Click for next page ( 17


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 16
The travel time savings for transit riders is a key tion Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emis- factor driving the net benefits of a BRT lane conver- sions, prepared for Urban Land Institute, Washington, sion project. When new BRT service improves tran- D.C. Available at: http://www.movingcooler.info/ sit travel time by 40% or more, converting a lane for Library/Documents/Moving%20Cooler_Appendices_ Complete_102209.pdf. Accessed on July 28, 2010. BRT is likely to product positive net benefits under Federal Highway Administration (1997). Federal High- a range of throughput values. Conversely, if BRT way Cost Allocation Study, Tables V-22, V-23, and improves transit travel time by 20% or less, a proj- V-24. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ ect is unlikely to result in positive net benefits. hcas/final/index.htm. Accessed on July 28, 2010. The length of the corridor does not make a sig- Federal Highway Administration (2003). Economic Analy- nificant difference to the resulting cost/benefit ratio. sis Primer. Federal Highways Administration Office In the hypothetical example considered in this study, of Asset Management, U.S. Department of Trans- a relatively high person throughput of 40,000 per portation. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ day is likely to result in positive net benefits, regard- infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer.cfm. Accessed on less of corridor length. July 28, 2010. It should be noted that some benefits of a BRT Federal Transit Administration (2009). Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making. Avail- project were not incorporated into this analysis able at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/assistance/technology/ because they are difficult to quantify. These include research_4285.html. Accessed on July 28, 2010. indirect positive impacts on land and economic National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2009). development and savings associated with use and Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2012-MY supply of parking for auto drivers. If these types of 2016, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Preliminary benefits were included, more of the scenarios analyzed Regulatory Impact Analysis, Appendix D. in this study would produce a favorable cost/benefit Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (2009). Trans- ratio. portation Planning Handbook, 3rd Edition. Institute While cost/benefit analysis is a useful tool for of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. public investment decisions, this study also highlights Office of Management and Budget (2003). Circular A-4, "Regulatory Analysis," September 17, 2003, 33. some of its shortcomings. The fact that the results Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ are so sensitive to multiple input variables makes it circulars/a004/a-4.pdf. Accessed on July 28, 2010. challenging to draw conclusions about which types San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) of projects are the best public investments. Although (2007). Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) the research conducted a sensitivity analysis for a Study. number of these input variables, there are many more Transportation Research Board (2000). Special Report variables that were not tested. Some of these other 209: Highway Capacity Manual., National Research variables could significantly change the results if Council. Washington, DC. they differ from our assumptions. Thus, it is impor- ECONorthwest and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & tant to recognize cost/benefit analysis as just one Douglas Inc., (2002). TCRP Report 78: Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects: A tool to use in transportation decision making, to be Guidebook for Practitioners. Transportation Research complemented with other analyses and decision- Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C. making criteria. Available at:http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/ tcrp78/guidebook/tcrp78.pdf. REFERENCES Transportation Research Board (2003). Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. TCRP Report 90, Vol- American Automobile Association (2009). Your Driving ume 1, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Costs, 2009 Edition. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ APTA (2007). Adult single trip bus fares, American pub- tcrp/tcrp_rpt_90v1.pdf. lic Transport Association (Table 9). Available at: Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Herbert S. Levinson Trans- http://www.apta.com/resources/aboutpt/Documents/ portation Consultants, and DMJM+Harris (2007). 07report_iiia_table9_adult_single_trip_base_fares. TCRP Report 18: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's pdf. Accessed on July 28, 2010. Guide. Transportation Research Board of the National Cambridge Systematics, Inc., (2009), Technical Appen- Academies. Washington, D.C. Available at: http:// dices to Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transporta- onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_118.pdf. 16