Towards creating the assessment methodology for urban road transport development projects.
Griskeviciute-Geciene, Ausrine ; Burinskiene, Marija
1. Introduction
Sustainable development is recognized as an endeavor to harmonize
the growth of urban territories with a social progress by reducing waste
of non-renewable natural resources and negative impacts on ecological
equilibrium. The cohesion of economic, social and ecologic aspects
constitutes the foundation for developing a sustainable city. The
quality of transport systems, specifically technical infrastructure and
functionality, ensures the existence of economic and social spheres and
is treated as being very important to sustainable urban development. A
decade of practice to adapt the principles of sustainable development
for urban and rural territories of the Republic of Lithuania shows that
this process is very slow, for very little attention was and still is
being placed on the development of transport systems: there was and
still is a lack of investments for the development of transport
infrastructure. Moreover, the process of global integration stimulated
the increase of automobilization level which changed the character of
territorial consumption, the structure of cities and towns; it also
stimulated the process of agglomeration and formed new urban problems
(Automobiliu keliu investiciju vadovas...2006; Burinskiene, Rudzkiene
2007; Griskevicius, Griskeviciene 2004; Jakimavicius, Burinskiene 2009;
Maciulis et al. 2009).
This issue was started to be solved after the Recovery of
Independence of the Republic of Lithuania while implementing a financial
support of the European Union (further--EU). The investment projects
related to reconstruction of priority urban bypasses, bridges, one level
and multimodal crossings, highways together with the anticipated funding
commenced to be prepared. The Government applied the procedures of
assessing the international projects of rural transport (particularly
automobile road transport) in order to validate and evaluate urban
transport development projects. It was an easy task to do so as the main
aims of the first period of the EU financial support were related to the
construction of transport infrastructure, which had to be part of
Trans-European transport networks or had to ensure the approach to these
networks. The changes that would enable one to evaluate the development
projects of urban transport in comparison with rural transport
investment projects were not assessed methodologically.
Preparation and selection of investment projects face the problem
of assessment which requires: a proper identification and justification
of a project according to various aspects, determination of it's
technical and economic indicators, financial indexes, risk and
continuity, a correct choice of alternatives, etc. (Bivainis,
Butkevicius 2003; Griskevicius, Griskeviciene 2004; Maciulis et al.
2009). The project assessment allows determining the efficiency of
investment alternatives according to particular criteria. In respect of
sustainable development, the assessment of development projects of urban
and rural transport infrastructure is a very important factor to ensure
social, economic and financial activities of separate regions. Seeking
to absorb a financial support for the implementation of projects, it is
necessary to frame appropriate methodology for a proper assessment of
investments that generally differs according to various circumstances.
Moreover, generally applied methodology concerning development,
justification, evaluation and ranking of projects could not assess
specificity of urban transport systems. Practical investigations of the
last decade have allowed professionals to ascertain the need for
improvement. In order to improve the approach to the development of
Lithuanian urban transport infrastructure, the authors of the present
article (further--the Authors) conducted several research works during
the years 2008-2012.
The aim of the article is to analyze the essential aspects used in
Lithuania and foreign countries for assessing transport development
projects in order to form the main methodological steps towards the
evaluation of urban road transport development projects implemented in
Lithuania.
2. The Assumptions for Developing Urban Transport Infrastructure
Since financing is the most common problem in the realization of
transport development policy, investment priorities influencing an
adopted transport policy trend are being analyzed. According to urban
planning specialists (Burinskiene, Rudzkiene 2007; Juskevicius,
Burinskiene 2007), the principles of establishing these priorities
concur with the statement: to reach maximum performance of transport
system with beneficial results for people and environment by using
minimum expenses. In other words, the development of transport systems
including social, functional, traffic safety, economical, special and
other aspects must assess the opportunity to create (modernize)
transport system whose technical parameters and service quality shall
correspond to the level of EU countries and integrate into the EU
transport system, seeking to create proper conditions for the
development of national economy. Paying attention to the use of limited
financial sources, to the EU financial support and to the State
Investment Program (further--SIP), the selection of projects for
priority implementation has to be the main concern for the Decision
makers. The practice of the last decade in Lithuania shows that only
small part of projects presented to the decisions makers are approved.
Besides, these selected projects are major projects concerning the
implementation of rural road network. Therefore they have bigger
possibility to be supported by the EU financial funds. Other smaller
projects usually presenting problems of local urban transport are left
for the concern of local authorities.
The selection of urban transport development projects for the
priority implementation has to be improved. In order to establish the
need for developing transport systems of certain towns it is of
overriding importance to firstly ascertain what characterizes urban
transport systems and in what way these systems differ from rural ones;
this clear identification of distinguished peculiarities would
facilitate selection of relevant assessment principles and their
application, the use of financial resources, preparation of appropriate
investment projects and selection of projects best reflecting the
developmental aims that might lead to rectification of the present
situation. For these reasons the Authors carried out few analytic
investigations during 2008-2012.
Analyzing differences and similarities of urban and rural transport
systems infrastructure the Authors came to the conclusion that only one
transport mode can be related to urban territories in
Lithuania--automobile road transport. Automobile transport had and still
has the highest priority for development. Road and also railway networks
cover the whole territory of Lithuania connecting both urban
infrastructure of local towns and cities and rural infrastructure of
local and international significance. Practice shows that although air
transport has a very important share of national economy, the
development of air transport is less active than road transport. The
main problem is that Lithuania has only four international airports (one
of them is used for military purposes). Inland water transport never had
a priority for the development, and therefore its infrastructure is very
poor and is popular only inside few urban territories of Lithuania. Rail
transport infrastructure connects separate cities or industrial objects.
Rail transport is usually used for rural travels, because Lithuanian
cities and towns have no infrastructure for public rail transport. The
development of rail transport is directed to recover rural
infrastructure and reconstruction of main railway nodes for better rural
connections. Therefore, automobile road transport is the main sphere of
Author's interests. Transportation problems usually appear at local
usage level; thus more attention is paid to the principles of evaluating
the development of local transport infrastructure.
According to urban specialists (Juskevicius, Burinskiene 2007) the
key factors influencing on differences and similarities of urban and
rural road transport systems are the following: technical
infrastructure; transport demand and possibilities; transport modes;
occupied area and space for transport needs; system administration.
Technical infrastructure is mostly a common object of investment
projects of transport systems. It consists of linear and other
structures (squares, stations, vehicle parking lots, garages, etc.) and
equipment (power grid lines, traffic control equipment, and information
system). Urban transport system operates for the traffic of pedestrians,
passengers and freight transportation inside and outside cities, also
for the traffic of special or special purposed transport. The Authors
identified different groups of urban transport infrastructure and
submitted them to the experts for verification (Table 1).
