The problem of using the cost-benefit analysis in making decisions about electromobility development in urban public transport in Poland
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2022.009Keywords
cost-benefit analysis, decision making, zero-emission buses, urban public transportAbstract
Motivation: Polish Act on Electromobility and Alternative Fuels obliges 83 cities to prepare every three years cost-benefit analysis (CBAs) using zero-emission buses (ZEBs) in urban public transport. First-time obligated institutions prepared them in 2018. The organisations indicated in the Act on Electromobility, and Alternative Fuels had experience using this tool, e.g. applying for EU co-financing of investment projects. However, the analysis of the selected documents shows significant differences in the approach to developing CBAs.
Aim: The aim of the study is to identify the most critical problems related to the use of CBA as a decision-making tool for the implementation of investments involving the performance of ZEBs in urban public transport. The study identifies the main advantages and limitations of the instrument. It also proposes introducing requirements by the legislator, which could increase the comparability of CBA results and thus reduce the uncertainty of decisions.
Results: Using CBA as a decision-making tool requires maintaining an appropriate methodological regime. It involves the identification of alternative projects that allow the realisation of the objectives set by the decision-maker. Its essence is to identify the undertaking that will allow achieving the best results from the organisation’s point of view and from the social, environmental, and economic perspective. The research indicates that the lack of explicit guidelines from the legislator concerning the methodology of CBA preparation for the needs of ZEB implementation hinders comparability of the obtained results and reduces uncertainty of decisions made on their basis.
References
Ambrasaite, I., Barfod, M.B., & Salling, K.B. (2011). MCDA and risk analysis in transport infrastructure appraisals: the Rail Baltica case. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20, 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.103.
Andersson, H., Hultkrantz, L., Lindberg, G., & Nilsson, J-E. (2018). Economic analysis and investment priorities in sweden’s transport sector. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 9(1), 120–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2018.3.
Annema, J.A., Mouter, N., & Razaei, J. (2015). Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or both: politicians’ perspective in transport policy appraisal. Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 788–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.032.
Asplund, D., & Eliasson, J. (2016). Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.002.
Balbontin, C., Hensher, D.A., Ho, C., & Mulley, C. (2020). Do preferences for BRT and LRT change as a voter, citizen, tax payer, or self-interested resident? Transportation, 47(6), 2981–3030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-019-09998-2.
Barfod, M.B. (2018). Supporting sustainable transport appraisals using stakeholder involvement and MCDA. Transport, 33(4), 1052–1066. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2018.6596.
Barfod, M.B., & Salling, K.B. (2015). A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 72, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.12.001.
Beria, P., Maltese, I., & Mariotti, I. (2012). Multicriteria versus cost-benefit analysis: a comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. European Transport Research Review, 4(3), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-012-0074-9.
Beukers, E., Bertolini, L., & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2012). Why cost benefit analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: a process perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.004.
Browne, D., & Ryan, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.11.001.
City of Cracow. (2018). Analiza kosztów i korzyści związanych z wykorzystaniem autobusów zeroemisyjnych, w celu świadczenia usług komunikacji miejskiej na terenie aglomeracji krakowskiej. Retrieved 05.12.2020 from https://www.bip.krakow.pl/zalaczniki/dokumenty/n/228404/karta.
City of Lodz. (2018). Analiza kosztów i korzyści związanych z wykorzystaniem przy świadczeniu usług komunikacji miejskiej w Łodzi autobusów zeroemisyjnych oraz innych środków transportu. Retrieved 05.12.2020 from https://uml.lodz.pl/files/public/dla_mieszkanca/Konsultacje_spoleczne/AKK_Lodz.pdf.
City of Poznan. (2018). Analiza kosztów i korzyści związanych z wykorzystaniem przy świadczeniu usług komunikacji miejskiej w Poznaniu autobusów zeroemisyjnych. Retrieved 05.12.2020 from https://www.poznan.pl/mim/konsultujemy/-,p,38117,38125,44160.html.
