Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The impact of travel costs and economic growth on cost-benefit analysis rankings
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Centres, Centre for Transport Studies, CTS. KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Transport Science, System Analysis and Economics.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Centres, Centre for Transport Studies, CTS. KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Transport Science, Transport and Location Analysis.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Centres, Centre for Transport Studies, CTS.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9235-0232
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Centres, Centre for Transport Studies, CTS. KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Transport Science, Transport and Location Analysis.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8901-5978
2012 (English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The use of Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as a tool for selecting transport investments is often questioned. It is not unusual that politicians or others in the public debate argue that the outcome of a CBA completely rely on assumptions concerning a particular input factor, such as valuation of CO2 emissions or future fuel price. This paper explores whether the relative ranking of CBA outcomes are robust with respect to some key inputs in transport demand analysis driving cost, public transport fare and economic growth. We study six different infrastructure objects (three road and three rail objects) and four alternative assumptions on input factors compared to a reference scenario.

The findings suggest that single input factors in a CBA, individually have a small impact on the ranking of the studied investments. In our model calculations we observe no change in rank between a road and a rail object.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. , 18 p.
National Category
Transport Systems and Logistics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-115988OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-115988DiVA: diva2:588569
Funder
TrenOp, Transport Research Environment with Novel Perspectives
Note

QC 20150114

Available from: 2013-01-15 Created: 2013-01-15 Last updated: 2016-06-13Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Three essays on transport CBA uncertainty
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Three essays on transport CBA uncertainty
2015 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) has for a long time been used in transport planning, but it is often questioned. One main argument against CBA is that the results depend largely on assumptions regarding one or a few input factors, as for example the future fuel price or valuation of CO2 emissions.

The three papers included in this thesis investigate some aspects of uncertainty in transport CBA calculations. The two first papers explore how changes in input data assumptions affect the CBA ranking of six rail and road investments in Stockholm. The first paper deals with the effect of different land-use assumptions while the second deals with the influence of economic growth, driving cost and public transport fare. The third paper investigates how alternative formulations of the public transport mode choice and route choice affect travel flows, ticket revenues and consumer surplus. These are important factors previously known to affect CBA results.

The findings of the first two papers suggest that CBA results are robust concerning different land-use scenarios and single input factors. No change in rank between a road and a rail object is observed in the performed model calculations, and only one change between two road objects. The fact that CBA results seem robust regarding input assumptions supports the use CBA as a tool for selecting transport investments. The results in the third paper indicate that if there is detailed interest in, for example, number of boardings and ticket income from a certain transit line, or the total benefit of a price change, a more detailed formulation of the public transport mode choice and route choice will provide more reliable results. On the other hand, this formulation requires substantially more data on the transit line and price structure than the conventional formulation used in Swedish transport planning, especially in areas with many different pricing systems.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2015. 21 p.
Series
TRITA-TSC-LIC, ISSN 1653-445X ; 15-001
Keyword
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Transport planning, Land-use planning
National Category
Transport Systems and Logistics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-163355 (URN)978-91-87353-69-7 (ISBN)
Presentation
2015-05-08, Sal L31, Drottning Kristinas Väg 30, Stockholm, 10:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

QC 20150414

Available from: 2015-04-14 Created: 2015-03-31 Last updated: 2015-04-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Authority records BETA

Börjesson, MariaJonsson, Daniel

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Almström, PeterBerglund, SvanteBörjesson, MariaJonsson, Daniel
By organisation
Centre for Transport Studies, CTSSystem Analysis and EconomicsTransport and Location Analysis
Transport Systems and Logistics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 137 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf