IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v10y2017i28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business Cases for Major Public Infrastructure Projects in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Iacobacci

    (Deloitte Canada)

Abstract

When governments announce that they are going to spend vast sums of taxpayers’ money on a new public infrastructure project, you can be certain they will praise all the terrific new benefits that the project will bring to citizens, making everyone’s life easier, safer, greener and better. But this does not tell us whether we are better off as a society, after accounting for the cost of these projects borne by taxpayers today and well into the future. In reality, there is a meaningful risk that a project undertaken without a proper business case could end up making citizens’ lives worse. That new commuter train might look sleek and shiny and seem convenient for some, but a close business case analysis of recent transit projects in Canada’s three largest cities suggests that in as many as four cases out of 21 projects, the burden of paying for the projects does not justify the public investment. In a review of thirteen recent public transit projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), at least three projects had benefits that fell short of the costs. Yet, all three projects went ahead (or have been funded). Only one project showed large net benefits for citizens once all considerations were accounted for. Three projects showed small net benefits – of a size that can be easily offset by a modest cost over-run. The six remaining projects did not have any publicly available business cases. In the Greater Montreal area, a review of three recent major transit projects turned up no evidence of a publicly available business case for any of them. As a result, Montrealers are in the dark as to how much benefit or value destruction the three projects are responsible for. Things are far more encouraging in Vancouver, however, where three out of the five major transit projects undertaken or funded in recent years were backed by business cases showing a net benefit. Only one project did not show a net benefit and one project did not have a business case. Of course, business cases only make projections about net benefits. Rarely, if ever, do governments undertake an ex post review to determine whether their estimates were correct and if the project has delivered — or destroyed — the value expected. Given that these projects can run into the billions of dollars, tie up immense amounts of government resources, and can cause any number of disruptions to business and families, it is remarkable how little cost-benefit scrutiny is brought to bear on them. Without these ex post business cases, there can be no lessons learned from past projects. There can be no assurance that we can make better investment decisions going forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Iacobacci, 2017. "Business Cases for Major Public Infrastructure Projects in Canada," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 10(28), November.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:10:y:2017:i:28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Public-Infrastructure-Projects-Iacobacci-final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn Jenkins & Chun-Yan Kuo & Arnold C. Harberger, 2011. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Investment Decisions: Chapter 4 (Discounting and Alternative Investment Criteria)," Development Discussion Papers 2011-04, JDI Executive Programs.
    2. Steven Robins, 2017. "Banking on Infrastructure: How the Canada Infrastructure Bank can Build Infrastructure Better for Canadians," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 483, June.
    3. Johnston, Robert J. & Rolfe, John & Zawojska, Ewa, 2018. "Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values: Progress, Prospects and Challenges," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 12(2-3), pages 177-266, November.
    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. Meya, Jasper N. & Drupp, Moritz A. & Hanley, Nick, 2021. "Testing structural benefit transfer: The role of income inequality," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Jackson, N. & Walter, M. & Felmingham, B. & Spinaze, A., 2006. "Will Older Workers Change Their Retirement Plans in Line with Government Thinking? A Review of Recent Literature on Retirement Intentions," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 32(4), pages 315-344.
    3. Walstab, Anne & Lamb, Stephen, 2009. "Participation in VET across Australia: a regional analysis," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 35(2), pages 452-487.
    4. Robbins, W., 2010. "Learning with Hard Labour: University Students as Workers," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 36(1), pages 103-120.
    5. Tan, Yan & Lester, Laurence Howard & Richardson, Susan (Sue), 2008. "Labour Force Projections: A Case Study of the Greater Metropolitan Area of New South Wales," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99.
    6. Guthrie, R. & Purse, Kevin & Lurie, P., 2006. "Workers' Compensation Western Australia; a Case Study 1993 - 2004," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 32(1), pages 62-73.
    7. Peetz, D. & Muurlink, O. & Townsend, K. & Allan, C. & Fox, A., 2011. "Quality and Quantity in Work-Home Conflict: The Nature and Direction of Effects of Work on Employees' Personal Relationships and Partners," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 37(2), pages 138-163.
    8. Emile Noël, 1996. "Quelques réflexions sur les perspectives politico-institutionnelles de l'intégration européenne en 2000 et au-delà," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 39, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    9. Karin Fierke & Antje Wiener, 1999. "Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 14, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    10. Leslie Holmes, 1997. "The Democratic State or State Democracy? Problems of Post-Communist Transition," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 48, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    11. Skinner, N & Pocock, Barbara, 2010. "Work, Life, Flexibility and Workplace Culture in Australia: Results of the 2009 Australian Work and Life Index (AWALI) Survey," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 36(2), pages 133-153.
    12. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    13. Burgess, J. & Lewer, J. & Waring, P., 2006. "Protecting Employee Entitlements: Corporate Governance and Industrial Democracy in Australia," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 32(4), pages 365-380.
    14. Pannell, David J., 2013. "Ranking Environmental Projects," Working Papers 156482, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Rodriguez Iglesias, 1996. "Le pouvoir judiciaire de la Communauté européenne au stade actuel de l'évolution de l'Union," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 41, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    16. King, Peter, 2018. "Fishing for litter: A cost-benefit analysis of how to abate ocean pollution," MPRA Paper 92298, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ewa Zawojska & Zbigniew Szkop & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Tomasz Żylicz, 2016. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by the Wilanów Park: A benefit transfer study," Working Papers 2016-31, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Tani, Massimiliano, 2012. "Does immigration policy affect the education--occupation mismatch? Evidence from Australia," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 38(2), pages 111-141.
    19. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Wooden, M., 2010. "Symposium 3: An Unfair Safety Net," Australian Bulletin of Labour, National Institute of Labour Studies, vol. 36(3), pages 321-326.

    More about this item

    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:clh:resear:v:10:y:2017:i:28. 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: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.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.