Benefit-Cost Analysis

Transcription

Benefit-Cost Analysis
Downeaster Service
Optimization Project
FY2014 TIGER
Discretionary Grant Program
April 25, 2014
Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority
Patricia Quinn, Executive Director
75 West Commercial Street Suite 104
Portland, Maine 04101-4631
Tel 207.780.1000 x105
pat [email protected]
Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority
Downeaster Optimization Project
1
Downeaster Service Optimization
Project Benefit-Cost Analysis
Prepared for the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority
May 31, 2013
1
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Analytical Assumptions............................................................................................................................ 7
Discount Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation Period ................................................................................................................................ 7
Annualizing Factor Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 8
Project Region ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Travel Demand Sources and Forecast Years for Highway Benefits ........................................................ 8
PRISMTM .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Economic Benefits Included ..................................................................................................................... 9
Economic Competitiveness .................................................................................................................. 9
Travel Time Savings ......................................................................................................................... 9
Induced Ridership Benefits ............................................................................................................ 11
Reductions in Vehicle Operating Costs ........................................................................................... 13
Oil Import Costs ............................................................................................................................. 15
Safety ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Accident Cost Savings .................................................................................................................... 15
Sustainability ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Emissions....................................................................................................................................... 18
Noise Pollution .............................................................................................................................. 20
State of Good Repair ......................................................................................................................... 21
Economic Costs Included and Assumptions............................................................................................ 22
Capital Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................................... 22
Residual Value ................................................................................................................................... 22
Key Benefit-Cost Evaluation Measures................................................................................................... 23
Sensitivity Analysis............................................................................................................................. 23
Benefit-Cost Analysis Results ................................................................................................................. 23
Results in Brief................................................................................................................................... 23
Benefits by Category.......................................................................................................................... 24
2
Costs over Time ................................................................................................................................. 25
Cumulative Benefits and Costs ........................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX A - PRISMTM Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................ 28
APPENDIX B - Benefit-Cost Model Detail Tables ..................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX C – Monetization Values and Ranges Used in PRISM™ Sensitivity Analysis ............................ 38
3
Executive Summary
A benefit-cost analysis (BCA) was conducted for the Downeaster Service Optimization Project (“Project”)
for submission to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) as a requirement of a discretionary
grant application for the TIGER V program. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the benefitcost methodology as recommended by the U.S. DOT in the Federal Register (77 Fed. Reg. 4863) and
conducted for a 30-year analysis period after operations begin in 2016.
The Downeaster Service Optimization Project includes three elements which will collectively enhance
the performance of Downeaster service between Brunswick, Maine and Boston, Massachusetts. The
major elements of the project are:
A layover facility to improve servicing of trains which will overnight in Brunswick.
A siding to provide capacity to support the operation of five round trips daily between
Brunswick and Boston.
A connecting “wye” track to eliminate back-up movement for trains traveling between Portland
and Brunswick.
The overall cost of the project is expected to be $29.5 million in undiscounted 2012 dollars (Table 1). At
a 7 percent discount rate, the total costs are $26.4 million. While at a 3 percent discount rate, the total
costs are $28.1 million in total.
Table 1 Downeaster Service Optimization Project Capital Costs
Capital Cost
Costs
(2012 $)
Costs
(2012 $
discounted at 7 %)
Costs
(2012 $
discounted at 3 %)
Total
$29,500,000
$26,367,659
$28,084,646
Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
Operations and maintenance costs are projected to total an average of $1.16 million per year. Over the
entire 30-year analysis period these costs accumulate to $34.9 million in undiscounted 2012 dollars;
$11.6 million when discounted at 7 percent; or $20.86 million when discounted at 3 percent.
In real 2012 dollars, the Project creates $58.9 million in present value benefits when discounted at 7
percent or $120.8 million when discounted at 3 percent. It does so, generally by decreasing travel times
and shifting intercity trips previously taken by automobile to train. The overall project benefit matrix can
be seen in Table 2.
4
Table 2: Downeaster Service Optimization Project Impact and Benefits Matrix
Population
Affected by Impact
Economic
Benefit
Summary of
Results
(at 7%
discount rate)
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
Auto drivers who
switch modes
Fuel Savings
$4.9 million
$9.7 million
pg 13
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
Auto drivers who
switch modes
Travel Time
Savings
$37.3 million
$76.1 million
pg 9
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
Society
Oil import
Savings
$448,100
$892,800
pg 15
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
Auto drivers who
switch modes
Non-Fuel O&M
Savings
$6.0 million
$12.6 million
pg 13
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
New induced
riders
Consumer
Surplus
$5.6 million
$11.1 million
pg 11
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
Society and
surrounding
communities
Reductions in
Emissions
$551,100
$1.2 million
pg 18
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
All drivers in study
region and society
Reductions in
Accidents
$4.0 million
$8.4 million
pg 15
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
Surrounding
communities
Reductions in
Noise
$51,800
$108,700
pg 20
Railroad ‘Wye’
Track, Layover
Facility & Siding
Government and
society
Reductions in
Pavement
Damages
$51,800
$108,700
pg 21
Type of Impact
The overall Project impacts can be seen in
5
Summary of
Results
(at 3%
discount rate)
Page
Reference in
BCA
Table 3, which shows the magnitude of change and direction of the various impact categories. There are
