National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix C: Connected Vehicle Infrastructure Component Cost Shares from Select Pilots and Projects
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 248
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 249
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 250
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 251
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 252
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 253
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 254
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 255
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 256
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 257
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 258
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 259
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 260
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 261
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 262
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 263
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 264
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 265
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 266
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 267
Page 268
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25946.
×
Page 268

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.

133 APPENDIX D: BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS TOOL Section 4.3.1 describes the concept of the Excel spreadsheet-based BCA tool to support the economic case component of the business case. This appendix provides further background on the V2I applications available in the tool and instructions on how to use the tool to compute benefit-cost ratios as an input into the economic case. D.1 SELECTED V2I APPLICATIONS The BCA tool features the following five V2I applications, further defined in Table D-1. • Speed Harmonization (SPD-HARM) • Queue Warning (Q-WARN) • Curve Speed Warning / Roadway Departure Warning (CSW/RDW) • Intelligent Traffic Signal System (I-SIG) • Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers (INC-ZONE) Table D-1. V2I Applications in the BCA Tool – Definitions V2I Service Definition Speed Harmonization (SPD-HARM) The SPD-HARM application determines speed recommendations based on traffic conditions and weather information. The purpose of speed harmonization is to change traffic speed on links that approach areas of traffic congestion, bottlenecks, incidents, special events, and other conditions that affect flow. Speed harmonization assists in maintaining flow, reducing unnecessary stops and starts, and maintaining consistent speeds. The application uses connected vehicle V2I communication to detect the precipitating roadway or congestion conditions that might necessitate speed harmonization, generate the appropriate response plans and speed recommendation strategies for upstream traffic, and broadcast these recommendations to the affected vehicles. Queue Warning (Q-WARN) The Q-WARN application uses CV technologies to enable vehicles in the queue event to automatically broadcast their queued status information (e.g., rapid deceleration, disabled status, lane location) to nearby upstream vehicles and to infrastructure-based central entities (such as the TMC). The infrastructure will broadcast queue warnings to vehicles to minimize or prevent rear-end or other secondary collisions. The Q-WARN application performs two essential tasks: queue determination (detection and/or prediction) and queue information dissemination. Curve Speed Warning / The CSW/RDW application allows a CV to receive information that it is approaching a curve and provides the recommended speed for the curve.

134 Table D-1. V2I Applications in the BCA Tool – Definitions V2I Service Definition Roadway Departure Warning (CSW/RDW) This capability allows the vehicle to warn the driver r. In addition, the vehicle can perform additional warning actions if the actual speed through the curve exceeds the recommended speed and a roadway departure might occur. Intelligent Traffic Signal System (I-SIG) The I-SIG application uses both vehicle location and movement information from CVs as well as infrastructure measurement of non- equipped vehicles to improve the operations of traffic signal control systems. The application uses the vehicle information to adjust signal timing for an intersection or group of intersections to improve traffic flow, including allowing platoon flow through the intersection. The application also serves as an overarching system optimization application, accommodating other mobility applications such as TSP, FSP, EVP, and Pedestrian Mobility to maximize overall arterial network performance. It is also known as MMITSS. In addition, the application may consider additional inputs such as environmental situation information or the interface (i.e., traffic flow) between arterial signals and ramp meters. The key to enabling I-SIG is the (SPaT message broadcast). Incident Scene Work Zone Alerts for Drivers and Workers (INC-ZONE) The INC-ZONE application employs communications technologies to provide warnings and alerts related to incident zone operations. One aspect of the application is an in-vehicle messaging system that provides drivers with merging and speed guidance around an incident. Another component provides in-vehicle incident scene alerts to drivers for the protection of the drivers and incident zone personnel. A third feature is an infrastructure-based warning system for on-scene workers when a vehicle approaching or in the incident zone is being operated outside safe parameters for the conditions (not considered in the BCA tool). Additional information such as arriving and staging of additional responders would also be provided to assist in staging decisions and response to the incident (not considered in the BCA tool). Source: Definitions are adapted from the Connected Vehicle Reference Implementation Architecture (ITS JPO, 2016). D.2 USING THE BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS TOOL The sections below describe the organization and structure of the BCA tool and explain its functionality. After a general discussion of the tool’s organization and structure, the remaining sections on Benefit Inputs, Cost Inputs, and Benefit-Cost Analysis illustrate each of these components in the BCA tool by highlighting examples from the SPD-HARM application. The

135 discussion pertains equally to the other four V2I applications contained in the tool, although the anticipated benefit categories are distinct for each. D.2.1 Organization and Structure The BCA tool is an Excel workbook structured around six sets of three worksheets. As shown in Figure D-1, the first set is a “How-to-Use” guide, and the remaining five sets provide templates for benefit inputs/calculations, cost inputs, and BCA calculations for each of the five V2I applications selected for the tool. Figure D-1. BCA Tool Organization The structure of each set of worksheets walks a user through a systematic accounting of benefit categories and monetized benefits and costs associated with V2I deployment and results in a benefit-cost ratio, return on investment, and other metrics quantifying the magnitude and timing of net benefits and costs. The benefit and cost input templates provide references and guidance on what current research and actual deployments suggest as reasonable ranges of values and application circumstances to help users make their own judgments for their project or scenario evaluation. The timing of a user’s scenario implementation (i.e., when costs are incurred over a deployment time frame and when benefits start to accrue) is also flexible through planning horizon variables.