Rural transport infrastructure serves for the connection between
urban territories and main rural centers. According to the technical
regulations on road transport (Law on Roads of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette, 1995, No. 44-107; 2008, No. 135-5229), the main
differences of urban and rural road transport infrastructure are: size
and technical parameters of objects, occupied areas and space for
transport, distances between buildings and protected natural territories
and the principles of traffic organization. One of the main similarities
is that both urban and rural road infrastructure have a hierarchical
structure and also require a land plot. This hierarchal structure has a
huge impact on grouping of modernized objects, on selection of
appropriate technical parameters and thereby on the cost of
developmental (installation, reconstruction) works that in turn
influences an increase in the value of general development project
investments.
Various scientists (Burinskiene, Rudzkiene 2007; Daniel Jonsson
2008; Jakimavicius, Burinskiene 2009; Juskevicius, Burinskiene 2007;
Hull 2005) states that transport demand in urban territories depends on
a city size, on compactness of urban territory, on a type of functional
structure, on a social demographical structure and employment of
citizens, on a financial basis of a city, its economic activity as well
as on the income of residents, whereas transport demand in rural
territories is mostly influenced by distribution of large cities within
the whole State or their significance in the system of local
settlements, a type of activities of enterprises, territorial
distribution of dwellings and workplaces. This determinant has a great
influence on evaluation of social and economic factors in establishing
external costs of separate development-related projects.
The need of land for transport depends on road or street
significance, traffic intensity and outfits, which could appear in this
space. One of the main differences is that urban land is more expensive
and needs to be saved. The possibilities of saving are limited.
Planning, designing, building and maintenance of transport territories
require huge investments. Besides, space for transport needs is not
mono-functional within urban territories; its multi-functionality is
determined by the significance of space for transport needs in a common
structure of the whole city. The prestige of a city and possible
investments depend on space quality for transport needs. Meanwhile,
rural land is being saved, but priority is given to ensure proper and
safe traffic conditions for transit transport. Protected natural
territories (reservations, sanctuaries, forestry, water use, etc.),
historical-archaeological or cultural heritage sites and also frequent
natural obstacles underway create special conditions for the use of
areas and space for transport needs within urban and suburban or rural
territories. This determinant influences greatly the impact of external
factors of separate investment projects of development on the
environment, cultural heritage, land use, its designation and assessment
of additional costs.
Transport systems operate in certain administrative territories.
The local authorities are responsible for administering urban transport
systems and a road transport network of local significance; they are the
main Decision-makers in the process of transport planning; usually,
development of urban transport infrastructure is actually being funded
by local government budgets and by budgets received and accumulated in
funds of municipal urban development, i.e. by those of building legal
and natural persons in accordance with individual funding agreements
with a municipality. Meanwhile, the road transport sector has one
administrator--who is responsible for all the roads of national
significance--Lithuanian Road Administration together with a structured
administrative institution of separate regions. The activities of the
said institutions aim mainly at developing transport systems and
infrastructure, at ensuring traffic safety, and specifically at working
economically and efficiently when creating adequate traffic conditions.
Although the activities of the above-mentioned administrative
institutions are based on different principles, the pursuit of
sustainable development of transport is the main feature uniting the
said institutions. While seeking to implement transport policy at its
own level of competence, the possibilities of using EU funding influence
the preparation of not only normative but also methodical acts. Such
consolidation of powers is of great importance nowadays as EU financial
support stimulates the creation of multimodal transport infrastructure
and helps to establish closer interconnectedness between urbanized
territories and rural transport systems. The assessment of all these
possibilities concerning development is implemented in the process of
evaluating and substantiating separate projects of sustainable
development. The methods of assessment used for substantiating separate
objects of infrastructure with reference to efficacy and feasibility of
different possibilities for development are regarded as one of the major
issues analyzed by the Authors. A variety of assessment methods used in
the EU countries allow systematizing the most appropriate methods
realized in the process of substantiating transport infrastructure
development and applying or modifying them to ground the development of
Lithuanian urban transport infrastructure.
A short analysis of the assessment systems of land road transport
infrastructure development used in the EU countries is presented in next
section.
3. A General Approach to the Assessment of Automobile Road
Transport Development in the EU Countries
During the last decade transport infrastructure has been evolved in
Europe. As a result, some implementation of transport development
projects of high speed railways, air transport networks and transit
transportation systems are implemented. The analysis of realizing the EU
financial support shows that the investments to transport infrastructure
were mostly orientated to the creation of main connections between urban
territories through the development of road, rail, water and air
transport. The best example of it--the development of Trans-European
transport corridor TEN. The impact on business environment, the growth
of economy and employment can be described as positive aspects of such
development. Yet, this development created certain problems of
sustainable ecology. It required huge investments, the use of land and
renewable natural resources. Therefore, more attention started to be
paid to transport policy combining the solutions of territorial planning
with strategic planning, thus implementing a regional policy (De Brucker
et al. 2011; Geurs et al. 2003; Grant-Muller et al. 2001; Mateos et al.
2007; Odgaard et al. 2005; Rus 2006; Thomopoulos et al. 2009).
The analysis of methodology focused on evaluating the development
of automobile road transport infrastructure in the EU countries was
carried out by the Authors. To allow comparisons of similarities and
differences in the assessment systems the analyzed countries have been
grouped in five regions confirming the grouping presented in the study
by Grant-Muller et al. (2001) (Table 2).
The results of the analysis show that as it is mentioned above the
assessment methodology is usually common for developing infrastructure
of all transport modes. Administrative institutions of different
transport sectors were and still are responsible to frame methodology
using recommendations of the EU guidelines which highlights the
development of infrastructure of European significance. Moreover,
analyzing the sector of automobile road transport, it is obvious that
differences between urban and rural road transport infrastructure do
exist, but methodology mostly highlights justification and assessment of
the development of rural road (especially of national significance)
transport infrastructure.
Analyzing the practice of the EU countries, the Authors paid more
attention to these EU countries that have bigger population than
Lithuania where a land is especially preserved and cities are in
agglomerations; therefore, oneness of rural roads connecting centers of
agglomerations or separate settlements disappears. In order to systemize
the results of the analysis, the Authors pointed out two approaches: the
assessment of general automobile road transport infrastructure and the
assessment of automobile road transport infrastructure within urban
territories.
