IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of the scenario and assessment method on the choice of road alignment variants


  • Gardziejczyk, Wladyslaw
  • Zabicki, Piotr


An efficient road network plays a key role in the economic development of almost any country. Road construction, apart from its many benefits, has also a negative impact on the natural environment causing its deterioration or division, introduces changes in area management, or may be the cause of social conflict. The decision to choose the most beneficial road alignment variant should take into account all of these aspects. It is therefore a multicriteria issue, based on transport, economic, social and environmental criteria. This article presents the influence of the assessment method of variants, criteria and their weights, as well as preference scenarios of road alignment with the example of the section of the S61 expressway, which is a part of the first Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). Four road alignment variants were analysed using the AHP, SAW and TOPSIS methods, with different sets of criteria weights and various preference scenarios. It has been shown, that the used variant assessment method, the criteria and their weights all have a significant influence on the results of the analysis and there is need for more uniform rules in reference to the methodology of conducting multicriteria analyses in designing road alignment.

Suggested Citation

  • Gardziejczyk, Wladyslaw & Zabicki, Piotr, 2014. "The influence of the scenario and assessment method on the choice of road alignment variants," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 294-305.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:36:y:2014:i:c:p:294-305
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.001

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    3. Vickerman, R., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 7-16, January.
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    5. de Silva, Hema & Tatam, Chris, 1996. "An empirical procedure for enhancing the impact of road investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 201-211, October.
    6. Sayers, T. M. & Jessop, A. T. & Hills, P. J., 2003. "Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options--flexible, transparent and user-friendly?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 95-105, April.
    7. Yedla, Sudhakar & Shrestha, Ram M., 2003. "Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 717-729, October.
    8. Gao, Ziyou & Sun, Huijun & Shan, Lian Long, 2004. "A continuous equilibrium network design model and algorithm for transit systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 235-250, March.
    9. Tudela, Alejandro & Akiki, Natalia & Cisternas, Rene, 2006. "Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 414-423, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. repec:eee:transa:v:110:y:2018:i:c:p:26-37 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item


    Road; Multicriteria analysis; Criteria weights;


    Access and download statistics


    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:36:y:2014:i:c:p:294-305. 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: .

    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.