Cruz, C O; Marques, R C and Pereira, I (2015) Alternative contractual arrangements for urban light rail systems: Lessons from two case studies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(3), ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The need to improve urban transportation systems in order to decrease travel time and increase their reliability while keeping the costs at an affordable level has led governments to develop public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements in urban light rail systems. Many cities around the world have used the PPP model for the construction of urban light rail systems, particularly light rail, since it provides a quicker and easier answer to financing these large investments. However, different models have been adopted. In most cases a typical design-build-operate-transfer model, with long duration (e.g., 30 years), is used, but other innovative models have also been adopted (e.g., a hybrid model with different contracts for infrastructure construction and maintenance - a 20-year contract - and another for the systems operation - a 5-year contract). This paper addresses the advantages and disadvantages of these models, using one case study for each model. The conclusions show that the hybrid model has the potential to decrease the operation costs, but at the same time to mitigate the interface risk (operation <-> infrastructure).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting; contractual arrangements; public-private partnership; risk sharing; urban light rail system |
| Index terms: | build-operate-transfer, partnership, infrastructure construction, duration, case study, financing |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, project controls, economic analysis, partnership management, civil engineering, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Time Control |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here