This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:
Chi, Sae,Bunker, Jonathan M., &Kajewski, Stephen L. (2016)
A review of project evaluation methodologies to address net impacts and risks of toll road projects to the community. In
Conference of Australian Institutes of Transport Research 2016, 11-12 February 2016, Brisbane, Qld. (Unpublished)
This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/92990/
c
Copyright 2016 The Author(s)
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
A review of project evaluation methodologies to address net impacts
and risks of toll road projects to the community
Sae Chi, Jonathan Bunker and Stephen Kajewski
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia +617 3138 9945
A review of project evaluation methodologies to address net impacts
and risks of toll road projects to the community
Project evaluation is a process of measuring costs, benefits, risks and
uncertainties for the purpose of decision-making by estimating and assessing impacts of the project to the community. The effects of impacts of toll roads are similar but different from the general non-tolled roads. Project evaluation methodologies are extensively studied and applied to various transport
infrastructure projects. However, there is no definitive methodology to evaluate toll roads. This review discusses the impacts of toll roads then reviews the limitations of existing project evaluation methodologies when evaluating toll road impacts. The review identified gaps of knowledge of toll evaluations. First, the treatment of toll in project evaluation, particularly in Cost-Benefit Analysis requires further study to explore the appropriate methodology. Secondly, the project evaluation methodology needs to place strong emphasis on empirically based risk and uncertainty assessment. Addressing the limitations of the existing project evaluation methodologies leads to improvements of the methodology in practical level as well as fills the gap of knowledge of project evaluation for toll roads with respect to net impacts to the community.
Keywords: project decision-making; cost benefit analysis; toll road; project evaluation; project impact; community
Introduction
Toll road projects often constitute large public sector involvement and can impact the community significantly. The impacts of large infrastructure projects need to be appropriately evaluated to ensure a net benefit to the community. Such impacts may involve economic, land use, and social impacts. Project evaluation is a process of measuring costs, benefits, risks and uncertainties of a project for the purpose of decision-making by estimating and assessing impacts of the project. Numerous evaluation methodologies exist, including Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).
Project evaluation methodologies can vary depending on the scope of the evaluation. For instance, Bauer and Szarata (2015) proposed a project evaluation methodology of a transport corridor which only reviews travel time (TT) and traffic volume along it. The fewer the number of impacts to be included in project evaluation, the simpler the methodology would be. However, it is difficult to select appropriate impacts to be analysed and results of the evaluation can be limited. It is also inefficient to conduct a number of analyses using different methodologies for a single
infrastructure item. With the scope of evaluating a road project with respect to a public good, all impacts to the community need to be analysed including the impacts to the surrounding transport network. Project evaluation can be conducted before, during or after construction. The most crucial phase in terms of decision making is the planning phase, because any projects that do not provide sufficient benefits to the community generally ought not to progress further.
Project evaluation methodologies are extensively studied (Ashuri, Lu, & Kashani, 2011; Bauer & Szarata, 2015; Brucker, Macharis, & Verbeke, 2011; Farhang Moghaddam, Fatahi, Dokouhaki, & Ashtiani, 2013; Jones, Moura, & Domingos, 2014; Klementschitz & Sammer, 2012; Larsen, Burris, Pearson, & Ellis, 2012; Macharis & Bernardini, 2015; Salling & Leleur, 2015; Salling & Pryn, 2015; Shi & Zhou, 2012; Shiau, 2014; Wee & Roeser, 2013; Zhang, Bai, Labi, & Sinha, 2013) however, there is no definitive methodology to appropriately evaluate toll road projects. Limitations also exist with the existing project evaluation methodologies to be used for toll road projects. This is due to the fact that the characteristics of toll road impacts can differ from the impacts of general road projects. There are also impacts that are unique to toll road projects. These toll road specific characteristics require that the methodology is designed particularly for toll road projects.
This review first highlights impacts of toll road projects and their
inter-relationships. The review then examines the limitations of existing project evaluation methodologies when applied to toll road projects. This answers whether the existing toll road project evaluation methodologies properly reflect net impacts and risks to the community. An exhaustive review of various methodologies is beyond the scope of this review. The review instead focuses on CBA as the most popular project evaluation methodology (Mouter, Annema, & van Wee, 2014; Salling & Leleur, 2015; Wee & Rietveld, 2014). The project evaluation methodology that addresses the identified limitations will be extremely useful in practice. The investigations into impacts of toll road projects with respect to benefits to the community also fill the gap in knowledge of toll road evaluation.
Project evaluation for the community
The goal of a public project is to increase the well-being of residents and to maintain or increase overall prosperity (Keating & Keating, 2013). Government is responsible in ensuring that public funds are invested wisely and the benefits of decisions outweigh the costs to the community. Project evaluation is therefore a process to ensure that the public project is beneficial with respect to the public good.
Mendel and Brudney (2014) defines public good as the outcomes of public policy or private actions that create benefits or potential benefits shared by everyone and arises within the moralistic, mission/values-driven work of philanthropy. For instance, the road project that is beneficial to the community is the project that provides shorter travel time, shorter travel distance and fewer environmental impacts, and serves as part of an effective transport network. Project evaluation with respect to the public good needs to be capable of capturing all of these impacts to the community.
Decision-makers, often engineers, need to review the project from diverse perspectives instead of making decisions based only upon financial benefits. For
instance, for a road project, the perspectives generally ought to include road users, other travellers that use other surrounding transport network, surrounding residents,
surrounding businesses, the environment, and the various arms of government. From government’s perspective, the decision needs to be made based on the public good and therefore, the infrastructure projects that are worthwhile should be the projects that provide net positive impacts to the community.
The number of political pressures that a project can face during the project appraisal phase is highlighted by Mackie et al. (2014). Under such political and organisational pressure, decision-making can easily be biased. Moreover, road
infrastructure projects often contain complex systems that are difficult to assess for end results and impacts that they may have. Ferreira (2005) also suggests the difficulty of identifying and quantifying all community benefits. The difficulty is due to the complexity of the transport infrastructure and interrelationships of each impact. Therefore, decision-makers require helpful tools that assist them making the right decisions in a systematic manner. To analyse complex and large-scale projects such as road infrastructure projects, the project evaluation methodology needs to be consistent and capable of capturing all impacts to the community.
Toll road projects for the community
Toll roads are publicly or privately owned transport facilities that charge tolls from the toll road users and are intended to offer improved travel time over non-tolled roads. The toll revenue can be spent on operating activities, investing activities, and financing activities. Toll facilities have specific considerations that are different from general transport infrastructure items that are toll-free such as risk characteristics. Toll roads
generally are part of major road networks that include facilities such as motorways and arterial roads. Tolling adds complexities in many ways in the project evaluation. For instance, forecasting traffic demand and revenues of the toll road is highly complex as the toll influences traffic patterns. The fact that road users are charged tolls also influences the benefits that they receive.
Toll road demand and revenue forecasting
Estimations of impacts of a major road project largely depend on traffic forecasts. Therefore, toll road demand forecasting significantly influences the outcome of toll road evaluation. The toll road demand tends to be overestimated (Bain & Polakovic, 2005; Jones et al., 2014; Lemp & Kockelman, 2009; Li & Hensher, 2010). Many statistical analyses are conducted to investigate the differences between forecasted and actual toll road demand. A review of 104 toll roads found considerable variability in the
performance of the toll road demand forecasts for the first year of operation, ranging between 15% and 150% of actual performance (Kriger, Shiu, & Naylor, 2006). Risks that were identified through the analysis of the poor performance of start-up roads include model input risk, ramp-up risk, event and political risk, and model error (Kriger et al., 2006). These risks need to be identified in the planning phase and considered in the risk assessment process to ensure the viability of the toll roads.
Kriger (2006) conducted an analysis of first year forecasts, which showed the existence of overestimations and bias. This is consistent with studies conducted on other toll roads. Various researchers also conducted a number of statistical analyses of the performance of toll road demand forecasts (Bain & Polakovic, 2005; Bain, 2009; Flyvbjerg, Skamris Holm, & Buhl, 2005). Their findings shown evidence of overestimations and also suggested the existence of optimism bias in forecasted demand.
