|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. APPENDIX E
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Page 275 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 275
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
APPENDIX E
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY STRATEGIES
J. Richard Kuzmyak, Transportation Consultant, LLC
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Purpose
The results of a commissioned review of the cost-effectiveness of transportation-related strategies as funded under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program are summarized in this paper. The review was performed under contract to the Transportation Research Board’s Committee for Evaluation of the CMAQ Improvement Program to support its deliberations and development of recommendations to Congress as to whether and how the CMAQ program should be continued when the federal transportation funding act is reauthorized in 2003.
At issue in this review is whether the types of strategies funded under CMAQ represent cost-effective approaches for achieving the objectives of the program to reduce emissions from mobile sources through congestion relief or other methods of improving transportation efficiency. This raises questions as to the effectiveness of individual types of projects and strategies funded, as well as the overall effectiveness of the body and mix of projects and strategies that CMAQ funds have purchased to date. Comparisons of the cost-effectiveness of the types of strategies eligible for CMAQ funding with the cost-effectiveness of strategies that have not been eligible for CMAQ funding, such as the construction of new highway capacity, roadway or other travel pricing schemes, new vehicle/fuel technology, and emission controls for nonmobile sources, were also made. The highway capacity, travel pricing, and selected (mainly transit-oriented) technology approaches are addressed in this paper, but the detailed investigation of vehicle standards, fuels, and non–mobile source approaches are explored in a second commissioned paper authored
OCR for page 276
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
by Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratories. Both papers have been produced under the guidance of the CMAQ committee, and efforts have been made to coordinate methodologies and assumptions to maximize the comparability of findings.
Overview of CMAQ Program and Eligible Strategies
The CMAQ program is a special funding provision established under the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that earmarks resources to help states and local areas achieve compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Over the first 6 years of the program, beginning in 1992, $6 billion was authorized under the program, and funding levels were subsequently continued under the 1998 reauthorization (the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century). The original purpose of the CMAQ program was to fund transportation programs or projects that would contribute to attainment of standards for ozone [hydrocarbon (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) precursors] and carbon monoxide (CO) in nonattainment areas. However, provisions were subsequently modified to permit use of the funds by areas that had reached attainment (transforming to “maintenance areas”) and in mitigating particulate matter (PM10) pollution under certain circumstances.
Title 21, Section 149 of ISTEA stipulates in detail the types of strategies that are eligible for CMAQ funding.1 These include the following:
Improvements to public transit service, including new and replacement vehicles (but not operating costs that do not arise out of new or expanded service, nor transit-oriented private development);
New transit stations, terminals, transit centers or malls, intermodal transfer facilities, and park-and-ride facilities;
Short-term promotional subsidies of transit/paratransit fares;
Construction or designation of roads or lanes for exclusive use of buses or high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs);
1
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Guidance Update, FHWA website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaqguid.htm (Sept. 2000).
OCR for page 277
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives (but excluding employer-sponsored flexible work schedules);
Telecommuting programs, including studies, training, coordination, and promotion (but excluding capital equipment and facilities);
Trip reduction ordinances or programs to facilitate nonautomobile travel or reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle travel, including programs or ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity;
Traffic flow improvements, such as signal improvements and freeway management systems (provided they can be demonstrated to improve air quality), traveler information programs, and electronic toll/fare payment systems;
Fringe and corridor parking facilities serving transit or multi-occupant vehicle use;
Peak-period or area-specific vehicle use restrictions;
Programs for provision of ridesharing services;
Construction or redesignation of facilities for exclusive use by nonmotorized vehicles or pedestrians, and bicycle storage/protective facilities;
Nonconstruction projects related to safe bicycle use, establishment of bike/pedestrian coordinators, and public education programs;
Project planning or development activities that lead directly to construction of facilities or new services with air quality benefits (i.e., the projects themselves have air quality benefits);
Alternative-fuel vehicle (AFV) conversions or on-site fueling facilities/infrastructure, provided the fleet is publicly owned or leased and centrally fueled and the primary motivation is air quality attainment; and
Intermodal freight facilities/improvements (provided air quality benefits can be demonstrated and facilities are not solely owned/operated/managed by private interests).