reductions in both VHT and VMT, as well as in fuel consumption, oil imports, emissions, and safety
incidents.
Table 3: Project Impacts for Downeaster Service Optimization Project Cumulative 2016-2044
Category
Quantity
Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT)
159.2 million
Vehicle-hours traveled (VHT)
5.4million
Induced Ridership Benefits (2012 $ undiscounted)
$22.3 million
Fuel consumed (gal.)
5.1 million
Oil imported (gal.)
4.9 million
Fatalities (number)
1.7
Injury accidents (number)
1.2
Property damage only accidents (number)
1.0
CO2 Emissions (tons)
59,400
NOX emissions (tons)
15
PM
10
7.5
(tons)
0.6
SOX (tons)
13.5
VOC (tons)
Table 4 below shows the overall results of the BCA. At a 7 percent discount rate, the Project yields a
benefit-cost ratio of 1.55 over a 30 year analysis period; and using a 3 percent discount rate the benefitcost ratio is 2.47.
Table 4: Benefit Cost Analysis Summary Results
Scenario
Net Present Value
(2012 $ millions disc.)
Benefit Cost Ratio
Case A (7 percent discount rate)
$20.8
1.55
Case B (3 percent discount rate)
$71.9
2.47
Sensitivity tests were conducted utilizing a range of valuations for benefit categories and impacts using
the Parsons Brinckerhoff Regional Impact Scenario Model, PRISM™ (described on page 3). While the
results displayed are the baseline and most likely numbers, further statistical analysis was conducted to
meet U.S. DOT’s recommendations of a thorough sensitivity analysis.
Using PRISM™ sensitivity analysis, it was found that there is over a 99 percent probability of the benefitcost ratio exceeding 1.0 at a either a 7 or 3 percent discount rate.
6
Introduction
In accordance with the benefit-cost methodology as recommended by the U.S. DOT in the Guide to
Preparing Benefit-Cost Analyses for TIGER Grants and the Notice of funding availability (77 Fed. Reg.
4863) 1 a BCA was conducted for the Downeaster Service Optimization Project. This BCA was done for
submission to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) as a requirement of a discretionary
grant application for the TIGER V program. The analysis was conducted using a 30-year analysis period
after operations begin in 2016.
Analytical Assumptions
Discount Rates
For project investments, dollar figures in this analysis are expressed in constant 2012 dollars. In
instances where certain cost estimates or benefit valuations were expressed in dollar values in other
(historical) years, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
was used to adjust them to 2012 dollars. 2
The real discount rates used for this analysis were 3.0 and 7.0 percent, consistent with U.S. DOT
guidance for TIGER V grants 3 and OMB Circular A-4.4.
Evaluation Period
For the Downeaster Service Optimization Project, the evaluation period includes the relevant (postdesign) construction period during which capital expenditures are undertaken, plus 30 years of
operations beyond the project completion within which to accrue benefits.
For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that construction of the project began as early as
2013, and finish in 2016. The analysis period, therefore, begins with the first expenditures in 2013 and
continues through 30-years of operations from 2017 to 2044.
All benefits and costs are assumed to occur at the end of each year, and benefits begin in the calendar
year immediately following the final construction year.
1
TIGER 2013 NOFA: Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance, Updated May 3, 2013; http://www.dot.gov/policyinitiatives/tiger/tiger-2013-nofa-benefit-cost-analysis-guidance
2
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, Motor Fuel.
Series CUUR0000SETB. 1982-1984=100
3
TIGER 2013 NOFA: Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance, Updated May 3, 2013; http://www.dot.gov/policyinitiatives/tiger/tiger-2013-nofa-benefit-cost-analysis-guidance
4
White House Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost
Analysis of Federal Programs (October 29, 1992). (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094).
7
Annualizing Factor Assumptions
Travel demand models produce outputs on daily or sub-daily basis. An annualization factor is thus
necessary to convert the travel demand outputs into to yearly values. The travel demand model
indicates an annualizing factor of 300.
Project Region
The geographic coverage of this analysis is the Downeaster corridor of 146 miles which runs from
Boston, Massachusetts to Brunswick, Maine. While most impacts are within this study corridor, the
scope of this BCA is at the national level, incorporating benefits and costs to all of society regardless of
geographic location.
Travel Demand Sources and Forecast Years for Highway Benefits
The layover facility in Brunswick will eliminate the need for deadhead moves between Portland and
Brunswick, and along with the Royal Siding junction, will provide the support necessary to increase
Downeaster service between Brunswick and Boston to five round trips daily. The “wye” track will
eliminate unproductive back-up movement for trains traveling between Portland and Brunswick, and
will decrease trip times by 10 minutes.
The Layover facility is expected to contribute to nearly 22,000 new riders in its first year of operations.
The Royal Junction contributes over 40,000 new annual riders in its first year of operations, while the
Wye contributes an additional 8,000 new riders.
The following table shows the total projected ridership levels for the project. The existing ridership base
is the ridership that would exist under a “no build” scenario. Additional ridership comes from those who
shift modes from automobile, as well as new trips that are induced.
Table 5: Ridership Forecasts for the Downeaster Service Optimization Project
Total Ridership (annual riders)
Existing Ridership Base
Ridership from Auto Shift
Other Induced Ridership
2016
587,384
599,188
19,147
14,444
2020
823,957
694,623
73,720
55,614
2030
1,219,657
1,028,212
109,124
82,322
2040
1,805,391
1,522,004
161,530
121,856
Source: NNEPRA, 2013; (Extrapolation done by Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013 based on NNEPRA ridership
estimates)
Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) estimates that of the new ridership, 57
percent will have shifted from autos and the remaining 43 percent are newly induced riders. NNEPRA
also provided forecasts of ridership through year 2020, with growth ranging around 4 percent per year
through 2020. This same 4 percent figure was utilized for forecasts beyond 2020. The average trip length
along this route is 82 miles.
In addition to the assumptions about travel demand data listed above, this analysis utilizes PRISM™
sensitivity analysis to test a +/- 10 percent sensitivity on all travel demand figures.
8
PRISMTM
This benefit cost analysis was done using PRISMTM (http://prism.pbworld.net/), a benefit cost analysis
tool that uses a methodology consistent with the most recent guidelines developed by U.S. DOT. The
tool determined benefits according to the following five categories: State of Good Repair; Economic
Competitiveness; Livability; Sustainability; and Safety. In addition, PRISM’s risk analysis capabilities
(using Monte Carlo simulations) provided statistically derived ‘high’ and ‘low’ scenarios for the benefit
cost ratio – e.g., 95% confident that the benefit cost ratio will fall between X and Y.
PRISMTM is designed to take into account the difficulty in determining the “true value” of a given impact
by allowing for a range of per unit values: low likely and high. The range established by the low, likely
and high values allow PRISMTM to run Monte Carlo simulations, which create a probability distribution
function. The probability distribution functions are created according to the function described in the
Beta distribution.5 Details of the distribution as it is employed in PRISM™ are found in the betaPert
(Open Pert) documentation, which uses the modified PERT distribution, a type of Beta distribution. 6
Economic Benefits Included
The following identifies and groups the benefits that are included in the BCA for the Downeaster Service
Optimization Project. This section discusses the valuations used for each benefit category. More
detailed summary of all valuations as used in PRISM™ sensitivity analysis, with statistical details, are
