How do you compare and rank alternative transportation projects using multi-criteria analysis?

1 Define the problem and objectives

The first step of MCA is to define the problem and objectives of the transportation project evaluation. What are the main issues or needs that the project aims to address? What are the desired outcomes or benefits that the project should deliver? How do you measure the success or failure of the project? You should identify and prioritize the relevant criteria that reflect the objectives, such as travel time, safety, accessibility, emissions, cost-effectiveness, equity, etc. You should also define the scope and boundaries of the analysis, such as the time horizon, geographic area, and stakeholders involved.

2 Identify and describe the alternatives

The next step of MCA is to identify and describe the alternative transportation projects that you want to compare and rank. These can be different modes, routes, designs, technologies, or policies that address the problem and objectives. You should provide a clear and consistent description of each alternative, including its main features, assumptions, costs, benefits, and risks. You should also consider the feasibility and acceptability of each alternative, such as the technical, legal, institutional, and social constraints or opportunities.

3 Evaluate the alternatives against the criteria

The third step of MCA is to evaluate the alternative transportation projects against the criteria that you defined in the first step. This involves collecting and analyzing data, information, and evidence that quantify or qualify the performance or impact of each alternative on each criterion. You can use different methods and tools to do this, such as cost-benefit analysis, travel demand modeling, environmental assessment, social impact assessment, etc. You should also account for the uncertainty and variability of the data and information, such as using sensitivity analysis or scenario analysis.

4 Score and weight the alternatives and criteria

The fourth step of MCA is to score and weight the alternative transportation projects and the criteria that you used to evaluate them. Scoring means assigning a numerical value to each alternative on each criterion, based on its relative performance or impact. Weighting means assigning a numerical value to each criterion, based on its relative importance or preference. You can use different methods and tools to do this, such as rating scales, pairwise comparison, analytical hierarchy process, stakeholder surveys, etc. You should also consider the robustness and validity of the scores and weights, such as using cross-checks or validation tests.

5 Aggregate and rank the alternatives

The fifth step of MCA is to aggregate and rank the alternative transportation projects based on their scores and weights on the criteria. Aggregation means combining the scores and weights of each alternative on each criterion into a single score or value that represents its overall performance or impact. Ranking means ordering the alternatives from the best to the worst based on their aggregated scores or values. You can use different methods and tools to do this, such as additive models, multiplicative models, outranking models, etc. You should also consider the sensitivity and stability of the aggregation and ranking, such as using dominance analysis or rank correlation analysis.

6 Communicate and justify the results

The final step of MCA is to communicate and justify the results of the comparison and ranking of the alternative transportation projects. This involves presenting and explaining the results in a clear and concise way that highlights the main findings, insights, and implications. You should also provide a rationale and evidence for the results, such as showing the scores, weights, aggregation, ranking, uncertainty, sensitivity, robustness, validity, etc. You should also discuss the limitations and assumptions of the MCA, such as the data quality, methodological choices, stakeholder involvement, etc. You should also solicit feedback and input from the decision-makers and stakeholders, such as using participatory methods or workshops.