A cost-benefit analysis of tunnel investment and tolling alternatives in Antwerp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proposal has been made to build a new tunnel under the Scheldt river near the centre of Antwerp in \norder to relieve traffic congestion on the ring road and in an existing tunnel. The new tunnel is expected \nto cost more than €1 billion, and tolls have been suggested to help finance construction and to manage \ndemand. This paper conducts a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of a new tunnel and three alternative \ntolling schemes, and compares them with a do-nothing scenario and an option to toll the existing tunnel \nwithout building a new one. The two tunnels are treated as imperfect substitutes, and a multi-year \naccounting framework is adopted that accounts for emissions, accidents and noise externalities, road \ndamage, revenues accruing to the national and regional governments from existing transport user charges, \nand the salvage value of the new tunnel. With the base-case parameter values it is found that building the \ntunnel is worthwhile with all three tolling regimes and yields a higher benefit than not building the tunnel \nand tolling the old one. Nevertheless, the net benefit from building the tunnel differs appreciably between \ntolling regimes, and it is sensitive to the value assumed for the marginal cost of public funds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".