Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The application of cost-benefit analysis to transport investment projects in Britain

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explains the need for the application of cost-benefit analysis to the evaluation of alternative projects for investment in the transport field and outlines briefly the historical development of the technique. The results of a comparative survey of a number of cost-benefit studies which have been carried out in Britain and some conclusions as to their thoroughness and comprehensiveness (or otherwise) are presented.

The article concludes with a number of specific and detailed recommendations to remedy apparent methodological weaknesses. Six of these recommendations seem to merit particular attention:

  1. (1)

    The viewpoint of most studies should be extended so as to avoid confinement, for example, within an arbitrary local government boundary, and a wider range of “externalities” should be considered. Intangibles should be included explicitly in all such evaluation exercises.

  2. (2)

    The actual incidence of costs and benefits should be examined in order to indicate the directional impact of the project and its implications in terms of equity. The elimination of transfer payments and double-counting should be postponed until the latest possible stage in the evaluation.

  3. (3)

    Equity considerations should be investigated in any transportation plan, since most projects have considerable equity implications for particular areas or socio-economic groups.

  4. (4)

    Discounted cash flow techniques, which are still used only in a minority of transportation studies, should become standard practice. Most evaluations are based on a single-year rate of return, or at best on simple trend forecasting. More resources should be devoted to proper evaluation of alternative plans which give due importance to the cost and benefit streams through time.

  5. (5)

    Sensitivity analysis should be used in all transportation evaluations. Knowledge of the impact of different assignments, shadow prices, and discount rates are essential information for any decisionmaker.

  6. (6)

    Last, but not least, much greater communication should exist between analyst and decisionmaker than has existed in the past.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beesley, M. E. (1965). “The Value of Time Spent Travelling: Some New Evidence,” Economica (May).

  • Binnie and Partners, and Maunseil and Partners (1967). The Dee Crossing Study, Phase I. Economists Advisory Group, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, C. and Partners (1968). The “D Ring” in North-West London—An Evaluation (limited circulation). London.

  • Buchanan, C. and Partners (1970). Canterbury Traffic Study. London.

  • Coburn, T. M., Beesley, M. E. and Reynolds, D. J. (1960), “The London-Birmingham Motorway Traffic and Economics,” Road Research Technical Paper No. 46. London: H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, R. F. F. (1968). “The Economic Assessment of Road Improvement Schemes,” Road Research Technical Paper No. 75: H.M.S.O., Road Research Laboratory (M.O.T).

  • Dupuit, J. (1844). “On the Measurement of the Utility of Public Works,” International Economic Paper No. 2 (Transl. from French).

  • Eckstein, O. (1958). Water Resource Development. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, C. D. (1963). The Transport Problem. London: Blackie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, C. D. (1966). “Social Welfare Functions in Cost Benefit Analysis,” in Lawrence, J. R., ed., Operational Research and the Social Sciences. London: Tavistock.

  • Foster, C. D. and Beesley, M. E. (1963). “Estimating the Social Benefit of Constructing an Underground Railway in London (with discussion),” J. Royal Statistical Society Vol. 126: Part 1.

  • Foster, C. D., and Beesley, M. E. (1965). “The Victoria Line: Social Benefit and Finances,” J. Royal Statistical Society Vol. 128: Part 1.

  • Freeman, Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates (1968). London Transportation Study, Phase III. (November), G.L.C.: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillhespy, N. R. (1968). “The Tay Road Bridge: A Case Study,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy (June).

  • Glassborow, D. W. (1960). “The Road Research Laboratory's Investment Criterion Examined,” Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Statistics Vol. 22 (November).

  • Greater London Council (1970). “Preliminary Economic Evaluation of the G.L.D.P. Primary Road Strategy,” R.M. 257 (December), G.L.C., London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greater London Council (1968). “D Ring” North-West London (Leading to Al): A Cost Benefit Analysis. G.L.C. (M.O.T.) (March). Unpublished.

  • Gwilliam, K. M. (1970). “The Indirect Effects of Highway Investment,” Regional Studies 4.2. (August).

  • Hill, M. (1968). “A Goals Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners (January).

  • Hirschleifer, J., de Haven, J. C. and Milliman, J. W. (1960) Water Supply, Economics, Technology and Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • H.M.S.O. (1970). Highway Statistics, 1969.

  • H.M.S.O. (1963). “Channel Link,” Cmnd 2137.

  • H.M.S.O. (1966). “Public Expenditure: Planning and Control,” Cmnd. 2915.

  • H.M.S.O. (1967). “Economic and Financial Obligations of the Nationalised Industries,” Cmnd 3477.

  • H.M.S.O. (1969). “The Cambrian Coast Line. A Cost Benefit Analysis of the Retention of Railway Services on the Cambrian Coast Line (Machynlleth-Pwllheli),” London: M.O.T./H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • H.M.S.O. Roskill Commission (1970/1971). “Commission on the Third London Airport,” Papers and Proceedings Vol. VII, H.M.S.O. 1970;Report H.M.S.O. 1971.

  • Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants (I.M.T.A.) (1969). “Cost Benefit Analysis in Local Government,” I.M.T.A.: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inter-Agency River Basin Committee (1950). Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects (“The Green Book”). Washington, D.C.

  • Jessiman, W. (1967). “A Rational Decision Making Technique for Transportation Planning, Highway Research Record 180.

  • Krutilla, J. and Eckstein, O. (1958). Multiple Purpose River Development. Washington D.C., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichfield, N. (1956). “Economics of Planned Development”, Estates Gazette, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichfield, N. (1960). “Cost Benefit in City Planning,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 26.

  • Lichfield, N. (1964). “Cost Benefit Analysis in Plant Evaluation,” Town Planning Review 35.

  • Lichfield, N. (1970). “Evaluation Methodology of Urban and Regional Plants: a Review,” Regional Studies. Vol. 4.

  • Lichfield, N. and Chapman, H. (1968). “Road Proposals for a Shopping Centre,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy Vol. II: No. 3.

  • Lichfield, Nathaniel and Associates (1969). Stevenage: Public Transport: Cost Benefit Analysis. Stevenage Development Corporation, Stevenage Newtown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R. G. (1966). An Introduction to Positive Economics (2nd Edit.). London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, I. M. (1957). A Critique of Welfare Economics (2nd Edit.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, A. (1962). Design of Water Resource System: New Techniques for Relating Economic Objectives, Engineering Analysis, and Governmental Planning. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. C. and Garne, M. A. (1969). “The Integration of Equity and Efficiency in Public Project Selection,” Economic Journal (December).

  • McKean, R. N. (1958). Efficiency in Government through Systems Analysis. New York: J. Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marglin, S. A. (1967). Public Investment Criteria. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Transport (Smeed Committee) (1964). Road Pricing: The Economic and Technical Possibilities. London: H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Transport (1967). Technical Memorandum No. T5167: The Economic Appraisal of Inter-Urban Road Improvement Schemes. Highways Economic Unit, London: H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Transport (1968). Technical Memorandum No. 7/68 Preparation of Traffic and Transport Plans, London: H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathematical Advisory Unit (1970). M.A.U. Note 179: Generalised Costs and the Estimation of Movement Costs and Benefits in Transport Planning. London: Department of the Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishan, E. J. (1970). “What is Wrong with Roskill?” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (September).

  • Mishan, E. J. (1971). Cost Benefit Analysis. London: Unwin University Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwaneri, V. C. (1971). “Equity in Cost Benefit Analysis: a Case Study of the Third London Airport,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (September).

  • Ody, J. C. (1969). “The Application of Cost Benefit Analysis to Airports: The Case of Nicosia, Cyprus,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy Vol. III: No. 3.

  • Pearce, D. W. (1970). “The Roskill Commission and the Location of the Third London Airport,” The Three Banks Review No. 87 (September).

  • Peters, G. H. (1968). Cost-benefit analysis and public expenditure-Eaton Paper 8 (2nd Edit.). London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou, A. C. (1932). The Economics of Welfare (4th Edit.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prest, A. R. and Turvey, R. (1965). “Cost Benefit Analysis: a Survey,” Economic Journal Vol. LXXV: No. 300 (December).

  • Quarmby, D. A. (1970). “Estimating the Transport Value of a Barrage across Morecambe Bay,” Regional Studies Vol. 4: No. 2 (August).

  • Schwab, B. (1971). “Current Limitations and Possible Extensions of some Common Criteria for Investment Evaluation,” in Kendall, ed., Cost Benefit Analysis. London: English Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultze, C. L. (1968). The Politics and Economics of Public Spending. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. E. R. (1969). “A Procedure for Calculating Unit Travel for Use in Cost Benefit Analysis.” London: G.L.C. Department of Highways and Transportation, R. M. 175 (September).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, F. P. (1971). The Final Framework for the Assessment of the Analysis: Commission on the Third London Airport. P.T.R.C. Symposium on Airport Location Methodology (March).

  • Traffic Research Corporation Ltd. (1969). “The Definition of Economic Evaluation Procedures. Final report to the Steering Committee,” Merseyside Area Land Use Transportation Study (M.A.L.T.S.) Technical paper No. 17, Liverpool.

  • Travers Morgan, R., Ministry of Development, Belfast Corporation (1969). Belfast Transportation Plan (June).

  • Voorhees, A. M. and Associates, and Buchanan, C. and Partners (1970). Environmental Standards: a Study of North-West Gateshead. Tyne-Wear Plan. Technical Memorandum No. 36 (September).

  • Walsh, H. G. and Williams, A. (1969). “Current Issues in Cost Benefit Analysis,” C.A.S. Occasional Papers No. 1. London, H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Senior Lecturer in Urban and Regional Economics, Oxford Polytechnic School of Town Planning, Oxford, Great Britain

    David W. F. Barrell

  2. Lecturer in Transport, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, Great Britain

    Peter J. Hills

Authors
  1. David W. F. Barrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. Hills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barrell, D.W.F., Hills, P.J. The application of cost-benefit analysis to transport investment projects in Britain. Transportation 1, 29–54 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167507

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00167507

Keywords

Search

Navigation