Toll revenue can impact the results of toll road evaluations, as toll revenue is one of the key income sources for the operator. There are forecasting errors and optimism bias in toll revenue forecasting (Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2011; Bain & Polakovic, 2005; Bain, 2009; Flyvbjerg et al., 2005; Flyvbjerg, 2004, 2005, 2008; Kriger et al., 2006; Li & Hensher, 2010; Vassallo & Baeza, 2007). This can be explained by the fact that the revenue forecasts are dependent on toll road demand forecasts. Toll revenue is determined by the toll price multiplied by the volume of traffic, which itself has been reported to be inversely related to the toll price (Alonso-Conde, Brown, & Rojo-Suarez, 2007; Kriger et al., 2006; Vovsha, Davidson, &
Donnelly, 2005).
Many toll road projects are Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects that contain a bidding process. The tendency for systematic overestimations was also suggested by the fact that privately financed toll road concessions are commonly awarded to bidding teams submitting the highest traffic projections (Bain, 2009). Vassallo and Baeza (2007) also suggest the tendency of overestimation due to the bidding process. Traffic forecasts that are produced by bidders contain notable bias towards overestimation compared to the projections produced by governments (Vassallo & Baeza, 2007).
These toll specific risks and uncertainties need to be addressed appropriately in project evaluation. The project evaluation methodology needs to be systematic and its risk and uncertainty assessment needs to be conducted empirically. Project evaluation methodology with a proper risk assessment process ought to address these toll risks and uncertainties appropriately. The outcome of CBA can include the considerations of risks and uncertainties in sensitivity analysis process, which then needs to be addressed in decision-making criteria.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
CBA is a very popular analysis methodology for evaluation of transport projects (Wee & Rietveld, 2014). CBA provides an overview of benefits and costs represented in monetary terms, which are presented as net present values (Wee & Rietveld, 2014; Wee & Tavasszy, 2008). The fundamental theorem of CBA is the estimation of net impacts to the community (Rogers & Duffy, 2012; Wee & Rietveld, 2014) and is the
representation of net impacts of the benefits to users and non-users, operators, safety and environmental benefits, wider economic impacts, and costs of the project in present value (Mackie, Graham, & Laird, 2011). The project is economically viable when the monetary valuation of economic benefits outweighs the full cost of the project (Rogers & Duffy, 2012). The key features of CBA are the comprehensive coverage of impacts and the considerations of all relevant parties affected (Mackie et al., 2014).
Risks and uncertainties
Various authors addressed uncertainties in project evaluation (Chen & Subprasom, 2007; Ferreira, 2007; Lemp & Kockelman, 2009; Mouter, Holleman, Calvert, & Annema, 2015; Rodier & Johnston, 2002; Shiau, 2014; Xu & Lambert, 2014). Sensitivity analysis is conducted to measure the degree of risks and uncertainties that CBA results contain. Sensitivity analysis is a procedure in which the parameters are varied in an arbitrary manner in an effort to ascertain the extent of changes in the
economic indicators as a result (Rogers & Duffy, 2012).
The success with respect to "on time", "on budget" and to "prescribed
specifications" projects depends on how well risks, uncertainties and complexity were dealt with in the decision-making process (Dimitriou, 2014). Project evaluation of toll road projects need to properly assess the risks and uncertainties involved in the project. Particularly, risks and uncertainties of the results of analyses need to be addressed in
decision-making. Long-term viability of the project depends on the risk sharing arrangement that is documented in the concession deed (Alonso-Conde et al., 2007). This suggests that the long-term viability of a toll road project depends on the risk assessment conducted as part of project evaluation in planning phase. Chung, Hensher and Rose (2010) suggest that many Australian toll road projects experienced
misallocation of risks due to the perception that certain risks are best left alone to the party that is known to be “best able” to manage the risks.
