Developing a life-cycle costing analysis model for sustainability enhancement in road infrastructure project

With increasing pressure to provide environmentally responsible infrastructure products and services, stakeholders are putting significant foci on the early identification of financial viability and outcome of infrastructure projects. Traditionally, there has been an imbalance between sustainable measures and project budget. On one hand, the industry tends to employ the first-cost mentality and approach to developing infrastructure projects. On the other, environmental experts and technology innovators often push for the ultimately green products and systems without much of a concern for cost. This situation is being quickly changed as the industry is under pressure to continue to return profit, while better adapting to current and emerging global issues of sustainability. For the infrastructure sector to contribute to sustainable development, it will need to increase value and efficiency. Thus, there is a great need for tools that will enable decision makers evaluate competing initiatives and identify the most sustainable approaches to procuring infrastructure projects. In order to ensure that these objectives are achieved, the concept of life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA) will play significant roles in the economics of an infrastructure project. Recently, a few research initiatives have applied the LCCA models for road infrastructure that focused on the traditional economics of a project. There is little coverage of life-cycle costing as a method to evaluate the criteria and assess the economic implications of pursuing sustainability in road infrastructure projects. To rectify this problem, this paper reviews the theoretical basis of previous LCCA models before discussing their inability to determinate the sustainability indicators in road infrastructure project. It then introduces an on-going research aimed at developing a new model to integrate the various new cost elements based on the sustainability indicators with the traditional and proven LCCA approach. It is expected that the research will generate a working model for sustainability based life-cycle cost analysis.

A process for the management of physical infrastructure

Physical infrastructure assets are important components of our society and our economy. They are usually designed to last for many years, are expected to be heavily used during their lifetime, carry considerable load, and are exposed to the natural environment. They are also normally major structures, and therefore present a heavy investment, requiring constant management over their life cycle to ensure that they perform as required by their owners and users. Given a complex and varied infrastructure life cycle, constraints on available resources, and continuing requirements for effectiveness and efficiency, good management of infrastructure is important. While there is often no one best management approach, the choice of options is improved by better identification and analysis of the issues, by the ability to prioritise objectives, and by a scientific approach to the analysis process. The abilities to better understand the effect of inputs in the infrastructure life cycle on results, to minimise uncertainty, and to better evaluate the effect of decisions in a complex environment, are important in allocating scarce resources and making sound decisions. Through the development of an infrastructure management modelling and analysis methodology, this thesis provides a process that assists the infrastructure manager in the analysis, prioritisation and decision making process. This is achieved through the use of practical, relatively simple tools, integrated in a modular flexible framework that aims to provide an understanding of the interactions and issues in the infrastructure management process. The methodology uses a combination of flowcharting and analysis techniques. It first charts the infrastructure management process and its underlying infrastructure life cycle through the time interaction diagram, a graphical flowcharting methodology that is an extension of methodologies for modelling data flows in information systems. This process divides the infrastructure management process over time into self contained modules that are based on a particular set of activities, the information flows between which are defined by the interfaces and relationships between them. The modular approach also permits more detailed analysis, or aggregation, as the case may be. It also forms the basis of ext~nding the infrastructure modelling and analysis process to infrastructure networks, through using individual infrastructure assets and their related projects as the basis of the network analysis process. It is recognised that the infrastructure manager is required to meet, and balance, a number of different objectives, and therefore a number of high level outcome goals for the infrastructure management process have been developed, based on common purpose or measurement scales. These goals form the basis of classifYing the larger set of multiple objectives for analysis purposes. A two stage approach that rationalises then weights objectives, using a paired comparison process, ensures that the objectives required to be met are both kept to the minimum number required and are fairly weighted. Qualitative variables are incorporated into the weighting and scoring process, utility functions being proposed where there is risk, or a trade-off situation applies. Variability is considered important in the infrastructure life cycle, the approach used being based on analytical principles but incorporating randomness in variables where required. The modular design of the process permits alternative processes to be used within particular modules, if this is considered a more appropriate way of analysis, provided boundary conditions and requirements for linkages to other modules, are met. Development and use of the methodology has highlighted a number of infrastructure life cycle issues, including data and information aspects, and consequences of change over the life cycle, as well as variability and the other matters discussed above. It has also highlighted the requirement to use judgment where required, and for organisations that own and manage infrastructure to retain intellectual knowledge regarding that infrastructure. It is considered that the methodology discussed in this thesis, which to the author's knowledge has not been developed elsewhere, may be used for the analysis of alternatives, planning, prioritisation of a number of projects, and identification of the principal issues in the infrastructure life cycle.

Formalising a method for modelling critical infrastructure systems

This research delivers a multifaceted methodology that underpins a practical security analysis and system modelling framework applicable to critiquing modern critical infrastructure systems. The intent, to identify potential system security issues and gain operational insights that will contribute to improving system resilience, availability and ameliorate incident management responses for Australian critical infrastructure systems.

Measuring public infrastructure construction impacts on economic growth

The results identify the long-run equilibrium relationships among economic variables in Australia. This study can provide policy makers with information on a one standard error shock to each variable and insights into what percentages of the forecast error variance of a variable are explained by the innovations of each variable.

Financing the future : report of the Commission to Promote Investment in America's Infrastructure.

Cover title.

Assessing the relationship between transportation infrastructure and productivity : summary of current research : part of a highways and economic productivity agenda.

"August 1992."

The utilization of infrastructure in Illinois communities /

Mode of access: Internet.

Public works infrastructure : policy considerations for the 1980s.

Item 1005-C

National infrastructure issues [microform] : hearing before the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation, and Infrastructure of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, first session.

"January 21, 1988"--Pt. 3.

The Federal budget for public works infrastructure.

Mode of access: Internet.

High performance public works : a new federal infrastructure investment strategy for America.

"November 1993."

The status of the Hellgate Railroad Viaduct in New York City : hearing before the Subcommittee on Water Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, second session, May 16, 1990.

Cover title.

Voices of the Poor: Poverty and Growth in Albania

This paper uses three waves of panel surveys at the household level to study growth and poverty in Albania over the period 2002-2004. It attempts to answer two main questions. The first question is directed at finding the micro determinants of growth and aims to expose the obstacles households face to improve their economic situation. The main focus of the analysis is to investigate the importance of health, education, and infrastructure indicators for income growth. The second question asks whether growth in Albania during the period 2002-2004 has been pro-poor. I find that there is some evidence for a convergence of incomes and a pro-poor growth, which has led to a substantial decrease in the number of people living under the poverty line. I also find that infrastructure has not been an important determinant for income mobility, and neither has health. Only the higher education of poor urban households seems to have affected prospects for growing out of poverty, and unexpectedly, the relationship is negative.

Challenging capacity building : comparative perspectives

The focus of most capacity building programs is poor and disadvantaged communities. However, the appropriateness of capacity building for these groups, whether located in "developing" or "developed" countries, is always presented as self-evident. In much of the discussion of "how to" build capacity, critical questions regarding the determination of whose capacities are to be built, the methods by which capacity will be built and the consequences for wider relationships of those whose capacity is being built (and presumably for those whose capacity is being left to be built at another time!) are not investigated. A deeper understanding of the meaning, practice and potential of capacity building is required. This book challenges capacity building by critically interrogating its central ideas and practices. But it also considers the ways in which capacity building itself can challenge disadvantage and inequality, by offering a self-determining way forward for communities.