In the language of the act, CMAQ funds are specifically not authorized for highway or transit maintenance or reconstruction projects or for new single-occupant vehicle capacity projects.
OCR for page 278
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Organization of Paper
This paper is structured into the following sections:
In this Introduction and Background section, the purpose and scope of the study are described, a brief background description of the CMAQ program and its objectives is given, and strategies that are eligible for funding are listed.
In the next section, Methodology, an overview of the general approach used to conduct the study, the literature identification and review process, and templates used to store and compile data is given. All analytic approaches and assumptions used to address key methodological issues are described, including the following:
Parameters and considerations in compiling transportation and travel impact data;
Emission criteria, including pollutants considered, baseline assumptions, computational assumptions and factors, weighting and summation, and emission discounting; and
Cost and cost-effectiveness calculation procedures, detailing assumptions regarding capital versus operating costs, cost annual-ization, public versus private costs, consumer versus manufacturer costs, societal and external costs, and transfer payments.
The Cost-Effectiveness Findings section is the most substantial section of the report, given its purpose of presenting and describing the nature and range of impacts for each strategy category and subcategory:
Traffic flow improvements, including subcategories of traffic signalization, freeway management, and HOV lanes;
Ridesharing programs, including general regional outreach and matching programs, vanpool and buspool programs, and park-and-ride lots;
Travel demand management, including regional or areawide approaches and employer trip reduction programs;
Telecommute/telework programs, including employer-based, nonworksite, and nonwork approaches;
Bicycle/pedestrian facilities and programs, either site-based or areawide;
Transit improvements, including new shuttle or feeder services, new rail transit services or equipment, and conventional transit service improvements;
OCR for page 279
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Technology and fuel programs, including conventional bus replacements, alternative-fuel buses, and AFV fueling facilities; and
Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. The section also provides limited cost-effectiveness information on two non-CMAQ-eligible strategies:
Pricing strategies, including subsidies and discounts and charges and fees, and
New roadway capacity.
An Analysis of Findings section follows the individual strategy review. In that section, the cost-effectiveness performance of the 19 separate strategy groups is ranked and compared. The importance of various assumptions is discussed, in particular the pollutant weighting ratios that were used. The important differences between strategies in the same group are explored, and finally an estimate of the overall effectiveness of the CMAQ program with respect to strategy performance and how funds have been allocated across strategies is offered.
In a Final Thoughts and Closing section, the author’s views of the key findings from the research are provided.
An Annotated Bibliography is provided at the end of the paper, citing (along with the source) the strategies that are addressed and giving a general assessment of the quality, value, and eventual use (or reasons for nonuse) of the source in the review.
An annex contains analysis tables, which summarize the travel impacts, emissions, and cost-effectiveness for each individual strategy included in the analysis, organized by major category (as listed above).
METHODOLOGY
Overview of Study Approach
The findings in this paper are primarily the result of an extensive literature review and synthesis. Original modeling approaches were not used. Rather, the CMAQ committee desired as broad a sampling of findings from existing experience as possible, with emphasis on measured empirical results as opposed to synthetic results derived through forecasts. Estimates of cost or emission reductions associated with CMAQ funding applications were avoided, by direction of the committee, since these data were earlier found to be variable in
OCR for page 280
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
quality and supporting analysis. Also, the purpose of the review was to obtain an objective assessment of CMAQ effectiveness independent of the program.
Various mathematical procedures were used to process and adjust information from the sources that were selected. However, these procedures were strictly for the purpose of filling in blanks (where such an estimate could be reliably made from other information supplied), placing costs and benefits on a common lifetime basis, or updating emissions or costs to current/common levels. As will be discussed later, however, even with some flexibility to control for missing information, the majority of the original source studies reviewed were rejected for critical weaknesses of one type or another.
Once a candidate example was identified in the research phase, the information on that case was transcribed into an individual project “profile.” Physically, this profile took the form of a one-page template (computer spreadsheet), which was designed to compile all critical facts related to the example in one place to facilitate subsequent review, screening on particular criteria, and ultimately acceptance or rejection from the analysis. As illustrated in Figure E-1, information recorded in the profile included the following (the file of these individual profiles is too voluminous to include with this paper):
Source information: title, author, and date of the study;
Description of critical characteristics and scope (corridor, site, areawide);
Impacts on travel: change in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), transit trips, and congestion (speed and delay);
Emission reductions: change in emissions of HC [including volatile organic compounds (VOC) and reactive organic gases (ROG)], NOx, CO, and PM10, measured in tons per day; and
Costs and cost-effectiveness: capital (annualized) and operating costs, from CMAQ and non-CMAQ sources (where known), as well as direct private costs.
The profiles were designed to record critical supporting information concerning the methodologies employed in any of the steps (travel, emissions, costs), critical assumptions, time frames, service
OCR for page 281
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
FIGURE E-1 Sample CMAQ project profile summary sheet.
lives, discount rates, and the like. Comments were also entered to document the general quality of the study as appraised by the reviewer, for use in later evaluation and selection of cases.
Profiled examples that were found of sufficient quality to be included in the analysis were posted to a summary table, which
OCR for page 282
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
displayed key summary information on travel, emissions, and costs for each strategy. A separate table was prepared for each category and subcategory to permit comparison among similar strategies (sharing the same table) and to facilitate computation of “group” statistics (range, median) for comparison with other strategy groups. An example of a summary table is provided in Figure E-2, and the complete set of tables used to support the analysis in the body of the paper is provided in the annex.
Literature Review
As earlier stated, the general approach used to prepare estimates of the impact of CMAQ (and related “control”) strategies was through a literature review and synthesis. More than 80 source documents were consulted for potentially usable information on travel and air quality effects of the identified strategies. The following characterizes the range of sources consulted for the review:
State and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) studies of transportation control measures for air quality attainment and state implementation plans (SIPs);
Modeling and simulation studies where major travel changes and air quality effects were key study parameters;
Guidance and procedure manuals developed by the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and various National Cooperative Highway Research Program projects or special studies;
Formal evaluation studies of actual CMAQ transportation demand management (TDM) and other innovative project implementations;
Transportation and air quality model guides and applications test results;
Synthesis documents on transportation and air quality impacts;
A wide variety of published research papers and reports by individuals or university research departments; and
More fundamental research documents or guides on travel behavior changes.
The following particular qualities and minimum requirements were desired in searching for the most useful sources:
OCR for page 283
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
FIGURE E-2 Sample strategy summary table.
OCR for page 284
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Time frame: In general, the sources reviewed for this study and the most likely to be selected were among the most recently prepared. The chief reason for this was that emission impacts are quite particular to the time in which they were estimated. In the early 1990s, following passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, much of the focus in SIP attainment plans was on achieving VOC and CO reductions. As a result, most of the emphasis in studies of that period was on VOC and CO reduction, which was reflected in the types of strategies emphasized, types of analytic technique used, and types of emissions reported on. NOx (as well as PM) was almost always absent from studies of this era. Maybe as important, steady and significant improvement of fuels and technology through this period, coupled with turnover in the light-duty vehicle fleet, resulted in major reductions in VOC and CO production. Changes in emission rates reflecting this transformation of the fleet mean that relationships between travel changes and emission impacts would be quite different if taken from a study done in the early 1990s as opposed to one done today.
Type of analysis: In general, the preferred source of impact information would be from an empirical assessment (i.e., where a project had been implemented and its before-and-after effects carefully documented). Not surprisingly, these types of studies were not plentiful, and an even smaller percentage had provided all of the relevant information needed to prepare a cost-effectiveness assessment. Modeling studies, in which impacts were forecast with the aid of analytic tools, were generally less preferable because of their whole or partial reliance on simulation versus actual events. However, for certain types of applications, particularly corridor- or system-level actions that would have complex impacts on network travel and speeds, model approaches were deemed acceptable and even necessary to determine what particular strategies would accomplish.
Diversity: An effort was made to uncover information on all types of strategies and to represent as many types of settings and locations as possible. This may have resulted in being more lenient with the selection criteria for certain studies, given their uniqueness, and more stringent with others, given that they were heavily studied.
