Supply Chain Risk | Business Continuity | Transport Vulnerability » samferdsel

Avbrudd – Forsyningskjedens mørke side

Jan Husdal — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:08:58 +0000

Selv om kostnadsreduserende tiltak og outsourcing kan ha klare fordeler har det å gi slipp på kontrollen med forsyningskjeden sine utfordringer. Vi møtte forsker Jan Husdal i Møreforsking Molde som blant annet jobber med sårbarhetsanalyser og risikohåndtering i forsyningskjeder. Denne artikkelen er hentet fra Logistikk & Ledelse nummer 3/2009. Les hele artikkelen her.

For my English readers:
This is an interview with me in a Norwegian trade journal for Logistics Management.
View the article. (in Norwegian only)

Er rassikring lønnsomt?

Jan Husdal — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:03:52 +0000

Rassikring av veger har en klar samfunnsøkonomisk nytteverdi, men hvor stor er den? De største gevinstene er knyttet til å unngå omkjøring, skape trygghet og redusere antall ulykker. Hvordan måler man dette i kroner? Spørsmålet er viktig og angår mange lokalsamfunn i dette fylket. Analyser viser at selve omkjøringskostnadene kan variere fra drøyt 200 kr/time og opp til 80.000 kr/time, avhengig av sted, trafikkmengde, trafikksammensetning og omkjøringsmuligheter.

(ved Svein Bråthen, Jan Husdal og Jens Rekdal, Høgskolen i Molde og Møreforsking Molde)

Denne kronikken stod på trykk i Romsdals Budstikke 24.11.2008 og det er gjort mindre justeringer i teksten for å tilpasse den til denne bloggen.

Vet vi nok om når og hvor rasene vil gå?

Statens vegvesen har laget egne rassikringsplaner, der de ulike rasutsatte strekningene er prioritert ut fra blant annet trafikkmengde, rasfrekvens, stengningsfrekvens og omkjøringsmulighet. Dette er et viktig utgangspunkt, men planene sier lite om verdien av trafikken som blir berørt og om det samfunnsøkonomiske tapet ved stengning i hvert enkelt tilfelle.

Vi vet ennå ikke nok om samfunnets kostnader

Fagmiljøet i Molde har utviklet en metode som er et steg på vegen for å beregne hvor mye samfunnet taper som følge av manglende rassikring. Denne modellen gir som vi skal se ennå ikke hele bildet, men den fanger opp endringer i kjørekostnader. Å unngå omkjøring er en viktig effekt av rassikring.

Modellen beregner det samfunnsøkonomiske tapet for trafikantene som forskjellen mellom de samlede kostnadene (kjørekostnader og tidskostnader) for alle reisene som gjennomføres når vegen er åpen og de samlede kostnadene for alle reisene som gjennomføres når omkjøring er nødvendig.

En analyse av 17 tilfeldig utvalgte raspunkter viser at omkjøringskostnadene varierer fra sted til sted, fra drøyt 200 kr/time og opp til 80000 kr/time, avhengig av trafikkmengde, trafikksammensetning og omkjøringsmuligheter. Det må derfor helt stedsspesifikke analyser til for kunne vurdere de faktiske ulempene ved manglende rassikring og for å vurdere nytteverdien av eventuelle investeringer.

Kan utrygghet måles i kroner og øre?

Det vi ikke har fanget opp, er opplevd utrygghet, materielle skader, personskader og dødsfall. Sammenlignet med alvorlige ulykker i trafikksterke deler av vegnettet er sannsynligheten for å bli utsatt for ras gjerne liten, men fra trafikantenes og lokalsamfunnenes ståsted er rasfare ofte vurdert som et betydelig faremoment som gir vesentlig bidrag til utrygghet. Opplevd utrygghet er derfor ofte brukt som et argument for å iverksette tiltak. Slike virkninger er imidlertid kompliserte å verdsette i kroner. Det pågår for tiden et forskningsarbeid som kan gjøre det mulig å verdsette slike effekter.

Hvor viktig er framkommelighet?

Når økonomien i vegprosjekter skal vurderes er tendensen at jo mer trafikk, desto større er den samfunnsøkonomiske nytten. Ut fra økonomiske kriterier alene vil trafikktunge prosjekter ofte bli prioritert fremfor trafikksvake prosjekter.

