1. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING (CVE 503) Presented by: Engr. Stephen Agyeman Sunyani Polytechnic Civil Engineering Department

2. OUTLINE  EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES.  BASIC CONCEPT OF COST AND BENEFITS: EVALUATION BASED ON ECONOMIC CRITERIA. EVALUATION BASED ON MULTIPLE CRITERIA.

3. INTRODUCTION  Once a transportation plan has been finalised and the demand along each of its highway links has been established,  a process must be put in place that helps identify the best solution for each individual proposal within the highway network.  Each project must therefore be subject to an appraisal.  The aim of the highway appraisal process is: to determine the economic, societal and environmental feasibility of the project or group of projects.

4. INTRODUCTION CONT”D The process enables highway planners to decide:  Whether a project is desirable in absolute terms and  Also provides a means of choosing b/n different competing project options,  All of which have the ability to meet the stated goals and objectives of the project sponsors.  The “reasoned choice” model of individual or group decisions provides a decision-making framework.

5. REASONED CHOICE MODEL (Zey, 1992) Steps: 1. Problem recognition. The decision-maker determines that a problem exists and that a decision must be reflected on. 2. Goal identification. The decision-maker details the desired result or outcome of the process. 3. Identification of alternative highway schemes. Different potential solutions are assembled prior to their evaluation. 4. Information search. The decision-maker seeks to identify x’tics associated with the alternative solutions.

6. REASONED CHOICE MODEL (Zey, 1992) Steps: 5. Assessment of information on alternative highway schemes. The information necessary for making a decision regarding the preferred option is gathered together and considered. 6. Selection of preferred highway scheme. A preferred option is selected by the decision-maker for implementation in the future. 7. Evaluation. The decision is assessed a period of time after its execution in order to evaluate it on the basis of its achieved results.

7. SCHEME APPRAISAL PROCESS The scheme appraisal process for highway schemes is broadly into two sections:  economic evaluation and  environmental assessment.

8. ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF HIGHWAY SCHEMES At various points in the development of a highway project, the developer will require economic assessments of the route options under consideration. This involves  comparing their performance against the current situation of “do-nothing” alternative  or against the “do-minimum” alternative  Thus, a low-cost upgrading of the existing facility.

9. ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF HIGHWAY SCHEMES CONT’D  Computations are performed on the costs and benefits associated with each highway option in order to obtain one or more measures of worth for each.  Engineering economics provides a number of techniques that result in numerical values termed measures of economic worth (MoEW).  MoEWs consider the time value of money, an important concept in engineering economics that estimates the change in worth of an amount of money over a given period of time.

10. ECONOMIC APPRAISAL OF HIGHWAY SCHEMES CONT’D Some common measures of worth are:  Net present value (NPV).  Benefit/cost ratio (B/C).  Internal rate of return (IRR).  First Year Rate of Return (FYRR).  Payback Period (PBP).  Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA).

11. ECONOMIC DECISION  In economic analysis, financial units (£/$/Gh¢) are used as the tangible basis of evaluation.  With each of the above “measure of worth” techniques, the fact that a quantity of money today is worth a different amount in the future is central to the evaluation.  In the process of actual selection of the best option in economic terms, one of the above measures of worth is used to select the chosen proposal.  When several ways exist to accomplish a given objective, the option with the lowest overall cost or highest overall net income is chosen.

12. ECONOMIC DECISION CONT’D  While intangible factors that cannot be expressed in monetary terms do play a part in an economic analysis, their role is secondary. However,  the options available have approx. the same equivalent cost/value,  the non-economic and intangible factors may be used to select the best option.  Economic appraisal techniques can be used to justify a scheme in absolute terms, in which case, the decision is made on the basis of whether the project is “economically efficient” or not.

13. 13 Secondary Effects:  Changes in agricultural output.  Changes in services.  Changes in industrial output.  Changes in consumers behavior.  Changes in land values.  Changes in income. ECONOMIC DECISION CONT’D

14.  A -NPV or -B/C<1 would indicate an inefficient scheme where society would end up worse off with the scheme than without it.  Thus, economic benefits accruing to the beneficiaries of the highway > economic costs incurred by those “losing out” as a result of its construction.  “Beneficiaries” are the road users and the “losers” are those funding the scheme.  To differentiate b/n the economic performances of competing options, the scheme with the highest measure of worth will be deemed the most efficient, assuming that at least one will have a +NPV or B/C>1.

15. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)  The framework within which this evaluation of the economic consequences of highway schemes takes place is referred to as cost-benefit analysis.  CBA utilises the NPV technique where the costs and benefits of the scheme are discounted over time (20yrs) so that they represent present day values.  Using CBD, any proposal having a +NPV is economically sustainable in absolute terms.  Where competing project options are being compared, assuming they are being used in identical capacities over the same period, the one that is less negative or more positive is chosen.

16. IDENTIFYING THE MAIN PROJECT OPTIONS  This is a fundamental step in the CBA process where the decision-makers compile a list of all relevant feasible options that they wish to be assessed.  It includes “do-nothing” option within the analysis in order to measure those evaluated against the baseline scenario where no work is carried out.  The “do minimum” option offers a more realistic course of action where no new highway is constructed but a set of  traffic management improvements are made to the existing route in order to improve the overall traffic performance.

17. IDENTIFYING THE MAIN PROJECT OPTIONS  Evaluation of the “do-nothing” scenario ensures that, in addition to the various “live” options being compared in relative terms,  these are also seen to be economically justified in absolute terms,  Thus, their benefits > costs.  The term “feasible” refers to options that, on a initial evaluation, present themselves as viable courses of action that can be brought to completion given the constraints imposed on the decision- maker (e.g.: lack of time, info and resources).

18. IDENTIFYING THE MAIN PROJECT OPTIONS Procedures for both identification and definition of project options include:  Drawing on the personal experience of the decision-maker and other experts in the highway engineering field.  Making comparisons b/n the current decision problem and ones earlier solved in a successful manner.  Examining all relevant literature. Group brainstorming session can be quite effective in bringing viable options to light (usually in 2 phases - non-critical & screening process).

19. IDENTIFYING THE MAIN PROJECT OPTIONS One such method is to compare each new option with an existing, ‘tried-and- tested’ option used in earlier similar highway proposals by T-chart (Riggs et al., 1997). In this Table, the proposed option would be rejected on the basis that, while it had a lower construction cost,  its maintenance costs,  level of environmental intrusion and  geometric design,  together with its low level of time savings for motorists, would eliminate it from further consideration.

20. IDENTIFYING ALL RELEVANT COSTS AND BENEFITS  The application of cost-benefit for project assessment in the highway area is made more complicated by the wide array of benefits associated with a given road initiative.  Some easier to translate into monetary values than others.  Many of the benefits of improvements to transport projects equate to decreases in cost.  The primary grouping that contains this type of economic gain is termed user benefits.  Benefits of this type accrue to active users of the proposed facility.

21. IDENTIFYING ALL RELEVANT COSTS AND BENEFITS CONT’D Primary grouping benefits include:  Reductions in vehicle operating costs (Tyre, Fuel, spare parts, congestion, high speed etc.)  Savings in time (congestion, reliability etc.)  Reduction in the frequency of accidents (property damage – easy to cal., personal injuries and fatal accidents – diff to cal.).

22. IDENTIFYING ALL RELEVANT COSTS AND BENEFITS CONT’D Secondary grouping of benefits those accruing to ‘non-users’ of the proposed facility. These include: 1. Positive or negative changes in the environment felt by those people situated either near the new route or the existing route from which the new one will divert traffic. These can be measured in terms of the changes in impacts such as air pollution, noise or visual obstruction. 2. The loss or improvement of recreational facilities used by local inhabitants, or the improvement or deterioration in access to these facilities.

23. IDENTIFYING ALL RELEVANT COSTS AND BENEFITS CONT’D The costs associated with a proposed highway installation can fall into similar categories. However, in most evaluations sufficient considerations will include:  construction costs incurred during the initial building phase,  maintenance costs incurred on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the project.

24. ECONOMIC LIFE, RESIDUAL VALUE AND DISCOUNT RATE  A highway project is often complex and long term,  Costs and benefits associated with it occurring over a long time frame which we term the life of the Project.  It is usually 20, 25, 35 or even 50 years or more.  It is related, in principle, to the expected lifetime of the project under analysis.