available in Appendix C.
Economic Competitiveness
Travel Time Savings
Travel time savings includes in-vehicle travel time savings for auto drivers and passengers. Travel time is
considered a cost to users, and its value depends on the disutility that travelers attribute to time spent
traveling. A reduction in travel time would translate into more time available for work, leisure, or other
activities.
Value of Time Assumptions
Travel time savings must be converted from hours to dollars in order for benefits to be aggregated and
compared against costs. This is performed by assuming that travel time is valued as a percentage of the
average wage rate, with different percentages assigned to different trip purposes (Table 6). Because the
Downeaster Service Optimization Project consists of Amtrak ridership with an average passenger trip
length of over 82 miles, the values for intercity surface travel are used.
5
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda366h.htm
6
http://code.google.com/p/openpert/downloads/detail?name=openpert_reference_guide.pdf
9
Values are broken down as low, medium and high for use in PRISMTM sensitivity analysis based on the
percentages in Table 7, as recommended by U.S. DOT. 7
Table 6: U.S. DOT Recommended Values of Time, 2012; (per person-hour as a percentage of total
earnings)
Surface Modes
(Except High-Speed Rail)
Low
Likely
High
Category
Local Travel
Personal
Business
35%
80%
50%
100%
60%
120%
Source: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 2011.
Values of time used for 2012 are as follows:
Table 7: U.S. DOT Recommended Values of Time, 2012
Values of time
(2012 U.S $ per
person-hour)
Low
Category
Surface (except High-Speed Rail)
Intercity Travel
Personal
Business
All Purposes
$21.20
$26.97
$22.44
Values of time
(2012 U.S $ per
person-hour)
Likely
Values of time
(2012 U.S $ per
person-hour)
High
$24.73
$33.71
$26.66
$31.80
$40.46
$33.65
Source: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 2011.
Because the exact division between personal and business travel is not known for trips potentially
impacted by this project, the values of time for “all purposes” are used; these represent a weighted
average of the personal and business values of time according to national proportions of personal and
business as calculated by the U.S. DOT.8
Additionally, U.S. DOT guidance accepts the use of a real growth rate of 1.6 percent a year for the value
of time.9 This real growth rate was thus applied for values of time in the years after 2012. To account
for real wage growth, the value of time used in this analysis is the average value, in real 2012 dollars,
7
Office of the Secretary of Transportation. (2011). Revised Departmental Guidance: Valuation of Travel Time in
Economic Analysis, p. 11-12. (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf)
8
Ibid.
9
Office of the Secretary of Transportation. (2011). Revised Departmental Guidance: Valuation of Travel Time in
Economic Analysis, p. 14. (http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf)
10
across the time period of the analysis, from 2017-2036. This will overestimate the cost in the short term
but will underestimate it in the long term balancing this effect out.
Average Vehicle Occupancy
Since some passengers who ride the new rail service would come off of the roadway network, thus
switching from auto to rail, it is necessary to estimate how many automobiles those riders would
otherwise represent.
This analysis assumes an average vehicle occupancy (AVO) rate of 1.71 persons per vehicle for all trips.
This AVO rate is consistent with the one from the National Household Travel Survey 2009’s data for
Maine for all trips.10
Induced Ridership Benefits
Not all the new passengers will be shifting from automobiles. (See Table 5) Some (approximately 43
percent) will be individuals who were not making the trip previously, but because of the improvements
to the Downeaster line, are now choosing to travel. While the nominal cost of the trip or the fare has
not changed, the ‘generalized cost’ of the trip has been lowered through the reduction in travel times,
increased frequency, and other possible intangibles. These induced riders receive benefits that are not
captured in travel time calculations or reductions in costs due to mode shift. (See Figure 1 below)
10
Federal Highway Administration. (2009). National Household Travel Survey (Online Database). From U.S.
Department of Transportation. (http://nhts.ornl.gov/tools.shtml)
11
Figure 1 Induced Ridership Benefits Due to Reduction in Generalized Costs
Costs
Previous Consumer Surplus/Benefits
Travel Time Savings for Existing Riders
C1
C2
Existing Ridership
Increased Ridership
Ridership
Benefits to new Riders (includes induced riders)
Figure 1 above illustrates a general demand curve for ridership given a generalized cost model.
Generalized costs refer to all costs a rider incurs, including his or her fare, travel time, wait time,
comfort, convenience, and other intangibles. This project is expected to reduce generalized costs in
three ways: reducing overall travel times, increasing frequencies of service, and providing more
convenience for passengers.
This reduction in generalized cost can be seen as moving down from the original generalized cost, C1, to
the new generalized cost, C2. In doing so, there are travel time savings to existing users, which have
already been captured. The additional benefits are captured in the small triangle (indicated as benefits
to new riders). Some of the new riders come from auto, and those benefits are captured in this BCA as
reductions in fuel and auto O&M costs.
The induced riders that are captured in this triangle are those riders that, but for the reduction in
generalized costs (including reduced time, more comfort and convenience, and increased service
frequency and access) as a result of the project, otherwise would not have made the trip. It is assumed
that the reduction in generalized cost (the average per trip benefit) is only minimally reflected in the
travel time savings.
12
Other cost savings (i.e., benefits) associated with the improved service, such as convenience and
comfort, as well as easy access to rail service due to increased train frequencies, are less tangible and
less easily monetized than the rail travel time reduction. Those costs, in addition to line haul travel time,
are assumed to have strongly influenced induced riders’ decision not to utilize the current rail system.
By also reducing wait times through reduced headways, and increasing rider convenience and comfort,
induced ridership gains are substantial, and the per trip benefit is minimally measured by their fare
payment.
In total, the induced ridership benefit was assumed to be indicative of a change in generalized cost
equal to 4 times the average travel time savings of passengers. This value is intended to serve as a proxy
for all the benefits that new riders receive as discussed in this section.
Finally, induced ridership benefits were monetized using the same value of time assumptions for travel
time savings previously discussed.
Reductions in Vehicle Operating Costs
Vehicles have operating costs beyond fuel costs that will be addressed in this report. These costs
include maintenance and repair, replacement of tires, and the depreciation of the vehicle over time. The
per VMT factors of these costs were estimated by a Minnesota DOT study, 11 and used in this analysis
(see Table 8 below). Since the original study estimated the likely range for these values in 2003 dollars,
the values for this analysis have been updated to 2012 dollars using a CPI adjustment.12
Table 8: Non-Fuel Vehicle O&M Costs Automobile
Cost Category
Maintenance / Repair
Tires
Depreciation
Total
Automobile
(2012 $ / VMT)
Low
0.0399
0.0112
0.0774
0.1285
Automobile
(2012 $ / VMT)
Likely
0.0474
0.0112
0.0923
0.1509
Automobile
(2012 $ / VMT)
High
0.0499
0.0137
0.0973
0.1609
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2003; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
Vehicle Operating Costs Fuel
Fuel Prices
Fuel efficiency values were derived from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which
provides estimates for the of fuel efficiency through 2035. The values used to calculate fuel efficiency
11
Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2003). The Per-mile Costs of Operating Automobiles and Trucks.
(MN/RC 2003-19), p.22, Table 4.2. (http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/200319.pdf).
12
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, US City Average, All Items, Series
CUSR0000SA0.
13
can be found in the table published by EIA titled “Transportation Sector Key Indicators and Delivered
Energy Consumption.”13 The following fuel efficiency values were used for the different vehicle classes:
“Light Duty Stock” energy efficiency (mpg) for passenger vehicles.
Table 9: Fuel Efficiency (miles per gallon) EIA reference Case
Fuel Type
Automobiles (Light Duty stock)
2012
20.89
2020
24.08
2030
31.33
2040
35.10
2050
42.37
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
Because fuel taxes are considered a pecuniary benefit, or transfer payment, they cannot be accurately
included in benefit calculations of a BCA. Thus, the federal and state taxes estimated by the EIA are
subtracted out of the end user fuel prices.
The EIA provides of low, likely, and high estimates of fuel prices through 2040; however the analysis
period relevant for this project stretches beyond this timeframe and thus estimated fuel prices in those
future years are also necessary. In order to do estimate fuel prices that extend beyond 2040, the
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for 2011-2040 was calculated and then used to continue the
series through the end of the analysis period.
All dollars were reported in real 2011 dollars by the EIA. These dollar amounts were subsequently
converted to real 2012 dollars using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index adjustment
for “motor fuel” between 2011 and 2012.14
The following table provides the range of fuel prices, in real 2012 dollars, and a breakdown of values
used for PRISMTM sensitivity analysis, for selected years.
Table 10: Fuel Prices (real 2012 $ / gallon)
Fuel Type
Motor Gasoline Low
Motor Gasoline Likely
Motor Gasoline High
2012
$3.16
$3.16
$3.16
2020
$2.29
$3.02
$4.01
2030
$2.29
$3.40
$4.66
2040
$2.37
$4.09
$5.66
2050
$2.23
$4.32
$6.45
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013; Parsons Brinckerhoff,2013
13
Energy Information Administration. (2012). Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Early Release. Components of Selected
Petroleum Product Prices, United States, Reference case. [Microsoft Excel]
(http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/)
14
Series CUUR0000SETB. 1982-1984=100, 2010=240.724; 2011=301.448
14
To account for change in the cost of fuel overtime, this analysis used the average fuel cost across the
time period of the analysis, from 2017-2036, for each fuel type. This will overestimate the cost in the
short term but will underestimate it in the long term balancing this effect out.
Oil Import Costs
Fuel consumption has a cost beyond the actual operating costs and environmental costs of the
consumption, and this additional cost is expressed as the economic cost of oil imports. This concept
reflects two ideas: a monopsony component and a price shock component.
The monopsony component derives from the following logic; because the U.S. is such a large consumer
of oil an increase in U.S. demand for oil will lead to higher fuel prices (based on supply and demand
relationships). The price shock component comes from the fact that when there is a reduction in oil
supplies this leads to higher oil prices which in turn reduce the level of U.S. economic output. As a
consequence, reducing oil imports by consuming less fuel reduces the impact of these costs on the U.S.
economy.
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration discusses this concept, and estimates that each
gallon of fuel saved reduces total U.S. imports of refined fuel or crude oil by 0.95 gallons. 15
The likely value for NHTSA’s estimate of the per-gallon cost of oil imports (both the monopsony and
price shock components combined) is $0.285 per gallon (2005 $). When converted to 2012 dollars using
the CPI adjustment,16 this value is $0.328 per gallon (2012 $). For the range of values estimated by
NHTSA as adjusted to 2012 dollars, see Table 11.
Table 11: Cost of Oil Imports
Cost of Oil Imports (2012 $)
Low
Likely
High
$0.134
$0.328
$0.562
Source: NHSTA 2009, Parsons Brinckerhoff 2013
Safety
Accident Cost Savings
The BCA assumes constant accident rates for the “build” and “no build” scenarios. As a result, any
changes in the number of accidents will be a result of changes in VMT, not of structural changes to the
safety conditions on the roadway network.
15
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. (2009). Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, p.viii-22 – viii-27.
16
CUSR0000SA0.
15
The cost savings that could arise from a reduction in the number of accidents include direct savings (e.g.,
reduced personal medical expenses, lost wages, and lower individual insurance premiums), as well as
significant avoided costs to society (e.g., second party medical and litigation fees, emergency response
costs, incident congestion costs, and litigation costs). The value of all such benefits – both direct and
societal – could also be approximated by the cost of service disruptions to other travelers, emergency
response costs to the region, medical costs, litigation costs, vehicle damages, and economic productivity
loss due to workers’ inactivity. However, should the number of accidents increase, this category is no
longer cost savings but costs incurred by individuals and society.
This BCA estimates the benefits associated with accident cost savings using the most recently available
2009 statewide Maine accident data reported by the National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration.17 The accident figures are statewide averages and represent accidents on interstate
highways, state highways, county roads, and arterials.
Table 12: Accident Rate Assumptions
Category
Fatalities
Injuries
Property Damage Only
Accident Rate (per million VMT)
0.0110
0.0079
0.0063
Source: National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System
In order to convert these accident rates into the appropriate AIS scale for calculating benefits, national
statistics from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration were used. 18 By using the
national statistics, it was possible to derive the distribution of total injuries into their respective AIS
categories, as indicated in the following table which lists each AIS category as a proportion of all possible
injuries
Table 13: U.S. AIS Categories as Proportion of All Non-fatal Injuries.
Injury Type
AIS 5
AIS 4
AIS 3
AIS 2
AIS 1
All Injuries
Proportion
0.18%
0.69%
2.39%
8.28%
88.46%
100%
Source: NHTSA, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
17
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (2009), Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), Maine,
(http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS).
18
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2002), The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000, p.
9, Table 3 “Incidence Summary – 2000 Total Reported and Unreported Injuries.”
16
The following table lists all accident rates as reported for Maine in the NHTSA FARS database, as
converted into AIS standards:
Table 14: Accident Rates per million VMT in Maine, 2012
Accident Type
Fatality
AIS 5
AIS 4
AIS 3
AIS 2
AIS 1
Accident Rate
(per 100 million VMT)
0.0110
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0007
0.0070
0.0063
Source: NHTSA, 2009; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012
Monetized values for fatalities, and accidents categorized on the AIS scale are reported in the U.S. DOT’s
guidance for “Treatment of the Economic value of a Statistical Life”19 – this includes low and high ranges
used for PRISM™ sensitivity analysis. Values pertaining to property damage only accidents were
reported by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration,20 and have subsequently been
updated to 2012 dollars by the U.S. DOT. 21 The following table lists the range of values used for PRISMTM
sensitivity analysis for each accident type:
Table 15: Monetized Accident Values
Accident Type
Fatality
AIS 5
AIS 4
AIS 3
AIS 2
AIS 1
Unit Value (2012 $)
Low
$5,200,000
$3,083,600
