The impact of cost-benefit analysis on decision making concerning the development of the urban transport system: case of Kaunas City


The formulation of scenarios for developing the urban transport infrastructure requires decisions mainly based on the intuition of experts in transport and highly influenced by public interest groups, business entities and political opinions. However, the reached decisions sometimes fail to be the most efficient. Therefore, to avoid errors and ensure the development of a sustainable transport system, the economical appraisal of infrastructure development scenarios is necessary. The economic evaluation of the developed scenarios can be carried out through macro-simulation and cost-benefit analysis. This paper deals with the Kaunas City Master Plan providing solutions to transport infrastructure development. According to the Master Plan, solutions can be classified considering 3 cathegories (priorities), although the detailed sequence of implementation is not given. With the help of macro-simulation, this study arranged Master Plan solutions into scenarios, checked all 20 scenarious and established an implementation order based on the theory of cost benefit analysis. The identified order substantially differs from the priorities set in the Master Plan.

Keyword : sustainable transport system, economic evaluation of scenarios, macro-simulation, master plan

How to Cite
Dumbliauskas, V., Grigonis, V., & Barauskas, A. (2018). The impact of cost-benefit analysis on decision making concerning the development of the urban transport system: case of Kaunas City. Transport, 33(4), 1045-1051.
Published in Issue
Dec 5, 2018
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Barfod, M. B.; Salling, K. B.; Leleur, S. 2011. Composite decision support by combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria decision analysis, Decision Support Systems 51(1): 167–175.

Beria, P.; Maltese, I.; Mariotti, I. 2012. Multicriteria versus cost benefit analysis: a comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility, European Transport Research Review 4(3): 137–152.

Grigonis, V.; Burinskienė, M.; Paliulis, G.; Ušpalytė-Vitkūnienė, R.; Dumbliauskas, V.; Barauskas, A. 2014. Modelling a passenger car system based on the principles of sustainable mobility in Vilnius City, Transport 29(3): 334–341.

Grigonis, V.; Paliulis, G. M. 2007. Modelling the transport flows in Marijampolė (Lithuania), The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 2(1): 29–37.

Griškevičiūtė-Gečienė, A. 2010. The evaluation of investment projects within the territory of development, Transport 25(2): 203–214.

Gühnemann, A.; Laird, J. J.; Pearman, A. D. 2012. Combining cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis to prioritise a national road infrastructure programme, Transport Policy 23: 15–24.

Haque, M. M.; Chin, H. C.; Debnath, A. K. 2013. Sustainable, safe, smart – three key elements of Singapore’s evolving transport policies, Transport Policy 27: 20–31.

Hassan, A. M.; Lee, H. 2015a. The paradox of the sustainable city: definitions and examples, Environment, Development and Sustainability 17(6): 1267–1285.

Hassan, A. M.; Lee, H. 2015b. Toward the sustainable development of urban areas: an overview of global trends in trials and policies, Land Use Policy 48: 199–212.

Hickman, R.; Hall, P.; Banister, D. 2013. Planning more for sustainable mobility, Journal of Transport Geography 33: 210–219.

Hüging, H.; Glensor, K.; Lah, O. 2014. Need for a holistic assessment of urban mobility measures – review of existing methods and design of a simplified approach, Transportation Research Procedia 4: 3–13.

Kauno miesto savivaldybė. 2014. Kauno miesto savivaldybės teritorijos bendrasis planas 2013–2023 m. Available from Internet: (in Lithuanian).

Kerali, H. 2003. Economic appraisal of road projects in countries with developing and transition economies, Transport Reviews 23(3): 249–262.

Kim, S.; Rowe, P. G. 2013. Are master plans effective in limiting development in China’s disaster-prone areas? Landscape and Urban Planning 111: 79–90.

Kumarage, A. S.; Weerawardana, J. 2013. System cost-based multi-criteria analysis for urban transport solutions, International Journal of Urban Sciences 17(2): 212–225.

LAKD. 2015. Automobilių kelių investicijų vadovas. Lietuvos automobilių kelių direkcija (LAKD) prie Susisiekimo Ministerijos 122 p. (in Lithuanian).

Martos, A.; Pacheco-Torres, R.; Ordóñez, J.; Jadraque-Gago, E. 2016. Towards successful environmental performance of sustainable cities: intervening sectors. A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57: 479–495.

Santos, A. S.; Ribeiro, S. K. 2015. The role of transport indicators to the improvement of local governance in Rio de Janeiro City: a contribution for the debate on sustainable future, Case Studies on Transport Policy 3(4): 415–420.

Tennøy, A.; Hansson, L.; Lissandrello, E.; Næss, P. 2016. How planners’ use and non-use of expert knowledge affect the goal achievement potential of plans: experiences from strategic land-use and transport planning processes in three Scandinavian cities, Progress in Planning 109: 1–32.

TRB. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. 5th edition. Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington, DC, US. 1650 p.