Spredt bosetting – spredt vegnett

Store deler av Norge har et spredt bosettingsmønster og et spredt utbygd transportnett, der det ofte finnes få alternative ruter eller veger å velge mellom dersom hovedåren stenges. Jo færre alternativer, desto viktigere blir det å opprettholde og sikre fremkommeligheten for å opprettholde produksjon og sikre velferd. Lokale forskjeller i verdi av gods som transporteres kan gjøre at trafikksvake vegstrekninger kan ha en større betydning enn det trafikkvolumet isolert sett skulle tilsi. Rassikring vil ofte tape i konkurransen om vegmidlene fordi ras går relativt sjelden, og fordi trafikkgrunnlaget på vegstrekningene ofte er lite. Gjennomsnittlig årsdøgntrafikk (ÅDT) for de raspunktene vi undersøkte var om lag 800 biler, omtrent det samme som gjennomsnittet for de fleste fjellovergangene i Sør-Norge. Til sammenligning har E39 i Molde en ÅDT på om lag 13 000 mens sambandet Molde – Vestnes har en ÅDT på ca 1 800.

Helhet viktigere enn tunnelsyn

Rassikring er én viktig del av en større diskusjon om å bedre framkommeligheten, som også omfatter strekninger der det er dårlig vegstandard med lave skiltede hastigheter, værutsatte fjelloverganger, ulykkesutsatte strekninger, og steder med manglende ferjekapasitet. Valg av tiltak er til sjuende og sist et politisk spørsmål. Et ønske om å omfordele vegmidlene fra Østlandsområdet til distriktene er blant annet begrunnet med at mye av det eksportrettede næringslivet ligger langs kysten. Om denne argumentasjonen er fornuftig eller ikke skal ikke vi ta stilling til her, men god og oppdatert kunnskap om transportsystemers bidrag til verdiskaping og velferd er viktig for å kunne velge de riktige tiltakene, deriblant rassikring. Dette reiser betydelige faglige utfordringer, der forskningsmiljøet i Molde vil være aktive bidragsytere.

Referanse

Bråthen S., Husdal J., og Rekdal J. (2008). Er rassikring lønnsomt? Romsdals Budstikke, 24.11.2008, s.26. Basert på Husdal, J., Bråthen, S. og Rekdal, J. (2008) Samfunnsøkonomisk verdi av rassikring. Noen beregninger knyttet til verdi av å unngå stengte veger. Rapport 0801, Møreforsking Molde AS

Relatert stoff

tu.no – Endelig rassikringsløft
husdal.com – Norwegian roads are dangerous

Saving Norway’s crumbling infrastructure

Jan Husdal — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:31:20 +0000

Following up my post this morning called “D-Day for Norway’s Transport Infrastructure“, the numbers are out now: The government intends to spend some 320,000,000 NOK ($45,000,000,000) on transport infrastructure over the next 10 years. Will it be enough? This reminds me of a post I had earlier, called “America’s crumbling infrastructure“, where the Minneapolis bridge collapse was a timely wake-up call for America to invest in its infrastructure. Will Norway be able to save its crumbling infrastructure without such a disaster?

Regional and economical development

Efficient infrastructure is a prerequisite for regional and economical development and transportation networks are the main backbone of modern society. Consequently, a well-functioning transportation network is decisive factor not only in terms of market outreach and competition, but also in terms of continuity, to ensure a 24/7 operation of the community we live in. Are 320,000,000 NOK enough?

So, what will happen to Norway’s main roads in the next 10 years?

As the map shows, in typical Norwegian manner, road investments are distributed more or less evenly across the map. Although the development plan identifies several major transport corridors, there is no all-corridor investment, only point measures here and there.

D-Day for Norway’s Transport Infrastructure

Jan Husdal — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:30:22 +0000

Today, on this ominous date, Friday the 13th, Norway’s government is presenting it’s development plans for the Norwegian transport infrastructure for 2010 to 2019 (Nasjonal Transportplan 2010-2019). Not that it will make much difference, because the way we do things here, instead of the national or regional government deciding where and what to build or not to build, Norway’s planning and decision process involves even the local governments, who essentially can veto (or at best significantly alter) any plans made the government or other higher authorities. Some call it madness , and I am inclined to agree.

I hope for the best, but I fear the worst

Norway’s transport infrastructure is way behind much of Europe, as regular readers of this blog may know already, if you have read these posts. And despite the governments announced plans, and some small leaks to tease the public, I’m afraid it will stay like this unles we change our planning and decision regime to that of other countries, where the government allots money, and leaves the implementation to a central or regional authority, without any interference from lobbying local politicians. Just shedding out more money will not help.

Road, rail, sea or air?

What we all are waiting for is which mode of transportation that will receive the most money, road, rail, sea or air? Environmentalists want rail, or public transport/mass transit, most people, however, just want better roads. So far, prior to making the development plan public, the only thing the government is saying is that it wants to tie Norway closer together, North-South, and East-West, whatever that may mean.

