Handleiding voor het evalueren van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen

steunpuntverkeersveiligheid.be

Handleiding voor het evalueren van verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen

English summary

Title: Manual for evaluating road safety measures

Subtitle: A First step

Abstract

The evaluation of road safety measures is an important task to achieve the desired and

intended goals in an efficient and effective manner. There are various methods to

evaluate these measures. There is the popular social cost-benefit analysis, the (multiactor)

multi-criteria analysis, the cost effectiveness analysis, the impact analysis and the

economic impact analysis. The choice of the evaluation method depends on the situation.

A wrong evaluation method in a given situation can lead to wrong results, causing wrong

conclusions which result to incorrect choices in the policy. To select the most appropriate

evaluation method, we are developing a decision tree based on concrete questions.

A first question is whether the measure should be evaluated ex-ante or ex-post. In the

ex-ante or prospective evaluation, the effects of the measure are pre-estimated. Hereby,

future positive and negative impacts are identified. The ex-ante assessment gives the

policymaker more understanding. The side effects, effectiveness and/or efficiency

problems of the measure are coming to the surface in this evaluation. The opposite of

ex-ante research is ex-post evaluation. This research is based on historical and

descriptive data. The number of available alternatives has an influence on the choice of

the evaluation methodology. If only one alternative is available, there is no need for

ranking the alternatives as the (Multi-Actor) Multi-Criteria Analysis (MA) MCA does. In

this case, it is better to use a social cost-benefit analysis or a cost effectiveness analysis.

The monetary nature has also an impact on the preferred methodology. If the effects of

the measure are mainly non-monetary based or if it is difficult to monetize the nonmonetary

effects, it is better to use a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) where the effects

should not be monetized. If we want to examine the individual interests in the measure

per stakeholder, a MAMCA method should be used. The cost-effectiveness analysis can

be applied when only one goal has to be measured and if the costs are clear. There are

four approaches in the ex-post evaluation. The after period, the before-after period,

whereby the effects are determined before and after the implementation of the measure,

the control group and test group approach and finally the combination of before-after

approach and the control and test group approach. The way the control group is

compiled, arbitrary or involuntary, determines the design of the research: nonexperimental,

quasi-experimental or experimental.

There is also a step-by-step plan in this manual. In this way, we want to add more

uniformity in the evaluation process. It starts with a problem analysis. Afterwards we try

to resolve the problem. We then proceed to the development and pre-selection of the

alternatives. In the next step the criteria are selected, the impact of the alternatives are

determined and the effects are valued. In the second last step of the ex-ante evaluation,

the ranking and evaluation of the policy alternatives are conducted. Afterwards there is a

feedback. Finally, a summarizing report is made. After implementing the measure, an expost

evaluation is performed. We must examine whether the measure has achieved the

desired and intended effects.

Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 4 RA-MOW-2009-003

Spoor Verkeersveiligheid

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines