Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 3 Chapter 2 – Research Approach CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH APPROACH The research approach outlines the methodology for the life-cycle cost tool development, provides a summary of cost parameters used in the tool, and includes descriptions for the use cases that provided a framework for the scope of the tool. The methodology section outlines the tool’s approach to addressing varying lifespans of alternatives, varying spatial scopes, and new types of intersections. The costs information includes descriptions for the three types of costs outlined in the tool, which include agency costs, user costs and non-user costs. The use case descriptions provide an outline for seven different scenarios to which a user may apply the tool and summarizes the agency input that was received during the initial tool development. 2.1. METHODOLOGY The methodology developed for the LCCET is the basis for creating the tool, validating the tool’s effectiveness and providing the user with an understanding of how to apply the tool to specific projects. The intent is not to replace existing analytic tools; rather, the LCCET is an adjunct to existing software tools and programs. The LCCET uses a benefit-cost analysis approach and provides estimates of net present values of benefits and costs of intersection treatment alternatives. From these, a benefit-cost ratio is calculated. Within this approach, specific methods have been developed to address the following situations: • Addressing different lifespans. When comparing intersection design alternatives, each alternative may have a different useful life and analysis period. In addition, some intersection elements may be valuable beyond the analysis period or useful life. A methodology has been developed to address intersections with different lifespans by applying a net present value equation and discount rate, and by accounting for the salvage and terminal value of the intersection. • Addressing varying spatial scopes. The analysis of alternative designs when spatial scopes vary depends upon how the parts that comprise the project interact. The methodology for addressing alternatives with varying spatial scopes includes identifying the influence limits of an intersection, establishing a cordon line, and comparing the performance measures at or within the cordon boundary using a consistent analysis program. • Addressing new types of intersections. New intersection types are addressed with the same methodology as for alternatives with varying spatial scopes. The key elements of this process are to define the intersection influence limits and to compare the performance measures for each alternative with a common analysis method.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 4 2.1.1. ADDRESSING DIFFERENT LIFESPANS Comparison of design alternatives can be complicated by differences in the useful lives of intersection components. The life cycle over which the alternatives are evaluated can be defined as the time that an overall design or its components will be “structurally” adequate. For the purposes of this discussion, “structural” relates to the physical usefulness of the item in question before it deteriorates to the point of needing to be replaced. Examples of these include pavement life, bridge structure life, and electrical equipment life. Alternatively, lifespan can be defined based on functional adequacythat is, to a period beyond which the design will be obsolete to serve demands. This could apply to cases in which changes in land-use patterns or traffic volumes would make a design obsolete before the end of its structural life. The LCCET has the ability to compare and analyze intersection design alternatives that have different lifespans. In addition, components of an alternative may have lifespans longer or shorter than the overall useful life of the alternative. The benefit-cost analysis applies a discount rate to convert future benefits and costs into current values for direct comparison. Hence, benefit-cost analysis is readily scalable over different life cycles for different designs. The key is to properly account for the portions of useful lives of components of alternatives that extend beyond the end of the analysis period. An overview of this approach is outlined below; each element is described in more detail in the following sections. To address intersection alternatives with different life cycles: 1. Identify the intersection design alternatives and the useful lifespans of their components. The useful lifespan of a component ends when it becomes either physically or functionally obsolete. 2. Identify the analysis period, which may be an agency planning horizon or the useful lifespan of one or more alternatives. 3. Calculate the costs and benefits for each alternative in each year through the analysis period. Costs include initial capital and ongoing maintenance expenses, as well as replacement costs for components with useful lives less than the analysis period. Life-cycle benefits will also be calculated and monetized, and will account for factors such as collision reduction, time savings, pollution, and other distinguishing factors between alternatives. 4. For those components with remaining useful life at the end of the analysis period, estimate their terminal value or salvage value to incorporate benefits beyond the lifespan of the intersection. 5. Calculate the present value of costs and benefits. 6. Inform decision makers with a direct comparison of monetized benefits and costs among alternatives.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 5 Chapter 2 – Research Approach 2.1.1.1. Defining the Analysis Period The initial step in addressing intersection alternatives with different useful lives is identifying the analysis period over which costs and benefits will be quantified. The analysis period should ultimately be defined by the user and is treated as a variable to allow users to match their agency's planning horizon. However, the LCCET provides guidance on the advantages and disadvantages of longer and shorter analysis periods. Defining the analysis period could be as simple as using the agency’s usual planning horizon. Alternatively, the analysis period could be specified as the least-common multiple of the useful lives of the components of the alternative designs being considered. The functional life of an intersection ends when it no longer meets performance requirements, such as accommodating expected traffic volumes, meeting safety targets, or providing access for non-motorized modes. The analysis periods used in intersection life-cycle analyses may vary among agencies depending on their policies and processes for evaluating intersections and may vary among projects for a given agency, depending on the circumstances of the project. The LCCET provides guidance on best practices in a way that enables the user to make informed decisions based on the specific context of the intersection environment. To identify an appropriate analysis period for evaluating intersection alternatives, one of the primary considerations is the growth environment. In some environments the analysis period may be dictated by the capacity of the intersection for the modes under consideration. In other environments, the analysis period of the intersection may be solely dictated by the expected useful life of the intersection components. For example, in areas with moderate to high growth, a traditional 30-year analysis period may not be reasonable because any alternative would likely need major reconstruction due to insufficient capacity before the useful life of the intersection components had expired, and before 30 years has passed. In rural or built-out urban areas that experience very little or no growth, a longer life cycle such as 40 years may be reasonable. In these cases, it is the useful lives of the components of the intersection and the agency's planning horizon that become the most significant factors. While the user may have the ability to specify any analysis period, an analysis period of between 20 and 40 years is recommended, based on the environmental context of the intersection and the useful lives of components of the alternative designs. In cases in which the differences between intersection treatments do not involve different major physical assetsbut, rather, differences in policies that are implemented with low cost treatments (e.g., signs, pavement markings, or operational strategies)a shorter analysis period is usually appropriate, as policies can easily and inexpensively be changed. An analysis period of more than 40 years is not likely to add useful information from an economic perspective. Beyond 40 years, there is too much uncertainty about traffic conditions, available technologies, and relative costs. Discounting will greatly diminish whatever effects are estimated, meaning things that happen that far out will have little effect on the bottom line. On the other hand, a life

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 6 cycle of less than 20 years may make it difficult to accurately capture the effects of important life-cycle differences. When the analysis period is short, the accurate estimation of terminal or salvage values becomes critical. These concepts are described in more detail in the next section. An exception occurs when the functional life of the intersection is expected to end soon for reasons unrelated to the physical lifetimes of the intersection components. For example, an intersection might need to serve heavy traffic for 15 years until a freeway is extended, and then will be demolished. In that case, the analysis period would be through the end of the functional life and the terminal and salvage values would both be zero. 2.1.1.2. Calculating the Terminal Value and Salvage Value If the analysis period is shorter than the useful and functional lives of the intersections being evaluated, the unaccounted-for differences may be included in any one of three ways: • If no further expenditures will be required beyond the end of the analysis period, a terminal value equal to the present value of the stream of benefits from the end of the analysis period to the end of the intersection life may be added to the benefits accruing during the analysis period. • If the useful lives of some components of the intersections being evaluated extend beyond the end of the analysis period, but not beyond the life of the intersection, the portion of their cost not consumed as of the end of the analysis period may be captured as a negative cost, or salvage value, as of the end of the analysis period. In this type of analysis, salvage value is not what the asset might be sold for, but the value of the remaining useful life in its current use (as of the end of the analysis period). When salvage value is used, the stream of costs ends at the end of the analysis period, so benefits beyond the end of the analysis period are not included. • Alternatively, the costs of each intersection component or maintenance activity may be amortized (capital costs are converted to equal annual payments over the component lifespan) over their useful lives and only the amortized costs counted in each year of the analysis period. This is equivalent to using a salvage value, because the stream of costs ends at the end of the analysis period, so benefits beyond the end of the analysis period are not included. The examples at the end of this section demonstrate the application of these concepts in conjunction with discounting future costs and benefits to present value. 2.1.1.3. Calculating Net Present Value To compare the benefits and costs over time of intersection design alternatives, the future year benefits and costs need to be converted to current year values using an appropriate discount rate. To convert to current year values, the Net

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 7 Chapter 2 – Research Approach Present Value (NPV) Equations are applied, as shown in Equations 2-1 through 2-4. Equation 2-1: Net Present Value Equation NPV = PVB – PVC + PVS where NPV = net present value; PVB = present value of benefits; PVC = present value of costs; and PVS = present value of salvage at the end of the project lifetime. The present value of benefits, costs, and salvage at the end of the project lifetime is calculated as follows: Equation 2-2: Net Present Value of Benefits Equation ( )t t n mt B r BPV + = ∑ −= 1 Equation 2-3: Net Present Value of Costs Equation ( )t t n mt C r CPV + = ∑ −= 1 Equation 2-4: Net Present Value of Salvage Equation ( )n n S r SPV + = 1 where m = number of years before the opening of the project; Bt = the benefits in year t; Ct = the costs in year t; Sn = the salvage value at the end of the analysis period;