Travel time

One of the more peculiar leaks from the development plan has been the promise to reduce the travel time between Trondheim and Alta by 1 hour and 15 minutes. I am not sure what that implies, but it is a distance of 1370 kms, according to GoogleMaps, and reducing the travel time by 1 hour and 15 minutes would mean that the average speed increases from 67 km/h to 71 km/h. Not much maybe, or is it?

The curse of being oil-rich

Jan Husdal — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:16:03 +0000

Ah…the complacency of being oil rich. So complacent, in fact, that we forget about our infrastructure. That’s the picture painted by the Norwegian newspaper aftenposten.no this morning, in their seemingly never-ending series of articles about the increasingly delapidated Norwegian road network. The reason for why things are the way they are: The literally well-oiled economy.

A matter of prioritization

Instead of prioritizing infrastructure development, like many other countries , Norway has put much of its oil revenues into the social welfare system, hospitals, education, schools, kindergardens and so on. Although this has resulted in one of the world’s best social welfare systems, it has neglected building better roads, which by many is seen as THE prerequisite for a contry’s economy.

The result

Norway has some 8500 kms of “major highways” (“stamveg” in Norwegian), important links between regions or between population centers in a region. Merely 8% of these are classified as having a full appropriate standard, 56% are classified as below acceptance levels. No wonder people complain…

Without roads, businesses are facing high transportation costs, which makes them less competitive. Besides the fact that we consumers end up having to pay more for their services. And more for our own travels.

husdal.com – a list of all posts about Norwegian roads
tu.no – Norsk veisatsing har vært elendig
aftenposten.no - 56 prosent av stamveiene har “ikke brukbar standard”
aftenposten.no – Oljen har ødelagt for veiutbygging
nettavisen.no – Norsk veisatsing har vært elendig
tv2.no – Navarsete slakter veisatsing

Infrastructure – essential for competitiveness?

Jan Husdal — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:27:52 +0000

Regular readers of this blog may have noticed my regular rants about the state of the Norwegian infrastructure, and roads in particular. Now, aftenposten.no reports that there is some support from the Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum. In overall infrastructure quality, Norway ranks 28/134, behind many other European countries, which is not too bad, but when it comes to road quality, Norway ranks 48/134, even behind countries such as Namibia (23/134), Tunisia (39/134) and Botswana (44/134). This is not good news.

Why is road quality important for competitiveness?

Let me cite from the report:

Extensive and efficient infrastructure is an essential driver of competitiveness. It is critical for ensuring the effective functioning of the economy, as it is an important factor determining the location of economic activity and the kinds of activities or sectors that can develop in a particular economy.

Effective modes of transport for goods, people, and services—such as quality roads, railroads, ports, and air transport—enable entrepreneurs to get their goods to market in a secure and timely manner, and facilitate the movement of workers to the most suitable jobs.

Infrastructure is important, but how important is it really? Are roads more important than computers?

Norway’s predicament

This is how it looks like for Norway’s infrastructure (rank out of 134)

Quality of overall infrastructure……………………………28
Quality of roads……………………………………………………48
Quality of railroad infrastructure …………………………31
Quality of port infrastructure………………………………12
Quality of air transport infrastructure…………………10
Quality of electricity supply ………………………………10

The air transport ranking is unsurprising, given the fact that Norway maintains close to 50 airports serving less than 5 million people. The road quality, however, is a different story.

A constrained infrastructure?

Not only the state of transportation infrastructure, but also the access to transportation is a problem for Norway. In a paper I presented at TRB 2009, Does location matter – Supply chain disruptions in sparse transportation networks, I suggested a new framework for the categorization of transportation networks based on the number of transportation modes and links available:

Sidenote: about the report

The Global Competiveness Index GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world at all stages of development. The pillars include: Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Stability, Health and Primary Education, Higher Education and Training, Goods Market Efficiency, Labour Market Efficiency, Financial Market Sophistication, Technological Readiness, Market Size, Business Sophistication and Innovation.

The rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey, a comprehensive annual survey conducted by the World Economic Forum together with its network of Partner Institutes (leading research institutes and business organizations) in the countries covered by the report.

The report contains a detailed country/economy profile for each of the 134 economies featured in the study, providing a comprehensive summary of the overall position in the rankings as well as the most prominent competitive advantages and disadvantages of each country/economy based on the analysis used in computing the rankings.

How to count money spent on road investments

Jan Husdal — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:04:07 +0000

Following up yesterday’s post on why one of the world’s richest countries has one of the world’s worst road networks, today’s newspapers offer an interesting perspective: According to numbers prepared by Norway Statistics, Norway spent less money on road investments in 2007 than in 1995, that is, if you count in % of GDP. Is that a correct way of looking at it?

