In many countries research plays an important role in the decision-making processes of infrastructure investments, since findings help decision-makers to assess and evaluate the impacts of new infrastructure. During the past decade the trend in research supporting the decision-making process has been towards an impact evaluation based on a broad definition of welfare. Not only are economic impacts included in ex-ante project evaluations of new infrastructure, but also increasingly more these prove to be ecological and, sometimes, even social. In many countries cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is used for evaluating all possible impacts of infrastructure investments. This currently includes the Netherlands, where, historically, a mixture of CBA and multi-criteria analysis (MCA) has been used. Here, the present paper will aim to answer the following questions around this relatively ‘young’ standardized CBA practice in the Netherlands. Why have Dutch authorities chosen CBA as the main evaluation method for new infrastructure projects? Is this choice well thought out, taking the, sometimes fierce, scientific criticism into consideration? Has CBA practice in the Netherlands exploited its potential? Has the practice led to transparent and theoretically well-founded exante impact evaluations, and has the CBA practice really supported decisionmaking on new infrastructure projects?