Each toll road project is unique. The toll operator may receive minimum revenue guarantees from the government. The equity of the project can be bought out. These contract arrangements and changes of the ownership are unique to each project and therefore risk allocations are also unique to each project. Allocation of each risk is directly connected to the allocation of costs and benefits of the project. For instance, when revenue risk is allocated to private sector, the public is not bearing the revenue risk and therefore the cost of the risk should not be included in the project evaluation. The general principle is that exogenous traffic demand risk should be borne by the party that is the best able to bear it (Engel, Fischer, & Galetovic, 2014).
The current guideline of the road authority in Australia states that toll revenue should be excluded in CBA calculations (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011). As has been discussed, some toll road projects contain minimum revenue guarantees in the contract. In this case, the public is bearing the toll revenue risk as well as paying for the toll. This means that the toll revenues should be
considered as financial transfers in CBA. The financial transfer can be explained by an example of a public transport project. Government is paying for the project costs and the users are paying fares. The public transport projects with no private sector
the users. Similarly, the toll can be considered as financial transfer between the government and the toll road users when the public is bearing the toll revenue risk. Decorla-Souza et al. (2013) concur with this argument and state that the toll revenue is a benefit to the toll operator but an equivalent loss to the road users. According to
Decorla-Souza et al. (2013) taxes and tolls are transfer payments and enter into CBA calculations only to the extent that they cause a change in economic behaviour. The treatment of toll in CBA calculation should therefore be project specific, depending upon risk allocations and contractual arrangements. This complex mechanism of risk allocations and benefit-cost allocations in CBA require further investigations.
Zhang et al. (2013) conducted a case study of CBA for a toll road in the U.S. using a general framework for a long-term leasing. In the study, stochastic analysis was conducted to accommodate risks and uncertainties. Although the inputs that were tested in the analyses were limited, the methodology that was used can be used for other various inputs such as discount rates and TTS.
The evaluation method that only focuses on final NPV or single best solution may exclude non-quantifiable benefits, uncertainties and alternative weighting of the project objectives (Lake & Ferreira, 2002). This is because CBA results exclude the items that were not assessed in monetary terms and should not be used solely to make decisions (Rogers & Duffy, 2012).
Toll road projects as large-scale road projects
When the cost of a road project is significantly large, tolling is an effective option to recover the project costs. For instance, the project cost of the 4.6 km Legacy Way tunnel in Brisbane, Australia was AU$1.5 billion (ACCIONA Australia, 2015) while the construction cost of the 6.8 km Clem Jones Tunnel also in Brisbane was AU$3 billion (Go VIA, 2015). Large-scale projects are often difficult to manage due to
complexity, which in turn is a result of large numbers of stakeholders’ involvement, considerable resources and time required for planning, design and construction, and close media and political scrutiny. The common issues of large-scale projects include cost overruns, project delays and benefit shortfalls (Bruijn & Leijten, 2008; Flyvbjerg, 2014, p. xviii). Project costs and benefits as well as construction costs are examined in the planning phase. CBA can be the core of the decision-making of project evaluation of large-scale projects and therefore appropriately addressing costs, benefits and risks in CBA is particularly crucial. Though, the difficulty of capturing impacts of large-scale projects for project evaluation purpose using CBA is highlighted in Mackie et al. (Mackie et al., 2014). Laird et al. (2014) also agrees with the need of improvement with CBA appraisal method particularly for large-scale projects yet, recommends CBA for overall assessment of national value for money, as CBA is the most coherent and robust method available.
Conclusions
This paper discussed impacts of toll road projects, particularly focussing on the impacts to the community. This allowed the effects of these impacts to the community and how they can be captured in project evaluation to be explored. It has reviewed general project evaluation methodology and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Through the review, the limitations of the current project evaluation methodology to evaluate toll road projects are identified.