Analyzing the practice of the EU countries, the Authors systemized
the process of assessing the development projects of automobile road
transport infrastructure in the EU countries (Fig. 1). The main issues
raised were to identify lifecycles of projects, to determine the
structure of the assessment, to systemize the methods used for
assessment of social-economic criteria during the decision-making
process.
Usually, the process of decision making plays a great role at the
initial states of transport development strategic planning. The
decisions are made on a different level of institutional approaches.
Despite this structure, a selection of separate projects is quite
problematic. The solutions usually have to be represented in 2-4
different alternative ways. The selection of optimal alternative is
performed evaluating projects using qualitative and quantitative
criteria. The final decision is made after performing a detailed
assessment. Elaboration of such assessment depends on a project type and
its size. The environmental impact assessment is usually included in the
whole process of justification.
Analyzing the differences between EU countries in terms of the
first approach, there is a wide range of purposes for using assessment.
For example, the assessment of automobile road transport infrastructure
in Germany is performed to facilitate a choice of priority projects for
the Transport Investment Plan. The assessment conducted in the Czech
Republic is used to select an alternative project and project priorities
within transport modes. In France, the assessment of transport
infrastructure is used first to decide whether to proceed with a project
and then select an optimal alternative project including what and when
to build. In Sweden, the assessment of transport infrastructure is used
to select projects that should be included in the 10-year plan which is
updated every 4 years. This type of assessment is also used to choose an
optimal solution of all alternatives at the level of project
feasibilities. Various scientists (Beria et al. 2010; Bekefi et al.
2003; Eliasson, Lundberg 2011; Gitelman et al. 2008; Joumand, Nicolas
2010; Parkhurst, Richardson 2002; Rus 2006) confirm that social-economic
assessment is the most common way to make final decisions. Usually this
assessment consists of three main stages: Social Justification,
Financial and Economic Evaluation.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Cost-Benefit Analysis (further-CBA) or Multi-Criteria Analysis
(further-MCA) methods are most commonly used for social-economic
assessment (Table 2). Analyzing the use of most common CBA and MCA,
there are usually opinions (Brambilla, Erba 2004; Brauers, Zavadskas
2011; Beukers et al. 2012; Eliasson, Lundberg 2011; Beria et al. 2010;
De Brucker et al. 2011; Macharis et al. 2009; Schetke, Haase 2007;
Saparauskas et al. 2011; Kildiene et al. 2011; Antucheviciene et al.
2011) that CBA can be adapted more widely since this analysis
incorporates two important stages--the impact analysis and monetary
assessment. Also, a modern approach to assessment assures that there are
many intrinsic shortcomings and limitations concerning accuracy of
information, distributional equity, compensatory payments, discount rate
and lifetime of a project. Thus, information uncertainty and conflict
management are critical issues. Many conflicting views may emerge
evaluating alternative projects. Moreover, nowadays the concept of
sustainable development is used for assessing non-monetary and
qualitative effects. Therefore, next to a monetary CBA based approach it
is necessary to apply other approaches such as decision-making and
institutionally-based approaches. Especially modern approaches like MCA
can help in this position. MCA can be helpful in taking into account
such conflicting issues by considering priority schemes or weights as an
element in an evaluation analysis of development projects. A modern
approach to using MCA confirms that this type of method is more flexible
in the assessment of transport investment projects. However,
social-economic assessment is usually applied to a wider evaluation of
various impacts, and therefore new modified and combined CBA and MCA
methods are being used. Table 3 shows summarized groups of impacts used
for the assessment of automobile road transport infrastructure in the EU
countries.
Three main economic impacts--Travel time, VOC and Accident--have
monetized values. Environmental impacts as shown in table 3 (vibration,
emissions etc.) usually have non-monetised values, except for Noise, Air
pollution, Dust nuisance which can be monetised. Indirect
social-economic impacts as output, urban functioning land use etc.
usually have non-monetised values. Costs usually include investment,
planning and implementation, and system operating together with
maintenance costs. Other types of costs are more specific and used more
rarely. Further a short analysis of assessment methods and evaluated
impacts used in few selected countries are presented.
France (Grant-Muller et al. 2001; Macharis et al. 2009; Margail,
Auzanet 1996) uses CBA for monetary valued effects plus MCA to take into
account accessibility, direct and indirect employment, included economic
effects, compliance with local strategies and other effects that can
influence selection.
Germany (Odgaard et al. 2005; Schetke, Haase 2007; Thomopoulos et
al. 2009) uses CBA plus non-monetary assessment of special effects and
non-monetary ecological risk analysis, including impacts as ecologic
risk, spatial development and connectivity, urban improvement. The
weighting on a 1 to 5 scale is used for each parameter.
The Netherlands (Haugen 2004; Odgaard et al. 2005) for a primary
assessment uses a special method which helps to list the characteristics
of alternatives against determined criteria. These characteristics can
be both measured and described. Therefore, sometimes, MCA is used and
CBA is used for major projects. Non-monetised impacts include noise,
vibration, air quality, safety, security, landscape.
In Norway (Kjerkreit et al. 2008; Odgaard et al. 2005; Thomopoulos
et al. 2009), methodology created in 2006 is often used assessing road
transport projects. It allows evaluating the results of an opened
project by using CBA. The biggest attention is paid to the forecast of
transport volumes which is prepared for a period of 25 years, because
post opening (or ex-post) assessments usually are performed only five
years after the projects were opened. In the post opening assessment,
the changes of effects having non-monetary values are determined. For
such calculations a computer program with standard CBA software package
EFEKT was created. This program helps to retrieve and compare ex-ante
evaluations with ex-post assessments.
The United Kingdom (Hull 2005; Parkhurst, Richardson 2002) has made
significant changes over the last 15 years in the methodology used to
assess transport infrastructure. MCA is used in conjunction with CBA.
Impacts do not have explicit weights. Decision makers judge whether
proposals offer good value for money. Such effects as distribution and
equity, affordability and financial sustainability, practicality and
public acceptability are usually assessed. Townscape, heritage, water,
journey ambience, biodiversity, transport interchange are rated on a
seven point scale plus a qualitative comment. Landscape is rated on an
eight point scale, access to transport--on a seven point scale with a
comment. Noise impact is assessed as a reduction in the number of people
annoyed.
