The Dubious Status of Formal Project Evaluation Procedures

  • Joseph Berechman
Chapter

Abstract

For the last several decades developed countries have adopted and utilized formal transportation project evaluation schemes whose objective is to “provide an assessment of whether a proposal is worthwhile, and clearly communicate conclusions and recommendations” (UK, Green Book 2011). Such project evaluation procedures set the rationale for government intervention, define a project’s objectives and alternatives, and examine the direct transportation-economic costs and benefits for each option. Within this framework, Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is the key analytical component because it is meant to appraise the net economic value of each alternative’s direct transportation benefits, given the required resources, in a way that treats all projects equally and unambiguously (Vickerman 2000). The end result of this process should be prioritization of the suggested options, based on welfare-economic foundations. Other evaluation approaches, such as the UK’s New Approach To Appraisal (NATA), require application of supplementary techniques, in addition to CBA, for the purpose of examining and weighing indirect costs and benefits—economic development, community cohesion and equity, to name just a few.

References

  1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2010. A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus Transit Improvements. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.Google Scholar
  2. Berechman, J. 2009. The Evaluation of Transportation Investment Projects. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Boiteux, M. 2000. Transports: choix des investissements et prise en compte des nuisances. Commissariat General du Plan, Paris: La Documentation Francaise.Google Scholar
  4. EURET. 1994. Cost Benefit and Multi-criteria Analysis for New Road Construction: Final Report. Report to the Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General for Transport, Doc. EURET/385/94, Brussels: EURET.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2001. Transport RTD Programme Homepage. Transport RTD Programme. http://cordis.europa.eu/transport/.
  6. FHWA. 2013. Appendix A: Traffic Analysis Tools by Category. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/.
  7. Flyvbjerg, B., M.K.S. Holm, and S.L. Buhl. 2003. How Common and How Large Are Cost Overruns in Transport Infrastructure Projects? Transport Reviews 23: 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harberger, A. 1978. On the Use of Distributional Weights in Social Cost-Benefit Analysis. Journal of Political Economy 86 (2): 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hayashi, Y., and H. Morisugi. 2000. International Comparison of Background Concept and Methodology of Transportation Project Appraisal. Transport Policy 7: 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. HM Treasury. 2011. The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: The Crown. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent.
  11. Lee, D.B. 2000. Methods for Evaluation of Transportation Projects in the USA. Transport Reviews 7: 41–50.Google Scholar
  12. Lyons, G., and J. Urry. 2005. Travel Time Use in the Information Age. Transportation Research A 39: 257–276.Google Scholar
  13. Mokhtarian, P., and I. Salomon. 2001. How Derived Is the Demand for Travel? Some Conceptual and Measurement Considerations. Transportation Research A 35: 695–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nobbe, P., and J. Berechman. 2014a. The Politics of Infrastructure Investment Decision-Making: Report of the Statistical Analysis of Selected Hypotheses. University Transportation Research Center Region 2, CCNY, CUNY, Final Report.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2014b. A Technical Report. New York: University Transportation Research Center Region 2, the City College of New York.Google Scholar
  16. Ozbay, K., B. Bartin, and J. Berechman. 2001. Estimation and Evaluation of Full Marginal Costs of Highway Transportation in New Jersey. Journal of Transportation and Statistics 4 (1): 81–104.Google Scholar
  17. Quinet, E., and R. Vickerman. 2004. Principles of Transport Economics. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Rockefeller Foundation and the Pew Center on the States, Lack of Performance Measures to Assess “Success” or “Failure” of Projects Ex Ante and Ex Post, 2011. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=85899358927.
  19. Small, K., and E. Verhoef. 2007. The Economics of Urban Transportation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. US Department of Transportation (DOT). 2001. The Value of Travel Time: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. Venables, A.J., and M. Gasiorek. 1999. The Welfare Implications of Transport Improvements in the Presence of Market Failure, Report to Standing Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA). London: Department of Environment, Transport and Regions.Google Scholar
  22. Vickerman, R. 2000. Evaluation Methodologies for Transport Projects in the United Kingdom. Transport Policy 7: 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Berechman
    • 1
  1. 1.City College of New YorkUniversity of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations