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



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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 275
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