Click for next page ( 18


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 17
Transportation Research Board (2005). Traveler Response puts from a network travel demand model; e.g., to Transportation System Changes. TCRP Report 95. HERS (national) and HERS-ST (state version), Washington DC. 2005, p. 9-5. NET_BC, StratBENCOST, and STEAM. For U.S. Government Accountability Office (2005). Highway our purpose, a framework that leads to the and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Infor- development of a sketch planning model is mation on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increas- preferable since such models are more user- ing Accountability of Results. GAO Report 05-172. friendly, adaptable across agencies, and can U.S. Department of Transportation (2003). Revision to be easily updated. 1997 Memorandum titled "Departmental Guidance for the Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis." Most existing models do not allow considera- Available at: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/ tion of both transit and highway modes; the VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf. subset of models that can thus be used for ana- lyzing conversion of a highway lane a BRT lanes is thus very small. STEAM, Cal-B/C, APPENDIX A: REVIEW OF RELEVANT SPASM, and IMPACTS are the four models COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODELS that allow this. Of these, the latter three are the more easily usable spreadsheet-based models The research team reviewed 11 models that are that can inform the development of a frame- used by agencies to conduct cost/benefit analyses for work. Cal-B/C is the most recent of these, transportation projects. although it is only applicable for California. 1. California Life-Cycle Cost/benefit Analysis Many of the models use economic values Model (Cal-B/C) from very old data sources that have not been 2. Highway Economic Requirements System updated. Considering that about 6080% of for State Use (HERS-ST) user benefits are due to travel time savings, 3. Transit Economic Requirements Model the most recent data sources and methodolo- (TERM) gies for calculating value of time parameters must be used. Cal B/C is the most recent model 4. Florida Interstate Highway System: Multi- in the list; however the parameters used are Modal Corridor Level of Service Analysis specific to California. (MMCLOS) Several existing models use default param- 5. StratBENCOST: Strategic Decision Support eters from old sources, and user editing of Tool for Highway Planning and Budgeting parameters is often not available; if it is, it is 6. MicroBENCOST difficult or not recommended because of com- 7. STEAM: Surface Transportation Efficiency plex relationships embedded in the model as Analysis Model a black box. Spreadsheet-based sketch plan- 8. SPASM: Sketch Planning Analysis Spread- ning models are more transparent and flexi- sheet Model ble because the user can enter all the input 9. NET_BC parameters; however, they can be limited in 10. BCA.Net cases where detailed analysis is required and 11. IMPACTS where impacts of improvements on one facil- ity or on other parallel or surrounding facili- Summary ties must be assessed. Benefit and cost categories are mostly com- Models either fall in the category of sketch- mon across models. Benefits typically include planning models or network-based models. direct user benefits in the form of travel time Sketch-planning models are typically used savings, accident cost savings (safety benefits), to analyze a single corridor without consid- and vehicle operating cost savings; social ben- ering impacts beyond the immediate project efits include emissions and energy savings; area; e.g., Cal B/C, SPASM and IMPACTS. costs include capital, O&M costs to the agency Network-based models evaluate benefits and constructing the project. However, since several costs for the entire highway network, using out- of the models do not consider multiple modes 17

OCR for page 17
simultaneously, additional benefit and cost cat- Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters egories may need to be considered for the spe- Rather than cross-sectional data for one year cific case of lane conversion to BRT, where only, the model allows cost inputs for each new users of the BRT are involved. year, based on analyses done by agencies using their own discount rates. 1. California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis The model can analyze benefits and costs even Model (Cal-B/C) if the user does not have access to a regional travel demand model, as long as project-specific Model Purpose data are available. Economic evaluation of prospective highway Excel worksheet with all inputs and param- and transit improvement projects within the State eters visible to the user; therefore not a "black of California. The model can handle specific high- box" model. way projects such as HOV lane construction and new intersections and is capable of handling multi- Limitations ple modes, including transit. Only applicable to California, with use of state- wide parameters. Data Requirements No consideration of transit user costs. For highway projects, data required are highway Fixed real discount rate of 6%. Model should design and traffic data including the number of gen- allow user to do a sensitivity analysis using dif- eral purpose and HOV lanes, estimated speed, length ferent rates. Similarly, vehicle operating costs of highway segment, average daily traffic, and acci- calculated in terms of fuel costs and non-fuel dent data for facility. For transit projects, data required costs for autos and trucks are fixed values from are annual person trips, average travel time, annual the year 2004. Fixed values of time for auto, truck and transit passenger miles, percent trips occurring during peak periods, transit accident reduction, and the percent passengers from 2004. Emissions factors used are from 2004. of trips occurring on a parallel highway GDP deflator used to convert 2004 values to the year of analysis. Format and Year Accident cost data is from the year 2000. Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format; 2004 2. Highway Economic Requirements System Timeframe of Evaluation for State Use (HERS-ST) 20-year project life cycle Model Purpose Relevance to Project Objective The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the state-level HERS-ST model as a direct Many input requirements related to new pave- extension of the national-level HERS model. The ment construction can be reduced for the case model applies BCA to section-level highway data of converting an existing lane for transit. to predict the investment required to achieve certain Highway or transit components are separate, highway system performance levels. HERS-ST con- and it is not clear if both can be evaluated as siders capital improvements directed at correcting part of a single project. pavement, geometric, or capacity deficiencies. Cost and Benefit Categories Considered Data Requirements Benefits: Travel time savings, vehicle operating The agency must input highway capacity and cost savings, safety benefits (accident cost savings), traffic count records in the Highway Performance and emissions reductions (CO, NOx, PM10 and VOC). Monitoring System format at the state level. For each Costs: Project-specific construction, operations highway section, the model predicts future condition and maintenance, and mitigation costs to the agency, and capacity deficiencies based on section-specific entered for each year. information. 18

OCR for page 17
Format and Year Asset data including useful life, condition, current age of the asset, and investments in transit enhancements Microsoft Windows based application with built- must be input by each agency. in graphical mapping ability; 2000 Format and Year Timeframe of Evaluation Unknown; 2004 Single year; cross-sectional Timeframe of Evaluation Relevance to Project Objective 20-year period Not relevant because model provides a system- wide perspective of transportation improve- Relevance to Project Objective ments across the state; however, some back- ground relationships for user costs may be Not relevant because model primarily evaluates useful. transit investments, not combined transit and No capability to analyze transit investments highway investments as the project requires. Cost and Benefit Categories Considered Cost and Benefit Categories Considered Travel time, safety, vehicle operating, emissions, Transportation system user benefits including and highway agency costs travel time savings, reduced highway congestion, reduced automobile costs (fuel, insurance, mainte- Limitations nance, depreciation, and parking), and taxi expenses; social benefits including reduced air and noise emis- No local economic inputs accepted; state level sions, roadway wear, and transportation system highway inputs only administration; and transit agency benefits including reductions in operating and maintenance costs. 3. Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) Limitations Model Purpose No inclusion of transit supply and demand elas- ticities that translate transit service improve- TERM provides estimates of the total annual ments into changes in transit ridership capital expenditures required in all urbanized areas No linkage with the HERS model and no by federal, State, and local governments to maintain cross-elasticities to estimate the effects of or improve the physical condition of transit systems highway investments on transit ridership. and the level of service they provide. TERM also determines the allocation of projected investment among transit asset categories over a 20-year period 4. Florida Interstate Highway System: and the sensitivity of the investment projections to Multi-Modal Corridor Level of Service variations in the rate of future growth in the demand Analysis (MMCLOS) for transit services. The model also generates esti- Model Purpose mates of current transit conditions and evaluates the impact of varying levels and types of investment The Multimodal Corridor Level of Service on future conditions and performance. Cost/Benefit (MMCLOS) methodology was developed to enable analysis is one of four modules in the TERM model. FDOT planners to evaluate the impacts of projects and project alternatives on the quality of service per- ceived by users of all modes of travel in the corri- Data Requirements dor. The methodology was developed to provide the The model uses data on transit fleet, track mileage, Department with a transportation corridor level of number of stations, and number of maintenance facil- service analysis technique from a multimodal per- ities from the 2002 National Transit Database and spective that would reflect the automobile, bicycle, from surveys by the Federal Transit Administration. pedestrian, truck and transit modes in sufficient detail 19

