as Bari,
Brindisi, and Ancona. Whilst the current extent of the project does not provide
3 The CBA noted that the potential future electrification of the line would reduce travel times by an
additional 15 minutes over the whole length of the track.
10 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
these benefits, the costs have contributed to the final extent of the project which
will release these benefits.
7.1.3 Data Sources and Evaluation Constraints
In July 2010 we undertook a stakeholder workshop where representatives from
the following organisations were present:
The Ministry of National Economy;
The Ministry of Public Works;
TRAINOSE
ERGOSE
TRADEMCO4
The stakeholder meeting was an opportunity to clarify understanding of the
assumptions underpinning the ex ante CBA, and to discuss any data relating to
this and the outturn evaluation. Additionally, the meeting provided the chance to
discuss the stakeholder‟s perception of the overall usefulness of the CBA in the
decision-making process.
In addition to this workshop, we met separately with the Deputy Head of West
Attica, the prefecture containing the majority of the new railway, to discuss the
local and regional impacts of the project.
Project Documentation
To carry out the ex post evaluation we have relied on a number of sources of
information as summarised in Table 3 and Table 4 as provided by stakeholders
involved in the evaluation process.
4 TRAINOSE and ERGOSE are both subsidiaries of OSE. OSE is the Greek national railway company
which owns and operates all railway lines in Greece TRAINOSE are responsible for running the trains on
the OSE network. ERGOSE undertake the management of the organisations investment programmes.
TRADEMCO was the consultant responsible for preparing the ex-ante CBA document.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 11
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 3. Project documents
Document Obtained
From
CBA for Thriasio – Patra
Financial and Socio-Economic Assessment : Thriasio – Patras
(November 2000)
Ministry of
Economy
Funding Applications ERGOSE
Environmental Approvals ERGOSE
CBA for intermodal freight centre in Thriasio ERGOSE
CBA for major rail projects in Greece ERGOSE
Final reports for the Projects ERGOSE
Table 4 below shows a list of sources for the primary and secondary data. It can
be seen from the table that the extent of the primary data supplied by
TRAINOSE has been limited. This is despite discussing data availability at the
stakeholder meeting and with an agreement for data to be provided.
Additional data supplied following the initial submission of this report has been
limited and has not allowed for additional analysis of the scheme. TRAINOSE is
currently under organisational restructuring and have had difficulties supplying
and extracting data. As a result of limited primary data provision, this evaluation
has relied to an extent on published secondary sources to analyse operating costs,
and to approximate passenger-kms travelled on the line.
No additional surveys or counts have been undertaken as part of this evaluation.
12 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Evaluation Constraints
The CBA underpinning the funding applications forecast that an extension of a
modern line as far as Korinthos would result in significant increases in passenger
demand to the west (towards Patra), due to the faster overall journey time
achieved through new line. Such demand was forecast to represent a significant
proportion of the overall total demand between Patra and Athens. Observed
patronage data collected before project implementation showed that over two-
thirds of demand on the line to Athens originated from beyond Korinthos. The
old line between Patra and Kiato is presently not in operation, as construction
has commenced on wider improvements to Aigio6. Consequently increased
demand from beyond Korinthos has not yet been realised and hence is offsetting
some of the anticipated benefits of the Athens to Kiato section subject to this
evaluation. The approach to dealing with this is described later in this section.
Additionally the applications for funding for each of the subprojects have
presented the benefits as a result of the construction of the entire Thriasio-Patra
railway. There is no separate CBA for the project at its present extent. The full
project to Patra, as presented in the ex ante CBA, (although still proposed) is
5 Handbook on estimation of external costs in the transport sector, INFRAS, 2008
6 Shown in Error! Reference source not found.
Table 4. Other data sources
Data Pre-project opening Post-project opening
Project
CAPEX n\a
Outturn project costs obtained from
ERGOSE
Project
OPEX
Line OPEX is derived using a calculated operating cost per train km (taken
from secondary sources) and train km calculated from pre- and post-
project timetables.
Line
Revenues
Line revenues are taken from the
CBA referenced in the Application
for Assistance Forms.
Line revenues were obtained from
TRAINOSE following project opening.
Rail
demand
Pre-project rail demand was taken
from the CBA referenced in the
Application for Assistance Forms.
Passenger km are derived from
revenues using an average fare per
passenger km
Accidents The number personal injury accidents at level crossings on the Piraeus-
Athens-Patra line have been supplied by TRAINOSE.
Parameter
values
Updated values of time have been taken from HEATCO. Updated values
for external costs have been taken from the INFRAS study5.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 13
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
significantly behind schedule. The appraisal considered the full project would be
open by 2011; current forecast opening dates are unclear but are thought to be
2017. Consequently there is no directly comparable ex ante appraisal for the ex
post evaluation presented below.
7.2 Ex post cost-benefit analysis
This section of the report presents the findings of the ex post cost benefit
analysis for the Thriasio to Kiato railway line improvement, using historic data
from 2000 to 2009 (before and after project implementation). The project has
been evaluated over a 36 year appraisal period (2000-2035). Full operations on
the line began in 2006.
The evaluation has concentrated on passenger benefits as freight demand on the
line was considered negligible both before and after project implementation.
As previously discussed, ERGOSE did not carry out separate ex ante CBAs for
each funding application, and refer to the benefits as a result of the entire
Thriasio-Patra improvement. The findings of this evaluation should therefore be
considered within the context of the following:
the section of line between Kiato and Patra has not yet been completed
and as such the ex post evaluation of the project life benefits does not
include the benefits likely to emerge once the remaining part of the line
between Kiato and Patra is completed; and,
the estimated date of completion for the Kiato to Patra line is uncertain;
although was suggested at the workshop to be between 2015 and 2020
by an OSE representative. This is behind the originally assumed
opening date of 2011.
Given that this evaluation does not include the potential benefits or costs of the
Kiato to Patra line replacement, the ex post monetary benefits of the project
should not be expected to be of the same order of magnitude as reported in the
ex ante CBA.
7.2.1 Headline results from the analysis
This section presents the headline results from the ex post analysis which will be
explored in more detail in the following section of the report. The main headline
results relate to findings from the economic, financial and wider impact analysis.
The headline figures for the economic and financial analysis include low and high
growth scenarios. The low and high growth scenarios consider the levels of
demand which could be expected on the line originating beyond Kiato if the
remaining network had remained open. Presently the old metric line is closed
beyond Kiato to allow further modernisation of the line to Aigio. The extension
to Kiato has been evaluated on a stand alone basis, not considering the future
14 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
extension to Patra or the resulting line closure beyond Kiato. Demand
assumptions are summarised as follows:
low growth scenario assumes that demand on the line beyond Kiato
would remain at observed pre-project levels
high growth scenario assumes that rail growth from beyond Kiato
would have increased as forecast in the ex ante appraisal.
Economic Analysis
The purpose of the ex ante economic analysis is to appraise a projects
contribution to the economic welfare of the region or country. Our ex post
evaluation has captured the following categories of project costs and benefits:
Consumer Surplus;
Producer Surplus;
Ongoing Costs (Operational and Maintenance);
Investment Costs; and
External Benefits.
Table 5 over the page summarises findings of our economic analysis for the ex
post evaluation. Consistent with the ex ante forecasts, all values are reported in
2000 prices, discounted to 2000 and at a rate of 5.5% and include costs and
benefits accrued over the period 2000-2035.
Detail regarding how these figures were derived and the assumptions used is
provided in subsequent sections of this report.
Key points to note from Table 5 are summarised as follows:
Table 5. Economic Results (2000 Prices discounted to 2000, Discount Rate 5.5%,
2000-2035)
€millions
Low case High case
Net Present Value (NPV) 31.90 257.83
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 6.05% 9.30%
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.10 1.79
Source: Own calculation
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 15
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Even in the low growth scenario the project offers a positive (albeit low)
benefit cost ratio. The completion of the line to Patra is likely to release
further benefits along this section as passengers originating from stations
west of the route will be able take advantage of improved journey times
between Korinthos and Athens.
Collectively rail users previously travelling along the old route have
experienced an increase in fares, hence an overall economic cost.
Proportionately, a majority of the project benefits come from producer
surplus components including revenue from passengers; maintenance and
operating cost savings for both rail and road.
There is a positive revenue income benefit brought about by increasing fares
and new passengers transferring from road to rail modes.