Money is money is money, no matter what?

The government does not subscribe to that view of course, stating that never has more money been spent on road investments than this year (remember, there are elections this year)…if you count the coins. Measured in GDP, however, Norway spent 23% less in 2007 than in 1995. So, which is correct?

GDP?

I’m not sure GDP is the answer. After all, Norway’s GDP depends largely on oil and gas exports, so when the oil price goes up, so does GDP. However, in this case, oil- and gas-related parts of GDP were excluded, so I find the use of GDP is in order. And? Judging by the numbers I could dig up, Norway’s economy is definitely better in 2007 than it was in 1995. GDP has roughly doubled. And road investments have gone down by 23%.

tu.no: Bruker mindre på vei
aftenposten.no: Kraftige kutt i veibevilgninger
tv2.no Veibygging blir nedprioritert

The worst roads in the world’s richest country

Jan Husdal — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:20:11 +0000

It is a perpetual topic with the Norwegian public, particularly in election years, like this year: We want better roads. And indeed, it is puzzling that a country ranked as one of the world’s biggest oil exporters, a country whose economy is strong, a country ranked by the UN and OECD as one of the best countries to live in, has such a poor road standard, compared to many other European countries. How come?

The big question

Admittedly, the topography of Norway makes building roads, or any transportation infrastructure for that matter, quite a challange, but if other countries can pull it off, why not Norway? The answer, it seems, is a political one. It is not the planning authorities or the central government who decides, but the local politicians. To put it simple, what in the US is known as “pork barrel spending” is what rules many of Norway’s infrastructure development projects. Why?

Votes Count but the Number of Seats Decides

The first major discussion of this topic came in 2006, in Knut Boge’s PhD dissertation at The Norwegian School of Management:

Why has Norwegian authorities pursued a road policy contrary to most other West European industrialized countries? Why were highly noticeable congestion, accident and environmental problems within and near Norway’s major population clusters overlooked or ignored for decades?

The answer he says, lies in the way Norway decided about infrastructure investment, where prevalent legislator rule paved the way for a road policy governed by political rather than economic and technocratic logics:

Oil revenues made the Norwegian State nouveau riche from the early 1980s. But Stortinget (the Norwegian Parliament) shifted partly the State’s responsibility for financing trunk roads, motorways and other highways to the counties and private actors from 1985 through a pork barrel deal that imposed common turnpike financing. The 1963 Road Act that explicitly stated financing and construction of trunk roads, motorways and other highways as State responsibilities was not amended. Road financing through local turnpike companies instead of or in addition to State road appropriations made those who profited from turnpike projects important road political players.

What this implies is that local politicians have a much greater influence on infrastructure projects than in many other countries. Often there will be competing projects in nearby locations, and no oversight decision.

Geographical redistribution with disproportional representation

Knut Boge’s work was later followed up by professors Leif Helland and Rune Sørensen in their article Geographical redistribution with disproportional representation, stating that swing voters play an important role:

To some extent, individual districts are able to get their desired projects approved by parliament. But there is more to road investments than simple district demand. National parties allocate more road expenditures to districts with many voters and coordinate districts’ demands to win seats in parliamentary elections.

To sum it up, roads are not built where most people are, but where most voters are.

Conclusion

What is the result? The politically attractive projects win over the economically attractive (or sound projects).. From a cost-benefit perspective, mot of the time this is the wrong decision. And as long as our electoral system is the way it is, I don’t think it will change much. Unfortunately.

Another take on this story

(Update 2009/10/02) I recently discovered another blog posting on the exact same topic, and polemarchus.net provides a much better and probably more eloquent discussion Norwegian roads and swing votes than what I have given above.

The most disturbing point isn’t that the distribution of money is non-optimal from a cost-benefit perspective. That’s the nature of politics. The big problem is that there is a skewed distribution as a result of election strategy concerns. [...] Valuing decentralized communities highly is acceptable from a democratic point of view. Consistently bribing swing voters with public money isn’t.

References

Helland, L., & Sørensen, R. (2008). Geographical redistribution with disproportional representation: a politico-economic model of Norwegian road projects Public Choice, 139 (1-2), 5-19 DOI: 10.1007/s11127-008-9373-z

Norwegian roads are slooooow…

Jan Husdal — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:34:57 +0000

In a previous post, a while I ago, I stated that Nowegian roads are dangerous…well, not only that, they are among the slowest in Europe, according to a newspaper article in Dagbladet. Comparing average speed on roads in 13 countries, it turns out that travelling in central Europe is several times much faster than in Norway.