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 8 n= the end of the analysis period; and r= the discount rate being used. If a terminal value is used instead of a salvage value, the same formula is used to bring it to present value. The variable “r” represents the discount rate being used. As described in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) User and Non-User Benefit Analysis for Highways (Redbook)(1), “The purpose of the discount rate is to characterize the opportunity cost or time value of the invested funds or the lost benefits that would be associated with the project over time.” Risk and uncertainty associated with the project may be taken into account through this discount rate. The examples in the following section demonstrate the use of the discount rate. There are two different types of discount rates discussed below: nominal and real. The nominal rate includes the effect of inflation. Market rates are nominal rates. Real rates have been adjusted to remove the effect of inflation and are, therefore, lower than nominal rates. The use of a real discount rate allows the inclusion of future costs and benefits valued in today's dollars. If a nominal discount rate is used, all future costs and benefits must be adjusted to include expected future inflation. The AASHTO Redbook (1) provides guidance on selecting a discount rate that is appropriate for a particular analysis. Some funding sources will specify discount rates that must be used in analyses that are conducted to support application for those funds. For example, several Federal Highway Administration funding programs require the rates specified in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 (2). 2.1.1.4. Project Examples To demonstrate the principles outlined above, four project examples have been developed for comparing two simple intersection alternatives. The project examples compare the base case of an existing intersection (Alternative 0) with an alternative proposed case (Alternative 1). The following comparisons are demonstrated in the examples: 1. Comparing the costs of two simplified intersection treatments with salvage value. 2. Comparing the costs of two simplified intersection treatments with amortized costs. 3. Calculating the present value of benefits. 4. Comparing costs and benefits. For all of the examples, project assumptions have been identified, which include a real discount rate, analysis period, and specific dates required for analysis. The base year for the analysis and constructed year are assumed to be the same for the examples. The opening year for the proposed alternative intersection (Alternative 1) is assumed to be 1 year after the base year. The construction year for the existing base case (Alternative 0) was assumed to have occurred 12 years

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 9 Chapter 2 – Research Approach prior to the base year of analysis (i.e., the existing intersection was installed 12 years ago). Prior expenditures on the base case intersection are not included in the analysis because those are sunk costs and are not relevant to deciding whether to invest in the alternative proposed case. Table 2-1 provides an example scenario for comparing the costs of Alternative 0 Base Case intersection and Alternative 1 Proposed Case intersection with salvage value. Note that all values presented in this example and the others in this section are arbitrary and are intended solely to illustrate the calculation process. Table 2-1: Project Example #1 – Comparing the Cost with Salvage Value Real Discount Rate (r) 4% Opening Year 2015 Base Year 2014 Base Case Constructed 2002 Construction Year 2014 Analysis Period (n) 30 2.) Identify Intersection Components for Each Alternative Component Cost Useful Life Remaining Useful Life at End of Analysis Period Share of Useful Life Remaining (for salvage value) Component #1 $5,000 10 8 0.80 Component #2 $150,000 15 3 0.20 Component #3 $15,000 20 18 0.90 Component #4 $12,000 10 8 0.80 Component #5 $40,000 20 18 0.90 Component #6 $80,000 50 8 0.16 Component #1 $200,000 100 70 0.70 Component #2 $500,000 50 20 0.40 Component #3 $5,000 10 10 1.00 Component #4 $175,000 15 15 1.00 Component #5 $20,000 20 10 0.50 Salvage Value (Sn) = Sum of the (Costs x Share of Useful Life Remaining) Present Value of Salvage (PVs) = Alternative 0 - Base Case Alternative 1 - Proposed Case Salvage Value (Sn) -$105,900 Salvage Value (Sn) -$530,000 Present Value Salvage (PVs) -$32,650 Present Value Salvage (PVs) -$163,408 Project Example #1 - Intersection Comparison with Salvage Value Alternative 1 - Proposed Case Alternative 0 - Base Case 3.) Calculate the Salvage Value 1.) Idenfity Project Comparison Assumptions ( )n n S r SPV + = 1

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 10 Table 2-1: Continued: Project Example #1 – Comparing the Cost with Salvage Value As shown in Table 2-1, after the assumptions are outlined (Step 1), Step 2 in the process is to identify the intersection components and to estimate the useful life, remaining useful life at the end of the analysis period, and share of the useful life remaining that can be used for salvage value. The intersection components for this example were kept fairly simple: identifying the primary components that may be significant for Alternative 0 and Alternative 1. However, this step of the analysis may include additional detail, depending on the types of intersections being compared, the design of the intersections, and the equipment that may be used at the intersections. The useful life of the components and remaining useful life estimated are specific to the intersection and may vary for each project and within each agency. Net Present Value = Present Value of Cost (PVc) + Present Value of Salvage (PVs) Year Alt 0 Costs PV of Alt 0 Costs Alt 1 Costs PV of Alt 1 Costs 2014 $0 $0 $900,000 $900,000 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 2017 $150,000 $133,349 $0 $0 2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 2020 $0 $0 $0 $0 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 2022 $72,000 $52,610 $0 $0 2023 $0 $0 $0 $0 2024 $0 $0 $5,000 $3,378 2025 $0 $0 $0 $0 2026 $0 $0 $0 $0 2027 $0 $0 $0 $0 2028 $0 $0 $0 $0 2029 $0 $0 $175,000 $97,171 2030 $0 $0 $0 $0 2031 $0 $0 $0 $0 2032 $167,000 $82,436 $0 $0 2033 $0 $0 $0 $0 2034 $0 $0 $25,000 $11,410 2035 $0 $0 $0 $0 2036 $0 $0 $0 $0 2037 $0 $0 $0 $0 2038 $0 $0 $0 $0 2039 $0 $0 $0 $0 2040 $0 $0 $0 $0 2041 $0 $0 $0 $0 2042 $72,000 $24,010 $0 $0 2043 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total $461,000 $292,405 $1,105,000 $1,011,959 Alternative 0 - Base Case Alternative 1 - Proposed Case Net Present Value = $292,405 - $32,650 Net Present Value = $1,011,959 - $163,408 Net Present Value = $259,755 Net Present Value = $848,551 4.) Calculate Present Value of Costs including Salvage Value

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 11 Chapter 2 – Research Approach Step 3 in the example uses the information identified in Step 2, such as the cost and share of useful life of each intersection component, to calculate the salvage value for each intersection alternative. Then, using the Net Present Value of Salvage Equation (Equation 2-4), the salvage values for each alternative are brought to present value using the discount rate and analysis period. The final step in this process, Step 4, uses the Net Present Value of Cost Equation (Equation 2-3) to identify the present value of costs for each intersection alternative. With the net present value of cost and net present value of salvage, the overall net present value (Equation 2-1) can be compared for each intersection alternative. This project example finds that the net present value of the Alternative 0 Base Case intersection is approximately $260,000 and the Alternative 1 Proposed Case is approximately $850,000. Another method, that is equivalent to using the salvage value, calculates the amortized cost of the intersection component or maintenance activity. Table 2-2 demonstrates Project Example #2, which is a comparison of the cost of Alternative 0 and Alternative 1 using the amortized cost.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 12 Table 2-2: Project Example #2 – Comparing the Cost with Amortized Cost Real Discount Rate (r) 4% Opening Year 2015 Base Year 2014 Base Case Constructed 2002 Construction Year 2014 Analysis Period (n) 30 2.) Identify Intersection Components for Each Alternative 3.) Calculate the amortized cost r = Real Discount Rate Amortized Cost = P = Component Cost n = useful life Component Cost Useful Life Amortized Cost First year Seen Component #1 $5,000 10 $593 2022 Component #2 $150,000 15 $12,972 2017 Component #3 $15,000 20 $1,061 2022 Component #4 $1,200 10 $142 2022 Component #5 $40,000 20 $2,830 2022 Component #6 $80,000 50 $3,581 2052 Component #1 $200,000 100 $7,848 Component #2 $500,000 50 $22,380 Component #3 $5,000 10 $593 Component #4 $175,000 15 $15,134 Component #5 $20,000 20 $1,415 Project Example #2 - Intersection Alternative Comparison with Amoritzed Costs 1.) Idenfity Project Comparison Assumptions Alternative 0 - Base Case Alternative 1 - Proposed Case ( ) ( ) 11 1 1 −+ + − n n r rrP