$1,383,200
$546,000
$244,400
$15,600
$3,038
Unit Value (2012 $)
Likely
$9,100,000
$5,396,300
$2,420,600
$955,500
$427,700
$27,300
$3,376
Unit Value (2012 $)
High
$12,900,000
$7,649,700
$3,341,400
$1,354,500
$606,300
$38,700
$3,713
Source: U.S. DOT, 2008, 2011 and, 2013 update; NHTSA, 2002
19
Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in
U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses (2013 update), Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses.
20
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2002), The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000, p.
62, Table 3.
21
U.S. Department of Transportation (2011), Tiger Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide, p.3.
(http://www.dot.gov/tiger/docs/tiger-12_bca-resourceGuide.pdf).
17
Sustainability
Emissions
The Downeaster Service Optimization Project will create environmental and sustainability impacts
relating to air pollution associated with automobile and commercial truck travel. Five forms of
emissions were identified, measured and monetized, including: nitrous oxide, particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and carbon dioxide.
Emission Rates
Per-mile emissions rates were derived from the California Department of Transportation’s California
Lifecycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool (CAL B/C).22 This tool provides emissions rates for exactly two
different years: 2011 and 2031. In order to develop emissions rates for years within this interval as well
as beyond 2031, it was necessary to use certain growth rate assumptions.
Per mile emissions factors differ depending on vehicle, fuel efficiency, average speed, and driving
conditions. This BCA used the California Department of Transportation’s emissions factors from the
California Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Model (Cal B/C)23 which provides emissions factors for
automobiles, trucks, and buses at varying speeds, and applies a dynamic model. In general, at slower
speeds vehicles emit pollutants at a greater rate. However, since this project does not impact average
travel speeds on the highway network, this analysis assumes the emissions rates for automobiles at an
average speed of 35 miles per hour.
The CAL B/C documentation24 indicates that growth rates for CO, NOX, PM10, and VOC are exponential,
so the 2011 to 2031 compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was used to interpolate and extrapolate as
necessary.
Growth for SOX and CO2 were shown by CAL B/C to exhibit linear growth. Thus, a linear rate is used for
these two emissions categories.
Finally, after 2031, emissions rates are assumed “flat-line.” The flat-line represents both a leveling out
of emissions rates, as well as a prudent observation of the uncertainty in estimating rates that far into
the future.
The following tables show per-mile emissions rates at 35 mph for select years:
22
California Department of Transportation (2010) California Life-cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model v4.1 [Microsoft
Excel]. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/benefit_files/Cal-BCv4-1.xls
23
California Department of Transportation (2010). California Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Mode.. Cal-BCv41.xls. [Microsoft Excel] (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/benefit_files/Cal-BCv4-1.xls). Tab
“Parameters”, Cells BG7:CA250.
24
California Department of Transportation. (2009). California Life-cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model, Technical
Supplement to User's Guide (Vol. 3). Sacramento: California Department of Transportation.
18
Table 16: Auto Emissions Rates (grams per vehicle-mile traveled), assuming 35 mph
Emissions Type
2011
0.2672
0.0481
0.0037
0.2231
351.97
NOX
PM
SOX
VOC
CO2
2031
0.0767
0.0468
0.0037
0.0701
344.48
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2011; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
Value of Non-CO2 Emissions Costs
The values of PM10 emissions are derived from a report published by the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program25.
The likely values for NOx, SOx, and VOC were derived from a National Highway Traffic and Safety
Administration’s CAFE standards for MY2012-MY2016 26. These are consistent with U.S. DOT guidelines.
The remaining low and high values used in PRISMTM sensitivity analysis for non-GHG emissions come
from Technical Supplement to the CAL B/C tool27. The resulting values are shown in the Table 17 below.
Table 17: Non-CO2 Emissions Costs (2012 $ / metric ton)
Emissions Type
NOX
PM
SOX
VOC
Emissions
Costs
Low
$2,427
$1,635
$14,666
$236
Emissions
Costs
Likely
$ 5,777
$3,584
$ 33,791
$ 1,417
Emissions
Costs
High
$35,737
$8,530
$139,071
$2,427
Source: NHTSA, 2010, Cal-B/C, 2013
Value CO2 Emissions Costs
The per-ton costs of carbon emissions were derived from the Interagency Working Group on the Social
Cost of Carbon28 as well as the analysis conducted by the U.S. DOT in the Tiger Benefit –Cost Analysis
25
NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 61: Monetary Valuation per Dollar of Investment in Different Performance Measures
(2007) http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36%2861%29_FR.pdf
26
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (March 2010), Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY2012MY2016 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, page 403, Table VIII-8, “Economic Values for Benefits Computations
(2007 Dollars)”, http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_2012-2016_FRIA_04012010.pdf
27
California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) Technical Supplement to the User’s Guide, Chapter 5.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/benefit_files/tech_supp.pdf
19
Resource Guide.29 The values used for this analysis were discounted at a 3 percent rate as
recommended by the U.S. DOT.
Next the social cost of carbon was converted from 2007 dollars to 2012 dollars using a CPI adjustment.30
Finally, values beyond year 2050 were extrapolated using the compound annual growth rate (CAGR)
from 2040 to 2050. The Table 18 below shows the low likely and high social costs of carbon for selected
years as used for PRISMTM sensitivity analysis. Low and high values are derived from the same
Interagency Working Group study, which reports a range for the social cost of carbon.
Table 18: Social Cost of Carbon at 3 percent Discounting (2012 $)
Social Cost of CO2 Low
Social Cost of CO2 Likely
Social Cost of CO2 High
2012
$5.65
$24.80
$40.31
2020
$7.53
$29.12
$46.18
2030
$10.74
$36.32
$55.37
2040
$14.06
$43.41
$63.67
2050
$17.38
$49.72
$71.98
Source: U.S. EPA, 2010; Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
For present value calculations, the social cost of carbon was discounted at a 3 percent discount rate,
consistent with the U.S. DOT’s guidance.31
To account for change in the social cost of carbon overtime the average cost across the time period of
the analysis, from 2017-2036, for each case. This will overestimate the cost in the short term but will
underestimate it in the long term balancing this effect out.
Noise Pollution
Reducing VMT creates environmental benefits to society in the form of noise reduction. On a per-VMT
basis, these values were estimated based on a Federal Highway Administration cost allocation study
report.32
For PRISM™ sensitivity analysis, the high and low values for the cost of urban automobile noise are
calculated as +/- 10 percent of the likely case. As the likely cost of rural automobile noise is so low (one
28
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2010), Social Cost
of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, p.2., Table 19,
(http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/scc-tsd.pdf).
29
U.S. Department of Transportation, Tiger Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide, p.6.
(http://www.dot.gov/tiger/docs/tiger-12_bca-resourceGuide.pdf)
30
Series CUUR0000SETB. 1982-1984=100, 2010=239.178; 2011=302.619.
31
U.S. Department of Transportation (2011), Tiger Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide, p.7-9.
(http://www.dot.gov/tiger/docs/tiger-12_bca-resourceGuide.pdf)
32
