Exploring international variation in cost-benefit analysis: guidelines for urban rail project evaluation: impact on project outcomes

This paper compares urban rail cost benefit analysis (CBA) in 12 countries to understand differences, implications for evaluation outcomes and to highlight possible CBA improvements. The study motivation is to improve methods by understanding variations in approach and their implications. All countries adopt multi-criteria analysis and capital/ operating/ maintenance costs, some include asset residual value. Monetised benefits vary; travel time savings (TTS) are common primary benefits, Japan doesn't include congestion relief. Several countries also capture TTS to trucks, pedestrians and cyclists. Accident cost savings (ACC) are common, however unit accident costs vary. For secondary benefits, all except Hong Kong/Singapore include environmental externalities. Social discount rates (SDR), assessment period and decision criteria vary. Most SDR uses the marginal rate of return on private-sector investment (yielding SDR of 6 - 10 per cent). To illustrate implications, a case study adopted approaches with varied outcomes. Only Australian, US, UK and the Netherlands had positive benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) (1.00 to 2.61). TTS/congestion relief are major benefits (50-60 and 40-50 per cent of all benefits). ACC, environmental externalities and option value (OV) benefits weren't significant. Agglomeration benefits substantially increase project benefits.

Language

  • English

Media Info

  • Pagination: 18p
  • Monograph Title: TRB 90th Annual Meeting: January 23-27, 2011, Washington, DC: compendium of papers

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 01380771
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: ARRB
  • Report/Paper Numbers: 11-0735
  • Files: ATRI
  • Created Date: Aug 22 2012 11:14AM