APM Risk SIG Conference 2019

1. Project Business Cases, Strategy and Risk:
Some Lessons from Transport
Dr. David Worsley
MAPM MCMI MIVM FIRM FStratPS

2. Career summary
1990-2001
2004-2007
University of Manchester (B.A. (Econ.) & Ph.D.)
Risk & Value Analyst
2005-2007 Diploma in Statistics
2007-2012 Strategic Planner (East Coast Main Line)
2010-2012 Network Rail representative on HS2 Birmingham
to Leeds route working groups
2012-2016 Risk & Value Manager (London North Eastern)
2013
onwards
Visiting Lecturer, Centre for Railway Research,
Newcastle University
June 2015 Fellow of the Institute of Risk Management
July 2016 Associate Director (Development)
Sept. 2016 Fellow of the Strategic Planning Society
WSP
clients

3. ◼ Source: Neil Anderson (2018), Evidencing the Wider Impacts of Transport
Schemes: How I Learned to Love the Transport Business Case, Oxford:
Amey Consulting, May 2018, p. 8 
The five case model

4. ◼ Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius & Werner Rothengatter (2003),
Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, Cambridge: C.U.P., 13th
Feb. 2003, ix + 207 pp.
Bent Flyvbjerg (b. 1952)

5. ◼ Source: Highways England (2017), The Project Control Framework Quick
Reference Guide, Guildford, Surrey: Highways England, Feb. 2017,
Version 1, p. 8 
GRIP and PCF
◼ Source: Network Rail (2014), Whole Life Cost Manual, Milton Keynes:
Network Rail, 11th April 2014, p. 27

6. Project Business Cases, Strategy and Risk
Risk in the business case
1) Cost escalation
2) Benefits realisation
3) Transport economics
Risk to the business case process
1) Stakeholder misalignment
2) Methodological disputes
3) Modelling processes
Results and strategy
1) Corporate context
2) Risk and value management
3) Presenting results

7. HS2 base construction rates (1)
◼ Source:
◼ HS2 Ltd.
(2009), High
Speed Rail -
London to the
West Midlands
and Beyond:
HS2 Cost and
Risk Model,
London: HS2,
Dec. 2009,
◼ p. 23 

8. ◼ Source: Bert De Reyck, Yael Grushka-Cockayne, Ioannis Fragkos,
Jeremy Harrison, Daniel Read & Mike Bartlett (2017), Optimism Bias
Study: Recommended Adjustments to Optimism Bias Uplifts, London:
Department for Transport, Jan. 2017, Final Report, p. 10, p. 26 
Refining optimism bias for rail?

9. ◼ Source: Network Rail
Unit cost modelling (1)

10. ◼ Source: Stephen Cresswell (2017), Crossing the CASM: A Framework for
Managing Complexity in Risk Management and Forecasting, Weybridge,
Surrey: Into Risk, March 2017 (orig. 2016), Version 31, p. 20 & p. 25
Cause Association Systems & Mechanisms (CASM)

11. ◼ Source: National Audit Office (2016), Modernising the Great Western
Railway: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 781, London:
NAO, 9th Nov. 2016, p. 12 
Great Western Route Modernisation

12. ◼ Source: Network Rail (Network Strategy & Planning)
The rail project appraisal equation
governmentcost toNet
societybenefit toNet
ratiocostBenefit to =
RevenueeexpenditurlOperationaeexpenditurCapital
governmentOtherbenefitsuser-NonbenefitsUser
−+
+
=
Net present value (NPV)

13. ◼ Source: Oxera (2012), Not in My Kitchen: The Economics of HS2, Oxford:
Oxera, Feb. 2012, p. 1 
Business case for High Speed 2

14. ◼ Source: Institute for Government (2017), How to Value Infrastructure:
Improving Cost Benefit Analysis, London: Institute for Government, Sept.
2017, p. 9 
Historical VfM data

15. ◼ Source: Steer Davies Gleave (2010), Station Usage and Demand
Forecasts for Newly Opened Railway Lines and Stations: Final Report,
London: Steer Davies Gleave, August 2010, p. 20 
Inaccuracy of demand forecasts

16. Optimism bias in demand forecasts
◼ Source:
◼ Kenneth Button
(1990), ‘The
Channel Tunnel:
The Economic
Implications for
the South East
of England’,
Geographical
Journal, Vol.
156, No. 2, July
1990, p. 190

17. Optimism bias in demand forecasts
◼ Source: Christiaan Behrens & Eric Pels (2012), ‘Intermodal Competition
in the London–Paris Passenger Market: High-Speed Rail and Air
Transport’, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 71, 2012, p. 280

18. ◼ Source: Bent Flyvbjerg & COWI (2004), Procedures for Dealing with
Optimism Bias in Transport Planning: Guidance Document, London: DfT,
10th June 2004, Issue No. 1, p. 41 
Causal categories of optimism bias

19. ◼ Source: Department for Transport (2015), The Pathway to Driverless
Cars: Summary Report and Action Plan, London: DfT, Feb. 2015, p. 7 
The future of transport?

20. ◼ Source: Transport Systems Catapult (2017), Market Forecast for
Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, Milton Keynes: Transport Systems
Catapult, July 2017, p. 25 
Demand for connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs)

21. ◼ Source:
◼ Department
for Transport
(2014), TAG
Unit A1.1:
Cost-Benefit
Analysis,
London: DfT,
Transport
Appraisal
and
Strategic
Modelling
(TASM)
Division,
January
2014, p. 2 
Monetisation

22. ◼ Source:
◼ W. Kip Viscusi (2005),
The Value of Life,
Discussion Paper No.
517, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard
Law School, John M. Olin
Center for Law,
Economics, and
Business, June 2005, p.
16 
The value of a
statistical life

23. Table A 4.1.4: Average value of prevention per road accident by severity & road class
£ (2010 prices and 2010 values)
Road Class
Built-up1
Non Built-up2
Motorway All
1,658,033 1,787,398 1,745,423 1,726,822
191,825 216,962 223,066 199,710
19,771 24,028 28,858 20,946
57,110 117,679 80,994 70,537
1,760 2,572 2,472 1,859
88,258 137,744 99,779 98,912
4,720 15,653 11,602 6,083All accidents
Damage only
Accident
severity
All injury
Slight
Serious
Fatal
Average cost per personal injury accident (PIA)3
Table A 4.1.3: Average value of prevention of road accidents by severity and element of cost, £ (2010 prices & 2010 values)
Accident related costs
Accident severity Medical & Police cost Damage to Insurance TOTAL
ambulance property & admin
Fatal 570,571 1,124,205 5,416 16,980 10,403 284 1,727,859
Serious 22,909 156,128 13,753 1,991 4,753 177 199,710
Slight 2,832 13,493 1,201 514 2,801 107 20,948
All injury 13,067 49,955 3,250 953 3,206 121 70,551
Damage only - - - 33 1,775 51 1,859
Lost output
Casualty related costs
Human costs
◼ Source: Department for Transport (2018), WebTAG Databook, London:
Transport Appraisal and Strategic Modelling (TASM) Division, June 2018,
Version 1.10.1, Sections A4.1.3 & A4.1.4 
Monetised safety benefits (road) (2)

24. ◼ Source: Patrick Crozier (2001), Why British Rail Privatisation Has Failed,
Economic Notes No. 91, London: Libertarian Alliance, Oct. 2001, p. 1 
A view of public transport

25. ◼ Source: Brian Caulfield (2008), Transport Economics, Dublin: Trinity
College Dublin, Jan. 2008, pp. 7-8 
Generalised cost of transport

26. ◼ Source: Department
for Transport (2012),
TAG Unit 3.5.6: Values
of Time and Vehicle
Operating Costs,
London: Transport
Appraisal and
Strategic Modelling
(TASM) Division, DfT,
Oct. 2012, p. 4 
Value of
time (VoT)

27. ◼ Source: Atkins & DfT (2014), TUBA: General Guidance and Advice,
London: DfT, 31st May 2014, Version 1.9.4, p. 3/1 
Consumer surplus
The “cause” of demand for
travel?
What about
“excess” travel?

28. ◼ Source: Atkins & DfT (2014), TUBA: General Guidance and Advice,
London: DfT, 31st May 2014, Version 1.9.4, p. 3/2 
Increased consumer surplus

29. Modal share (North East - London)
◼ Source: Department for Transport (2009), Britain’s Transport
Infrastructure: High Speed Two, London: DfT, Jan. 2009, p. 19 

30. Modal share (Scotland - London)
◼ Source: Department for Transport (2009), Britain’s Transport
Infrastructure: High Speed Two, London: DfT, Jan. 2009, p. 19 

31. Rail versus air competition
◼ Source: Steer Davies Gleave (2006), Air and Rail Competition and
Complementarity: Final Report, London: SDG, August 2006, p. 9 

32. Adversarial strategy (1)
◼ Source: Anon. (2010), ‘Adonis Plans London-Edinburgh Journey Time of
Less than Four Hours’, Rail, No. 637, 10th Feb. 2010, p. 16