136 The BCA tool offers maximum flexibility to the user to disregard any given cost or benefit category based on his or her preference and the availability of data. The cost and benefit categories and input guidance are based on currently available knowledge and may evolve as CV development and deployment reaches advanced states of maturity. The systematic structure also provides the opportunity for more advanced Excel users to modify the worksheets to change benefit and cost components. Input, output, and notation fields are color-coded throughout the tool per the legend in Table D- 2. Table D-2. Definitions of Color-coded Fields Used in the BCA Tool Field Type Definition Input (I) Input that is entered/modified by the user. Some inputs are a fixed value, and some inputs vary over the analysis period (planning horizon). Inputs that vary by year can be individually entered or computed by formula. Input cells are light orange. Output (O) Output that is automatically calculated in Excel. This cell should not be modified. Outputs can be a single, calculated value, or series of value by year over the planning horizon. Output cells are gray. Note (N) Instructions and/or assumptions meant to guide the user. They describe instructions for entering the inputs and/or provide a rationale and references for default or recommended inputs. These can be changed based on the user’s own assumptions. For notes that reference outputs, the calculation formula is shown. Dark gray cells indicate no data entry or output; no calculation pertains to that cell. Table D-3 defines standard terms used in the BCA tool.

137 Table D-3. Definitions of Terms used in the BCA Tool Term Definition Total Costs Includes initial cost plus any reoccurring costs (ongoing system O&M) Total Benefits Includes total estimated benefit Benefit-Cost Ratio Total benefits divided by total costs ROI Net benefits (i.e., total benefits minus total costs) divided by total costs for a specific time period Breakeven Year The year in which the benefits first exceed the costs of implementation D.2.2 Benefit Inputs In performing a BCA for making an economic case, all benefits to society must be monetized to the extent possible. Therefore, accepted methodologies to convert quantifiable benefits into cost equivalents should be applied. The four categories of quantifiable benefits are safety, mobility (referred to as operational in the tool), environment, and user cost avoidance. As shown in Table D-4, the five V2I applications included in the BCA tool can yield monetizable safety, operational, and environmental benefits. Relatively few V2I applications provide user cost avoidance benefits. The table also summarizes the quantifiable benefits within these three benefit categories incorporated into the BCA tool.

138 Table D-4. Quantifiable Benefits of V2I Applications in the BCA Tool Benefit Category Monetizable Benefits Safety Fatalities avoided Injuries avoided Property damage only avoided Mobility (Operational) Travel time savings (for autos) Operating savings (for trucks) Environment1 Reduction in nitrogen oxides (NOx) Reduction in volatile organic compounds Reduction in carbon dioxide Reduction in fuel consumption 1 Other emissions including carbon monoxide and particulate matter might also be reduced with the application of certain V2I services, but the research found inconclusive results on the extent and magnitude of the reduction to be able to include them in the BCA tool. The Benefits Input tab includes four tables in which the user enters information into orange input (I) cells or confirms the default values provided as guidance. The four tables are: General Inputs, Anticipated Operational Benefits, Anticipated Safety Benefits, and Anticipated Environmental Benefits. Depending on the V2I application, not all benefit category tables may be included. Table D-5 summarizes the anticipated benefits identified for each of the five V2I applications in the BCA tool. Table D-5. Mapping Benefits for Five V2I Applications in the BCA Tool Benefits Category SPD- HARM Q-WARN CSW/ RDW I-SIG INC- ZONE Mobility (Operational)     Safety     Environmental   User Cost Avoidance

