Infrastructure investment planning through scenario-based system-of-systems modelling

Figures & data

Figure 1. Model overview.

Table 1. Model indicators.

System		Unit
	Demand
Transport	Freight demand	tonne & vehicle
	Passenger demand	passengers & pcu
	Environmental performance
Transport & energy	CO2 emission & energy consumption	tonne & MJ
	System performance
Rail	Railway tracks' freight intensity-capacity ratio	–
	Generalised journey time	hour
Road	Delay factor = Congested travel time/free-flow travel time	–
Waterway	Locks' and waterways' intensity-capacity ratios	–

Table 2. Elasticity values of the determinants of road passenger demand.

Parameter	Value	Reference
${\eta }_E$	0.25	van der Loop et al. (2016)
${\eta }_F$	−0.17	Groot and van Mourik (2012)
${\eta }_G$	0.38	van Dender and Clever (2013)
${\eta }_{GJT}$	0.14	Wardman et al. (2018)
${\eta }_J$	0.64	van der Loop (2018)
${\eta }_P$	0.33	van der Loop (2018)
${\eta }_{TTP}$	0.02	Geilenkirchen et al. (2010)
${\eta }_{T{T}^{road}}$	−1.1	van der Loop et al. (2016)
${\eta }_V$	0.6	van der Loop (2018)

Table 3. Elasticity values of the determinants of railway transport demand.

Parameter	Value	Reference
${\eta }_F$	0.11	KiM (2019)
${\eta }_{GJT}$	−1.51	van der Loop et al. “Verklaring van de ontwikkeling” (2018)
${\eta }_I$	0.27	KiM (2019)
${\eta }_J$	0.29	KiM (2019)
${\eta }_P$	1.38	KiM (2019)
${\eta }_{TP}$	1.1	MuConsult (2015)
${\eta }_{TTP}$	−0.63	KiM (2019)
${\eta }_{T{T}^{road}}$	0.24	van der Loop et al. (2016)
${\eta }_V$	−0.02	KiM (2019)

Table 4. w_L multipliers for each load factor.

LF(%)	wL
50	0.95
75	1.05
100	1.40
125	1.59
150	1.79
175	2.01
200	2.26

Table 5. Elasticity values of the determinants of freight transport demand.

Parameter	Mode	Value	Reference
${\eta }_G$	Rail, Road, Waterway		0.57		KiM (2019)
${\eta }_{GS}$	Rail, Road, Waterway		−0.8		KiM (2019)
${\eta }_W$	Rail, Road, Waterway		0.41		KiM (2019)
${\eta }_F$	Rail		0.22		Geilenkirchen et al. (2010)
	Road		−0.07		Geilenkirchen et al. (2010)
	Waterway		0.06		Geilenkirchen et al. (2010)
		Railway	Road	Waterway
1l${\eta }_{TT}$	Rail	−0.211	0.223	0.6	De Jong et al. (2011)
	Road	–	−0.1	0.086	De Jong et al. (2011)
	Waterway	–	0.231	−0.284	De Jong et al. (2011)

Table 6. Lock transit time based on lock I/C.

I/C ratio	verage transit time (min.)
0.3	25
0.4	30
0.5	45
0.6	60
0.7	80
0.8	125
0.9	235

Figure 2. Case study region.

Figure 3. Transport networks and zones. (a) Passenger. (b) Freight.

Table 7. Scenario description.

	State change direction and extent compared to the base year
Scenario's aspect	Infraconomy	Green revolution	Missed boat	Safety revolution
Main drivers	Increases in infrastructure length lead to increases in economic development	Maximise climate and environmental-friendly development	Making compromises between environment, infrastructure and economy and individualism	Well-being is more important than welfare, especially expressed in safety and reliability
Investments in innovation	Moderate increase	High increase	Low increase	Low increase
Economic development	High increase;	High increase;	Low increase;	Low increase;
	Business climate is enhanced (nationally and internationally)	Green transition is an ex-port product	National competitive position cannot be maintained	Shorter work week, less money being ‘pumped around’
Environment protection	No change;	Very high increase;	Low decrease;	Moderate decrease;
commitment	Environment protection is not considered in policy, and societal goal setting	Major green-minded commitment	Compromised goal-setting with an insufficient and volatile political and societal commitment to reach sustainable goals	Insufficient money to effectively develop technologies to combat pollution
Mobility behaviour	Very high inclination to travel;	Moderate inclination to travel;	High inclination to travel;	High inclination to not travel;
	Favoring face-to-face contacts	A major shift away from road and aviation to rail	Reduced aviation, shift to other modes	Minimising travel
Transport energy mix	Moderate increase;	High decrease;	Moderate decrease;	Moderate decrease;
	Consists of both fossil and green sources, fossil fuels remain the primary resource as they keep their economic advantages	Replacing fossil energy usage with high and efficient usage of renewable energy	Decrease of fossil sources in favor of renewable to increase wellbeing -- overall limited willingness to decrease usage	Decrease of fossil sources in favor of renewable to increase wellbeing -- overall willingness to decrease usage

Table 8. Emission, energy, and transport demand input variables for each future scenario.