OCR for page 285
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
CMAQ files not to be used: A clear working rule issued by the CMAQ committee was that project examples should not be taken from the CMAQ project application files at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). An earlier independent review (Cohen 2000, included as Appendix C), determined that the documentation to support the impacts for many of these project submissions was too limited to support an acceptable evaluation of the project. For purposes of this review, an independent assessment of CMAQ project effectiveness was expected, without drawing on these internal results, potentially biasing the findings.
For these and other reasons, only a modest number of the reviewed studies were ultimately found to be usable as sources. Recurring problems that caused many of the studies to be rejected were as follows:
Inappropriate study content: Many of the researched studies were not helpful in providing data on strategy impacts. These studies may have been informative on some particular aspect of the given strategy, such as how to determine its impacts, but provided no directly usable information for the assessment.
Missing emission information: Information was sought on VOCs (hydrocarbons), NOx, CO, and PM. A minimum requirement was for VOC and NOx information, given the continued struggles of many areas to attain or maintain ozone standards. In this regard, and for its contribution to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), NOx emissions were seen as critical. If NOx estimates were not provided, it was essential that sufficient supporting data be provided to allow their calculation, in which case the study might be retained.
Indefensible analysis: Very few studies were ultimately rejected for this criterion, since generally there would have been other failings (missing data) that would have rendered the study unusable. In fact, the review was generally liberal in accepting methodology unless there were clearly missing steps or insupportable logic, since this helped capture the range of estimates and perceptions being applied in the field.
Dated emission information: Studies in which the underlying analysis was acceptable but whose emissions were from a different
OCR for page 409
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Cost-Effectiveness
PM10
Total
Emission “Year”
Life (years)
Benefits Trend
Discount Rate (%)
BDF
Annual Benefits (tons/year)
Annual Costs (2000 $)
Cost/Ton (2000 $)
0
0.012
0.495
1997
12
Constant
5
0.776
96.1
652,245
6,788
0.0003
1997–2001
5
Constant
5
0.909
0.1
8,771
126,396
0.004
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
0.8
175,376
212,267
0.116
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
22.5
1,107,009
49,121
0.131
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
25.5
837,400
32,842
0.118
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
23.0
153,888
6,701
0.059
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
11.5
82,106
7,150
0.004
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
0.8
338,145
443,233
0.015
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
2.8
1,603,548
568,676
0.002
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
0.4
219,051
508,045
0.0005
1997–2001
12
Constant
5
0.776
0.1
51,552
518,499
0.012
0.086
16.7
475,372
225,429
0.012
0.015
2.8
219,051
126,396
OCR for page 410
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE E-ANNEX-14A CMAQ Project Impacts Evaluation: Project Category, Conventional Fuels; Subcategory, Replacement Buses
Source
Description
Daily Travel Impacts
Emission Reductions (tons per day)
VTR
VMTR
Transit Riders
Delay Red. (hr)
Speed Imp. (mph)
HC
NOx
CO
Emission Weights:
1
4
0
CARB (1999)
Replace pre-1991 with post-1996 buses; urban use, 15 mph, 4 g/b-hp NOx std.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
0.0008
CARB (1999)
Replace pre-1991 with post-1996 buses; urban use, 15 mph, 2 g/b-hp NOx std.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
0.002
CARB (1999)
Replace pre-1991 with post-1996 buses; commuter use, 45 mph, 4 g/b-hp NOx std.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
0.002
MDOT (2000)
Replace pre-1991 with post-1996 buses; commuter use, 45 mph, 2 g/b-hp NOx std.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
0.003
Schimek (2000)
Replace pre-1991 with post-1996 buses
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
0.003
Replace pre-1991 with post-1996 buses
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
0.0021
NA
Median
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
0.0022
NA
Travel term definitions: VTR = vehicle trip reduction; VMTR = vehicle miles of travel reduced; transit riders = increase in daily transit ridership.
Emission term definitions: total emissions = weighted sum of HC, NOx, CO, and PM10; emission weights = importance weights representing value of individual pollutants; emission year = time period for which source study estimate applies; benefits trend indicates whether emissions are decreasing, increasing, or constant over project life.
Cost-effectiveness definitions: BDF = benefits discount factor (combination of benefits trend and discount rate); annual benefits = weighted emissions * days/year * BDF; annual costs = annualized capital costs plus applicable operating, administrative, and private costs.