Project evaluation assesses various impacts of the project. Project evaluation conducted particularly in planning phase is crucial as any projects that do not provide sufficient benefits to the community generally ought not to progress further. Public projects need to ensure the public good. Therefore, evaluation of a public project needs
to address the net impacts to the community as a whole. The project evaluation
methodology needs to be capable of addressing all relevant impacts to the community. CBA is an overview of net impacts to the community in monetary terms
(Mackie et al., 2011; Rogers & Duffy, 2012; Wee & Rietveld, 2014; Wee & Tavasszy, 2008). There are numerous project evaluation methodologies and CBA is the
methodology that is used most commonly to evaluate road projects (Wee & Rietveld, 2014). Decision-making criteria for CBA results should not only focus on NPV and BCR. There are risks and uncertainties that the decision-maker needs to be aware of as well as other considerations that cannot to be addressed in CBA such as non-monetary impacts. Treatment of toll in CBA is one of the key discussions in project evaluation for toll road projects. Theoretically, toll is a financial transfer that should be excluded in CBA. Different strategies to treat toll need to be tested to explore the appropriate methodology.
The success of the project depends on how well risks, uncertainties and complexity were dealt with in decision-making process (Dimitriou, 2014). These impacts and risks that need to be treated differently to CBA of general road projects. Those are mainly impacts and risks that spawned from tolling. For instance, toll pricing significantly influence the costs to the community. Various pricing objectives determine the toll price and the net benefits to the community. Risks and uncertainties of toll pricing need to be addressed appropriately in CBA.
Overestimation and optimism bias of traffic and revenue forecasts for toll road projects is cited as a concern by numerous researchers (Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2011; Bain & Polakovic, 2005; Bain, 2009; Flyvbjerg et al., 2005; Flyvbjerg, 2004, 2005, 2008; Jones et al., 2014; Kriger et al., 2006; Lemp & Kockelman, 2009; Li & Hensher, 2010; Vassallo & Baeza, 2007). Flyvbjerg (2008)
argues that the error is caused from optimism bias. Bain (2009), Vassallo and Baeza (2007) suggest that the tendency for overestimation is due to bidding process of the project. As traffic forecasting risks and uncertainties significantly influence the net impacts to the community, they need to be assessed empirically based and in a systematic manner in the project evaluation. Moreover, the relationship between road congestions and impacts of toll price to the surrounding network highlights the importance of addressing risks and uncertainties of traffic forecasts and toll pricing.
The key gap of knowledge is that there is no definitive methodology to evaluate and address risks and uncertainties of a toll road project. The definitive project
evaluation methodology that appropriately address impacts to the community of the toll road project don’t exist. A gap of knowledge exists with how the effects of the toll road impacts can be captured in project evaluation. The current methodologies also do not define how tolls should be treated in project evaluation. Treatments of impacts in CBA due to toll also require further investigations. Various researchers also consistently highlighted the importance of systematic and empirically based risk and uncertainty assessment as part of project evaluation. Toll road projects contain unique risk
characteristics that are different from general road projects, such as traffic and revenue forecasting. The results of project evaluation also need to be communicated effectively to the community. Further research addressing these gaps will contribute in improving project evaluation methodology for toll roads, which would be useful in practice and fill the gap of knowledge in the academic literature with respect to project evaluation for toll roads for the public good.
Acknowledgements
References
ACCIONA Australia. (2015). Legacy Way. Retrieved from
http://www.acciona.com.au/business-divisions/infrastructure/projects-in-australia/legacy-way
Alonso-Conde, A. B., Brown, C., & Rojo-Suarez, J. (2007). Public private partnerships: Incentives, risk transfer and real options. Review of Financial Economics, 16(4), 335–349. doi:10.1016/j.rfe.2007.03.002
Ashuri, B., Lu, J., & Kashani, H. (2011). A real options framework to evaluate investments in toll road projects delivered under the two-phase development strategy. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 1(1), 14–31. doi:10.1108/20441241111143759
Australian Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2011). Review of Traffic Forecasting Performance Toll Roads. Retrieved from
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/public_consultations/files/attach_a _bitre_literature_review.pdf
Bain, R. (2009). Error and optimism bias in toll road traffic forecasts. Transportation, 36(5), 469–482. doi:10.1007/s11116-009-9199-7
Bain, R., & Polakovic, L. (2005). Traffic Forecasting Risk Study Update 2005: Through Ramp-Up And Beyond. Standard & Poor’s, London. Retrieved from
http://toolkit.pppinindia.com/pdf/standard-poors.pdf
Bauer, M., & Szarata, A. (2015). The Methodology of Urban Transport Corridors Evaluation. Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems, 3(5), 395–401.
