IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v18y2011i1p236-245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transport appraisal and Monte Carlo simulation by use of the CBA-DK model

Author

Listed:
  • Salling, Kim Bang
  • Leleur, Steen

Abstract

This paper presents the Danish CBA-DK software model for assessment of transport infrastructure projects. The assessment model is based on both a deterministic calculation following the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) methodology in a Danish manual from the Ministry of Transport and on a stochastic calculation, where risk analysis is carried out using Monte Carlo simulation. Special emphasis has been placed on the separation between inherent randomness in the modeling system and lack of knowledge. These two concepts have been defined in terms of variability (ontological uncertainty) and uncertainty (epistemic uncertainty). After a short introduction to deterministic calculation resulting in some evaluation criteria a more comprehensive evaluation of the stochastic calculation is made. Especially, the risk analysis part of CBA-DK, with considerations about which probability distributions should be used, is explained. Furthermore, comprehensive assessments based on the set of distributions are made and implemented by use of a Danish case example. Finally, conclusions and a perspective are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Salling, Kim Bang & Leleur, Steen, 2011. "Transport appraisal and Monte Carlo simulation by use of the CBA-DK model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 236-245, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:18:y:2011:i:1:p:236-245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(10)00104-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothengatter, Werner, 2003. "How good is first best? Marginal cost and other pricing principles for user charging in transport," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 121-130, April.
    2. Mackie, Peter & Preston, John, 1998. "Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, January.
    3. Bruzelius, Nils & Flyvbjerg, Bent & Rothengatter, Werner, 2002. "Big decisions, big risks. Improving accountability in mega projects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 143-154, April.
    4. Short, Jack & Kopp, Andreas, 2005. "Transport infrastructure: Investment and planning. Policy and research aspects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 360-367, July.
    5. Rodier, Caroline J. & Johnston, Robert A., 2002. "Uncertain socioeconomic projections used in travel demand and emissions models: could plausible errors result in air quality nonconformity?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 613-631, August.
    6. Salling, Kim Bang & Banister, David, 2009. "Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(9-10), pages 800-813, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philipp Kehrein & Mark van Loosdrecht & Patricia Osseweijer & John Posada & Jo Dewulf, 2020. "The SPPD-WRF Framework: A Novel and Holistic Methodology for Strategical Planning and Process Design of Water Resource Factories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Salling, Kim Bang & Leleur, Steen, 2015. "Accounting for the inaccuracies in demand forecasts and construction cost estimations in transport project evaluation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 8-18.
    3. Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2016. "Forecasting the socio-economic impact of the Large Hadron Collider: A cost–benefit analysis to 2025 and beyond," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 38-53.
    4. Chou, Jui-Sheng & Ongkowijoyo, Citra Satria, 2015. "Reliability-based decision making for selection of ready-mix concrete supply using stochastic superiority and inferiority ranking method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 29-39.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olsson, Nils O.E. & Krane, Hans Petter & Rolstadås, Asbjørn & Veiseth, Mads, 2010. "Influence of reference points in ex post evaluations of rail infrastructure projects," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 251-258, August.
    2. Khraibani, R. & de Palma, A. & Picard, N. & Kaysi, I., 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 67-81.
    3. Niek Mouter & Jan Annema & Bert Wee, 2015. "Managing the insolvable limitations of cost-benefit analysis: results of an interview based study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 277-302, March.
    4. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    5. Börjesson, Maria & Jonsson , Daniel & Berglund, Svante & Almström , Peter, 2013. "Land-use impacts in transport appraisal," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:32, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    6. te Boveldt, Geert & Van Raemdonck, Koen & Macharis, Cathy, 2018. "A new railway tunnel under Brussels? Assessing political feasibility and desirability with competence-based multi criteria analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 30-39.
    7. Börjesson, Maria & Jonsson, R. Daniel & Berglund, Svante & Almström, Peter, 2014. "Land-use impacts in transport appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 82-91.
    8. Glavic, Drazenko & Milos, Mladenovic & Luttinen, Tapio & Cicevic, Svetlana & Trifunovic, Aleksandar, 2017. "Road to price: User perspectives on road pricing in transition country," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 79-94.
    9. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    10. Geneviève Zembri-Mary & Virginie Engrand-Linder, 2023. "Urban planning law in the face of the Olympic challenge: Between innovation and criticism of exceptional urban regeneration," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 38(4), pages 369-388, June.
    11. BADALYAN, Gohar & HERZFELD, Thomas & RAJCANIOVA, Miroslava, 2014. "Transport Infrastructure And Economic Growth: Panel Data Approach For Armenia, Georgia And Turkey," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 17(2), pages 1-10, October.
    12. Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2011. "Do Cost--Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010--21," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-48, April.
    13. Maria Börjesson & Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2014. "Is CBA Ranking of Transport Investments Robust?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 48(2), pages 189-204, May.
    14. Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2013. "International Handbook on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14791.
    15. Ricardo S. Martins & Mauro Borges Lemos, 2006. "Corredor Centro-Leste: Sistemas De Transporte De Minas Gerais Na Perspectivas Dos Eixos De Desenvolvimento E Integração," Anais do XII Semin·rio sobre a Economia Mineira [Proceedings of the 12th Seminar on the Economy of Minas Gerais], in: João Antonio de Paula & et alli (ed.),Anais do XII Seminário sobre a Economia Mineira [Proceedings of the 12th Seminar on the Economy of Minas Gerais], Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    16. Chantal C. Cantarelli & Bent Flybjerg & Eric J. E. Molin & Bert van Wee, 2013. "Cost overruns in Large-Scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and Their Theoretical Embeddedness," Papers 1307.2176, arXiv.org.
    17. Rogier Pennings & Bart Wiegmans & Tejo Spit, 2020. "Can We Have Our Cake and Still Eat It? A Review of Flexibility in the Structural Spatial Development and Passenger Transport Relation in Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, July.
    18. Brinkman, Anthony P., 2003. "The Ethical Challenges and Professional Responses of Travel Demand Forecasters," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt9c3330tt, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    19. Riccardo Crescenzi & Marco Di Cataldo & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2016. "Government Quality And The Economic Returns Of Transport Infrastructure Investment In European Regions," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 555-582, September.
    20. Polydoropoulou, Amalia & Roumboutsos, Athena, 2009. "Evaluating the impact of decision making during construction on transport project outcome," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 369-380, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:18:y:2011:i:1:p:236-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.