OCR for page 411
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Cost-Effectiveness
PM10
Total
Emission “Year”
Life (years)
Benefits Trend
Discount Rate (%)
BDF
Annual Benefits (tons/year)
Annual Costs (2000 $)
Cost/Ton (2000 $)
0
0.0001
0.0034
2000
12
Constant
5
0.776
0.7
27,500
39,924
0.0001
0.0088
2000
12
Constant
5
0.776
1.7
27,500
16,083
0.0001
0.0064
2000
12
Constant
5
0.776
1.2
27,500
22,239
0.0001
0.0103
2000
12
Constant
5
0.776
2.0
27,500
13,824
0.0129
2000
12
Constant
5
0.776
2.5
27,500
10,952
NA
NA
2000
12
Constant
5
0.776
NA
NA
388
0.0001
0.0084
1.6
27,500
17,235
0.0001
0.0088
1.7
27,500
14,953
OCR for page 412
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE E-ANNEX-14B CMAQ Project Impacts Evaluation: Project Category, Alternative Fuels; Subcategory, Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (Nontransit) and Refueling Facilities
Source
Description
Daily Travel Impacts
Emission Reductions (tons per day)
VTR
VMTR
Transit Riders
Delay Red. (hr)
Speed Imp. (mph)
HC
NOx
CO
Emission Weights:
1
4
0
Hagler Bailly (1999)
Fairfax County, VA, alternative fuel vehicles
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002
0.0045
Hagler Bailly (1999)
Douglas County, GA, alternative fuels refueling station
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.011
0.0080
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.006
NA
Median
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.007
0.006
NA
Travel term definitions: VTR = vehicle trip reduction; VMTR = vehicle miles of travel reduced; transit riders = increase in daily transit ridership.
Emission term definitions: total emissions = weighted sum of HC, NOx, CO, and PM10; emission weights = importance weights representing value of individual pollutants; emission year = time period for which source study estimate applies; benefits trend indicates whether emissions are decreasing, increasing, or constant over project life.
Cost-effectiveness definitions: BDF = benefits discount factor (combination of benefits trend and discount rate); annual benefits = weighted emissions * days/year * BDF; annual costs = annualized capital costs plus applicable operating, administrative, and private costs.
OCR for page 413
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Cost-Effectiveness
PM10
Total
Emission “Year”
Life (years)
Benefits Trend
Discount Rate (%)
BDF
Annual Benefits (tons/year)
Annual Costs (2000 $)
Cost/Ton (2000 $)
0
0.020
2000
5
Constant
7
0.877
4.4
138,391
31,560
0.043
2005
20
Constant
7
0.567
6.1
24,164
3,964
NA
0.032
5.24
17,762
NA
0.032
5.24
17,762
OCR for page 414
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE E-ANNEX-15 CMAQ Project Impacts Evaluation: Project Category, Inspection and Maintenance
Source
Description
Daily Travel Impacts
Emission Reductions (tons per day)
VTR
VMTR
Transit Riders
Delay Red. (hr)
Speed Imp. (mph)
HC
NOx
CO
Emission Weights:
1
4
0
Lachance and Mierzejewski (1998)
Standard annual idle test (Florida)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.72
0.82
Lachance and Mierzejewski (1998)
Biennial idle test (Florida)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.78
0.66
Lachance and Mierzejewski (1998)
Biennial IM240 test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.56
5.99
Lachance and Mierzejewski (1998)
Biennial IM240 test with pressure test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.98
5.99
Lachance and Mierzejewski (1998)
Biennial accelerated simulation mode with pressure test
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.71
4.20
Mean
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.55
3.53
NA
Median
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.56
4.20
NA
Travel term definitions: VTR = vehicle trip reduction; VMTR = vehicle miles of travel reduced; transit riders = increase in daily transit ridership.
Emission term definitions: total emissions = weighted sum of HC, NOx, CO, and PM10; emission weights = importance weights representing value of individual pollutants; emission year = time period for which source study estimate applies; benefits trend indicates whether emissions are decreasing, increasing, or constant over project life.
