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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Cited by
Flyvbjerg, B. (2008) · European Planning Studies · doi:10.1080/09654310701747936 · Cited by 438
Self-citation(2012) · TigerPrints (Clemson University) · Cited by 402
Love, P. E. D., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D., & Irani, Z. (2016) · Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.08.007 · Cited by 138
Comparative analysis of government forecasts for the Lisbon Airport
Samagaio, A., & Wolters, M. (2010) · Journal of Air Transport Management · doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2009.09.002 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Planning Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.