The comparison

If you compare the travel time between two major cities in Norway, say, Oslo and Stavanger and two equally distant cities in Portugal, say Porto and Faro, located about 558 km and 556 km from each other, it takes almost 3 hours more to cross this distance in Norway. Why?

More roads

One issue is that central Europe of course has a much denser road network, forcing more traffic on to the same roads, while a European traveler can chose between many possible routes, without deviating too much from the intended direction. That is not possible in Norway. But that is not the only reason.

More motorways

Norway has very fem kilometers of motorways compared to the rest of Europe. Besides that, the speed limit in Norway is 80 km/h (50 mph), and usually 90 km/h on most (of the few) motorways. No wonder that traveling in Norway requires a good dose of patience. But that too is not the only reason why things are moving so slowly in Norway.

Better roads

Norwegian roads are sub-standard compared to much of Europe. Anyone who has ever been to Norway will agree.It has it’s charm for the tourist who is not in a rush, but business travelers, freight forwarders and truckers pay the price. Delays and disruptions are common. I could blame it on the topography and the fact that road construction is indeed expensive in Norway. But maybe it is because infrastructure is seen as a cost rather than an investment with a return potential?

Depressing

This is the average speed (km/h) for traveling between major cities in European countries:

France 110,3
Germany 109,0
Portugal 98,8
Austria 98,3
Denmark 97,3
UK 96,0
Switzerland 91,8
Sweden 88,1
Finland 78,4
Ireland 74,4
Poland 71,9
Norway 68,2
Albania 65,5

Sparse transportation networks – a nightmare

Jan Husdal — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:59:58 +0000

Now it has happened again. Hardly a week goes by in Norway without a major supply chain disruption. Now the main (and practically only) highway beween the Northern and Southern part of Norway has been interrupted, prompting long detours on smaller roads. Not only that, the in fact only rail line between Trondheim and Bodø has been interrupted as well, a rail line that transports much of the goods between North and South Norway and is a major freight corridor. Normally, eight large freight trains pass every day. The irony is that this happened during construction work aimed at improving said road. In fact, this is the second time this year; in June the road and rail were closed for 12 days. This time, it’s looking like a couple of WEEKS!

In a previous article I contended that sparse transportation networks, like in Norway, are a recipe for supply chain disruptions. Furthermore, unlike in regions with a dense transportation network, supply chain management in a sparse network setting comes close to being business continuity management, because a well-handled supply chain disruption can translate into business continuity, while an ill-handled supply chain disruption can translate into business dis-continuity. Now, this minor incident is hardly going to cause any business dis-continuities in Norway, but, if like last time, the clear-up takes 12 days, or more, this will be a costly affair for all involved.

Transportation networks like freeways and interstate highways are the main backbone of modern society and play an important role in supply chains. Consequently then, the reliability of the transportation network or the reliability of supply chains is thus a decisive factor not only in terms of market outreach and competition, but also in terms of continuity, to ensure a 24/7 operation of the community we live in. Any threat to the reliability of the transportation network constitutes a vulnerable spot, a weakness in the supply chain. In Norway, this weakness seems to come to the surface more often than necessary.

Supply Chain Risk | Business Continuity | Transport Vulnerability » samferdsel

Avbrudd – Forsyningskjedens mørke side

Er rassikring lønnsomt?

Vet vi nok om når og hvor rasene vil gå?

Vi vet ennå ikke nok om samfunnets kostnader

Kan utrygghet måles i kroner og øre?

Hvor viktig er framkommelighet?

Spredt bosetting – spredt vegnett

Helhet viktigere enn tunnelsyn

Referanse

Relatert stoff

Saving Norway’s crumbling infrastructure

Regional and economical development

Links

D-Day for Norway’s Transport Infrastructure

I hope for the best, but I fear the worst

Road, rail, sea or air?

Travel time

Links

The curse of being oil-rich

A matter of prioritization

The result

Related

Infrastructure – essential for competitiveness?

Why is road quality important for competitiveness?

Norway’s predicament

A constrained infrastructure?

Sidenote: about the report

Links

Related

How to count money spent on road investments

Money is money is money, no matter what?

GDP?

Related

The worst roads in the world’s richest country

The big question

Votes Count but the Number of Seats Decides

Geographical redistribution with disproportional representation

Conclusion

Another take on this story

References

Links

Related

Norwegian roads are slooooow…

The comparison

More roads

More motorways

Better roads

Depressing

Links

Related

Sparse transportation networks – a nightmare

Links

Related