Evaluating urban railway development projects: an international comparison

This paper compares cost benefit analysis (CBA) approaches to urban rail project evaluation in Australia, the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, France, Japan, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea and Singapore. The key findings on the different aspects of the CBA framework from a strategic viewpoint, as well as the different parameter values adopted, are presented. In each case the analysis presented is based on published evidence. Published evidence can lag behind the practice of evaluation in this field and hence this exercise may not have included the latest development in national CBA applications. This is a limitation which this research has had to accept. In most cases published national guidelines were used to inform about CBA approaches. For Japan, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Republic of Korea and Singapore the guidelines are not published or available for our analysis. In these cases, CBA approaches were derived from research papers or obtained via email correspondence with the relevant authorities. (a) For the covering entry of this conference, please see ITRD abstract no. E217541.

[1]  J. Laird,et al.  Option and non-use values and rail project appraisal , 2009 .

[2]  C. Porter,et al.  Transport Appraisal: Are We Including All the Benefits? , 2007 .

[3]  R. Vickerman.  Provision of public transport under conflicting regulatory regimes , 2007 .

[4]  National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia Introduction to the Guidelines and Framework , 2007 .

[5]  R. Eddington.  The Eddington transport study: the case for action: Sir Rod Eddington's advice to Government , 2006 .

[6]  B. Lloyd,et al.  Update of RUC unit of values to June 2005 , 2006 .

[7]  農林水産奨励会農林水産政策情報センター,et al.  The green book : appraisal and evaluation in central government , 2003 .

[8]  Louise Young,et al.  Determining the Discount Rate for Government Projects , 2002 .

[9]  ECONorthwest,et al.  Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects: A Guidebook for Practitioners , 2002 .

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

[11]  D. B. Lee,et al.  Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA , 2000 .

[12]  Werner Rothengatter.  Evaluation of infrastructure investments in Germany , 2000 .

[13]  Emile Quinet,et al.  Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France , 2000 .

[14]  Cjj Eijgenraam,et al.  EVALUATION OF INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS: GUIDE FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS , 2000 .

[15]  H Nakamura.  The economic evaluation of transport infrastructure: needs for international comparisons , 2000 .

[16]  Yoshihiko Hayashi,et al.  International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal , 2000 .

[17]  H. Morisugi.  Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in Japan , 2000 .

[18]  R. Cervero,et al.  Economic impact analysis of transit investments: Guidebook for practitioners. Final report , 1998 .

[19]  C A Nash.  COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORT PROJECTS. , 1997 .

[20]  Chris Nash.  TRANSPORT EXTERNALITIES: DOES MONETARY VALUATION MAKE SENSE?. , 1997 .

[21]  Chris Nash,et al.  Recent developments in transport economics , 1997 .

[22]  T. Nas.  Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and Application , 1996 .

[23]  A. Boardman,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice , 1996 .

[24]  G Wilson,et al.  GUIDE TO BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS IN TRANSPORT CANADA , 1994 .

[25]  Alan Williams,et al.  Efficiency in the Public Sector: The Theory and Practice of Cost-Benefit Analysis , 1993 .

[26]  I. Little,et al.  Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide@@@Using Shadow Prices , 1978 .

[27]  Muammar Qaddafi,et al.  The Green Book , 1975 .