OCR for page 17
to allow the development of multimodal level of ser- to facilitate strategic planning; the objective is to vice (LOS) estimates. allow planners to select the most promising projects for more detailed analysis. The model is designed to Data Requirements support multi-year planning and budgeting. Default Data on corridor length, location, availability values for a number of variables are provided in the of auto and transit facilities, lanes, speeds, average model so that a user needs minimal data for prelim- annual daily traffic, and number of crossings must inary analysis of a set of projects. StratBENCOST be provided by the analyst/agency. uses the results of NCHRP Project 02-18 to provide a probability range for most of the economic and Format and Year physical variables used in the analysis. Not a model but a step by step methodology of Data Requirements corridor definition, computation of modal LOS, and reporting of the results; 2001. Inputs include roadway physical characteristics (number of lanes, pavement surface characteristics, Timeframe of Evaluation road grade, traffic capacity), operational character- istics (traffic volume and speed, traffic mix, peaking Single year; cross-sectional. characteristics), and project characteristics (construc- Relevance to Project Objective tion and right-of-way costs, maintenance costs, and project schedule). If available, the user may provide Not relevant because it is not a cost/benefit economic values such as values of time, accidents, analysis methodology; only estimates Level of emissions and vehicle operating costs; otherwise Service (LOS) for each mode. However, the model defaults can be used. methodology can provide guidance on how multiple modes are considered in performance Format and Year evaluation. Proprietary software; 1996. Cost and Benefit Categories Considered None specifically, though LOS may be consid- Timeframe of Evaluation ered an input to a cost/benefit analysis. Multi-year analysis using Net Present Values Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters Relevance to Project Objective Performs analysis at the corridor level. Not relevant because the model evaluates only Incorporates multimodal analysis into tradi- highway project alternatives and does not tional highway LOS analysis. consider transit investments; however it can provide guidance on sources for economic Limitations parameters and methodology No capability to estimate LOS separately for HOV lanes in the current version. Cost and Benefit Categories Considered LOS for non-auto modes currently unrelated to the volume or level of demand. Travel time savings; vehicle operating cost reduc- Draws inputs from existing models used at the tions; accident-cost reductions; and reduction in Florida Department of Transportation. emissions of HC, NOX, and CO (emissions reduc- tion benefits optional). 5. StratBENCOST: Strategic Decision Support Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters Tool for Highway Planning and Budgeting Performs analysis at the level of a single cor- Model Purpose ridor segment or a regional network; the latter StratBENCOST is designed for rapid prelimi- uses inputs from the regional travel demand nary analysis and comparison of a number of projects model. 20

OCR for page 17
Capability to do sensitivity analysis of model Cost and Benefit Categories Considered outcomes varying by user inputs such as aver- Benefits: Travel time savings, vehicle operating age annual daily traffic on facility. cost reductions, accident-cost reductions, and emis- sions reduction (optional). Limitations Costs: Total initial costs, salvage (residual) value Default economic values are from old data at the end of the evaluation period, rehabilitation and sources; they can be modified by the user if maintenance costs during the analysis period. data is available. Limitations Substantial data requirements. 6. MicroBENCOST No capability to analyze transit investments. Model Purpose Default coefficients are complex and the analy- sis is sensitive to these values; therefore user MicroBENCOST is a sister tool of StratBEN editing is not recommended. COST designed for in-depth economic analysis of Default economic values are from old data detailed project options to facilitate operational sources and have not been updated. planning as opposed to strategic planning as in StratBENCOST. It applies when specific design and engineering alternatives are at issue, rather than 7. STEAM: Surface Transportation the strategic position of schemes and projects in a Efficiency Analysis Model comprehensive, area-wide, and multiyear budget. Model Purpose MicroBENCOST is designed to analyze different types of highway improvement projects in a corridor. To facilitate detailed multimodal corridor and Benefits are calculated for existing and induced traf- system-wide analysis, in the 1990s the FHWA devel- oped the Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis fic, as well as for diverted traffic in the presence of Model (STEAM). STEAM uses information devel- a competing parallel route or when a bypass project oped through the travel demand modeling process to is evaluated. compute the net value of mobility and safety benefits attributable to regionally important transportation pro- Data Requirements jects. The