1. International experiences in
evaluation and selection of mass
transit projects
Ben Owen
Visiting Fellow
www.embarq.org
Photo credits (L to R): Meena Kadri, Jacek.NL, Gerardo Arévalo Tamayo (all via Flickr)

2. National programs studied
Reviewed
Review pending

3. Contextual factors that influence evaluation
processes
Categories of project
supported by program Mass
transit
National mass transit
policies Surface
transport
Age of program
Urban / national
Planning requirements infrastructure

4. Evaluation frameworks
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

5. Socioeconomic evaluation: Cost-benefit
analysis
Focus on (discounted) direct, monetizable
societal impacts of a project over its life
Consumer surplus
• Travel time
• Vehicle operating costs /
fares Costs to government
• Travel quality • Project capital
contributions
Benefit-cost
Producer surplus • (Project operating and
ratio
• Vehicle operating costs maintenance subsidies)
Internal rate
of return
Externalities Net present
Costs to infrastructure
• Noise value
managers / project operators
• Air pollution / GHG
• Project capital
emissions
contributions
• Traffic collisions
(Also negative impacts during construction)

6. Complementary socioeconomic evaluations
Further socioeconomic impacts may serve to
‘adjust’ cost-benefit analysis results
• Wider / indirect
economic benefits
(i.e., agglomeration, imp
roved job matching)
• Environmental impacts
(i.e., water
quality, habitats, viewsh
eds, physical activity)
• Equity / distributional
effects
Photo credit: Ariel Cruz Pizarro (via Flickr)

7. Strategic and policy evaluation factors
Consistency with national government policies
and priorities
• Investments
• Reforms
Urban
development and
transport priorities
• Land use
• Transport plans and
other investments
Photo credit: Ferdi (via Flickr)

8. Policy consistency: Colombia
Objectives: reverse decreases in transit mode
share through better service quality, balance
supply and demand
Cities must
commit to
coordinating /
rationalizing
privately operated
transport services
as part of funding
agreements Photo credit: miguelmatus (via Flickr)

9. Policy consistency: New Zealand
Objectives: support economic growth and productivity
improvements
Projects rated
on how
effectively
they meet
associated
objectives
(reduce
congestion, i
mprove travel
time
Photo credit: Nankai (via Wikipedia)
reliability)

10. Land use: United States
Projects evaluated based
on
• Existing land use in
corridor (population
density, employment, p
arking supply, etc.)
• Potential to shape
corridor and regional
economic
development, based on
policies and plans Photo: Jeff Wood (via Flickr)

11. Evaluations and decision-making
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)

12. Thank you!
Ben Owen
bowen@wri.org
+1 202 729-7600
www.embarq.org
Photo credits (L to R): Aaron Hockley, Omar Bárcena, Rupert Brun (all via Flickr)