Federal Highway Administration, Addendum to the 1007 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, Table 13.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/addendum.htm).
20
one hundredth of a cent), reducing it to arrive at a low value would not yield a meaningful figure.
Therefore, in this case the low and likely values are the same. Similarly a 10 percent increase of such a
small number would not be significant and the likely value was doubled to create a conservative high
value.
An urban/rural split of 0 percent to 100 percent was used to create a weighted average of the FHWA
values for those environments. All values were adjusted from the study’s 2000 values to 2012 dollars
using a CPI adjustment.33 See Table 19 for the range of values used in the PRISMTM sensitivity analysis
Table 19: Noise Costs, Auto and Truck, 0-100 Urban-Rural Split, 2012 $
Auto
Noise Costs per VMT
Low
0.00012
Noise Costs per VMT
Likely
0.00013
Noise Costs per VMT
High
0.00027
Source: FHWA, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
State of Good Repair
As with noise pollution, reductions in VMT lead to societal benefits in the form of reduced costs of
pavement damage. Fewer vehicle-miles in turn lead to a lower need of maintenance on roads. The permile costs of these values were estimated based on the same Federal Highway Administration cost
allocation study report that reported estimations of the cost of noise pollution. 34
For PRISM™ sensitivity analysis, the high and low values for the cost of urban automobile pavement
maintenance effects are calculated as +/- 10 percent of the likely case.
The same urban/rural split used in the noise pollution calculations of 100 percent to 0 percent were
used to create a weighted average of the FHWA values. All values were adjusted from the FHWA study’s
2000 values to 2012 dollars using a CPI adjustment.35 See Table 20 for the range of values used in the
PRISMTM sensitivity analysis.
Table 20: State of Good Repair Values, Auto and Truck, 0-100 Urban-Rural Split, 2012 $
Auto
Pavement Damage
Cost per VMT
Low
0.00012
Pavement Damage
Cost per VMT
Likely
0.00013
Pavement Damage
Cost per VMT
High
0.00027
Source: FHWA, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2013
33
CUSR0000SA0.
34
Federal Highway Administration, Addendum to the 1007 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, Table 13.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/addendum.htm).
35
CUSR0000SA0.
21
Economic Costs Included and Assumptions
In the benefit-cost analysis, the term “cost” refers to the additional resource costs or expenditures
required to implement, and maintain the investments associated with the Downeaster Service
Optimization project.
The BCA uses project costs that have been estimated for the Downeaster Service Optimization Project
on an annual basis. Operations and maintenance costs and rehabilitation costs were initially expressed
in 2011 dollars while the capital costs were initially expressed in real 2012 dollars. All costs were
converted to real 2012 dollars based on CPI-U adjustments. 36
Capital Costs
Initial project investment costs include engineering and design, construction, real estate services,
vehicles, other capital investments, and contingency factors. These costs were reported by NNEPRA and
included costs beginning in 2013 and ending in 2014. In undiscounted terms, the costs totaled to $29.5
million (2012 $), which at a 7 percent discount rate translates to $26.4 million (2012 $) and at a 3
percent discount rate translates to $28.1 million (2012 $). The facility is expected to be operational in
2016.
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
The annual costs of operating and maintaining the proposed Downeaster Service Optimization projects
are included in the analysis. Operations and maintenance activities apply to several assets and are
assumed to begin in 2016 which is year one of the Project.
The O&M costs reported are the marginal operating costs, or the costs above and beyond those
expected in the “no build” scenario. On average the undiscounted O&M costs are estimated to be $1.2
million (2012 $) per year, at a 7 percent discount rate that is $0.4 million (2012 $) per year and at a 3
percent discount rate $0.7 million (2012 $) annually.
Residual Value
This BCA ends in 2044; however, at the end of the analysis period, infrastructure that has been put in
place will not have been completely worn out, and will continue to provide benefits into the future.
These future benefits are captured in the Residual value, also known referred to as “Remaining Capital
Value,” or RCV. Due to the extended nature of expected life-cycle of the infrastructure put in place by
this project, up to 50 years, the decision was made not to include RCV to provide a more conservative
benefit cost estimate.
36
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, All Items, Series
CUSR0000SA0.
22
Key Benefit-Cost Evaluation Measures
The benefit-cost analysis converts potential gains (benefits) and losses (costs) from the Project into
monetary units and compares them. The following three common benefit-cost evaluation measures are
included in this BCA.
Net Present Value (NPV): NPV compares the net benefits (benefits minus costs) after being
discounted to present values using the real discount rate assumption. The NPV provides a
perspective on the overall dollar magnitude of cash flows over time in today’s dollar terms.
Benefit Cost (B/C) Ratio: The evaluation also estimates the benefit-cost ratio; the present value of
incremental benefits is divided by the present value of incremental costs to yield the benefit-cost
ratio. The B/C ratio expresses the relation of discounted benefits to discounted costs as a measure
of the extent to which a project’s benefits either exceed or fall short of their associated costs.
Sensitivity Analysis
To test the robustness of the estimated NPV, and B/C ratio, the economic analysis runs PRISMTM
sensitivity analysis simulations using the ranges of valuations already discussed, as well as sensitivity on
impact and physical units to the degree of +/- 10 percent. For example, tons of carbon emissions were
evaluated with PRISM™ sensitivity at a low value of 10 percent less than baseline estimates, and a high
value of 10 percent above baseline estimates.
Benefit-Cost Analysis Results
Results in Brief
There were two “Cases” conducted for this analysis. Case A assumes a 7.0 percent discount rate, and
Case B assumes a 3.0 percent discount rate, as prescribed by the U.S. DOT.
For the Case A at a 7 percent discount rate, the proposed Downeaster Service Optimization
investments yield a net present value of $20.8 million, and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.55.
For the Case B at a 3 percent discount rate, the proposed Downeaster Service Optimization
investments yield a net present value of $71.9 million, and a benefit-cost ratio of 2.47.
Table 21 presents the evaluation results for the two cases. All benefits and costs were estimated in
constant 2012 dollars over an evaluation period extending 30 years beyond system completion in 2014.
Table 21: Benefit Cost Analysis Summary Results
Scenario
Net Present Value
(2012 $ millions disc.)
Benefit Cost Ratio
$20.8
1.55
$71.9
2.47
23
Benefits by Category
Over the entire analysis period, Downeaster Service Optimization exhibits decreases in VMT and
decreases in VHT.
Table 22 below outlines the changes in some of the impact categories. Some categories increased, while
others decreased. Overall, the savings in many categories like travel time savings, fuel, and safety
provided significant benefits.
Table 22: Project Impacts for Downeaster Service Optimization, Cumulative 2016-44
Category
Quantity
Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT)
159.2 million
Vehicle-hours traveled (VHT)
5.4million
Induced Ridership Benefits (2012 $ undiscounted)
$22.3 million
Fuel consumed (gal.)
5.1 million
Oil imported (gal.)
4.9 million
Fatalities (number)
1.7
Injury accidents (number)
1.2
Property damage only accidents (number)
1.0
CO2 Emissions (tons)
59,400
NOX emissions (tons)
15
PM
10
7.5
(tons)
SOX (tons)
0.6
VOC (tons)
13.5
Over the 30-year analysis period, there are $58.9 million in benefits (in 7 percent discounted 2012
dollars) and $120.8 million in benefits (in 3 percent discounted 2012 dollars). In present value dollars, of