City of Warsaw. (2018). Analiza kosztów i korzyści związanych z wykorzystaniem, przy świadczeniu usług komunikacji miejskiej, autobusów zeroemisyjnych oraz innych środków transportu, w których do napędu wykorzystywane są wyłącznie silniki, których cykl pracy nie powoduje emisji gazów cieplarnianych lub innych substancji objętych systemem zarządzania emisjami gazów cieplarnianych. Retrieved 05.12.2020 from https://transport.um.warszawa.pl/documents/62470/8560273/AKK_Warszawa.pdf/b188d582-7374-b8fa-4991-09c1e3dfa79d?t=1619801675726.
City of Wroclaw. (2018). Analiza kosztów i korzyści związanych z wykorzystaniem, przy świadczeniu usług komunikacji miejskiej, autobusów zeroemisyjnych oraz innych środków transportu, w których do napędu wykorzystywane są wyłącznie silniki, których cykl pracy nie powoduje emisji gazów cieplarnianych lub innych substancji. Retrieved 05.12.2020 from https://bip.um.wroc.pl/attachments/download/67172.
Damart, S., & Roy, B. (2009). The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France. Transport Policy, 16(4), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.06.002.
EEA. (2021). EEA greenhouse gas: data viewer. Retrieved 07.01.2021 from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/greenhouse-gases-viewer.
Eliasson, J., & Lundberg, M. (2012). Do cost-benefit analyses influence transport investment decisions? experiences from the Swedish transport investment plan 2010–21. Transport Reviews, 32(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.582541.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built: and what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), 344–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grp024.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M.S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: error or lie. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279–295. doi:10.1080/01944360208976273.
Grunicke, C., Schlüter, J., & Jokinen, J.-P. (2020). Evaluation methods and governance practices of new flexible passenger transport projects. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 38, 100575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100575.
Henke, I., Carteni, A., & Di Francesco, L. (2020a). A sustainable evaluation processes for investments in the transport sector: a combined multi-criteria and cost-benefit analysis for a new highway in Italy. Sustainability, 12(23), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12239854.
Henke, I., Carteni, A., Molitierno, C., & Errico, A. (2020b). Decision-making in the transport sector: a sustainable evaluation method for road infrastructure. Sustainability, 12(3), 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030764.
Jones, H., Moura, F., & Domingos, T. (2014). Transport infrastructure project evaluation using cost-benefit analysis. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.073.
Lee, H.K., & Kim, H.Y. (2017). A crossing-line between transportation evaluation and natural capital assessment: perspectives on ecological economics and project evaluation. Open Transportation Journal, 11(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874447801711010044.
Mackie, P., Worsley, T., & Eliasson, J. (2014). Transport appraisal revisited. Research in Transportation Economics, 47(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.013.
Pagliara, F. (2021). Consumer’s surplus: an equity measure of high speed rail investments. Sustainability, 13(8), 4537. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084537.
SAO. (2020). Informacja o wynikach kontroli: wsparcie rozwoju elektromobilności. Retrieved 09.01.2021 from https://www.nik.gov.pl/plik/id,23045,vp,25751.pdf.
Statistic Poland. (2018). Transport: wyniki działalności w 2018 roku. Retrieved 05.12.2020 from https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/transport-i-lacznosc/transport/transport-wyniki-dzialalnosci-w-2018-roku,9,18.html.
Thomopoulos, N., & Grant-Muller, S. (2013). Incorporating equity as part of the wider impacts in transport infrastructure assessment: an application of the SUMINI approach. Transportation, 40(2), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-012-9418-5.
Vickerman, R. (2017). Beyond cost-benefit analysis: the search for a comprehensive evaluation of transport investment. Research in Transportation Economics, 63, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2017.04.003.
Vigren, A., & Ljungberg, A. (2018). Public transport authorities’ use of cost-benefit analysis in practice. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.001.
Wolff, M.G.D.C., & Caldas, M.A.F. (2018). A model for the evaluation of Brazilian road transport: a sustainable perspective. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5274789.
ZTM Katowice. (2019). Analiza kosztów i korzyści wykorzystywania pojazdów elektrycznych w komunikacji miejskiej organizowanej przez KZK GOP, MZKP Tarnowskie Góry oraz MZK w Tychach. Retrieved 05.12.2020 from https://metropoliaztm.nowybip.pl/article/analiza-kosztow-i-korzysci-wdrozenia-elektromobilnosci.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Anna Mercik

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 1305
Number of citations: 0