The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 519–543 | Cite as

Models to predict the economic development impact of transportation projects: historical experience and new applications

Special Issue Paper

Abstract

Methods used for assessing economic impacts of proposed transportation projects have continually evolved over time. Whereas they once focused largely on the economic benefit of time and cost savings for travelers, they may now encompass broader factors such as accessibility roles in supply chains, labor market expansion, global trade growth, and their economic development implications. This broader view can be particularly important when considering transportation projects affecting network connectivity and activities of logistics centers, inter-modal terminals, and international gateway facilities. Using examples throughout history, a generalized description is developed of the range of access, reliability, quality and cost factors that can affect the nature of economic growth impacts of transportation projects. While the set of factors is consistent with both theory and research findings, there has been a significant shortfall in their coverage by applied computer analysis models used for transportation decision-making. This article critically examines the coverage of access impacts by various types of predictive economic impact models, and then describes new directions in applied models to assess transportation projects impacts on business productivity, growth and attraction. Finally, it outlines an analysis framework that is designed to facilitate use of improved modeling methods for assessing economic impacts of multi-modal transportation investment.

JEL Classification

O10 O18 R15 R40 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ARC (1964) Appalachia: A report by the President’s Appalachian Regional Commission. US Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedford T and Cooke R (2001). Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  3. Blakely EJ, Bradshaw TK (2002) Human Resource Development, Chap. 9. In: Planning local economic development: theory and practice. Sage Publications, London Google Scholar
  4. Bowersox DJ and Closs DJ (1996). Logistical management. the integrated supply chain process. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  5. Buckley P (1992). A transportation-oriented interregional computable general equilibrium model of the United States. Ann Reg Sci 26(4): 331–348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cambridge Econometrics (2003) Transport infrastructure and policy macroeconomic analysis for the EU, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  7. CATS (1962) Chicago area transportation study: transportation plan. Chicago Area Transportation Study, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  8. California Deptartment of Transportation (1994) Internet guide to benefit-cost analysis in transportation. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/Benefit_Cost
  9. Christaller W (1933). Central places in southern germany. Original German in 1933, translated by Charlisle Baskin. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Chiffs Google Scholar
  10. Combes P-P and Lafourcade M (2005). Transport costs: measures, determinants and regional policy implications for France. J Econ Geogr 3: 319–349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conference Board of Canada (1994) Slave Province transportation corridor: economic impacts and taxation revenue, Northwest Territories Deptartment of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  12. Echenique MH (1994). Urban and regional studies at the Martine Centre: its origin, its present, its future. Environ Plan B Plan Des 21: 157–533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Economic Development Research Group and Cambridge Systematics (2001) Handbook for assessing economic opportunities from the completion of Appalachian Development Highways. Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/highway/Handbook-Econ-Opps.pdf
  14. Economic Development Research Group (2004) Handbook: assessing local economic development opportunities with ARC-LEAP. Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/arcleap/ARC-LEAP_Handbook.pdf
  15. Economic Development Research Group (2005) The cost of congestion to the Portland Region. Portland Business Alliance, Port of Portland and Metro, Portland http://www.portlandalliance.com/pdf/Congestion_Report.pdf
  16. Enright MJ (1996). Regional clusters and economic development: a research agenda. In: Staber, U, Schaefer, N and Sharma, B (eds) Business networks: prospects for regional development, pp. Walter de Gruyter, New York Google Scholar
  17. Forkenbrock D and Weisbrod G (2001). Guidebook for assessing social and economic effects of transportation projects, NCHRP Report 456. National Academy Press, New York Google Scholar
  18. FHWA (1970) Benefits of Interstate Highways. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Fujita M, Krugman P and Venables A (2001). The spatial economy. Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  20. Highway Research Board (1966) Will model building and the computer solve our economic forecasting problems? Highway research record #149, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  21. Horst T, Moore A (2003) Industrial diversity, economic development and highway investment in Louisiana. Transportation Research Record #1839, Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunt JD, Abraham JE (2005) Design and implementation of PECAS: a generalized system for the allocation of economic production, exchange and consumption quantities. Chap. 11. In: Foundations of integrated land-use and transportation models: assumptions and new conceptual frameworks. Elsevier, London, pp 217–238Google Scholar
