IWAKURA, Seiji IEDA, Hitoshi 1 9 9 7 10 3 1 59 10 1 WG 30 2 3 1960 4 1 002 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter
2 5. 4. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 1 2 8 11 7 139 8 11 29 9 4 4 9 1 29 9 4 4 57 9 7 9 6 3 9 6 19 9 8 6 12 24 10 58 9 10 1 9 12 5 12 17 10 3 27 5 5 5 5 10 5 B / C 8,352 1,565 3,096 13.1 2.4 8.7 2,854 451 809 2.9 3.5 3.8 218 52 4.2 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter 003
3 Jules Dupuit 1844 1988 1842 la loi du Juin 1842 72 6 1842 Dupuit 2 1 2 2 Marshall 1930Consumer SurplusHicks 1943 Equivalent Variation Compensating Variation 1995 1902The River and Harbor Act 1950 Green Book Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee 6 7 1970 23 Foster and Beesley 1963 Sheffield Wales 11 1960 2 604 60 PPBS Planning-Programming-Budgeting System 70 80 7 90 1 1967 PPBS 2 1968 004 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter
1960 PPBS 1960 Dupuit 1844 37 Marshall 1930 Hicks 1943 1970 Williams 1977 45 P47 48 1980 W 61 63 1990 97 M/P CVM 3 10 7 6 ECMT 2 4 70 8 9 18 70 3 1977 Williams 1 20 1986 70 15 17 Kanemoto and Mera 1985 2 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter 005
50 70 10 14 16 1987 2 1966 2 1967 5 1972a 1972b 1973 20 1974 36 80 1985 1980 12 8 28 55 3 80 1987 1988 1987 1989 6 1986 4 7 180 5 1987 1988 35 1990 1993b 90131992 6 100km 120km 3 3 1995 1990 1993a 006 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter
7 Yai et al. 1997 1995 1996 ECMT/OECD 1994 IPCC 1995 56 CVM 1998 CVM CVM CVM 1998 4 1970 5 1972 6 1973 11 1970 9 2 2 1988 1 8 6 JR 6 13.78.7 7.5 36 1998 1 10 JR 7 52 JR 9 12 54 1998 6 18 60 7 4.1 30 1986 12 F/S 26 1997 5 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter 007
4 4.1 1 1 3 B-C B/C EIRR B C 3 OD 4.2 1 19 7 103 1 4 30 2 10 10 10 2 UB SB CC LR SV ta tb 1 tc 1 te 30 i 3 008 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter
1 2 3 3 4 4 30 4 5 6 2 7 4.3 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter 009
5 1 5 1 2 6 4.2. 5 PPBS 60 1998 3 010 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter
RAS/W 44 1991 RAS/W 4 1 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Method PPBS efficiency economy 1994 Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Method USDOT FTA 5 METRO/C-TRAN 19961995 2 PPBS 71 1994 3 NeubergerJara-Diaz and Friesz 1982 4 2 [1969] 5 Bristow et. al. 1998 1995 6 USDOT 1990 LRT 8 6 2 7 1.55 1 Dupuit[1844], De la mesure de l utilite des travaux publics, Annales des Ponts et Chaussees, 2e semestre, pp.332-335 pp.177-222 2 Dupuit [1849], De l influence des peages sur l utilite des voies de communication, Annales des Ponts et Chaussees, 1er semestre, pp.170-248. pp.225-310 3 Foster, C. D. and Beesley, M. E. [1963], Estimating the Social Benefit of Constructing an Underground Railway in London, J. of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol.126, No.1, pp.46-93. [1974], VOL.XVII No.5. 4 ECMT [1967], 2nd International Symposium on Theory and Practice in Transport Economics. [1969] ECMT 2 5 [1968],. [1969], pp.10-17. [1967], Vol.27, 11 12 6 [1969] 7[1969], PPBS 8 [1970], 9 [1971], 2 10 [1970], 3 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter 011
11[1970], 3 12 [1972a], 13 [1972b], 14 [1973], 8 15 [1974], 17 3 pp.43-54 16 [1974], 34 3 pp.67-77 17 [1976],19 4 pp.21-29 18 [1976], 1974 1976 2 19 Williams, H.C.W.L. [1976], Travel demand models, Duality relations and user benefit analysis, J. of regional science, vol.16 no.2 20 Williams, H.C.W.L.[1977], On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit, Environment and Planning A, Vol.9, pp.285-344 21 [1977], 22 Jara-Diaz, S.R. and Terry L.Friesz [1982], Measuring the Benefits Derived from a Transportation Investment, Transpn Res., Vol.16B, No.1.. [1982], 25 12 26 1 23 [1984], 7 24 Kanemoto and Mera[1985], General Equilibrium Analysis of the Benefits of Large Transportation Improvements, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 15, pp.343-363 25 [1985], 26 [1986], 27 [1986], No.4 pp.149-157 28 [1986], No.365 pp.135-143 29 [1987], A-114 30 [1987], No.10 pp.237-244 31 [1987], 32 [1988], 33 [1988], 3 34 [1988], No.6 pp.177-184 35 [1988], 6 pp.66-70 36 [1989], 1 MOBILITYpp.74-85 37 [1990], 38 [1990], No.413 pp.56-66 39 USDOT [1990], Urban Rail Transit Projects : Forecast Versus Actual Ridership and Cost 40 [1991], No.425 pp.81-90 41 [1993a], No.16 2 pp.275-280 42 [1994], 43 [1995], 2 2 44 Federal Minister of Transport[1993], Macro-Economic Evaluation of Transport Infrastructure Investments, Publication Series Vol.72. RAS/W. [1997], [1993] RAS-W36 9 45 ECMT/OECD [1994], Internalizing the social costs of transport, OECD publication 46 [1994], 47 [1995], [1996], 48 [1995], 49[1995],MOBILITY No.101 pp.56-62 50 [1996], A-201 51 METRO/C-TRAN [1996], Evaluation Methods Report-South/North transit Corridor Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement 52 [1997], 53 Yai, T., S.Iwakura, S.Morichi [1997], Multinomial Probit with Structured Covariance for Route Choice Behavior, Transpn Res.-B, Vol.31 No.3, pp.195-207 [1993b], No.11. 54 [1997], 55 [1997], [1992], No.449 pp.37-46 56 [1997], IPCC 3 57 [1997], [1997], 6 pp.34 58 [1997], 10 59 [1998], 97 60 [1998], 1998 7 15 61 [1998], 6 Vol.83 pp.37-40 62 [1998], 58 5 pp.59-70 63 Bristow, A.L. et al. [1998], Cost, Prices and Values in the Appraisal of Transport Projects-European Principles and Practice, WCTR98 working paper 64 [1998], 9 012 Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter
Past and Future of Cost-Benefit Analysis for Railway Projects in Japan By Seiji IWAKURA and Hitoshi IEDA Since 1960 s theoretical evaluation methods for transport investment have been developed; such as user surplus approach, hedonic approach and regional econometric model etc. However, in the past, cost-benefit analysis was little adopted in decision-making process in transportation sectors in Japan. Recently, Ministry of Transport decided to use the cost-benefit analysis for project appraisal. This paper reviews the history of theoretical and practical cost-benefit analysis focusing on railway investment, and discusses on issues of research for the future from theoretical and practical viewpoints. Key Words ; railway project, cost benefit analysis, manual, review Vol.1 No.3 1999 Winter 013