33. Generalised journey time model
◼ Source: Steer Davies Gleave (2006), Air and Rail Competition and
Complementarity: Final Report, London: SDG, August 2006, p. 16 

34. Acts of God?
◼ Source:
◼ BBC News
East Coast’s new “Flying Scotsman” service was
introduced on Monday 23rd May 2011.

35. Project Business Cases, Strategy and Risk
Risk in the business case
1) Cost escalation
2) Benefits realisation
3) Transport economics
Risk to the business case process
1) Stakeholder misalignment
2) Methodological disputes
3) Modelling processes
Results and strategy
1) Corporate context
2) Risk and value management
3) Presenting results

36. ◼ Source:
GHD (for
West
Yorkshire
Combined
Authority)
(2017),
Elland
Station:
Project
Inception
Report,
Volume 1 of
2, York:
GHD, 15th
Feb. 2017,
Revision 1,
p. 3
A typical station development project

37. ◼ Source: Neil Anderson (2018), Evidencing the Wider Impacts of Transport
Schemes: How I Learned to Love the Transport Business Case, Oxford:
Amey Consulting, May 2018, p. 2 
The business case process

38. ◼ Source:
◼ Transport for
the North
(2019),
Strategic
Transport
Plan,
Manchester:
TfN, Feb.
2019, p. 19 
Tiers of
governance

39. ◼ Source:
◼ Network Rail
(2016), Route
Specifications
2016: London
North Eastern
and East
Midlands,
London:
Network Rail,
March 2016,
p. 35 
Northallerton to Newcastle

40. ◼ Source: Ernst & Young (2012), Borders Railway Final Business Case
Final Version, London: Ernst & Young (for Transport Scotland), Nov. 2012,
Publicly Available Version, p. 9 
Isochronal
maps (2)

41. ◼ Source:
◼ Richard Wellings
(2014), Failure to
Transform: High-Speed
Rail and the
Regeneration Myth,
IEA Current
Controversies Paper
No. 48, London:
Institute of Economic
Affairs, April 2014, p.
16 
The
Doncaster
syndrome

42. ◼ Source: Ransford A. Acheampong & Elisabete A. Silva (2015), ‘Land Use–
Transport Interaction Modeling: A Review of the Literature and Future
Research Directions’, Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 3,
2015, p. 16 
Land use transport interaction (LUTI)

43. ◼ Source: Paul
Pfaffenbichler,
Günter
Embergera &
Simon Shepherd
(2010), ‘A System
Dynamics
Approach to Land
Use Transport
Interaction
Modelling: The
Strategic Model
MARS and Its
Application’,
System Dynamics
Review, Vol. 26,
No. 3, July-Sept.
2010, p. 268 
Metropolitan Activity Relocation Simulator (MARS)

44. ◼ Source: AECOM (for Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council & Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council) (2016), Pan-Northern Connectivity: A
Catalyst for Growth in the North, Doncaster: Doncaster Metropolitan
Borough Council, Jan. 2016, p. 3 
Trans-Pennine Tunnel

45. ◼ Source: Andrew McNaughton (2015), Released Capacity, London: HS2,
Feb. 2015, p. 9 
Mixed speed traffic (1)

46. ◼ Source: Network Rail (2008), RailSys Modelling, London: Network Rail,
Aug. 2008, Version 1.0, p. 2
Operational modelling (3)

47. ◼ Source: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
(2001), Interim Advice Note (IAN 36/01): The Use and Application of
Micro-Simulation Traffic Models, London: DETR, June 2001, p. 22 
Traffic modelling process
• an initial simulation run based on the initial network and matrix;
• identification of potential errors such as abnormal queues, blocked
vehicles (in some packages it is possible for vehicles to reach a point
on the network and get ‘stuck’ and cannot force their way into the
main traffic stream), u-turns, unrealistic route choices;
• comparison of simulated flows with observations;
• re-coding the network based on errors discovered;
• examination of route choice parameters and appropriate
adjustments;
• re-running the simulation;
• examination of flows and speeds at detectors;
• sensitivity analysis on key parameters;
• further refinements.