139 D.2.2.1 General Inputs General inputs contain essential information used throughout the BCA. A screen capture illustration is shown in Figure D-2. Figure D-2. BCA Tool Screen Capture – General Inputs General inputs include the following: • Planning Horizon—This is the time frame over which the BCA takes place. The default is 10 years, matching the stated analysis time frame of this project, but the time frame can be extended to 15, or be less than 10. This planning horizon adjustment allows for 10 years of benefits to be captured even if they are anticipated to start up to five years after costs are first incurred. A typical planning period for TSMO and ITS devices is 15 years. Note, the illustration in Figure D-2 is a partial screen capture only showing Year 1 and Year 2 inputs/output values. The full worksheet extends this out to Year 15. • Cost Year Start (Year 1)—This is the year costs will begin to incur and sets Year 1 from which all future year calculations derive. • Benefit Year Start—This is the year benefits will start to accrue, likely when the “project” opens, i.e., the V2I application is deployed and enabled. The tool allows benefits to start up to five years after costs start to incur in Year 1. In this way, the full 15-year analysis time frame is used to obtain 10 years of benefits. • Discount Rate—This is the discount rate applied to monetized benefits to quantify them in net present value terms. The default is 3.0 percent, and the tool discounts future benefits to 2018 dollars. • CV MPR—Rates of market penetration of complementary and supporting vehicular technology (OBUs) and related infrastructure may substantially and variably affect the business case for V2I depending on the strategic objective. For example, active V2V safety applications to avoid crashes require a high degree of penetration. At 70 percent market penetration, the chances of two equipped vehicles meetings is about 50 percent (0.7 x 0.7 = 0.49), all else being equal. This is considered the minimum for the application to be effective. Applications such as hazard warnings and traffic conditions, Table 1. General Inputs 2020 Input/Output Category (I/O) Instruction/Assumptions (N) Calculated / Total Value (O) Fixed Value (I) Year 1 Value (I) Year 2 Value (I) 1 2 Planning Horizon Enter the planning horizon for BCA calculation, up to 15 years from Year 1 (see below). 10 Cost Year Start (Year 1) Enter Year 1 representing the first year costs will be incurred and allocated (minimum = 2020). 2020 Benefit Year Start Enter the year benefits are assumed to begin to accrue. This should correspond to the opening of the project or launching of the service. 2020 Discount Rate Enter the discount rate for calculating future year benefits. The default is 3%. 3.0% CV Market Penetration Rate (MPR) Enter assumed CV market penetration rates. The default provided is based on a market analysis made by AECOM for CDOT in 2018. Ref 1. 0.7% 2.1% Length of Corridor or Network Enter the length of the corridor or network in miles. 10.00 AADT - Autos Enter the forecast AADT by year. 200000 200000 AADT - Trucks Enter the forecast AADT by year for trucks. 20000 20000 Annual VMT - Autos AADT - Autos * 365 * Length of Corridor or Network 730,000,000 730,000,000 Annual VMT - Trucks AADT - Trucks * 365 * Length of Corridor or Network 73,000,000 73,000,000 Cost per Gallon - Gasoline Enter the average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2018$. Ref 17. 2.813$ Cost per Gallon - Diesel Enter the average price of a diesel of gasoline in 2018$. Ref 17. 3.178$

140 however, can operate successfully at lower levels of penetration and still provide significant benefits. Presumptions regarding the timeframe to reach various levels of market penetration therefore become important to transportation agency planning and the strength of the business case. A series of analyses has been made by various parties (AECOM, 2018; Bayless et al., 2016; Litman, 2018; ITS JPO, 2013; Wright et al., 2014). These estimates show timeframes to reach 70 percent market penetration of equipped vehicles varying from 15 to 25 years depending on assumptions. It is important to note that the lack of a federal mandate for on-board equipment or related infrastructure represents a significant change in assumptions from those used in previous analyses. The default is a formula that represents rates derived from an analysis performed by AECOM in 2018 to support Colorado DOT. Users can enter their own values manually or by formula. Certain quantitative measures (e.g., a V2I application’s congestion reduction rate) vary in effectiveness by CV MPR, often through a nonlinear relationship that has been estimated through simulation. • Other Variables—Other general inputs include physical and operational system variables, and economic variables used in certain benefit calculations. D.2.2.2 Anticipated Operational Benefits Anticipated operational benefits include travel time savings for autos and operating savings for trucks. These benefits are directly dependent on the V2I application’s effect on congestion reduction, which itself is likely to be a function of CV MPR. Several benchmark estimates of congestion reduction are provided as guidance. Table D-6 compiles the congestion reduction rates for various V2I applications from existing studies. The BCA tool then uses the estimated congestion reduction rate and the user’s input for annual delay along the corridor or network to compute reductions in congestion delay for autos and trucks. These values are monetized using hourly value of travel time savings and average truck operating costs per vehicle hour. Figure D-3 provides a partial screen capture of this series of calculations. Some users may not wish to quantitively report the (potentially significant) benefits derived by multiplying small reductions in congestion or delay by large numbers of vehicles. The BCA tool offers the flexibility to disregard this benefit, consider it only in a qualitative context, or accommodate potential congestion or delay reductions of significant magnitude to dispel this concern. Because limited data exist today, further studies and deployment outcomes may yet yield higher levels of delay reduction. Table D-6. Congestion or Delay Reduction Factors for Various V2I Applications. V2I Application Information Source SPD-HARM Congestion or delay reduction rate is likely a function of CV MPR