	Values for 2030 and 2050
Input variables (index 100 at 2019)	Infraconomy revolution	Safety revolution	Missed boat	Green revolution	Energy resource	Infrastructure
Average remote working days (days/week)	1.65, 1.8	2, 2.5	1.7, 2	2, 3	n.a.	All
Average working days (days/week)	4.375, 4.625	4.25, 3.75	4.375, 4.75	4.375, 4.375	n.a.	All
Electricity excise duty to electricity price (%)	1.4, 1.4	1.4, 1.4	1.4, 1.4	1.25, 0.8	n.a.	All
Fossil fuel excise duty to fuel price (%)	2, 2	2, 2	2, 2	3, 5	n.a.	All
Fossil fuel price (US2013$/barrel)	100, 120	67, 80	138, 162	67, 80	n.a.	All
GDP (index)	130, 180	110, 120	110, 120	120, 150	n.a.	All
Income (index)	120, 285	110, 210	110, 210	115, 240	n.a.	All
Jobs (mil.)	11.8, 12.3	10.8, 10.4	10.8, 10.4	11.8, 12.3	n.a.	All
Load capacity (index)	110, 130	105, 115	105, 115	115, 145	All	Road & Waterway
Load factor (%)	0.46, 0.52	0.44, 0.48	0.44, 0.48	0.49, 0.62	All	Road
	0.57, 0.64	0.56, 0.60	0.56, 0.60	0.60, 0.75	All	Waterway
Percentage of the remote workers(%)	35,40	40,50	38,42	45,60	n.a.	All
Population (mil.)	18.2, 18.5	17.7, 17	18.7, 19.9	17.7, 17	n.a.	All
Share of the service sector in GDP (%)	77, 81	75.5, 79	74, 77	77, 81	n.a.	All
Train punctuality (index)	96, 88	102, 105	101, 102	100, 101	n.a.	Rail
Train ticket price (index)	103, 105	102, 103	102, 104	102, 103	n.a.	Rail
Vehicles (mil.)	9.9, 11.6	8.9, 9.4	9.4, 10.5	9.4, 10.5	n.a.	Road
Vehicle capacity (passengers)	320, 410	305, 345	305, 345	335, 470	n.a.	Rail
World trade (index)	160, 380	140, 250	140, 250	150, 320	n.a.	All
$CE{F}_F$ (index)	79, 57	75, 49	75, 49	74, 48	Diesel	All
	99, 97	82, 64	82, 64	49, 15	Electricity	All
	89, 77	75, 51	75, 51	70, 40	H2	All
$CE{F}_P$ (index)	83, 65	77, 53	77, 53	78, 56	Petrol	Road
	99, 97	82, 64	82, 64	49, 15	Electricity	All
	89, 77	75, 51	75, 51	70, 40	H2	All
$EC{F}_F$ (index)	92, 83	88, 75	88, 75	85, 69	Diesel	All
	97, 93	90, 80	90, 80	85, 60	Electricity	All
	100, 100	100, 100	100, 100	98, 95	H2	All
$EC{F}_P$ (index)	79, 58	75, 50	75, 50	77, 53	Petrol	Road
	97, 93	90, 80	90, 80	85, 60	Electricity	All
	100, 100	100, 100	100, 100	98, 95	H2	All
Freight energy mix (%)	10, 0	0, 0	5, 0	0, 0	Diesel	Rail
	90, 95	100, 85	95, 90	95, 70	Electricity	Rail
	0, 5	0, 15	0, 10	5, 30	H2	Rail
	95, 88	88, 73	91, 82	71, 27	Diesel	Road
	5, 12	12, 26	9, 18	29, 71	Electricity	Road
	0, 0	0, 0	0, 0	0, 2	H2	Road
	90, 75	80, 55	85, 60	70, 20	Diesel	Waterway
	10, 25	20, 35	15, 35	25, 60	Electricity	Waterway
	0, 0	0, 10	0, 5	5, 20	H2	Waterway
Passenger energy mix (%)	100, 95	100, 85	100, 90	95, 70	Electricity	Rail
	0, 5	0, 15	0, 10	5, 30	H2	Rail
	7, 14	14, 28	11, 20	30, 73	Electricity	Road
	0, 1	0, 1	0, 1	0, 1	H2	Road
	93, 85	86, 70	89, 79	69, 23	Petrol	Road

Table 9. Freight transport fleet and emission factors at the base year.

Mode	Vehicle/vessel	Weight class	$CE{F}_F$ (g/tkm)	$NE{F}_F$ (g/tkm)	$EC{F}_F$ (MJ/tkm)	Load capacity (tonne)	$S_F$ (%)	$e_F$	$E{M}_F$ (%)
Rail	Medium-length train	Heavy	17.6	0.1958	0.193	1940	100	Diesel	35
			9.6	0.007	0.071	1940	100	Electricity	65
Road	Truck, medium-size	Med.-weight	256	1.4	2.2	7.5	25	Diesel	100
	Tractor-semitrailer, light		178	0.53	1.8	15.7	48
	Tractor-semitrailer, heavy		104.5	0.26	0.8	29.2	27
Inland shipping	Rhine-Herne Canal (RHC) vessel	Heavy	45	0.475	0.333	1537	50	Fossil fuel	100
	Large Rhine vessel		28	0.244	0.230	3013	50

Table 10. Passenger transport fleet and emission factors at the base year.