The NPV is substantially higher (€257.8m) in the high growth scenario
compared to the low growth scenario (€31.9m) due to the substantial
increase in PVB in the former scenario.
The internal rate of return (IRR) is relatively low (less than 10%) indicating
that it will take a relatively long period of time for the project to deliver a
positive NPV. This is a conservative estimate of the IRR given that journey
time benefits to the highway have not been included in the ex post analysis.
As a rule of thumb an IRR higher than the discount rate used (5.5%) is a
further indicator that the project offers a positive return on investment in
economic terms.
Financial analysis
Table 6 summarises the ex post results from the financial analysis for the same
low and high growth scenarios. As with the economic analysis, to be consistent
with the ex ante forecasts, all values are reported in 2000 prices, discounted to
2000 and at a rate of 5.0% and include costs and benefits accrued over the period
2000-2035. Discount rates are inline with those presented in the European
Commissions „Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects 2008‟.
Financial Net Present Value (FNPV) and the Financial Internal Rate of Return
(FRR) are two indicators that illustrate the financial strength of the project. The
financial analysis differs from the economic analysis in that it focuses purely on
financial costs and revenues, rather than the wider social benefits offered through
improved journey times and safety.
Key points to note from the financial results in Table 6 are as follows:
16 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The Return on Investment FRR is relatively low (less than 5% in the low growth
scenario) indicating that it will take a relatively long period of time for the project
to recover its investment and operating costs;
The Return on National Capital FRR is more attractive than the above
in that it exceeds the 5% discount factor used however is still relative
poor in terms of financial performance;
The project has not produced a financial benefit (Return on
Investment) with an outturn NPV of ranging from -€184.1m to -
€100.9m.
Table 6. Financial Results (2000 Prices discounted to 2000, Discount Rate 5.0%,
2000-2035)
Low case High case
Net Present Value – Investment (€m) -184.1 -100.9
Financial IRR – Investment (%) 1.84% 3.40%
Net Present Value – Capital (€m) 10.2 93.5
Financial IRR – Capital (%) 5.27% 7.30%
Source: Own calculation
Wider socio-economic impacts
The Athens-Kiato line is only approximately three years into its expected
economic life, whilst economic and social impacts often take many years to
materialise. Clearly the effect of the economic downturn in Greece is likely to
be offsetting some of the potential of the project. Whilst the wider impacts of
the project are considered in greater detail in latter sections of the report, the
following headline messages can be drawn from our ex post analysis.
The peripheral location of the stations relative to the towns they serve
means that they are poorly accessible compared to the stations located on
the old routes.
The out of town stations do offer a focal point for development and have
been integrated into local town master planning exercises.
The removal of trains from the built up areas has offered local congestion
benefits and associated benefits in terms of noise, poor air quality and
congestion caused by traffic disruption at level crossings.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 17
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The true wider socio-economic impacts of the project are unlikely to
materialise until the line completes the rail link between Patra port with
Athens.
7.2.2 Key aspects of the ex post evaluation
The remainder of this section presents in more detail the outputs from the ex
post evaluation and includes further detail regarding the assumptions made in our
analysis. Each of the following is now discussed in turn below.
Initial Investment Costs;
Consumer Surplus;
Producer Surplus; and
External Benefits.
7.2.3 Costs
Initial Investment Costs
Table 7 provides the forecast and outturn investment costs of the four sub-
projects comprising the project between Athens and Kiato. ERGOSE have
provided outturn costs for the section of the track running to Korinthos with
outturn costs being taken from the Final Report for the section Korinthos-
Kiato7. The outturn expenditure was provided in „as spent‟ costs by year. This
enabled a conversion into 2000 prices to allow a direct comparison between
forecast and outturn costs. It is worth noting that the forecasts given above,
relate to those reported in the project funding applications and differ to those
reported in the Financial and Socio-economic Assessment for Thriasio to Patra
(November, 2000).
7 Final Report: Construction of New Railway Line Corith-Kiato, November 2009.
18 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 7. Summary of ex post financial analysis (2000 prices, undiscounted)
Project Costs (Million €) 94.09.65.010
(A)
1994GR16
CPT110
&
2003GR16
CPT0 (B and C)
2000GR16
CPT003 (D) Total
Forecast
TOTAL Works (2000 prices)- Thriasio to Patra CBA, November 2000
424.0
TOTAL works (2000 prices) – CF Project Applications
120.0 257.0 99.8 476.8
Outturn
TOTAL works (actual prices) 116.3 283.4 108.4 508.0
TOTAL works (2000 prices) 116.3 253.8 93.2 463.3
Source: Own calculations from data provided by ERGOSE
When outturn expenditure is converted to 2000 values (using the Greek
Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices) it is slightly lower (3%) than the
amount predicted at the time applications were submitted. However it is apparent
that compared to the initial like for like costs (Thriasio to Kiato) prepared in the
initial feasibility study for the Thriasio to Patra line, out-turn costs were higher
than expected. Clearly, these costs were updated at the time of application for
funding however ERGOSE provided a number of reasons for the increase in
forecast costs (although this is not apparent when allowing for increased costs
since forecasts were undertaken). The key points are summarised below:
the costs for the construction of Megara Rail station were removed
from the original contract due to requirements for alternative
construction methods;
final costs for expropriation overran due to requirements for additional
expropriation of 27,000m2;
there was a need to increase the seismic coefficient of the tunnels due to
the 1999 earthquake;
there were changes to the EUs directives for H&S between cost
estimates and construction; and
there were alterations to the final designs for environmental and
ecological reasons.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 19
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 8 provides the outturn unit costs of the two projects contained in the 2000
to 2006 funding application for the upgrade between Thriasio and Korinthos.
This level of detail is not available for the other two project sub sections. It
should be noted the outturn costs are below are shown according to the year of
spend, whilst original estimates are in 2000 prices. Outturn costs have not been
provided with an annual profile of spend and consequently can not be converted
back to 2000 prices.
Table 8. Summary of ex post financial analysis (Original Costs, 2000 prices,
Outturn Costs in year of spend)
Total Cost (MEURO) Unit Cost (MEURO)
Original
Cost
Final
Cost
Original
Cost
Final
Cost
Units
Land 2.3 5.2 0.4 0.1 €m/Strema
Track (excluding tunnels) 72.7 65.1 4.9 4.4 €m/km
Tunnels (including M&E) 71.2 73.6 13.8 14.3 €m/km
Stations/ Stops 20.5 26.0 3.4 4.3 €m/ station
Trackwork, signaling, telecom 83.2 109.1 1.3 1.7 €m/km
Other 0.00 1.0
Technical Consultant Services 7.0 3.3
TOTAL 256.9 283.3
Source: ERGOSE
Residual Value
The ex ante CBA derived the economic life of the project (line, infrastructure,
signals) is 50 years. Therefore a residual value of the capital investment was
included in the analysis and was valued at approximately 42% of the initial
investment. This assumed a linear devaluation of the initial investment over a 50
year period. The same residual valuation, being 42% of the investment cost, has
been carried through to the ex post evaluation.
7.2.4 Direct benefits
Consumer Surplus
Consumer Surplus is the benefit a consumer experiences, in excess of the costs
which he or she perceived. This includes the value placed on time savings to a
rail or highway user and changes in fares implemented as a result of the project.
20 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The absence of detailed passenger demand data has been a constraint the
evaluation, as such as series of assumptions has been made to calculate consumer
surplus, these are listed below:
Value of Time - Using HEATCO values and the journey purpose split
from the ex ante appraisal the average values-of-time for this evaluation
have been calculated at €6.21/hour. The future values of time have been
adjusted from this base value using an adjusted capital growth rate of
GDP (elasticity = 0.7) as recommended by HEATCO.
Accurate outturn Passenger Demand data has not been provided for
this project. However passenger km has be calculated using pre- and
post project revenues and average fares per km;
Fares - Dividing TRAINOSEs total 2008 national network turnover by
total rail passenger km gives an average fare of €0.0539 per passenger
km. This would give an average fare of €4.85 between Athens and
Korinthos and thus compares well to actual fares between Athens and
Korinthos which presently cost €6 for a full fare single; €10 for a full
fare return; and €3 for concessions.
