Table 2 Major types of uncertainty...

Table 2

Major types of uncertainty arguments mobilized by public and private actors and affecting the initiation of the tunnel megaproject

Type of uncertainty	Topic	Public decision-maker		Private developer		Combined effect on perceived feasibility
Type of uncertainty	Topic	Threat arguments	Opportunity arguments	Threat arguments	Opportunity arguments	Combined effect on perceived feasibility
Variability in estimates	Demand	Overly optimistic traffic forecasts			Realistic traffic forecasts	Negative, demand and the timescale significant
	Demand	Overly optimistic traffic forecasts			Additional GDP growth
	Timescale	Unrealistic opening date			The realistic date if all parties are quick and efficient
	Costs	Lack of clarity about the amount of costs			Costs remain to be specified in further stages
Basis of estimates	Demand	Earlier government-ordered studies predicted less traffic			Increased tourism, linked airports, new inhabitants and boosted regional potential	Negative, demand and costs significant
		Lack of clarity about links to Rail Baltica			The link to Rail Baltica value-adding; and not a prerequisite for forecasts
		Linking a major prerequisite for the project
	Timescale	Requirements of laws challenged by the developer			Expert opinions in support of the shorter timescale
	Costs	General breakdown without sufficient details			Breakdown sufficiently detailed for the given purpose
Project design and logistics	Railway track/main infrastructure	Lack of clarity about the rail gauge in the tunnel			1,435-mm rails, 1,524-mm rails or both possible Open to (hyper)loop	Negative and moderate
	Railway track/main infrastructure	1,435-mm rails as a major prerequisite for the project
	Order of proceedings	Typical order of (superficies license) decision-making challenged by the developer		Slow decision-making hinders opening Superficies license advanced in parallel with the NDSP process
	Groundwater	Risk of devastating impacts on drinking water during construction			Environmental impact analyses conducted in further stages
	Artificial island/support infrastructure	Lack of clarity about the purpose of the island and deep-water harbour			Mooring facility only Potential use for public tasks of national importance
Objectives and priorities	Climate and nature	Unknown influence on the achievement of national climate goals			Impacts of the project included in the EIA programme(s)	Negative, the timescale and inter-governmental cooperation significant
	Timescale	Developers’ refusal to adjust the initial opening date			Tight time schedule adds efficiency and avoids budget overspending
	Inter-governmental cooperation	Lack of clarity about the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the Finnish and Estonian governments. Major prerequisite for the project			Conclusions of the FinEst Link project. Significant (inter)national interests
Relationship between the project parties	Safety and security of infrastructures	Lack of specific rescue capabilities. Unexpected costs for government			Cost coverage by the developer. Different types of guarantees available	Negative, financing agreements and business plan significant
	Public or non-public railways/service	Lack of clarity about the envisaged nature of the planned railways			Irrespective of the legal definition, high safety and security standards ensured
	Acquisition and operation of trains	Lack of clarity about the purchaser, operator and costs of trains			Different options. Remains to be specified in further stages
	Financing agreements and business plan	Developer's refusal to share the documents. Lack of clarity about the financing conditions and risks		Sharing unnecessary. Revealing business secrets hinders the realization of the project. Public money and guarantees not needed. IRR positive
	Ownership	37.5% owned by China's Touchstone Capital Partners (TCP). Ambiguity of intentions and lack of clarity about (control) rights			China's TCP as a minority shareholder. European investors, Nordic pension funds. Public listing of shares

Type of uncertainty	Topic	Public decision-maker		Private developer		Combined effect on perceived feasibility
Type of uncertainty	Topic	Threat arguments	Opportunity arguments	Threat arguments	Opportunity arguments	Combined effect on perceived feasibility
Variability in estimates	Demand	Overly optimistic traffic forecasts			Realistic traffic forecasts	Negative, demand and the timescale significant
	Demand	Overly optimistic traffic forecasts			Additional GDP growth
	Timescale	Unrealistic opening date			The realistic date if all parties are quick and efficient
	Costs	Lack of clarity about the amount of costs			Costs remain to be specified in further stages
Basis of estimates	Demand	Earlier government-ordered studies predicted less traffic			Increased tourism, linked airports, new inhabitants and boosted regional potential	Negative, demand and costs significant
		Lack of clarity about links to Rail Baltica			The link to Rail Baltica value-adding; and not a prerequisite for forecasts
		Linking a major prerequisite for the project
	Timescale	Requirements of laws challenged by the developer			Expert opinions in support of the shorter timescale
	Costs	General breakdown without sufficient details			Breakdown sufficiently detailed for the given purpose
Project design and logistics	Railway track/main infrastructure	Lack of clarity about the rail gauge in the tunnel			1,435-mm rails, 1,524-mm rails or both possible Open to (hyper)loop	Negative and moderate
	Railway track/main infrastructure	1,435-mm rails as a major prerequisite for the project
	Order of proceedings	Typical order of (superficies license) decision-making challenged by the developer		Slow decision-making hinders opening Superficies license advanced in parallel with the NDSP process
	Groundwater	Risk of devastating impacts on drinking water during construction			Environmental impact analyses conducted in further stages
	Artificial island/support infrastructure	Lack of clarity about the purpose of the island and deep-water harbour			Mooring facility only Potential use for public tasks of national importance
Objectives and priorities	Climate and nature	Unknown influence on the achievement of national climate goals			Impacts of the project included in the EIA programme(s)	Negative, the timescale and inter-governmental cooperation significant
	Timescale	Developers’ refusal to adjust the initial opening date			Tight time schedule adds efficiency and avoids budget overspending
	Inter-governmental cooperation	Lack of clarity about the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the Finnish and Estonian governments. Major prerequisite for the project			Conclusions of the FinEst Link project. Significant (inter)national interests
Relationship between the project parties	Safety and security of infrastructures	Lack of specific rescue capabilities. Unexpected costs for government			Cost coverage by the developer. Different types of guarantees available	Negative, financing agreements and business plan significant
	Public or non-public railways/service	Lack of clarity about the envisaged nature of the planned railways			Irrespective of the legal definition, high safety and security standards ensured
	Acquisition and operation of trains	Lack of clarity about the purchaser, operator and costs of trains			Different options. Remains to be specified in further stages
	Financing agreements and business plan	Developer's refusal to share the documents. Lack of clarity about the financing conditions and risks		Sharing unnecessary. Revealing business secrets hinders the realization of the project. Public money and guarantees not needed. IRR positive
	Ownership	37.5% owned by China's Touchstone Capital Partners (TCP). Ambiguity of intentions and lack of clarity about (control) rights			China's TCP as a minority shareholder. European investors, Nordic pension funds. Public listing of shares

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable