Cost Benefit Analysis to assess urban mobility plans. Consumers’ surplus calculation and integration with transport models.

Beria, Paolo and Grimaldi, Raffaele (2014): Cost Benefit Analysis to assess urban mobility plans. Consumers’ surplus calculation and integration with transport models.

Abstract

Transport mobility plans, especially at the urban scale, are commonly produced by administrations. However, the decisions involved are often taken on a qualitative basis or, at best, by setting some indicators and verifying how much a plan or a scenario reaches the politically decided targets (e.g. “increasing by 10% the use of bike”). However, given that decisions on plans involve relevant public investments and may also determine radical changes in users’ costs, a more quantitative and comprehensive approach to the evaluation is needed. Cost Benefit Analysis is the tool commonly used to assess public expenditure, but its application to mobility plans introduces further practical and theoretical complexity. The aim of the paper is to discuss how CBA can be used to assess complex and multi-modal mobility plans (involving for example both infrastructural investments and lighter sustainable mobility policies). Firstly we will discuss which are the complexities involved by plan assessments vs. infrastructure assessments. Secondly, we will revise the available approaches, namely the Generalised Costs comparison approach, the Rule of Half and the logsum functions for the perfect integration between CBA and transport models. Thirdly, we will comment the main advantages and problems of the last approach, namely, the logsum, clarifying why it is the most suitable for the assessment of plans made of a broad range of policies and actions. Finally, we will outline an ongoing application for the assessment of the SUMP (Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan) of Milan’s municipality.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: cost benefit analysis; transport planning; transport models; rule of half; logsum; Milan; Italy
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D61 - Allocative Efficiency ; Cost-Benefit Analysis; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R4 - Transportation Economics > R42 - Government and Private Investment Analysis ; Road Maintenance ; Transportation Planning; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R4 - Transportation Economics > R48 - Government Pricing and Policy

References

Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport policy, 15(2), 73-80.

Beria P., Maltese I., Mariotti I. (2012). Multicriteria versus Cost Benefit Analysis: a comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. European Transport Research Review. No. 4 (2012): 137-152. DOI: 10.1007/s12544-012-0074-9

Bonnafous, A., & Jensen, P. (2005). Ranking transport projects by their socioeconomic value or financial internal rate of return?. Transport policy 12(2), 131-136.

Cascetta E. (1998). Teoria e Metodi della ingegneria dei sistemi di trasporto. UTET, Torino (Italy).

Castiglione, J., Freedman, J., Davidson, W., (2003). Application of a tour-based microsimulation model to a major transit investment. San Francisco County Transportation Authority and PBConsult, San Francisco.

De Jong, G., Daly, A., Pieters, M., & Van der Hoorn, T. (2007). The logsum as an evaluation measure: review of the literature and new results. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(9), 874-889.

De Jong, G., Pieters, M., Daly, A., Graafland, I., Kroes, E., & Koopmans, C. (2005). Using the Logsum as an Evaluation Measure. Literature and Case Study. RAND Europe Working Paper. Prepared for AVV Transport Research Centre. Leiden, The Netherlands.

DfT (2014). Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG). An Overview of Transport Appraisal. Department for Transport, UK.

DG Regio (2008). Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of investment projects. Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and Instrument for Pre-Accession. Directorate General Regional Policy. European Commission.

EC (2013). Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility. COM(2013) 913 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, Belgium.

Eddington R. (2006), The Eddington transport study, HM Treasury, London (UK).

Eltis (2013). Developing and implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. Guidelines. Prepared for the European Commission - Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport. Brussels, Belgium.

Grimaldi, R., & Beria, P. (2013). Open issues in the practice of cost benefit analysis of transport projects. General Proceedings of the 13rd World Conference on Transport Research.

Maffii S. & Parolin R., (2013). Estimating benefits for modal shifters: a methodological remark. Selected Proceedings of the 13rd World Conference on Transport Research.

Maffii, S., Parolin, R., Brambilla, M. & Scatamacchia, R. (2012). TRACECA Appraisal Manual. Guidelines for Pre-Feasibility of Transport Projects with Exercises and Case Studies. A project implemented by TRT Trasporti e Territorio in association with Alfen Consult, Dornier Consulting and PTV, for the TRACECA IDEA project.

Nellthorp, J., & Hyman, G. (2001). Alternatives to the rule of a half in matrix-based appraisal. In: Proceedings of the AET European Transport Conference, 10-12 September 2001, Cambridge, UK.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economics of the public sector. Third Edition. W. W. Norton & Company.