Based on a current average journey time between Korinthos and Athens of 1
hour 10 minutes, the project has resulted in an average 30 minute rail journey
time saving outturn average journey time saving of 30 minutes between Athens
and Korinthos. This equates to a saving of 0.33 minutes per passenger km. This
saving equates to between €80.6m and €122.45 in monetary terms. This
evaluation represents a conservative estimate of the total journey time savings, as
the removal of delays to highway traffic at the former level crossings no longer
exist. The ex post evaluation does not capture these time savings.
Fares for passengers have increased as a result of the project from approximately
€0.0409 per passenger km (2000 prices) from €0.0382 per passenger km in pre-
project scenario. This equates to a consumer surplus negative benefit of between
€4.96m and €7.43m over the appraisal period and hence results in a small
reduction of consumer surplus contribution to the overall PVB.
Due to the modernised line being a double track the project is likely to have
resulted in reliability benefits, as previously trains had to pass each other at
designated loops on the single track. It was confirmed by TRAINOSE that the
new track has resulted in reliability benefits although no data has been provided
to support this. This benefit is not quantified in either the ex ante or the ex post
analysis.
Overall consumer surplus accounts for between 21% and 20% of total PVB
depending on the demand scenario. This accounts for €75.7m of benefits over
the 30 year appraisal period in the low scenario and for €115.02m in the high
case.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 21
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Producer Surplus
Producer surplus for the project is the difference between producer net
revenues (revenues minus operating costs) with and without the project. It also
includes changes to highway vehicle operating cost, which change as a result of
the project but are „unperceived‟ by users.
Revenue from Fares
TRENOSE have provided outturn line revenue for the years from 2005 to 2009.
This data allocates revenue to stations on the line regardless of destination. 2000-
2005 revenues are taken from the ex ante appraisal. Revenues are dependent on
the demand scenario and are discussed in more detail below.
Maintenance and Operating Costs (Rail)
The line incurs the ongoing costs of maintenance of the track and infrastructure
and also the costs of operating the trains on the network. In the ex ante
evaluation, both of these costs have been adjusted as necessary to reflect the do
minimum and do something scenarios. In absence of basic observed pre or post
opening information being provided by ERGOSE or TREGOSE, we have made
a number of assumptions in our ex post analysis, these are summarised as
follows:
national average operating costs per train km in Greece have been
derived using data relating to the total operating costs incurred by OSE
Organisation and the total number of train kilometres operated. (Table
9);
the average operating and maintenance costs per train km are assumed
equal before and after the projects implementation (€15.78 per train km
in 2000 prices);
the current rail provision would be implemented throughout the
appraisal period and would be sufficient to accommodate background
growth in rail demand;
in contrast to the ex ante appraisal cost assumptions (cost per passenger
km travelled), we have considered operating costs on a cost per train km
basis. This assumption was largely driven by lack of other suitable data
to calculate operation cost savings. The methodology is considered to
be more appropriate than considering costs on a per passenger km
basis; given that a drop in passenger numbers could actually initiate an
increase in operating costs per passenger km travelled.
22 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 9. Derivation of the Operating Costs per Train km Per Annum based on
National Greek Rail Data
€
Maintenance and Operating Costs 311,815,000
Train km 15,000,000
Cost/train km (2008 Prices) 20.79
Cost/train km (2000 Prices) 15.78
Source: Rail Research in the EU, ERRAC, April 2005 & Hellenic Railways Organisation S.A, Annual
Financial Statements 2009
Table 10 summarises the re-forecast impact of the improvement on rail
operating and maintenance costs. The absence of detailed timetabling; rolling
stock and line maintenance cost information provided to the evaluation team
means that this estimate should be treated as a conservative estimate only. Given
that it is not possible to accurately determine with confidence whether operating
costs per train km have increased or decreased we have included a sensitivity test
showing the effect of a 10% variance in costs.
Table 10. NPV of Benefits from Reduced Operating Costs (2000 Prices discounted
to 2000, Discount Rate 5.0%, 2000-2035)
€NPV
Base Operating Costs 118.83
+10% per train km DM 173.28
+10% per train km DS 76.27
Source: Own Calculations
Given that the post opening vehicle operating cost per train km is an average
across the national network and encompasses the performance of both old and
new track, we would expect the pre-opening operating costs for the old
infrastructure between Kiato and Athens to be greater than the €15.78 per train
km reported above (as the line is now operating more efficiently). As such the
operating cost savings of the new line are likely to be in the range of €118.83m to
€173.28m.
An alternative evaluation method considered by our evaluation team was the use
of down time per timetable minute or hour (time the train is not carrying
passengers) in the pre- and post-opening as an indicator of operating cost
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 23
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
efficiency. This would have given an indication of the overall efficiency with
which train units were being used on the old and new route. A given percentage
improvement in train efficiency would equate to a proportionate reduction in
operating costs. Unfortunately, there was insufficient pre-opening time table
available to undertake this type of analysis hence the assumptions listed above
have been assumed.
Highway Vehicle Operating Cost Savings
Vehicle operating costs have been carried through from the ex ante evaluation in
the absence of a local alternative source. This valuation includes „unperceived‟
costs of the costs of capital investment and maintenance. The savings in the CBA
from reduced highway travel were valued at:
0.0367€/car passenger km (assuming 2 passengers per car)
0.0117€/bus passenger km (assuming 24 passenger per bus)
In summary, producer surplus accounts for 59% of benefits in the low demand
scenario (PVB = €210.61m) in the high case (€335.17m). The composite parts of
producer surplus change in magnitude depending on the demand scenario. With
low demand; 56% of producer surplus comes from reduced rail operating costs,
27% comes from increased revenues and 16% comes from reduced vehicle
operating costs. With high demand additional rail revenues account for 40% of
the producer surplus, reduced rail operating costs account for 35% and reduced
vehicle operating costs account for 25%.
7.2.5 Externalities
Most rail projects have an effect on the use of other modes which will result in
the external costs of these modes. As illustrated in Table 11, external costs of
road transport, such as congestion, noise, air pollution and accident costs are
higher per passenger km than the external costs of rail. Updated values of
externalities have been taken from the Ministry of Transportation and
Telecommunications – Transport Intermediate Managing Authority‟s document
for the „Execution of CBA Analysis of Major Railway Projects‟ to be included in
4th Programming Period 2007-2013. These values are sourced from the
INFRAS/IWW study published in 2004 and updated in 2008.
24 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 11. Unit of External Benefits (2000 prices)
External Costs Passenger Transportation
Car
(€/1000pkm)
Bus
(€/1000pkm)
Rail
(€/1000pkm)
Accidents 17.6 0.7 0.8
Air Pollution 6.4 15.2 4.4
Noise 2.0 0.9 2.4
Climate Change 16.2 10.9 6.2
Nature and Landscape 2.1 0.9 0.6
Other 3.9 3.1 3.4
TOTAL 48.2 31.7 17.8
Source: Execution of CBA Analysis of Major Railway Projects’ – Ministry of Transportation and
Telecommunications, Transport Intermediate Managing Authority
The values of externalities per passenger km have been used to calculate benefits
for the project. These are reliant on the change in passenger km from each mode.
In the absence of more specific data the assumption from the ex ante assumption
that 93% of new rail trips will be diverted from other modes and 7% will be
generated has been carried through to the ex post evaluation.
The net present value of benefits emerging from the mode shift above (in 2000
prices, discounted to 2000 at 5.5%) is calculated at between €44.72m and
€106.79m.
Road and Rail Safety Impacts
Safety benefits from this project take two forms:
savings from modal shift from road to rail; and,
savings from reduced accidents at level crossings.
Savings from modal shift are included along with other externalities above.
Savings from reduced accidents at level crossings are project specific, as the new
line will has had a direct impact on the number of road-rail accidents. The old
line had a significant number of level crossings and an associated accident rate,
this risk is eliminated on the new line which is fully grade-separated.
TRENOSE have supplied an accident record for the whole Piraeus-Athens-Patra
line showing the observed number of fatalities and injuries at level crossings on
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 25
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
the line in the period 2004 to 2009. The accident record is shown below in Table
12.
Based on only one year of pre-project accident data, the average accidents savings
per annum between pre and post project equate to 3.5 fatalities and 0.25 injuries
on the line between Athens and Patra (220km). This however represents an
overestimate of the benefits materialising from the Thriasio to Kiato (122km)
and as such we have made a pro-rata adjustment to these figures to obtain a
more accurate reflection of accident savings at level crossings. These adjusted
accident rates are summarised in brackets in Table 12.
