Do Cost-Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010-21

Transport Reviews

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 29-48

  Eliasson, Jonas ^a   Lundberg, Mattias ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; INVESTMENT; TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS; TRANSPORTATION SAFETY; TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM;

SWEDEN;

EID: 84857969640     PISSN: 01441647     EISSN: 14645327     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2011.582541     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Arnott, R. 1997. Transport project appraisal/cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, 5(1) p. 45
2. Brent, R. 1979. Imputing weights behind past railway closure decisions within a cost-benefit framework. Applied Economics, 11(2): 157-170.
3. Bristow, A. L. and Nellthorp, J. 2000. Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transport Policy, 7(1): 5-60.
4. Damart, R. and Roy, B. 2009. The uses of cost-benefit analysis in public transportation decision-making in France. Transport Policy, 16(4): 200-212.
5. Fridström, L. and Elvik, R. 1997. The barely revealed preference behind road investment priorities. Public Choice, 92(1-2): 145-168.
6. Grant-Muller, S. M., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J. and Pearman, A. 2001. Economic appraisal of European transport projects: the state of the art revisited. Transport Reviews, 21(2): 237-261.
7. Hansson, S.-O. 2007. Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 23(2): 163-183.
8. HEATCO (2006) Developing harmonised European approaches for transport costing and project assessment. Available at: http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/hstart.html (accessed 10 February 2011).
9. Mackie, P. and Preston, J. 1998. Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal. Transport Policy, 5(1): 1-7.
10. McFadden, D. 1975. The revealed preference of a government bureaucracy: theory. The Bell Journal of Economics, 6(2): 401-716.
11. McFadden, D. 1976. The revealed preference of a government bureaucracy: empirical evidence. The Bell Journal of Economics, 7(1): 55-72.
12. Nellthorp, J. and Mackie, P. 2000. The UK Roads Review-a hedonic model of decision making. Transport Policy, 7(2): 127-138.
13. Nilsson, J. E. 1991. Investment decisions in a public bureaucracy. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 25(2): 163-175.
14. Nyborg, K. 1998. Some Norwegian politicians' use of cost-benefit analysis. Public Choice, 95(3-4): 381-401.
15. Odeck, J. 1996. Ranking of regional road investment in Norway. Transportation, 23(2): 123-140.
16. Odeck, J. (2010) What determines decision-makers' preferences for road investments? Evidence from the Norwegian Road Sector, Transport Reviews, 30(4), pp. 473-494.
17. Odgaard, T., Kelly, C. and Laird, J. Current practice in project appraisal in Europe, in:. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference, 3-5 October, Strasbourg, Association for European Transport
18. Sager, T. and Ravlum, I.-A. 2005. The political relevance of planners' analysis: the case of a parliamentary standing committee. Planning Theory, 4(1): 33-65.
19. Sælensminde, K. 2004. Cost-benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic. Transportation Research Part A, 38(8): 593-606.
20. SIKA (2008) Samhällsekonomiska principer och kalkylvärden för transportsektorn: ASEK 4. SIKA PM 2008:3.
21. Venables, A. 2007. Evaluating urban transport improvements: cost-benefit analysis in the presence of agglomeration and income taxation. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 41(2): 173-188.
22. Willis, K. G., Garrod, G. D. and Harvey, D. R. 1998. A review of cost-benefit analysis as applied to the evaluation of new road proposals in the U.K. Transportation Research, D3(3): 141-156.