Cost-effectiveness definitions: BDF = benefits discount factor (combination of benefits trend and discount rate); annual benefits = weighted emissions * days/year * BDF; annual costs = annualized capital costs plus applicable operating, administrative, and private costs.
OCR for page 415
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Cost-Effectiveness
PM10
Total
Emission “Year”
Life (years)
Benefits Trend
Discount Rate (%)
BDF
Annual Benefits (tons/year)
Annual Costs (2000 $)
Cost/Ton (2000 $)
0
7.99
1994
1
Constant
NA
1.000
1,996.8
14,119,920
7,071
6.40
1994
1
Constant
NA
1.000
1,599.5
9,302,040
5,816
31.53
1994
1
Constant
NA
1.000
7,881.8
15,202,080
1,929
35.94
1994
1
Constant
NA
1.000
8,985.8
16,237,800
1,807
26.49
1994
1
Constant
NA
1.000
6,621.8
12,113,280
1,829
NA
21.67
5,417.1
13,395,024
3,690
NA
26.49
6,621.8
14,119,920
1,929
OCR for page 416
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE E-ANNEX-16 CMAQ Project Impacts Evaluation: Project Category, Pricing; Subcategory, Subsidies and Discounts
Source
Description
Daily Travel Impacts
Emission Reductions (tons per day)
VTR
VMTR
Transit Riders
Delay Red. (hr)
Speed Imp. (mph)
HC
NOx
CO
Emission Weights:
1
4
0
MWCOG (1995)
Compatible regional fare media with discount
45,900
597,500
57,800
NA
NA
0.614
0.775
MWCOG (1995)
Single price transit service
129,700
2,144,700
175,200
NA
NA
1.992
2.668
MWCOG (1995)
Half-price feeder bus fares
41,600
453,200
53,900
NA
NA
0.503
0.603
Pansing et al.(1998)
Route 14 vanpool subsidy
418
22,992
NA
NA
NA
0.016
0.027
Pansing et al. (1998)
12th District subsidy
163
6,537
NA
NA
NA
0.005
0.008
Pansing et al. (1998)
Broadway Plaza
254
5,171
NA
NA
NA
0.0045
0.0064
Pansing et al. (1998)
12th District taxi voucher
77
1,459
NA
NA
NA
0.0013
0.0018
Pansing et al. (1998)
Burbank flat fare taxi
25
76
NA
NA
NA
0.0002
0.0001
MWCOG (1995)
Free workplace parking for carpools and vanpools
3,700
108,600
(21,700)
NA
NA
0.086
0.130
MWCOG (1995)
Regional voucher program
172,800
2,388,800
99,200
NA
NA
2.39
3.07
MWCOG (1995)
Mandatory employer cashout for transit/HOV
555,300
7,166,500
(138,200)
NA
NA
7.39
9.30
MWCOG (1995)
Mandatory employer cashout for transit only
312,600
3,963,300
340,600
NA
NA
4.12
5.16
DVRPC (1994)
20% systemwide fare reductions
8,275
144,016
9,696
NA
NA
0.196
0.262
1.08
DVRPC (1994)
Promotion of $25 Transitcheck
12,348
84,972
7,467
NA
NA
0.119
0.141
0.699
Mean
91,654
1,220,559
64,885
NA
NA
1.245
1.583
0.888
Median
10,312
126,308
53,900
NA
NA
0.158
0.202
0.888
Travel term definitions: VTR = vehicle trip reduction; VMTR = vehicle miles of travel reduced; transit riders = increase in daily transit ridership.
Emission term definitions: total emissions = weighted sum of HC, NOx, CO, and PM10; emission weights = importance weights representing value of individual pollutants; emission year = time period for which source study estimate applies; benefits trend indicates whether emissions are decreasing, increasing, or constant over project life.