25. ECONOMIC LIFE, RESIDUAL VALUE AND DISCOUNT RATE CONT’D  The costs and benefits occur at different times over this time horizon.  Hence, they cannot be directly combined until they are reduced to a common time frame.  This is achieved using discount rate, which translates all costs and benefits to time equivalent values.  The actual value used is the social discount rate, given that the decision-maker is interested in the benefits and costs to society as a whole not to any individual or group of individuals.

26.  The discount rate is opportunity cost of capital in the public sector.  I.e., the rate of return on marginal public sector investments.  The discount rate to be used are given by the planning authority responsible for the project.  The World Bank has not calculated a discount rate for each project but has used 10 to 15% as a notional opportunity cost of capital in developing countries. ECONOMIC LIFE, RESIDUAL VALUE AND DISCOUNT RATE CONT’D

27. ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND BASIC ECONOMIC VIABILITY  The NPV will estimate the economic worth of the project in terms of the present worth of the total net benefits.  The IRR will give, for each option under consideration, the rate at which the NPV = 0  B/C ratio based on the ratio of the present value of the benefits to the present value of the costs.  For IRR and B/C ratio, if the options under consideration are mutually exclusive, an incremental analysis must be carried out to establish the best performing one in economic terms.  All three methods depend on discounting to arrive at a final answer.

28. ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND BASIC ECONOMIC VIABILITY CONT’D Assuming a discount rate of 10%, the project will be economically acceptable if  the NPV of the net benefits at 10% > 0,  the IRR > 10% or  the B/C ratio at 10% > 1. For independent project where choosing one does not exclude the possibility of proceeding with one or all of the others where all techniques yield the same result, the determinant should be choice of discount rate.

29. ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND BASIC ECONOMIC VIABILITY CONT’D  In choosing b/n mutually exclusive projects where choice of one immediately excludes all others,  the most straightforward method involves choosing the option with the maximum NPV of net benefits.  Some time decision makers are required to rank order a number of highway projects, on the basis that there is a set quantity of resources available for developing a certain category of project.  The decision-maker uses this sequence to approve and construct these projects until the allotted resources are exhausted.

30. ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND BASIC ECONOMIC VIABILITY CONT’D  In these cases, ranking based on NPV may be of limited assistance, since high cost projects with slightly greater NPV scores may be given priority over lower cost ones yielding greater benefits per unit cost.  It is better to rank these different project options based on their benefit/cost ratio.  The one with the highest B/C score is given the rank 1, the 2nd highest score is given the rank 2, and so on.

31. MERITS AND DEMERITS OF CBA Note: Students are to make conscious effort to research into the advantages and disadvantages of CBA.

32. 32  Net Present Value/ Investment Cost NPV/ C = NPV/C i  First Year Rate of Return FYRR = (B 1 - C 1 ) / C i B 1, C 1 = Benefits and Costs in year 1 after construction C i = Road investment costs  Payback Period = C 0 /NAS, Where NAS= net annual savings ECONOMIC DECISION CRITERIA (2)

33. WORK EXAMPLES - PBP Example – Comparison of toll-bridge projects based on payback analysis  A developer is faced with a choice b/n two development alternatives for a toll bridge project: one large-scale proposal with higher costs but enabling more traffic to access it, and the other less costly but with a smaller traffic capacity.  Details of the costs and revenues related to both are given in Table 2.  Calculate the payback period and check this result against the NPV for each. Project DetailsOption AOption B Initial cost (Gh ¢) 2750 Annual profit (Gh ¢) 510 Discount rate (%)88 Life (years)20

34.  SOLUTION- PBP

35.  SOLUTION- NPV

36. Decision:  On the basis of its present worth valuation, option B is preferred, having a NPV over twice that of option A.  Thus, while payback is a useful preliminary tool,  primary methods of economic evaluation such as NPV or IRR should be used for the more detailed analysis. SOLUTION- NPV

37. 37 EXAMPLE: UNEQUAL LIVES  Project A costs $3000 and then $1000 per annum for the next four years.  Project B costs $6000 and then $1200 for the next eight years.  Required rate of return for both projects is 10 per cent.  Which is the better project?

38. EQUIVALENT ANNUAL VALUE METHOD (EAV)  What amount, to be received each year for n years, is equivalent to receiving the net present value of a project whose life is n years?  The project with the higher EAV is preferred to the project with the lower EAV.

