Comparative evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of 58 transportation control measures

被引:0
|
作者
Pansing, C
Schreffler, EN
Sillings, MA
机构
来源
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Often when public agencies allocate funding for transportation programs, evaluation of a project's performance becomes an afterthought, if a consideration at all. Relatively recently, evaluation of project performance has garnered attention as a means for both assessing how cost-effectively public funds help attain transportation and air quality objectives and guiding future public investment decisions. Nonetheless, these efforts suffer at times from a lack of coordination and would benefit from the application of a standardized method. Such a standardized method is applied to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three categories of transportation control measure (TCM) projects: fixed-route transit, transportation demand management (TDM), and alternative fuel projects. The method provides a means for estimating and quantifying travel mode effects and converting them to net emissions benefits. Three sets of funding programs implemented in California were the subjects of evaluation efforts in which the standardized method was applied. The results of these evaluations are presented, and conclusions are suggested about project cost-effectiveness on the basis of project data and comparisons across categories of projects. On the basis of the evaluation of 58 projects, TDM projects other than telecommunications projects were cost-effective compared with alternative fuel and fixed-route transit projects. In light of the key evaluation findings, an approach and framework for future evaluations of TCM projects to ensure consistency and comparability are proposed. Some future uses of the evaluation data in the form of a centralized database are also suggested.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:97 / 104
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Cost-effectiveness of smoking prevention measures in adolescents
    Rasch A.
    Greiner W.
    Journal of Public Health, 2008, 16 (1) : 3 - 11
  • [32] Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of the Implantable Miniature Telescope
    Brown, Gary C.
    Brown, Melissa M.
    Lieske, Heidi B.
    Lieske, Philip A.
    Brown, Kathryn S.
    Lane, Stephen S.
    OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2011, 118 (09) : 1834 - 1843
  • [33] Transportability of Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness between Countries
    Briggs, Andrew
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2010, 13 : S22 - S25
  • [34] Cost-effectiveness evaluation of design criteria
    Ang, AHS
    Lee, JC
    Pires, JA
    OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE OF CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS, 1998, : 1 - 16
  • [35] Research on the Evaluation of Cost-effectiveness of Universities
    Wang, Cheng
    APPLIED MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGIES FOR MODERN MANUFACTURING, PTS 1-4, 2013, 423-426 : 2922 - 2925
  • [36] Robotic adrenalectomy: evaluation of cost-effectiveness
    De Crea, Carmela
    Arcuri, Giovanni
    Pennestri, Francesco
    Paolantonio, Chiara
    Bellantone, Rocco
    Raffaelli, Marco
    GLAND SURGERY, 2020, 9 (03) : 831 - 839
  • [37] International Standards of Cost-effectiveness evaluation
    Zentner, A.
    Busse, R.
    GESUNDHEITSOEKONOMIE UND QUALITAETSMANAGEMENT, 2006, 11 (06): : 368 - 373
  • [38] TRAINING EXERCISE ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STRATEGIES
    HAMBURG, FC
    CROSS, FL
    JOURNAL OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION, 1971, 21 (02): : 66 - &
  • [39] Cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic evaluation of vertigo
    Stewart, MG
    Chen, AY
    Wyatt, JR
    Favrot, S
    Beinart, S
    Coker, NJ
    Jenkins, HA
    LARYNGOSCOPE, 1999, 109 (04): : 600 - 605
  • [40] COST-EFFECTIVENESS RELATIONSHIPS IN ODOR CONTROL
    HARING, RC
    TURK, A
    OKEY, RW
    ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1974, 237 (SEP27) : 328 - 338