IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v18y2011i2p336-346.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia

Author

Listed:
  • Holz-Rau, Christian
  • Scheiner, Joachim

Abstract

Decisions on large-scale infrastructure concepts are frequently based on cost benefit analysis (CBA). Using 431 road projects evaluated in the integrated transport planning process in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany (IGVP NRW) this paper examines the evaluation dimensions traffic safety (fatalities) and travel time in private passenger transport. The unit values of traffic fatalities and travel time are varied, and the effects of the variations on the rank order of the projects are examined. Target conflicts between safety and travel time are studied as well as the contribution of these two dimensions to the total benefit values. The sensitivity analysis shows that the evaluation results are fairly stable against variations in unit values of travel time and fatalities. The relevance of traffic safety in terms of its contribution to total benefit as well as in terms of the unit value appears to be relatively minor. The unit value of travel time is higher than that of lifetime. Some projects turn out as feasible in the evaluation even though they are likely to increase the number of fatalities. The paper therefore suggests the higher weighting of traffic safety in CBA.

Suggested Citation

  • Holz-Rau, Christian & Scheiner, Joachim, 2011. "Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 336-346, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:18:y:2011:i:2:p:336-346
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(10)00119-8
    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. Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J., 2000. "Transport project appraisal in the European Union," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 51-60, January.
    2. Mokhtarian, Patricia L. & Chen, Cynthia, 2004. "TTB or not TTB, that is the question: a review and analysis of the empirical literature on travel time (and money) budgets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 38(9-10), pages 643-675.
    3. Roger Vickerman, 2007. "Cost – benefit analysis and large-scale infrastructure projects: state of the art and challenges," Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 34(4), pages 598-610, July.
    4. Hauer, E., 1994. "Can one estimate the value of life or is it better to be dead than stuck in traffic?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 109-118, March.
    5. Bert van Wee, 2007. "Large infrastructure projects: a review of the quality of demand forecasts and cost estimations," Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 34(4), pages 611-625, July.
    6. Rosencrantz, Holger & Edvardsson, Karin & Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Vision Zero - Is it irrational?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 559-567, July.
    7. David Metz, 2004. "Travel Time - Variable or Constant?," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 38(3), pages 333-344, September.
    8. Gerard Jong & Andrew Daly & Marits Pieters & Stephen Miller & Ronald Plasmeijer & Frank Hofman, 2007. "Uncertainty in traffic forecasts: literature review and new results for The Netherlands," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 375-395, July.
    9. Cirillo, C. & Axhausen, K.W., 2006. "Evidence on the distribution of values of travel time savings from a six-week diary," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 444-457, June.
    10. Bent Flyvbjerg & Mette K. Skamris holm & Søren L. Buhl, 2003. "How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 71-88, January.
    11. Lyons, Glenn & Urry, John, 2005. "Travel time use in the information age," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(2-3), pages 257-276.
    12. Amlan Banerjee & Xin Ye & Ram Pendyala, 2007. "Understanding Travel Time Expenditures Around the World: Exploring the Notion of a Travel Time Frontier," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 51-65, January.
    13. Odeck, James, 2004. "Cost overruns in road construction--what are their sizes and determinants?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 43-53, January.
    14. Joachim Scheiner & Christian Holz-Rau, 2007. "Travel mode choice: affected by objective or subjective determinants?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 487-511, July.
    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. Mackie, Peter & Worsley, Tom & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Transport appraisal revisited," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 3-18.
    2. Entorf, Horst, 2013. "Der Wert der Sicherheit: Anmerkungen zur Ökonomie der Sicherheit
      [The value of safety: Some remarks on the economics of safety]
      ," MPRA Paper 49690, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Noland, Robert B., 2013. "From theory to practice in road safety policy: Understanding risk versus mobility," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 71-84.
    4. Asplund, Disa & Eliasson, Jonas, 2016. "Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 195-205.
    5. 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.

    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:2:p:336-346. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.