39. SOLUTION—PROJECT A

40. SOLUTION—PROJECT B

41. Solution—Interpretation Project A is better because it costs $1946 per year compared to Project B’s $2325 per year.

42. WORK EXAMPLE Cash flow projectInitial cash outlay Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4 X-70 000 9250241002912240000 Y-60 000400002042010520 5000 ProjectNPVRankIRRRank X$3621114%2 Y$2661215%1 Ps: Cost of capital of 12% is used for estimating NPV

43.  While the cost-benefit framework for a highway project addresses 2 objectives of transport efficiency and safety.  It makes no attempt to value its effects on the environment.  Environmental evaluation therefore requires an alternative analytical structure.  The structure developed within the last 30yrs is termed EIA. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL OF HIGHWAY SCHEMES

44. Economic Decision Criteria (3) NPV IRR 3 NPV/CFYRR Project economic validityV.GoodV.Good V.GoodPoor Mutually exclusive projectsV.GoodPoor GoodPoor Project timingFairPoor PoorGood Project screening 1 PoorV.Good GoodPoor Under budget constraint 2 FairPoor V.GoodPoor Notes: 1.Check for robustness to changes in key variables (sensitivity analysis) 2.With incremental analysis 3.IRR may be indeterminate with NONE or MANY solutions.

45. The developer must assess the impact of the proposed project using the following format for the EIS:  The probable environmental impact of the proposal.  Any unavoidable environmental impacts.  Alternative options to the proposal.  Short-run and long-run effects of the proposal and any relationship b/n the two.  Any irreversible commitment of resources necessitated by the proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL OF HIGHWAY SCHEMES CONT’D

46. Details minimum information that must be contained within the EIS include: 1. A physical description of the project. 2. A description of measures envisaged to reduce or remedy the significant adverse environmental effects of the project. 3. The data required to both identify and assess the main effects on the environment of the project in question. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL OF HIGHWAY SCHEMES CONT’D

47. 12 environmental impacts forming the assessment framework are: 1. Air quality. 2. Cultural heritage. 3. Construction disturbance. 4. Ecology/nature conservation. 5. Landscape effects. 6. Land use. 7. Traffic noise and vibration. 8. Pedestrian, cyclist & community effects. 9. Vehicle travellers. 10. Water quality and drainage. 11. Geology and soils. 12. Policies and plans.

48.  Some of the above impacts can be estimated in quantitative terms, others only qualitatively.  It is vital that the environmental info is presented in an explicable format so that both members of the public and decision-makers at the highest political level can mix. their use of the info.  One such format is to use the environmental impact table (EIT).  A tabular presentation of data summarising the main impacts of a proposed highway scheme.  At the early stages of the highway planning process, the EIT format can be used to consider alternative route corridors. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL OF HIGHWAY SCHEMES CONT’D

49. Appraisal groupings and Sample EIT for ‘local people and their communities’

50.  Normal traffic: Existing traffic and growth that would occur on road, with and without the investment.  Diverted traffic: Traffic diverted from another road with same origin and destination to as the project road as a result of the investment.  Generated traffic: Traffic associated with existing users of the road driving more frequently or driving further than before.  Induced traffic: Traffic attracted to the project road due to increased economic activity in the road’s zone of influence brought about by the project. TRAFFIC CATEGORIES

51. DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS

52. NPV AND IRR CALCULATION (1)

53. NPV AND IRR CALCULATION (2)

54. NPV Versus IRR - The IRR and NPV will not necessarily rank the alternatives by the same order - Always use NPV to compare project alternatives

55. Multiples Rates of Return

56. No Rate of Return

57. Same Rate of Return

58. Incremental Rate of Return

59. IRR Reinvestment Assumption

60. Modified Internal Rate of Return

61. BENEFITS & COST

62. NET BENEFITS & COSTS (EFFICIENCY FRONTIER)

63. Alternatives NPV 0.0 3.7 6.7 5.5  When comparing project-alternatives, the NPV is used to select the optimal project-alternative (alternative with highest NPV).  The IRR or the B/C ratio are not recommended to compare alternatives of a given project. Optimal Alternative: Highest NPV Project COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

64. When comparing the economic priority of different projects, a recommended economic indicator is the NPV per Investment ratio Projects Selected Alternative Overlay Reseal Overlay NPV/Investment 8.4 5.2 2.1 PRIORITYPRIORITY RANKING PROJECTS

