Cost-Benefit Analysis of pipeline transport in the Antwerp – Ruhr region

Abstract

The Flemish government is in pursuit of reaching their mobility and environment goals for 2040 and onwards. Therefore, the Flemish government sees building pipeline infrastructure as an option for transport of liquid bulk goods in the Antwerp – Ruhr trajectory. Pipeline transport is considered as an environmental friendly transport mode, which also offers opportunities to relief the stress on the Flemish transport infrastructure. At present, several pipeline systems operate in this region, though (chemical) companies in Flanders and the Ruhr region request for additional pipelines and capacity. As of 2016 the Flemish government is researching the need and opportunities for additional pipeline infrastructure.
This research contains a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for assessing the potential gains of new pipeline infrastructure for liquid bulk goods in Flanders. Two types of CBAs are carried out, a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) and a financial cost-benefit analysis (FCBA). In the SCBA effects of the project are estimated that have an influence on society, this includes climate change costs, air pollution, but also safety and the loss of space due to the potential pipeline infrastructure. The FCBA addresses the financial viability of the pipeline project, including the investments costs of the project and operational costs among other project effects.
In order to estimate several effects, such as the external effects of transport, the research developed an aggregate mode choice model with limited transport data. Mode choice models can be a tool to support substantiation of the estimated effects in the cost-benefit analysis. The objective is to develop a mode choice model that provides sufficient accuracy to estimate the effects of a cost-benefit analysis, with the limited amount of data and information at hand.
The conducted SCBA concluded that pipeline transport can offer considerable reductions in terms of external effects of transport, which is beneficial for society. Still, there is an important social trade-off between the gains in terms of the reductions in external effects of transport and the effect of the pipeline infrastructure on nature and people. Furthermore, the FCBA shows multiple scenarios in which a competitive transport tariff can be offered to persuade a shift towards to pipeline transport.
However, there is uncertainty to what extent a modal shift to pipeline transport will take place. The followed approach to estimate a mode choice model with limited aggregate data and even missing data can be suitable for exploratory research, still the required assumptions and missing data make the results of the mode choice model prone to under or overestimation of the modal shift. Therefore the main conclusion is that pipeline transport is a potential alternative, however more information and data is required to conclude that the pipeline infrastructure is a cost-efficient option, which is also the foremost recommendation.