the positive benefits, travel time savings constitute approximately $37.3 million, induced rider benefits
are $5.6 million vehicle O&M savings $6.0 million, user fuel savings are $4.8 million; oil import savings
are $0.4 million; and emissions savings are $550,000 (discounted at 7 percent).
Most of the benefits occurred in the travel time savings (63 percent), while fuel consumption savings
were 8 percent of total benefits, vehicle O&M savings were 10 percent and induced user benefits 10
percent. Thus, the vast majority of benefits (91 percent) were in the economic competitiveness
category, with some additional benefits (9.2 percent) in the social category.
24
Figure 2: Cumulative Benefits by Category
Vehicle O&M
Fuel Savings
10%
8%
Emissions
1%
Induced User
Benefits
10%
Other
9%
Other
1%
Travel Time Savings
63%
Safety
7%
Costs over Time
Figure 3 presents the capital expenditures over time, expressed in constant 2012 dollars before
discounting. The capital investments ($29.5 million) were assumed to begin in 2013 and conclude by the
end of 2014. These capital costs translate to $26.4million when discounted at 7 percent and $28.1 when
discounted at 3 percent
Annual O&M costs over the economic evaluation period (2016-2044) are also expressed in constant
2012 dollars before discounting. In real dollars, NNEPRA predicts that these costs will remain generally
constant through 2044. O&M costs total $34.9 million over 30 years, or $1.2 million per year in
undiscounted dollars. This is an average of $388,800 per year on a 7 percent discounted basis and
$695,500 per year on a 3 percent discounted basis.
25
Figure 3: Capital and O&M Expenditures in 2012 Dollars Before Present Value Discounting
25
2012 $ (millions)
20
15
10
5
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
-
Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Cumulative Benefits and Costs
Figure 4 and Figure 5 compare the cumulative present value of benefits with the cumulative present
value of costs over time for both cases. The figure shows that the cumulative discounted benefits
exceed the cumulative discounted costs by mid 2027 with a 7 percent discount rate, and mid 2023 using
3 percent discount rate.
26
Figure 4: Cumulative Benefits and Costs in 2012 Dollars (Discounted at 7 percent)
70
Discounted 2012 $ (millions)
60
50
40
30
20
10
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
-
Calendar Years
Cumulative Costs
Cumulative Benefits
Figure 5: Cumulative Benefits and Costs in 2012 Dollars (Discounted at 3 percent)
140
100
80
60
40
20
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
Discounted 2012 $ (millions)
120
Calendar Years
Cumulative Costs
Cumulative Benefits
27
APPENDIX
PRISMTM Sensitivity Analysis
By using PRISMTM sensitivity analysis simulations on both the valuations and impacts it is able to create a
95% confidence interval for both the NPV and B/C ratio. Table 23 reports these ranges at the 7 percent
and 3 percent discount rates.
Table 23: NPV (2012 $ millions) and B/C ratio, 95% confidence interval, 7% and 3% discount rates
Case
B/C-Ratio
Net Present Value
B/C Ratio
Net Present Value
Low
Likely
High
1.43
$16.1
1.55
$20.8
1.73
$28.2
2.27
$62.5
2.47
$71.9
2.74
$87.8
Furthermore, according to PRISM™ sensitivity analysis, there is over a 99 percent chance that the B/C
ratio is above 1.0 at a 7 percent or 3 percent discount rate.
28
Figure 6: PRISM™ Histogram for Benefit-Cost Ratio at 7 percent Discount Rate
29
Figure 7: PRISM™ Histogram for Benefit-Cost Ratio at 3 Percent Discount Rate
30
Figure 8: PRISM™ Histogram for Net Present Value at 7 Percent Discount Rate
31
Figure 9: PRISM™ Histogram for Net Present Value at 3 Percent Discount Rate
32
APPENDIX
Benefit-Cost Model Detail Tables
Table 24: Detailed Travel Demand and Travel Time Savings
VMT Change
(Network)
Total
VHT Change
(hours)
(99,865)
(102,861)
(105,946)
(109,125)
(112,399)
(115,770)
(120,401)
(125,217)
(130,226)
(135,435)
(140,852)
(146,487)
(152,346)
(158,440)
(164,778)
(171,369)
(178,223)
(185,352)
(192,766)
(200,477)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Induced
Ridership
Benefits
128,360.91
308,978.91
373,210.10
409,654.53
450,744.36
494,218.88
513,987.64
534,547.14
555,929.03
578,166.19
601,292.84
625,344.55
650,358.33
676,372.67
703,427.57
731,564.68
760,827.26
791,260.35
822,910.77
855,827.20
Value of Induced Ridership
Benefits & VHT Change
(2012 $ 3% Discount)
$
$
$
2,407,327
$
2,555,367
$
2,600,056
$
2,619,987
$
2,642,060
$
2,664,347
$
2,690,215
$
2,716,334
$
2,742,706
$
2,769,334
$
2,796,221
$
2,823,368
$
2,850,779
$
2,878,457
$
2,906,403
$
2,934,621
$
2,963,112
$
2,991,880
$
3,020,928
$
3,050,257
Value of Induced Ridership
Benefits & VHT Change
(2012 $ 7% Discount)
$
$
$
2,278,482
$
2,678,393
$
2,714,774
$
2,668,868
$
2,627,850
$
2,585,642
$
2,506,902
$
2,430,377
$
2,355,740
$
2,283,331
$
2,212,967
$
2,145,180
$
2,079,875
$
2,016,941
$
1,956,287
$
1,897,787
$
1,841,375
$
1,786,978
$
1,734,482
$
1,683,785
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
(918,159)
(2,210,111)
(2,669,554)
(2,930,239)
(3,224,152)
(3,535,123)
(3,676,528)
(3,823,590)
(3,976,533)
(4,135,594)
(4,301,018)
(4,473,059)
(4,651,981)
(4,838,061)
(5,031,583)
(5,232,846)
(5,442,160)
(5,659,847)
(5,886,240)
(6,121,690)
2035
(6,366,558)
(208,496) $ 890,060.29 $
3,079,872 $
1,634,777
2036
(6,621,220)
(216,836) $ 925,662.70 $
3,109,773 $
1,587,419
2037
(6,886,069)
(225,509) $ 962,689.21 $
3,139,965 $
1,541,607
2038
(7,161,511)
(234,530) $ 1,001,196.77 $
3,170,450 $
1,497,271
2039
(7,447,972)
(243,911) $ 1,041,244.65 $
3,201,231 $
1,454,362
2040
(7,745,891)
(253,667) $ 1,082,894.43 $
3,232,311 $
1,412,802
2041
(8,055,726)
(263,814) $ 1,126,210.21 $
3,263,693 $
1,371,206
2042
(8,377,956)
(274,367) $ 1,171,258.62 $
3,295,379 $
1,330,868
2043
2044
(8,713,074)
(9,061,597)
(159,175,643)
(285,341) $ 1,218,108.96 $
(296,755) $ 1,266,833.32 $
(5,351,562)
22,253,143 $
3,327,373 $
3,359,678 $
87,803,484 $
1,291,749
1,253,808
58,861,885
33
Table 25: Detailed Non-Travel Savings and Benefits at 3 percent
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
O&M Savings
Fuel
$
$
$ 124,970
$ 287,264
$ 331,067
$ 346,941
$ 363,868
$ 379,527
$ 374,656
$ 369,410
$ 363,360
$ 357,081
$ 350,373
$ 344,210
$ 338,625
$ 333,607
$ 329,182
$ 325,303
$ 322,014
$ 319,272
$ 317,109
$ 315,464
O&M Savings
Non-Fuel
$
$
$
119,580
$
279,459
$
327,722
$
349,247
$
373,086
$
397,155
$
401,011
$
404,905
$
408,836
$
412,805
$
416,813
$
420,859
$
424,945
$
429,071
$
433,237
$
437,443
$
441,690
$
445,978
$
450,308
$
454,680
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Safety
79,766
186,411
218,606
232,964
248,865
264,919
267,492
270,088
272,712
275,360
278,032
280,731
283,458
286,209
288,988
291,794
294,627
297,486
300,376
303,293
Emissions
$
$
$
11,434
$
26,569
$
30,990
$
32,860
$
34,935
$
37,023
$
37,226
$
37,438
$
37,661
$
37,894
$
38,138
$
38,391
$
38,653
$
38,922
$
39,202
$
39,489
$
39,786
$
40,172
$
40,562
$
40,956
Oil Import
$
$
$
11,495
$
26,422
$
30,451
$
31,912
$
33,469
$
34,909
$
34,461
$
33,978
$
33,422
$
32,844
$
32,227
$
31,660
$
31,147
$
30,685
$
30,278
$
29,921
$
29,619
$
29,367
$
29,168
$
29,016
Noise
Reduction
$
$
$
1,030
$
2,406
$
2,822
$
3,007
$
3,212
$
3,420
$
3,453
$
3,486
$
3,520
$
3,554
$
3,589
$
3,624
$
3,659
$
3,694
$
3,730
$
3,766
$
3,803
$
3,840
$
3,877
$
3,915
Pavement
Damage
$
$
$ 1,030
$ 2,406
$ 2,822
$ 3,007
$ 3,212
$ 3,420
$ 3,453
$ 3,486
$ 3,520
$ 3,554
$ 3,589
$ 3,624
$ 3,659
$ 3,694
$ 3,730
$ 3,766
$ 3,803
$ 3,840
$ 3,877
$ 3,915
2035 $
314,255 $
459,095 $
306,236 $
41,353 $
28,905 $
3,953 $ 3,953
2036 $
313,553 $
463,552 $
309,209 $
41,755 $
28,841 $
3,991 $ 3,991
2037 $
313,248 $
468,052 $
312,211 $
42,161 $
28,812 $
4,030 $ 4,030
2038 $
313,338 $
472,596 $
315,243 $
42,569 $
28,821 $
4,069 $ 4,069
2039 $
313,800 $
477,185 $
318,304 $
42,982 $
28,863 $
4,109 $ 4,109
2040 $
314,601 $
481,818 $
321,394 $
43,400 $
28,937 $
4,149 $ 4,149
2041 $
311,732 $
486,495 $
324,514 $
43,822 $
28,673 $
4,189 $ 4,189
2042 $
308,890 $
491,219 $
327,665 $
44,248 $
28,412 $
4,230 $ 4,230
2045 $ 306,074 $
495,988 $ 330,845 $
44,677 $
2046 $ 303,283 $
500,803 $ 334,058 $
45,111 $
Total
$ 9,706,077 $ 12,625,633 $ 8,421,856 $ 1,150,379 $
28,153 $
27,896 $
892,764 $
4,271 $ 4,271
4,312 $ 4,312
108,710 $108,710
34
Table 26: Detailed Non-Travel Savings and Benefits at 7 percent
