Impacts from transportation measures in national appraisal guidelines: coverage and practices

• Autorzy: Holmen Rasmus Bøgh , Biesinger Benjamin , Hindriks Ivo

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0015.9928

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Transportation appraisal has a potential important role in prioritization of transportation investment projects and other transportation measures. Appraisal practices vary much over countries and time, but these differences are not fully known. More knowledge on the variation in practices may contribute to smoother knowledge exchange between countries and more informed choices in the further development of each national practice. In this paper, we present both an updated mapping and a meta-analysis of impact coverage in national appraisal guidelines for transportation measures and spatial measures more generally. Our updated mapping of impact coverage covers 18 national and regional guideline sets and 44 sorts of impact. It shows rather similar overall impact coverage in the reviewed guidelines for economic, social and environmental impacts. The most advanced appraisal practices are found in Northern and Western Europe and Oceania. We find that supplementary quantitative analyses are most common for economic impacts, while multi-criteria analyses are most common for environmental impacts. Our meta-analysis covers ours and 15 earlier impact mappings, jointly covering 42 countries and regions. In this examination, we show how impact coverage in appraisal practices has improved over time, particularly for environmental, user and wider economic impacts. The meta-analysis also reveals that Western and Northern European and Oceanian countries and dependencies have had the widest impact coverage from 1998 to 2020, both in CB and overall. To examine what characterize countries with broad and narrow impact coverage, we have applied econometric regression models that are linear (i.e. linear least squares), quasi-linear (i.e. Tobit) and fractional response-based (i.e. fractional probit and fractional logit). In these regression analyses, we control for study-specific characteristics and clustering the standard errors on countries. Our results show that the CB impact coverage tends to increase with economic wealth, equality and population size in developed countries, while we find no such patterns for overall impact coverage.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

transportation planning; decision-making; economic impacts; social impact; environmental impacts

PL

planowanie transportu; podejmowanie decyzji; wpływ ekonomiczny; wpływ społeczny; wpływ na środowisko

• Wydawca: Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Transport
• Czasopismo: Archives of Transport
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: Vol. 63, iss. 3
• Strony: 67--111
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 64 poz., tab., wykr., Appendix

