UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Evaluation of urban transportation investments using social benefit cost analysis : a case study of the… Schwetz, Thomas Bernard 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A4_6 S33.pdf [ 14.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097363.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097363-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097363-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097363-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097363-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097363-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097363-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097363-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097363.ris

Full Text

EVALUATION URBAN USING A  CASE  OF  TRANSPORTATION  SOCIAL STUDY  BENEFIT  OF  IN  INVESTMENTS  COST  THE GEIST  FAIRBANKS,  ANALYSIS:  ROAD  EXTENSION  ALASKA  By THOMAS B.Sc. A  C a l i f o r n i a  THESIS  BERNARD  P o l y t e c h n i c  SUBMITTED  THE  IN  MASTER  of  OF  We  F A C U L T Y OF Commerce  accept to  THE  the  GRADUATE  t h e s i s  OF  Bernard  OF  STUDIES  Business  as  Administration)  conforming  standard  BRITISH  September  ©Thomas  OF  SCIENCE  required  UNIVERSITY  1979  n  and  t h i s  FULFILLMENT  FOR THE DEGREE  i  (Faculty  U n i v e r s i t y ,  PARTIAL  REQUIREMENTS  THE  SCHWETZ  COLUMBIA  1988  Schwetz,  1988  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his  and  scholarly  or  thesis  for  her  of  vQ K?ffl/f?  The University of British C o l u m b i a 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T  DE-6(3/81)  1Y3  I  I further  purposes  gain  the  shall  requirements  agree  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  permission.  Department  study.  of  be  It not  that  the  Library  by  understood be  an  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  is  for  allowed  the that  without  make  it  extensive  head  of  copying my  my or  written  ABSTRACT This  paper  illustrates  the  use  of  Social  Benefit-Cost Analysis  e v a l u a t e a major highway improvement p r o j e c t p r o p o s e d Use  of  SBCA  provide Despite  has  been  g r e a t e r net this,  shown  to  benefits  lead  to  the m a j o r i t y of  to  the  society  resources spent  other  of  projects  evaluation  on highway  investment  each y e a r i s programmed based on s i m p l e , non-economic i n v e s t m e n t  The  case  employs  transportation  system  over  of  the  life  detailed  i n order  the  to  proposed  analysis  develop  user  volumes,  l a n d use p a t t e r n s , d i s t r i b u t i o n  It  sensitive  to  of  estimates  project.  reliable  mix,  costs,  a  This  level  relationships  Fairbank's of  of t r a f f i c  direct  of  between  which  methods.  U.S.  study  i n the rules.  highway  user  detail  costs  provides  c o s t s and  traffic  by t i m e o f day,  vehicle  etc.  i s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e method used  appropriate required  f o r use  for this  generated  by  i n o t h e r medium-sized and  analysis  most  i n the c a s e s t u d y i s a p p l i c a b l e t o  was  cities.  f o u n d t o be  Analyses  of  s m a l l urban  available  this  type  areas.  from models  c o u l d be  The  r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c c i d e n t s and t r a f f i c  relationship  decision-making play  a  role  between t h e t e c h n i c a l framework i s d i s c u s s e d .  