IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/59590.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Beria, Paolo
  • Grimaldi, Raffaele

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Beria, Paolo & Grimaldi, Raffaele, 2014. "Cost Benefit Analysis to assess urban mobility plans. Consumers’ surplus calculation and integration with transport models," MPRA Paper 59590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:59590
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/59590/1/MPRA_paper_59590.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alain Bonnafous & Pablo Jensen, 2005. "Ranking Transport Projects by their Socioeconomic Value or Financial Interest rate of return?," Post-Print halshs-00079721, HAL.
    2. de Jong, Gerard & Daly, Andrew & Pieters, Marits & van der Hoorn, Toon, 2007. "The logsum as an evaluation measure: Review of the literature and new results," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 874-889, November.
    3. Grimaldi, Raffaele & Beria, Paolo, 2013. "Open issues in the practice of cost benefit analysis of transport projects," MPRA Paper 53766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Bonnafous, Alain & Jensen, Pablo, 2005. "Ranking transport projects by their socioeconomic value or financial internal rate of return?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 131-136, March.
    5. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Musso, Enrico & Ferrari, Claudio & Benacchio, Marco, 2006. "Port Investment: Profitability, Economic Impact and Financing," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 171-218, January.
    2. Bernard Lapeyre & Emile Quinet, 2017. "A Simple GDP-based Model for Public Investments at Risk," Post-Print hal-01666574, HAL.
    3. Valentin Bertsch & Valeria Di Cosmo, 2018. "Are Renewables Profitable in 2030? A Comparison between Wind and Solar across Europe," Working Papers 2018.28, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    4. Acharya, Bikram & Lee, Jongsu & Moon, HyungBin, 2022. "Preference heterogeneity of local government for implementing ICT infrastructure and services through public-private partnership mechanism," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Bonnafous, Alain, 2015. "The economic regulation of French highways: Just how private did they become?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 33-41.
    6. Mishra, Sabyasachee & Khasnabis, Snehamay & Dhingra, Sunder Lall, 2013. "A simulation approach for estimating value at risk in transportation infrastructure investment decisions," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 128-138.
    7. Mandic, Dragomir & Jovanovic, Predrag & Bugarinovic, Mirjana, 2014. "Two-phase model for multi-criteria project ranking: Serbian Railways case study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 88-104.
    8. Saujot, Mathieu & Lefèvre, Benoit, 2016. "The next generation of urban MACCs. Reassessing the cost-effectiveness of urban mitigation options by integrating a systemic approach and social costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 124-138.
    9. Busscher, Tim & Tillema, Taede & Arts, Jos, 2015. "In search of sustainable road infrastructure planning: How can we build on historical policy shifts?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 42-51.
    10. van Wee, Bert & Bohte, Wendy & Molin, Eric & Arentze, Theo & Liao, Feixiong, 2014. "Policies for synchronization in the transport–land-use system," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-9.
    11. Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel, 2013. "Classifying transport studies using three dimensions of society: market structure, sustainability and decision making," Chapters, in: Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel (ed.), Smart Transport Networks, chapter 1, pages 1-8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Tornberg, Patrik & Odhage, John, 2018. "Making transport planning more collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish transport planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 416-429.
    13. Tammaru, Tiit & Sevtsuk, Andres & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Towards an equity-centred model of sustainable mobility: Integrating inequality and segregation challenges in the green mobility transition," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Idiano D'Adamo & Massimo Gastaldi & Ilhan Ozturk, 2023. "The sustainable development of mobility in the green transition: Renewable energy, local industrial chain, and battery recycling," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 840-852, April.
    15. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Hernan A. Ortiz-Ramirez, 2021. "Understanding Green Street Design: Evidence from Three Cases in the U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Gössling, Stefan, 2016. "Urban transport justice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Cavoli, Clemence, 2021. "Accelerating sustainable mobility and land-use transitions in rapidly growing cities: Identifying common patterns and enabling factors," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Allard, Ryan F. & Moura, Filipe, 2018. "Effect of transport transfer quality on intercity passenger mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 89-107.
    19. Romanika Okraszewska & Aleksandra Romanowska & Marcin Wołek & Jacek Oskarbski & Krystian Birr & Kazimierz Jamroz, 2018. "Integration of a Multilevel Transport System Model into Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    20. Combs, Tabitha S., 2017. "Examining changes in travel patterns among lower wealth households after BRT investment in Bogotá, Colombia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 11-20.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cost benefit analysis; transport planning; transport models; rule of half; logsum; Milan; Italy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • R42 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government and Private Investment Analysis; Road Maintenance; Transportation Planning
    • R48 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government Pricing and Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:59590. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.