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 13 Chapter 2 – Research Approach Table 2-2: Continued: Project Example #2 – Comparing the Cost with Amortized Cost As shown in Table 2-2, Project Example #2 compares the costs of Alternative 0 and Alternative 1 with amortized costs. This example scenario uses the same assumptions and intersection components that were previously identified. However, in this example, the costs of each intersection component are amortized over their useful lives and only the amortized costs counted in each year of the analysis period. This calculation uses the amortized cost equation shown in Step 3. As shown in Step 4, the amortized costs of each intersection alternative are used to calculate the present value of each cost at specific years of analysis. The overall NPV of both Alternative 0 and Alternative 1 are calculated by taking a sum of the present values. As shown in Table 2-2, the net present value of each alternative is Year Alt 0 Costs PV of Alt 0 Costs Alt 1 Costs PV of Alt 1 Costs 2014 $0 $0 $47,370 $47,370 2015 $0 $0 $47,370 $45,548 2016 $0 $0 $47,370 $43,796 2017 $12,972 $11,532 $47,370 $42,111 2018 $12,972 $11,089 $47,370 $40,492 2019 $12,972 $10,662 $47,370 $38,934 2020 $12,972 $10,252 $47,370 $37,437 2021 $12,972 $9,858 $47,370 $35,997 2022 $17,599 $12,859 $47,370 $34,613 2023 $17,599 $12,365 $47,370 $33,281 2024 $17,599 $11,889 $47,370 $32,001 2025 $17,599 $11,432 $47,370 $30,770 2026 $17,599 $10,992 $47,370 $29,587 2027 $17,599 $10,569 $47,370 $28,449 2028 $17,599 $10,163 $47,370 $27,355 2029 $17,599 $9,772 $47,370 $26,303 2030 $17,599 $9,396 $47,370 $25,291 2031 $17,599 $9,035 $47,370 $24,318 2032 $17,599 $8,687 $47,370 $23,383 2033 $17,599 $8,353 $47,370 $22,484 2034 $17,599 $8,032 $47,370 $21,619 2035 $17,599 $7,723 $47,370 $20,787 2036 $17,599 $7,426 $47,370 $19,988 2037 $17,599 $7,140 $47,370 $19,219 2038 $17,599 $6,866 $47,370 $18,480 2039 $17,599 $6,602 $47,370 $17,769 2040 $17,599 $6,348 $47,370 $17,086 2041 $17,599 $6,103 $47,370 $16,429 2042 $17,599 $5,869 $47,370 $15,797 2043 $17,599 $5,643 $47,370 $15,189 Total $246,655 $851,883 Net Present Value = $246,655 Net Present Value = $851,883 Different in Net Present Value = $605,228 Alternative 0 - Base Case Alternative 1 - Proposed Case Net Present Value = Sum of Present Value of Costs 4.) Calculate Net Present Value of Costs with Amortized Costs

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 14 approximately the same as was calculated using the salvage values in Project Example #1. Project Example #3, presented in Table 2-3, takes this intersection comparison to the next step by comparing the present value of benefits for each case. The benefits of the alternative case derive from reductions in user and social costs relative to the base case. We calculate the user and social costs for the base case and the alternative, then subtract in Table 2-4 to find the amount of benefit. The calculation of benefits presented here are illustrative; the techniques for estimating these are presented later in this report. Table 2-3: Project Example #3 – Calculating the Present Value of User and Social Costs Real Discount Rate (r) 4% Opening Year 2015 Base Year 2014 Base Case Constructed 2002 Construction Year 2014 Analysis Period (n) 30 Initial Year Growth Rate Initial Year Growth Rate User Delay Cost $30,000 3.00% User Delay Cost $5,000 2.00% User Reliability Cost $5,000 3.00% User Reliability Cost $1,000 2.00% User Safety Cost $2,000 2.00% User Safety Cost $100 2.00% User Operating Cost $500 1.00% User Operating Cost $50 1.00% Greenhouse Gas Social Cost $50 1.00% Greenhouse Gas Social Cost $5 1.00% 1.) Idenfity Project Comparison Assumptions Project Example #3 - Calculating Present Value of Benefits 2.) Identify Benefits for Each Alternative Alternative 1 - Proposed CaseAlternative 0 - Base Case Benefit Benefit

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 15 Chapter 2 – Research Approach Table 2-3: Continued: Project Example #3 – Calculating the Present Value of User and Social Costs Present Value of Benefits = Year User Delay Reliability Safety Operating Greenhouse Total 2014 $30,000 $5,000 $2,000 $500 $50 $37,550 2015 $30,900 $5,150 $2,040 $505 $51 $38,646 2016 $31,827 $5,305 $2,081 $510 $51 $39,773 2017 $32,782 $5,464 $2,122 $515 $52 $40,935 2018 $33,765 $5,628 $2,165 $520 $52 $42,130 2019 $34,778 $5,796 $2,208 $526 $53 $43,361 2020 $35,822 $5,970 $2,252 $531 $53 $44,628 2021 $36,896 $6,149 $2,297 $536 $54 $45,933 2022 $38,003 $6,334 $2,343 $541 $54 $47,276 2023 $39,143 $6,524 $2,390 $547 $55 $48,659 2024 $40,317 $6,720 $2,438 $552 $55 $50,083 2025 $41,527 $6,921 $2,487 $558 $56 $51,549 2026 $42,773 $7,129 $2,536 $563 $56 $53,058 2027 $44,056 $7,343 $2,587 $569 $57 $54,612 2028 $45,378 $7,563 $2,639 $575 $57 $56,212 2029 $46,739 $7,790 $2,692 $580 $58 $57,859 2030 $48,141 $8,024 $2,746 $586 $59 $59,555 2031 $49,585 $8,264 $2,800 $592 $59 $61,302 2032 $51,073 $8,512 $2,856 $598 $60 $63,100 2033 $52,605 $8,768 $2,914 $604 $60 $64,951 2034 $54,183 $9,031 $2,972 $610 $61 $66,857 2035 $55,809 $9,301 $3,031 $616 $62 $68,819 2036 $57,483 $9,581 $3,092 $622 $62 $70,840 2037 $59,208 $9,868 $3,154 $629 $63 $72,921 2038 $60,984 $10,164 $3,217 $635 $63 $75,063 2039 $62,813 $10,469 $3,281 $641 $64 $77,269 2040 $64,698 $10,783 $3,347 $648 $65 $79,540 2041 $66,639 $11,106 $3,414 $654 $65 $81,878 2042 $68,638 $11,440 $3,482 $661 $66 $84,286 2043 $70,697 $11,783 $3,552 $667 $67 $86,765 Alternative 0 - Base Case 3.) Calculate Present Value of Benefits ( )t t n mt B r BPV + = ∑ −= 1

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 16 Table 2-3: Continued: Project Example #3 – Calculating the Present Value of User and Social Costs As shown in Table 2-3, Project Example #3 uses the same overall project assumptions for comparing Alternative 0 and Alternative 1. Step 2 of this example identifies the user and social costs for each intersection for items such as emissions and delay. The user and social costs are identified for the initial year, and a growth rate is identified for each benefit item. The user and social costs by category identified in Step 2 are then combined to calculate the total user and social costs for each intersection alternative for each analysis year. The benefit amount, which is the difference in total user and social costs between Alternative 0 and Alternative 1, may then be calculatedas shown in Step 4 Alternative Case calculation tables. The difference in benefit between the alternatives is used for applying Equation 2-3 to calculate the present value of benefits for each year of analysis. The sum of the present value of benefits is taken to calculate the overall NPV of benefit, which is approximately $830,000. Project Example #4, presented in Table 2-4, uses all of the information presented in the previous three examples to compare the overall costs and benefits of each alternative. Year User Delay Reliability Safety Operating Greenhouse Total Difference from Base Case (Benefit) Present Value of Benefits 2014 $5,000 $1,000 $100 $50 $5 $6,155 $31,395 $31,395 2015 $5,100 $1,020 $102 $51 $5 $6,278 $32,368 $31,123 2016 $5,202 $1,040 $104 $51 $5 $6,403 $33,371 $30,853 2017 $5,306 $1,061 $106 $52 $5 $6,530 $34,404 $30,585 2018 $5,412 $1,082 $108 $52 $5 $6,660 $35,470 $30,320 2019 $5,520 $1,104 $110 $53 $5 $6,793 $36,568 $30,056 2020 $5,631 $1,126 $113 $53 $5 $6,928 $37,700 $29,795 2021 $5,743 $1,149 $115 $54 $5 $7,066 $38,867 $29,535 2022 $5,858 $1,172 $117 $54 $5 $7,207 $40,069 $29,278 2023 $5,975 $1,195 $120 $55 $5 $7,350 $41,309 $29,023 2024 $6,095 $1,219 $122 $55 $6 $7,497 $42,586 $28,770 2025 $6,217 $1,243 $124 $56 $6 $7,646 $43,903 $28,518 2026 $6,341 $1,268 $127 $56 $6 $7,798 $45,260 $28,269 2027 $6,468 $1,294 $129 $57 $6 $7,954 $46,658 $28,022 2028 $6,597 $1,319 $132 $57 $6 $8,112 $48,100 $27,776 2029 $6,729 $1,346 $135 $58 $6 $8,274 $49,585 $27,533 2030 $6,864 $1,373 $137 $59 $6 $8,438 $51,117 $27,292 2031 $7,001 $1,400 $140 $59 $6 $8,607 $52,695 $27,052 2032 $7,141 $1,428 $143 $60 $6 $8,778 $54,321 $26,815 2033 $7,284 $1,457 $146 $60 $6 $8,953 $55,998 $26,579 2034 $7,430 $1,486 $149 $61 $6 $9,131 $57,726 $26,345 2035 $7,578 $1,516 $152 $62 $6 $9,313 $59,506 $26,113 2036 $7,730 $1,546 $155 $62 $6 $9,499 $61,341 $25,883 2037 $7,884 $1,577 $158 $63 $6 $9,688 $63,233 $25,655 2038 $8,042 $1,608 $161 $63 $6 $9,881 $65,182 $25,429 2039 $8,203 $1,641 $164 $64 $6 $10,078 $67,191 $25,204 2040 $8,367 $1,673 $167 $65 $6 $10,279 $69,261 $24,982 2041 $8,534 $1,707 $171 $65 $7 $10,484 $71,394 $24,761 2042 $8,705 $1,741 $174 $66 $7 $10,693 $73,593 $24,542 2043 $8,879 $1,776 $178 $67 $7 $10,906 $75,859 $24,324 Net Present Value of Benefit for All Years $831,828 Alternative 1 - Proposed Case

