CBA § Darwin: The Case of Transport Infrastructure in France

CBA has a long history in the field of transport projects. Still, its methodologies have been developed in a rather simple context which is now much more complex: is CBA still adapted to this context? CBA is now asked by decision makers not only to represent monetary flows and time savings, but also economic effects, social and distributive concerns, land use, climate change, and wider effects. It has to be implemented in a framework where private sector is involved and numerous entities are involved in project financing. Another strong evolution is that CBA has to interact more with public communication processes, and to take into account new types of governance. Adopting a Darwinian point of view, we consider the evolutions of CBA's environment, its resources and past adaptations. Then we pay attention to the potential competitors of CBA in this new environment. This analytical part is illustrated using several recent examples of new assessment questions and answers considered in France, at different scales: a great transport infrastructure scheme for the Parisian region, and the French national transportation infrastructure plan. They present more concretely how the new evaluative questions take form, and the kind of answers that have been found (or still have to be found). Building partly on the on-going evolution of the evaluation system in France, some ideas on the axes of adaptation of CBA will be presented in the last part of the paper, covering not only CBA's technical performance but also CBA's governance and integration in a more comprehensive assessment system.

[1]  Michel Mouchart,et al.  A Comparison of Conjoint, Multi-criteria, Conditional Logit and Neural Network Analyses for Rank-ordered Preference Data , 2008 .

[2]  B. Flyvbjerg Survival of the Unfittest: Why the Worst Infrastructure Gets Built-And What We Can Do About it , 2009, 1303.6571.

[3]  Stef Proost,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transport Investments in Distorted Economies , 2008 .

[4]  Roger Vickerman,et al.  Recent Evolution of Research into the Wider Economic Benefits of Transport Infrastructure Investments , 2007 .

[5]  Emile Quinet,et al.  Applications of transport economics and imperfect competition , 2012 .

[6]  J. Bröcker,et al.  General Equilibrium Models for Transportation Economics , 2011 .

[7]  Jacques-François Thisse,et al.  Agglomeration and Trade Revisited , 2002, World Scientific Studies in International Economics.

[8]  D. Graham Agglomeration, Productivity and Transport Investment , 2007 .

[9]  Michael Wegener Transport in Spatial Models of Economic Development , 2011 .

[10]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Valuation of Travel Time Savings , 2011 .

[11]  Marcial Echenique Econometric Models of Land Use and Transportation , 2004 .

[12]  Peter Mackie,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport , 2010 .

[13]  Emile Quinet,et al.  The Practice of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: The Case of France , 2010 .

[14]  A. Venables Evaluating Urban Transport Improvements: Cost-Benefit Analysis in the Presence of Agglomeration and Income Taxation , 2004 .

[15]  Itf Improving the Practice of Cost Benefit Analysis in Transport , 2011 .