Incomplete cost – incomplete benefit analysis in transport appraisal

References

• Ackerman, F. (2008). Critique of cost-benefit analysis, and alternative approaches to decision-making. A report to Friends of the Earth. London: Friends of the Earth.
   Google Scholar
• Ackerman, F., & Heinzerling, L. (2004). Priceless: On knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. New York, NY: New Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, J. (1994). The role of cost-benefit analysis in environmental debates. London: UCL. Retrieved from http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/The%20role%20of%20cost-benefit%20analysis%20in%20environmental%20debates.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Annema, J. A. (2013). The use of CBA in decision-making on mega-projects: empirical evidence. In H. Priemus, & B. van Wee (Eds.), International handbook on mega-projects (pp. 291–312). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Banister, D. (2007). Quantification of the non-transport benefits resulting from rail investment (Working Paper 1029). Oxford: Transport Studies Unit. Retrieved from http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/pubs/1029-banister.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Banister, D., & Berechman, Y. (2001). Transport investment and the promotion of economic growth. Journal of Transport Geography, 9, 209–218. doi: 10.1016/S0966-6923(01)00013-8
   Google Scholar
• Barfod, M. B., & Salling, K. B. (2015). A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 72, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2014.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BBC News. (2013). Blackpool is “most deprived seaside town”. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-23783425
   Google Scholar
• Bentham, J. (1776). A fragment on government. London: Cosimo.
   Google Scholar
• Brent, R. (2006). Applied cost-benefit analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Coeck, C., & Haezendonck, E. (2007). Conclusion: evolution towards integrated project appraisal. In E. Haezendonck (Ed.), Transport project evaluation. Extending the social cost-benefit approach (pp. 217–220). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, M., Hickman, R., & Chen, C.-L. (2018). Testing the effectiveness of participatory MCA: The case of the South Fylde line. Submitted.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Transport. (2009). Website for transport analysis guidance (WebTAG), TAG Unit 3.5.6, Value of Time and Operating Costs.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Transport. (2014a). Website for transport analysis guidance (WebTAG), TAG Unit A1.1, Cost-Benefit Analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Transport. (2014b). Website for transport analysis guidance (WebTAG), TAG Unit A2.1, Wider Impacts.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Transport. (2014c). Website for transport analysis guidance (WebTAG), TAG Unit A2.2, Regeneration Impacts.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Transport. (2017). Website for transport analysis guidance (WebTAG).
   Google Scholar
• Dimitriou, H., Ward, J., & Wright, P. (2012). OMEGA project: Summary report. London: OMEGA Centre, UCL.
   Google Scholar
• Dodgson, J. (2009). Rates of return on public spending on transport. London: RAC Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built – and what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25, 344–367. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grp024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. Denzin, & S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68, 279–295. doi: 10.1080/01944360208976273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10, 187–196. doi: 10.1002/sd.199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gühnemann, A. (2013). International comparison of transport appraisal practice – annex 2: Germany country report. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P. (1980). Great planning disasters. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman, R. (2017). Sustainable travel or sustaining growth? In J. Cowie, & S. Ison (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of transport economics (pp. 311–321). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman, R. (2018). Transport appraisal: thinking beyond the CBA? In I. Docherty, & J. Shaw (Eds.), The inside track: why transport matters and how we can make it better. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hickman, R., Chen, C.-L., Chow, A., & Saxena, S. (2015). Improving interchanges in China: The experiential phenomenon. Journal of Transport Geography, 42, 175–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hills, P. J. (1996). What is induced traffic? Transportation, 23, 5–16. doi: 10.1007/BF00166216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HM Treasury. (2003). The green book. London: TSO.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs. (2015). South Fylde rail connectivity study. Stage 2 results. Preston: Lancashire County Council.
   Google Scholar
• Jain, J., & Lyons, G. (2007). The gift of travel time. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, 81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, P. (2015). Assessing the wider impacts of the Jubilee Line Extension in East London. In R. Hickman, M. Givoni, D. Bonilla, & D. Banister (Eds.), Handbook on transport and development (pp. 318–333). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Kornhauser, L. A. (2000). On justifying cost-benefit analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 1037–1057. doi: 10.1086/468104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancashire County Council. (2011). The English indices of deprivation 2010. Local authority level analysis. Preston: LCC. Retrieved from http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=6121&pageid=40300&e=e
   Google Scholar
• Leleur, S. (2012). Complex strategic choices: Applying systemic planning for strategic decision making. London: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Macharis, C. (2007). Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: the MAMCA method. In E. Haezendonck (Ed.), Transport project evaluation. Extending the social-cost benefit approach (pp. 115–131). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Macharis, C., De Witte, A., & Turcksin, L. (2010). The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics. Transport Policy, 17, 303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, P., & Preston, J. (1998). Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal. Transport Policy, 5, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/S0967-070X(98)00004-3
   Google Scholar
• Mackie, P., Worsley, T., & Eliasson, J. (2014). Transport appraisal revisited. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 3–18. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz, D. (2008). The myth of travel time saving. Transport Reviews, 28, 321–336. doi: 10.1080/01441640701642348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mogridge, M. J. H. (1997). The self-defeating nature of urban road capacity policy. A review of theories, disputes and available evidence. Transport Policy, 4, 5–23. doi: 10.1016/S0967-070X(96)00030-3
   Google Scholar
• Mouchel. (2011). Heysham – M6 link road traffic model. Forecasting and economics report. Preston: Lancashire County Council.
