IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: a proposal for the improvement of Dutch transport-related cost–benefit analysis

Listed author(s):
  • António Ferreira
  • Els Beukers
  • Marco Te Brömmelstroet
Registered author(s):

    Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) has become a key instrument for the evaluation of transport planning policies and projects in the Netherlands. Currently, this instrument is also used to evaluate integrated land-use and transport strategies. In Dutch transport-related CBA the conceptualisation of benefits is directly related to a narrow understanding of mobility. In this paper we argue that this understanding introduces an undesirable bias in transport planning that favours mobility-enhancing projects. We argue that the benefit to society of contemporary transport planning practice is no longer the improvement of mobility, but the improvement of accessibility. Therefore, Dutch CBA should acknowledge this in its calculations and shift from a mobility focus towards an accessibility orientation. We use a hypothetical illustration to show what the added value of an accessibility orientation can be. It facilitates a mindset where new and more sustainable directions for improving the competitiveness of regions are easier to find. Keywords: cost–benefit analysis, transport planning, accessibility, mobility, assessment tools

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    File Function: abstract
    Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see for details

    File URL:
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: Fulltext access restricted to subscribers, see for details

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Pion Ltd, London in its journal Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design.

    Volume (Year): 39 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 4 (July)
    Pages: 683-697

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:pio:envirb:v:39:y:2012:i:4:p:683-697
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pio:envirb:v:39:y:2012:i:4:p:683-697. 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: (Neil Hammond)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.