i n e n s u r i n g the  often p o l i t i c i z e d accomplished decision-maker  by  effective  the  active  and t h e community  improved  analysis  u s i n g SBCA and  I t i s concluded that use  of the  analysis  It i s f e l t  participation  of  with the  analysis.  broader  a n a l y s t s can  results  that the  the  this  i n the i s best  analyst,  i n t h e development of a l t e r n a t i v e s  s e t t i n g o f o b j e c t i v e s t o be used i n the  data  volumes.  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g framework. ensuring  and  routinely  b e t t e r d a t a on v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s , t h e v a l u a t i o n o f t r a v e l t i m e and  The  to  f o r Fairbanks, Alaska.  selection  than  (SBCA)  and  the the  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table  i i  o f Contents  List  of Tables  List  of Figures  C h a p t e r  v vi  1  Introduction 1.1 Purpose and M o t i v a t i o n o f Study 1.1.1 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Investment Making P r o c e s s 1.1.2 E v a l u a t i o n Techniques 1.2 Purpose o f Study 1.3 S t r u c t u r e o f Study C h a p t e r One F o o t n o t e s  C h a p t e r  i i i  1 1 Decision-  2  D e s c r i p t i o n o f Case Study and Method o f A n a l y s i s 2.1 Case Study Background 2.1.1 Sources o f Case S p e c i f i c Data 2.2 Method o f A n a l y s i s 2.2.1 Overview o f S o c i a l B e n e f i t - C o s t A n a l y s i s 2.2.2 Approach Taken i n T h i s Study 2.3 P r o j e c t C o s t s 2.3.1 C o n s t r u c t i o n C o s t s 2.3.2 Maintenance C o s t s Chapter 2 Footnotes C h a p t e r  2 4 6 8 8  9 9 11 12 12 14 18 18 20 20  3  System A n a l y s i s 3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 3.2 Development o f Network A n a l y s i s 3.3 Development o f Base and F o r e c a s t L i n k Volumes23 3.3.1 Method f o r D e t e r m i n i n g L i n k Volumes 3.3.1.1 T r i p G e n e r a t i o n and D i s t r i b u t i o n 3.3.1.2 Mode S p l i t 3.3.1.3 T r a f f i c Assignment 3.3.2 F o r e c a s t s o f T r a f f i c 3.4 Network and T r a v e l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 3.4.1 Network C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 3.4.2 T r a v e l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 3.4.2.1 Time o f Day C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 3.4.2.2 Weekly and S e a s o n a l V a r i a t i o n i n Traffic 3.4.2.3 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D a i l y T r i p s by T r i p Purpose 3.4.2.4 Average Auto Occupancy by T r i p Purpose 3.4.2.5 V e h i c l e Mix 3.5 C a l c u l a t i o n o f L i n k O p e r a t i n g C o n d i t i o n s 3.5.1 Development o f L i n k Speed E s t i m a t e s Chapter 3 Footnotes iii  21 21 23  23 25 27 27 32 35 35 35 35 39 40 41 42 42 43 47  i  Chapter  4  User C o s t s 4.1 V e h i c l e O p e r a t i n g C o s t s 4.1.1 Auto O p e r a t i n g C o s t s 4.1.1.1 F u e l 4.1.1.2 Other V a r i a b l e C o s t s 4.1.1.3 R e s u l t s o f V a r i a b l e Cost 4.1.2 Truck C o s t s 4.1.3 T o t a l V e h i c l e Operating Costs 4.2 V a l u e o f Time i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 4.3 A c c i d e n t C o s t s 4.4 Summary Chapter 4 Footnotes Chapter  5  Comparison o f C o s t s and B e n e f i t s 5.1 C a l c u l a t i o n o f User B e n e f i t s 5.2 Generated T r a f f i c 5.3 Comparison o f C o s t s and B e n e f i t s 5.3.1 The D i s c o u n t Rate 5.3.2 Methods f o r Comparing C o s t s and B e n e f i t s 5.