OCR for page 417
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Cost-Effectiveness
PM10
Total
Emission “Year”
Life (years)
Benefits Trend
Discount Rate (%)
BDF
Annual Benefits (tons/year)
Annual Costs (2000 $)
Cost/Ton (2000 $)
0
0.296
3.71
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
928.2
5,293,200
5,702
1.048
12.67
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
3,166.5
19,007,400
6,003
0.225
2.91
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
728.7
4,863,128
6,674
0.011
0.123
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
30.8
25,829
838
0.003
0.036
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
8.9
40,285
4,513
0.0026
0.030
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
7.5
488,311
65,002
0.0007
0.009
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
2.1
139,767
65,347
0.0000
0.0008
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
0.2
89,376
471,012
0.054
0.607
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
151.8
36,210,300
238,500
1.18
14.69
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
3,672.3
400,495,061
109,059
3.55
44.60
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
11,150.8
1,459,960,800
130,929
1.96
24.75
1997–2001
1
NA
NA
1.000
6,186.7
333,229,797
53,862
1.25
1996
1
NA
NA
1.000
311.4
12,269,807
39,408
0.683
1996
1
NA
NA
1.000
170.8
4,991,535
29,233
0.695
7.576
1,894.0
162,650,328
87,577
0.139
0.964
241.1
5,142,368
46,635
Cost-effectiveness definitions: BDF = benefits discount factor (combination of benefits trend and discount rate); annual benefits = weighted emissions * days/year * BDF; annual costs = annualized capital costs plus applicable operating, administrative, and private costs.
OCR for page 418
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
TABLE E-ANNEX-17 CMAQ Project Impacts Evaluation: Project Category, Pricing; Subcategory, Fees and Charges
Source
Description
Daily Travel Impacts
Emission Reductions (tons per day)
VTR
VMTR
Transit Riders
Delay Red. (hr)
Speed Imp. (mph)
HC
NOx
CO
Emission Weights:
1
4
0
MWCOG (1995)
$0.10/mile LOV congestion pricing
18,400
108,600
6,300
NA
NA
0.167
0.164
MWCOG (1995)
$500 annual pollution fee on gas-powered vehicles
56,200
1,027,700
37,200
NA
NA
0.931
1.281
MWCOG (1995)
Employee parking tax outside metro core
154,500
2,063,100
79,000
NA
NA
2.097
2.666
MWCOG (1995)
Employee parking tax in metro core
147,100
1,954,500
120,500
NA
NA
1.991
2.528
MWCOG (1995)
$0.05/mile vehicle mileage tax after first 10,000 miles
13,600
266,500
11,400
NA
NA
0.248
0.353
Pansing et al. (1998)
Glendale parking management
566
24,228
NA
NA
NA
0.018
0.028
Mean
65,061
907,438
50,880
NA
NA
0.908
1.170
NA
Median
37,300
647,100
37,200
NA
NA
0.589
0.817
NA
Travel term definitions: VTR = vehicle trip reduction; VMTR = vehicle miles of travel reduced; transit riders = increase in daily transit ridership.
Emission term definitions: total emissions = weighted sum of HC, NOx, CO, and PM10; emission weights = importance weights representing value of individual pollutants; emission year = time period for which source study estimate applies; benefits trend indicates whether emissions are decreasing, increasing, or constant over project life.
Cost-effectiveness definitions: BDF = benefits discount factor (combination of benefits trend and discount rate); annual benefits = weighted emissions * days/year * BDF; annual costs = annualized capital costs plus applicable operating, administrative, and private costs.
OCR for page 419
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 Years of Experience - Special Report 264
Cost-Effectiveness
PM10
Total
Emission “Year”
Life (years)
Benefits Trend
Discount Rate (%)
BDF
Annual Benefits (tons/year)
Annual Costs (2000 $)
Cost/Ton (2000 $)
0
0.054
0.821
NA
1
Constant
NA
1.000
205.2
5,293,200
25,798
0.482
6.06
NA
1
Constant
NA
1.000
1,514.0
1,203,000
795
1.026
12.76
NA
1
Constant
NA
1.000
3,190.7
157,568,940
49,385
0.969
12.10
NA
1
Constant
NA
1.000
3,025.4
44,847,840
14,824
0.142
1.66
NA
1
Constant
NA
1.000
414.5
2,406,000
5,804
0.012
0.132
NA
1
Constant
NA
1.000
32.9
105,963
3,217
0.447
5.59
1,397.1
35,237,491
16,637
0.312
3.86
964.3
3,849,600
10,314
Representative terms from entire chapter:
traffic flow