IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v7y2000i2p127-138.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Nellthorp, J.
  • Mackie, P. J.

Abstract

In 1998, the UK Government published the results of its Roads Review. For each of the 68 schemes considered, an Appraisal Summary Table was produced, giving the scheme performance against the Government's five objectives--environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration. This paper reports the development of a model which best reproduces the pattern of decision making and from which the implicit weights or values on the variables in the assessment table can be inferred. The model shows that the appraisal scores for variables such as noise, landscape, heritage, reliability and regeneration play a significant part in 'explaining' the decisions which were made.

Suggested Citation

  • Nellthorp, J. & Mackie, P. J., 2000. "The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 127-138, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:7:y:2000:i:2:p:127-138
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(00)00002-0
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Qiu, Guo & Xu, Wangtu (Ato) & Li, Ling, 2018. "Key factors to annual investment in public transportation sector: The case of China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-19.
    2. Eliasson, Jonas & Savemark, Christian & Franklin, Joel, 2020. "The impact of land use effects in infrastructure appraisal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 262-276.
    3. 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.
    4. Vigren, Andreas & Ljungberg, Anders, 2018. "Public Transport Authorities’ use of Cost-Benefit Analysis in practice," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 560-567.
    5. Bondemark, Anders & Sundbergh, Pia & Tornberg, Patrik & Brundell-Freij, Karin, 2020. "Do impact assessments influence transport plans? The case of Sweden," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 52-64.
    6. Eliasson, Jonas & Fosgerau, Mogens, 2013. "Cost overruns and demand shortfalls – Deception or selection?," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 105-113.
    7. 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.
    8. Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2007. "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 11-26, January.
    9. Laird, James J. & Venables, Anthony J., 2017. "Transport investment and economic performance: A framework for project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Mouter, Niek & van Cranenburgh, Sander & van Wee, Bert, 2017. "An empirical assessment of Dutch citizens' preferences for spatial equality in the context of a national transport investment plan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 217-230.
    11. Jan Anne Annema, 2013. "The use of CBA in decision-making on mega-projects: empirical evidence," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 13, pages 291-312, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Bertoméu-Sánchez, Salvador & Estache, Antonio, 2017. "Unbundling political and economic rationality: A non-parametric approach tested on transport infrastructure in Spain," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 181-195.
    13. James Odeck, 2009. "What Determines Decision‐Makers’ Preferences for Road Investments? Evidence from the Norwegian Road Sector," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(4), pages 473-494, June.
    14. Glenn Lyons & Greg Marsden, 2021. "Opening out and closing down: the treatment of uncertainty in transport planning’s forecasting paradigm," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 595-616, April.
    15. Jan Anne Annema & Koen Frenken & Carl Koopmans & Maarten Kroesen, 2017. "Relating cost-benefit analysis results with transport project decisions in the Netherlands," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 109-127, March.
    16. Mackie, Peter & Worsley, Tom & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Transport appraisal revisited," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 3-18.
    17. Ait Ali, Abderrahman & Eliasson, Jonas & Warg, Jennifer, 2022. "Are commuter train timetables consistent with passengers’ valuations of waiting times and in-vehicle crowding?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 188-198.
    18. Robert Noland, 2005. "Transport and Environmental Planning - Research, Rhetoric and Reality," ERSA conference papers ersa05p548, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & Wee, Bert van, 2013. "Attitudes towards the role of Cost–Benefit Analysis in the decision-making process for spatial-infrastructure projects: A Dutch case study," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-14.
    20. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    21. Salvador Bertomeu & Antonio Estache, 2016. "Unbundling Political and Economic Rationality: a Non-Parametric Approach Tested on Spain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2016-17, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    22. 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.
    23. Eliasson, Jonas, 2023. "Tillbaka till framtiden: en nygammal planprocess [Back to the future: a renewed infrastructure planning process]," MPRA Paper 118658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Rabello Quadros, Saul Germano & Nassi, Carlos David, 2015. "An evaluation on the criteria to prioritize transportation infrastructure investments in Brazil," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 8-16.
    25. Eliasson, Jonas & Fosgerau, Mogens, 2013. "Optimism bias in project appraisal: deception or selection?," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:6, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).

    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:2:p:127-138. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.