Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: A process perspective

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 68-78

  Beukers, Els ^a   Bertolini, Luca ^a   Te Brömmelstroet, Marco ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Assessing integrated land use and transportation plans; CBA process issues; Participant perceptions

Indexed keywords

LAND USE;

APPLIED RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL DATA; IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS; INTEGRATED PLANS; PROCESS ISSUES; RESEARCH DESIGNS; TECHNICAL ASPECTS; TRANSPORTATION PLANS;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; INTEGRATED APPROACH; LAND USE PLANNING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PERCEPTION; PLANNING PRACTICE; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 80053442339     PISSN: 09658564     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ackerman F., Heinzerling L. Pricing the priceless. Cost-Benefit Analysis of environmental protection. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2002, 150(5):1553-1584.
2. Amekudzi A.A., Khisty C.J., Khayesi M. Using the sustainability footprint model to assess development impacts of transportation systems. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43:339-348.
3. Annema J.A., Koopmans C., Van Wee B. Evaluating transport infrastructure investments: the Dutch experience with a standardized approach. Transport Reviews 2007, 27(2):125-150.
4. Beukers E., Bertolini L., Te Brömmelstroet M. Knelpunten in Het MKBA-Process 2011, Nicis Institute, Den Haag.
5. Beukers E., Bertolini L., Te Brömmelstroet M. Procesknelpunten MKBA in kaart gebracht. Rooilijn 2011, 11(4):256-261.
6. Brent R.J. Applied Cost-Benefit Analysis 1996, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
7. Bryman A. Social Research Methods 2008, University press, Oxford.
8. De Jong M., Geerlings H. Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2003, 21(4):281-291.
9. Durning D. The transition for traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: a role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1999, 18(3):389-410.
10. ECMT, E.C.o.M.o.T., 2004. Assessment & Decision Making for Sustainable Transport.
11. Eijgenraam C.J.J., Koopmans C.C., Tang P.J.G., Verster A.C.P. Deel I Hoofdrapport. Evaluatie van grote infrastructuurprojecten Leidraad voor kosten-baten analyse. Onderzoeksprogramma economische effecten infrastructuur 2000, Centraal Planbureau en Nederlands Economisch Instituut.
12. Eliasson, J., Lundberg, M., 2010. Do cost-benefit analyses influence transport investment decisions? Experiences from the Swedish transport investment plan, 2010-2021. In: 12th World Conference on Transport Research, Lisbon.
13. Haezendonck E. Transport Project Evaluation, Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach 2007, Edward Elgar Publishing.
14. Handy S.L. Regional transportation planning in the US: an examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals. Transport Policy 2008, 15(2):113-126.
15. Hatzopoulou M., Miller E.J. Transport policy evaluation in metropolitan areas: the role of modelling in decision-making. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43:323-338.
16. Huxley M., Yiftachel O. New paradigm or old myopia? unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2000, 19(4).
17. Lewins A., Silver C. Using Software in Qualitative Research. A Step-by-Step Guide 2007, Sage Publications, Los Angelos.
18. Mackie P. Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: A UK Perspective 2010, International Transport Forum, Mexico.
19. Mackie P., Preston J. Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport appraisal. Transport Policy 1998, 5:1-7.
20. Martinsen J.A., Odeck J., Kjerkreit A. Why Benefit-Cost Analyses Matter Less and How it can be Improved for Decision Making in the Transport Sector-Experiences from the Norwegian National Transport Plan 2010-2019 2010, Association for European Transport and contributors.
21. May A.D., Page M., Hull A. Developing a set of decision-support tools for sustainable urban transport in the UK. Transport Policy 2008, 15:328-340.
22. Meyer, M.D., Miller, E.J., 2000. Urban Transportation Planning. McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math.
23. Ministry of transport and water management and Ministry of housing spatial planning and the environment, 2009. Spelregels van het Meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur, Ruimte en Transport. The Hague: Ministry of transport and water management & Ministry of housing, spatial planning and the environment.
24. Morgan D.L. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research 1997, Sage Publications, California.
25. Naess P. Cost-benefit analyses of transportation investments. Neither critical nor realistic. Journal of Critical Realism 2006, 5(1):32-60.
26. Naess P. The third limfjord crossing: a case of pessimism bias and knowledge filtering. Transport Reviews 2011, 31(2):231-249.
27. Odgaard T., K C., Laird J. Current Practice in Project Appraisal in Europe 2005, Trafikdage Aalborg Universitet.
28. Owens S., Rayner T., Bina O. New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research. Environment and Planning A 2004, 36:1943-1959.
29. Priemus H., Flyvbjerg B., van Wee B. Decision-Making on Mega-Projects, Cost-Benefit Analysis Planning and Innovation 2008, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Glos, UK.
30. Rotaris L., Danielis R., Marcucci E., Massiani J. The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis assessment. Transportation Research Part A 2010, 44:359-375.
31. Sager T., Ravlum I.A. The political relevance of planners' analysis: the case of a parliamentary standing committee. Planning Theory 2005, 4(1):33-65.
32. Salling K.B., Banister D. Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: the CBA-DK model. Transportation Research Part A 2009, 43:800-813.
33. Savelberg F., 't Hoen A., Koopmans C. De schijntegenstelling tussen visie en kosten-batenanalyse 2008, Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid.
34. Ševcíková H., Raftery A.E., Waddell P.A. Uncertain benefits: application of Bayesian melding to the Alaskan way viaduct in Seattle. Transportation Research Part A 2011, 45:540-553.
35. Slocum N. Focusgroep. Participatieve methoden. Een gids voor gebruikers 2006, Vlaams Instituut voor, Brussel.
36. Te Brömmelstroet M. Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport and Land Use 2010, 3(1):25-41.
37. Te Brömmelstroet M., Bertolini L. The role of transport related models in urban planning practice. Transport Reviews 2011, 31(2):139-143.
38. Van Wee, B., Groenendijk, J., Atzema, O., Bakker, J., Bruinsma, F., Van der Cammen, H., Le Clercq, F., Verroen, E., Wessels, W., 2006. Op tijd bewegen, Eindadvies Expertcommissie Netwerkanalyses.
39. Vickerman R. Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom. Transport Policy 2000, 7:7-16.
40. Wachs M. When planners lie with numbers. Journal of the American Planning Association 1989, 55(4).
41. Wee, V.B., 2006. Large Infrastructure Projects: The Quality of Demand Forecasts and Cost Estimations. A Review of Literature. Environment and Planning B.
42. Willson R. Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation Planning and Technology 2001, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1-31.