The practice of Greece represents great connections between a
national regional policy and recommendations of EU (Polyzos 2010;
Thomopoulos et al. 2009). The Strategic Guidelines form the basis for
identifying investment priorities, which are then to be elaborated in
National Strategic Reference Frameworks at the Member State level. In
addition to these strategic guidelines, a number of other factors shape
a final establishment of transport investment priorities. Other factors
include: Cost-effectiveness of projects; Availability of other sources
of funding; Appropriateness of transport policy; Administrative capacity
to adequately absorb and manage funds. CBA can be used to phase a
foreseen transport investment in time or to seek alternatives with
similar functionality that offer a higher value for money. The main
groups of impacts--economic competitiveness, territorial cohesion,
environmental sustainability and additionally the accessibility problem
index--are used. The impacts are assessed with the support of the SASI
model. This model is a recursive-dynamic simulation model of
social-economic development and is common in 130 regions of Europe. It
is used to assess social-economic and spatial impacts of transport
infrastructure of European significance. Figure 2 shows the structure of
the SASI model. This model helps to model the impacts of transport on
regional development by modeling production and population. The model
allows to dived forecast time into short periods, the impacts can also
be taken into account.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Analyzing the practice of the EU countries in terms of the second
approach, the Authors paid more attention to the implementation of
sustainable development policy within urban territories. In order to
solve current urban transport problems, the concept of interaction
between transport planning and land use was started to be used. Various
scientists (Beria et al. 2010; Burinskiene, Rudzkiene 2007; Eliasson,
Lundberg 2011; Daniel Jonsson 2008; Mateos et al. 2007; Parkhurst,
Richardson 2002) define this as an aim to reduce demand for unnecessary
travel (land use policy) and to offset the necessary traffic (transport
planning policy). Transport policy is more clear and effective than
regulation of land use when the main aim of policy is a sustainable
transport system. Yet, the means of land use is valid at all stages of
transport planning and are often efficient for a long-term perspective.
Therefore, an integrated and effective interaction between transport
planning and land use is often validated through the procedures of
territorial planning. During the last decade integrated planning models
dedicated to forecast the impact of urban or regional transport to the
expansion were started to be used. The main principles of these models
are connected to the main attitudes of sustainable
development--environmental, social and economic. But the analysis of
existing models shows that still not all of these models determine
intermodal connections or have no model for freight transport. Further
few examples of qualitative interaction between transport planning and
land use used in selected EU countries are presented.
Based on the acknowledgement of the existence of a strong link
between the performance of transport modes and the characteristics of
areas they were using, the methodology was developed to evaluate social
and economic effectiveness of Park-and-Ride (further-PR) schemes in
France (Margail, Auzanet 1996). The aim of this methodology was to
locate geographic zones in city, where the total cost of travelling by
public and private transport would become equal. In other words, to
create a system of routes attractive to people living in city. This
model was applied to private cars and regional express train network
(RER) in the Paris area and placed an optimal location at 20 km from the
center of Paris. The method consists of the following procedures:
reference situation, investment, direct and indirect costs of using
transport modes and the benefits derived by economic agents. Description
of current situation includes estimation of total costs, determination
of project investors and important users. Key economic indexes treated
as a basis for the pricing of PR schemes are determined in economic
evaluation using CBA.
A similar policy was implemented in the United Kingdom cities. It
was seeking to forbid traffic in the center areas in seeking to expand
pedestrian zones with bicycle paths, a new system of reorganized public
transport and car parking places (Hull 2005; Parkhurst, Richardson
2002). Table 4 shows the key elements of costs, investments and gained
benefit (Margail, Auzanet 1996; Parkhurst, Richardson 2002).
Systemizing the results of analytic investigation of assessment
systems used in foreign countries the Authors confirm that complicated
and modified methods are used for the assessment of urban road
infrastructure development. These methods integrate more detailed
evaluation of various factors according to objects territory, type of
built-up area, general structure of certain town, structure of traffic
flows and volumes, population and other social, environmental, traffic
safety, technical and other aspects. Systemized aspects of assessment
can be grouped as follows: Social-Economic aspects, Environmental-land
use aspects, Traffic related aspects.
Next section will present a short analysis of the current
assessment system of automobile road transport infrastructure
development in Lithuania.
4. Lithuanian Practice in Assessing Investment Projects of
Transport Systems Infrastructure
Various scientists (Bivainis, Butkevicius 2003; Griskevicius,
Griskeviciene 2004; Maciulis et al. 2009) maintain that the practice of
preparation of investment projects of transport infrastructure in
Lithuania is not sustained. The current practice shows that the total of
own funds is not sufficient for upgrading and developing urban transport
infrastructure. Due to uncertain use of finances from local, state and
private sectors in sustainable development, Project Financing is
becoming one of the most important stages of project implementation. In
order to select priority project more efficiently, it is necessary to
create assessment model allowing more deeply characterize the need of
project implementation. Therefore it is necessary to improve connection
between all stages of project lifetime, determine principle guidelines
of implementation and also minuteness of justification. In order to
reach these aims the Authors suggested the Assessment model for the
development of urban transport infrastructure. The main steps of
suggested assessment model are shown in Figure 3.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Figure 3 shows that the Authors suggested 4 main steps for the
formation of the Assessment model. The main step concerns the
determination of specific criteria used for the assessment of urban
transport infrastructure development. Integrated structure of specific
criteria allows comparing different indicators of alternative projects
and also creating priority queue for their implementation.
In order to verify the working of suggested model the Authors
carried out few analytic investigations of the current assessment
system. The first analysis was carried out during the years 2008-2010.
Ten projects of local urban road transport infrastructure and five
projects of rural road transport infrastructure prepared for the EU
financial support were selected. The objects of selected urban transport
infrastructure projects met the requirements of description mentioned in
Table 1. The projects of rural road transport infrastructure included
separate elements (bridges, junctions, roundabouts, bicycle paths) of
local roads and regional roads of national significance having links
with European Transport corridors. These mentioned projects were
compared in order to verify the first and the second main steps of
suggested assessment model: to systemize the existing differences in
approving the development of urban and rural road transport
infrastructure: a structure of the whole process, the principles of
assessment and lifetime of project were identified. The systemized
results of the first analysis showed that:
--Assessment of the development of automobile road transport
infrastructure was and still is used for these projects which meet the
requirements of the EU and the State transport policy. The development
of transport infrastructure funded by local authorities is validated
with the implementation of the detailed plan or a technical design
project, and the necessity for approving development is not defined and
is usually not required.
--Moreover, there is no uniform system of the assessment of urban
road transport infrastructure. According to the Government, it is
authorized to interpret assessing impacts on project solutions. The
effects of interpretations are usually experienced in various
social-economic, engineer-technical and natural environments inseparable
from each other and having additional and continuing connections.
Therefore, if a problem occurred in one sphere (environment), it can
cause more negative short-term or long-term effects.
