The 14 'priority' Trans-European Networks (or TENs) Span the Member States of the European Union
NELLTHORP J, BRISTOW A and MACKIE P, University of Leeds, UK
European Union. A total investment of 91 billion ECU is programmed for this first tranche, which includes high speed and conventional railways, roads, an airport (Malpensa, Italy) and an international fixed Hnk (Oresund, Denmark-Sweden). Given the scale a
European Union. A total investment of 91 billion ECU is programmed for this first tranche, which includes high speed and conventional railways, roads, an airport (Malpensa, Italy) and an international fixed Hnk (Oresund, Denmark-Sweden). Given the scale and diversity of these projects, deeision-makers with responsibility for aUoeating the TEN budget are likely to look to some form of project appraisal for information on the balance of costs and benefits.
However, no single project appraisal tool exists which would be capable of handling this range of schemes e0nsistenfly. At the national level, many member states use different methods to appraise schemes on different modes, leading to outputs which are not comparable, although there is a movement towards integration (see for example Netherlands Project Pi and French appraisal guidelines (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1997; Sect6talre d'Etat aux Transports, 1995)). At the European level, further issues arise since the member states' methods are, in a number of ways, incompatible. For example, different impacts are included, at different levels of disaggregation, and measured in different ways; and values for appraisal purposes diverge.
The aim of the EUNET-DECISION research project is to develop an appraisal tool which is appropriate to Tran~-European Networks (TENs) and which is consistent across modes and across member states. EUNET is funded by DGVII of the European Commission under the ELI Fourth Framework Transport Programme. The work is being carded out by a consortium of European universities and consultants, with the support of the UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.
This paper reports on the work of one team at ITS Leeds in relation to the measurement and valuation of scheme impacts. The objective is to provide a full set of values for the EUNET appraisal tool (see Pearman et al in these proceedings), drawing on best practice in the ELf member states and building on previous mode-specific research undertaken for the European Commission (eg. ITS and ME&P, 1994; Beuthe et al, 1995; ISIS, MVA, TUM et al, 1995; EVA Consortium, 1989). However, in the early stages, the main tasks have been to review current practice across member states and to identify the key issues to be dealt with in developing the set of appraisal values for EUNET.
Valuing the costs and benefits in European transport appraisal
Drawing on the work to date, this paper sets out to address the following questions:
* firstly, to define the context, what is the role of formal project appraisal ('including Cost-Benefit Analysis) in national decision-making on transport infrastructure investment?
* what is the scope of existing appraisal methods - which impacts are included and which are valued?
* what are the key issues faced in developing a European value set?
* for specific impacts, is there a consensus on appraisal practice at the national level, and what are the main theoretical and practical difficulties? and
* in conclusion, what are the research challenges facing EUNET at the next stage?
Association for European Transport