65. Projects Selected Alternative Overlay Reseal Overlay Reseal Overlay NPV per Investment 8.4 5.2 4.0 1.5 0.5 PRIORITYPRIORITY NPV 16.8 15.6 20.0 3.0 5.0 Investment 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 10.0 Available Budget BUDGET CONSTRAINTS SIMPLE METHODOLOGY Budget Constraint Cut Off

66. Projects Alternatives Available Budget BUDGET CONSTRAINTS OPTIMIZATION Evaluates all possible combinations of project-alternatives to find the combination that maximizes the NPV of the overall network for the given budget constraint. P = Number of projects A = Number of alternatives C = Number of possible combinations C = A ^ P NPV 0.0 3.7 6.7 5.5 0.0 2.0 1.0 3.5 0.0 5.4 2.1 3.2

67. 67  An Appraisal is carried out before an investment is made. Everything is uncertain.  A Post evaluation may be made say 5yrs after the investment.  The investment is known and 5yrs of with case are known. The without case is unknown as is the remainder of the with case. APPRAISALS & POST EVALUATIONS (1)

68. 68  In Both Cases forecasting and evaluation models are required to come to an answer.  Hence we can never be certain about the viability of an investment ! APPRAISALS & POST EVALUATIONS (2)

69.  Consequences of changes on inputs  Investment Costs (e.g. +15%)  Traffic Growth Rate (e.g. = zero)  Generate Traffic (e.g. = zero)  Value of Time (e.g. = zero)  A = Investment Costs Increase (e.g. +15%)  B = Road User Benefits Decrease (e.g. -15%)  C = A and B together SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

70.  Inputs that yield a NPV equal to zero  Investments Costs  Normal Traffic  Traffic Growth Rate  Generate Traffic  Investment Cost  Road User Benefits SWITCHING VALUES ANALYSIS

71. 71 RISK ANALYSIS Inputs vary at the same time following some defined distributions

72. Rural Transport Infrastructure “Tracks”“Roads”“Highways”

73. Rural Transport Infrastructure Focus on social evaluation (cost effectiveness indices, community priorities and multi-criteria analysis)

74. SOCIAL BENEFITS: WHY THE CONCERN ?  There is unease with conventional appraisal based primarily on transport cost savings to traffic  There is a strong desire at community and national levels for better access and mobility which is frequently not matched by standard measured economic benefits  The ‘rich’ world governments subsidise rural transport.  Should the same happen for developing countries ?  Isolation is a recognised characteristic of poverty

75. SOCIAL BENEFITS: WHY THE CONCERN ?  There is a feeling that a minimum degree of access and mobility is a ‘basic human right’  Development has moved away from a narrow definition of economic development towards concern with ‘livelihoods’ and meeting ‘Millennium Development Goals’  The issue is particularly important when roads are impassable to motor traffic

76. ECONOMIC & SOCIAL BENEFITS  Consumers and producers surplus approaches are very economic in orientation.  Yet roads provide ‘social benefits’ – including improved access to health and education facilities and improved social mobility that cannot be easily translated into conventional economic benefits.  – Although they may have important long term ‘economic’ consequences.  Improved health and education and more secure social networks increase long term earning capabilities but so far the economic forecasting framework does not include this.

77. ECONOMIC & SOCIAL BENEFITS  When roads are impassable to motorized traffic we know that the quality of health care and schooling falls.  Drug supply and supervision drops.  Likewise no NGO, government agency or commercial enterprise will establish or support a service which cannot guarantee all year round access.

78.  Widely used for feeder road planning; there are many different approaches, e.g.: cost of improvement/population. estimated trips/cost. Advantages: Speed, simplicity, transparency, many factors can be incorporated. INDICES AND RANKING

79. Disadvantages:  How do we value widely different factors ? (adding up apples and pears);  Weightings are not stable ;  Cannot easily address questions of road standards,  Timing etc.;  Possible double counting INDICES AND RANKING

80. EXAMPLE OF TWO INDICES i) Andhra Pradesh (India) cost effectiveness = cost of upgrading/ population served But – no measure of condition change and no importance to traffic ii) Airey & Taylor 1st for impassable roads rank = cost per head of establishing basic access 2nd when access is there: estimated trips x access change prioritization index = ------------------------------------------ rehabilitation cost per km