141 Table D-6. Congestion or Delay Reduction Factors for Various V2I Applications. V2I Application Information Source Congestion Reduction Rate • Estimates of congestion or delay reduction from SPD-HARM vary, with significant reductions found at bottlenecks such as freeway entrances/exits and lane merges. • Simulation results of I-66 in Virginia indicate localized delay reductions of between 32% and 42% for penetration rates between 10% and 50%. However, on a corridor-wide basis, delay reduction was only between 1% and 3% (Yelchuru et al. July 2017). • Corridor-wide conclusions were also drawn under the FHWA ITS JPO Dynamic Mobility Applications evaluation at the San Diego test bed, which did not find significant traffic performance benefits, with delay reductions between 0% and 0.2% for varying operational scenarios and MPR (Hale et al. March 2016). • The defaults are based on an analysis by AECOM for CDOT that estimated congestion reduction rates using FHWA research results up to 50% MPR, and then extrapolated to 100% MPR (AECOM 2018). I-SIG Congestion Reduction Rate Congestion or delay reduction rate is likely a function of CV MPR, and adjusted for v/c ratio. • Simulation results from the San Mateo test bed for the Dynamic Mobility Applications program indicated travel time saving of between 1% and 2.5% depending on CV MPR for "medium demand" and no incidents. Travel time savings is relatively constant for CV MPR of 50% and above (Hale et al. March 2016). • Simulation results of the Phoenix test bed for the Dynamic Mobility Applications program indicated a similar result to the San Mateo test bed, expressed as a unit measurement of travel time savings per mile (Cordahi et al. July 2016). • For some analysis, systemwide delay reduction also included vehicles in queues on the side streets intersecting the arterial, which in the case of the San Mateo test bed simulation ranged from 22% delay reduction at 10% CV MPR to 78% at 50% CV MPR and above (Yelchuru et al. Feb. 2017). Conservatively, only the benefits to through traffic along the arterial are considered here. • The MMITSS Impact Assessment simulations conducted for the Phoenix test bed and a simulation of US 50 in Chantilly, Virginia found that maximum delay reduction was achieved for a V/C of 0.85 (near congested conditions). Delay reduction was about 50% of the maximum for a V/C of 1.0 (congested conditions) and 80% of the maximum for a V/C of 0.5 (uncongested conditions) (Ahn et al. Aug. 2015). INC-ZONE Unit Travel Time savings Unit travel time saving per incident in hours is likely a function of CV MPR. The INC-ZONE application was evaluated at the San Mateo test bed under the ITS JPO Dynamic Mobility Applications Program, which found (Cordahi et al. May 2015): • The reduction in network (corridor) delay was between 1 percent and 14 percent, and the increase in average speed was between 1 percent and 8 percent for dry conditions. These benefits were more for long incident than short incident scenarios. • The reduction in network (corridor) delay was between 1 percent and 7 percent, and the increase in average speed was between 0.25 percent and 3 percent for

142 Table D-6. Congestion or Delay Reduction Factors for Various V2I Applications. V2I Application Information Source rainy conditions. These benefits were more for short incident than long incident scenarios. • Mobility improvement at the incident zone, as reflected by the increase in localized throughput (1-14%), was found to be higher under dry conditions than rainy conditions for all levels of market penetration. The average improvement under dry conditions was around 2 percent higher than under rainy conditions. • Further assessment used RITIS data for incidents to compute a unit travel time savings value that can be applied generally to application of the INC-ZONE application. Those values are used here as a default, adjusted based on CV MPR (Cordahi et al. July 2016). Figure D-3. BCA Tool Screen Capture – Anticipated Operational Benefits D.2.2.3 Anticipated Safety Benefits Anticipated safety benefits include fatalities avoided, injuries avoided, and property damage only avoided. Computing the safety benefits of a V2I application requires crash reduction factors as an input. The tool highlights current research and analysis findings on potential crash reduction factors to use. The default values, as summarized in Table D-7, are the research team’s judgment from considering the existing research and analysis. Next, the user must enter forecasted crash Input/Output Category (I/O) Calculated / Total Value (O) Fixed Value (I) Year 1 Value (I) Year 2 Value (I) 1 2 Congestion Reduction Rate 0.1% 0.2% Estimated Annual Delay for Corridor or Network - Autos 17,939,300 17,939,300 Estimated Annual Delay for Corridor or Network - Trucks 492,200 492,200 Congestion Delay Reduction in Annual Hours for Corridor or Network - Autos 13,132 37,457 Congestion Delay Reduction in Annual Hours for Corridor or Network - Trucks 360 1,028 Hourly Value of Travel Time Savings - Personal (Auto) $ 14.50 Hourly Value of Travel Time Savings - Business (Auto) $ 27.00 Corridor Travel Function Local Travel Hourly Value of Travel Time Savings - All Purposes (Auto) $ 15.10 Average Truck Operating Costs per Vehicle Hour Traveled $ 68.10 Travel Time Savings (Autos) - Current$ $ 30,220,000 $ 198,000 $ 566,000 Operating Savings (Trucks) - Current$ $ 3,740,000 $ 25,000 $ 70,000 Travel Time Savings (Autos) $ 22,957,000 181,000$ 503,000$ Operating Savings (Trucks) $ 2,841,000 23,000$ 62,000$

143 rates for the corridor or network in question; this can be a constant value over the planning horizon, or it can vary by year. From these inputs, the tool computes forecasted reductions in fatalities, injuries, and property damage only. Crash costs are then applied to these reductions to obtain the cost savings benefits. The default crash cost values are based on FHWA guidance (Harmon et al., 2018)—Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis—and can be adjusted based on state-specific policy. Figure D-4 provides a partial screen capture of this series of safety calculations.

