IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v7y2000i1p41-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, D. B.

Abstract

"Projects", as the term is used here, are capital investments--from resurfacing streets to multi-billion dollar construction--that create transportation infrastructure. "Methods" are primarily benefit-cost analysis, although other frameworks have been, and still remain, in use. Most projects are constructed by public agencies and authorities, primarily at the state and local level, but the federal government is the dominant source of evaluation guidance because most transportation projects use some share of federal funds. Benefit-cost analysis (BCA or BC) is a decision framework for government agencies to use in considering the desirability of taking alternative actions, whether investment, operations, or regulation. This survey describes the use of BCA by US transportation agencies, comparing theory, published guidance, and actual practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, D. B., 2000. "Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 41-50, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:7:y:2000:i:1:p:41-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(00)00011-1
    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. Robert W. Hahn, 1998. "Policy Watch: Government Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Regulation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 201-210, Fall.
    2. repec:reg:rpubli:234 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mohring, Herbert, 1993. "Maximizing, measuring, and not double counting transportation-improvement benefits: A primer on closed- and open-economy cost-benefit analysis," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 413-424, December.
    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. Xu, Wangtu & Lin, Weihua, 2016. "Selecting the public transit projects with PCA-DP technique: The example of Xiamen City," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 56-71.
    2. repec:spr:lsprsc:v:10:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s12076-016-0175-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    4. Major, Iván, 2004. "A korlátozó szabályozástól az ösztönző szabályozásig. A közlekedés szabályozása az Európai Unióban és Magyarországon
      [From restricting regulation to incentive regulation. Transport regulation in th
      ," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 501-529.
    5. Hayashi, Y. & Morisugi, H., 2000. "International comparison of background concept and methodology of transportation project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-88, January.
    6. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    7. Junn-Yuan Teng & Wen-Chih Huang & Maw-Cherng Lin, 2010. "Systematic budget allocation for transportation construction projects: a case in Taiwan," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 331-361, March.
    8. Jan Anne Annema, 2013. "The use of CBA in decision-making on mega-projects: empirical evidence," Chapters,in: International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 13, pages 291-312 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Nijland, H. A. & Van Kempen, E. E. M. M. & Van Wee, G. P. & Jabben, J., 2003. "Costs and benefits of noise abatement measures," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 131-140, April.
    10. Shi, Jing & Zhou, Nian, 2012. "A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation approach with both equity and efficiency aspects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 93-100.
    11. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2017:i:1:p:61-:d:124697 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Shladover, Steven E. & Miller, Mark A. & Yin, Yafeng & Balvanyos, Tunde & Bernheim, Lauren & Fishman, Stefanie R. & Amirouche, Farid & Mahmudi, Khurran T. & Gonzalez-Mohino, Pedro & Solomon, Joseph & , 2004. "Assessment of the Applicability of Cooperative Vehicle-Highway Automation Systems to Bus Transit and Intermodal Freight: Case Study Feasibility Analyses in the Metropolitan Chicago Region," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt7227d024, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:7:y:2000:i:1:p:41-50. 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.