IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/transp/v47y2020i5d10.1007_s11116-019-10024-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust in forecasts? Correlates with ridership forecast accuracy for fixed-guideway transit projects

Author

Listed:
  • Carole Turley Voulgaris

    (Harvard Graduate School of Design)

Abstract

The accuracy of ridership forecasts for fixed-guideway transit projects in the United States has improved in recent decades. A better understanding of the causes for this improvement can help decision makers, project evaluators, and other forecast users identify ridership forecasts that are most likely to be reliable. The analysis in this paper applies a series of linear regression models to evaluate the relationship between ridership forecast accuracy for 67 New Starts projects completed between 1983 and 2012 and four types of project characteristics: time between forecast and observation, local experience with the project mode, physical characteristics, and financial characteristics. The results indicate that local experience and financial characteristics (including the share of a project’s costs funded by federal grants) are not significantly related to forecast accuracy, but there are differences by project mode, where forecasts for commuter rail projects are less accurate than those for other modes. The time until ridership observation does relate to forecast accuracy. However, not all of this elapsed time is important. The length of time required for project planning and development does not have a significant relationship with forecast error, nor does the total time between forecast preparation and ridership observation. However, the length of time required to construct the project is significantly associated with the accuracy of the ridership forecast. These results can help planners, policy makers, and other decision makers make judgments about the degree of trust they should place in transit ridership forecasts.

Suggested Citation

  • Carole Turley Voulgaris, 2020. "Trust in forecasts? Correlates with ridership forecast accuracy for fixed-guideway transit projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2439-2477, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s11116-019-10024-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11116-019-10024-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11116-019-10024-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11116-019-10024-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2016. "The Fallacy of Beneficial Ignorance: A Test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 176-189.
    2. Kenneth Button & Soogwal Doh & Matthew Hardy & Junyang Yuan & Xin Zhou, 2010. "The Accuracy Of Transit System Ridership Forecasts And Capital Cost Estimates," Articles, International Journal of Transport Economics, vol. 37(2).
    3. Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2005. "Measuring inaccuracy in travel demand forecasting: methodological considerations regarding ramp up and sampling," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 522-530, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    2. Nicolaisen, Morten Skou & Næss, Petter, 2015. "Roads to nowhere: The accuracy of travel demand forecasts for do-nothing alternatives," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 57-63.
    3. Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2018. "Planning Fallacy or Hiding Hand: Which is the Better Explanation?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 383-386.
    4. Flyvbjerg, Bent & Bester, Dirk W., 2021. "The Cost-Benefit Fallacy: Why Cost-Benefit Analysis Is Broken and How to Fix It," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 395-419, October.
    5. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    6. Bent Flyvbjerg & Allison Stewart & Alexander Budzier, 2016. "The Oxford Olympics Study 2016: Cost and Cost Overrun at the Games," Papers 1607.04484, arXiv.org.
    7. Hoque, Jawad Mahmud & Erhardt, Gregory D. & Schmitt, David & Chen, Mei & Wachs, Martin, 2021. "Estimating the uncertainty of traffic forecasts from their historical accuracy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 339-349.
    8. Parthasarathi, Pavithra & Levinson, David, 2010. "Post-construction evaluation of traffic forecast accuracy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 428-443, November.
    9. Athias, Laure & Nunez, Antonio, 2008. "The more the merrier? Number of bidders, information dispersion, renegotiation and winner’s curse in toll road concessions," MPRA Paper 10539, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ika, Lavagnon A., 2018. "Beneficial or Detrimental Ignorance: The Straw Man Fallacy of Flyvbjerg’s Test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 369-382.
    11. Andersson, Matts & Brundell-Freij, Karin & Eliasson, Jonas, 2017. "Validation of aggregate reference forecasts for passenger transport," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 101-118.
    12. Bent Flyvbjerg & Eamonn Molloy, 2011. "Delusion, Deception and Corruption in Major Infrastructure Projects: Causes, Consequences and Cures," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Odeck, James, 2013. "How accurate are national road traffic growth-rate forecasts?—The case of Norway," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 102-111.
    14. Massimo Florio & Silvia Vignetti, 2013. "The use of ex post Cost-Benefit Analysis to assess the long-term effects of Major Infrastructure Projects," Working Papers 201302, CSIL Centre for Industrial Studies.
    15. Sevcíková, Hana & Raftery, Adrian E. & Waddell, Paul A., 2011. "Uncertain benefits: Application of Bayesian melding to the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 540-553, July.
    16. Einat Tenenboim & Nira Munichor & Yoram Shiftan, 2023. "Justifying toll payment with biased travel time estimates: Behavioral findings and route choice modeling," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 477-511, April.
    17. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2013. "Quality Control and Due Diligence in Project Management: Getting Decisions Right by Taking the Outside View," Papers 1302.2544, arXiv.org.
    18. Love, Peter E.D. & Sing, Michael C.P. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Newton, Sidney, 2019. "The cost performance of transportation projects: The fallacy of the Planning Fallacy account," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-20.
    19. Lepenies, Philipp H., 2018. "Statistical Tests as a Hindrance to Understanding," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 360-365.
    20. Moschouli, Eleni & Soecipto, Raden Murwantara & Vanelslander, Thierry, 2019. "Cost performance of transport infrastructure projects before and after the global financial crisis (GFC): Are differences observed in the conditions of project performance?," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 21-35.

    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:kap:transp:v:47:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s11116-019-10024-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.