Akan, G T; Imre, M and Arditi, D (1984) Priority ranking of highway improvement projects. Construction Management and Economics, 2(1), pp. 49-55. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Highway improvement investments constitute an important part of the total investments in the transportation sector. Yet, the numerous proposals have to be ranked in an order of priority. The General Directorate of Highways in Turkey calculates the benefit-cost ratio for every proposal separately and ranks them in a descending order of magnitude. This paper presents the results of a regression analysis between the benefit-cost ratio on the one hand and a number of carefully selected independent variables on the other. The purpose of the study is to minimize the considerable amount of time and labour spent by the General Directorate of Highways in such evaluations. The findings indicate that car traffic, construction cost per kilometre and length of improved highway are the most salient variables that affect the benefit-cost ratio under the conditions prevailing in Turkey.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benefit-cost analysis; economic evaluation; highway improvement projects; Priority ranking |
| Index terms: | proposal, cost analysis, improvement project, economic evaluation, regression analysis, Turkey, construction cost, transportation sector, independent variable |
| Subjects: | project planning, financial and cost management, industry analysis, financial analysis, statistical analysis, Geography, production management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here