Journal of Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회지)

Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of Model for Optimal Concession Period in PPPs Considering Traffic Risk

교통량 위험을 고려한 도로 민간투자사업 적정 관리운영기간 산정 모형 개발

  • KU, Sukmo (Department of Transportation Engineering, University of Seoul) ;
  • LEE, Seungjae (Department of Transportation Engineering, University of Seoul)
  • 구석모 (서울시립대학교 교통공학과) ;
  • 이승재 (서울시립대학교 교통공학과)
  • Received : 2016.05.23
  • Accepted : 2016.10.24
  • Published : 2016.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Public-Private-Partnerships tend to be committed high project development cost and recover the cost through future revenue during the operation period. In general, long-term concession can bring on more revenue to private investors, but short-term concession less revenue due to the short recovering opportunities. The concession period is usually determined by government in advance or by the private sectors's proposal although it is a very crucial factor for the PPPs. Accurate traffic forecasting should be most important in planing and evaluating the operation period in that the forecasted traffic determines the project revenue with user fees in PPPs. In this regards, governments and the private investors are required to consider the traffic forecast risk when determining concession period. This study proposed a model for the optimal concession period in the PPPs transportation projects. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to find out the optimal concession period while traffic forecast uncertainty is considered as a project risk under the expected return of the private sector. The simulation results showed that the optimal concession periods are 17 years and 21 years at 5.5% and 7% discount level, respectively. This study result can be applied for the private investors and/or any other concerned decision makers for PPPs projects to set up a more resonable concession period.

민간투자사업은 많은 프로젝트 개발 비용이 투입되며, 관리운영기간 동안의 미래 수입을 통하여 투자비를 회수하는 구조로 추진된다. 일반적으로 긴 관리운영기간은 민간사업자의 더 많은 수입을 가져가게 하고 짧은 관리운영기간은 민간사업자의 수입회수 기간이 짧아져 더 적은 수입을 가져가게 된다. 관리운영기간의 설정은 민간투자사업의 중요 요인임에도 불구하고 전통적으로 정부가 사전에 결정하거나 민간이 제안한 기간으로 결정되고 있다. 특히 교통분야 사업에서 관리운영기간의 설정은 정확한 교통량 예측이 전제되어야 하나, 교통량 예측은 실제 교통량과 차이가 발생하는 등 위험 및 불확실성이 뒤따른다. 따라서 정부 및 민간사업자는 관리운영기간 설정시 교통량 예측 위험을 고려할 필요가 있다. 본 연구는 도로사업에 있어 교통량 위험을 고려한 적정 관리운영기간을 설정하는 모형을 제시하였다. 이를 위해 몬테카를로 시뮬레이션 기법을 적용하였으며, 시뮬레이션 과정에서 교통량 위험은 확률 분포(single probability distribution)와 확률 과정(stochastic process)을 함께 고려하였다. 본 연구에서 제시한 방법론 및 시뮬레이션 모형을 바탕으로 모의 분석을 수행하였다. 모의 분석 결과 기대수익률 7%인 경우, 평균 관리운영기간은 21.2년으로 산정되었으며, 정부의 할인율 5.5%를 적용한 경우 관리운영기간은 평균 17.2년으로 산정되었다. 그 밖에 도출된 통계량은 다각적인 해석을 통해 민간투자사업 관련 의사결정자들이 관리운영기간을 설정함에 있어 직관에 의존하거나 동일한 운영기간을 적용하기보다는 객관적이고 합리적인 관리운영기간 설정하도록 도움을 줄 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bain R. (2009), Error and Optimism Bias in Toll Road Traffic Forecasts, Transportation, 36, 469-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-009-9199-7
  2. Flyvbjerg B., Holm M., Buhl S. (2005), How (in) Accurate are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976688
  3. Flyvbjerg B., Holm M., Buhl S. (2006), Inaccuracy in Traffic Forecasts, Transport Reviews, 26, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640500124779
  4. Irwin (2007), Government Guarantees: Allocating and Valuing Risk in Privately Financed Infrastructure Projects, World Bank.
  5. Jung D.g. (2001), A Study on the Financial Risk Assessment of SOC Private Investment Projects, Master thesis, University of Seoul.
  6. Kim K. S, Cho S. B, Yang I. S. (2012), Valuing the Risks Created by Road Transport Demand Forecasting in PPP project, Korea Development Institute.
  7. Kim K. S. (2007), Rationalization for Decision-making on SOC Investment, Korea Development Institute.
  8. Kim K. S. (2010), Rationalization for Decision-making on SOC Investment(II): Risk Analysis of Estimated Subway Ridership, Korea Development Institute.
  9. Lee D. H. (2016) Rational Allocation of Risks on PPP Project by Concession Contract, Legal Research Institute of Korea University, 80.
  10. Lee Y. T., Kim S. B., Won J. M. (1999), Risk Analysis of Highway Investment by Private Sectors, J. Korean Soc. Transp., 17(5), Korean Society of Transportation, 33-42.
  11. Ng S. T., Xie J., Cheung Y. K., Jefferies M. (2007), A Simulation Model for Optimizing the Concession Period of Public-private Partnerships Schemes, International Journal of Project Management, 25, 791-798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.004
  12. Ng S. T., Xie J., Skitmore M., Cheung Y. K. (2007), A Fuzzy Simulation Model for Evaluation the Concession Items of Public-private Partnership Schemes, Automation in Construction, 17, 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.02.010
  13. Park K. A. (2007), A Comparative Analysis of PSC and PFI for a Cost-effective Solution for Sewage Treatment Facilities, Doctorate thesis, Seoul National University.
  14. Shen L. Y., Bao H. J., Wu Y. Z., Lu W. S. (2007), Using Bargaining-Game Theory for Negotiation Concession Period for BOT-Type Contract, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(5), 385-392. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:5(385)
  15. Shen L. Y., Li H., Li Q. M. (2002), Alternative Concession Model for Build Operate Transfer Contract Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 326-330.
  16. Shen L. Y., Wu Y. Z. (2005), Risk Concession Model for Build/Operate/Transfer Contract Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 211-220.
  17. Wachs M. (1992), Ethical Dilemmas in Forecasting for Public Policy, Public Administration Review, 42(6), 562-567. https://doi.org/10.2307/976126
  18. Yu C.Y., Lam K.C. (2013), A Decision Support System for the Determination of Concession Period Length in Transportation Project Under BOT Contract, Automation in Construction, 31, 114-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.012
  19. Zhang X., AbouRizk S. M. (2006), Determining a Reasonable Concession Period for Private Sector Provision of Public Works and Services, Can. J. Civ. Eng, 33, 622-631. https://doi.org/10.1139/l06-010