Table 12. Summary of Fatalities and Injuries at Level Crossings between Athens and
Patra (Athens to Kiato)
Year Project Status Fatalities Injuries (Slight&Serious)
2004 Pre-Project 4 (2.2) 2 (1.1)
2005 Partial Opening 2 (1.1) 7 (0.6)
2006
Post Project
1 (0) 2 (0)
2007 0 1 (0)
2008 0 1 (0)
2009 1 (0) 3 (0)
Source: TRAINOSE
The project has resulted in a 100% reduction in the number of accidents at level
crossings between Thriasio and Kiato and is equivalent to an annual accident
saving of 2.2 fatalities and 1.1 injury accidents. This saving has been converted
to monetary values using accident valuations for Greece taken from HEATCO
as €0.836m per fatality and €0.110m per injury (major). The valuation of
accidents is assumed to grow in line with GDP per capita as in HEATCO
guidance. The present value of the accident benefits (in 2000 prices, discounted
to 2000 at 5.5%) emerging from the project are €26.94m.
Overall the total benefits produced from externalities and from the safety
benefits of removing level crossings equates to between €71.66m and €133.72m
in the low and high growth scenarios respectively. This is equivalent to between
20% and 23% of the total project PVB.
26 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
7.2.6 Wider impacts
Introduction
This section sets out our general approach to the ex post evaluation and
summarises the impacts identified in discussions with key stakeholders with an
appreciation of the project and its social, environmental and economic impacts.
Approach to ex post evaluation
The effects of recent economic downturn have been particularly prevalent in
Greece with major austerity measures being implemented to prevent collapse of
the national economy. As such the impacts reported in this section need to be
considered within the context of such challenging economic conditions.
This ex post evaluation has drawn upon the following sources of information:
A semi structured interview with the Deputy Head of West Attica (July
2010); and
Focus Group discussion (July 2010) with representatives from:
ERGOSE;
TRENOSE; and
TRADEMCO
The structure of the interviews was in part based upon the guidance provided in
the Commission‟s “Impact Assessment Guidelines” published in January 2009.
Summary of Impacts
The modernised Athens – Kiato rail line has only been open in its entirety since
June 2007. It may take many years for significant social and environmental
impacts to materialise. It is probably still too early to understand the full impacts
which the project has delivered. Below we provide an indication of the perceived
wider impacts identified by project stakeholders. It should be noted that most of
these are of greatest relevance to economic and land use development, while
relatively few comments were received regarding the social and environmental
impacts of the project.
Access to and from the stations on the new line was regarded as problematic
due to their distance from the towns they serve. This had attracted much
adverse response from the general public. There were proposals to address
this issue through the provision of addition shuttle bus services between the
stations and urban settlements.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 27
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The out-of-town stations offer the potential for new developments.
Currently, local development it still focused around town centres rather than
the new station locations. During discussions it was revealed that a number
of Municipalities within Western Attica have issued expansion plans, which
would bring the stations inside the town plan.
Anecdotally, the project has resulted in mode shift from highway to rail and
that the benefits of improved journey times are more than compensating for
the less convenient locations of the stations. The linkages between modal
shift impacts and congestion benefits were clearly recognised, particularly
around the former level crossing points.
Despite an upwards trend in the number of tourist establishments across
Greece as a whole since 2001 (Figure 4) this has not been mirrored in
Korinthia. There has been an upwards trend in the number of tourist
establishments since 2006 which is the first full year of the projects opening
indicating that better journey times has made it a more attractive location for
tourist activity.
The line gives direct access to Piraeus where most ferry services to the
Greek Islands depart from, and via interchange at Piraeus to Athens
International Airport. This offers improved accessibility for tourists visiting
Greece, and an alternative option to travelling by air.
Although unemployment (Figure 5) in Korinthia fell faster than for Greece
as a whole between 2005 and 2006 (the first full year of project
implementation) this was also the case in a number of the preceding years.
Unemployment increased in Korinthia between 2007 and 2008 despite
falling nationally. These differences are likely to be due to the specific
employment profile of Korinthos rather than as a result of the project under
consideration.
Once fully completed, between Athens and Patra, the rail link will connect to
the port of Patra, and create significant potential for the development of
increased trade throughput and economic gain into Greece. The port of
Patra is a gateway to EU markets and when linked into a strong rail network
will enhance the movement of freight goods.
28 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Figure 4. Change in the number of Hotels (Korinthia & Greece)
Source: Eurostat
Figure 5. Unemployment Levels (Korinthia & Greece)
Source: Eurostat
Aside of the obvious noise and air quality impacts emanating from the project,
no other views were provided on social and environment impacts – largely as
none of the stakeholders had access to post-opening monitoring data. Our
evaluation of such impacts has been considered in section 7.2.4 of this document.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 29
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Accompanying actions
As has been discussed above, the completed line to Kiato forms part of longer
term proposals to upgrade the entire Piraeus-Athens-Patra line. The extension to
Patra was considered in the ex-ante appraisal, and would be necessary to release
benefits associated with providing a rail link to Western Europe via the port of
Patra. Construction has started on an extension of the line to Aigio. Also, once
completed, there are plans for an inter-modal facility at Thriassio, such that
freight from Patra would travel by rail to Thriassio, and then onwards by road or
rail to other parts of Greece.
Unintended Effects
No unintended effects were identified as a result of the scheme, however it was
commented that there is potential for land use development around the out-of-
town stations along the route, although these have not come to fruition yet.
Utilisation rates
As requested by the TORs, we have considered the evolution of the utilisation
rate of the project since opening. We have calculated this by considering, for each
year, the ratio between the actual total number of passengers and the total
potential number of passengers that could have travelled on the line given the
current capacity. Due to lack of appropriate data there is an element of
uncertainty around these results as passenger numbers have been derived from
revenues using an average fare per passenger km.
We have considered the utilisation based on demand on the existing line and
considering the low and high growth scenarios in the event that the old metric
line had remained open beyond Kiato. Utilisation has been calculated based on
an average capacity of 500 passengers per train. Table 13 shows the results of
this analysis.
30 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 13. Utilisation rates on the Kiato-Piraeus Line
2007 2008 2009
Maximum number of
passengers (annual)
6,570,000 6,570,000 6,570,000
Estimated passengers
(annual - existing)
1,186,102 1,289,251 1,535,268
Estimated passengers
(annual - low)
1,886,116 1,998,364 2,253,599
Estimated passengers
(annual - high)
3,380,416 3,321,736 3,966,029
Utilisation rate (existing) 18% 20% 23%
Utilisation rate (low) 29% 30% 34%
Utilisation rate (high) 51% 51% 60%
Source: Own calculation based on TRAINOSE revenue data
Based on our calculations, we have found that utilisation rates are currently
estimated at 23% (assuming 500 seats per train). At part of future works the old
line beyond Kiato has been closed. Given low and high-growth scenarios, in the
event of this line having remained opened, the average train loading would have
risen to between 33%and 58% (assuming the same service frequency).
Meeting environmental requirements
As a separate process to the CBA full environmental approvals were granted for
the study.
7.2.7 Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
The ex-post tables provided in Table 5 and Table 6 show the results of a high
and low outturn evaluation. The scenarios reflect varying levels of demand in the
Do-Something case depending on the demand assumed to be generated from
beyond Kiato under normal operating circumstances. As described above this
demand is currently not evident as the line is currently closed beyond Kiato. This
however is not in itself a result of the project under evaluation.
As stated previously, the ex ante CBA forecast that an extension as far as
Korinthos would result in significant increases in demand further down the line,
due to the faster overall journey time achieved through interchanging onto the
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 31
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
new line. This was forecast to represent a significant proportion of the line‟s
demand, and observed data before project implementation showed that
approximately 69% of demand on the line to Athens originated from beyond
Korinthos.
Pre-project demand and revenues for the section from Korinthos to Piraeus
include all movements within that section regardless of origin or destination.
Approximately 69% of this revenue originated from beyond Korinthos.