Brucker, K. De, Macharis, C., & Verbeke, A. (2011). Multi-criteria analysis in transport project evaluation: an institutional approach. European Transport, 47, 3–24. Retrieved from http://etabeta.univ.trieste.it/dspace/handle/10077/6171
Bruijn, H. de, & Leijten, M. (2008). Management characteristics of mega-projects. In H. Priemus, B. van Wee, & B. Flyvbjerg (Eds.), Decision-making on mega-projects : cost-benefit analysis, planning and innovation (pp. 23–39). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
roads in a build-operate-transfer scheme under demand uncertainty. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(6), 537–558.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2006.11.009
Chung, D., Hensher, D. a., & Rose, J. M. (2010). Toward the betterment of risk allocation: Investigating risk perceptions of Australian stakeholder groups to public–private-partnership tollroad projects. Research in Transportation Economics, 30(1), 43–58. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2010.10.007
Decorla-Souza, P., Lee, D., Timothy, D., & Mayer, J. (2013). Comparing public-private partnerships with conventional procurement. Transportation Research Record, 2346, 32–39. doi:10.3141/2346-04
Dimitriou, H. T. (2014). Some concluding remarks. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(3), 389–430. doi:10.1080/14649357.2014.935084
Engel, E., Fischer, R., & Galetovic, A. (2014). The Economics of Public-Private Partnerships: A basic guide. Santiago, Chile: Cambridge University Press. Farhang Moghaddam, B., Fatahi, A. A., Dokouhaki, P., & Ashtiani, B. (2013).
Qualitative Evaluation and Selecting the Optimum Public Private Partnership System for Transportation. International Journal of Research in Industrial Engineering, 2(2), 61–69.
Ferreira, L. (2005). Public Transport: Economic Investment Appraisal. Brisbane, QLD. Ferreira, L. (2007). Risk and Uncertainty in Travel Demand Forecasting : The Role of
Transport Models. Brisbane, QLD.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Procedures for Dealing with Optimism Bias in Transport Planning. The British Department for Transport. Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/244538868_Procedures_for_Dealing_with _Optimism_Bias_in_Transport_Planning/file/60b7d51d438f4b7a41.pdf
Flyvbjerg, B. (2005). Measuring inaccuracy in travel demand forecasting:
methodological considerations regarding ramp up and sampling. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(6), 522–530.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2005.02.003
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies,
16(1). doi:10.1080/09654310701747936
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). Megaproject planning and management. (B. Flyvbjerg, Ed.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L. (2005). How (in)accurate are demand forecasts in public works project? Journal of American Planning Association, 71(2), 131–146. doi:10.1080/01944360508976688
Go VIA. (2015). Clem Jones Tunnel - Facts, Figures and Milestones. Retrieved from http://www.clem7.com.au/content/2218/Facts-Figures-and-Milestones
Jones, H., Moura, F., & Domingos, T. (2014). Transport Infrastructure Project Evaluation Using Cost-benefit Analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 400–409. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.073
Keating, B. P., & Keating, M. O. (2013). Basic cost benefit analysis for assessing local public projects. New York, N.Y.: Business Expert Press.
Klementschitz, R., & Sammer, G. (2012). A Standardised Ranking Model for
Evaluation of Transport Projects as Basis for a Future Funding Scheme. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 75–84. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.989 Kriger, D., Shiu, S., & Naylor, S. (2006). Estimating Toll Road Demand and Revenue:
A Synthesis of Highway Practice. Washington, D.C.