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis 5.3.3.1 Generated T r a f f i c , A c c i d e n t C o s t Savings and V a l u e o f Time 5.3.3.2 P o p u l a t i o n Growth and D i s c o u n t Rate 5.3.3.3 P r o j e c t C o s t s 5.4 Results of Analysis 5.4.1 Recommendations Chapter 5 Footnotes Chapter  49 49 50 50 51 54 55 56 57 60 67 68  69 69 71 76 77 79 81 82 84 85 87 89 93  6  Conclusions 6.1 C o n c l u s i o n s Regarding E v a l u a t i o n Technique used i n G e i s t E x t e n s i o n Case Study 6.2 The Role o f A n a l y s t s i n t h e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Investment D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g P r o c e s s 6.2.1 Description of the Transportation Investment D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g P r o c e s s 6.2.2 The Role o f A n a l y s t s 6.3 C o n c l u s i o n s Chapter 6 Footnotes  94 94 95 95 96 99 101  Bibliography  102  Appendices Notes on Notes on Appendix Appendix Appendix  106 107 115 130 152  Appendices Spreadsheet Used A B C  iv  LIST  C h a p t e r 2-1  Project  Table  2-2  Estimated  Development  Costs  Maintenance  -  Geist  Costs  -  E x t e n s i o n  G e i s t  Road  19  E x t e n s i o n  Table  3-1  FMATS  3-2  Average  Table  3-3  Per  T r i p  Generation  Annual  Lane  Various  Factors  H o u r l y  C a p a c i t y F a c i l i t y  26  D i s t r i b u t i o n  and  Estimated  Types  at  38  Average  D i f f e r e n t  Speed  on  L o c a t i o n s  46  4  Table  4-1  B a s i c  Table  4-2  Examples  Table  4-3  Costs  B a s i c  Costs  Table  4-4  Truck  Operating  Table  4-5  Value  of  Time  Estimates  Table  4-6  Value  of  Time  Estimates  Table  4-7  Representative  Table  4-8  Accident  Costs  -  Recommended  D i r e c t  Table  4-9  Accident  Costs  -  Recommended  I n d i r e c t  Table  4-10  Adjusted  Table  4-11  Incidence  Various  Injury  at  of  V a r i o u s  V a r i a b l e  F a c i l i t i e s at  Scale  Constant  Operating  and  Motor  -  Automobiles  (Auto)  Speeds  Adjusted  -  53  for  Conditions  Constant Costs  Speeds Costs  54 Trucks  for  56  T r a f f i c  I n t e r a c t i o n  57 59  -  Alaska  V e h i c l e  59  Injuries  by  A b b r e v i a t e d  Level  62 Cost  Estimates  C a p i t a l  Estimates  C h a p t e r  20  3  Table  C h a p t e r  TABLES  2  Table  C h a p t e r  OF  64  Cost 65  Accident of  Costs  T r a f f i c  66  A c c i d e n t  Types  66  5  Table  5-1  C a l c u l a t i o n  of  Benefit  Table  5-2  C a l c u l a t i o n  of  B e n e f i t s  Table  5-3  Summary  of  Geist  Stream to  E x t e n s i o n  v  70  Generated  T r a f f i c  75  Costs  B e n e f i t s  88  and  LIST OF FIGURES  C h a p t e r  1  F i g u r e  1-1  T y p i c a l  Transportation  Investment  D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g  Process C h a p t e r  3  2  F i g u r e  2-1  Proposed  F i g u r e  2-2  User  Project  F i g u r e  2-3  Process  for  of  Time  Cost  and  Surrounding  Function  for  Area  T y p i c a l  10  Urban  Road  Segment  C h a p t e r  15 Project  E v a l u a t i o n  17  3  F i g u r e  3-1  Diagram  F i g u r e  3-2  Fairbanks  F i g u r e  3-3  Assignment  F i g u r e  3-4  D a i l y  Road  i n  C h a p t e r  System Area  A n a l y s i s  Road  for  Network  Project  With  and  E v a l u a t i o n  Without  Extension  24  Factors  T r a f f i c  22  G e i s t 33  Volume  D i s t r i b u t i o n  on  Major  Fairbanks  Routes 36  5  F i g u r e  5-1  Annual  F i g u r e  5-2  B e n e f i t s  User  F i g u r e  5-3  E f f e c t s  of  Various  F i g u r e  5-4  E f f e c t s  of  Growth  F i g u r e  5-5  Impact  F i g u r e  5-6  P o t e n t i a l  to  of  Operating  Costs  72  Generated  T r a f f i c  73  Changes  Benefits and i n  Sub-Projects  83  Discount  Rate  C o n s t r u c t i o n for  Further  8 6  