Post-project revenues include revenues from each station on the new line,
however due to the closure of the line beyond Patra this does not include the
large section of demand originating from beyond this point. To allow for a direct
comparison to the pre-project data outturn revenues have been adjusted to
include demand forecast beyond Kiato. This considers the following two
scenarios:
low scenario - considers that revenues from beyond Kiato would remain
at observed pre-project levels (i.e the project would not increase these
revenues)
high scenario - assumes that rail growth from beyond Korinthos would
have increased as forecast in the ex ante appraisal.
Table 14 shows the pre- and post- project revenues on the Korinthos-Kiato
section of the line including revenues originating between different points.
Values in bold are observed/presented values, values in italics are adjusted post
opening demand and revenues from beyond Kiato as above.
32 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 14. Kiato-Piraeus Line Revenues
Year € millions
Piraeus - Kiato Piraeus - Patra Piraeus - Patra
Low High
2000 3.36
2001 3.41
2002 3.47
2003 3.52
2004 3.57
2005 3.62
2006 2.99 5.53 9.30
2007 4.37 6.95 12.45
2008 4.75 7.36 12.23
2009 5.66 8.30 14.60
Source: Ex ante Appraisal, TRAINOSE & Own Calculations
Forecast of impacts
Presently the project is approximately four years into its economic life while the
project is evaluated for 30 years following opening. The forecast rail demands for
future years are linked to GDP growth with a GDP elasticity of 1.5 being carried
through from the ex ante appraisal. GDP growth to 2015 is taken from
International Monetary Fund forecasts and from this point is set at 2.0% per
annum as in the ex ante appraisal.
It should be noted that revenues have been growing significantly faster than
would be forecast over recent years. This is because, although the Athens-
Korinthos line commenced operations in October 2005, the full project was not
implemented at this point. In July 2006 stations at A. Liosia, Aspropyrgos and
Magoula were added. In June 2007 operations extending to Piraeus stopping at
Piraeus, Lefka, Renti and Rouf were added. In July 2007 the station at Kiato was
also added. Consequently 2008 is the first year of full operation. Moreover,
public transport projects generally do not achieve 100% demand in their first year
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 33
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
but have a build-up of demand over several years as commuter‟s travel patterns
respond to journey time changes.
Margin of Error
As the majority of scheme benefits are in the future there is clearly a level of
uncertainty associated with scheme costs and benefits these include:
Measurement errors in terms of pre- and post-scheme traffic volumes,
vehicle operating costs and revenues. The scope for measurement errors
in this scheme are quite high as the supply of primary data with relation
to outturn rail demand has been limited.
Modelling error – the scheme has calculated rail demand from beyond
Kiato if the old metric line had continued to operate as usual from
beyond this point. The high and low scenarios examine the impact of
different levels of demand associated with this section of the line.
Economic Growth – future year rail growth is based on economic
growth forecasts. There is a margin of error related to these growth
forecasts and with the relationship between economic growth and rail
demand.
Errors in marginal valuations. Parameter values for values-of-time,
externalities and vehicle operating costs are taken from published
sources, although there is still a margin of error associated with these
values.
The high scheme demand produces benefits that are 63% larger than in the low
scheme benefits arising from demand assumptions from beyond Kiato. This
uncertainty arises due to different passenger demand levels assumed to originate
from beyond Kiato in the event that the old metric line remained open.
Data does not exist to produce a full margin of error due to modelling and
forecasting and measurement errors although the cumulative effect of all these
errors would be likely to produce a large confidence interval
7.3 Review of ex ante cost-benefit analysis
7.3.1 Introduction
The section below presents a review of the ex ante cost benefit analysis, dated
from November 2000, which was referred to in the Applications for Funding.
This section includes an overview of the headline results and a commentary on
the approach from the ex ante cost benefit analysis. The CBA only considered
one route option (which was built), although a number of sensitivity tests were
undertaken, these are considered later in this section.
34 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The ex ante cost benefit analysis considered the costs and benefits for the
implementation of all improvements from Thriasio – Patra, although it was
considered that the final section of the project from Kiato – Patra would be
covered entirely by national funds. As such the CBA did not consider the
financial or economic viability of sections in isolation as therefore does not
provide a forecast benefit for the section of line considered in this study. This
means that a direct comparison of the ex ante and ex post evaluations is not
appropriate for providing an indication of the accuracy of ex ante evaluation
methods, however headline differences can be drawn out.
The projects were appraised over a 36 year appraisal period (2000-2035), this
included 29 years from the forecast start of operation (2007-2035). It was
assumed that the section to Korinthos would be completed by 2007 with the line
running to/from Patra in 2011. At the time of writing (September 2010) the
section of the project between Kiato and Aegio is under construction although
there is no present funding for the section to Patra8.
7.3.2 Headline results from the analysis
Economic Analysis
Table 15 below presents the results from the ex ante economic analysis. All
results (as with values used throughout the appraisal) are presented in prices from
the year 2000 and discounted to 2000 at 5.5%. Again, it is important to recognise
that the costs and benefits provided relate to the whole line between Thriasio and
Patra and not the smaller section between Thriasio and Kiato. Table 16 provides
a further breakdown of the PVB benefits projected in the ex ante CBA using
their central growth forecasts.
Table 15. Results of ex ante cost benefit analysis (2000 Prices discounted to 2000,
Discount Rate 5.0%, 2000-2035)
Investment
Costs (€
million, 2000
prices)
Net Present
Value (€
million, 2000
prices)
Economic
IRR (%)
PVB (€
million, 2000
prices)
BCR
TOTAL 798 396 7.3% 1194 1.5
Source: Ex ante CBA
8 Status as detailed anecdotally by TrainOSE during the stakeholder meeting in July 2010.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 35
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 16. Breakdown of Forecast Project Benefits (2000 Prices discounted to 2000,
Discount Rate 5.0%, 2000-2035)
% of total PVB PVB (€ million, 2000 prices)
Revenue Surplus 38.2% 457
Fuel Savings 7.0% 84
Time Savings 6.0% 71
External Benefits 28.9% 346
Other Savings 19.8% 237
TOTAL 100% 1194
Source: Ex ante CBA
For comparison purposes, we will consider this result when considering the
differences between the ex post and ex ante analysis in Section 7.4 below. With
regards to passenger and freight traffic 96% of all benefits were expected to
come from passenger sources with freight only accounting for 4% of direct
benefits.
Financial Analysis
Table 17 below presents the results from the ex ante financial appraisal:
Table 17. Comparison of ex ante financial analysis (2000 prices)
Investment Costs (€
million, 2000 prices)
Net Present Value
(€ million, 2000
prices)
Financial IRR (%)
TOTAL 1045 -469 2.0%
Source: ex ante CBA (November 2000)
As with the economic analysis the results from the economic analysis are
considered in more detail alongside the results from the ex post analysis in
Section 7.4 below.
7.3.3 Key aspects of ex ante CBA
The CBA calculated benefits for the following categories:
36 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
cost;
revenue surplus;
operating and maintenance costs; and
revenues
time saving;
consumer surplus;
fuel saving;
other savings; and
external benefits
Each of the costs/benefits are discussed in turn below, along with traffic
forecasts:
Traffic Forecast
For the purposes of traffic forecasting and appraisal the CBA split the line into
two sections running from;
Piraeus – Korinthos; and,
Korinthos – Patra.
For these sections the CBA considered the demand as the weighted average
annual load between the two points, including all movements that use part of, or
the entire section. This has allowed the average journey length to be taken as the
length of each section, being:
90km Piraeus – Korinthos; and
130km Korinthos - Patra
For each section the CBA provides a detailed year by year traffic forecast for
both the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios. This includes forecasts for:
background growth - whereby demand for travel increases with GDP
per capita (with an elasticity of 1.5) in the Do Something case. In the
Do-Minimum scenario it was assumed that only a quarter of this growth
would be realised on the rail, as without improvements rail would
continue to lose mode share to the highway;
diverted journeys from car and bus; and,
generated journeys as a result of the rail improvements in the
investment scenario.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 37
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Investment Costs
The financial cost of the project from the CBA is €1,207m (2000 prices) and was
broken down into the following phases:
€120m (1st CF 1994-1999)
€304 m (2nd CF 2000-2006 Thriasio - Kiato)
€373m (2nd CF 2000-2006 Kiato - Patras)
€410m (2002 - 2007, completion of Kiato - Patras)
The present extent of the project includes the expenditure of the first two stages,
was forecast to cost €424m at the time of the applications.