Twórcy

autor

Holmen Rasmus Bøgh

• Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1964-1495

autor

Biesinger Benjamin

• AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6276-8339

autor

Hindriks Ivo

• Panteia, Zoetermeer, Netherlands

Bibliografia

• [1] Apex Engineering Limited (2018). Default Values for Benefit Cost Analysis British Columbia 2018, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in British Colombia, prepared for: BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Planning and Programming Branch, 7 May, 2018.
• [2] Atkinson, G., Braathen, N. A., Groom, B., and Mourato, S. (2018). ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Further Developments and Policy Use’, Published on June 25, 2018, OECD.
• [3] Australian Transport (2019). The Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP) Guidelines.
• [4] Barbieri, D.M., Lou, B., Passavanti, M., Hui, C., Hoff, I., Lessa, D. A., Sikka, G., Chang, K., Gupta, A., Fang, K., Banerjee, A., Maharaj, B., Lam, L., Ghasemi, N., Naik, B., Wang, F., Mirhosseini, A. F., Naseri, S., Liu, Z., Qiao, Y., Tucker, A., Wijayaratna, K., Peprah, P., Adomako, S., Yu, L., Goswami, S., Chen, H., Shu, B., Hessami, A., Abbas, M., Agarwal, N., Rashidi, T.H. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mobility in ten countries and associated perceived risk for all transport modes. PloS one, 16(2), e0245886.
• [5] Bristow, A. L., Nellthorp, J. (2000). Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transport policy, 7(1), 51-60.
• [6] Bundesamt für Strassen (2018). Handbuch NISTRA 2017 NISTRA – Nachhaltigkeitsindikatoren für Strasseninfrastrukturprojekte: Handbuch für das Excel-Tool eNISTRA 2017 14. August 2018.
• [7] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (2010). Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (2010): Nutzen-Kosten-Untersuchungen im Verkehrswesen, Österreich (RVS 02.01.22).
• [8] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (2011). Bewertung des Neuverkehrs im Rahmen einer Nutzen-Kosten-Analyse (RVS 02.01.23).
• [9] Centraal Planbureau (2013). Plannen voor de stad - Een multidisciplinaire verkenning van de effecten van verstedelijkingsprojecten op het functioneren van een stad, Nederland.
• [10] Centraal Planbureau (2018a). MKBA-methoden en bereikbaarheid: Hoe omgaan met nietinfrastructurele maatregelen, zoals wegbe-nuttingsmaatregelen?, Nederland.
• [11] Centraal Planbureau (2018b). Ruimtelijke- én mobiliteitsprojecten in de stad: wat en hoe groot zijn de effecten?, Nederland.
• [12] Chung, S. H. (2021). Applications of smart technologies in logistics and transport: A review. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 153, 102455.
• [13] Couture, L-E., Saxe, S., Miller, E.J. (2016). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transportation Investment: A Literature Review. iCity: Urban Informatics for Sustainable Metropolitan Growth. Report # 16-02-04-01, University of Toronto, UTTRI.
• [14] COWI (2002). Brug af samfundsøkonomiske metoder i udvalgte lande, Trafikministeriet, Juni 2002.
• [15] Dahl, A., Meunier, D., Quinet, E., Walther, C. (2016). New trends in cost-benefit assessment of public investments-findings from the Quinet Report in France and the BVWP 2030 in Germany, Contribution to the HEARTS conference Copenhagen 2015. Zeitschrift fuer Verkehrswissenschaft, 55.
• [16] Department for Transport (2019). Transport analysis guidance, United Kingdom, Published 29 October 2013, Last updated 1 May 2019.
• [17] Department for Transport, Tourism and Sport (2016). Common appraisal framework for transport projects and programmes, Ireland.
• [18] European Commission (2014). Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects.
• [19] Federal Highway Administration (2012). Operations Benefit/cost Analysis. Desk Reference. Providing Guidance to Practitioners and the Analysis of Benefits and Costs of Management and Operations Projects. US Department of Transportation.
• [20] Geurs, K. T., Boon, W., Van Wee, B. (2009). Social impacts of transport: literature review and the state of the practice of transport appraisal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Transport reviews, 29(1), 69-90.
• [21] Gleave, S. D. (2004). High speed rail: International Comparisons. TRT Trasporti e Territorio. Prepared for the Commission for Integrated Transport.
• [22] Graham, D. J., and Gibbons, S. (2019). Quantifying Wider Economic Impacts of Agglomeration for Transport Appraisal: Existing Evidence and Future Directions. Economics of Transportation, 19, 100121.
• [23] Grant-Muller, S. M., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J., Pearman, A. (2001). Economic appraisal of European transport projects: the state-of-the-art revisited. Transport Reviews, 21(2), 237-261.
• [24] Gwee, E., Currie, G., Stanley, J. (2011). International Variation in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Urban Rail Projects: Impact on Outcomes. Transportation Research Record, 2261(1), 73-85.
• [25] Hayashi, Y., Morisugi, H. (2000). International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal. Transport policy, 7(1).
• [26] Hollins, B., Pudney, P., Howlett, P., Taylor, A. P. (2004). Chapter 4. Rail Demand Forecasting and Cost Modelling: Estimation of Impacts of Rail Infrastructure Improvements, in National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia 2006, Australian Transport Council, University of South Australia and Transport Systems Centre, Methodology Working Group, July 2004.
• [27] Holmen, R. B., Hansen, W. (2020). The Scientific Foundation for Impacts Estimation in Transportation Appraisal: A Literature Review. Chapter 2 in Productivity and Mobility by Holmen, R. B. (2020). A dissertation submitted to BI Norwegian Business School for the degree of PhD. PhD specialization: Economics. Series of Dissertations 7/2020.
• [28] Holmen, R. B., Hansen, W., Kiel, J., Hindriks, I., Sollitto, F., Biesinger, B., Hu, B. (2019). Theory and Practice for Transport Appraisal and Planning: A Literature Review with Focus on Potential Improvements in Practices, SPADE, Deliverable Number 3.4, June 2019, by Panteia, Institute of Transport Economics (TØI) and Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT) on behalf of Conference of European Di-rectors of Roads (CEDR).
• [29] Kamis, M. H. B. (2014). Comparative analysis of transportation project appraisals. A comparison between the Netherlands and the United States, Master of Science in Engineering & Policy Analysis, Faculty Technology, Policy & Management, Faculty Technology, Policy and Management, Transport and Logistics Department, Delft University of Technology.