  23. Isserman A, Rephan T (1995) The economic effects of the Appalachian Regional Commission : an empirical assessment of 26 years of regional development planning. APA J Summer pp 345–364Google Scholar
  24. Ivanova O (2004) Evaluation of infrastructure welfare benefits in the Spatial Computable General Equilibrium (SCGE) Framework. Department of Economics, University of Oslo. http://www.oekonomi.uio.no/seminar/torsdag-v03/ivanova.doc
  25. Juri NR and Kockelman K (2006). Evaluation of the trans-texas corridor proposal: application and enhancements of the random utility based multiregional input–output model. J Trans Eng 132(7): 531–539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaliski J, Smith S, Weisbrod G (1999) Indiana’s major corridor investment–benefit analysis system. In: Proceedings of the seventh TRB conference on application of transportation planning methodsGoogle Scholar
  27. Krugman P (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. J Pol Econ 99: 483–499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krugman P (1995). Development, geography and economic theory. MIT, Cambridge Google Scholar
  29. Leontief W (1951) Input–output economics. Scientific American, pp 15–21Google Scholar
  30. Lindall S, Olson D, Alward G (2005) Multi-regional models: the IMPLAN national trade flows model. In: Proceedings of the 2005 MCRSA/SRSA Meetings, Arlington VA, AprilGoogle Scholar
  31. Lopes LP (2003) Border effect and effective transport cost. Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra PortugalGoogle Scholar
  32. Luskin D et al (1999) Facts and furphies in benefit–cost analysis: transport. Bureau of Transport Economics, Australia Deptartment of Transport of Regional Services, Report 100Google Scholar
  33. Marshall A (1919) Industry and trade, Macmillan, New York. http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/marshall/Industry&Trade.pdf
  34. Martino A et al (2005) Macro-economic impact of the white paper policies, Annex XII of ASSESS Final Report, DG TREN, European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  35. Nadiri I, Mamuneas TP (1998) Contribution of highway capital to output and productivity growth in the US economy and industries. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Cambridge Systematics, and Regional Source Research Institute (1989) Summary report: CONEG high speed rail regional benefits study: a report on the benefits to the region of improved passenger rail service between Boston and New York, Council of Northeastern Governors High Speed Rail Task ForceGoogle Scholar
  37. Pignataro LJ (1998) Transportation economic and land use system. Transportation research record #1617, Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  38. Politano A, Roadifer C (1989) Regional economic impact model for highway systems. Transportation Research Record 1229, Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  39. Schaffer W (1972). Estimating regional input–output coefficients. Rev Reg Stud 2(3): 57–71 Google Scholar
  40. Shen G (1960). An input–output table with regional weights. Pap Reg Sci Assoc 6: 113–119 Google Scholar
  41. Stokes RW, Pinnoi N, Washington EJ (1991) Economic development impacts of expenditures for state highway improvements in texas, Texas Transportation Institute for Texas DOTGoogle Scholar
  42. Targa F, Clifton K, Mahmassani H (2005) Economic activity and transportation access: an econometric analysis of business spatial patterns. Transportation Research Record #1932, Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  43. Weber A (1929). Theory of the Location of Industries. translated by C. J. Friedrich. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Google Scholar
  44. Weisbrod G and Beckwith J (1992). Measuring economic development benefits for highway decision-making: The Wisconsin case. Transp Q 46(1): 57–79 Google Scholar
  45. Weisbrod G and Treyz F (1998). Productivity and accessibility: bridging project-specific and Macro-economic Analyses of Transportation Investments. J Trans Stat 1(3): 65–79 Google Scholar
  46. Weisbrod G, Vary D, Treyz G (2003) Measuring the economic costs of urban traffic congestion to business. Transportation Research Record #1839, Transportation Research Board, pp 98–106Google Scholar
  47. Weiss M (2002) A brief history of economic development and highways. Paper presented at the TRB Conference on Transportation and Economic Development (TED2002), also published by the Federal Highway Administration web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/econdev/edhist.htm
  48. Wornum C et al (2005) Montana highway reconfiguration study, Cambridge Systematics Economic Development Research Group, ICF and SEH for the Montana Deptartment of Transportation. http://www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/reconfig/final_report.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Development Research Group, Inc.BostonUSA

Personalised recommendations