Mr. Ezio Facchin

Brenner Base Tunnel BBT SE
Bulgaria – Italy Bilateral Cooperation Project
“An example of a model and a strategy
for public-private partnership”
Brenner Base Tunnel BBT SE
Transport framework
TEN Axis No. 1: Berlin – Naples – Palermo
In operation
Palermo - Fiumetorto
Naples – Rome – Florence
Innsbruck South bypass
Grafing – Munich
Leipzig / Halle – Ludwigsfelde
Under construction
Fiumetorto - Castelbuono
Patti – Messina
Salerno – Naples
Florence – Bologna
Bologna – Verona
Innsbruck – Wörgl
Munich – Nuremberg
Nuremberg – Erfurt
Erfurt – Leipzig / Halle
Ludwigsfelde – Berlin
Design Stage
Castelbuono – Patti / Catania
Reggio Calabria – Salerno – Strait of Messina bridge
Verona – Fortezza
Brenner Base Tunnel
Wörgl – Kufstein
Kiefersfelden – Grafing
The Munich – Verona section
Munich
Monaco
Innsbruck
AUSTRIAN ACCESSION TREATY TO THE EU (1994)
1st
1ststep
step
Upgrading the existing railway line
Bolzano
Bozen
2nd
2ndstep
step
Northern approach
Brenner Base tunnel
Verona
Southern approach
Critical section Munich – Verona
1370m
1000m
750m
INNSBRUCK
FORTEZZA
FRANZENSFESTE
570m
500m
Brenner base tunnel
SOUTH
NORTH
GERMANY
AUSTRIA
ITALY
0m s.l.m.
km
0
Max. gradient ‰
100
12
ch
i
un
M
200
26
300
23
22 12
no n
o
k
te ena
r
a
c
s
ru nne ner zza sfe ard uck olz oze
b
s
re ren rte zen G dbr B B
n
B
In
B
Foran nte ai
F Po W
400
8
a
on
r
Ve
„Sensitive
„Sensitive alpine
alpine area“:
area“: The
The Brenner
Brenner pass
pass
BERLIN
Monaco
Innsbruck
Brennero
Gotthard
Fortezza
Mont Blanc
Verona
Frejus
PALERMO
Brenner Base Tunnel BBT SE
Design
General chorography
PRATI / WIESEN
Multifunctional
station
STEINACH
Multifunctional station
INNSBRUCK
Multifunctional
station
- bypass
Fortezza
Franzensfeste
Service tunnel Aica
Intermediate access Fortezza
Intermediate access MULES
Access tunnel VIZZE
Brennero
Access tunnel WOLF
Access tunnel AHRENTAL
Innsbruck
Existing railway line
New railway line
Multifunctional stations
connection Innsbruck bypass
Access tunnel and intermediate access
Regular cross-section with exploratory tunnel
Ø 6000
40000 ÷ 70000
Pilotstollen
Cunicolo pilota
Tunnel
Tunnel system
system
Brenner Base Tunnel BBT SE
The Company
The company BBT SE
The company BBT SE
State treaty between Italy – Austria 30.04.2004
Objectives of BBT SE
-Elaboration of the final design
-Grant of authorisations, including EIA
- execution of geological investigations
- Presentation of a financial and a concession model
- Preparatory works before construction start
Brenner Base Tunnel BBT SE
Legal and financial studies as a base for a PPP-model
Construction Costs
Final Design
Main Tunnels:
4,980 € ml
consist of:
- civil works :
- equipment
Exploration tunnel:
Final Design:
Risks and Contingencies:
TOTAL:
4,064
916
€ ml
€ ml
430 € ml
90 € ml
500 € ml
6,000 € ml
Construction Time
Final Design
Total Construction period:
11/13 years
Completion of Final Design:
12/2007
Grant of Authorisations (A + I):
12/2008
Tender and procurement of construction works
12/2009
Start of construction works:
2010
End of construction works:
2020 / 2022
Note: Between 2007 and 2012, the exploration tunnel, aimed at reducing construction risks and the main tunnel
will be constructed simultaneously.
Analysed PPP-models
In accordance with the State treaty concluded between Italy and Austria on 30.04.2004,
which suggests applying a PPP model, in the course of the year 2006 the legal and
financial studies concentrated on three different concession and financial models, based
on final design data.