Costs A n a l y s i s  Appendices F i g u r e  A - l  Guide  to  Appendix  A :  System  F i g u r e  A-2  Guide  to  Appendix  B:  User  F i g u r e  A - 3  Guide  to  Appendix  C:  A n a l y s i s  Cost  E v a l u a t i o n  v i  A n a l y s i s  8 6 91  CHAPTER ONE I n t r o d u c t i o n  1.1 In i n  Purpose the  and  p u b l i c  the  sector,  d e c i s i o n  committment  o f  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i t  i s  p r o j e c t s . them  t o  as  p r o j e c t s  the  e v a l u a t i o n  i n  must best  an  u s u a l l y  t h a t  care  p r o v i d e use  o f  one  p r o c e s s .  o f  It  a c t i v i t y  r e s o u r c e s .  are  i s  be  which o f  i n  i n f o r m a t i o n  important  b o t h  many  l e a d s  p u b l i c  to  resources  i n  to  the  f a c i l i t i e s .  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  p u b l i c  and  investments,  l o n g - l i f e  e v a l u a t i n g  steps  a n a l y s t s  u s u a l l y  i n t e n s i v e ,  t a k e n  l i m i t e d  most  i n v o l v e s  T y p i c a l c a p i t a l  the  which  a l l o w s  a c c o m p l i s h i n g  a  g o a l s .  and  W i l l i a m s  d e s c r i b e  p r o j e c t s  and  p r o j e c t  a p p r a i s a l  (or  e v a l u a t i o n )  f o l l o w s :  "A  project,  d e c i s i o n c h o i c e  between i s  a s s i s t  a  (Sugden  b r o a d  (Meyer  f i n a l  a  a l t e r n a t i v e process  W i l l i a m s ,  issues  a r i s e  M i l l e r , one  the  d e f i n e d ,  u n d e r t a k i n g of  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r and  and  p o l i t i c a l t h r o u g h  b r o a d l y  between  appraisal  Two  makers  e s s e n t i a l  make  Study  p l a n n i n g  a r e a ' s  A n a l y s t s  community's  Sugden  an  of  p r o j e c t  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  p o l i t i c a l  Thus,  M o t i v a t i o n  pg  and  i n v e s t m e n t used  i n f o r m a t i o n  used  and  by by  o f  process F i r s t ,  o b j e c t i v e s  a n a l y s t s  an  o f  u s i n g  u n d e r t a k i n g u s i n g  a  r e s o u r c e s ;  a  p r o j e c t  a  Project  r e s o u r c e s .  and  r e a s o n i n g  informed  and  i s  d e s i g n e d  r a t i o n a l  t o  c h o i c e "  3 ) .  i n f o r m a t i o n  d e c i s i o n  way  ways reach  the  372).  thus  v a l u e s  t e c h n i q u e s  i n  a not  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  to  pg  i s and  i s  o f  the  p u b l i c  d e r i v e d o f  made. i n  e v a l u a t i n g  the  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s .  1  p r o j e c t s  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process  from  an  e v a l u a t i o n  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  Second  e v a l u a t i n g  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  i s  and  t h u s  a  f i l t e r e d  g r o u p  d e t e r m i n i n g  p r o j e c t s  i s  i s  before  the  set  a o f  g e n e r a t i n g  1.1.1  Transportation  Figure  1-1  by by  local  illustrates  planners  t r a f f i c  and  study  of  the  in  a f f e c t i n g the  a i r the  the  for  i t i s  perceived  based  benefits  (Nowlan,  Nowlan  Expressway  user  on  the  prepared  investment  i t s direct  approved  in  final  because  made  by  evaluation,  problem  the  benefits.  misperceptions  the  p u b l i c  and  public  Both  The for  used  analysis  done  i t s  i t  direct  may  the  have  results  important as  as  roles  likely  to  be  development"  as  i t  to  be  i s  costs  (such  which  i s  community  elected  issues  play  project  Unfortunately, despite  typically  interact with  planners.  "good  policy  development),  place,  decision.  process  overlaps  the  first by  as  Process  framework  p o l l u t i o n , community  technical evaluation  approved  Making  decision-making  evaluation  decision  Within  of  Decision  investment  The  the  congestion,  motivated  As  the  governments.  representatives.  is  Investment  also  likely  outweighing  direct  2).  pg  related  i n  i n Toronto  his  discussion  (Nowlan,  pg  of  the  evaluation  of  the  Spadina  2):  ". . . there o c c u r s an i n t e r p l a y between f a c t u a l a n a l y s i s and evaluation on one hand and p o l i c y d e b a t e on the other. This o v e r l a p of p o l i c y d e b a t e and p r o j e c t d i s c u s s i o n i s an inescapable a s p e c t of much government d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , and something which c a n n o t be d i s p e l l e d by b r a n d i s h i n g t e c h n i q u e s s u c h as cost-benefit analysis." The  decision-making  committed  i s  transportation impact often  influenced investments.  generated determined  process  by by  an the  through by  which  a  community's  and  can  influence  the  Beyond  the  information  on  effectiveness  of  evaluation, analyst's  the  ability  2  to  convey  resources  are  evaluation  of  project an  use  evaluation  distributional  effects  and i s  Figure  1-1  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Investment D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g P r o c e s s U s e d by A l a s k a DOT/PF f o r Geist Extension Project  < Existing Policy Issues - Congestion - Pollution  Problem Percieved  Study Authorized  Analysis. Sv_s^ejT2^naly_sjs_ - Development of Alternatives - Evaluation of Alternatives - Recommendations  E v a l u a t i o n  Public Decision on Analysis - Public Hearings - Committee and Council Endorsement (City of Fairbanks, Fairbanks North Star Borough)  Public Decision on Annual Budget (State of Alaska)  Program Project in 5-year Capital Improvement Program  3  ( i . e . , and  who  major  g e t s areas  what of  S e v e r a l  v e r y  a l t e r n a t i v e  measures  c a n  to  be  c o s t s or  and  the  This  u s e d  b e n e f i t s  community  d i f f e r e n c e  as  between  t e c h n i q u e s  p r o v i d e  i n c r e m e n t a l  the  as  g u i d e  pg  a l t e r n a t i v e s  373).  SBCA  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  to  investments  c a p a c i t y (or  the  meet  A n a l y s i s  t r a v e l  delay,  d o l l a r  and  i n v e s t m e n t s . on  how  e s t a b l i s h e d  attempts i n  simple  i n f o r m a t i o n g o a l s  of  c o n d i t i o n s )  s y s t e m  v a r i o u s  investments,  use  t o l e r a b l e  p r o v i d e  (SBCA)  e v a l u a t i o n  methods  r a t i o s ,  minimum  t o  no  techniques  and  non-economic  are  i n s e n s i t i v e  While  to  by  e s t a b l i s h  a the  terms,  to  s o c i e t y  SBCA.  The  primary  to  the  i d e n t i f y i n g  i n f o r m a t i o n  on  the  and  Lee,  j u s t i f i e d  imposing  the  improvement  the  e v a l u a t i o n  i n  t e c h n i q u e s  c o s t s  e f f i c i e n c y may  by  i n c r e m e n t a l  the  and  e c o n o m i c a l l y  c a l l s  Lee,  standards  and  e f f i c i e n t  system.  4  be  o f  pg  a  22).  i n  p r o j e c t . under  b e n e f i t s  c o s t s  t h a t  t h a t  Thus,  a  non-economic  c o n d i t i o n s  f o r  i s  i n v o l v e d  p r o j e c t s ,  "there  standard  (Gomez-Ibanez  i n  s p e c i f i c a l l y  r  u s e f u l  be  b e n e f i t s "  f o r  i n  Non-economic  attempt  e v a l u a t i o n  which  embodied  employed  whole.  would  under  guidance  between  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  a l t e r n a t i v e  Gomez-Ibanez  standards  c o n d i t i o n s  l i t t l e  by  a  be  s t a n d a r d s  B e n e f i t - C o s t  t e c h n i q u e s  p r o j e c t .  e x p l a i n e d  M i l l e r ,  can  volume  t e c h n i q u e s  on  p a r t i c u l a r  methods  t o  o f  focuses  n o n - e c o n o m i c  h i g h e r  as  e s t a b l i s h  S o c i a l  paper  and  t r a d e - o f f s  investments.  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  community.  (Meyer  t e c h n i q u e s  such  C o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s a l t e r n a t i v e  p r o j e c t ) ,  Techniques  d i f f e r e n t  roughness  w h i c h  the  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  performance road  of  u n c e r t a i n t y  E v a l u a t i o n  1.1.2  out  As which  and  other  exceed  the-  non-economic  s u f f i c i e n c y  r a t i n g s  a l l o c a t i o n  of  provide  resources  to  Comparison  of  investment  has  s t u d y by U.S.  the  several  been t h e  focus  Gomez-Ibanez and  i n t e r s t a t e highway  study  was  projects  The  major  use  of  prepared  findings  of  these  McFarland  and  as  test  Memmott  analysis  states  first  is a  cases. using  1985 using  second  added-capacity  considered  over  in  result  analysis for  the  U.S.,  from  using  billion  a p p r o x i m a t e l y $7.8  Gomez-Ibanez tolerable  to  only  other  i s an  a  significantly  benefit-cost  O'Keefe, pg  explicit  techniques  because o t h e r t e c h n i q u e s a r e  and  cost-benefit  the  in  Texas.  1  benefit-cost  more b e n e f i t s  large  analysis  compared  conditions  analysis.^  r u l e s u s e d f o r highways by  generally  increase  in  (McFarland  and  of  1,942  They  added-capacity  found  that  for  t h a n does t h e  investment  (MTC's) beyond  and  projects ten-year that  s u f f i c i e n c y r a t i n g system  rules which  Local o f f i c i a l s  5  a  formulas  procedure s e l e c t e d p r o j e c t s  formula.  which  specify  investment  T h e i r p r i n c i p l e f i n d i n g i s t h a t the State  for  85).  b i l l i o n more than does t h e p r i o r i t y  O'Keefe  physical  i n the e v a l u a t i o n  funding  $5,742 b i l l i o n , $22  preferable  not  Memmott compared s u f f i c i e n c y r a t i n g systems, p r i o r i t y  cost-benefit  of  indicate that,  investment e v a l u a t i o n ;  most  M c F a r l a n d and  and  decisions  studies  i ; Gomez-Ibanez and  and  The  The  Memmott, pg  give  studies.  transportation  investment  would  budget  recent  evaluate  rules  198 6 by  benefit-cost  in  being  two  to  O'Keefe t e s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e i n v e s t m e n t  efficiency  and  of  available  as t e s t c a s e s .  transportation used  in  techniques  are  often  is  minimum required  investment  excessively  simple  (Gomez-Ibanez  t y p e s  o f  i n v e s t m e n t ,  agencies  o f t e n  b e n e f i t - c o s t t h a t  "the  o f  the  i n  investment  r u l e s  the  do  not  U . S .  3) .  from  u s i n g  pg  many  important  approximate t e s t  ten  the  cases  twenty  r e s u l t s  they  i m p r o v e d  or  highway of  conclude  r u l e s  (ed.  percent  o f  the  85).  