81.  Community priorities now often form an important part of feeder road appraisal.  It is possible just to ask communities to rank the investments they prefer- both within the road sector or between roads and other investments.  Advantages: Community acceptability, use of community knowledge  Disadvantages: Sectional interest groups may dominate voting, community knowledge of area or road impact may be poor. COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

82. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CEA)  Compares the cost of interventions with its predicted impacts and it is used where the benefits cannot be measured in monetary terms, or where the measurement is difficult  It includes provisions that a. the objectives of the intervention are indicated and are clearly part of a ampler program of objectives (such as reduction of the poverty); b. the intervention represents the smaller cost alternative of obtaining the indicated objectives  It produces effectiveness indicators, such as Total Beneficiary Population per Investment or Investment per Beneficiary Population.

83. Alternatives Investment 2.0 3.7 1.7 5.5 CEA COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES  To compare project-alternatives, the investment cost is used to select the optimal alternative.  The selected alternative is the one with the lowest investment cost that will achieve the objective of the program. Optimal Alternative: Lower Investment Project

84. PROJECTS ELIGIBILITY WITH CEA  To assess if a project is eligible, an acceptable effectiveness indicator threshold is defined Projects Investment per Population (U$/person) 50 150 500 Eligible Not Eligible Effectiveness Indicator Threshold Example

85. 85 Effectiveness Indicator Threshold Evaluate Universe of Projects and Available Budget

86. POSSIBLE CEA INDICATORS  Investment Cost per Total Beneficiary Population 100 US$ per person  Total Beneficiary Population per Investment Cost 0.01 persons per US$  Total Beneficiary Population per Investment Cost in thousands of dollars 10 persons per 1,000 US$  Etc.

87. OPTIONS FOR BENEFICIARY POPULATION  Rural beneficiary population Effectiveness = (rural beneficiary population)/Investment  Poor beneficiary population Effectiveness = (poor beneficiary population)/Investment  Mixed beneficiary population Effectiveness = (poor persons + 0.3 non poor persons)/Investment  Etc.

88. TOTAL BENEFICIARY POPULATION (1) Total Beneficiary Population = Directly Benefited Population + Indirectly Benefited Population.  The Directly Benefited Population is the one that lives next on the road, defined for example to 2.0 km at each side of the road, and the population in the ends of the road, depending on its characteristics and the use of the road.  The Indirectly Benefited Population is the population that lives in other roads near the road in consideration, who use the project road to arrive at the main population center of the region or at a main road.

89. TOTAL BENEFICIARY POPULATION (2) For example, for the road section B-C: Directly Benefited Population = Population along section B-C plus on towns B & C Indirectly Benefited Population = Population along section A-B plus on town A

90. MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS (MCA) (1)  It adopts criteria such as traffic, proximity to educative, health, and economic centers, etc.  To each section, a number of the points is assigned to each criteria that correspond to the fulfillment of the criteria.  The added number of the points that each section receives is computed simply adding the points assigned for each criteria, or with the use of a more complex formula,  for example, weighting the criteria by their perceived importance.

91. MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS (2)  It produces a priority indicator.  The indicators used in a MCA reflect implicit economic and subjective evaluations.  If the weights and the points are decided and assigned on a participative way,  the MCA has the potential to be a good participative method for planning based on implicit a socioeconomic estimates.  Nevertheless, it tends to be applied by planning consultants or in isolation without the consultation with the users and communities affected by the project.

92. MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS (3)  The result of the MCA, is often, unfortunately, not transparent, specially if many factors are considered and a complicated formula is also applied  Therefore, if it is adopted, this method must be used very carefully and to be maintained simple, transparent, and participative.

93. MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS EXAMPLE (1)  Level of poverty of the influence area (Low, Medium, High).  Potential for economic development of the influence area (Low, Medium, High).  Importance of the road given by local consultation process (Low, Medium, High).  Provision of access of social services of the road (Low, Medium, High).  Problems of transitability of the road (Low, Medium, High).  Functional classification level of the road (Low, Medium, High).  Existence of public transport (Low, Medium, High).

94. Multi Criteria Analysis Example (2) Factor = Value / Maximum Value

95. The End Thank You!!!!!