--Moreover, the methodology of assessment of rural road transport
infrastructure which was approved by the Lithuanian Road Administration
(after EU official recommendations) is commonly used for the assessment
of urban road transport infrastructure (Automobiliu keliu investiciju
vadovas.... 2006; Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis...2008; Laurinavicius
et al. 2012). Referring to the EU recommendations, the Lithuanian
Guidelines defined the main steps towards implementing road
infrastructure projects and the main aspects used for assessment.
--The justification has to be tightly connected to separate stages
of territorial planning and environmental impact assessment in order to
prepare a financial program and allocate financing for the final stages
of project implementation. However, the results of the accomplished
analysis carried out by the Authors confirmed that usually both stages
of territorial planning and environmental impact assessment or the stage
of justification are missed or performed after the stages of technical
design creating problems of non-correspondence to forecasted indexes and
illustrating the problems mentioned above.
--Determinations or calculations of separate assessment elements
are similar for both urban road and rural road infrastructure. Total
costs of separate projects are assessed by the same methods, considering
costs for Planning, Designing, Construction and Maintenance. Moreover,
the same variation rate is applied for the CBA calculations. Indexes
used in these calculations are confirmed and recalculated every few year
by the Lithuanian Road Administration. The same variation rate is
applied to forecast transport indexes. Software is used for foreseeing
distribution of transport flows.
--The main criteria used in the CBA have numeric (monetary)
expressions and are similar as used abroad: Costs of Constructions and
Costs of Road Maintenance; Savings in Travel Time, Savings in VOC,
Traffic Accident Savings. Ecologic Savings are assessed in different
ways: expressing qualitatively or in monetary value. The calculations of
Dust, Air pollutant and Noise criteria are expressed in monetary terms,
but a qualitative expression of Ecologic aspects is more common.
--The MCA is still rarely used for the assessment of automobile
road transport infrastructure development implemented in corporation
with international institutions. (However, investment projects
implemented in cooperation with the State are assessed by using the MCA.
The result of this method is the evaluation of efficiency of alternative
investment projects according to the selected evaluation criteria that
shall reflect both the investment project of implementing a subject as
well as the interests of the State). Moreover, the results of the first
analysis confirmed that the MCA is used for selecting alternative
concepts prepared for the same object to reach better results of a
separate development project. Alternative concepts are compared using
specific criteria. The type of criteria used is qualitative (maximizing)
or quantitative (minimizing). The total score of criteria shows the
better alternative to select. However, this MCA method used is explicit.
It uses only few criteria of technical, economic and social aspects: for
example, the total amount of investment, the effectiveness of costs of
accidents, the effectiveness of ecologic costs, the effectiveness of
VOC, the ratio of social-economic benefit and costs. Therefore, the
results of selecting an alternative concept can be evident beforehand.
Systemized results of the first analysis confirmed that current
assessment system is similar to the ones used abroad and can be used to
assess the development of urban transport infrastructure. Therefore the
Authors concentrated their analysis on the determination of specific
criteria influencing the development of urban transport infrastructure.
Moreover Authors maintain that the usage of combined CBA and MCA methods
could help to systemize results of alternative projects comparing one
integrated indicator. The findings of the second analysis concerning
this topic are presented in another part.
5. The Implication of a New Approach
The second analysis was carried out during the years 2010-2011 in
order to systemize the main principles used: evaluation aspects and
criteria used in the assessment of development of road transport
infrastructure and to determine general significant criteria. The expert
survey was carried out. 55 experts, performing in the spheres of
preparation, evaluation and organization of development projects of
urban and rural road transport systems and territorial planning, were
invited to participate in this research. Only 18 experts finished the
survey. Delphi method was used to systemize the results of this survey.
16 questions concerning the assessment system used in Lithuania were
presented. The first 6 questions included general information about a
concept of justification and description of urban transport
infrastructure. Other questions were more specific, concerning the
system of assessment: separate evaluation aspects and criteria were
presented. All questions were divided into separate groups of urban
transport infrastructure objects (6 groups according to Table 1),
seeking to establish the impact of analysis-related criteria on the
development of separate groups. The results of the expert survey were
systematized by applying methods of statistical analysis.
The results of statistical analysis showed that general questions
were related and approved by statistical indicators. The results
confirmed that question No. 6 presenting the relevance of separate
evaluation aspects was the most important for the experts. (Table 5).
Table 5 shows that experts were unanimous for the usage of Social
and Economic aspects, also Strategic and Technical aspects. The usage of
Land use aspect was negotiable and depended on more detailed statistical
analysis of received results. According to the recurrence frequency of
expert answers, the results were systemized by the method of clustering
analysis (90 answers for 6 groups of urban transport infrastructure). In
order to select and combine evaluation criteria common for all suggested
groups of urban transport infrastructure the method of k-mean was
applied. After 4 steps of iteration the expert answers were combined
into 3 clusters. The first cluster combined criteria having minimal
influence (11 criteria--Environmental and Land use aspects), the second
cluster--having average influence (8 criteria --mostly Economic, Social,
Strategic aspects), the third cluster--having the greatest influence (10
criteria--mostly Traffic Safety and Technical aspects) on the assessment
process. The priority queue of criteria inside each cluster was formed
showing their importance. Criteria of financial aspects were not
included in these clusters and can be treated as spare criteria used for
specific cases.
In order to simplify the process of comparison of alternative
project general significant criteria have to be determined. Since
development projects usually integrate few groups of urban transport
infrastructure, criteria of the first cluster were also included. Three
criteria of each cluster were selected after the EU guidelines to
determine criteria characterizing relevance, utility and efficiency of
separate projects. These criteria selected independently of their
priority queue, because of possibility to be expressed by more than one
different indicator with quantitative or qualitative expression and also
seeking to simplify the determination of integrated indicator. This
proves the opinion of scientists (Burinskiene, Rudzkiene 2007; Yazdani
et al. 2011) that indicators having influence on sustainable
development, have to be known for the publicity, comprehensible and
measurable. Table 6 shows general criteria selected.
Table 6 shows that clustering analysis allows systemizing criteria
necessary to be included in the assessment of urban transport
infrastructure. These criteria has common feature--they can be expressed
in numeric terms, but also can be describe qualitatively. Particular
attention is focused on Traffic Safety. The criterion of priority
Technical aspect embraces the results of the research on road; thus it
indicates the need to determine the scope and structure of indispensable
research. As the impact of these two major aspects of development is
described from the financial point of view and is determined on the
basis of economic calculations, the obtained results of the analysis
once more prove the importance of the said aspects and stringent
investigations into substantiation of urban infrastructure development.
