Ben Owen - International Experiences in Evaluation and Selection of Mass Transit Projects

Ben Owen

Visiting Fellow

International experiences in evaluation and selection of mass

transit projects

www.embarq.org

Photo credits (L to R): Meena Kadri, Jacek.NL, Gerardo Arévalo Tamayo (all via Flickr)

National programs studied

ReviewedReview pending

Categories of project supported by program

National mass transit policies

Age of program

Planning requirements

Contextual factors that influence evaluation processes

Urban / national infrastructure

Surface transport

Mass transit

Justification for project• Socioeconomic analysis (CBA, cost-effectiveness,

assessment of indirect effects)• Policy and strategic factors (examples to come)• Factors may be

• Treated as requirements (i.e., project must achieve a minimum internal rate of return, must display consistency with policy factors)

• Rated (i.e., ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’)

Other viability analyses• Financial, legal, technical, commercial, planning, etc.• Usually treated as requirements

Evaluation frameworks

Focus on (discounted) direct, monetizable societal impacts of a project over its life

Socioeconomic evaluation: Cost-benefit analysis

Benefit-cost ratio

Internal rate of return

Net present value

Consumer surplus• Travel time• Vehicle operating costs /

fares• Travel quality

Producer surplus• Vehicle operating costs

Externalities• Noise• Air pollution / GHG

emissions• Traffic collisions

Costs to government• Project capital

contributions• (Project operating and

maintenance subsidies)

Costs to infrastructure managers / project operators• Project capital

contributions

(Also negative impacts during construction)

Further socioeconomic impacts may serve to ‘adjust’ cost-benefit analysis results

Complementary socioeconomic evaluations

• Wider / indirect economic benefits (i.e., agglomeration, improved job matching)

• Environmental impacts (i.e., water quality, habitats, viewsheds, physical activity)

• Equity / distributional effects

Photo credit: Ariel Cruz Pizarro (via Flickr)

Consistency with national government policies and priorities• Investments• Reforms

Strategic and policy evaluation factors

Urban development and transport priorities• Land use• Transport plans and

other investments

Photo credit: Ferdi (via Flickr)

Objectives: reverse decreases in transit mode share through better service quality, balance supply and demand

Policy consistency: Colombia

Cities must commit to coordinating / rationalizing privately operated transport services as part of funding agreements Photo credit: miguelmatus (via Flickr)

Objectives: support economic growth and productivity improvements

Policy consistency: New Zealand

Projects rated on how effectively they meet associated objectives (reduce congestion, improve travel time reliability)

Photo credit: Nankai (via Wikipedia)

Projects evaluated based on• Existing land use in

corridor (population density, employment, parking supply, etc.)

• Potential to shape corridor and regional economic development, based on policies and plans

Land use: United States

Photo: Jeff Wood (via Flickr)

In most cases, technical staff at national agency or technical committee conducts evaluation• May be at multiple points during project development

… but funding decision-makers are non-technical (i.e., political figures)

Evaluation process should yield information that supports informed decisions• Costs and benefits, socioeconomic and otherwise• May be scaled to project cost/complexity• Rationale for a viability determination or rating (or

rejection)

Evaluations and decision-making

Ben Owen

[email protected]

+1 202 729-7600

Thank you!

www.embarq.org

Photo credits (L to R): Aaron Hockley, Omar Bárcena, Rupert Brun (all via Flickr)