Mega infrastructure and strategic risk mitigation: planning, management and outcomes

Figures & data

Table 1. Evaluation themes related to project context, complexity and path dependency.

Evaluation Themes	Guidelines and Potential Evaluation Criteria
(1) Awareness of critical contexts	MTP stakeholders must identify and appreciate the critical contexts (and their interdependencies) that surround pivotal project decision making as key sources of risk. Regular and sustained monitoring throughout the project lifecycle of all contextual cultural and societal beliefs/ values; time and space.
(2) Awareness of the dynamic nature of context	‘Open systems’ see the project and its interaction with ‘context’ as exploratory and almost organic, and which allow for unexpected outcomes to become recognized and accepted as part of an ‘emergent order’ driven by project complexity.
(3) Avoidance of path dependent practices	MTP planning, appraisal and delivery tools and techniques should be part of a balanced decision making process and framework sensitive to current contexts and minimise risks from path dependent behaviours.

Table 2. Evaluation themes, guidance and criteria related to risk-mitigation strategy.

Evaluation Themes	Evaluation Criteria and Guidance
(1) Clarity of objectives	In order to facilitate a shared understanding and help formulate an effective strategy there should be a clear statement of MTP goals and high-level objectives, linked to appraisal and evaluative criteria with clarity on input assumptions and potential impacts. Objectives should be SMART (Doran 1981) and of a manageable quantity (Labovitz and Rosansky 1997; Ordóñez et al. 2009).
(2) Project objectives linkages to national and international policies and political priorities	MTPs are best considered as ‘strategic change agents’ that have far-reaching spatial, social, economic, environmental and other impacts at different phases of the project lifecycle. Evidence, measures and indicators of such contributions - especially in the context of internationally approved Sustainable Development Frameworks (SDFs) offer important guidelines for assessing these contributions at different levels.
(3) Call for flexible, robust and adaptable strategies	Changes in context - brought about by such influences as changing stakeholder positions in response to changing international, national and local policies and enforcement legislation - are also critically important. Highly prescribed templated 'blueprint' approaches to MTP planning, appraisal and delivery are too inflexible, contextually insensitive and are rarely appropriate.
(4) Balance between strategies and tactics deployed at different stages of project lifecycle and time horizons	Strategies for mitigating risks in MTP decision making need to balance requirements for implementing a vision for the project and its accompanying spatial and temporal contexts with the practical requirements associated with the efficiency of services offered, their cost ceilings etc., and of course the resources (including institutional and regulatory support) available to deliver the project.

Table 3. Evaluation themes, guidance and criteria for stakeholder engagement.

Evaluation Themes	Evaluation Guidance and Criteria
(1) Stakeholder consultation, trust and transparency	Sustained flows of information need to be provided by MTP promoters, planners and deliverers to those impacted to enhances trust and transparency amongst stakeholders, builds reputations and develop support for the investment.
(2) Shared understanding and consensus building	MTP promoters, planners and deliverers need to establish an ability and capacity to better identify and understand the motives, beliefs and values of the wide range of stakeholders involved in or impacted by MTPs and on the basis of this to build consensus upon this knowledge.

Figure 1. OMEGA 2 research methodology.

Source: OMEGA Centre (2012, 11)

Figure 2. Key sets of contextual influences affecting case study outcomes.

Source: Dimitriou, Wright, and Ward (2011)

Figure 3. Number of OMEGA case study high level objectives per project.

Figure 4. Common characteristics of strategies adopted by case studies.

Table

Country	Mega Transport Project	Date Finished	Final Costs US$ (billions)	Project Type
UK	Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL)	2007	9.6	High speed rail
	Jubilee Line Extension	1999	6.8	Metro rail (subway)
	M6 Toll Road	2003	1.7	Inter-urban toll motorway
France	Météor Rail: Saint Lazare – Olympiades, Paris	1998	1.8	Metro rail (subway)
	TGV Med: Valence – Marseille	2001	6.6	High speed rail
	Millau Viaduct: Millau, South France	2004	0.5	Road bridge (on motorway)
Greece	Rion-Antirion Bridge: Rion – Antirion	2004	1.3	Road bridge
	Athens Metro: Sepolia – Dafni and Monastiraki – Ethniki Amyna, Athens	2003	4.6	Metro rail (subway)
	Attiki Odos, Athens	2004	5.4	Inter-urban toll motorway
Netherlands	HSL Zuid: Amsterdam Zuid to Schiphol Airport, Rotterdam and Connections to Antwerp, Brussels and Paris.	2009	9.8	High speed rail
	Randstadrail: The Hague to Rotterdam and Zoetermeer,	2007	1.6	Light rail and bus
	Beneluxlijn: Extension of Rotterdam Metro Network.	2002	1.0	Metro rail (subway)
Sweden	Øresund Road, Rail, Bridge/Tunnel Link: Malmo-Copenhagen	2000	4.1	Road and rail, bridge and tunnel
	Sodra Lanken Road Tunnel: Stockholm	2004	1.3	Urban motorway tunnel
	Arlanda Rail Link: Stockholm Airport to Stockholm	1999	1.1	Airport express rail link
USA	Airtrain: JFK Airport: New York City	2003	2.2	Light rail airport link
	Alameda Rail Link: Los Angeles (Port – downtown)	2002	2.8	Freight rail line
	Big Dig Road and Tunnel Links: Boston	2007	15.5	Urban road tunnel and bridges
Australia	City Link, Melbourne	2000	2.5	Urban toll motorway
	Metro Rail, Perth	2007	1.7	Inter-urban rail line
	Cross City Tunnel, Sydney	2005	1.1	Tolled urban road tunnel
Hong Kong	Western Harbour Crossing: Hong Kong Island – Kowloon	1997	0.9	Tolled urban road tunnel
	Airport Rail Links: Hong Kong Central – Chek Lap Kok International Airport	1998	4.4	Airport express rail link
	KCRC West Rail Link: Tsuen Wan – Yeung Long,	2003	5.9	Urban rail line
Japan	Metropolitan Expressway: Nishishinjuku Junction – Kumanocho Junction, Tokyo	2007	5.5	Tolled urban road tunnel
	Shinkansen High Speed Rail Link: Kagoshima - Chuo – Nakata	2004	7.5	High speed rail
	Oedo Metro: Hokomae – Hikarigaoka Tokyo	2000	11.4	Metro rail (subway)

Source: OMEGA (2012, 4).

Doran, G. T. 1981. “There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives.” Management Review 70 (11): 35–36.

 Google Scholar

Labovitz, G., and V. Rosansky. 1997. The Power of Alignment: How Great Companies Stay Centered and Accomplish Extraordinary Things. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 Google Scholar

Ordóñez, L. D., M. E. Schweitzer, A. D. Galinsky, and M. H. Bazerman. 2009. “Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting.” Academy of Management Perspectives 23 (1): 6–16.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

OMEGA Centre. 2012. “Mega Projects - Lessons for Decision-Makers: An Analysis of Selected International Large-Scale Transport Infrastructure Projects.” Executive Summary Report of OMEGA 2 Project, London: OMEGA, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London.

 Google Scholar

Batty, M. 2008. “Complexity and Emergence in City Systems: Implications for Urban Planning.” Section 3.2 in OMEGA Project 1 Working Paper 3, Review of Past and Contemporary Treatment of Complexity, Uncertainty and Risk in City and Regional Planning, Transport, and Project Development, 3–15. London: OMEGA Centre, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London.

 Google Scholar