144 Table D-7. Crash Reduction Factors for Various V2I Applications. V2I Application Information Source Default SPD-HARM • Colorado DOT assumed an equivalent CRF as the "Install Variable Speed Limit" countermeasure (AECOM 2018): 0.19 (Fatalities/Injuries/PDO) • A survey of European studies that examined impacts of C-ITS (CV) applications used the following for Shock Wave Damping in a CBA (Ricardo Energy & Environment Feb. 2016): 5% (Injuries); 7.8% (Fatalities) • VTTI estimated a reduction in speed variation for MPR of 50-95% for SPD-HARM combined with Q-WARN (VTTI 2016), which can be converted to a reduction in crashes assuming a 0.3% reduction in crashes for every 1% reduction in speed variation (Quddus Feb. 2013): 8.7% (crashes) All crash types = 0.1 Q-WARN • Colorado DOT assumed an equivalent CRF as the "Install Changeable 'Queue Ahead' Warning Signs" countermeasure (AECOM 2018): 0.16 (Fatalities/Injuries); -0.16 (PDO) A survey of European studies that examined impacts of C-ITS (CV) applications used the following values in a CBA for applications with functionality similar to Q-WARN, assuming only equipped light vehicles (Ricardo Energy & Environment Feb. 2016): o For Emergency Brake Light: 2.5% (Injuries); 2.7% (Fatalities) o For Slow or Stationary Vehicle Warning: 0.7% (Injuries); 1.1% (Fatalities) o For Traffic Jam Ahead Warning applied on freeways: 4.4% (Injuries); 2.4% (Fatalities) o For Traffic Jam Ahead Warning applied on rural roads: 3.7% (Injuries); 2.0% (Fatalities) o For Traffic Jam Ahead Warning applied on urban roads: 1.8% (Injuries); 1.2% (Fatalities) • An effectiveness assessment of multiple studies examining CV and driver assistance technologies in pre-crash scenarios found for Forward Collision Warning (an application similar in functionality to Q-WARN) (Yue at al. Apr. 2018): • An average of three studies of light vehicles: 22% (crashes) • An average of two studies of heavy vehicles: 34% (crashes) All crash types = 0.15 CSW-RDW • Colorado DOT assumed an equivalent CRF for RDW as the "Install Shoulder Rumble Strips" countermeasure (AECOM 2018): 0.16 (Fatalities/Injuries); 0.11 (PDO) • An effectiveness assessment of multiple studies examining CV and driver assistance technologies in pre-crash scenarios conservatively suggests for CSW + Lane Departure Warning (Yue at al. Apr. 2018): • For light vehicles: 11% (crashes) • For heavy vehicles: 21% (crashes) All crash types = 0.16

145 INC-ZONE • A survey of European studies that examined impacts of C-ITS (CV) applications used the following for Roadworks Warning (enables road operators to communicate information about road works and restrictions to drivers) in a CBA (Ricardo Energy & Environment Feb. 2016): 1.5% (Injuries); 1.9% (Fatalities). These are used as default values, with the lower of the two also applied to PDO. Fatalities =1.9% Injuries = 1.5% PDO=1.5% Figure D-4. BCA Tool Screen Capture – Anticipated Safety Benefits D.2.2.4 Anticipated Environmental Benefits Anticipated environmental benefits include a reduction in NOx, a reduction in volatile organic compounds, a reduction in carbon dioxide, and reduction in fuel consumption. Other emissions including carbon monoxide and particulate matter might also be reduced with the application of certain V2I applications, but the literature indicates inconclusive results on the extent and magnitude of the reduction to be able to include them in the BCA tool. Input/Output Category (I/O) Calculated / Total Value (O) Fixed Value (I) Year 1 Value (I) Year 2 Value (I) Crash Reduction Factor - Fatalities 0.10 Crash Reduction Factor - Injuries 0.10 Crash Reduction Factor - PDO 0.10 Crash Rate - Fatalities 0.005 0.005 Crash Rate - Injuries 0.060 0.060 Crash Rate - PDO 0.150 0.150 Forecasted Reduction in Fatalities 0.0200 0.0572 Forecasted Reduction in Injuries 0.2405 0.6859 Forecasted Reduction in PDO 0.6012 1.7148 Crash Cost - Fatalities 11,989,838$ Crash Cost - Injuries 279,272$ Crash Cost - PDO 12,454$ Cost Savings from Fatalities Avoided - Current$ $ 26,019,238 240,258$ 685,327$ Cost Savings from Injuries Avoided - Current$ $ 7,272,600 67,154$ 191,555$ Cost Savings from PDO Avoided - Current$ $ 810,775 7,487$ 21,355$ Cost Savings from Fatalities Avoided $ 20,067,144 219,870$ 608,904$ Cost Savings from Injuries Avoided $ 5,608,939 61,456$ 170,194$ Cost Savings from PDO Avoided $ 625,304 6,851$ 18,974$

146 The environmental benefits calculation begins with an estimate of the reduction rates in the three pollutants and fuel consumption as a result of the V2I application. For SPD-HARM, the default reduction rates provided in the BCA tool are based on simulations of a speed harmonization algorithm applied to a section of I-66 in Northern Virginia (Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 2016). The SPD-HARM algorithm simulated optimized mobility benefits through bottleneck congestion reduction, with attendant environmental benefits. The default rates are a function of CV MPR with regard for traffic volume. Table D-8 summarizes the emission and fuel consumption reduction rates synthesized from various sources. Next, the user must enter or confirm the defaults for each pollutant’s emission rate, both for autos and trucks, and the fuel efficiency of (gasoline) autos and (diesel) trucks. The user must also enter or confirm the environmental damage costs from NOx and volatile organic compounds, and the social cost of carbon. The default values are derived from authoritative federal guidance. The average price of fuel is used, as provided under the General Inputs section. The BCA tool uses the emission and fuel consumption reduction rates from the SPD-HARM application, the emission and fuel consumption rates in grams per mile and miles per gallon, respectively, and the cost information to compute the monetized reduction in the three pollutants and fuel consumption. Figure D-5 provides a partial screen capture of this series of environmental calculations. Table D-8. Emission and Fuel Consumption Reduction Rates for Various V2I Applications. V2I Application Information Source SPD-HARM The unadjusted emission reduction rates below are based on simulations of a speed harmonization algorithm applied to a section of I-66 in Northern Virginia (VTTI 2016). These rates are provided as a default as a function of CV MPR. No adjustment for traffic volume (V/C) is made. NOx Reduction Rate 1.93% at or above MPR of 10%. Proportional reduction at MPR < 10% VOC Reduction Rate 8.53% at or above MPR of 10%. Proportional reduction at MPR < 10% CO2 Reduction Rate 3.20% at or above MPR of 10%. Proportional reduction at MPR < 10% Fuel Consumption Reduction Rate 3.47% at or above MPR of 10%. Proportional reduction at MPR < 10% I-SIG The unadjusted emission reduction rates below are based on simulations of the San Mateo test bed analyzing Eco-Signal Operations under the ITS JPO AERIS program. The Eco-Traffic Signal Timing optimizes for environmental benefits with attendant mobility benefits. A survey of European studies that examined impacts of C-ITS (CV) applications (Ricardo Energy & Environment Feb. 2016) also compiled emissions reduction rates for the Green Light Optimal Speed Advisory / Time to Green application, which optimizes for traffic efficiency (mobility) and environmental benefits. The European survey reported lower rates than the AERIS program study, but those numbers were estimated considering European rural and urban driving environments.

147 Table D-8. Emission and Fuel Consumption Reduction Rates for Various V2I Applications. V2I Application Information Source For that reason, the AERIS program rates are recommended as defaults for use below. These rates are given as a function of CV MPR, and can be adjusted based on traffic volume (V/C) and whether the application is expected to optimize environmental benefits or delay (mobility). The rates may also be sensitive to the percentage of trucks, but insufficient data was available to suggest adjustments that account for CV MPR and V/C. (At 100% CV MPR, fuel consumption and VOC reduction rates increased as truck percentage increased up to a 15% share; however NOx reduction rates decreased with greater truck percentage.) NOx Reduction Rate No to little benefits for a CV MPR < 20% If MPR > 20%, reduction rate = (0.05*MPR-0.012)*TVA*OGA VOC Reduction Rate No to little benefits for a CV MPR < 20%. If MPR is between 20% and 65%, reduction rate = (0.09*MPR+0.0019)*TVA*OGA If MPR > 65%, reduction rate = 0.06*TVA*OGA Fuel Consumption/CO2 Reduction Rate No to little benefits for a CV MPR < 20%. If MPR is between 20% and 50, reduction rate = (0.11*MPR- .0184)*TVA*OGA If MPR > 50%, reduction rate = (0.02*MPR+0.026)*TVA*OGA Where: TVA = Traffic Volume Adjustment Factor. For full emissions reduction benefits, V/C should be 0.85 or less, otherwise benefits are reduced by 50%. OGA = Optimization Goal Adjustment Factor. If v/c = 1, OGA = 0, if v/c = 0.85, OGA=0.5, and if v/c=0.5, OGA=0.75