1) DBT (Design-Build-Transfer);
2) DBFO (Design-Build-Finance-Operate);
3) DBFM (Design-Build-Finance-Maintenance).
Preliminary Evaluations
Main objectives:
a) attracting private financing
b) optimizing off balance sheet volumes
c) limiting changes to the organisation structure of national railway
infrastructure operators.
The DBFO model that considers a third subject, different from the due national railway operators, to be
in charge of commercial management and railway operation was discarded, as it does not pursue goal
c).
It was decided that option 3 (DBFM) was to be the first option to be further
analysed, thereby studying option 1 (DBT) as a “fall back and back up”
scenario.
Design-Build-Finance-Maintenance DBFM
Design-Build-Transfer DBT
DBFM – A detailed analysis
™ The final design (January 2007) led to a new
construction timetable and modified
construction costs .
™ Construction period increased from 8/9 to
11/13 years.
™ After an in-depth analysis of the legal and
financial studies it was concluded that the
DBFM model does not seem to be
applicable for the whole project,
because there are no comparable projects
with similar costs and duration time.
The DBFM-model was redefined
according to new construction
costs and a new construction
timetable.
New DBFM models on the table
Alternative A:
- Public sector:
- Private sector (DBFM):
responsible for construction and maintenance of the civil works for the whole tunnel.
responsible for rail technology and maintenance thereof
Alternative B 1:
- Public sector:
responsible for construction of civil works until the exploration tunnel is completed
- Private Sector (DBFM 1): responsible for the completion of civil works and the maintenance of the whole tunnel
- Private Sector (DBFM 2): responsible for the rail technology and maintenance thereof (as in alternative A).
Alternative B 2:
- Public sector:
responsible for construction of civil works in the section of Fortezza and Innsbruck (end
sections);
- Private Sector (DBFM 1): responsible for construction of civil works of the inner section and maintanence of civil
works in the whole tunnel.
- Private Sector (DBFM 2): responsible for the rail technology and maintenance thereof (as in alternative A).
Rail technology
Evaluation of DBFM models
Evaluation criteria
Fewer interface risks
Bankability
Market acceptance
Off-balance volumes
“Value for money"
potential
Fewer legal or
normative
implications
Fewer
implementation risks
A
B1
B2
Strategical evaluation by BBT SE (1)
Alternative A:
Advantages
-Just one tecnical and time-dipendent interface between private and public sector
- Higher bankability;
- Good Market acceptance;
- few normative modifications.
Disadvantages
- minor volumes “off balance” for the public sector;
Alternative B1 and B2:
Advantages
-higher participation of the private sector;
-higher volumes “off balance” for the public sector;
Disadvantages
-more tecnical and time-dependent interfaces between public and private sector
- Possibilities of more complex risks in the interfaces
- Minor bankability;
-higher risks of temporary repercussions on the construction time-schedule
-risk of higher construction costs
Strategical evaluation by BBT SE (2)
At the moment BBT SE intends to adopt alternative A as it offers
- just one public/private interface
- bankability and a higher market acceptance
- minor risks of temporary repercussions on the construction time schedule
However, a more reliable plan implies a heavier financial burden on the public sector
Both alternatives B1 and B2 have similarities to alternative A because they both plan to implement
a DBFM model for rail equipment. Total risks, particularly interface risks, might be further
investigated and evaluated in order to decide whether alternatives B1 and B2 should also be
analysed in detail.
Other studies that support the project
According to the indications contained in the State treaty concluded between Italy and Austria on 30.04.2004, BBT SE
has carried out the following studies/updates:
-Traffic Studies:
analyse and formulate transport demand estimates on the alpine arc, obtaining as a result
different modal split scenarios
-Study of motorway capacity: Analyse the effect of a gradual increase of heavy traffic on the motorway,
offering elements of evaluation for a possible traffic transfer from road to rail
-Railway Operation Simulation:
Analyses the new potential offered by an upgraded railway line and
formulates assumptions on the use of the lines in relation with their capacity and estimated traffic increase.
-Tariff Study: analyses basic tariff components that are applied in order to recommend the application of a tunnel
tariff that benefits all participants in the productive cycle, including the final user.
-Cost-Benefit-Analysis: analyses the economic and social feasibility of the project by quantifying the increase
of collective wellbeing thanks to the projects .