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 17 Chapter 2 – Research Approach Table 2-4: Project Example #4 – Comparing the Benefits and Costs As shown in Table 2-4, the present value of benefits from Project Example #3 and the present value of costs from Project Example #2 are used to calculate the overall NPV of benefits for the intersection alternative comparison. The difference between benefits and costs is about $226,000, which is, therefore, the overall benefit for the alternative over the base case. As described previously, the project example calculations demonstrated in Tables 2-1 through 2-4 were meant to illustrate the concepts previously described in this section, such as salvage value, amortized cost, present value of benefit and comparing the overall costs and benefits of two simplified intersection alternatives. Simplistic intersection alternatives were used to allow the basic concepts of the calculations to be reviewed and followed. Present Value of User and Non-User Costs = Present Value of Benefits (From Example #3) Present Value of Benefits = (PV of Alt 0 User and Non-User Costs) - (PV of Alt 1 User and Non-User Costs) Present Value of Agency Costs = Present Value of Costs (From Example #2) Present Value of Costs = (PV of Alt 0 Agency Costs) - (Present Value of Alt 1 User Costs) Year PV of Alt 0 User and Non-User Costs PV of Alt 1 User and Non-User Costs PV of Benefits PV of Alt 0 Agency Costs PV of Alt 1 Agency Costs PV of Costs 2014 $37,550 $6,155 $31,395 $0 $47,370 $47,370 2015 $37,159 $6,036 $31,123 $0 $45,548 $45,548 2016 $36,773 $5,920 $30,853 $0 $43,796 $43,796 2017 $36,391 $5,805 $30,585 $11,532 $42,111 $30,579 2018 $36,013 $5,693 $30,320 $11,089 $40,492 $29,403 2019 $35,639 $5,583 $30,056 $10,662 $38,934 $28,272 2020 $35,270 $5,475 $29,795 $10,252 $37,437 $27,185 2021 $34,905 $5,370 $29,535 $9,858 $35,997 $26,139 2022 $34,544 $5,266 $29,278 $12,859 $34,613 $21,753 2023 $34,187 $5,164 $29,023 $12,365 $33,281 $20,917 2024 $33,834 $5,064 $28,770 $11,889 $32,001 $20,112 2025 $33,485 $4,967 $28,518 $11,432 $30,770 $19,339 2026 $33,140 $4,871 $28,269 $10,992 $29,587 $18,595 2027 $32,798 $4,777 $28,022 $10,569 $28,449 $17,880 2028 $32,461 $4,685 $27,776 $10,163 $27,355 $17,192 2029 $32,127 $4,594 $27,533 $9,772 $26,303 $16,531 2030 $31,797 $4,505 $27,292 $9,396 $25,291 $15,895 2031 $31,471 $4,418 $27,052 $9,035 $24,318 $15,284 2032 $31,148 $4,333 $26,815 $8,687 $23,383 $14,696 2033 $30,828 $4,249 $26,579 $8,353 $22,484 $14,131 2034 $30,513 $4,167 $26,345 $8,032 $21,619 $13,587 2035 $30,200 $4,087 $26,113 $7,723 $20,787 $13,065 2036 $29,891 $4,008 $25,883 $7,426 $19,988 $12,562 2037 $29,586 $3,931 $25,655 $7,140 $19,219 $12,079 2038 $29,284 $3,855 $25,429 $6,866 $18,480 $11,614 2039 $28,985 $3,781 $25,204 $6,602 $17,769 $11,168 2040 $28,689 $3,708 $24,982 $6,348 $17,086 $10,738 2041 $28,397 $3,636 $24,761 $6,103 $16,429 $10,325 2042 $28,108 $3,566 $24,542 $5,869 $15,797 $9,928 2043 $27,821 $3,497 $24,324 $5,643 $15,189 $9,546 Total $831,828 $605,228 Net Present Value of Benefits $831,828 Net Present Value of Costs $605,228 Net Benefits $226,600 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.37 Project Example #4 - Comparing Costs and Benefits 1.) Identify Present Value of Benefits and Costs - From Previous Calculations 2.) Calculate Net Present Value of Benefits and Net Present Value of Costs

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 18 Actual project scenarios may require more complex analysis and additional details to be integrated into the calculations. The methodology has the ability to analyze both simple and complex scenarios, using the same method as presented. The following sections provide some of the more complex scenarios that may require analysis, such as intersections with varying spatial scopes and even new types of intersections that may present unique operations or geometry. 2.1.2. ADDRESSING VARYING SPATIAL SCOPES The analysis of alternative designs when spatial scopes vary depends upon how the parts of the project interact. The LCCET depends on inputs from the user (e.g., delays and reliability). Therefore, it is up to the user to determine whether an intersection can be analyzed alone or whether it must be analyzed together with other intersections. The latter could occur in several circumstances including the following: • The intersection interacts operationally with adjacent intersections, such as the queue from a downstream intersection backs into the intersection being analyzed; • Improvements are being considered on a group of adjacent intersections; or • There is a limited budget for intersection improvements, and several intersections are “competing” for funding for improvements. To aid the analyst in such circumstances, it is important to provide a convenient method for storing multiple intersection projects and their (multiple) alternative configurations. The concept steps outlined below account for varying intersection sizes and control forms: 1. Identify the spatial and geometric layout of each alternative. 2. Identify back of queue and an estimated area beyond this where drivers would begin decelerating to the back of queue. This defines the influence limits for each of the concepts. 3. Overlay these influence limits, and establish a cordon line based on the most-distant influence limit of the alternatives being considered. This influence limit could include some distance beyond the influence limit, but the intent is to keep it relatively compact to avoid diluting the operational differences with normal operating metrics. 4. Calculate performance metrics for all vehicles from the time they enter to the time they exit this cordon limit for each of the alternatives. Maintaining this same cordon for all project alternatives ensures that all demand volume, whether within a compact intersection form or an expansive form, is based on the same start and end points. The cordon limits taken together define the cordon area. 5. Because different intersection analysis software packages make use of different assumptions, the recommended approach for preparing inputs to the LCCET is to conduct the analysis of the various forms within the same analysis program or with programs that have

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 19 Chapter 2 – Research Approach compatible methodological definitions for the desired performance metrics. This will help to ensure that deceleration delays, control delays, and queue delays are accounted for in a similar manner. This construct is intended to address the differences among at-grade intersections where delay typically occurs at a single point, larger alternative at- grade intersection forms comprising multiple intersections, and grade-separated interchanges where there may be multiple points of delay. The overall schema of the program/tool places the burden of analyzing unique or unusual configurations on the external software programs. 2.1.2.1. Application of the Methodology The context of the analysis is paramount in selecting and calibrating the analysis tools. Congested conditions, system considerations, context, and the level of time, accuracy, and analysis cost all factor into the types of analysis tools and outputs. Considerations for the analyst are summarized below for unsaturated conditions, saturated conditions, and other system considerations. UNSATURATED CONDITIONS When an intersection form can process demand volumes without cycle or movement failures, and without influence from the spillover effects of queues or coordination at adjacent intersections, the identification of influence area boundaries for that intersection form may be determined by the intersection footprint and anticipated queues and deceleration distance from each queue. In this simplest example, the intersection can be treated as an isolated system without considering its effects on upstream or downstream intersection operations. As provided in Figures 2-1 and 2-2, the farther influence boundary of the alternatives being considered will provide the minimum cordon distances. These distances will need to consider their location relative to other conflict points, such as driveways, intersections, or other features. Within the figures below, a traffic signal and roundabout are being compared. The stop line/yield line locations and anticipated queues are shown below for each intersection form. The cordon boundary was selected beyond this area to account for the deceleration effects of vehicles approaching the back of the queue. Analysis of similar intersection types that each contain a similar travel distance for motorists can reasonably be assessed using HCM analysis tools to estimate control delays and emissions. These software programs do not account for differences in running time, but, for these typical intersection forms, the difference in fuel consumption and emissions due to running time is unlikely to distinguish between alternatives.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 20 Figure 2-1: Example of Traffic Signal Influence Boundary

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 21 Chapter 2 – Research Approach Figure 2-2: Example of Roundabout Influence Boundary

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 22 Figure 2-3: Example of Acceptable Cordon Location