the  b i l l i o n s  year  i s  programmed  and  f o r  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  these  to  o f  (Gomez-Ibanez  t h a t  and  From  amount  (Gomez-Ibanez,  each  note  c l o s e l y  pg  e a s i l y  m a j o r i t y  They  r e p a v i n g  b e n e f i t  c o u l d  i n f l u e n c e s  b e n e f i t - c o s t supercedes a r r a n g e d (Nowlan,  S o c i a l  f o r pg  O'Keefe,  o f  pg  d o l l a r s  based  on  spent  s i m p l e ,  on  highway  non-economic  i i ) .  cannot  e a s i e r  p r e v a i l  stand i t  on  alone,  p r o v i d e s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  i n  the  nor "a the  e v a l u a t i o n  does  i t  method l i g h t  have by o f  p r o c e s s , a  s o c i a l  p o s i t i o n  which  data  r e l e v a n t  which  can  be  p o l i c i e s "  2 ) .  a n a l y s i s  a l l o c a t i o n  accountable  o f  to  a  the  o b j e c t i v e s :  p l a n n i n g  can  R a t h e r ,  b e n e f i t - c o s t  l i g h t  which  a n a l y s i s p o l i c y .  r e s o u r c e  i t s  3 ) .  Purpose of Study  G i v e n  In  the  t h a t  s o c i a l  investments  t h i s ,  pg  (Gomez-Ibanez,  a n a l y s i s )  investment  1.2  MTC r u l e s  a d d i t i o n a l  the  D e s p i t e  use  O'Keefe,  p a r t i c u l a r l y  a n a l y s i s  c o s t - b e n e f i t cost  and  process,  w h i c h  community  2)  the  argued  may  make  (Sugden  d i s c u s s i o n 1)  i s  i n  and  o f  a l s o  1.1.1,  much  a  6  p r o v i d e  p o l i t i c a l  W i l l i a m s ,  S e c t i o n  g u i d i n g  to  o f  pg  a  framework  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  f o r more  241).  an  e v a l u a t i o n  s h o u l d  have  the  t e c h n i c a l  a s p e c t s  o f  as the  summarization  i n  understandable  d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s , and  M i l l e r ,  The  pg  purpose  e v a l u a t i n g s o c i a l of  p r o j e c t  an  r e q u i r e d  p r o j e c t  o f  373) .  study  The i s  be  c o n s i d e r e d p a r t i e s  by  (Meyer  a  a  to  show  r e l i a b l e  The  case  The  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  monetary a  u l t i m a t e  investment  terms.  The  f a i r l y  what  o f  c o s t s  i n v o l v e s  SBCA  r e s u l t  i s  s e r i e s  methods and  the  o f  a  e v a l u a t i o n  o f  o f  s t e p s .  and  data  o f  a  these  o f  b e n e f i t s  i n  comparison  development  complex  a n a l y t i c a l  e s t i m a t e  study  a p p l i c a t i o n  f o r a  A are  urban  highway  A l a s k a .  paper  i s  the  c o s t s .  d e s c r i p t i o n  This  system  method  a c t i v i t y  to  o f  makes  a  method  use  of  e s t i m a t e  the  a  o f  d e v e l o p i n g  d e t a i l e d  d i r e c t  a  break-down  e f f e c t s  o f  a  investment.  does  emphasize  investments undertaken  v i t a l  process  used  user  seen pg  be  the  the  a  of  i n v o l v e s  i n f l u e n c e as  t o  i n t e r e s t e d  investment.  b e n e f i t s  d e v e l o p  i s  the  and  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n e v a l u a t i o n  i l l u s t r a t e  i n  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  the  to  i s  a n a l y s i s  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  While  issues  o f  b e n e f i t s  o f  set  key  involvement  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  F a i r b a n k s ,  focus  r e f i n e d  study  p r o j e c t s . i n  the  f o r  and  w i l l  to  highway  of  t h i s  urban  c o s t s  s t u d y  The  o f  c o s t s  access  3)  o f  375).  b e n e f i t - c o s t  the  case  and  terms  i t  issue  addressed  between o f i n  i s  (often  e f f e c t i v e n e s s l i n k  the  SBCA  of  techniques  r e c o g i z e d a  Chapters  the  and  and  7  of  q u i t e  t h i s  S i x  the of  the  context  i s  In  i n  which  important  paper.  