Lake, M., & Ferreira, L. (2002). Towards A Methodology To Evaluate Public Transport Projects. Physical Infrastructure Centre Research Report. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2494/1/2494_2.pdf
Larsen, L., Burris, M., Pearson, D., & Ellis, P. (2012). Equity Evaluation of Fees for Vehicle Miles Traveled in Texas. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 11–20. doi:10.3141/2297-02
Lemp, J. D., & Kockelman, K. M. (2009). Understanding and Accommodating Risk and Uncertainty in Toll Road Projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2132, 106–112. doi:10.3141/2132-12
Li, Z., & Hensher, D. A. (2010). Toll Roads in Australia: An Overview of
Characteristics and Accuracy of Demand Forecasts. Transport Reviews, 30(5), 541–569. doi:10.1080/01441640903211173
Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002
Mackie, P., Graham, D., & Laird, J. (2011). The direct and wider impacts of transport projects: a review. In R. DePalma, A and Lindsey, R and Quinet, E and Vickerman (Ed.), Handbook of Transport Economics (pp. 501–526). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
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
Mendel, S. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2014). The power of relationships. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25, 23–40. doi:10.1002/nml.21109
Mouter, N., Annema, J. A., & van Wee, B. (2014). Managing the insolvable limitations of cost-benefit analysis: results of an interview based study. Transportation, 42(2), 277–302. doi:10.1007/s11116-014-9539-0
Mouter, N., Holleman, M., Calvert, S., & Annema, J. A. (2015). Towards improved handling of uncertainty in cost-benefit a nalysis: addressing the “price - quality” and “communication” dilemmas. European Journal of Transport and
Infrastructure Research, 15(3), 341–361.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2011). Cost-benefit Analysis Manual. Retrieved from http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Cost-Benefit-Analysis-Manual.aspx
Rodier, C., & Johnston, R. (2002). Uncertain socioeconomic projections used in travel demand and emissions models: could plausible errors result in air quality
nonconformity? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 36, 613– 631. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096585640100026X Rogers, M., & Duffy, A. (2012). Engineering project appraisal: the evaluation of
alternative development schemes (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Salling, K. B., & Leleur, S. (2015). Accounting for the inaccuracies in demand forecasts
and construction cost estimations in transport project evaluation. Transport Policy, 38, 8–18. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.006
Salling, K. B., & Pryn, M. R. (2015). Sustainable transport project evaluation and decision support: indicators and planning criteria for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, (July), 1–12. doi:10.1080/13504509.2015.1051497
Shi, J., & Zhou, N. (2012). A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation approach with both equity and efficiency aspects. Research in Transportation Economics, 36(1), 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.03.002
Shiau, T. (2014). Evaluating transport infrastructure decisions under uncertainty. Transportation Planning and Technology, 37(6), 525–538.
doi:10.1080/03081060.2014.921405
Vassallo, J. M., & Baeza, M. (2007). Why traffic forecasts in PPP contracts are often overestimated. Luxembourg. Retrieved from
http://www.transyt.upm.es/index.php/en/deliverables.html?download=21:why-traffic-forecast-in-ppp-contracts-are-often-overstimated
Vovsha, P., Davidson, W., & Donnelly, R. (2005). Making the state of the art the state of the practice: Advance modelling techniques for road pricing. In Expert Forum on Road Pricing and Travel Demand Modeling Proceedings (pp. 95–123). Alexandria, Virginia: Office of Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Wee, B. Van, & Rietveld, P. (2014). CBA: ex ante evaluation of mega-projects. In H. Priemus & B. Van Wee (Eds.), International handbook on mega-projects (pp. 269– 290). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wee, B. Van, & Roeser, S. (2013). Ethical Theories and the Cost–Benefit Analysis-Based Ex Ante Evaluation of Transport Policies and Plans. Transport Reviews, 33(6), 743–760. doi:10.1080/01441647.2013.854281
Wee, B. Van, & Tavasszy, L. A. (2008). Ex-ante evaluation of mega-projects:
methodological issues and cost–benefit analysis. In H. Priemus, B. Flyvbjerg, & B. van Wee (Eds.), Decision-Making on Mega-Projects : Cost benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation (pp. 40–65). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Xu, J., & Lambert, J. H. (2014). Risk-Cost-Benefit Analysis for Transportation
624–641. doi:10.1111/risa.12231
Zhang, Z., Bai, Q., Labi, S., & Sinha, K. C. (2013). General Framework for Evaluating Long-Term Leasing of Toll Roads. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2345, 83–91. doi:10.3141/2345-11
