<i>Ex-Post</i>Evaluations of Demand Forecast Accuracy: A Literature Review

Nicolaisen, Morten Skou; Driscoll, Patrick Arthur

doi:10.1080/01441647.2014.926428

Cited by 58 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The High rate of uncertainty probability distribution is a triangular probability density function with minimum = -50%, mode = 0, and maximum = +100%. This results Nicolaisen and Driscoll (2014) (see their Table 2), Flyvbjerg et al's (2005) results seem to be in line with the other literature from that time. However, there seems to be a downward trend in overestimation of rail travel demand, so that the later studies show a lower degree of overestimation than in Flyvbjerg et al (2005).…”

Section: Forecast Uncertaintysupporting

confidence: 81%

Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?

Asplund

Eliasson

2016

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is widely used in public decision making on infrastructure investments. However, the demand forecasts, cost estimates, benefit valuations and effect assessments that are conducted as part of CBAs are all subject to various degrees of uncertainty. The question is to what extent CBAs, given such uncertainties, are still useful as a way to prioritize between infrastructure investments, or put differently, how robust the policy conclusions of CBA are with respect to uncertainties. Using simulations based on real data on national infrastructure plans in Sweden and Norway, we study how investment selection and total realized benefits change when decisions are based on CBA assessments subject to several different types of uncertainty. Our results indicate that realized benefits and investment selection are surprisingly insensitive to all studied types of uncertainty, even for high levels of uncertainty. The two types of uncertainty that affect results the most are uncertainties about investment cost and transport demand. Reducing uncertainty can still be worthwhile, however, because of the huge amounts of money at stake: a 10% reduction in general uncertainty can increase the realized benefits of a national infrastructure investment plan by nearly 100 million euro (assuming that decisions are based on the CBAs). We conclude that, despite the many types of uncertainties, CBA is able to fairly consistently separate the wheat from the chaff and hence contribute to substantially improved infrastructure decisions.

show abstract

Section: Forecast Uncertaintysupporting

confidence: 81%

Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?

Asplund

Eliasson

2016

Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequent research on the accuracy of demand forecasts for transport infrastructure projects has shown widespread occurrence of inaccuracies in the form of large imprecisions as well as systematic biases for implemented projects. Generally, the biases have been found to be larger for rail than road projects, although considerable inaccuracy has been documented for both types of projects (see Nicolaisen and Driscoll (2014) for a comprehensive overview of studies). From the current body of literature it seems fair to conclude that travel demand for new (untolled) road infrastructure projects is generally underestimated Nicolaisen, 2012;Parthasarathi and Levinson, 2010;Welde and Odeck, 2011).…”

Section: A Blind Spot In Ex-post Project Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, this is too simple an interpretation of these results. First, in addition to the observed biases there are also large variations in accuracy among projects of the same type (road/rail/toll), making it difficult to compare projects even in the absence of systematic bias (Nicolaisen and Driscoll, 2014). Second, when evaluating project benefits in the form of travel time savings, the relation between overall travel demand and associated benefits is not linear.…”

Section: A Blind Spot In Ex-post Project Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Roads to nowhere: The accuracy of travel demand forecasts for do-nothing alternatives

Nicolaisen¹,

Næss²

2015

Transport Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The columns provide the main content of the papers, and these are clearly linked to the aims of the review. For example, Nicolaisen and Driscoll (2014) use this approach to structure their ex post analysis of travel demand in a series of tables that systematically compare the results of the different studies by a consistent set of metrics.…”

Section: The Structure Of a Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Write a Literature Review Paper?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the question about how to write a literature review paper (LRP).It stresses the primary importance of adding value, rather than only providing an overview, and it then discusses some of the reasons for (or not) actually writing an LRP, including issues relating to the nature and scope of the paper. It also presents different types of LRPs, advises on reporting the methodology used for the selection of papers for review, and the structure of an LRP. An important conclusion is that the heterogeneity in LRPs is very large. This paper also presents some of the aspects that the authors feel are important structural and contextual considerations that help produce highquality review papers.

show abstract

Ex-PostEvaluations of Demand Forecast Accuracy: A Literature Review

Cited by 58 publications

References 24 publications

Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?

Does uncertainty make cost-benefit analyses pointless?

Roads to nowhere: The accuracy of travel demand forecasts for do-nothing alternatives

How to Write a Literature Review Paper?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About