current version of this model, STEAM 2.02, Inputs include roadway physical characteristics is able to report mobility and safety benefits by user- (number of lanes, pavement surface characteristics, defined districts and a new accessibility measure. road grade, traffic capacity), operational characteris- tics (traffic volume and speed, traffic mix, peaking Data Requirements characteristics), and project characteristics (construc- STEAM 2.0 post-processes the traffic assign- tion and right-of-way costs, maintenance costs, and ment volumes generated from conventional four- project schedule). More engineering and design detail step planning models. Detailed outputs from travel required than in StratBENCOST. demand models including in-vehicle travel time, out-of-vehicle travel time, fuel costs, non-fuel oper- Format and Year ating costs, out-of-pocket costs, and internal acci- dent costs are thus required as inputs into STEAM. Windows-based software; early 1990s Inputs include detailed regional network tables, trip tables, and travel time matrices for the Base Case Timeframe of Evaluation and the Improvement Case. Multi-year analysis using Net Present Values. Format and Year Relevance to Project Objective STEAM 2.0 free software package; 2000. Not relevant because the model evaluates only Timeframe of Evaluation highway project alternatives and does not con- sider transit investments. Single year; analysis of annual benefits and costs. 21

OCR for page 17
Relevance to Project Objective lengths, and occupancies for the Base Case and Improvement Case. Relevant because the model considers all modes and can evaluate packages of transporta- Format and Year tion actions for a corridor or a region, involv- ing transit and highway modes together. Microsoft Excel and LOTUS 123; 1998 Cost and Benefit Categories Considered Timeframe of Evaluation User benefits, emissions benefits, agency capital Single year; analysis of annual benefits and costs. costs. Relevance to Project Objective Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters Relevant because the model considers all Benefits reported in aggregate or by zones. modes and can evaluate packages of trans- Model includes risk analysis. portation actions involving transit and highway Model includes default input parameters that modes together. can be changed by the user if local values are Cost and Benefit Categories Considered available. Benefits: User benefits including travel time sav- Limitations ings, safety benefits and operating cost savings; exter- nal benefits including energy savings, emissions Extensive resources and data inputs required, savings, and public vehicle operating cost savings. programmed for input to STEAM. Costs: Costs to public agencies. Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters 8. SPASM: Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model Induced travel impacts are taken into account. All economic parameters and inputs are user- Model Purpose specified; therefore high level of transparency. SPASM focuses on sketch planning analysis for Model is customizable to any region/agency screening purposes, in situations where running travel because all inputs and parameters are user- demand models to get output for use in STEAM is defined. not possible or requires too much effort for the type Easy to use Excel spreadsheet-based format. of evaluation needed. It provides useful first cut estimates of annualized public capital and operat- Limitations ing costs, other costs, system user costs and bene- All agencies, specially small agencies may not fits, air quality and energy impacts, other external have the required knowledge and local data to costs, and cost-effectiveness measures. SPASM input all user-defined economic parameters. allows analysis of transportation actions at the sys- Relatively old model; therefore some relation- tem and corridor level, including highway capacity ships may need to be updated. improvements, transit improvements, HOV improve- SPASM cannot be used directly when detailed ments, auto use disincentives or packages combin- analysis is required because it makes several ing the above actions. simplifying assumptions. It is difficult to do a system-wide analysis with Data Requirements SPASM. User-specified inputs include unit costs and parameters for all modes analyzed, emission and 9. NET_BC: Network Benefit Cost energy consumption rates, agency costs, details Model Purpose about the project and facility including length, capac- ity, and speeds on all segments, and demand inputs NET_BC is a post-processor cost/benefit analysis including mode shares, user costs, travel times, trip model that analyzes the output from regional travel 22

OCR for page 17