For use in the economic appraisal financial costs were adjusted for fiscal
components and were calculated as €1,045m, following reductions of customs
charges, taxes and duties (a derived conversion factor of 0.866.)
The CBA derived the economic life of the project (line, infrastructure, signals) as
57 years, based on the weighted economic line of the component parts of the
project. The evaluation period following project opening is 30 years, therefore a
residual value of the capital investment was included in the analysis and was
valued at approximately 42.7% of the initial investment, being equal to €588.08m.
Operating and maintenance costs
Operating costs (passenger km & tonne km) were calculated based on historical
data. The CBA forecasts that operating costs, per passenger km, would reduce
due to operational improvements – and would be comparable to those on the
existing standard gauge Greek railways. Assumptions from the CBA showing
operating costs per km are shown below in
Table 18. Ex ante CBA Operating Costs (2000 prices)
.
38 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 18. Ex ante CBA Operating Costs (2000 prices)
€\pax km €\tonne km
No Investment
2000-2035 0.0998 0.2183
With Investment
2000-2006 0.0998 0.2183
2007-2010 0.0678 0.1344
2011-2035 0.0452 0.0795
Source: ex ante CBA (November 2000)
Revenues
The CBA has calculated fares based on the weighted average fare/tariff per
passenger/tonne km. For the scenario with the investment in place it was
assumed that fares would rise by 50% following the first phase of investment in
2007 and by 100% following the second phase in 2011. Increases to fares in this
scenario were justified by:
comparison to European rail fare;
the scale of the improvements; and
the fact that over the last 20 years fare increases have been considerably
below inflation.
The fare structure used throughout the appraisal is shown below in Table 19.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 39
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Table 19. Comparison of ex ante financial analysis (2000 prices)
€\pax km €\tonne km
No Investment
2000-2035 0.0382 0.0396
With Investment
2000-2006 0.0382 0.0396
2007-2010 0.0572 0.0470
2011-2035 0.0763 0.0587
Source: ex ante CBA (November 2000): Chapter 6
Time savings
Forecast time savings were 40 minutes between Piraeus and Korinthos from
2007 and an additional 40 minutes between Korinthos and Patra by 2011. It was
forecast that there would be a reduction of travel time between Athens and
Patras of 1 hour 20 minutes, down from an original time of 3 hours 40 minutes.
The value of time was taken as 90% of the average gross hourly wage for work
purposes and as 30% of the hourly wage for other purposes. The value of time
has been calculated on an average journey purpose of 30% journeys to work 70%
other journeys. This resulted in a value-of-time of €3.23 per hour (2000 prices).
Values of time throughout the appraisal have been held constant. Value of time
would usually be assumed to grow as real incomes increase. HEATCO guidance
recommends that values of time are grown with a default inter-temporal elasticity
of 0.7 for future years.
The CBA calculated time savings as follows:
full time savings are calculated for existing passengers (assigned as the
Do Minimum rail demand);
time savings for passengers switching modes from car and bus were
calculated by examining the journey time savings on these modes. This
has resulted in no user time benefits for those passengers transferring
from car. The conventional methodology in assigning user benefits to
new passengers is to attribute half the change in costs, assuming that
there is a linear relationship between cost and demand (this is known as
„the rule-of-half‟); and,
no time or consumer benefit has been applied to the additional „existing‟
passengers in the investment scenario.
40 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Although the CBA assumed fare increases of +50% in 2007 and +100% in 2011
these have not been considered in terms of user benefits (as for consumer
surplus below). Fare increases should be considered alongside time savings when
calculating consumer surplus for transport user benefits.
Consumer surplus
Consumer surplus assigned benefits to generated passengers were set as half the
value of generalised cost savings for rail passenger. This was set at
0.0117€/passenger km from 2007-2010; and,
0.0220€/passenger km from 2011-2035.
Fuel savings
Fuel savings have been calculated based on savings made as a result of passengers
moving away from road to travel by the rail. Fuel cost savings have in the CBA
been set at:
0.0125€/car passenger km (assuming 2 passengers per car)
0.0045€/car passenger km (assuming 24 passenger per bus)
0.0097€/tonne km (assuming 13 tonnes/truck)
It is noted that the consumer benefit of diverted passengers has been considered
by assigning a time saving for passengers transferring mode and an associated
fuel saving. The present methodology for applying consumer benefits to new rail
passengers both from generated demand and from mode switch is to apply the
„rule of half‟, described in Annexe 2
Vehicle operating costs
The CBA considered savings to other vehicle operating costs. These include the
cost of capital investment and maintenance and are valued as „unperceived‟ costs.
The savings in the CBA from reduced mileage were .calculated as follows:
0.0367€/car passenger km (assuming 2 passengers per car)
0.0117€/bus passenger km (assuming 24 passenger per bus)
0.0205€/tonne km (assuming 13 tonnes/truck)
Externalities
The external costs of road transport are significantly higher than the external
costs of rail. Diverting traffic from road to rail results in overall savings in
„external costs‟ born to the national economy (for instance to accidents, noise,
and climate change). The ex ante appraisal used values set for the entire
European Union with the external benefit for the switch to rail stated as being:
car 0.051 €/passenger km
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 41
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Buses 0.013 €/passenger km
Trucks 0.066 €/tonne km
The valuation of most external benefits has been held constant throughout the
appraisal period. For the majority of external benefits HEATCO currently
recommends growth with a default inter-temporal elasticity of 1.0 in line with
GDP.
Other
The discount rate throughout the appraisal period was set as 5%.
Sensitivity Testing
In order to test the robustness of the economic appraisal, the CBA examined a
number of sensitivity tests around the central case. Sensitivity tests included:
income from the operation of a scenario will be 10% lower or higher.
the cost of the new line would be 10% higher or lower; and,
the cost of the work remaining to be executed will be 10% or 20%
higher or lower than anticipated.
The lowest IRR as a result of sensitivity testing was 6.3% (compared to and using
a discounting rate of 5.0%) demonstrating a robustness of economic benefits for
the project.
7.4 Differences between ex ante and ex post analysis
Table 20 compares the results of the ex ante economic analysis with the results
from the ex post CBA.
Table 20. Comparison of ex ante and ex post economic CBA (2000 Prices
discounted to 2000, Ex ante Discount Rate 5.0% 2000-2035\ Ex post 5.5%)
Ex ante Ex post
Low case High case
Net Present Value (€m) 396 32 258
Economic IRR (%) 7.3% 6.05% 9.30%
Benefit-cost ratio 1.50 1.1 1.8
Source: Ex ante evaluation and own calculation for ex post analysis
42 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The ex ante CBA estimated that the project would deliver a BCR of 1.50. The net
present value of €396m is a result of total benefits of €1194m and total costs of
€798m. The ex post CBA suggests that over its lifetime the current project would
deliver benefits of between €32m and €258m. Outturn benefits are clearly lower
than forecast reflecting the smaller extent of the project considered in the outturn
evaluation.
However there are also a number of other differences between the two
appraisals, namely:
issues with the ex ante analysis;
omissions in the ex ante analysis; and,
different assumptions/outturns between the ex ante and the ex post
analysis.
We discuss each in turn below.
Issues with the ex ante analysis
Consumer Benefits
The ex ante assessment did not calculate user benefits in-line with current
guidance. The current guidance is to calculate consumer benefits for existing
passengers and to apply the „rule-of-half‟ to new passengers, whereby new
passengers receive half the benefit of existing users.
The following differences in methodology were included in the ex ante appraisal:
the consumer benefit calculated for existing passengers only considered
the beneficial impact of reduced journey times, and not the negative
impact of forecast fare premiums;
consumer surplus for passengers diverted from road/bus was examined
by calculating the forecast journey time savings as a result of mode shift,
and the fuel cost saved as a result of switching to public transport;
the ex ante assumed a lower background growth in the Do-Minimum
scenario, assuming that the old rail network could not cater for the
background demand in growth. The ex ante appraisal did not calculate
any consumer benefits for the passengers who were classified as
„existing‟ in the Do-Something scenario but not in the Do-Minimum.
Scenario.
Omissions in the ex ante analysis
Station Locations
The ex ante appraisal does not appear to have considered the impact of changes
in station locations on the new line. A number of stations, such as Korinthos and
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 43
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Megara, have moved to „out of town‟ locations. This could explain why outturn
passenger levels appear to be marginally lower than those originally forecast.