Mode	Vehicle	$CE{F}_P$ (g/vkm)	$NE{F}_P$ (g/vkm)	$EC{F}_P$ (MJ/vkm)	$S_P$ (%)	$e_P$	$E{M}_P$ (%)
Rail	Intercity train	10	0.013	0.069	75	Electricity	100
	sprinter	12	0.017	0.104	25
Road	Passenger car	211	0.22	2.82	100	Petrol	100

Figure 4. Passenger demand changes. (a) Road. (b) Railway.

Figure 5. Railway network passenger demand in 2050 and performance development. (a) Base year demand. (b) Infraconomy demand. (c) Green revolution demand. (d) Missed-boat demand. (e) Safety revolution demand. (f) Railway GJT.

Figure 6. Freight demand changes. (a) Railway. (b) Road. (c) Waterway.

Figure 7. Environmental performance changes. (a) Railway CO${}_2$ emission. (b) Road CO${}_2$ emission. (c) Waterway CO${}_2$ emission. (d) Railway energy consumption. (e) Road energy consumption. (f) Waterway energy consumption.

Figure 8. Freight I/C of railway segments in 2050. (a) Base year. (b) Infraconomy. (c) Green revolution. (d) Missed-boat. (e) Safety revolution.

Figure 9. Road network delay factor in 2050. (a) Base year. (b) Infraconomy. (c) Green revolution. (d) Missed-boat. (e) Safety revolution.

Figure 10. Waterway network intensity-capacity ratio in 2050. (a) Base year. (b) Infraconomy. (c) Green revolution. (d) Missed-boat. (e) Safety revolution.

Table 11. Lock I/C ratios in 2050.

Lock name	I/C
	Infraconomy	Green Revolution	Missed-boat	Safety Revolution
Algemene Begraafplaatssluis	0.35	0.24	0.36	0.34
Grote Merwedesluis	0.35	0.24	0.36	0.34
Grote sluis Vianen	0.26	0.18	0.27	0.26
Prinses Beatrixsluizen	0.29	0.20	0.30	0.28

Table 12. Results' comparison with national models.

Demand indicator (index)	2030 & 2050		Difference (%)
	Infraconomy	High WLO
Railway Freight	130, 180	135, 176	$-4,+2$
Railway passenger	125, 154	129, 164	$-3,-6$
Road Freight	119, 144	115, 140	$+3,+3$
Road passenger	125, 145	114, 135	$+10,+7$
Waterway Freight	117, 154	121, 143	$-3,+8$

van der Loop Han, Jan van der Waard, Rinus Haaijer, and Jasper Willigers. 2016. “Induced Demand: New Empirical Findings and Consequences for Economic Evaluation.”.

 Google Scholar

Groot Wim, and Henk van Mourik. 2012. “Over Brandstofprijzen En Automobiliteit.” Tijdschrift Vervoerswetenschap 48 (3)): 68–83.

 Google Scholar

van Dender Kurt, and Martin Clever. 2013. “Recent Trends in Car Usage in Advanced Economies: Slower Growth Ahead?; Summary and Conclusions.” In International transport Forum, International Transport Forum Discussion Paper.

 Google Scholar

Wardman Mark, Jeremy Toner, Nils Fearnley, Stefan Flügel, and Marit Killi. 2018. “Review and Meta-Analysis of Inter-Modal Cross-Elasticity Evidence.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 118: 662–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van der Loop Han. 2018. “Effecten van Het Nieuwe Werken op mobiliteit en congestie 2000–2016.”.

 Google Scholar

Geilenkirchen G. P., K. T. Geurs, H. P. van Essen, A. Schroten, and B. Boon. 2010. “Effecten van prijsbeleid in verkeer en vervoer. Kennisoverzicht.”.

 Google Scholar

KiM. 2019. “Mobiliteitsbeeld 2019.”.

 Google Scholar

van der Loop H., P. Bakker, F. Savelberg, M. Kouwenhoven, and E. Helder. 2018. “Verklaring van de ontwikkeling van het ov-gebruik in Nederland over 2005-2016.”.

 Google Scholar

MuConsult. 2015. “Literatuurstudie tijd- en conveniencegevoeligheden openbaar vervoer.”.

 Google Scholar

De Jong Gerard, Arnaud Burgess, L. A. Tavasszy, Robbert Versteegh, Michiel de Bok, and Nora Schmorak. 2011. “Distribution and Modal Split Models for Freight Transport in The Netherlands.” In Proceedings of the 2011 European Transport Conference, Association for European Transport. On the Generalized Cost-Demand Elasticity of Intermodal Container Transport.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.