148 Figure D-5. BCA Tool Screen Capture – Anticipated Environmental Benefits Input/Output Category (I/O) Calculated / Total Value (O) Fixed Value (I) Year 1 Value (I) Year 2 Value (I) NOx Reduction Rate 0.14% 0.40% VOC Reduction Rate 0.62% 1.78% CO2 Reduction Rate 0.23% 0.67% Fuel Consumption Reduction Rate 0.25% 0.72% NOx Emission Rate - Autos 0.289 VOC Emission Rate - Autos 0.350 CO2 Emission Rate - Autos 404 NOx Emission Rate - Trucks 5.971 VOC Emission Rate - Trucks 0.645 CO2 Emission Rate - Trucks 1657 Fuel Efficiency - Autos (gasoline) 22.0 Fuel Efficiency - Trucks (diesel) 6.5 NOx Environmental Damage Cost $ 8,500 VOC Environmental Damage Cost $ 2,050 Social Cost of Carbon (current Federal guidance) 1.02$ 1.02$ Social Cost of Carbon (prior Federal guidance) 50.88$ 51.84$ Social Cost of Carbon Selection Current Federal Guidance Reduction in NOx - Current$ $ 859,418 8,485$ 24,243$ Reduction in VOCs - Current$ $ 428,377 4,239$ 12,171$ Reduction in CO2 (current Federal guidance) - Current$ $ 99,729 976$ 2,842$ Reduction in CO2 (prior Federal guidance) - Current$ $ 5,515,811 48,664$ 144,460$ Reduction in Fuel Consumption - Current$ $ 32,890,216 322,580$ 929,029$ Reduction in NOx $ 665,783 7,765$ 21,540$ Reduction in VOCs $ 331,852 3,880$ 10,814$ Reduction in CO2 (current Federal guidance) $ 77,258 893$ 2,525$ Reduction in CO2 (prior Federal guidance) $ 4,261,467 44,534$ 128,351$ Reduction in Fuel Consumption $ 25,478,736 295,206$ 825,430$

149 D.2.3 Cost Inputs The Cost Inputs tab contains one large table in which the user enters cost component values for the V2I application over the planning horizon. Costs are assumed to be constant 2018 dollars. The research team relied on its understanding of existing and planned deployments of CV infrastructure and V2I applications to develop the cost categories and components. Cost categories and components used in the BCA tool are as presented in Table 8 and closely align with the CV infrastructure components summarized in Table 10. Guidance on typical component costs, gleaned from the experience of agencies deploying CV infrastructure and from the literature and summarized in Appendix B, are provided in the Cost Input tab for the user to consider when entering values. Figure D-6 illustrates a partial screen capture of the Cost Input tab showing a sample of cost categories and components and the total cost summation column along with the first two years of the planning horizon. (Note for the sake of illustrative brevity, the guidance or benchmark bullet points have been hidden in the illustration.)

150 Figure D-6. BCA Tool Screen Capture – Cost Inputs. D.2.4 Benefit-Cost Analysis Calculation This last tab of the three for each of the five V2I applications in the BCA tool performs the benefit-cost calculations using the Benefit Inputs and Cost Inputs. The tool calculates the following values on this tab, as shown in Figure D-7 (only the first five years of the planning horizon are shown). Costs (I) Cost Subcomponent (I) Total Cost (2018$) (O) Cost Incurred Prior to Year 1 (I) Cost Incurred in Year 1 (I) Cost Incurred in Year 2 (I) 1 2 Roadside Units / Roadside Equipment 170,000$ -$ 95,000$ 75,000$ Hardware 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$ Design, Deployment, Integration, Testing 150,000$ -$ 75,000$ 75,000$ Signal Controller Upgrade -$ -$ -$ -$ Other ITS Equipment 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ On Board Units / On Board Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$ Hardware -$ -$ -$ -$ Design, Deployment, Integration, Testing -$ -$ -$ -$ Backhaul Network 370,000$ -$ 125,000$ 125,000$ Fiber Optic Cable (design, ROW, install) 150,000$ -$ 75,000$ 75,000$ IPv6 Upgrade -$ -$ -$ -$ Security Credential Management System 220,000$ -$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Back Office / TMC 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Servers, data storage, device/system monitoring -$ -$ -$ -$ Data (e.g. 3rd party purchase) 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ CV Application Development 615,000$ -$ 300,000$ 315,000$ CV Application Systems Engineering and Development 500,000$ -$ 250,000$ 250,000$ CV Platform / Analytics Systems Engineering and Development 100,000$ -$ 50,000$ 50,000$ Back Office Provisioning of J2735 Messages to Application 15,000$ -$ -$ 15,000$ Other Costs 110,000$ -$ 45,000$ 65,000$ ITS Architecture Update 20,000$ -$ 20,000$ -$ ITS Standards Update -$ -$ -$ -$ Workforce Addition / Training 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ Industry-wide CV Standards Committee Participation 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ -$ Program Management 30,000$ -$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Ongoing System Operations and Maintenance 160,000$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL (2018$) 1,525,000$ -$ 665,000$ 580,000$

