Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 731

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects?: The Case of Transportation

Open access
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Skamris Holm, Mette K., Buhl, Søren L.·2005·Journal of the American Planning Association

Abstract

This article presents results from the first statistically significant study of traffic forecasts in transportation infrastructure projects. The sample used is the largest of its kind, covering 210 projects in 14 nations worth U.S.$59 billion. The study shows with very high statistical significance that forecasters generally do a poor job of estimating the demand for transportation infrastructure projects. For 9 out of 10 rail projects, passenger forecasts are overestimated; the average overestima-tion is 106%. For half of all road projects, the difference between actual and forecasted traffic is more than ±20%. The result is substantial financial risks, which are typically ignored or downplayed by planners and decision makers to the detriment of social and economic welfare. Our data also show that forecasts have not become more accurate over the 30-year period studied, despite claims to the contrary by forecasters. The causes of inaccuracy in forecasts are different for rail and road projects, with political causes playing a larger role for rail than for road. The cure is transparency, accountability, and new forecasting methods. The challenge is to change the governance structures for forecasting and project development. Our article shows how planners may help achieve this. This article was substantially reproduced in the article "Inaccuracy in Traffic Forecasts", published in 2006 in Transport Reviews [Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm, and Søren L. Buhl, Transport Reviews, Vol. 26, Issue 1, 2006, pp. 1–24 (retracted)] and is the subject of a Notice of Redundant Publication in Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 78, Issue 3, page 352, 2012. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2012.719432

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01944360508976688

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 731

Metadata

Authors
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L.
Venue
Journal of the American Planning Association
Published
2005-06-30
Volume
71
Issue
2
Pages
131-146
ISSN
  • 0194-4363 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0130
OpenAlex
W2056321007
Cited by
731
References
1
FWCI
32.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects?: The Case of Transportation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01944360508976688
The paper
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L. (2005). How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects?: The Case of Transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976688

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.