Comparing the Output of Cost Benefit and Multi Criteria Analysis when Applied to Urban Transport Investments

The aim of this work is to compare the outcome associated with the classical Cost Benefit Analysis and a Multi Criteria assessment for a transport project, when considering some aspects that were not taken into account when the economic valuation was carried out. The Multi Criteria method applied in this case was based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Two methods were used to derive the weights needed for the AHP: the pair-wise comparison and an approach based on utility functions combined with the Stated Preference technique. Different levels of information about the project were provided to people. Results show that people were indeed sensitive to the information provided about the project. No major differences were obtained when using alternative methods to derive the weights. The outcome of the Multi Criteria method did not match the suggested one by the Cost Benefit analysis, but it did match the final decision by the authority. An important conclusion has to do with the fact that decision-making process needs to incorporate formally other aspects into the assessment, apart from the economic ones. Furthermore, public opinion should be taken into account explicitly into the decision making, particularly when information regarding projects that will affect them can be provided accurately and timely.