The economic aspect determining the benefits is represented as a mean
value for substantiating the development of urban transport
infrastructure. However, according to the present EU regional policy of
development and the documents regulating a financial support provided
for the EU developing countries, economic assessment has to remain as an
essential comparative tool for alternative projects of urban transport
infrastructure development. The impact on resident mobility has been
selected as the most significant criterion of social aspects which, in
its importance, has surpassed such valuable social criteria as the
impact on employment or on their social development. The issue
concerning resident mobility is one of the newest trends in the EU
regional policy. Mobility platforms are being created which unite
different cities of the world that seek sustainable mobility. Thus
involving this social criterion into substantiation of urban transport
infrastructure development projects would be an innovative approach in
Lithuanian practice. Environmental impacts are necessary to be included
independently of the complexity of objects and necessary implementation
stage of environmental impact assessment.
Next step--the determination of integrated indicator--involves both
identification of indicators and determination of their importance. The
Authors used the simplest method of indicators ranking. Actual values of
indicators received from alternative projects are compared with standard
expressions determined after the results of cluster analysis. Corrected
expressions are valued by the help of indirect ranking. The weight
ratios of separate indicators are determined by the help of pairwise
comparison method. Since evaluated indicators characterize assessment
aspects with the different importance to each other additionally weight
multipliers are determined for separate clusters. The values of
multipliers are calculated after the correspondence to the
recommendations of the White paper (European Commission ... 2011): the
highest value--for criteria of Traffic safety aspect, the smallest
value--to criteria of Environmental and Land use aspects. The results of
calculations of integrated indicators and testing of assessment model
will be published in Authors' other articles.
6. Conclusions
There is no uniform system for the assessment of development
projects of urban road transport infrastructure in Lithuania. According
to the Governments, it is authorized to interpret assessing impacts of
project solutions. Since there is no basic definite methodology, the
effects of interpretations are experienced in various socio-economic,
technical and natural environments inseparable from each other and
having additional and continuing connections. This gap is filled with
methods used for the assessment of development projects of rural road
transport infrastructure in spite of the fact that technical
infrastructure of road transport partly differs in urban and rural
territories. Moreover, methodologies of project justification used in
the EU countries mainly highlight the assessment of development of rural
road transport infrastructure. Assessing the projects of urban transport
infrastructure, streets and roads close to build up areas are unified
with common principles. Paying attention to the use of limited financial
sources, to the EU financial support and to the State Investment
Program, the selection of projects for priority implementation has to be
the main concern for the Decision makers.
In order to systemize the existent problems related to the process
of assessing the development of road transport infrastructure and to
create assessment model specified for urban transport infrastructure,
few analyses were carried out during the years 2008-2011. The results of
analytic investigation confirmed that current assessment system is
similar to ones used abroad and can be used to assess the development of
urban transport infrastructure. Therefore the Authors concentrated their
analysis on the determination of specific criteria influencing the
development of urban transport infrastructure. Moreover Authors maintain
that the usage of combined CBA and MCA methods could help to simplify
the comparison of alternative projects comparing one integrated
indicator and also the formation priority queue for implementation.
doi: 10.3846/20294913.2012.740516
References
Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2011.
Measuring congruence of ranking results applying particular MCDM
methods, Informatica 22(3): 319-338.
Automobiliu keliu investiciju vadovas. KIV-06-1. [Guide to
Automobile Road Investment]. 2006. Lithunian Road Administration under
the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of
Lithuania. Vilnius, Lithuania, 85 p.
Bekefi, Z.; Kiss, L. N.; Tanczos, K. 2003. Multi-criteria analysis
of the financial feasibility of transport infrastructure projects in
Hungary, INFOR 2003 [online], [cited 07 July, 2009]. Available from
Internet: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3661/is_200302/ai_n9188263/?tag=content;col1
Beria, P.; Maltese, I.; Mariotti, I. 2010. Comparing cost benefit
and multi-criteria analysis: the evaluation of neighbourhoods'
sustainable mobility [online]. University of Mesina, Dipartimento di
Scienze Economiche, Finanziarie, Sociali, Ambientali e Statistiche
(SEFISAST), Italy [cited 16 August, 2011]. Available from Internet:
http://ww2.unime.it/sefisast/SEFISAST/Conference_Paper_files/
BERIA_MALTESE_MARIOTTI.pdf
Beukers, E.; Bertolini, L.; Te Brommelstroet, M. 2012. Why cost
benefit is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport
plans: a process perspective, Journal of Transportation Research, Part
A: Policy and Practice 46(1): 68-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.004
Bivainis, J.; Butkevicius, A. 2003. Methodological Aspects of
Evaluation of State Budget Programmes, Journal of Business Economics and
Management 4(1): 53-61.
Brambilla, M.; Erba, S. 2004. Cost-benefit analysis of strategical
transport infrastructure in Italy, Papers of World 10th Conference of
Transport Research Society, [online]. 2004, Istanbul, Turkey. [Cited16
August, 2011]. Available from Internet:
http://www.traspol.polimi.it/documenti/Assessment/bramberba
2004-CBAItalianInfra.pdf
Brauers, W. K. M.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2011. From a centrally planned
economy to multiobjective optimization in an enlarged project management
the case of China, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies
and Research 45(1): 167-187.
Brauers, W. K. M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Peldschus, F.; Turskis, Z.
2008. Multi-objective decision-making for road design, Transport 23(3):
183-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2008.23.183-193
Burinskiene, M.; Rudzkiene, V 2007. Assessment of sustainable
development in transition, Ecology 53: 27-33.
De Brucker, K.; Macharis, C.; Verbeke, A. 2011. Multi-criteria
analysis in transport project evaluation: an institutional approach,
European Transport/Transporti Europei. International Journal of
Transport Economics, Engineering and Law 47: 3-24.
Daniel Jonsson, R. 2008. Analysing sustainability in a land-use and
transport system, Journal of Transport Geography 16: 28-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.02.006
Eliasson, J.; Lundberg, M. 2011. Do cost-benefit analyses influence
transport investment decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport
Investment Plan 2010-21, Transport Reviews iFirst: 1-20.
European Commission. 2008. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of
Investment Projects: Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and Instrument for
Pre-Accession. Final Report Submitted by TRT Trasportie Territorio and
CSIL Centre for Industrial Studies. European Commission. Directorate
General Regional Policy. Brussels, 16/06/2008. 255 p.
European Commission. 2011. The White paper: Roadmap to a Single
European Transport Area--Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system. SEK(2011) 359 final; SEK(2011) 358 final, SEK(2011)
391 final. Brussels. 31 p.