• [30] Kaczorek, M., Jacyna, M. (2022). Fuzzy logic as a decision-making support tool in planning transport development. Archives of Transport, 61(1), 51-70.
• [31] Lyk-Jensen, S (2007). Appraisal methods in the Nordic countries. Infrastructure assessment, Danish Transport Research Institute for Transport and Energy Ministry, Report 3, 2007.
• [32] Mackie, P., Worsley, T. (2013). International Comparisons of Transport Appraisal Practice – Overview Report. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. Research Report, April 2013.
• [33] Mackie, P., Worsley, T., Eliasson, J. (2014). Transport appraisal revisited. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 3-18.
• [34] Marcial Echenique & Partners, National Technical University of Athens, ITS at University of Leeds, Facultes Universitaires Catholiques de Mons, The Technical University of Denmark, LT Consultants, Gruppo Clas, PLANCO Consulting and The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences (2001). Socio-Economic and Spatial Impacts of Transport. The EUNET/SASI Final Report, ST-96-SC037, March 2001.
• [35] Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in British Colombia (2014). Benefit Cost Analysis Guidebook.
• [36] Mohring, H. (1993). Maximizing, measuring, and not double counting transportation-improvement benefits: A primer on closed-and open-economy cost-benefit analysis. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 27(6), 413-424.
• [37] Nadimi, N., Mansourifar, F., Asadamraji, M., Mohammadian, A. (2022). Evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 panademic: A case study of Iran. Archives of Transport, 63(3), 25-38.
• [38] Nellthorp, J., Mackie, P. J., Bristow, A. L. (1998). Measurement and valuation of the impacts of transport initiatives. Deliverable D9, EUNET: Socio-economic and spatial impacts of transport. Report to European Commission DGVII.
• [39] NZ Transport Agency (2018): Economic Evaluation Manual. Effective from 1 July 2018. ISBN 978-0-478-40782-2.
• [40] Odgaard, T., Kelly, C., Laird, J. (2005). HEACO Work Package 3: Current practice in project appraisal in Europe. European Commission EC-DG TREN, 1-141.
• [41] Odgaard, T., Kelly, C. E., Laird, J. (2006). Current Practice in Project Appraisal in Europe. Project Report. HEACO, Deliverable 1.
• [42] Olsson, N. O., Økland, A., Halvorsen, S. B. (2012). Consequences of differences in cost-benefit methodology in railway infrastructure appraisal - A comparison between selected countries. Transport Policy, 22, 29-35.
• [43] PIARC (2003). Committee C9: Economic and Financial Evaluation. Economic evaluation methods for road projects in PIARC member countries – summary and comparison of frameworks, Permanent International Association of Road Congresses.
• [44] Pivtorak, H., Zhuk, M., Gits, I., Galkin, A. (2022). Shifting the population mobility of the Ukraine western region on the strength of the COVID-19 pandemic. Archives of Transport, 63(3), 7-23.
• [45] PTV Group, Transport Consulting International, Ulrich-Mann, H. (2016). Methodology Manual for the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan 2030, for the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, R&D Project No.: 97.358/2015, Karlsruhe, Berlin, Waldkirch, München, 7 October 2016.
• [46] Rebel Group Advisory (2013a). Standaard-methodiek voor MKBA van transportinfrastructuurprojecten, Aanvulling: Infrastructuurprojecten voor vrachtvervoer over land (weg, spoor en binnenvaart), Mint Mobilitet in Zicht, 30.12.2013.
• [47] Rebel Group Advisory (2013b). Standaard-methodiek voor MKBA van transportinfrastructuurprojecten, Aanvulling: Weginfrastructuurprojecten en openbaar vervoersprojecten, Mint Mobilitet in Zicht, 20.02.2013.
• [48] Rebel Group Advisory (2013c). Standaard-methodiek voor MKBA van transportinfrastructuurprojecten, Algemene leidraad, Mint Mobilitet in Zicht, 20.02.2013.
• [49] Rijkswaterstaat (2018). Werkwijzer MKBA bij MIRT-verkenningen, Nederland.
• [50] Romijn, G., Renes, G. (2013). Plannen voor de stad - Een multidisciplinaire verkenning van de effecten van verstedelijkingsprojecten op het functioneren van een stad, Centraal Planbureau, Nederland.
• [51] Rothengatter, W. (2017). Wider economic impacts of transport infrastructure investments: Relevant or negligible?. Transport Policy, 59, 124-133.
• [52] Statens vegvesen (2018). Konsekvensanalyser, veiledning, Håndbok V712, Vegdirektoratet 2018, Norge.
• [53] Trafikverket (2018). Analysmetod och sam-hällsekonomiska kalkylvärden för transportsektorn: ASEK 6.1, Sverige.
• [54] Transport Canada (1994). Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis in Transport Canada.
• [55] Transport for NSW (2018). Principle and Guidelines for Economic Appraisal of Transport Investments and Initiatives.
• [56] Transport Scotland (2019). Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG).
• [57] Transportation Research Board (2014). Development of Tools for Assessing Wider Economic Benefits of Transportation, SHRP-2 Report S2-C11-RW-1, Strategic Highway Research Program.
• [58] Transportministeriet (2015). Manual for samfundsøkonomisk analyse på transportområdet. Anvendt metode og praksis i Transportministeriet, Marts 2015, Danmark.
• [59] Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007). Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals.
• [60] US Department of Transportation (2018). Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant programs, Federal Highway Administration.
• [61] Wangsness, P. B., Rødseth, K. L., Hansen, W. (2014). 22 lands retningslinjer for behandling av netto ringvirkninger i konsekvensutredninger: En litteraturstudie, TØI rapport 1382/2014.
• [62] Wangsness, P. B., Rødseth, K. L., Hansen, W. (2017). A review of guidelines for including wider economic impacts in transport appraisal', Transport Reviews, 7 (1), 94-115.
• [63] Weisbrod, G. (2013). International Comparison of Transport Appraisal Practice – Annex 5. US Country Report. Economic Development Research Group Inc., Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. Research Report, April 2013.
• [64] Weisbrod, G., Stein, N., Williges, C., Mackie, P., Laird, J., Johnson, D., Simmonds, D., Ogard, E., Gillen, D., Vickerman, R. (2014). Assessing Productivity Impacts of Transportation Investments: Final Report and Guidebook, prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Project NCHRP 02-24, May 2014.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023)