Combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis to prioritise a national road infrastructure programme

Transport Policy

Volumn 23, Issue , 2012, Pages 15-24

  Gühnemann, Astrid ^a   Laird, James J ^a   Pearman, Alan D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost benefit analysis; Investment; Multi criteria analysis; Roads; Sensitivity testing

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; INVESTMENT; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; PRIORITIZATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; TRANSPORTATION POLICY;

IRELAND;

EID: 84863190168     PISSN: 0967070X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Barfod M.B., Salling K.B., Leleur S. Composite decision support by combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria decision analysis. Decision Support Systems 2011, 51(2011):167-175.
2. BMVBW (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bauen und Wohnen) Federal Infrastructure Plan 2003 2003, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, Berlin.
3. Boardman A.E., Greenberg D.H., Vining A.R., Weimer D.L. Cost-benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice 2006, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
4. Bristow A.L., Nellthorp J. Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transport Policy 2000, 7(1):51-60.
5. DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) Multi-Criteria Analysis-A Manual 2009, Communities and Local Government Publications, London.
6. DfT (Department for Transport), 2011a. The Appraisal Process. TAG Unit 2.5. Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), April 2011. http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag.
7. DfT (Department for Transport), 2011b. Value for Money Assessments-Guidance. Published 4/5/2011. http://www2.dft.gov.uk/.
8. DoT (Department of Transport), 2009. Guidelines on a Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes, June 2009, Dublin.
9. Eliasson J., Lundberg M. Do cost-benefit analyses influence transport investment decisions? Experiences from the Swedish transport investment plan 2010-2021. Transport Reviews 2012, 32(1):29-48.
10. Grady, A., Harris, R., Shortt, R., Noonan, M., Crosbie, N., Laird, J., Gaughran, A., 2011. National Secondary Roads Needs Study-Network Options Report. http://www.nra.ie.
11. Grant-Muller S.M., Mackie P., Nellthorp J., Pearman A. Economic appraisal of European transport projects: the state-of-art revisited. Transport Reviews 2001, 21(2):237-261.
12. Hajkowicz S. A comparison of multiple criteria analysis and unaided approaches to environmental decision making. Environmental Science & Policy 2007, 10(3):177-184.
13. Holz-Rau C., Scheiner J. Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: a sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia. Transport Policy 2011, 18(2):336-346.
14. Keeney R.L., Raiffa H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs 1993, Cambridge University Press.
15. Lautso, K., Wegener, M., Spiekermann, K., Shepperd, I., Steadman, P., Martino, A., Domingo, R., Gayda, S., 2004. Planning and Research of Policy for Land Use and Transport for Increasing Urban Sustainability (PROPOLIS). Final Report to the European Commission, Version 2.0. http://www.ltcon.fi/Propolis/.
16. Leleur S. Complex Strategic Choices: Applying Systematic Planning for Strategic Decision Making 2012, Springer Series in Decision Engineering.
17. Loomes G. (How) can we value health, safety and the environment?. Journal of Economic Psychology 2006, 27(6):713-736.
18. Macharis C., De Witte A., Turcksin L. The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics. Transport Policy 2010, 17(2010):303-311.
19. Mackie P., Preston J. Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal. Transport Policy 1998, 5(1998):1-7.
20. Manheim, M.L., Suhrbier, J.H., Bennett, E.D., Neumann, L.A., Colcord Jr., F.C., Reno Jr., A.T., 1975. Transportation Decision-making: A Guide to Social and Environmental Considerations. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 156. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
21. Nijkamp P., Rietveld P., Voogd H. Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning 1990, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
22. NRA, 2008. National Roads Authority Project Appraisal Guidelines. Report Dated March 2008, Dublin.
23. Odeck J. What determines decision-makers preferences for road investments? evidence from the Norwegian road sector. Transport Reviews 2010, 30(4):473-494.
24. Odgaard, T., Kelly, C., Laird, J., 2005. HEATCO Work Package 3: Current Practice in Project Appraisal in Europe, Deliverable 1/Volume 1 (Main Text). http://heatco.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/.
25. OECD/ITF, 2011. Improving the Practice of Transport Project Appraisal, Summary of Discussions. ITF Round Tables, No. 149. OECD Publishing.
26. Quinet E. Evaluation methodologies of transportation projects in France. Transport Policy 2000, 7(2000):27-34.
27. Quinet, E., 2011. The Practice of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Transport: The Case of France. OECD/ITF 'Improving the Practice of Transport Project Appraisal, Summary of Discussions'. ITF Round Tables, No. 149. OECD Publishing, pp. 25-54.
28. Tervonen T., Lahdelma R. Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 2007, 178(2007):500-513.
29. Thomopoulos N., Grant-Muller S., Tight M.R. Incorporating equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: current practice and a proposed methodology. Evaluation and Program Planning 2009, 32(4):351-359.
30. Tsamboulas D.A. A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments. Transport Policy 2007, 14(1):11-26.
31. van Wee B. How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transport Policy 2011, 19(1):1-7.
32. Walter, F., Lieb, S., Simmen, H., 2006. Nachhaltigkeitsbeurteilung des Bundes bei Strassenprojekten: NISTRA. Umweltrecht in der Praxis (URP), Vereinigung für Umweltrecht (VUR), vol. 20 (5), pp. 571-586.