48. ◼ Source: Siemens (2014), Traffic Simulation with PTV Vissim, Munich:
Siemens AG (Infrastructure & Cities Sector), Sept. 2014, p. 8 
Verkehr in Städten Simulieren (VISSIM)

49. ◼ Source:
Institute for
Transport
Studies, Dirck
Van Vliet &
Atkins (2012),
SATURN
Manual,
Epsom:
Atkins, March
2012, Version
11.1, p. 2-4 
Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to
Urban Road Networks

50. ◼ Source:
Institute for
Transport
Studies, Dirck
Van Vliet &
Atkins (2012),
SATURN
Manual,
Epsom:
Atkins, March
2012, Version
11.1, p. 5-27

Routes through Liverpool

51. ◼ Source: Alison Cox & Roger Himlin (2016), Regional Transport Models,
Guildford: Highways England, Feb. 2016, Revised Version 2, p. 3 
Highways England Regional Transport Models

52. ◼ Source: Occupational Safety & Health Branch (2009), Guide for Safety at
Work: Safe Use of Electric Plugs, Hong Kong: Labour Department, May
2009, p. 10 
Unexpected power outage

53. ◼ Source: SKM Colin Buchanan, Jacobs & Leigh Fisher (for HS2) (2013),
PLANET Framework Model Audit Report: Model Implementation and
Standard Case Forecast, London: Sinclair Knight Merz, Oct. 2013, p. 20
PLANET Framework Model

54. ◼ Source:
◼ Transport for
the North
(2019),
Strategic
Transport Plan,
Manchester:
TfN, Feb. 2019,
p. 126 
Strategic
Development
Corridors

55. ◼ Source: David
Hancock & Robin
Holt (2003), Tame,
Messy and Wicked
Problems in Risk
Management,
Working Paper
Series WPS054,
Manchester:
Manchester
Metropolitan
University Business
School, Sept. 2003,
p. 10 
Wicked messes

56. Project Business Cases, Strategy and Risk
Risk in the business case
1) Cost escalation
2) Benefits realisation
3) Transport economics
Risk to the business case process
1) Stakeholder misalignment
2) Methodological disputes
3) Modelling processes
Results and strategy
1) Corporate context
2) Risk and value management
3) Presenting results

57. ◼ Source:
◼ Julie Warriner
& Mike Pollard
(2016),
‘Benefits of
Adopting a
Collaborative
Approach to
Managing
Project
Delivery Risk
and Value’,
Value, Feb.
2016, p. 3
Network Rail Enterprise Risk & Value
Management Framework
Components
Categories
Hierarchy

58. ◼ Source: National Audit Office
(2006), The Modernisation of
the West Coast Main Line:
Report by the Comptroller and
Auditor General, HC 22
Session 2006-2007, Norwich:
The Stationery Office, 22nd Nov.
2006, p. 27 
West Coast Route
Modernisation
140 mph?

59. Risk & Value teams

60. ◼ Source:
◼ Steve Parker
(2016),
‘Redefining Value
Management: Is
There a Need to
Redefine Value
Management?’,
Value, Feb. 2016,
p. 6
The scope of
value
management

61. ◼ Source: Network Rail
(David Worsley)
FAST
(Harrogate
to York LSI)

62. ◼ Source: Rainer Haas & Oliver Meixner (2005), An Illustrated Guide to the
Analytic Hierarchy Process, Vienna: University of Natural Resources and
Applied Life Sciences, April 2005, slide 34 
How to use the AHP (11)

63. ◼ Source: Association for Project Management (2019), ‘APM Benefits
Management Specific Interest Group’, A Guide to Specific Interest Groups
(SIGs) 2018–19, Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire: Association for
Project Management, Jan. 2019, p. 7 
Aims of the APM Benefits Management SIG

64. ◼ Source:
Network Rail
(2013), Long
Term Planning
Process:
Regional
Urban Market
Study, London:
Network Rail,
Oct. 2013, p.
40 
Exogenous growth (regional)

65. ◼ Source: WSP (for North Yorkshire County Council) (2018), Harrogate Line
Enhancement Economic Case: Local Growth Fund Business Case,
Leeds: WSP, 23rd March 2018, Version 2.1, p. 1 
Harrogate Line Enhancement (1)

66. ◼ Source: WSP (for North Yorkshire County Council) (2018), Harrogate Line
Enhancement Economic Case: Local Growth Fund Business Case,
Leeds: WSP, 23rd March 2018, Version 2.1, p. 7 
Harrogate Line Enhancement (2)

67. ◼ Source: WSP (for North Yorkshire County Council) (2018), Harrogate Line
Enhancement Economic Case: Local Growth Fund Business Case,
Leeds: WSP, 23rd March 2018, Version 2.1, p. 7 
Harrogate Line Enhancement (3)

68. ◼ Source: Oxera (2011), Review of the Government’s Case for a High
Speed Rail Programme: Prepared for the Transport Select Committee,
Oxford: Oxera, 20th June 2011, p. 24 
Sensitivity
analysis in
business
cases

69. ◼ Source: Dick Beardsall (2005), Integrated Management of Risk and Value,
West Hill, Devon: Strategic Value, Jan. 2005, p. 23
Uncertain benefit to cost ratios