   Google Scholar
• Næss, P. (2006). Cost benefit analyses of transportation investments: Neither critical nor realistic. Journal of Critical Realism, 5, 32–60.
   Google Scholar
• Næss, P. (2016). Inaccurate and biased: cost-benefit analyses of transport infrastructure projects. In P. Næss, & L. Price (Eds.), Crisis system: a critical realist and environmental critique of economics and the economy (pp. 48–68). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nellthorp, J., & Mackie, P. J. (2000). The UK roads review – a hedonic model of decision making. Transport Policy, 7, 127–138. doi: 10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00002-0
   Google Scholar
• Neuburger, H., & Fraser, N. (1993). Economic policy analysis: A rights-based approach. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaisen, M. S., & Driscoll, P. A. (2014). Ex-post evaluations of demand forecast accuracy: A literature review. Transport Reviews, 34, 540–557. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2014.926428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolaisen, M. S., & Næss, P. (2015). Roads to nowhere: The accuracy of travel demand forecasts for do-nothing alternatives. Transport Policy, 37, 57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noland, R., & Lem, L. (2002). A review of the evidence for induced travel and changes in transportation and environmental policy in the US and the UK. Transportation Research D, 7, 1–26. doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(01)00009-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odeck, J. (2010). What determines decision-makers’ preferences for road investments? Evidence from the Norwegian road sector. Transport Reviews, 30, 473–494. doi: 10.1080/01441640903138640
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office for National Statistics. (2013). Larger English seaside destinations had above average deprivation in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-trends/area-based-analysis/a-profile-of-deprivation-in-larger-english-seaside-destinations--2007-10/sty-seaside-destinations.html
   Google Scholar
• Posner, E., & Adler, M. (1999). Rethinking cost-benefit analysis. John M. Olin program in law and economics (Working Paper No. 72).
   Google Scholar
• Prest, A., & Turvey, R. (1965). Cost-benefit analysis: A survey. Economic Journal, 37, 47–61.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. (2006). Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies, 43, 1921–1941. doi: 10.1080/00420980600897826
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rietveld, P. (2013). Appraisal methods for transport policy. In B. Van Wee, J. A. Annema, & D. Banister (Eds.), The transport system and transport policy (pp. 329–352). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Self, P. (1970). Nonsense on stilts: Cost benefit analysis and the Roskill Commission. The Political Quarterly, 41, 249–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.1970.tb01169.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2000). The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29, 931–952. doi: 10.1086/468100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, G., & Hickman, R. (2015). South Fydle connectivity study. In TPM conference paper. London.
   Google Scholar
• Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA). (1994). Trunk roads and the generation of traffic. London: Department for Transport.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. (2006). Analysis, participation and power: Justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 23, 95–107. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugden, R. (1999). Developing a consistent cost-benefit framework for multi-modal transport appraisal. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
   Google Scholar
• Van Wee, B. (2007). Large infrastructure projects: A review of the quality of demand forecasts and cost estimations. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 611–625. doi: 10.1068/b32110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wee, B. (2012). How suitable is CBA for the ex-ante evaluation of transport projects and policies? A discussion from the perspective of ethics. Transport Policy, 19, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wee, B. & Roeser, S. 2013. Ethical theories and the cost–benefit analysis-based ex ante evaluation of transport policies and plans. Transport Reviews, 33, 743–760. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2013.854281
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickerman, R. (2007). The boundaries of welfare economics: transport appraisal in the UK. In E. Haezendonck (Ed.), Transport project evaluation: extending the social cost-benefit approach (pp. 35–54). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Wachs, M. (1990). Ethics and advocacy in forecasting for public policy. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 9, 141–157. doi: 10.5840/bpej199091/215
   Google Scholar
• Worsley, T. (2014). Developments in the appraisal of transport infrastructure investments in the UK and other European countries, and its influence on decisions (Report for EU SINTROPHER, Interreg IVB). Leeds: ITS, University of Leeds.
   Google Scholar
• Worsley, T., & Mackie, P. (2015). Transport policy, appraisal and decision-making. London: RAC Foundation, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds.
   Google Scholar