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
O&M Savings
Fuel
$
$
$ 103,293
$ 228,561
$ 253,566
$ 255,789
$ 258,241
$ 259,285
$ 246,389
$ 233,857
$ 221,428
$ 209,466
$ 197,848
$ 187,102
$ 177,185
$ 168,034
$ 159,607
$ 151,830
$ 144,676
$ 138,082
$ 132,020
$ 126,425
O&M Savings
Non-Fuel
$
$
$
98,839
$
222,351
$
251,004
$
257,490
$
264,783
$
271,328
$
263,721
$
256,327
$
249,140
$
242,155
$
235,365
$
228,766
$
222,352
$
216,118
$
210,059
$
204,169
$
198,445
$
192,881
$
187,473
$
182,217
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Safety
65,929
148,318
167,431
171,758
176,622
180,988
175,914
170,981
166,188
161,528
157,000
152,598
148,319
144,160
140,119
136,190
132,371
128,660
125,054
121,547
Emissions
$
$
$
9,450
$ 21,140
$ 23,736
$ 24,227
$ 24,794
$ 25,294
$ 24,481
$ 23,700
$ 22,951
$ 22,230
$ 21,535
$ 20,867
$ 20,224
$ 19,605
$ 19,007
$ 18,431
$ 17,874
$ 17,374
$ 16,886
$ 16,413
Oil Import
$
$
$ 9,501
$ 21,023
$ 23,323
$ 23,527
$ 23,753
$ 23,849
$ 22,663
$ 21,510
$ 20,367
$ 19,267
$ 18,198
$ 17,210
$ 16,297
$ 15,456
$ 14,681
$ 13,965
$ 13,307
$ 12,701
$ 12,143
$ 11,629
Noise
Reduction
$
$
$
851
$
1,914
$
2,161
$
2,217
$
2,280
$
2,336
$
2,271
$
2,207
$
2,145
$
2,085
$
2,027
$
1,970
$
1,915
$
1,861
$
1,809
$
1,758
$
1,709
$
1,661
$
1,614
$
1,569
Pavement
Damage
$
$
$
851
$ 1,914
$ 2,161
$ 2,217
$ 2,280
$ 2,336
$ 2,271
$ 2,207
$ 2,145
$ 2,085
$ 2,027
$ 1,970
$ 1,915
$ 1,861
$ 1,809
$ 1,758
$ 1,709
$ 1,661
$ 1,614
$ 1,569
2035 $
121,232 $
177,108 $ 118,139 $
15,954 $ 11,151 $
1,525 $ 1,525
2036 $
116,439 $
172,142 $ 114,827 $
15,506 $ 10,710 $
1,482 $ 1,482
2037 $
111,978 $
167,316 $ 111,607 $
15,072 $ 10,300 $
1,441 $ 1,441
2038 $
107,822 $
162,625 $ 108,477 $
14,649 $
9,917 $
1,400 $ 1,400
2039 $
103,945 $
158,065 $ 105,437 $
14,239 $
9,561 $
1,361 $ 1,361
2040 $
100,314 $
153,634 $ 102,479 $
13,839 $
9,227 $
1,323 $ 1,323
2041 $
95,684 $
149,326 $
99,607 $
13,451 $
8,801 $
1,286 $ 1,286
2042 $
91,267 $
145,139 $
96,814 $
13,074 $
8,395 $
1,250 $ 1,250
2045 $
87,054 $
141,070 $ 94,100 $ 12,708 $ 8,007 $
2046 $
83,036 $
137,115 $ 91,462 $ 12,350 $ 7,638 $
Total
$ 4,871,455 $ 6,018,523 $ 4,014,624 $ 551,061 $ 448,077 $
1,215 $ 1,215
1,181 $ 1,181
51,824 $ 51,824
35
Table 27: Detailed Cost
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Capital Costs Less ROW
Undiscounted 2012 $
$
9,833,333
$
19,666,667
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Net O&M Costs
Undiscounted 2012 $
$
$
$
207,569
$
29,076
$
1,231,450
$
1,325,198
$
1,169,447
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
Rehabilitation Costs
Undiscounted 2012 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
Total Costs
Undiscounted 2012 $
$
9,833,333
$
19,666,667
$
207,569
$
29,076
$
1,231,450
$
1,325,198
$
1,169,447
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
$
1,237,838
Total Costs
Discounted 3% 2012 $
$
9,546,926
$
18,537,720
$
189,955
$
25,833
$
1,062,260
$
1,109,833
$
950,868
$
977,160
$
948,699
$
921,067
$
894,240
$
868,194
$
842,907
$
818,356
$
794,521
$
771,379
$
748,912
$
727,099
$
705,922
$
685,361
$
665,399
$
646,018
Total Costs
$
9,190,031
$
17,177,628
$
169,438
$
22,182
$
878,007
$
883,035
$
728,273
$
720,433
$
673,302
$
629,254
$
588,088
$
549,615
$
513,659
$
480,055
$
448,649
$
419,298
$
391,868
$
366,231
$
342,272
$
319,881
$
298,954
$
279,396
2035 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
627,202 $
261,118
2036 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
608,934 $
244,036
2037 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
591,198 $
228,071
2038 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
573,979 $
213,150
2039 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
557,261 $
199,206
2040 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
541,030 $
186,174
2041 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
525,272 $
173,994
2042 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
-
$
1,237,838 $
509,973 $
162,611
$
$
29,500,000 $
1,237,838 $
1,237,838 $
34,908,681 $
-
$
$
$
1,237,838 $
1,237,838 $
64,408,681 $
495,119 $
480,698 $
48,949,295 $
151,973
142,031
38,031,913
2045 $
2046 $
Total
$
36
Table 28: Detailed Benefit/Cost Summary
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Total Costs
$
9,546,926
$
18,537,720
$
189,955
$
25,833
$
1,062,260
$
1,109,833
$
950,868
$
977,160
$
948,699
$
921,067
$
894,240
$
868,194
$
842,907
$
818,356
$
794,521
$
771,379
$
748,912
$
727,099
$
705,922
$
685,361
$
665,399
$
646,018
Total Costs
$
9,190,031
$
17,177,628
$
169,438
$
22,182
$
878,007
$
883,035
$
728,273
$
720,433
$
673,302
$
629,254
$
588,088
$
549,615
$
513,659
$
480,055
$
448,649
$
419,298
$
391,868
$
366,231
$
342,272
$
319,881
$
298,954
$
279,396
Total Benefits
$
$
$
2,756,632
$
3,366,304
$
3,544,536
$
3,619,925
$
3,702,707
$
3,784,720
$
3,811,967
$
3,839,125
$
3,865,737
$
3,892,426
$
3,918,982
$
3,946,467
$
3,974,925
$
4,004,339
$
4,034,750
$
4,066,103
$
4,098,454
$
4,131,835
$
4,166,205
$
4,201,496
Total Benefits
$
$
$
2,278,482
$
2,678,393
$
2,714,774
$
2,668,868
$
2,627,850
$
2,585,642
$
2,506,902
$
2,430,377
$
2,355,740
$
2,283,331
$
2,212,967
$
2,145,180
$
2,079,875
$
2,016,941
$
1,956,287
$
1,897,787
$
1,841,375
$
1,786,978
$
1,734,482
$
1,683,785
Net Benefits
$
(9,546,926)
$
(18,537,720)
$
2,566,677
$
3,340,471
$
2,482,276
$
2,510,092
$
2,751,839
$
2,807,560
$
2,863,268
$
2,918,058
$
2,971,497
$
3,024,232
$
3,076,075
$
3,128,111
$
3,180,404
$
3,232,960
$
3,285,838
$
3,339,004
$
3,392,532
$
3,446,474
$
3,500,806
$
3,555,478
Net Benefits
$
(9,190,031)
$
(17,177,628)
$
2,109,044
$
2,656,211
$
1,836,767
$
1,785,833
$
1,899,577
$
1,865,209
$
1,833,600
$
1,801,123
$
1,767,652
$
1,733,716
$
1,699,308
$
1,665,125
$
1,631,226
$
1,597,643
$
1,564,419
$
1,531,556
$
1,499,103
$
1,467,097
$
1,435,528
$
1,404,389
2035 $
627,202 $
261,118 $
4,237,622 $
1,634,777 $
3,610,420 $
1,373,659
2036 $
608,934 $
244,036 $
4,274,665 $
1,587,419 $
3,665,731 $
1,343,383
2037 $
591,198 $
228,071 $
4,312,509 $
1,541,607 $
3,721,311 $
1,313,536
2038 $
573,979 $
213,150 $
4,351,155 $
1,497,271 $
3,777,176 $
1,284,121
2039 $
557,261 $
199,206 $
4,390,583 $
1,454,362 $
3,833,322 $
1,255,156
2040 $
541,030 $
186,174 $
4,430,759 $
1,412,802 $
3,889,729 $
1,226,628
2041 $
525,272 $
173,994 $
4,467,307 $
1,371,206 $
3,942,035 $
1,197,212
2042 $
509,973 $
162,611 $
4,504,273 $
1,330,868 $
3,994,300 $
1,168,257
2045 $
2046 $
Total
$
495,119 $
480,698 $
48,949,295 $
151,973 $
142,031 $
38,031,913 $
4,541,652 $
4,579,453 $
120,817,613 $
1,291,749 $
1,253,808 $
58,861,885 $
4,046,533 $
4,098,755 $
71,868,318 $
1,139,776
1,111,777
20,829,972
37
APPENDIX
Monetization Values and Ranges Used in PRISM™ Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 10: Environmental Values Emissions CO2
Figure 11: Environmental Values Emissions NOX
38
Figure 12: Environmental Values Emissions PM
Figure 13: Environmental Values Emissions SOX
39
Figure 14: Environmental Values Emissions VOC
Figure 15: Environmental Values Emissions Noise
40
Figure 16: Economic Values Travel Time Savings – Auto
Figure 17: Economic Values – Induced Ridership
41
Figure 18: Economic Values Fuel Savings – Auto
Figure 19: Economic Values Oil Imports
42
Figure 20: Economic Values Vehicle O&M Costs – Auto
Figure 21: Economic Values Pavement Damage – Auto
43
Figure 22: Social Values Fatalities
Figure 23: Social Values MAIS 5 Incidents
44
45
46
Figure 28: Social Values Property Damage Only Incidents
47

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Transcription

Similar documents

PASADENA`S NEW LUXURY HOTEL

Sustainability Report - Central National

The Downeaster Means Business

4-km AIRPACT vs 12

high pressure gss pumps

4 Lines Less than $100 - T-Mobile Discounts for Harris County

fundraise for your school with the grand card

business advantage program - Coldwell Banker Commercial

T-Mobile

oUR fAVORITE Bushing tools and more for Mercedes

15% 15% 15% 10% - Camp Nashoba North

Logistics Carbon Reduction Scheme

Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell

Reducing automobile CO2 emissions - The International Council on

A4 Responsible Care brochure

Unlimited 1% earnings on pUrchases. impressive

Neighborhood Sustainability Steward Handbook

USDOT Number Online Registration

Document

CDM Umbrella Guidelines for MSW in China

Sourcebook on EU Environmental Law