The Evaluation of French Major Highway Projects: Recommendations Based on American Experience

The context for infrastructure decisions in France has been changing since the early 1980's. Historically based on a centralized administration that provided all the necessary resources, the evaluation processes now face widening concerns on three important points: (1) institutionally, the Decentralization and European Integration processes no longer guarantee the quasi monopoly of the central government; (2) financially, deregulation and privatization call for increased participation of private investors; (3) socially, the numerous particular concerns that are to be taken more formally into account open the debate to new participants. These changes imply that French evaluation processes need more clarity, more risk analysis and more considerations of different points of view. A particular consequence of this new context is that French decisions for future highways should be based on a negotiated debate rather than on imposed "optimal" solutions. Based on American examples, and innovative practices for local financing, this thesis shows how new procedures can be implemented in the French system. The current French legal framework appears sufficient for allowing the recommended changes. The French system should emphasize more pragmatic than theoretic approaches for such complex issues. The recommendations for the French system therefore emphasize both a leadership shift inside the leading authority, the Ministare de l'Fquipement and innovative use of existing regulations, to achieve a participatory process for highway-decision, which have proved to be very successful in a wide range of contexts in the United States. Thesis supervisor: Professor Richard de Neufville Chairman, Technology and Policy Program