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 23 Chapter 2 – Research Approach In practical applications, simplifying assumptions that allow an analyst to more- readily consider the isolated impacts of an intersection form may be appropriate within a saturated or coordinated system when the goal is to provide long-range, planning-level comparisons. In these cases, the lower accuracy provided with simplifying assumptions needs to be considered, as does the reasonableness of the outcome. However, this level of detail may be adequate to address fundamental questions about different intersection forms within a specific context. Comparisons that include complex intersection forms that result in additional running time, such as indirect left turns, continuous flow intersections, and interchanges, require analysis tools that look beyond individual intersections to account for running time and other performance measures. OVERSATURATED CONDITIONS Oversaturated intersection conditions, where demand exceeds an intersection’s physical capacity, can create standing queues and high delays that continue to build as long as demand exceeds capacity at one or more locations in the system. These types of conditions are even more likely to occur in long-range forecasts owing to the planned growth in system users. In oversaturated conditions, it is critical to ensure that the cordon line bounding the study area effectively encompasses the entire network area within which (a) queuing exists and (b) traffic volume/pattern changes occur because of one or more of the investigated intersection configurations. To do this, the analytic tools used to estimate traffic volume characteristics should be applied not only for the base case, but also for the intersection configuration alternative(s) being considered. Examination of the results allows the cordon line to be positioned such that the limits of all queuing that either affects or is affected by the study intersection is contained within the cordon line boundaries. Additionally, this examination allows the cordon line to be positioned so that the change in volume characteristics outside the cordon line is not significant; that is to say, changes in key performance metrics outside the cordon line should be limited to less than 5 to 10 percent of the corresponding changes captured inside the cordon line. When oversaturated conditions are encountered, microsimulation tools are sometimes the most effective means for estimating the delays approaching and traveling through an intersection or cordon area. SYSTEM AND CONTEXT CONSIDERATIONS When evaluating the types of analysis tools to apply, the analyst should consider the area beyond the study intersection. For example, the consideration of an intersection form within a signalized and coordinated corridor should account for how that coordination plan is affected with different intersection treatments. Similarly, the analysis may need to consider the upstream and downstream effects of failing intersections, where an intersection modification may not address the more critical issue on the transportation system.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 24 In all cases, whether saturated or unsaturated, the identification of a cordon area should be distinguished from the modeling limits. The modeling limits within microsimulation models will sometimes require more extensive boundaries than the cordon area to properly account for arrival patterns. Driver expectation may also factor into how a system is analyzed. An intersection at a transition from a rural to urban area, near a school, or near an at- grade rail crossing can have different effects on operations and safety than what might be expected within a different context. An understanding is required of the surrounding land uses, environment, characteristics of expected users, and changes in travel patterns seasonally or by time of day. Default values within references such as the HCM (3) or the HSM (4) typically do not account for these nuances. 2.1.3. ADDRESSING NEW TYPES OF INTERSECTIONS Benefit-cost analysis is readily adaptable to different types of projects, including new intersection types. Because the basic performance measures and their monetization will have already been defined for existing intersection types, new intersection types can be easily accommodated into the LCCET by providing performance measures for the new intersection types that conform to the basic performance measures. Newer intersection types, such as Median U-turn Intersection, Displaced Left- Turn Intersections, Restricted Crossing U-turn Intersections and others are addressed with the same methodology for alternatives with varying spatial scopes. The key element of this process is to define the intersection influence limits and compare the performance measures for each alternative with a common analysis method. A high degree of flexibility is provided through the cordon area approach, as it allows an assessment of a single intersection or a series of intersections along a corridor or that could be present at an interchange. This allows an analyst to consider a variety of treatments that separate opposing traffic flows. Establishing a cordon area and use of system performance metrics (e.g., total control delay and/or total emissions) allows the analysis tools to respond to any type of simple or complex intersection or system treatment that can be analyzed by the available software packages. While the operational measures can be accommodated, life-cycle costs of these non-standard intersection forms may be less reliable because of limited predictive safety information or information on maintenance or capital costs.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 25 Chapter 2 – Research Approach 2.2. ROLE OF THE LCCET IN EVALUATING INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES The LCCET is not intended to replace existing analytic tools. Rather, it is an adjunct to existing analytic tools that allow for a complete side-by-side comparison of intersection alternatives based on their total life-cycle costs. This is illustrated in Figure 2-4. The LCCET takes as inputs performance measures that are developed from other analyses as follows: • Operations analysis tools such as HCM or simulation are used to develop the basic performance measures (e.g., travel times, volumes, and speeds). • Post-processing tools are used to develop additional performance measures necessary for benefit-cost calculations; for example: o Air quality models such as MOVES may be used to estimate emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG). o Travel time reliability models such as those developed in SHRP 2 L03 or SHRP 2 L08 may be used to develop forecasts of travel time reliability (5, 6). o Safety Performance Functions and Crash Modification Factors from the Highway Safety Manual or other crash forecasting tools may be used to forecast crashes by severity (4). The user must also provide travel volumes and costs: • Travel volumes are typically provided by travel demand models. These must be provided, at a minimum, for the opening year of operation and the horizon year. The LCCET implicitly assumes that travel demand in a given year is the same for all intersection alternatives. • Costs must be provided for each intersection treatment alternative. These include the following: o Planning and construction costs. o Operating and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the alternative. A further input consists of a set of analysis parameters that apply across all alternatives. These include the following: • The discount rate used to convert all costs into present values. • Unit costs for performance measures: e.g., value of time, cost of crashes, and unit costs of emissions. These inputs are used by the LCCET to develop total costs for each intersection alternative, as explained in greater detail in the next section.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 26 Figure 2-4: Schematic: LCCET in relation to user inputs and outputs Travel demand model • Link-level travel volume forecasts by time period o Vehicles (auto, truck) o Passengers Operations analysis tools • Travel times/delays • Volumes by speed bin • Queue lengths • etc. Costs & lifetime • Capital costs • O&M costs. • Project lifetime • Salvage value Post processing • Reliability • Emissions • Crashes by severity • Other measures Analysis parameters • Value of time • Value of reliability • Unit costs of emissions • Unit costs of crashes • Discount rate Calculations • Receive user inputs • Calculate benefits and costs Outputs • Verified inputs • Net present value, B/C ratio by alternative • Detailed NPV by benefit & cost category LCCET

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 27 Chapter 2 – Research Approach 2.3. COSTS A description for different types of costs and for rationalizing different performance metrics into a common monetizable basis has been developed to assist implementation. The specific costs have been described in three categories: (1) Agency Costs (2) User Costs, and (3) Non-User Costs. To consistently measure the net economic benefits of various alternative project designs, it is important to employ a common unit of measurement across the various benefit and cost elements. Through monetization, it is possible to value the net economic benefits of disparate elements involved in the design and construction of alternative intersection designs. All costs are treated equally and expressed in dollar values based on established methodologies for each individual type of cost. For the purpose of the analysis, benefits are calculated (they can be treated as negative costs) and then subtracted from any calculated costs to determine the net economic benefit for different types of intersections. The following sections describe each type of cost and the monetization procedure for individual costs within each category. In some cases, the data sources for the tool may origniate from widely-accepted default values. In other cases, the values are specific to the local jurisdiction and use case. Resource documents such as the Highway Safety Manual (4), the AASHTO Redbook (1), and other official sources offer useful guidance for developing default values. Tool documentation provides guidance for modification to permit better localization of the values of cost elements. 2.3.1. AGENCY COSTS This section covers all of the costs borne by the public agencies that are responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the intersection as well as the transportation network. Data sources for the potential agency costs, such as development, engineering, right-of-way, construction, utilities, operations, and maintenance are unique to each project and local jurisdiction. Default values cannot be provided for any costs incurred by local agencies due to the varied magnitude of individual intersection designs, as well as different costs specific to the location of a project. Local agencies have to provide a list of anticipated costs, as well as the year in which the costs are anticipated to be incurred. To calculate the present value of the costs, the year in which the cost is incurred is required to acurately compare the costs to any anticipated benefits for individual intersection designs. This is particularily important for recurring maintenance costs for the duration of the functional life of the facility. 2.3.1.1. Development The development of an intersection includes all aspects of planning, permitting, preliminary engineering, public hearings, judicial, and regulatory review. To the extent these costs have already been incurred, they are sunk costs and should not be included in an analysis directed toward deciding among alternative investments. Development costs that have not yet been incurred should be included.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 28 2.3.1.2. Engineering Engineering costs include those directly related to the project once it has been defined. These costs are monetized by calculating the contract cost plus contract administration if contracted—otherwise the fully-loaded agency cost is used. 2.3.1.3. Right-Of-Way The agency cost of acquiring the land and access required for the right-of-way for the project including legal, appraisal, and transaction costs. 2.3.1.4. Construction Construction costs include the costs associated with building improvements, as well as the cost of oversight and administration. Costs are monetized to include contract costs plus contract administration. 2.3.1.5. Utilities The expense for relocating utilities is a potential additional agency cost to include in construction costs. 2.3.1.6. Operations and Maintenance The cost of operating and properly maintaining and preserving the project over time should reflect the optimal maintenance schedule given the expected use and climate. Unlike the other types of agency costs noted above, operations and maintenance costs are incurred throughout a project’s life cycle instead of prior to and during construction. To monetize the cost, the present value of expected cash flows is calculated for the appropriate time horizon. 2.3.2. USER COSTS This section covers all of the costs and benefits for users of the intersection including construction, user delay, reliability of delay, safety, and operating expenses. 2.3.2.1. Construction Impacts During construction, users are affected by changes in delay, operating expenses, and the number of crashes. The monetization process requires an understanding of the type of construction associated with each intersection design. The monetization procedure for each of the individual costs are followed, if they are applicable, based on the construction-related traffic interruptions. 2.3.2.2. User Delay at Intersection Different intersection designs affect the amount of delay experienced by users. Each user of the facility has a specific value of time for which travel time savings can be monetized. Travel times associated with various intersection designs are calculated from the changes in delay experienced by vehicle users during a given period. Value of time is calculated differently by vehicle classgenerally vehicles are broken down into either passenger vehicles or commercial vehicles carrying cargo. Passenger vehicle user delay is calculated using the number of occupants and their associated values of time. To calculate the value of user

