Bibliography
3. The case study: HH-connection
Eleven years have passed since the Øresund fixed link connecting Copenhagen in Denmark with Malmö in Sweden opened to traffic (see Figure 5). The fixed link between Zealand and Scandinavia has led to a strong increase in traffic across Øresund as a whole.
In 2009, an average of 19,500 vehicles and 184 trains crossed the link per day, corresponding to 141 per cent and 125 per cent increase respectively compared to the first full year of operations in 2001 (Øresundsbro Konsortiet, 2010). Moreover, the fixed link across Fehmarn Belt between Denmark and Germany, which is expected to open in 2018, will increase these numbers due to more travellers from central Europe through Denmark to the rest of Scandinavia (Sweden and Norway). In particular, the number of freight trains through Denmark is expected to grow significantly, turning the Øresund fixed link into a bottleneck, due to the existing capacity already being close to the limit.
Figure 5. The proposed new fixed link (HH-connection), the Øresund fixed link and the forthcoming Fehmarn Belt fixed link (from map.krak.dk)
The proposal of a fixed link between Helsingør (Elsinore) in Denmark and Helsingborg in Sweden – referred to as the HH-connection – has been considered since the 1980s, however, the opening of the Øresund fixed link postponed the planning and implementation. The case is now re-actualised in order to cope with the increasing traffic across the Øresund and the planned Fehmarn fixed link. A new northern fixed link would reduce the travel time between Zealand and Scandinavia, relieving the Øresund fixed link for some of the car and railway traffic. In the autumn of 2011, three tunnel alternatives are considered as main alternatives for the HH-connection. The alternatives are listed in
157
Table 3 with indication of type of construction, type of traffic, and total costs (in mill.
DKK).
Table 3. The three proposed alternatives for the HH-connection (Larsen and Skougaard, 2010)
HH-connection Description Cost
(mill. DKK) Alternative 1 Tunnel for rail (2 tracks), passenger trains only. 9,500
Alternative 2 Tunnel for rail (2 tracks), passenger trains only + tunnel
for vehicles (2 × 2 lanes). 24,500
Alternative 3
Tunnel for rail (2 tracks), passenger trains + tunnel for vehicles (2 × 2 lanes) + tunnel for rail (single track), goods trains.
32,500
The alignments of the different alternatives depending on the type of traffic are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. The alignment of the alternatives
The overall goal of this case study is to find not only the most socio-economically sound, but also the most sustainable alternative for both passenger and freight transport. Based on this, the alternatives have been assessed against a set of decision criteria as follows:
• C1: Socio-economic robustness. The criterion embraces the overall economic performance of the alternative. The main indicator is the certainty value (CV) calculated based on the results stemming from the cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
Risk analysis (on construction costs and time savings) is applied to the CBA and the resulting CV describes the certainty for obtaining a benefit-cost rate (BCR) above 1 (Salling and Leleur, 2012). A high CV is, therefore, preferable.
• C2: Improvement for passenger cars and public transport. The criterion emphasises the accessibility for both cars and public transportation. This is represented by the increased mobility potential that the commuters obtain (they can cover more geographic space using the same time as previously).
158
• C3: Impact on towns and land-use. The criterion primarily emphasises the visual environment in the towns of Helsingør and Helsingborg. The form of the land-based facilities and their geographical placement will, for this reason, be in focus.
Moreover, the housing prices in the towns will most likely be affected as well, especially, for the houses close to Øresund and the land facilities.
• C4: Impact on regional economics. The criterion considers the alternatives potential for contributing to the economic development in the Øresund region. In order to obtain economic development in the northern part of the Øresund region, the area should become more attractive to both housings and businesses. If more businesses are located in the area it becomes more attractive to live there, which also creates the basis for more shopping opportunities. In this way, the potential for gathering businesses and creating a specialised business life increases.
Moreover, a new connection should make it more attractive for students to live in the area, as it will become easy to cross the sound and for that reason the universities in Helsingborg, Lund, and Copenhagen will be within a reasonable travel distance/time.
• C5: Impact on flexibility in logistics. The criterion covers the impact on the efficiency, punctuality, security, co-modality, and risk in the logistic chains.
Relocation of warehouse facilities reflects the benefits that arise when companies reduce e.g. their number of warehouses because the new infrastructure makes it possible to serve customers from fewer warehouses. Moreover, a new connection can help to expand companies’ clientele, and at best, it can result in that some companies can close down a production area, thereby, saving money.
• C6: Contribution to the EU green corridors. The criterion emphasises the alternative’s potential for promoting the green transport corridors. According to the Danish Transport Authority (2011), Green Corridors are a European concept denoting long-distance freight transport corridors in which advanced technology and co-modality are used to achieve energy efficiency and reduce environmental impact. Launched in the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan (2007), Green Corridors support the EU's agenda towards decarbonising transport while emphasising the need for efficient logistics. The existing Øresund fixed link is, at the current time, a part of the EU east-west green corridor. However, a north-south green corridor is also going to pass through Denmark and Sweden, and the only way to relieve the pressure on the Øresund fixed link, in order not to exceed the capacity limit, is to place a new connection between Helsingør and Helsingborg.
3.1. Application of the EM modelling framework to the HH-connection study
A decision conference was conducted concerning the HH-connection decision problem, where the purpose was to locate the most attractive alternative amongst the three presented in Table 3. Four experts joined the group from DTU Transport on 6th October 2011 in order to conduct the decision conference and ultimately create a decision support base with regard to the prioritisation of the alternatives. The conference was guided by a
159
facilitator and supported by a model analyst using the EM-model, in order to perform on-the-spot modelling of the information obtained from the participants.
After the introduction and the information regarding the alternatives and criteria was presented, the first task for the participants was to rate the alternatives under each defined criterion. The ratings were done using pair wise comparisons, where the participants had to state their preferences for one alternative over another in a comparison under the criteria one by one. The verbal information was then converted into numerical values based on the intensity scale from 0 to 8 (see Table 1) and filled into the comparison matrices in the model. An example of such a matrix is shown in Figure 7, where the results of the pair wise comparisons of the alternatives for the socio-economic robustness criterion are presented as they were agreed upon by the four participants.