Geurs, K.; Hoen, A.; Hagen, A.; Van Wee, B. 2003. Ex post
evaluation of Dutch spatial planning and infrastructure policies, in
Proc. of European Transport Conference 2003: Land Use and Transport
[online]. 8-10 August, 2003, Strasbourg, France [cited 08 March, 2010].
Available from Internet:
http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/evaluation-of-land-use-and-transport-projects-accessibility-and-economic-impac
Gitelman, V.; Yannis, G.; Papadimitriou, E.; Hakkert, A. S.;
Winkelbauer, M. 2008. Testing a framework for the efficiency assessment
of road safety measures, Transport Reviews: a Transnational
Transdisciplinary Journal 28(3): 2831-301.
Grant-Muller, S. M.; MacKie, P.; Nellthorp, J.; Pearman, A. 2001.
Economic appraisal of European transport projects: the state-of -the-art
revisited, Transport Reviews: A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal
21(2): 237-261.
Griskevicius, A.; Griskeviciene, D. 2004. The efficiency of
investments into the projects of transport infrastructure development,
in Proc. of International Conference "Transport means--04".
28-29 October, 2004, Kaunas, Lithuania. Kaunas: Technologija, 221-224.
Haugen, T. 2004. Evaluation of hov-lanes in Norway, in Proc. of
European Transport Conference 2004: Traffic Engineering and Management
[online]. 04-06 October, 2004, Strasbourg, France [cited 08 March,
2010]. Available from Internet:
http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/evaluation-of-hovlanes-in-norway
Hull, A. 2005. Integrated transport planning in the UK: from
concept to reality, Journal of Transport Geography 13(4): 318-328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.12.002
Jakimavicius, M.; Burinskiene, M. 2009. Assessment of Vilnius city
development scenarios based on transport system modelling and
multicriteria analysis, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
15(4): 361-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.361-368
Joumand, R.; Nicolas, J. P. 2010. Transport project assessment
methodoly within the framework of sustainable development, Ecological
Indicators 10(2): 136-142.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.002
Juskevicius, P.; Burinskiene, M. 2007. Quality factors of the
residential environment in urban planning, International Journal of
Environment and Pollution 30(3-4): 471-484.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2007.014823
Kildiene, S.; Kaklauskas, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2011. COPRAS based
comparative analysis of the European country management capabilities
within the construction sector in the time of crisis, Journal of
Business Economics and Management 12(2): 417-434.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2011.575190
Kjerkreit, A.; Odeck, J.; Sandvik, K. O. 2008. Post opening
evaluation of road investment projects in Norway: how correct are the
estimated future benefits?, in Proc. of European Transport Conference
2008: Traffic Engineering and Road Safety [online]. 06-08 October, 2008,
The Netherlands [cited 02 November, 2009]. Available from Internet:
http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/post-opening-evaluation-of-road-
investment-projects-in-norway-how-correct-are-
Laurinavicius, A.; Grigonis, V.; Upalyte-Vitkuniene, R.;
Ratkeviciute, K.; Cygaite, L.; Skrodenis, E.; Anton, D.; Smirnovs, J.;
Bobrovaite-Jurkone, B. 2012. Policy instruments for managing EU road
safety targets: road safety impact assessment, The Baltic Journal of
Road and Bridge Engineering 7(1): 60-67.
Law on Roads of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 1995,
No. 44-107; 2008, No. 135-5229. [Online]. Available from Internet:
http://www.litlex.lt/Litlex/eng/Frames/Laws/Documents/340.HTM
Maciulis, A.; Vasilis-Vasiliauskas, A.; Jakubauskas, G. 2009. The
impact of transport on the competitiveness of national economy,
Transport 24(2): 93-99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2009.24.93-99
Macharis, C.; Witte, A.; Ampe, J. 2009. The multi-actor
multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of
transport projects: theory and practice, Journal of Advanced
Transportation 43: 183-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/atr.5670430206
Margail, F.; Auzanet, P. 1996. Evaluation of the economic and
social effectiveness ofpark-and-ride facilities, in Proc. of European
Transport Conference 1996: Public Transport Planning and Operations
[online], [cited 08 March, 2010]. Available from Internet:
http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/evaluation-of-the-economic-and-
social-effectiveness-of-park-and-ride-facilitie
Mateos, M.; Pfaffenbichler, P.; Sanchez, A. 2007. Transport policy
contribution to sustainability in Madrid. A new assessing framework, in
Proc. of CORP 2006 and Geomultimedia 06. February 13-16, 2006, Viena,
175-185.
Odgaard, T.; Kelly, C.; Laird, J. 2005. Current practice in project
appraisal in Europe, in Proc. of European Transport Conference 2005:
European Policy and Research [online]. 3-5 August, 2005, Strasbourg,
France. Available from Internet:
http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/current-practice-in-project-appraisal-in-europe
Parkhurst, G.; Richardson, J. 2002. Modal integration of bus and
car in UK local transport policy: the case for strategic environmental
assessment, Journal of Transport Geography 10(3): 195-206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00011-X
Polyzos, S. 2010. The Egnatia motorway and the changes in
interregional trade in Greece: an ex ante assessment, European Spatial
Research and Policy 16(2): 23-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/[V.sub.1]0105-009-0011-7
Rus, G. 2006. Economic Evaluation and Incentives in Transport
Infrastructure Investment. OECD, Milan European Economy Workshop.
Working paper No. 2006-25. 13 October, 2006, Department of Economics
University of Milan, Italy.
Saparauskas, J.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. 2011. Selection of
Facade's Alternatives of Commercial and Public Buildings Based on
Multiple Criteria, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, 15(2): 189-203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2011.586532
Schetke, S.; Haase, D. 2007. Multi-criteria assessment of
socio-environmental aspects in shrinking cities, Experiences from
Eastern Germany 28(7): 483-503.
Sun, H.; Hu, Y. 2011. Systemized results of expert survey. Research
on sustainable development evaluation system of large-scale
infrastructure projects based on AHP, Journal of Applied Mechanics and
Materials 174-177: 2931-2935.
Thomopoulos, N.; Grant-Muller, S.; Tight, M. R. 2009. Incorporating
equity considerations in transport infrastructure evaluation: current
practice and a proposed methodology, Journal of Evaluation and Program
Planning 32(4): 351-359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.06.013
Yazdani, M.; Alidoosti, A.; Zavadskas, E. K. 2012. Risk analysis of
critical infrastructures using fuzzy COPRAS, Ekonomska
istrazivanja-Economic research 24(4): 27-40.
