Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transportation Infrastructure Project Evaluation: Transforming CBA to Include a Life Cycle Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research

Part of the book series: World Sustainability Series ((WSUSE))

Abstract

The United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015 adopted a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which reveal the need for the integration of the three main dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social, and environmental. Sustainability is often cited as a reason to build transportation infrastructure such as high-speed rail. A transport CBA that integrates economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits is needed to support these claims. Most transport CBAs ignore or pay little attention to the life cycle costs and benefits over the life of the project. In order to avoid potentially misleading results, the infrastructure project must be examined over the entire life of the project. In transport CBAs, the environmental impacts are only considered during the operation phase. The aim of this research is to account for the environmental impacts for the entire life cycle of the project and better reflecting the costs and benefits of the project throughout its entire life cycle. Transforming CBA to include a life cycle perspective will be accomplished by performing, monetizing, and including a life cycle assessment (LCA) into the CBA finally tying economic, social, and environmental impacts into a single project evaluation tool.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackerman, F. (2008). Critique of cost–benefit analysis, and alternative approaches to decision-making. London: Friends of the Earth England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banister, D., & Berechman, J. (2000). Transport investment and economic development. London: UCL Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barzaga-Castellanos, L., Neufert, R., & Markert, B. (2001). Life cycle assessment for the implementation of emission control measures for the freight traffic with heavy duty vehicles in Germany. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 6(4), 231–242. doi:10.1007/BF02978866.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, I., Turner, R. K., & Bateman, S. (1993). Extending cost benefit analysis of UK highway proposals: Environmental evaluation and equity. Project Appraisal, 8, 213–224. doi:10.1080/02688867.1993.9726911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beder, S. (2000). Costing the Earth: Equity, sustainable development and environmental economics. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 4, 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bristow, A. L., & Nellthorp, J. (2000). Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transport Policy, 7, 51–60. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00010-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, R. (1991). Auditing the precision and accuracy of environmental impact predictions in Australia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 18, 1–23. doi:10.1007/BF00394475.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Button, K. (2010). Transport economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chester, M., & Horvath, A. (2007a), Environmental life-cycle assessment of passenger transportation: A detailed methodology for energy, greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant inventories of automobiles, buses, light rail, heavy rail and air. UC Berkeley for Future Urban Transport UCB-ITS-VWP-2007-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chester, M., & Horvath, A. (2007b). Environmental life-cycle assessment of passenger transportation an energy, greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant inventory of rail and air transportation. Report to the University of California Transportation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chester, M., & Horvath, A. (2012). High-speed rail with emerging automobiles and aircraft can reduce environmental impacts in California’s future. Environmental Research Letters, 7, 034012. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevallier, J. (2010). The European carbon market (2005–2007): Banking, pricing and risk-hedging strategies. Halshs-00458787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culhane, P. J. (1987). The precision and accuracy of U.S. environmental impact statements. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 8, 217–238. doi:10.1007/BF00404266.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Facanha, C., & Horvath, C. (2006). Environmental assessment of freight transportation in the U.S. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(4), 229–239. doi:10.1065/lca2006.02.244.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, C., & Wang, S. (2005). The fully economic evaluation for transport infrastructure project. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 1778–1791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florio, M., & Sartori, D. (2010). Getting incentives right: Do we need ex post CBA? Centre for Industrial Studies, Working Paper N.01/2010, Milan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2007). Policy and planning for large infrastructure projects: Problems, causes, cures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 578–597. doi:10.1068/b32111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fries, N., & Hellweg, S. (2014). LCA of land-based freight transportation: Facilitating practical application and including accidents in LCIA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 546–557. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0657-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., de Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & van Zelm, R. (2013). ReCiPe 2008 a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Den Haag: Ministerie van VROM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimaldi, R., Laurino, A., & Beria, P. (2010). The choice between bus and light rail transit: A stylized cost–benefit analysis model. Munich Personal RePEc Archive 24872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guhnemann, A. (1999). SEA and sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region. In OECD/ECMT Conference on Strategic Environmental Assessment for Transport, Warsaw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. S., & Gilberg, U. M. (2003). Cost–benefit analysis and life cycle assessment in environmental decision-making—Potentials and limitations. Master thesis, Technical University of Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi, Y., & Morisugi, H. (2000). International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal. Transport Policy, 7(1), 73–88. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00015-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinzerling, L., & Ackerman, F. (2002). Pricing the priceless. Cost–benefit analysis of environmental protection. Washington: Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute, Georgetown University Law Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006a). ISO 14040:2006 environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. Geneva: ISO.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006b). ISO 14044:2006 environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guidelines. Geneva: ISO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H., Moura, F., & Domingos, T. (2014). Transport infrastructure project evaluation using cost–benefit analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 400–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H., Moura, F., & Domingos, T. (2016). Life cycle assessment of high-speed rail: A case study in Portugal. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22, 410–422. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1177-7

  • Kjerkreit, A., Odeck, J., & Sandvik, K. O. (2008). Post opening evaluation of road investment projects in Norway: How correct are the estimated future benefits? In European transport conference 2008. Leeuwenhorst Conference Center, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandell, S. (2011). Carbon emission values in cost benefit analyses. Transport Policy, 18, 888–892. doi:10.1016/j.transpol.2011.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, M. L. J., & McGoey-Smith, A. D. (2006). Risk-based cost and schedule estimation for large transportation projects. In European Transport Conference 2006, Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishan, E. J., & Quah, E. (2007). Cost–benefit analysis (5th ed.). New York: Routeledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B. C., Pendleton, L., Jenkins, W. A., & Sifleet, S. (2011). Green payments for blue carbon economic incentives for protecting threatened coastal habitats. Durham: Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer, S. C., & Spash, L. (2001). Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: A critical appraisal. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 567–585. doi:10.1002/pam.10026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRé Consultants. (2010). Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. Report version 4.5, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • PRé Consultants. (2013). SimaPro 7 software. www.pre.nl.