Level Crossings
The ex ante analysis did not quantify the safety benefits of removing the level
crossings from the line.
Different assumptions between the ex ante and ex post analysis
With regards to the benefits a number of valuations and assumptions have been
updated from the ex ante analysis. These changes have impacted on the ex post
evaluation in the following ways.
Journey Time Savings
The ex ante assessment forecast journey times of 1 hour between Athens and
Korinthos. The outturn journey time is 1 hour and 10 minutes. Consequently
journey time savings between the two are 30 minutes compared to the forecast
saving of 40 minutes.
Values of Time
The units of the values of time have been amended in the ex post evaluation. The
VOT of rail passengers in the ex ante appraisal was €3.24 per hour, an updated
value of €6.21 per hour was calculated from HEATCO valuations of time
assuming the same split in journey purpose. In addition the ex ante assumed that
the values of time remained fixed at 2000 values across the full evaluation period.
In the post opening evaluation, the values of time have been amended to increase
with GDP growth at elasticity of 0.7 in line with HEATCO guidance.
Externalities
The valuation of externalities have been amended in the ex post evaluation. The
net benefit of switching to rail from car was stated as being €0.052 per passenger
km, this was taken from valuations for the EU as a whole. The latest valuations,
being specific to Greece, only value this benefit at €0.033 per passenger km.
Fares
A fare premium was assumed in the ex ante assessment increasing fares from
€0.0396 to €0.0763 per passenger km by 2011. Outturn analysis suggests that a
fare premium of this magnitude has not been implemented with average fares
being equivalent to €0.0409 per passenger km.
Operating Costs
The Do-Minimum scenario calculated operating costs on a „per passenger km‟
basis. This assigned operating costs of €0.0998 per passenger km in the Do-
Minimum scenario and €0.0452 per passenger km in the Do-Something scenario.
This in itself assumed that the service would operate at a profit in the Do-
Something scenario with fares set at €0.0763 per passenger km.
44 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The ex post evaluation has calculated operating costs using a derived operating
rate per train km and passenger timetables.
GDP
Background rail growth is linked to GDP. The ex ante appraisal forecast GDP
increases of:
4.0% from 2000 – 2006;
3.5% from 2006 – 2010; and
2.0% from 2011 – 2035
Outturn values, and forecasts from the IMF show that although GDP growth
rates were approximately as forecast between 2000 and 2006, due to the global
recession real GDP per capita in Greece was approximately the same in 2010 as
it was in 2006, due to negative growth forecast in 2010 this will remain the case
until growth of above 1% is forecast in 2014. Consequently future rail demand is
forecast to increase less than in the original appraisal.
Discount Rate
The ex ante appraisal used a discount rate of 5.5% for the economic evaluation a
rate of 5.0% for the financial evaluation.
7.5 Role of CBA in decision-making process
Our discussions with the Greek authorities were undertaken using a stakeholder
workshop format, with representatives from the Greek Ministry of Economy and
Public Works and stakeholders representing both the Agios Konstantinos project
and also the Thriasio to Korinthos Rail project. We summarise the main points
of the discussion below.
The CBA was recognised as being both a necessary procedure to complete
the funding application and a useful tool for prioritising options within
projects where alternative options can be tested. It was noted that smaller
local projects do not by definition have a CBA.
The CBAs were produced by external consultants with audits by the Ministry
of Economy consisting of logical and common sense checks.
In the case of both the Thriasio to Korinthos railway and the Agios
Konstantinos Bypass, the CBA was not used as a tool to compare alternative
options. For the bypass in particular, there was little potential for alternative
route options due to the difficult topography in the area.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 45
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
The CBA process had not been used to prioritise between different projects
(e.g. the Agios Konstantinos Bypass as opposed to the Thriasio to
Korinthos railway). Decisions at this level had been based on the
requirements for improving the priority axes and the total funding allocated
to Greece.
CBA is considered a useful process because it provides estimations of the
main impacts. However, it is considered limited because CBA struggles to
capture the potential for regional benefits which take time to materialise. It
was noted that whilst the applications had stressed these benefits they, had
been unable to be quantified within the CBA.
Feedback relating to the EC‟s CBA guidance document was positive and the
guide was deemed helpful to standardise the CBA process.
There was a view that the level of effort required to complete a CBA is
proportional to the project being considered. It was noted that the majority
of the time input required is for the detailed project design and not the CBA.
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 47
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Railway Thriassio – Kiato in Greece
Figure 6. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Economic analysis
(€m, 2000 prices) – Low case
Source: Own calculations
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
BENEFITS
Consumers Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 5.2 5.5 5.9 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Producer Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 13.0 15.3 15.9 17.6 17.2 16.6 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 17.3 17.7
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Government Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Externalities
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 4.6 5.0 5.7 5.4 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.7
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL BENEFITS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.7 25.1 26.5 29.2 28.2 26.9 27.0 27.3 27.4 27.9 28.8 29.6
COSTS
Investment Costs
Works 114.3 46.5 51.2 53.2 31.6 55.0 32.3 15.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Investment costs 114.3 46.5 51.2 53.2 31.6 55.0 32.3 15.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL COSTS 114.3 46.5 51.2 53.2 31.6 55.0 32.3 15.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NET BENEFITS -114.3 -46.5 -51.2 -53.2 -31.6 -45.0 -11.6 10.2 25.4 28.4 27.9 26.9 27.0 27.3 27.4 27.9 28.8 29.6
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
BENEFITS
Consumers Surplus
Passengers 6.5 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.6 7.9 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.2 9.6 9.9 10.4 10.8 11.2 11.7 12.1 12.6
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Producer Surplus
Passengers 18.0 18.4 18.8 19.2 19.6 20.0 20.4 20.9 21.3 21.8 22.3 22.8 23.3 23.8 24.3 24.9 25.5 26.1
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Government Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Externalities
Passengers 6.0 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.3 8.8 9.2 9.6 10.1 10.6 11.1 11.7 12.3 12.9 13.5
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL BENEFITS 30.5 31.4 32.4 33.3 34.4 35.4 36.6 37.7 38.9 40.2 41.5 42.8 44.2 45.7 47.2 48.8 50.5 52.2
COSTS
Investment Costs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -171.2
Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Investment costs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -171.2
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL COSTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -171.2
NET BENEFITS 30.5 31.4 32.4 33.3 34.4 35.4 36.6 37.7 38.9 40.2 41.5 42.8 44.2 45.7 47.2 48.8 50.5 223.5
Discount Rate 5.5%
ENPV 31.9
ERR 6.05%
B/C Ratio 1.10
48 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 7. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Financial return on
investment (€m, 2000 prices) – Low case
Source: Own calculations
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Passenger trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9
Works 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 53.5 27.3 7.3 -8.8 -9.1 -9.6 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
CASH FLOW -132.0 -53.7 -59.1 -61.5 -36.5 -53.5 -25.5 -4.1 12.3 13.6 13.9 14.2 14.2 14.3 14.3 14.5 14.7 14.9
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Passenger trains 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.4 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.7 10.1
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.4 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.7 10.1
Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS-10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -207.7
15.1 15.3 15.6 15.8 16.1 16.3 16.6 16.9 17.2 17.4 17.7 18.1 18.4 18.7 19.0 19.4 19.7 217.8
CASH FLOW 5.0%
FNPV (C) -184.1
FRR (C) 1.84%
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 49
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Figure 8. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Financial return on
capital (€m, 2000 prices) – Low case
Source: Own calculations
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Passenger trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.2 3.6 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9
Works 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 24.6 10.3 -0.7 -9.3 -9.5 -9.8 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
CASH FLOW -64.9 -29.2 -32.3 -33.5 -19.9 -24.6 -8.4 3.8 12.9 14.1 14.1 14.2 14.2 14.3 14.3 14.5 14.7 14.9
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Passenger trains 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.4 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.7 10.1
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 5.1 5.3 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.7 8.1 8.4 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.7 10.1
Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS-10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -207.7
CASH FLOW 15.1 15.3 15.6 15.8 16.1 16.3 16.6 16.9 17.2 17.4 17.7 18.1 18.4 18.7 19.0 19.4 19.7 217.8
Discount rate 5.0%
FNPV (C) 10.2
FRR (C) 5.27%
50 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 9. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Financial
sustainability (€m, 2000 prices) – Low case
Source: Own calculations
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EU Grant 67.1 24.5 26.8 27.9 16.7 28.9 17.0 7.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 218.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Local Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regional Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
National Contribution 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 -218.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total national public
contribution64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 -218.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Operating subsidies 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0
