International Transport Forum Discussion Papers

ISSN :
2223-439X (en ligne)
DOI :
10.1787/2223439x
Cacher / Voir l'abstract
The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 52 member countries. It acts as a strategic think tank for transport policy and organizes an annual summit of ministers. Our work is underpinned by economic research, statistics collection and policy analysis, often undertaken in collaboration with many of the world's leading research figures in academia, business and government. This series of Discussion Papers is intended to disseminate the ITF’s research findings rapidly among specialists in the field concerned.
Previous papers addressing these policy issues are available via http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/20708270
 

The Evolution of London's Crossrail Scheme and the Development of the Department for Transport's Economic Appraisal Methods You or your institution have access to this content

Auteur(s):
Tom Worsley1
Author Affiliations
  • 1: Université de Leeds, Royaume-Uni

Date de publication
24 nov 2011
Bibliographic information
No:
2011/27
Pages
37
DOI
10.1787/5kg0prk600jk-en

Cacher / Voir l'abstract

Cost benefit analysis has been used in the United Kingdom for the appraisal of road schemes over the past fifty years. It was less widely used for rail, where most investment was concerned with renewing the existing network. The Central London Rail Study (1988) used cost benefit analysis to address the problem of overcrowding on London.s rail network. The Crossrail scheme proposed in the Study was discontinued because of a recession and because of the priority given the developing links to London.s Docklands. Progress on Crossrail was resumed in 2002 at the same time as the Department.s appraisal methods were being revised to incorporate Wider Economic Benefits. The quantification of these additional benefits, the resolution of a source of funding and the role of the Mayor all influenced the Government.s decision that the scheme should be built. Identification of some of the Wider Benefits poses problems for transport models that are only partially resolved through the use of land use transport interaction models. Although the use of a Gross Value Added metric provides an alternative way of estimating the economic impacts of a scheme, it does not replace cost benefit analysis as a decision aid for government ministers.