IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v14y2007i1p11-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments

Author

Listed:
  • Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A.

Abstract

Globalization and the opening of countries' borders, renders transport infrastructure projects more multinational than country specific. Hence, the need arises for a framework tool to prioritize transport infrastructure investments located in more than one country that will form a coherent multinational transport network. This paper presents such a tool, comprising of the procedure for prioritisation, as well as the necessary ex-ante evaluation framework. It is developed in order to be used at a strategic level by the policy makers and to cope with the limited availability and quality of data in the countries concerned. The tool's structure involves four components, constituting the procedural phases (identification, data collection, evaluation and prioritization), ensuring at the first procedural phase the inclusion of all projects, as these are proposed by the countries. The evaluation component of the tool is based on the well-known multi-criteria approach MAUT (Multi Attribute Utility Theory), that employs sufficient but limited criteria reflecting the the transport policy priorities of the countries concerned as well as the available financial resources. In addition, criteria related to financial and economic viability of the projects and their international dimensions are included. The tool has been applied to prioritize transport projects in a multinational transport network, comprising of 21 countries, which are members of the Trans European Motorway and Railway networks (TEM, TER) in Europe with satisfactory results.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2007. "A tool for prioritizing multinational transport infrastructure investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 11-26, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:14:y:2007:i:1:p:11-26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(06)00057-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haluk Gerçek & Birsen Karpak & Tülay Kılınçaslan, 2004. "A multiple criteria approach for the evaluation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul," Transportation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 203-228, May.
    2. Nellthorp, J. & Mackie, P. J., 2000. "The UK Roads Review--a hedonic model of decision making," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 127-138, April.
    3. Mackie, Peter & Preston, John, 1998. "Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 1-7, January.
    4. Laird, James J. & Nellthorp, John & Mackie, Peter J., 2005. "Network effects and total economic impact in transport appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 537-544, November.
    5. van Exel, Job & Rienstra, Sytze & Gommers, Michael & Pearman, Alan & Tsamboulas, Dimitrios, 2002. "EU involvement in TEN development: network effects and European value added," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 299-311, October.
    6. Sayers, T. M. & Jessop, A. T. & Hills, P. J., 2003. "Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options--flexible, transparent and user-friendly?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 95-105, April.
    7. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    8. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 156-160, September.
    9. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Khraibani, R. & de Palma, A. & Picard, N. & Kaysi, I., 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 67-81.
    2. Xu, Wangtu & Lin, Weihua, 2016. "Selecting the public transit projects with PCA-DP technique: The example of Xiamen City," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 56-71.
    3. Akin, Darcin & Kara, Derya, 2020. "Multicriteria analysis of planned intercity bus terminals in the metropolitan city of Istanbul, Turkey," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 465-489.
    4. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    5. Wang, Shih-Hsu, 2016. "An analytical model for benchmarking the development of national infrastructure items against those in similar countries," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 3-18.
    6. Armando Cartenì & Luca D’Acierno & Mariano Gallo, 2020. "A Rational Decision-Making Process with Public Engagement for Designing Public Transport Services: A Real Case Application in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    7. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    8. Macharis, Cathy & De Witte, Astrid & Turcksin, Laurence, 2010. "The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) application in the Flemish long-term decision making process on mobility and logistics," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 303-311, September.
    9. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    10. Johanna Camargo Pérez & Martha Carrillo & Jairo Montoya-Torres, 2015. "Multi-criteria approaches for urban passenger transport systems: a literature review," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 69-87, March.
    11. Nogués, Soledad & González-González, Esther, 2014. "Multi-criteria impacts assessment for ranking highway projects in Northwest Spain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 80-91.
    12. Sun, Hui & Zhang, Yiting & Wang, Yuning & Li, Lei & Sheng, Yun, 2015. "A social stakeholder support assessment of low-carbon transport policy based on multi-actor multi-criteria analysis: The case of Tianjin," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 103-116.
    13. Mouter, Niek & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2013. "Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 241-255.
    14. Anastasiadou, Konstantina & Gavanas, Nikolaos, 2023. "Enhancing urban public space through appropriate sustainable mobility policies. A multi-criteria analysis approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    15. Ilaria Henke & Armando Cartenì & Luigi Di Francesco, 2020. "A Sustainable Evaluation Processes for Investments in the Transport Sector: A Combined Multi-Criteria and Cost–Benefit Analysis for a New Highway in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-26, November.
    16. Dariusz Masłowski & Kinga Kijewska & Ewa Kulińska, 2021. "Management of Municipal Public Transport Vehicle Journeys by Using the PERT Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Cavallaro, Federico & Dianin, Alberto, 2019. "Cross-border commuting in Central Europe: features, trends and policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 86-104.
    18. Lowry, Michael B., 2010. "Using optimization to program projects in the era of communicative rationality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 94-101, March.
    19. Ivanović, Ivan & Grujičić, Dragana & Macura, Dragana & Jović, Jadranka & Bojović, Nebojša, 2013. "One approach for road transport project selection," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 22-29.

    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. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    2. Jonas Eliasson & Mattias Lundberg, 2011. "Do Cost--Benefit Analyses Influence Transport Investment Decisions? Experiences from the Swedish Transport Investment Plan 2010--21," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 29-48, April.
    3. Bojan Srdjevic & Yvonilde Medeiros, 2008. "Fuzzy AHP Assessment of Water Management Plans," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(7), pages 877-894, July.
    4. Khraibani, R. & de Palma, A. & Picard, N. & Kaysi, I., 2016. "A new evaluation and decision making framework investigating the elimination-by-aspects model in the context of transportation projects' investment choices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 67-81.
    5. Iwasaki, S & Tone, K, 1998. "A Search Model with Subjective Judgments: Auditing of Incorrect Tax Declarations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 249-261, April.
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    7. Euijune Kim & Seung‐Woon Moon & Yoojin Yi, 2021. "Analyzing spillover effects of development of Asian highway on regional growth of Northeast Asian countries," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 1243-1266, August.
    8. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    10. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    11. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    12. Wang, Ying-Ming & Fan, Zhi-Ping & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2007. "A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 356-366, October.
    13. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    14. Mouter, Niek, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ attitudes towards Cost-Benefit Analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Evelin Krmac & Boban Djordjević, 2019. "A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Framework for the Evaluation of Train Control Information Systems, the Case of ERTMS," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 209-239, January.
    16. Gutiérrez, Javier & Condeço-Melhorado, Ana & López, Elena & Monzón, Andrés, 2011. "Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 840-850.
    17. Zhü, Kèyù, 2014. "Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 209-217.
    18. Mustafa Hamurcu & Tamer Eren, 2020. "Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, April.
    19. Ying-Ming Wang & Ying Luo & Yi-Song Xu, 2013. "Cross-Weight Evaluation for Pairwise Comparison Matrices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 483-497, May.
    20. Ward, E. John & Dimitriou, Harry T. & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Theory and background of multi-criteria analysis: Toward a policy-led approach to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 21-45.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:14:y:2007:i:1:p:11-26. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.