IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v36y2014icp294-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of the scenario and assessment method on the choice of road alignment variants

Author

Listed:
  • Gardziejczyk, Wladyslaw
  • Zabicki, Piotr

Abstract

An efficient road network plays a key role in the economic development of almost any country. Road construction, apart from its many benefits, has also a negative impact on the natural environment causing its deterioration or division, introduces changes in area management, or may be the cause of social conflict. The decision to choose the most beneficial road alignment variant should take into account all of these aspects. It is therefore a multicriteria issue, based on transport, economic, social and environmental criteria. This article presents the influence of the assessment method of variants, criteria and their weights, as well as preference scenarios of road alignment with the example of the section of the S61 expressway, which is a part of the first Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). Four road alignment variants were analysed using the AHP, SAW and TOPSIS methods, with different sets of criteria weights and various preference scenarios. It has been shown, that the used variant assessment method, the criteria and their weights all have a significant influence on the results of the analysis and there is need for more uniform rules in reference to the methodology of conducting multicriteria analyses in designing road alignment.

Suggested Citation

  • Gardziejczyk, Wladyslaw & Zabicki, Piotr, 2014. "The influence of the scenario and assessment method on the choice of road alignment variants," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 294-305.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:36:y:2014:i:c:p:294-305
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14002005
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vickerman, R., 2000. "Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United Kingdom," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 7-16, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Gao, Ziyou & Sun, Huijun & Shan, Lian Long, 2004. "A continuous equilibrium network design model and algorithm for transit systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 235-250, March.
    4. de Silva, Hema & Tatam, Chris, 1996. "An empirical procedure for enhancing the impact of road investments," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 201-211, October.
    5. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    7. Tudela, Alejandro & Akiki, Natalia & Cisternas, Rene, 2006. "Comparing the output of cost benefit and multi-criteria analysis: An application to urban transport investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 414-423, June.
    8. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    9. Yedla, Sudhakar & Shrestha, Ram M., 2003. "Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 717-729, October.
    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. Soria-Lara, Julio A. & Banister, David, 2018. "Evaluating the impacts of transport backcasting scenarios with multi-criteria analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 26-37.
    2. Fancello, Gianfranco & Carta, Michele & Fadda, Paolo, 2019. "Road intersections ranking for road safety improvement: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 188-196.

    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. 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.
    2. Maria Morfoulaki & Jason Papathanasiou, 2021. "Use of PROMETHEE MCDA Method for Ranking Alternative Measures of Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Maria Morfoulaki & Jason Papathanasiou, 2021. "Use of the Sustainable Mobility Efficiency Index (SMEI) for Enhancing the Sustainable Urban Mobility in Greek Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Awasthi, Anjali & Omrani, Hichem & Gerber, Philippe, 2018. "Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 247-259.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Cundric, A. & Kern, T. & Rajkovic, V., 2008. "A qualitative model for road investment appraisal," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 225-231, July.
    9. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    10. 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.
    11. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.
    12. Xiaoliang Wang & Danlin Yu & Chunhua Yuan, 2021. "Complementary Development between China and Sub-Sahara Africa: Examining China’s Mining Investment Strategies in Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2019. "A review of cost–benefit analysis and multicriteria decision analysis from the perspective of sustainable transport in project evaluation," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 327-358, November.
    14. Rojas-Zerpa, Juan C. & Yusta, Jose M., 2015. "Application of multicriteria decision methods for electric supply planning in rural and remote areas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 557-571.
    15. Shi, Jing & Zhou, Nian, 2012. "A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation approach with both equity and efficiency aspects," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 93-100.
    16. Miguel Ortíz-Barrios & Natalia Jaramillo-Rueda & Muhammet Gul & Melih Yucesan & Genett Jiménez-Delgado & Juan-José Alfaro-Saíz, 2023. "A Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Approach for Assessing the Emergency Department Performance during the COVID-19 Outbreak," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-39, March.
    17. Milakis, Dimitris & Athanasopoulos, Konstantinos, 2014. "What about people in cycle network planning? applying participative multicriteria GIS analysis in the case of the Athens metropolitan cycle network," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 120-129.
    18. Chunguang Bai & Behnam Fahimnia & Joseph Sarkis, 2017. "Sustainable transport fleet appraisal using a hybrid multi-objective decision making approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 250(2), pages 309-340, March.
    19. Sivaraja, C.M. & Sakthivel, G., 2017. "Compression ignition engine performance modelling using hybrid MCDM techniques for the selection of optimum fish oil biodiesel blend at different injection timings," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 118-141.
    20. Suman, Hemant K. & Bolia, Nomesh B. & Tiwari, Geetam, 2017. "Comparing public bus transport service attributes in Delhi and Mumbai: Policy implications for improving bus services in Delhi," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 63-74.

    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:36:y:2014:i:c:p:294-305. 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.