Ausrine Griskeviciute-Geciene (1), Marija Burinskiene (2)
Department of Urban Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical
Unviersity, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mails: (1)
ausrine.griskeviciute@vgtu.lt (corresponding author); (2)
marija.burinskiene@vgtu.lt
Received 04 December 2011; accepted 09 September 2012
Ausrine GRISKEVICIUTE-GECIENE. PhD student (Science of Technology,
Urban engineering), assist at the Department of Urban Engineering in
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. She is an author of 15 papers in
the field of the assessment of transport infrastructure. Research
interests: sustainable development of urban and road transport
infrastructure, evaluation process of investment projects.
Marija BURINSKIENE. Professor, Dr, Head of Urban Engineering
Department and Director of Territorial Planning Research Institute of
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. She was a project manager of
more than 45 national projects from 1983, participated in more than 35
intern conferences and was involved in eight Framework 5 and 6 program
projects. The main research interests regularities and specificity of
urban and regional sustainable development, development of urban
transport system as well as creation of decision-support system for
implementing engineering solutions.
Ausrine Griskeviciute-Geciene (1), Marija Burinskiene (2)
Department of Urban Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical
Unviersity, Sauletekio al. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mails: (1)
ausrine.griskeviciute@vgtu.lt (corresponding author); (2)
marija.burinskiene@vgtu.lt
Received 04 December 2011; accepted 09 September 2012
Table 1. Selected groups and objects of urban road
transport technical infrastructure
Objects of urban road transport technical infrastructure
General communication network (streets, roads, parking lots,
paths, territories of transport service, etc.)
Main nodes (all level crossings, pedestrian/cyclist passages,
squares, etc.)
Public Transport infrastructure (route network, rail transport
lines, PT traffic lanes, stations, depots, platforms, final
nodes, stops, etc.)
Traffic regulation and control means (traffic regulation system
with centers (traffic-lights, traffic control devices, variable
electronic signs, pedestrian, cyclist passage switches, pavement
signing, etc.), Park and Ride system, informational system with
centers (display panels, external screens, stock tickers, etc.)
Traffic safety means (traffic watch systems (traffic flows
measurement devices, traffic detection cameras, etc.), safe
traffic providing systems (speed limiting devices, prominent
pedestrian/cyclist passages, safety islands, boxes, safety
mirrors, road reflectors and blinking footprint, etc.), pedestrian,
calm traffic zones and etc.
Environmental means (noise isolation systems, mounds, road pavement,
accumulation and clearing of surface water, bio-barrage, greening,
premise protection from noise, etc.)
Table 2. Analyzed countries * (Grant-Muller et al. 2001)
Region Selected Standardization of Assessment
countries assessment principles principles
for automobile road
transport
North Finland Official requirements, CBA; QM
PC software
Norway Official recommendations, CBAs
PC software
Sweden Official recommendations, CBA
PC software
East Czech Official recommendations, CBA; MCA
Republic PC software
Hungary Official recommendations CBA; MCA
Latvia Official recommendations CBA
Lithuania Official recommendations CBA
Poland Official recommendations CBA; MCA
South Italy Official recommendations CBA
Greece Official recommendations, CBA; QA
other
Spain Official recommendations CBA; MCA
West France Official recommendations CBA
Germany Official requirements CBA; QA
Netherlands Official requirements CBA; QM
United Official recommendations, CBA; MCA;
Kingdom PC software QM; QA
Table 3. Summarized impacts used in the assessment of
automobile road transport infrastructure
Impacts used in CBA and MCA
Direct Costs Investment
Capital
Investigation/planning/designing
Land take
System Operating
Residual value
Benefit Travel time
Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC)
Safety-Accident
Environmental Benefit Noise Dust nuisance
Vibration Water Pollution
Local/Regional/Global Air Pollution
CO2 emissions Electromagnetic
radiation
Indirect Output Urban
Social functioning
Employment Urban renewal
Land Use
Direct Costs
Administration
Compensation for ecological effects
and replacement of environmental assets
Mitigation of environmental impacts
Maintenance
Benefit Accessibility
Reliability
Service Quality-Comfort
Sustainability
Environmental Benefit Landscape--Visual Severance
impacts
Land Take Ecological impact
Land Amenity Agriculture impact
Special Sites
Indirect Strategic Mobility Barrier and risks
Social
Defense Equity
Revenues/User Other Policy
charges Synergy
Table 4. The major elements of cost, benefit and investment on
PR schemes of Paris area
Costs elements Investment elements Benefit elements
Costs of car usage Expense of creating Time savings
the PR facility
Environmental costs Release of space Reduction in
(noise, pollution) around the station car use
Relieving congestion Savings in spending Variation in
on the highway or on parking in the PT use
savings inland space centre following
modal transfer
Highway maintenance Savings in surface Savings in
public transport as parking
a result of a possible provision
reduction in the size
of the bus fleet
following the opening
of the car park
Externalities Savings for
buses in
the suburbs
Table 5. The results of statistical analysis of question No. 6
No. Main evaluation aspects N Mean Median Standard
deviation
1 Strategic aspect 18 0.9444 0.2357
2 Social aspect 18 1.0 0.0
3 Economic aspect 18 1.0 0.0
4 Financial aspect 18 0.8889 0.3234
5 Technical aspect 18 0.9444 0.2357
6 Traffic safety aspect 18 0.8889 0.3234
7 Environmental aspect 18 0.8889 0.3234
8 Land use aspect 18 0.7222 0.4609
Source: Systemized results of expert survey, 2011
Table 6. The selection of general criteria
Priority Aspect Criterion
II cluster--criteria having significant influence
2 Technical Traffic volume and structure, variation
3 Traffic Safety Number of traffic accident
5 Traffic Safety Speed variation
III cluster--criteria having average influence
1 Economic Received economic benefit
2 Social Influence on resident mobility
9 Social Influence on employment
I cluster--criteria having minimal influence
2 Environmental Influence on noise level variation
5 Environmental Influence on air quality
11 Land Use The necessity of land take for the needs
of publicity
Priority Aspect Expression Final aim
II cluster--criteria having significant influence
2 Technical numeric minimize
3 Traffic Safety numeric minimize
5 Traffic Safety numeric minimize
III cluster--criteria having average influence
1 Economic numeric maximize
2 Social numeric maximize
9 Social numeric maximize
I cluster--criteria having minimal influence
2 Environmental numeric minimize
5 Environmental numeric minimize
11 Land Use numeric minimize
Source: Systemized results of expert survey, 2011
