IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i6p2349-d1355605.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Introducing a Novel Framework for the Analysis and Assessment of Transport Projects in City Regions

Author

Listed:
  • Jonas Horlemann

    (Chair of Urban Structure and Transport Planning, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich (TUM), D-80333 Munich, Germany)

  • Mathias Heidinger

    (Chair of Urban Development, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich (TUM), D-80333 Munich, Germany)

  • Fabian Wenner

    (Chair of Urban Development, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich (TUM), D-80333 Munich, Germany)

  • Alain Thierstein

    (Chair of Urban Development, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich (TUM), D-80333 Munich, Germany)

Abstract

A profound appraisal framework has been developed and refined in transport economics and planning literature for decades, mainly characterised by welfare economic theory, cost–benefit analysis, and transport demand modelling. In summary, the appraisal methodology and its applications have concentrated on single infrastructure measures, marginal impacts identified through ceteris paribus comparisons, forecasts based on trends from the past, and monetary assessments of all quantifiable impacts. However, this framework has been continuously contested in transport planning literature, for instance, for its focus on travel demand and short-term travel time savings. Therefore, we suggest a novel approach for planning and assessing transport schemes in city regions, combining accessibility analyses, quantitative target indicators, and cost-effectiveness analysis. We develop and test this approach by assessing a proposed underground rail project in the Munich city region, the U5 southeast extension. In this case, we define an accessibility target level and estimate the potential for push measures along with the U5 project. We find modest impacts on quantitative targets in the Munich city region: Even when the U5 southeast extension is bundled with push measures in selected transport cells, the contribution to passenger transport-related carbon dioxide emission targets and primary energy consumption targets is low. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that the proposed assessment framework can support strategic transport planning in city regions. We argue for a change in perspective towards supply-side-oriented urban transport planning. Our proposed methodology is a first step in a different direction towards a sustainable mobility planning paradigm.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonas Horlemann & Mathias Heidinger & Fabian Wenner & Alain Thierstein, 2024. "Introducing a Novel Framework for the Analysis and Assessment of Transport Projects in City Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2349-:d:1355605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2349/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2349/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ., 2008. "Corporate Strategic Responses to Emissions Reduction," Chapters, in: Corporate Strategies and the Clean Development Mechanism, chapter 3, pages 39-109, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Mackie, Peter & Worsley, Tom & Eliasson, Jonas, 2014. "Transport appraisal revisited," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 3-18.
    3. David Metz, 2008. "Response to the Responses," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 713-715, November.
    4. Peter Mackie, 2008. "Who Knows Where the Time Goes? A Response to David Metz," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 692-694, November.
    5. Paal Brevik Wangsness & Kenneth Løvold Rødseth & Wiljar Hansen, 2017. "A review of guidelines for including wider economic impacts in transport appraisal," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 94-115, January.
    6. Moshe Givoni, 2008. "A Comment on ‘The Myth of Travel Time Saving’," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 685-688, November.
    7. Robin Hickman & Marco Dean, 2018. "Incomplete cost – incomplete benefit analysis in transport appraisal," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 689-709, November.
    8. Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Obermeyer, Andy & Treiber, Martin & Evangelinos, Christos, 2015. "On the identification of thresholds in travel choice modelling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 1-9.
    2. Niek Mouter & Paul Koster & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "Participatory Value Evaluation versus Cost-Benefit Analysis: comparing recommendations in the context of urban mobility investments," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-046/VIII, Tinbergen Institute, revised 27 Jan 2020.
    3. 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.
    4. Francesco Filippi, 2022. "A Paradigm Shift for a Transition to Sustainable Urban Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Mouter, Niek & Koster, Paul & Dekker, Thijs, 2021. "Contrasting the recommendations of participatory value evaluation and cost-benefit analysis in the context of urban mobility investments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 54-73.
    6. Saujot, Mathieu & Lefèvre, Benoit, 2016. "The next generation of urban MACCs. Reassessing the cost-effectiveness of urban mitigation options by integrating a systemic approach and social costs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 124-138.
    7. Busscher, Tim & Tillema, Taede & Arts, Jos, 2015. "In search of sustainable road infrastructure planning: How can we build on historical policy shifts?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 42-51.
    8. Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel, 2013. "Classifying transport studies using three dimensions of society: market structure, sustainability and decision making," Chapters, in: Thomas Vanoutrive & Ann Verhetsel (ed.), Smart Transport Networks, chapter 1, pages 1-8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Tornberg, Patrik & Odhage, John, 2018. "Making transport planning more collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish transport planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 416-429.
    10. Tammaru, Tiit & Sevtsuk, Andres & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Towards an equity-centred model of sustainable mobility: Integrating inequality and segregation challenges in the green mobility transition," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. Idiano D'Adamo & Massimo Gastaldi & Ilhan Ozturk, 2023. "The sustainable development of mobility in the green transition: Renewable energy, local industrial chain, and battery recycling," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 840-852, April.
    12. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Hernan A. Ortiz-Ramirez, 2021. "Understanding Green Street Design: Evidence from Three Cases in the U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Gössling, Stefan, 2016. "Urban transport justice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Cavoli, Clemence, 2021. "Accelerating sustainable mobility and land-use transitions in rapidly growing cities: Identifying common patterns and enabling factors," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    15. Allard, Ryan F. & Moura, Filipe, 2018. "Effect of transport transfer quality on intercity passenger mode choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 89-107.
    16. Romanika Okraszewska & Aleksandra Romanowska & Marcin Wołek & Jacek Oskarbski & Krystian Birr & Kazimierz Jamroz, 2018. "Integration of a Multilevel Transport System Model into Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Combs, Tabitha S., 2017. "Examining changes in travel patterns among lower wealth households after BRT investment in Bogotá, Colombia," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 11-20.
    18. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    20. Bayissa Badada Badassa & Baiqing Sun & Lixin Qiao, 2020. "Sustainable Transport Infrastructure and Economic Returns: A Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, March.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:6:p:2349-:d:1355605. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.