demand models to generate monetary estimates of 10. BCA.Net travel time savings, changes in vehicle operating costs, and reductions in costs associated with acci- Model Purpose dents over the entire transportation network. BCA.Net is the Federal Highway Administra- tion's (FHWA) web-based cost/benefit analysis tool Data Requirements to support the highway project decision-making Requires inputs of network and trip tables and process. For a project evaluation, the user specifies travel time matrices resulting from customized runs strategies for highway improvements as part of sce- of the regional travel demand model for no-build narios and builds a Base Case and an Alternate Case base year, build base year, no-build forecast year, for evaluation. BCA.Net calculates the traffic impacts and build forecast year. and the present values of agency and user costs and benefits for each case and compares them to arrive at Format and Year measures including the net present value, cost/benefit ratio, and internal rate of return for the Alternate Case Coded in Visual Basic; year unknown. relative to the Base Case. Timeframe of Evaluation Data Requirements User-specified. BCA.Net takes as inputs the capital costs, phys- ical and performance characteristics, and forecast Relevance to Project Objective travel demand of the highway project in question. More suited for evaluating the entire system- Inputs include details about the type of facility, num- wide long range plan including groupings of ber of lanes, pavement conditions, speeds, crash rates improvement projects, rather than individual and average delays on facility, and details about strat- projects. egy features. Modes considered are autos and trucks, hence the model is not suitable for analyzing transit Format and Year modes. Web tool available from FHWA website; last Cost and Benefit Categories Considered updated in 2007. Benefits: User benefits including travel time sav- ings, vehicle operating cost savings, and accident cost Timeframe of Evaluation reductions. User-specified up to 35 years. Costs: Project development costs, operations and maintenance costs. Relevance to Project Objective Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters Not relevant because transit modes are not con- Fully integrated with TransCAD software, sidered; model is only applicable for highway allowing GIS analysis capability. improvements. Accepts user-specified assumptions for dis- count rate, construction assumptions, costs, Cost and Benefit Categories Considered mix of vehicle types, and analysis period. Time savings between build and no-build Travel time savings, vehicle operating cost sav- alternatives captured by time of day and trip ings, safety benefits, environmental benefits, project purpose. construction costs, and induced travel impacts. Includes risk analysis component. Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters Limitations Web tool that is available to users in the most No capability to analyze transit improvements. updated version for free. 23

OCR for page 17
Limitations Noteworthy Features and Usable Parameters No capability to analyze transit improvements. Transparent, easy-to use spreadsheet-based tool. All parameters are user-defined, therefore 11. IMPACTS the model has greater flexibility and can be Model Purpose updated easily with newer values. Model is customizable to any region/agency IMPACTS is a series of spreadsheets developed because all inputs and parameters are user- to help screening-level evaluation of multi-modal defined. corridor alternatives, including highway expansion, bus system expansion, light rail transit investment, Limitations HOV lanes, conversion of an existing highway facil- ity to a toll facility, employer-based travel demand All agencies, specially small agencies may not management, and bicycle lanes. The impacts esti- have the required knowledge and local data to mated include costs of implementation, induced input all user-defined economic parameters travel demand, benefits including trip time and out- Relatively old model; therefore some relation- of-pocket cost changes such as fares, parking fees ships may need to be updated and tolls, other highway user costs such as accident The model makes several simplifying assump- costs, revenue transfers due to tolls, fares or park- tions and uses aggregated average values; this ing fees, changes in fuel consumption and changes does not allow a detailed analysis in emissions. Sources Data Requirements Cal B/C The model requires as inputs travel demand esti- http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/benefit_cost/ mates by mode for each alternative, including travel models/index.html times, mode shares, occupancies, trip costs, trip http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/benefit.html lengths, and other information. HERS-ST Format and year http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Chapter_09(1).pdf http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/hers Microsoft Excel and LOTUS 123; 1999. fact.cfm Timeframe of Evaluation TERM http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/appc.htm User-specified. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/1999cpr/ap_i/cpxi_1.htm Relevance to Project Objective MMCLOS http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/ Relevant because the model considers all MMLOSfihs.pdf modes and can evaluate packages of trans- portation actions involving transit and high- StratBENCOST: way modes together. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/benefit_cost/ models/stratbencost.html Cost and Benefit Categories Considered http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_ 252.pdf Benefits: Direct user and mobility benefits, emis- sions savings, fuel consumption savings, and safety MicroBENCOST benefits. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/benefit_cost/ Costs: Annual costs to public agencies, includ- models/microbencost.html ing capital, operations and maintenance, and other http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/ costs. 459.2.pdf 24