| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Börjesson, Maria, 1974-, et al.
(författare)
-
Is CBA ranking of transport investments robust?
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. - : University of Bath. - 0022-5258 .- 1754-5951. ; 48:2, s. 189-204
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) are often questioned on the grounds that results depend crucially on uncertain assumptions about the future, and on ethically or methodologically contestable trade-offs between different types of benefits. This paper explores the robustness of CBA rankings of transport investments with respect to two types of uncertainties: relative benefit valuations and scenario assumptions related to car ownership, car characteristics and driving costs. The impact of differentiating the value of time with respect to travel mode and purpose is also studied. The study concludes that CBA rankings are robust to all of the studied variations.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Eliasson, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Do Cost-Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? : Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010-21
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Transport reviews. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0144-1647 .- 1464-5327. ; 32:1, s. 29-48
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for transport investments is particularly useful for situations where a large number of investments have to be ranked against each other. This study draws on experiences from the development of the Swedish National Transport Investment Plan 2010-21. We study how CBA results were used in the process of shaping the investment plan and what influence they had on investment decisions. In particular, we compare the planners' rankings versus the politicians' rankings. We find that planners' rankings of investments are influenced by benefit-cost ratios (BCRs), in particular for low and moderate BCRs, while the politicians' rankings are not. By interviewing planners about how CBA was used in the process, we clarify what role CBA actually played in the planning process. We find that not only did the CBAs play a role in investment selection, they also forced investment design to be more cost-efficient. Furthermore, we explore planners' implicit valuations, as revealed by their investment selection, finding that freight benefits were implicitly valued higher and traffic safety lower than the officially recommended CBA weights. Finally, we identify the most important areas for improvement of CBA state-of-practice methodology.
|
|
| 5. |
- Eliasson, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Lägesrapport Samhällsekonomi stora objekt
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Inför åtgärdsplaneringen 2010-2020. - : Vägverket, Banverket, Luftfartsstyrelsen, Sjöfartsverket.
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Lundberg, Mattias, et al.
(författare)
-
Are CBA Results Robust? : Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan, 2010-2021
- 2011
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The use of Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as a tool for choosing between suggested transport investments is often questioned. Many argue that the results completely rest on what assumptions are made. This paper studies whether this is true for two sorts of assumptions; climate policy assumptions and benefit valuations. First, we study how much the CBA ranking is affected by varying the relative weight of different types of benefits. The valuation of travel time, traffic safety, emissions and freight benefits are systematically varied for 480 suggested road and rail investments in the latest Swedish transport investment plan. The conclusion is that the ranking is surprisingly stable. The balance between road and rail is also robust. Second, we vary the relative weights within a benefit type by differentiating the value of time. This exercise has an even smaller effect on ranking. Last, scenario assumptions relating to future climate policy options are altered. Even rather drastic assumptions, such as a doubled oil price, change the benefits with only a few percent and the rankings are hardly affected at all. The exception seems to be car ownership. In conclusion, our study suggests that decision makers can feel secure that following the CBA methodology will lead to sound investments being prioritized. The top-ranked investments stay more or less the same in all sensitivity tests.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
