In a state (or national) road programme, a basic question concerns the division of funds by area, when projects eligible for funds add to more than a feasible budget and projects are not homogeneous. Cost-benefit analysis has been used by state road authorities in examining individual projects or small project groups. Attempts have also been made to scale it up into an overall allocation technique. In the latter case it fails the test of public accountability, being almost impervious to realistic assessment of its necessary value judgements, or to examination of changes in this value set. A program simulation technique was developed in Western Australia and used in the national highway study as an intermediate step. The use of this technique as a final stage in the allocation process has been examined. It contains no more extensive a value set than is necessary for a cost-benefit study, but has the advantage that the goals of accountability are achieved. A set of alternative trade-offs forms part of the analysis, so that the implications of changes in the value set are obvious. A pilot study was carried out using this approach on the Queensland declared road network. Firstly, a quite drastic lowering of standards was required to match the 'needs' with a feasible budget, and secondly, significant changes in the distribution of funds between coastal (more populous) and western (less populous) districts accompanied changes in trade-offs between assessment/design standards on low volume and high volume roads. Further work would examine changes in distribution with changed trade-offs at the feasible budget level. (A). /TRRL/


  • English

Media Info

  • Features: References; Tables;
  • Pagination: p. 1-5
  • Serial:
    • Volume: 8

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00164116
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL)
  • Files: ITRD, TRIS, ATRI
  • Created Date: Jan 13 1978 12:00AM