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

Academic discussions on Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as an appraisal instrument for integrated land use and transportation plans tend to focus on its technical aspects. However, many issues of CBA also arise from process related matters, especially when assessing integrated plans. Using an inductive research design, we explored how these process related issues play out in Dutch planning practices. In two applied research techniques, focus group sessions and open in depth interviews, we focused on process related issues as perceived by CBA participants ranging from plan makers to CBA testers. This article presents the different perceptions of issues in CBA processes. Through these collected perspectives, we found that these issues are multi-layered and present a number of fundamental dilemmas. After relating our empirical data to theory, we conclude that the biggest challenge lies in decreasing the level of mistrust and communication deficits revealed between plan owners and CBA calculators and their respective frames of thinking when assessing complex integrated land use and transportation plans.

[1]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands , 2010 .

[2]  T. Sager,et al.  The Political Relevance of Planners’ Analysis: The Case of a Parliamentary Standing Committee , 2005 .

[3]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Regional transportation planning in the US: An examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals , 2008 .

[4]  J. Elíasson,et al.  Do Cost–Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010–21 , 2012 .

[5]  Petter Næss.  Cost-Benefit Analyses of Transportation Investments: Neither critical nor realistic , 2006 .

[6]  B. Wee.  Large Infrastructure Projects: A Review of the Quality of Demand Forecasts and Cost Estimations , 2007 .

[7]  David Banister,et al.  Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model , 2009 .

[8]  E. Miller,et al.  Transport policy evaluation in metropolitan areas: The role of modelling in decision-making , 2009 .

[9]  Bert Van Wee,et al.  Evaluating Transport Infrastructure Investments: The Dutch Experience with a Standardized Approach , 2007 .

[10]  James Odeck,et al.  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 .

[11]  R. Willson.  Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm , 2001 .

[12]  Elvira Haezendonck,et al.  Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social Cost Benefit Approach , 2008 .

[13]  L. Bertolini,et al.  The Role of Transport‐Related Models in Urban Planning Practice , 2011 .

[14]  Jonas Eliasson,et al.  Do Cost-Benefit Analyses Really Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish National Transport Investment Plan 2010-2021 , 2010 .

[15]  Roger Vickerman,et al.  Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom , 2000 .

[16]  Adrian E. Raftery,et al.  Uncertain benefits: Application of Bayesian melding to the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle , 2011 .

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

[18]  O. Bina,et al.  New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice, and Research , 2004 .

[19]  Meleckidzedeck Khayesi,et al.  Using the sustainability footprint model to assess development impacts of transportation systems , 2009 .

[20]  Angela Hull,et al.  Developing a set of decision-support tools for sustainable urban transport in the UK , 2008 .

[21]  O. Yiftachel,et al.  New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory , 2000 .

[22]  R. Cervero.  TRANSPORT AND LAND USE , 2001 .

[23]  Petter Næss.  The Third Limfjord Crossing: A Case of Pessimism Bias and Knowledge Filtering , 2011 .

[24]  Harry Geerlings,et al.  Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in The Netherlands , 2003 .

[25]  Lisa Heinzerling,et al.  Pricing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection , 2002 .

[26]  A. Bryman.  Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[27]  Dan Durning,et al.  The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis: A role for Q‐methodology , 1999 .

[28]  D. Morgan.  Focus groups for qualitative research. , 1988, Hospital guest relations report.

[29]  John Preston,et al.  Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal , 1998 .

[30]  M. Meyer,et al.  Urban transportation planning , 1984 .

[31]  R. Brent.  Applied Cost-benefit Analysis , 1996 .

[32]  E. Beukers,et al.  Procesknelpunten MKBA in kaart gebracht , 2011 .

[33]  D. Banister,et al.  Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model , 2008, 2008 First International Conference on Infrastructure Systems and Services: Building Networks for a Brighter Future (INFRA).

[34]  Michael Batty,et al.  Environment and Planning B , 1982 .

[35]  E. Beukers,et al.  Knelpunten in het MKBA-proces , 2011 .

[36]  E. Marcucci,et al.  The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis assessment , 2010 .

[37]  L-G Mattsson.  TRANSPORT AND LAND USE , 1993 .

[38]  Ann Lewins,et al.  Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide , 2007 .

[39]  B. Wee,et al.  Decision-making on mega-projects: Cost–benefit analysis, planning, and innovation , 2008 .

[40]  James Laird,et al.  Current Practice in Project Appraisal in Europe , 2005 .