This book is a welcome addition to the field of cost-benefit analysis in transportation. It contains individual contributions from 20 or so respected academics, each describing a separate field of study. I have seldom seen a fuller and more holistic approach to cost and benefits in transportation research.
This is a philosophical essay on transportation vulnerability, where three fields or subjects are brought together : engineering (reliability and vulnerability), economics (cost and benefits) and politics (decision making).The research essay aims at taking reliability and vulnerability into the realm of cost-benefit analysis to serve as decision support.
Rassikring av veger har en klar samfunnsøkonomisk nytteverdi, men hvor stor er den? De største gevinstene er knyttet til å unngå omkjøring, skape trygghet og redusere antall ulykker. Hvordan måler man dette i kroner?
The Norwegian government intends to spend some 320,000,000 NOK ($45,000,000,000) on transport infrastructure over the next 10 years.Will Norway be able to save its crumbling infrastructure without a disaster like the Minnesota bridge collapse?
Norway’s transport infrastructure is way behind much of Europe, but today Norway’s government is presenting it’s development plans for the Norwegian transport infrastructure for 2010 to 2019 (Nasjonal Transportplan 2010-2019).
Ah…the complacency of being oil rich. So complacent, in fact, that we forget about our infrastructure.
In overall infrastructure quality, Norway ranks 28/134, behind many other European countries, which is not too bad, but when it comes to road quality, Norway ranks 48/134, even behind countries such as Namibia (23/134), Tunisia (39/134) and Botswana (44/134).
Norway spent less money on road investments in 2007 than in 1995, that is, if you count in % of GDP. Is that a correct way of looking at it? Is that a correct way of looking at it?
It is not the planning authorities or the central government who decides infrastructure development in Norway, but the local politicians. To put it simple, what in the US is known as “pork barrel spending” is what rules many of Norway’s infrastructure development projects. Why?
In the current financial downturn, much pressure has been on the government (here in Norway, and I bet elsewhere too) to initiate public works projects or other public investment projects in order to create or save jobs.
Comparing average speed on roads in 13 countries, it turns out that travelling in central Europe is several times much faster than in Norway. Norwegian roads are sub-standard compared to much of Europe. Anyone who has ever been to Norway will agree.
The International Transport Economics Conference (ITrEC) 2009 will be held during June 15-16, 2009, at the University of Minnesota. If you haven’t already done so, make sure to bookmark this conference in your calendar.
It is unfortunate that the decision-making process for infrastructure projects in Norway rests heavily on local and regional governments and less on the oversight of the national planning authorities. Overall socio-economic benefit is set aside to satisfy local desires or is simply overruled by successful local lobbyists.
Improving roads standards is not just a traffic safety issue, but is also a major contributor towards reducing transportation costs and improving overall supply chain quality.
The strength of the Norwegian impact assesment method is how non-monetizable impacts are handled and integrated with the framework of the impact assessment. The significance of the various impacts is then assessed by combining the value and the magnitude of impact on five criteria: landscape/cityscape, community life and outdoor recreation, cultural heritage, natural environment and natural resources.
Kept at an executive level, this book delves just deep enough for you to grasp the various concepts of transport planning, where costs occur and how to maximise benefits in both the public and the private transport sector.
Pålitelighet og sårbarhet er to forhold av betydning for transportbrukere som i dag ikke tas hensyn til i vurdering av samferdselsprosjekter. Hvorfor er slike vurderinger ikke med når vegprosjekter blir vurdert?