151 • Total benefits • Total costs • Net benefits • Cumulative net benefits • Benefit-Cost Ratio • Breakeven year • ROI based on the selected time frame • Average annual cost • Average annual net benefits Figure D-7. BCA Tool Screen Capture – Benefit-Cost Analysis The tool has a built-in formula that enables users to calculate the ROI for any time frame (15 years or less), as shown in Figure D-8. This field illustrates the flexibility in the tool to select the desired time frame. The ROI will automatically update based on the number of years selected. Benefits (O) Total (O) Pre-Year 1 Year 1 (O)2 Year 2 (O) Year 3 (O) Year 4 (O) Year 5 (O) 1 2 3 4 5 OPERATIONAL BENEFITS Travel Time Savings (Autos) 22,957,000$ 181,000$ 503,000$ 951,000$ 1,513,000$ 2,181,000$ Operating Savings (Trucks) 2,841,000$ 23,000$ 62,000$ 117,000$ 188,000$ 270,000$ SAFETY BENEFITS Cost Savings from Fatalities Avoided 20,067,144$ 219,870$ 608,904$ 1,151,761$ 1,834,003$ 2,642,056$ Cost Savings from Injuries Avoided 5,608,939$ 61,456$ 170,194$ 321,927$ 512,620$ 738,477$ Cost Savings from PDO Avoided 625,304$ 6,851$ 18,974$ 35,890$ 57,149$ 82,328$ ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Reduction in NOx 665,783$ 7,765$ 21,540$ 41,302$ 65,478$ 94,124$ Reduction in VOCs 331,852$ 3,880$ 10,814$ 20,467$ 32,583$ 46,923$ Reduction in CO2 (current Federal guidance) 77,258$ 893$ 2,525$ 4,757$ 7,603$ 10,934$ Reduction in Fuel Consumption 25,478,736$ 295,206$ 825,430$ 1,569,386$ 2,507,042$ 3,609,065$ Total Benefits 78,653,017$ 799,921$ 2,223,381$ 4,213,489$ 6,717,477$ 9,674,908$ Costs (O) Total (O) Pre-Year 1 (O) Year 1 (O)2 Year 2 (O) Year 3 (O) Year 4 (O) Year 5 (O) Roadside Units / Roadside Equipment 170,000$ -$ 95,000$ 75,000$ -$ -$ -$ Signal Controller Upgrade -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other ITS Equipment 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ On Board Units / On Board Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Backhaul Network 370,000$ -$ 125,000$ 125,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Back Office / TMC 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CV Application Development 615,000$ -$ 300,000$ 315,000$ -$ -$ -$ Other Costs 110,000$ -$ 45,000$ 65,000$ -$ -$ -$ Ongoing System Operations and Maintenance 160,000$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ Total Costs 1,525,000$ -$ 665,000$ 580,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ Net Benefit (positive indicates benefit) 77,128,017$ -$ 134,921$ 1,643,381$ 4,178,489$ 6,682,477$ 9,639,908$ Cumulative Benefit N/A -$ 134,921$ 1,778,302$ 5,956,791$ 12,639,268$ 22,279,176$ Benefit Cost Ratio 51.6 Breakeven Year Year 1 Return on Investment Timeframe (please select timeframe) -------> 7 Years Return on Investment 3037% Average Annual Cost 177,500$ Average Annual Net Benefit 5,390,669$

152 Figure D-8. BCA Tool Screen Capture – Return on Investment Time Frame Selection D.2.5 Using the Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool for a Different Application or Combination of Applications The BCA tool is currently set up for five V2I applications and designed to be used for a single V2I application at a time. The tool offers flexibility to perform benefit-cost analysis for a combination of V2I applications or extend the analysis to different V2I applications with ease. Each application has a distinct set of worksheets: Benefits, Costs, and BCA. Input, output, and notation fields are color-coded throughout the tool per the legend in Table D-2. If the users of the BCA tool intend to perform the analysis for a combination of applications or a different application, they should only change the input fields in the Benefits and Costs worksheets. The users can also insert new rows in the worksheets to include additional benefit or cost categories as appropriate. The Benefits worksheet contains general inputs, such as planning horizon, discount rate, or annual average daily traffic for autos and trucks, etc., which should be reviewed, revised, or changed for every analysis. The Benefits worksheet also contains benefit functions that estimate the percent reduction in congestion, crashes, and emissions anticipated from the V2I application of interest. The benefit functions are as follows: • Congestion Reduction Rate • Crash Reduction Factors by Severity Type • NOx Reduction Rate • VOC Reduction Rate • CO2 Reduction Rate • Fuel Consumption Reduction Rate Each of the above-listed benefit functions depends on the CV market penetration rates and has a direct influence on benefit computations. When using the tool for a different application or a

Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and other government agencies recognize the value of connected vehicle (CV) technologies in helping achieve the strategic objectives of saving lives and relieving congestion. Several agencies are currently planning and preparing for a future where CV technologies could become a part of their routine business operations. A core consideration in any such planning effort is an assessment of the need for and the nature of public CV infrastructure investments to support applications based on CV technologies.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Web-Only Document 289: Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations presents methods to identify the most plausible CV infrastructure investments, shows how to build effective business case arguments, and details specific business model options during project procurement and delivery.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!