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 29 Chapter 2 – Research Approach delay for non-commercial vehicles, the number of occupants in the vehicles is multiplied by the value of time of the occupants. Value of time varies for leisure or commuter traffic as well as by the income level in an area. Commercial vehicles carrying cargo need to place a value on the cargo in addition to the cost of the wages for the driver. The carrying cost of the cargo is calculated by multiplying the value of the cargo by an interest rate (consistent units must be used; for example, a yearly interest rate could be converted to an hourly rate), and is then multiplied by the change in user delay. User delay varies over time as traffic volume changes; the present value of the users' value of time is calculated for the expected time horizon of the facility. To monetize user delay, a value must be assigned to users’ travel time based on the opportunity cost associated with their time. Identifying the opportunity costs of a user depends upon the nature of their traveldifferent modes of travel are valued differently. The literature, including USDOT guidance (7) and the AASHTO Redbook (1), relate a user’s value of time to their wage rate. Different transportation modes and trip purposes are assigned a fraction of a user’s wage rate. There are different suggested data sources for wage rates to be used when calculating value of time. The USDOT guidance suggests using the annual median household income, then dividing by 2080 to obtain an hourly wage. Median household income is available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (8) for individual Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). When applicable, data should be used for the MSA where the project is located; if it is located outside of an MSA, state-level data can be used as an alternative. The AASHTO Redbook (1) breaks down average wages and total compensation by industry using national averages. It is possible to obtain similar data at a local (MSA) level through the BEA total wage per job dataset. The Redbook recommends specific percentages (for example 50% of the wage rate for single driver commuters) for each type of transportation mode and trip purpose. The local agency needs to provide a breakdown of mode and trip purpose from their travel model outputs. In cases in which mode split and trip purpose are unknown, default values have been established by USDOT guidance. 2.3.2.3. Travel Time Reliability Travel time reliability is defined as the day-to-day consistency of the travel time or delay through an intersection experienced by a user. Unreliable travel times impose costs on travelers because they have to budget additional time for travel to ensure that they arrive at their destinations at their desired times. There are several approaches to valuing reliability; these have been described in a guidebook issued as part of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) 2 L17 project (9). One approach is to estimate a reliability ratio: the ratio of the value of a standard deviation of travel time reliability to the value of travel time itself. As reported in the SHRP 2 L17 Guidebook (9), values of reliability obtained from various survey methods vary considerably, but tend to center around the value of 1.0.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 30 An alternative approach to valuing travel time reliability is to use an options theoretic approach for users on a specific link, or on the entire network. The uncertainty in travel time is converted to an equivalent travel time “penalty” in terms of the following: “How large an increase in delay would a traveler be willing to accept in returned for a guarantee that the delay is no greater than a given value?” Both approaches to valuing travel time reliability require that the agency doing the valuation be able to provide data on the standard deviation of delay for each of the intersection designs being considered. If data on reliability are available, the value-of-time data for users of the intersection can be used to assign a dollar value to travel time reliability. The recently completed SHRP 2 L08: Proposed Chapters for Incorporating Travel Time Reliability into the Highway Capacity Manual provides methods and software tools for estimating travel time distributions on urban streets, which include the standard deviation of travel time (6). 2.3.2.4. Safety Safety is a cost to users based on the number and severity of crashes for a given intersection design. User safety is monetized by calculating the perceived costs of crashes to users. There are three basic categories of crashes: fatality, injury, and property damage only (PDO). Within the injury category, there are different scales of severity that can be individually monetized. The number of crashes and injuries changes over time based on changes in traffic volume. To monetize user safety, the present value for the three categories of crashes is totaled annually for each year of the time horizon of the project. To monetize fatalities, the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) is used for each occupant of the vehicle; VSL can vary based on age and income levels of the users. Non-fatal and PDO crashes are assigned a fixed cost per user based on the perceived cost and average insurance reimbursement. In addition to the costs borne by those involved in the crash, other users experience delay and reliability costs as a consequence of the incident and of emergency response and cleanup activities. The primary data input required to monetize safety is the crash frequency for each intersection design for each year of the analysis period. Crashes are categorized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) from 0, PDO, to 6 for fatalities. The NHTSA provides a conversion matrix if crashes are reported on the alternative KABCO scale (10). The DOT provides guidance on how to monetize the VSL (11)each fatality is monetized at the DOT-recommended VSLand crashes with non-fatal injuries are monetized using a fraction of the VSL for each of the AIS levels. Additionally, many state DOTs calculate costs for crashes of all KABCO severity levels annually. For PDO crashes, the NHTSA provides a recommended monetized value for each vehicle involved in a crash (12). Default values for all crash types may be overridden by the user.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 31 Chapter 2 – Research Approach 2.3.2.5. Operating Costs Operating costs are the out-of-pocket expenses perceived by users of the network for the operation and ownership of their vehicles. Operating costs are affected by changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as well as user delay. Vehicle operating costs include fuel, oil, maintenance, and tires; these vary by vehicle type. Changes in operating speed and delay also affect operating costs to the extent that they affect vehicle fuel efficiency or the number of times users must start and stop their vehicles. For instance, two intersections with the same average speed, but with differing average number of start and stops for vehicles, will have different fuel consumption and, therefore, different operating costs. Changes in VMT and user delay for the network must be calculated for the expected time horizon of the facility before converting them to costs. A number of operating costs can be monetized; most of these are marginal costs associated with distance driven. There are also a few fixed costs of operation. Operating costs related to driving additional distance are not likely to differ for different intersection designs. Costs such as oil, maintenance, tires, insurance, license fees, taxes, depreciation, and finance charges are not likely to be affected by different intersection design alternatives. In most cases, users are likely to travel the same distance regardless of intersection designwhat can vary among intersection designs, especially roundabouts compared to alternatives that require stopping, is the fuel consumed as a result of stopping and accelerating back to speed. The AASHTO Redbook (1) provides guidance on how to calculate fuel consumption as a function of time stoppedgallons per minute of stop time are provided by vehicle type and the free-flow speed of traffic. The present value of future costs and benefits is calculated by assuming constant (“real”) dollars; hence, inflation is effectively factored in. If the price of a good is expected to change relative to other goods in the future, the real price of the good changes in the future and need to be adjusted when taking the present value. This is relevant to operating costs because forecasts for the price of gasoline predict real price changes in the future. The U.S. Energy Information Administration in their Annual Energy Outlook for 2013 forecasts the price of gasoline though 2040 (13). The real growth in the price of gasoline should be factored into the present valuation of operating costs. Operating costs could also be affected by fuel efficiency gains in the future. The California Energy Commission in the 2011 Transportation Energy Forecast predicts that fuel efficiency improves significantly in the future (14). Increased fuel efficiency reduces operating costs in the future and need to be included when calculating the present value. 2.3.3. NON-USER COSTS Non-user costs are borne by travelers elsewhere on the network and by non- travelers; these include delay, emissions, effects on business, right-of-way acquisition, and public safety.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 32 2.3.3.1. Delay to travelers on other parts of the network In extraordinary circumstances, such as a project that entails significant changes to a single large intersection or a project dealing with intersection treatments for an entire corridor, travelers elsewhere on the network may be affected by the project under consideration. For instance, if delay is reduced for a large intersection, some travelers that currently do not use the intersection could change their routes so that they now travel through that intersection; this could reduce congestion and delays on other sections of the network, but may also increase congestion and delay on the intersection being studied. In such cases, it may be necessary to re-code the highway network to account for the changed travel times and re-run the assignment part of the travel demand model. Costs of changes in delay to travelers on other parts of the network would then be calculated in the same way as they are for users of the intersection. If the assignment results in significant changes in demand to the intersection under consideration, it may also be desirable to recalculate travel times or delays for the intersection. VMT may also change; hence, calculations of emissions and other costs related to VMT may also need to be taken into account. 2.3.3.2. Emissions Society incurs a cost as a result of the emissions generated by vehicle operation. The cost includes the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change and local health effects of criteria pollutants as a result of vehicle emissions. Greenhouse gases have the largest monetizable value. The cost is monetized using the method outlined from the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Criteria pollutants are more complex to estimate and monetizetheir impact is minimal, except locally, and their value depends on the exposed population. Changes in fuel consumption based on different intersection designs for all users of the network are monetized for the analysis period using the methodology outlined in the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. In the technical support document Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Analysis, the cost per ton is monetized through the year 2050 (15). The local agency is required to input values for user delay as well as changes in VMT for the entire network from a travel model for each of the intersection design possibilities. 2.3.3.3. Effects on Businesses Businesses realize benefits and incur costs from different intersection designs, usually due to changes in accessibility to the property. For example, installing a traffic signal to allow protected left turns into a shopping mall parking lot might result in more revenue and income for businesses in the mall, some of which may be captured by the mall owner through higher rent. Effects on businesses and costs of right-of-way acquisition vary by location; hence, providing default values for these costs by location is not practical. If local agencies have access to estimated effects on businesses or costs of right-of-way acquisition, they are able to input the values specific to individual intersection designs.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 33 Chapter 2 – Research Approach 2.3.3.4. Right-of-Way Acquisition Right-of-way acquisition can result in costs to property owners or users in excess of the market value paid in condemnation. Monetization techniques are unique to the specific circumstances of any property condemnation. An example could be for a dairy farm. The owner may be compensated for the market value of the raw land taken for the right-of-way acquisition. The owner may not be fully compensated, however, for the total business loss due to the condemnation. The dairy farmer may also experience a reduction in milk production, due to minimum required land to cow ratios, which was reduced as a result of the condemnation. Another example is when a property owner loses an access point to their property, but may not be compensated for the damage or business interruption caused by the reduced access to the property. In other cases right-of- way costs may include compensation above market value, relocation costs, real estate agent fees, and agency staff time. 2.3.4. PUBLIC SAFETY The main public safety costs (reductions) for different intersection designs would be experienced through reduced response times for fire department and ambulance vehicles. The improvements would be measured by calculating the change in expected value of statistical lives saved as well as the change in property damage resulting from fire. There is limited literature that investigates the effects of public safety response times on non-users (residents). The costs would vary by location and by the type of public safety services offered. The lack of national studies offering data makes it difficult to offer default values to monetize effects on public safety of reduced response time. If a local agency has an estimate of changed costs, they are able to input the values.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 34 2.4. USE CASES 2.4.1. INTRODUCTION Use cases are detailed step-by-step descriptions of individual uses for a software application that define the actors (i.e., which types of staff, managers, or decision makers would be involved in each case), the information provided to the application, the outputs from the application, and the definitions of a successful outcome. In modern software engineering practice, development of use cases is the first step in software design because the use cases set the performance requirements for the software. The use cases developed for the LCCET set the requirements for this tool. There is no set format for writing use case descriptions. What is essential is that the use cases be written in such a way that software developers clearly communicate to the users the software developers’ understanding of what the software is intended to do in each case and how it will do it. Use cases at a minimum should contain the following: • Overall description of the use case • Actors, or the users for this use case • Required inputs • Outputs • Step-by-step description of the actions involved (including any alternative steps if the main path is not followed) How the use case is written depends on the audience. Use cases are often written for 1) the users of the software for each use case, and 2) the software developers. The first is intended to communicate to the users the software developer’s understanding of what the user wants; the second is intended to work as a blueprint for the software developer and is written from the perspective of how the software will carry out the steps. The use cases presented in this section helped the team through the development of the tool. 2.4.2. FUNCTIONAL AREAS AND APPLICATIONS The first step is to define the general functional areas and applications for the LCCET. Table 2-5 lists the applications by functional area for the LCCET including the agency types that are involved in each application.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 35 Chapter 2 – Research Approach Table 2-5: Applications by functional area Functional area Application Agency type State DOT RTPA, CMA City, county Policy analysis, programming, budgeting Budgeting for intersection improvements in overall work program ● ● — Establish funding policy to favor certain intersection treatments ● ○ — Area-wide or corridor analysis Corridor study ● ● ● Rank alternative intersection treatments for a corridor or area ● ● ● Signal retiming study ● ○ ● Individual intersection analysis Intersection upgrade (e.g., 2-way or 4-way stop upgraded to signalized intersection, roundabout, or alternative form) ● ○ ● Maintenance, replacement of signals ● — ● LCCET system maintenance Update default cost calculation parameters (capital cost, O&M cost, travel time cost, reliability cost, crash cost, environmental costs, etc.) ● ● ● ● = primary agency involvement ○ = secondary agency involvement Notes: DOT = Department of Transportation; RTPA = Regional Transportation Planning Agency; CMA = Congestion Management Agency 2.4.3. USE CASE DESCRIPTIONS Following is the primary set of use cases that the LCCET is capable of handling. These use cases represent a broad range of reasonable uses for the LCCET. 2.4.3.1. Use Case 1: Programming/prioritizing/funding decisions across a large area (state or MPO) • Issues: Deciding on 1) the budget for constructing new intersections and improving existing intersections (e.g., intersection redesign, signal retiming, synchronizing signals along corridors), and 2) which improvements to fund. • Actors: State or MPO planning staff, planning managers, and policymakers (e.g., MPO board members). • Steps: 1. Planning staff define alternatives to be analyzed in sufficient detail to allow for estimation of cost, travel time, delay, and safety performance measures. 2. Planning staff provide the following inputs to the LCCET for each proposed new intersection, improvement, or corridor project (for this case, only a single proposed design is assumed for each intersection): a. Estimated project lifetime.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 36 b. Dollar valuations of travel time, stop delay, crashes, and other performance measures. c. Interest rate to be used for discounting future year costs and benefits. d. Schedules of capital costs and operating and maintenance costs. e. Effects on user measures such as travel time, delay, and reliability using methods from the Highway Capacity Manual (3). f. Estimates of changes to crashes by severity using safety performance functions or crash modification factors from the Highway Safety Manual. 3. LCCET provides the following outputs for each proposed new intersection, improvement, or corridor project: a. Net benefits (present value of benefits minus present value of costs). b. Benefit-cost ratio for each project. c. Echo individual performance measures provided to the LCCET. d. Measures of effectiveness such as dollar cost per hour of travel time or delay saved. 4. Planning staff provide combined outputs from the LCCET to develop net benefit and benefit-cost ratios for investment alternatives. Planning staff rank project alternatives by benefit-cost ratios. Planning staff repeat use of LCCET tool for different values of travel time, crashes, and other performance measures to test robustness of rankings to different valuations. Rankings and basis for rankings presented to planning managers. 5. Planning managers present results to executive director and board. 2.4.3.2. Use Case 2: Establish funding policy to favor certain intersection treatments • Issues: Determining whether funding policy should favor certain types of intersection improvements over others. • Actors: State or MPO planning staff, planning managers, and policymakers (e.g., MPO board members). • Steps: 1. Planning and engineering staff define set of typical intersection types and define alternative intersection treatment policies (e.g., signals, roundabouts, alternative forms). Specify proportions of each type of intersection. 2. Planning staff provide the inputs to the LCCET for each type of intersection treatment as in Use Case 1. 3. LCCET provides the following outputs for each proposed new intersection, improvement, or corridor project:

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 37 Chapter 2 – Research Approach a. Net benefits (present value of benefits minus present value of costs). b. Benefit-cost ratio for each project. c. Echo individual performance measures provided to the LCCET. d. Measures of effectiveness such as dollar cost per hour of travel time or delay saved. 4. Planning staff provide combined outputs from the LCCET to develop net benefit and benefit-cost ratios for alternative intersection treatments. Planning staff rank project alternatives by benefit-cost ratios. Planning staff repeat use of LCCET for different values of travel time, crashes, and other performance measures to test robustness of rankings to different valuations. Rankings and basis for rankings presented to planning managers. Net present value of each policy alternative is a weighted sum of net present values for each intersection type based on proportional representation of intersection types. 5. Planning managers present results to executive director and board. 2.4.3.3. Use Case 3: Corridor study • Issues: Determining benefits and costs of intersection improvements along a corridor. • Actors: State, MPO, or local planning staff; agency planning and engineering managers. • Steps: 1. Planning and engineering staff define intersections along corridor and types of improvements to be made. There may be one or more alternatives for intersection treatments along the corridor. 2. Planning staff provide the inputs to the LCCET for each type of intersection treatment, as in Use Case 1, based on analyzing the corridor as a system of intersections. 3. LCCET provides the following outputs for each corridor alternative: e. Net benefits (present value of benefits minus present value of costs). f. Benefit-cost ratio for each project. g. Echo individual performance measures provided to the LCCET. h. Measures of effectiveness such as dollar cost per hour of travel time or delay saved. 4. Planning staff provide combined outputs from the LCCET to develop net present value and benefit-cost ratios for each corridor alternative. Planning staff rank corridor alternatives by net present value and benefit-cost ratios. Planning staff repeat use of LCCET for different values of travel time, crashes, and other performance measures to test robustness of rankings to different valuations. Rankings and basis for rankings presented to planning managers.

