The economic cost of a 130 km/h speed limit: Insights for cost-benefit analyses

Two comments submitted in critique of our paper (Gössling et al. 2023) present an opportunity to discuss principles of CBA and their use in transport contexts. The critique needs to be discussed in context, as CBA is not an objective tool of evaluation and relies on specific assumptions. For this reason, we begin our response with an introduction to the German transport context, including developments in car ownership and background on the German Climate Protection Act that legally requires all economic sectors to reduce emissions. This framing is important to correctly understand our response to Sieg (2024) as well as Eisenkopf et al. (2024). Overall, we note that many of their criticisms lack merit, while others depend on viewpoint. We conclude that, specifically considering current price levels for fuels, our findings are not in question: a speed limit is warranted for welfare reasons; it is supported by a majority of the population; and it can help closing the emission gap in the transport sector. Findings are also discussed within the wider framework of “desirable” transport systems, illustrating the limitations of CBA and the dangers of tailoring results in ways that lend credibility to specific forms of transport governance, as apparently favored by Sieg (2024) and Eisenkopf et al. (2024).