FINANCIAL RESOURCES 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Passenger vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.2 5.2 6.1 7.2 8.4 9.7
Goods vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8
TOTAL REVENUES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.2 5.2 6.1 7.2 8.6 10.6
TOTAL INFLOWS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Land Purchase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technical Support 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Publicity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
COSTS132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 53.5 27.3 7.3 -8.8 -9.1 -9.6 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
NET CASH FLOW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
CUMULATED CASH
FLOW0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
EU Grant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Local Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regional Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
National Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Total national public
contribution0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Operating subsidies 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.0
FINANCIAL RESOURCES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Passenger vehicles 11.2 11.6 12.0 12.4 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.3 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.6 18.2 18.8 19.5 20.1
Goods vehicles 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1
TOTAL REVENUES 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.2 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.6 18.2 18.9 19.6 20.3 21.0 21.7 22.5 23.2
TOTAL INFLOWS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Land Purchase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Technical Support 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Publicity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS-10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -207.7
NET CASH FLOW 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
CUMULATED CASH
FLOW140.0 150.0 160.0 170.0 180.0 190.0 200.0 210.0 220.0 230.0 240.0 250.0 260.0 270.0 279.9 289.9 299.9 309.9
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 51
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Figure 10. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Economic analysis
(€m, 2000 prices) – High case
Source: Own calculation
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
BENEFITS
Consumers Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 7.9 7.9 8.9 8.5 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.7 9.1 9.5
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Producer Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 19.5 24.8 24.3 28.5 27.7 26.2 26.2 26.5 26.6 27.0 27.7 28.3
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Government Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Externalities
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 9.1 9.0 10.8 10.2 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.3 9.6 10.0 10.5
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL BENEFITS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 31.9 41.7 41.2 48.1 46.4 43.5 43.5 44.1 44.4 45.3 46.8 48.3
COSTS
Investment Costs
Works 114.3 46.5 51.2 53.2 31.6 55.0 32.3 15.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Investment costs 114.3 46.5 51.2 53.2 31.6 55.0 32.3 15.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL COSTS 114.3 46.5 51.2 53.2 31.6 55.0 32.3 15.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NET BENEFITS -114.3 -46.5 -51.2 -53.2 -31.6 -45.0 -0.4 26.7 40.2 47.4 46.1 43.5 43.5 44.1 44.4 45.3 46.8 48.3
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
BENEFITS
Consumers Surplus
Passengers 9.8 10.3 10.7 11.1 11.6 12.1 12.6 13.1 13.6 14.2 14.8 15.4 16.1 16.8 17.5 18.2 19.0 19.8
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Producer Surplus
Passengers 29.0 29.7 30.4 31.2 31.9 32.7 33.5 34.4 35.2 36.1 37.0 38.0 38.9 39.9 40.9 42.0 43.1 44.2
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Government Surplus
Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Externalities
Passengers 11.1 11.6 12.2 12.8 13.4 14.1 14.8 15.6 16.3 17.1 18.0 18.9 19.9 20.8 21.9 23.0 24.1 25.3
Freight 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL BENEFITS 49.9 51.6 53.3 55.1 56.9 58.9 60.9 63.0 65.2 67.5 69.8 72.3 74.9 77.5 80.3 83.2 86.2 89.4
COSTS
Investment Costs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -171.2
Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Investment costs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -171.2
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL COSTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -171.2
NET BENEFITS 49.9 51.6 53.3 55.1 56.9 58.9 60.9 63.0 65.2 67.5 69.8 72.3 74.9 77.5 80.3 83.2 86.2 260.6
Discount Rate 5.5%
ENPV 257.8
ERR 9.30%
B/C Ratio 1.79
52 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 11. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Financial return on
investment (€m, 2000 prices) – High case
Source: Own calculations
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Passenger trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 8.7 8.4 10.8 10.4 10.2 10.2 10.4 10.4 10.7 11.1 11.5
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 8.7 8.4 10.8 10.4 10.2 10.2 10.4 10.4 10.7 11.1 11.5
Works 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 53.5 27.3 7.3 -8.8 -9.1 -9.6 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
CASH FLOW -132.0 -53.7 -59.1 -61.5 -36.5 -53.5 -21.7 1.4 17.2 19.9 20.0 20.2 20.2 20.4 20.4 20.7 21.1 21.5
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Passenger trains 11.9 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.2 15.8 16.3 16.9 17.5 18.1 18.7 19.4 20.0 20.7 21.4
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 11.9 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.2 15.8 16.3 16.9 17.5 18.1 18.7 19.4 20.0 20.7 21.4
Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS-10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -207.7
21.9 22.3 22.8 23.3 23.7 24.2 24.7 25.2 25.8 26.3 26.9 27.5 28.1 28.7 29.4 30.0 30.7 229.1
CASH FLOW 5.0%
FNPV (C) -100.9
FRR (C) 3.40%
March 2011 | Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS 53
Appendix 7 – Railway Thriassio – Kiato in
Greece
Figure 12. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Financial return on
capital (€m, 2000 prices) – High case
Source: Own calculations
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Passenger trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 8.7 8.4 10.8 10.4 10.2 10.2 10.4 10.4 10.7 11.1 11.5
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 8.7 8.4 10.8 10.4 10.2 10.2 10.4 10.4 10.7 11.1 11.5
Works 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 24.6 10.3 -0.7 -9.3 -9.5 -9.8 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
CASH FLOW -64.9 -29.2 -32.3 -33.5 -19.9 -24.6 -4.7 9.3 17.8 20.4 20.2 20.2 20.2 20.4 20.4 20.7 21.1 21.5
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Passenger trains 11.9 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.2 15.8 16.3 16.9 17.5 18.1 18.7 19.4 20.0 20.7 21.4
Goods trains 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL REVENUES 11.9 12.3 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.2 15.8 16.3 16.9 17.5 18.1 18.7 19.4 20.0 20.7 21.4
Works 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Equipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other Expenses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
COSTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS-10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -207.7
CASH FLOW 21.9 22.3 22.8 23.3 23.7 24.2 24.7 25.2 25.8 26.3 26.9 27.5 28.1 28.7 29.4 30.0 30.7 229.1
Discount rate 5.0%
FNPV (C) 93.5
FRR (C) 7.30%
54 Frontier Economics, Atkins, ITS | March 2011
Figure 13. Railway Thriassio-Pedio-Eleusina-Korinthos – Greece. Financial
sustainability (€m, 2000 prices) – High case
Source: Own calculations
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EU Grant 67.1 24.5 26.8 27.9 16.7 28.9 17.0 7.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 218.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Local Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regional Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
National Contribution 64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 -218.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total national public
contribution64.9 29.2 32.3 33.5 19.9 34.6 20.3 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 -218.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Operating subsidies 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0
FINANCIAL RESOURCES 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Passenger vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.2 5.2 6.1 7.2 8.4 9.7
Goods vehicles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8
TOTAL REVENUES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.2 5.2 6.1 7.2 8.6 10.6
TOTAL INFLOWS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Land Purchase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Technical Support 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Publicity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
COSTS132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 63.5 37.3 17.3 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS 132.0 53.7 59.1 61.5 36.5 53.5 27.3 7.3 -8.8 -9.1 -9.6 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
NET CASH FLOW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
CUMULATED CASH
FLOW0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
EU Grant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Local Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Regional Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
National Contribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Total national public
contribution0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Operating subsidies 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.0
FINANCIAL RESOURCES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Passenger vehicles 11.2 11.6 12.0 12.4 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.3 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.6 18.2 18.8 19.5 20.1
Goods vehicles 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1
TOTAL REVENUES 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.2 14.7 15.2 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.6 18.2 18.9 19.6 20.3 21.0 21.7 22.5 23.2
TOTAL INFLOWS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Land Purchase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Technical Support 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Publicity 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
COSTS0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -197.7
Maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOTAL OPERATING
COSTS-10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
TOTAL OUTFLOWS -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -207.7
NET CASH FLOW 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
CUMULATED CASH
FLOW140.0 150.0 160.0 170.0 180.0 190.0 200.0 210.0 220.0 230.0 240.0 250.0 260.0 270.0 279.9 289.9 299.9 309.9