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 38 5. Planning managers present results and recommendations to executive director and board. 2.4.3.4. Use Case 4: Signal retiming study along corridor • Issues: Determing benefits and costs of one or more signal retiming schemes along a corridor. • Actors: Same as for Use Case 3. • Steps: Same as for Use Case 3. Alternatives consist of base case (current signal settings) and one or more retiming alternatives. Note: This differs from most traditional signal retiming studies in that benefits and costs are assessed comprehensively (i.e. travel times and delays are not the sole criterion for ranking alternatives). 2.4.3.5. Use Case 5: Signal maintenance, replacement, upgrade • Issues: Determing least-cost approach to maintaining signals along a corridor as opposed to replacing them with signals or alternative geometric designs . • Actors: Local traffic engineering staff and managers. • Steps: 1. Engineering staff define alternate schedules of maintenance, signal replacements, or alternate intersection treatments to compare to costs of maintaining existing system to replacement. 2. Engineering staff provide the inputs to the LCCET for each alternative (maintenance, replacement) as in Use Case 1. 3. LCCET provides the following outputs for each alternative: a. Net benefits (present value of benefits minus present value of costs). b. Benefit-cost ratio for each project. c. Echo individual performance measures provided to the LCCET. d. Measures of effectiveness such as dollar cost per hour of travel time or delay saved. 4. Engineering staff make recommendations on maintenance vs. replacement to budgeting officials (city or county administrative officials with budgeting authority). 2.4.3.6. Use Case 6 – Analysis of alternative designs for a single intersection or a corridor • Issue: Determine which types of designs provide the greatest benefits per dollar spent. • Actors: Design engineers, operations engineers, and department managers (or whoever makes the actual spending decision).

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 39 Chapter 2 – Research Approach • Steps: 1. Engineers develop design alternatives for intersection. 2. Engineers provide the inputs to the LCCET for each design alternative as in Step 2 of Use Case 1. Note that a number of the inputs such as dollar valuations of performance measures and discount rates will be the same for all use cases. 3. The LCCET tool provides the outputs listed in Step 3 of the previous use case for each intersection design alternative. 4. Engineers rank alternatives by benefit-cost ratios. Engineers also conduct sensitivity tests of rankings to different valuations of performance measures. 5. Engineers present recommended design alternative to department head for approval and scheduling. 2.4.3.7. Use Case 7 – Software maintenance: update standard cost parameters • Issue: Update standard cost parameters used for benefit-cost calculations (e.g., unit capital costs, travel time cost, reliability cost, environmmental cost, crash cost). • Actors: Analysts (engineers and planners) who maintain the LCCET for their agency. • Steps: 1. Analysts develop new cost parameters from past experience or literature. 2. Analysts input new cost parameters. 3. LCCET checks new parameters for consistency and verifies changed values. 2.5. AGENCY INTERVIEWS 2.5.1.1. Findings This section provides a summary of the findings from interviews of public agencies. The purpose of the interviews was to identify possible additions to or modifications of the use cases described in the previous section and to understand current agency practices on intersection improvements including the following: • Project prioritization • Data used to evaluate alternative intersection treatments • Type of intersections considered • Funding allocation process • Current life-cycle cost evaluation practices

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Chapter 2 – Research Approach Page 40 The research team asked those persons interviewed if a tool like the Life Cycle Cost Evaluation Tool (LCCET) would be useful for their jurisdiction and, if so, what attributes of such a tool would be most useful. Their responses were used to guide the subsequent development of the LCCET. Some agencies indicated that they would be willing to participate in beta testing of the LCCET. The agencies interviewed represent a wide range of agency types (state, regional, local), area types (urban, suburban, rural), and sizes. The specific feedback received from each agency is presented in Appendix A. The Table 2-6 provides a summary of the agencies interviewed, the agency and area characteristics, the agency’s current practices, and the agency’s possible interest in reviewing the LCCET. The following are the main findings of the interviews: • Current intersection evaluation practices vary widely by jurisdiction. Most prioritize improvements based on some combination of addressing congestion issues, known locations of high crashes, and/or responding to public concerns. Some agencies use signal warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (16). Others have developed formal evaluation practices based on goals such as safety. • Nearly all agencies consider the upfront initial capital improvement costs when evaluating alternative intersection treatments. Some agencies consider costs of alternatives through a horizon year. Of the agencies that consider longer-range costs, nearly all include operation and maintenance costs. • Operation and maintenance costs are difficult for agencies to quantify because the cost to maintain an individual intersection is often lost in aggregated agency budgets. • Some agencies consider the societal costs of crashes, emissions, etc. when evaluating alternatives, though these costs are typically used as informative values. • There is no clear relationship between the type of analysis or types of costs that are considered. In addition, no clear trends are apparent that link agency type, demographics, or population size to a decision on whether or not to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis. • Most persons interviewed expressed a desire to conduct more life- cycle cost evaluations. Typical barriers to implementing such evaluations were lack of a policy dictating such an analysis, limited data, and lack of a simple, consistent evaluation approach. • Most interviewees saw a use for a tool like the LCCET. Some saw the tool as a good way to estimate unit cost values. Others saw the tool as a way to implement a more robust benefit-cost evaluation policy. The capabilities built into the LCCET exceed the requirements of current agency practice in several respects:

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 41 Chapter 2 – Research Approach • None of the agencies interviewed carry out a comprehensive benefit- cost analysis of intersection treatments. For example, some agencies consider only safety, others consider only delay; and one agency that was interviewed considers only air quality improvements. No agency considers full life-cycle costs and benefits. • With the exception of one agency interviewed (PennDOT), none of the agencies interviewed consider the full net present value of benefits and costs over the complete lifetime of an intersection treatment. 2.5.1.2. Implications for use cases The use cases defined in Section 2.4 cover all actions involving intersection treatments by the public agencies that were interviewed. Hence, the interviews did not identify any additional use cases that need to be considered. If anything, the use cases identified are more comprehensive than the range of practices identified in the agencies interviews. In particular, Use Case 1, Programming/prioritizing/funding decisions across a large area (state or MPO), does not appear to be a practice of any of the agencies interviewed. This may either reflect that none of the people interviewed were at a sufficiently high level in their agency to deal with these types of decisions, or that decisions on intersection treatments are generally carried out at an individual intersection or corridor level, and comprehensive programming and budgeting for intersection treatments at a high level may be the exception rather than the rule

Final Report NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Page 42 Table 2-6: Summary of agency interviews Agency, level, department Agency type, area covered Person(s) interviewed Types of intersection treatments considered Funding criteria Currently consider full life cycle costs and benefits? Interest in LCCET? Caltrans (Safety), district, state HQ State DOT. District and HQ. Large population Minh Lee (Dist. 04) Katie Yim (Dist. 04) Robert Peterson (HQ) Signals, roundabouts Capital cost vs. value of safety improvements. All intersections with significant crash history funded. Capital costs, but not O&M costs. Crash reduction costs considered over project lifetime. Yes Maryland State Hwy Admin Dist. 2 State DOT District, rural area Jeff Wentz (Dist 2) Signals, roundabouts System preservation and safety improvement index. Operational improvement considered if funding available. Yes, typically request consultants include life analysis in reports. Yes Utah DOT (HQ) State DOT. Small population W. Scott Jones Signals, roundabouts, interchanges Capital, O&M, safety, delay reduction. Capital costs, crashes, and vehicle delay. Yes Pennsylvania DOT State DOT, large population Jeff Bucher Signals, roundabouts Capital, O&M, safety. Currently testing life cycle costing tool for PennDOT and Virginia DOT. Yes Yes Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco) MPO, large urban area Vamsi Tabjulu Signals Capital costs. Priority for maintaining existing system, state-owned signals. No Yes

NCHRP Project 03-110: Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs Final Report Page 43 Agency, level, department Agency type, area covered Person(s) interviewed Types of intersection treatments considered Funding criteria Currently consider full life cycle costs and benefits? Interest in LCCET? Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District Regional air pollution control district Alan Romero Signals, roundabouts Capital costs, cost per ton of reductions in criteria pollutant emissions. Work with local agencies. Funding limit per intersection. No Yes Ada County (ID) County, medium size urban area Andrew Cibor Signals, roundabouts Capital cost, delay cost, environmental costs. Yes, provide different level of detail based on complexity of project. Yes Deschutes County (OR) County, rural area Chris Doty Signals, roundabouts Capital cost, O&M cost (sometimes), safety improvements. Rely on consultants to provide relevant information. Yes Washington County (OR) County, large suburban area Stacy Shetler Signals, roundabouts Statewide safety index, operational improvements, local jurisdiction input. No Yes Broward County (FL) County, large urban area Richard Tornese Signals, roundabouts, grade separation Crash reduction, congestion, community input. Life cycle costs typically considered for large structures. No specifics for intersection projects. Yes City of Milwaukee (WI) City, large population Bob Bryson Signals Budget for 2 new signals per year (CMAQ). Use warrants, traffic volumes, crash history. No Yes Municipality of Anchorage (AK) City, medium population Stephanie Mormilo Signals, roundabouts Capital costs, delay, safety, equity, connectivity for all users, and snow impacts. Typically considered qualitatively. Yes