IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v41y2014i1p107-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do the selected Trans European transport investments pass the cost benefit test?

Author

Listed:
  • Stef Proost

    ()

  • Fay Dunkerley
  • Saskia Loo
  • Nicole Adler
  • Johannes Bröcker
  • Artem Korzhenevych

Abstract

This paper assesses the economic justification for the selection of priority projects defined under the auspices of the Trans-European transport network. Three different transport models are used to analyse the costs and benefits associated with the current list of 30 priority projects. Most of these projects fail the cost-benefit test and few of the economically justifiable projects would need European subsidies to ensure their viability. Two remedies are proposed to minimise the inefficiencies surrounding project selection. The first remedy would oblige each member state or group of states to perform a cost-benefit analysis, followed by peer review and ensure that the results were published publicly prior to the ranking of federally funded priority projects. The second remedy would require federal funding to be made available only for projects with important spillovers to other countries in order to avoid pork barrel political behaviour. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Stef Proost & Fay Dunkerley & Saskia Loo & Nicole Adler & Johannes Bröcker & Artem Korzhenevych, 2014. "Do the selected Trans European transport investments pass the cost benefit test?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 107-132, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:107-132 DOI: 10.1007/s11116-013-9488-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11116-013-9488-z
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, January.
    2. Persson, Torsten, 1998. "Economic Policy and Special Interest Politics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(447), pages 310-327, March.
    3. Mayeres, Inge & Proost, Stef, 2001. "Marginal tax reform, externalities and income distribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 343-363.
    4. Brocker J. & Mercenier J., 2008. "General equilibrium models for transportation economics," Working Papers ERMES 0807, ERMES, University Paris 2.
    5. de Palma, André & Proost, Stef & van der Loo, Saskia, 2010. "Assessing transport investments - Towards a multi-purpose tool," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 834-849, August.
    6. De Borger, B. & Dunkerley, F. & Proost, S., 2007. "Strategic investment and pricing decisions in a congested transport corridor," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, pages 294-316.
    7. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 297-308.
    8. Johannes Bröcker & Jean Mercenier, 2011. "General Equilibrium Models for Transportation Economics," Chapters,in: A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Knight, Brian, 2004. "Parochial interests and the centralized provision of local public goods: evidence from congressional voting on transportation projects," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 845-866.
    10. Adler, Nicole & Pels, Eric & Nash, Chris, 2010. "High-speed rail and air transport competition: Game engineering as tool for cost-benefit analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 812-833, August.
    11. Calthrop, Edward & De Borger, Bruno & Proost, Stef, 2010. "Cost-benefit analysis of transport investments in distorted economies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 850-869, August.
    12. Yukihiro Kidokoro, 2004. "Cost-Benefit Analysis for Transport Networks: Theory and Application," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 38(2), pages 275-307, May.
    13. Knight, Brian, 2004. "Parochial interests and the centralized provision of local public goods: evidence from congressional voting on transportation projects," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, pages 845-866.
    14. Baron, David P & Ferejohn, John, 1987. "Bargaining and Agenda Formation in Legislatures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 303-309, May.
    15. Pels, Eric & Nijkamp, Peter & Rietveld, Piet, 2000. "Airport and Airline Competition for Passengers Departing from a Large Metropolitan Area," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 29-45, July.
    16. Jan Anne Annema & Carl Koopmans & Bert Van Wee, 2006. "Evaluating Transport Infrastructure Investments: The Dutch Experience with a Standardized Approach," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 125-150, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruno Borger & Stef Proost, 2016. "The political economy of pricing and capacity decisions for congestible local public goods in a federal state," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 23(5), pages 934-959, October.
    2. Bruno De Borger & Stef Proost, 2015. " Tax and regulatory policies for European Transport – getting there, but in the slow lane," Working Papers Department of Economics 497597, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    3. Nikolaos Thomopoulos & Susan Grant-Muller, 2013. "Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach," Transportation, Springer, pages 315-345.
    4. Wenjie Wu & Yutian Liang & Di Wu, 2016. "Evaluating the Impact of China’s Rail Network Expansions on Local Accessibility: A Market Potential Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(6), pages 1-11, May.
    5. Castillo-Manzano, José I. & Pedregal, Diego J. & Pozo-Barajas, Rafael, 2016. "An econometric evaluation of the management of large-scale transport infrastructure in Spain during the great recession: Lessons for infrastructure bubbles," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 302-313.
    6. Stef Proost & Jacques-Francois Thisse, 2017. "What Can Be Learned from Spatial Economics?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 167/EC/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    7. Jan Anne Annema, 2013. "The use of CBA in decision-making on mega-projects: empirical evidence," Chapters,in: International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 13, pages 291-312 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Yunqiang Xue & Hongzhi Guan & Jonathan Corey & Heng Wei & Hai Yan, 2017. "Quantifying a Financially Sustainable Strategy of Public Transport: Private Capital Investment Considering Passenger Value," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Thomopoulos, Nikolaos & Grant-Muller, Susan, 2013. "Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60073, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Transport infrastructure; Cost benefit analysis; Europe;

    JEL classification:

    • R42 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government and Private Investment Analysis; Road Maintenance; Transportation Planning
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures

    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:kap:transp:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:107-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.