Transport appraisal revisited

Mackie, Peter; Worsley, Tom; Eliasson, Jonas

doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.013

Cited by 117 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Summary and Conclusions -Discussion Paper 2013-24 -© OECD/ITF 2013 not always recognised in the cost benefit guidelines for other countries (see Mackie and Worsley (2013)). …”

Section: Comparing the Positive And Negative Impacts Of Airport Expanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding Airport Capacity under Constraints in Large Urban Areas: Summary and Conclusions of the Roundtable held on 21-22 February 2013

Thompson¹,

Perkins

Dender

2013

International Transport Forum Discussion Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Summary and Conclusions -Discussion Paper 2013-24 -© OECD/ITF 2013 not always recognised in the cost benefit guidelines for other countries (see Mackie and Worsley (2013)). …”

Section: Comparing the Positive And Negative Impacts Of Airport Expanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding Airport Capacity under Constraints in Large Urban Areas: Summary and Conclusions of the Roundtable held on 21-22 February 2013

Thompson¹,

Perkins

Dender

2013

International Transport Forum Discussion Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Mackie et al 2014;Naess et al 2014). The widespread application of CBA explains the voluminous literature examining the method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dutch politicians’ use of cost–benefit analysis

Mouter

2016

Transportation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

28 Dutch politicians and 10 top-level civil servants were interviewed about the way Dutch politicians use cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Various types of use were identified. Politicians use CBA: (1) When forming their opinion about the desirability of transport projects; (2) As political ammunition (opportunistic use); (3) To make themselves and their decisions look more rational (symbolic use). None of the politicians stated that they solely base their judgment on CBAs. Politicians mention seven barriers that hamper the use of CBA when forming their opinion: (1) The process of forming an opinion is trivial; (2) Politicians prefer to form their opinion based on conversations rather than on reading reports; (3) Politicians don't trust CBA's impartiality; (4) Politicians disagree with normative choices made in CBA. An example of such a normative choice is that CBA attaches an equally large weight to everybody's utility changes. (5) Politicians think that CBA's explanatory power is limited; (6) Politicians receive CBAs too late; (7) When there is plenty of money, politicians care less about a project's social profitability. Members of Parliament identified barriers 3 and 6 as the most important barriers. They regard publishing CBAs one or two months before a debate as the most auspicious solution for rectifying these barriers. An interesting observation is that no barriers for the opportunistic and symbolic use of CBA by politicians were identified. Hence, it can be concluded that it is highly likely that when politicians receive CBAs for transport projects, they will use the CBA in an opportunistic and symbolic way, but politicians will not necessarily use CBA when forming their opinion.

show abstract

“…Well-informed, sound and balanced decision-making is at the heart of sustainable transport planning (Hrelja et al, 2013). As an example of this, Mackie, Worsley, and Eliasson (2014) describe the role of appraisal in decision-making and note that potential biases stemming from the human cognitive ability ought to be remedied by the use of analysis. Research has identified the lack of studies focusing on the opinions of decision-makers and policy makers about appraisal methods (Annema, Mouter, & Razaei, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of public transport: regional policies and planning practices in Sweden

Johansson¹,

Hiselius²,

Koglin³

et al. 2017

Urban, Planning and Transport Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses regional public transport planning in Sweden. The aim is to provide an insight into how policy objectives are translated into action and to investigate how public transport measures are evaluated. The analysis is based on interviews with civil servants in five Swedish regions. Cost-benefit analysis is sparsely used (if ever) and the results further indicate that planning and evaluation of public transport is to a large extent centred around monitoring on-going trends, e.g. patronage and market share. Such information seems policy-relevant, i.e. is commonly asked for by the political level. The informants do ask for more knowledge regarding various effects (mainly social). However, it is less certain whether or not this knowledge would be used for economic evaluation. Regional and local public transport systems are complex, and intrinsically linked to land use and long-term regional ambitions. Instead of asking how public transport planning should be carried out, following CBA analyses, we should perhaps ask how the economic analysis could be tuned so that it becomes relevant for public transport planning. We foresee that the broader role of the public transport system will increase goal conflicts between, and within, authorities.

show abstract

Transport appraisal revisited

Cited by 117 publications

References 8 publications

Expanding Airport Capacity under Constraints in Large Urban Areas: Summary and Conclusions of the Roundtable held on 21-22 February 2013

Expanding Airport Capacity under Constraints in Large Urban Areas: Summary and Conclusions of the Roundtable held on 21-22 February 2013

Dutch politicians’ use of cost–benefit analysis

Evaluation of public transport: regional policies and planning practices in Sweden

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About