  • Rasouli, S., & Timmermans, H. (2012). Uncertainty in travel demand forecasting models: Literature review and research agenda. Transportation Letters: The International Journal of Transportation Research, 4, 55–73. doi:10.3328/TL.2012.04.01.55-73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rede Ferroviária de Alta Velocidade (RAVE). (2009). Análise Custo-Benefício da Ligação em Alta Velocidade Ferroviária da Ligação Lisboa-Porto. London: Steer Davies Gleave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlaupittz, H. (2008). Energi-og Klimakonsekvenser av Moderne Transportsystemer-Effekter ved Bygging av Høyhastighetsbaner i Norge. The consequences of modern transport systems upon energy and the environment—The effects of building high-speed rail lines in Norway. Oslo: Norges Naturvernforbund, Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J., & Kopp, A. (2005). Transport infrastructure: Investment and planning. Policy and research aspects. Transport Policy, 12(4), 360–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skamris, M. K., & Flyvbjerg, B. (1997). Inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and cost estimates on large transport projects. Transport Policy, 4(3), 141–146. doi:10.1016/S0967-070X(97)00007-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spash, C. L. (2000). The concerted action on environmental valuation in Europe (EVE): An introduction. Concerted Action on Environmental Valuation in Europe (EVE), Policy Research Brief 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielmann, M., & Scholz, R. W. (2005). Life cycle inventories of transport services background data for freight transport. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10(1), 85–94. doi:10.1065/lca2004.10.181.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielmann, M., Bauer, C., Dones, R., &Tuchsmid, M. (2007). Transport Services. ecoinvent Report No. 14. Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories. Dubendorf, Switzerland. http://www.upe.poli.br/~cardim/PEC/Ecoinvent%20LCA/ecoinventReports/14_ Transport.pdf.

  • Sun, Y. (2014). Life cycle assessment of a novel building-integrated photovoltaic-thermal (BIPVT) system. Master’s thesis, Columbia University, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatari, O., & Kucukvar, M. (2012). Sustainability assessment of U.S. construction sectors: Ecosystems perspective. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(8), 918–922. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulgiati, S., & Basosi, R. (2010). High-speed rail: Misleading assessments and false solutions. Life cycle assessment and energy analysis. Parthenope University of Napoli, Department of Sciences for the Environment and University of Siena, Department of Chemistry, Centre for Complex System Investigation.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1972). Guidelines for project evaluation. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1992). United Nations framework convention on climate change. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2005). Kyoto protocol. Treaty series (Vol. 2303, No. 30822, pp. 162–331). New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2011). Environmentally sustainable transport. In Economic and social commission for Asia and Pacific, expert group meeting on preparations for the ministerial conference on transport, July 14–15, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2012). Doha amendment to the kyoto protocol. C.N.718.2012.TREATIES-XXVII.7.c. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2012). Emissions allowance prices for SO 2 and NO x remain low in 2011. Today in Energy. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Clean air markets. Washington, DC: US EPA Clean Air Markets. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets. Accessed January 28, 2016.

  • Uppenberg, S., Stripple, H., & Ribenhend, M. (2003). Miljödeklarerad Infrastruktur-Metodutveckling för Miljöbedömning av Infrastruktursystem. Development of methodology for environmental assessment of infrastructure systems. IVL Rapport, Report B 1526, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utah Foundation. (2010). High-speed rail around the world: A survey and comparison of existing systems. Utah Foundation, Report Number 694, Salt Lake City.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wee, B., van der Brink, R., & Nijland, H. (2003). Environmental impacts of high-speed rail links in cost-benefit analyses: A case study of the Dutch Zuider Zee line. Transportation Research Part D, 8, 299–314. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(03)00017-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Rozycki, C., Koeser, H., & Schwarz, H. (2003). Ecology profile of the German high-speed rail passenger transport system, ICE. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(2), 83–91. doi:10.1065/lca2003.02.107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, K., Barlaz, M., Ranjithan, R., Brill, D., Thorneloe, S., & Ham, R. (1999). Life cycle management of municipal solid waste. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 4(4), 195–201. doi:10.1007/BF02979496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westin, J., & Kageson, P. (2012). Can high speed rail offset its embedded emissions? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(1), 1–7. doi:10.1016/jtrd.2011.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C., Dipper, B., & Jones, C. (2000). Auditing the assessment of the environmental impacts of planning projects. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(1), 23–47. doi:10.1080/09640560010757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2005). Demand forecasting errors. Transport Note No. TRN-12. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yue, Y. (2013). Life cycle assessment of China’s high speed rail systems. Master’s thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, CESUR/CERis, Center for Urban and Regional Systems, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais n°1, 1049–001, Lisbon, Portugal

    Heather Luclaire Jones & Filipe Moura

  2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, MARETEC—Marine, Environment and Technology Centre, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais n°1, 1049–001, Lisbon, Portugal

    Tiago Domingos

Authors
  1. Heather Luclaire Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Filipe Moura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tiago Domingos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Luclaire Jones .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Life Sciences, HAW Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Walter Leal Filho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones, H.L., Moura, F., Domingos, T. (2018). Transportation Infrastructure Project Evaluation: Transforming CBA to Include a Life Cycle Perspective. In: Leal Filho, W. (eds) Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_46

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation