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

Evaluating Transport Infrastructure Investments: The Dutch Experience with a Standardized Approach

Listed author(s):
  • Jan Anne Annema
  • Carl Koopmans
  • Bert Van Wee

The Dutch government introduced a requirement in 2000 to evaluate proposed major infrastructure plans using a cost--benefit analysis (CBA) following published guidelines. Since then 13 new major infrastructure projects have been evaluated. The paper reviews the Dutch standardized CBA practice since 2000. The overall conclusion is that the use of standardized CBA has improved the quality of ex‐ante evaluations of large infrastructure projects in the Netherlands. However, the relatively young CBA practice has not yet fulfilled its full potential. About half of the CBAs analysed can be considered as being suitable for helping decision‐making. The other half has weaknesses with respect to methods and assumptions. Looking at the standardized CBA’s influence on policy‐making, the most important conclusion is that unfavourable CBA results have contributed to the postponement of decisions and to the downsizing of projects.

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:
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Transport Reviews.

Volume (Year): 27 (2006)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 125-150

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:transr:v:27:y:2006:i:2:p:125-150
DOI: 10.1080/01441640600843237
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

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:taf:transr:v:27:y:2006:i:2:p:125-150. 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: (Chris Longhurst)

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.