Usefulness of comparisons using all objects in each year
| Comparison for different strategy sets … | Allows … | Example | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | … Of the total costs/risks | … General statements of which is better | Although the total costs/risks of strategy set 2 are lower than the total costs/risks of strategy set 1 over the entire period, they are substantially higher in year 1 (€176 × 106 against €78 × 106). The costs/risks from years 2 to 40 are, however, reversed (<€20 × 106/year against <€60 × 106/year) (Figure 5) |
| 6 | … Of the costs/risks per stakeholder | … Statements as to how each stakeholder is affected and enables discussions about trade-offs between stakeholders | The owner should be willing to pay more on preventive interventions than the lowest amount in year 1 – that is, €50 × 106 when following strategy set 1 against €82 × 106 when following strategy set 2 for interventions in year 1 (Figure 5) – so that there are reduced user risks over the entire time period (€75 × 106 against €50 × 106 (Table 20)) |
| 7 | … Of the costs/risks per period of time | … Statements as to how each stakeholder is affected and enables discussions about trade-offs between the frequency and extent of interventions of different types | The owner should be willing to pay more on preventive interventions than the lowest amount in year 1 – that is, €50 × 106 when following strategy set 1 against €82 × 106 when following strategy set 2 for interventions in year 1 (Figure 5) – so that costs of corrective interventions – that is, intervention risk is lower over the entire time period (€151 × 106 against €75 × 106 (Table 20) |
| 8 | … Of the costs/risks per object type that causes them | … Statements as to where efforts should be focused to reduced costs | The largest sources of costs/risks in year 1 are tracks (€103 × 106 and €51 × 106 if strategy sets 1 and 2 are followed) and earthworks (€79 × 106 if strategy set 1 is followed and €16 × 106 if strategy set 2 is followed) (Table 21) |
| Comparison for different strategy sets … | Allows … | Example | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | … Of the total costs/risks | … General statements of which is better | Although the total costs/risks of strategy set 2 are lower than the total costs/risks of strategy set 1 over the entire period, they are substantially higher in year 1 (€176 × 106 against €78 × 106). The costs/risks from years 2 to 40 are, however, reversed (<€20 × 106/year against <€60 × 106/year) ( |
| 6 | … Of the costs/risks per stakeholder | … Statements as to how each stakeholder is affected and enables discussions about trade-offs between stakeholders | The owner should be willing to pay more on preventive interventions than the lowest amount in year 1 – that is, €50 × 106 when following strategy set 1 against €82 × 106 when following strategy set 2 for interventions in year 1 ( |
| 7 | … Of the costs/risks per period of time | … Statements as to how each stakeholder is affected and enables discussions about trade-offs between the frequency and extent of interventions of different types | The owner should be willing to pay more on preventive interventions than the lowest amount in year 1 – that is, €50 × 106 when following strategy set 1 against €82 × 106 when following strategy set 2 for interventions in year 1 ( |
| 8 | … Of the costs/risks per object type that causes them | … Statements as to where efforts should be focused to reduced costs | The largest sources of costs/risks in year 1 are tracks (€103 × 106 and €51 × 106 if strategy sets 1 and 2 are followed) and earthworks (€79 × 106 if strategy set 1 is followed and €16 × 106 if strategy set 2 is followed) ( |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.