and  e v a l u a t i o n  (Meyer  p o l i t i c a l  t h i s  e v a l u a t i o n  w i t h i n  context  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  context  F i v e  the  one)  a n a l y s i s .  p l a n n i n g i n  that  p o l i t i c a l  such  i n v o l v e d  and  of the can i s  M i l l e r ,  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  1.3  Structure of Study  Chapter  Two  d e s c r i b e s  e v a l u a t i o n . i n  the  case  presents the i s  Chapter  on  by  the  recent  Four  the  e v a l u a t i o n  a f f e c t e d  drawing  of  study  c o n t a i n s  Chapter  r e s u l t s  p r o j e c t  case  Three  study.  the  the  and  an  a n a l y s i s  develops  e v a l u a t i o n .  process  as  p o l i t i c a l  e m p i r i c a l  method  Chapter  n a t u r e  of  research  of  highway  presented  i n  a n a l y s i s  the user  S i x  t h i s  the  which  o f  used  the  highway  network  used  c o s t s .  Chapter  Five  p r o v i d e s study,  a  summary  d i s c u s s i n g  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  compares  i n  of  how  i t  p r o c e s s  a l t e r n a t i v e  and  e v a l u a t i o n  techniques.  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER ONE  1.  A  s u f f i c i e n c y  c a t e g o r i e s , 100  p o i n t s  r a t i n g s and  each i f  are  pg  P r i o r i t y  The  and  developed 2.  to  by  Rules  i s  an  i n d e x  subunits  t o t a l l y  be  the  u s u a l l y  with  weights  s u f f i c i e n t .  ones  most  i n  need  c o n s i s t i n g t h a t  Highways o f  of  t y p i c a l l y w i t h  t h r e e sum  the  improvement  to  lowest  (McFarland  5) .  a  cost  b e n e f i t - c o s t  m o d i f i c a t i o n  p r i o r i t y  highway  (e.g., the  i s  s e v e r a l  f o r m u l a s  f o r m u l a t i o n segment  the  c o n s i d e r e d  Memmott,  r a t i n g  h a v i n g  o f the  the  of  c o s t - e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  the  a c h i e v i n g  procedure Highway  F e d e r a l  u s i n g  formulas  are r a t i o )  change  that  used  i n  change  i n  the  Economic  t e c h n i q u e s  s u f f i c i e n c y (McFarland  McFarland  E v a l u a t i o n  and  and M o d e l  w h i c h  r a t i n g s  Memmott,  Memmott I I  use  on  road  pg  7).  study  (or  a  a  i s  a  HEEM-II)  Highway A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .  MTC's  d i s c u s s e d  i n c l u d e by  both  McFarland  8  the  s u f f i c i e n c y  and  Memmott.  r a t i n g  systems  and  CHAPTER  TWO  D e s c r i p t i o n of Case Study and Method of A n a l y s i s  Thi3 the  chapter  p r o v i d e s background on  proposed  project  - the  c o n s t r u c t i o n and maintenance the  project's  layout  and  Geist  the  community of F a i r b a n k s ,  Road  Extension.  Estimates  Alaska  and  of p r o j e c t  are p r e s e n t e d a l o n g w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n  c o s t 3  construction  schedule.  The  approach  used  of in  e v a l u a t i n g the p r o j e c t i s a l s o discussed.  2.1  Case Study Background  Fairbanks  is  l o c a t e d i n the  n o r t h o f Anchorage.  The  1984  approximately  70,000.  Based  rates  build-up  of  and  the  expected  to  will  discussed  be  growth Study  scenario  is  case an  on  local  approximately  i n the  population  military  the  year  base,  2005  Three,  Fairbanks  area  (DCCO, 1985A, pg  i s an Area  Company  of  downtown F a i r b a n k s .  an The  existing study  east-west  horizon  be  historic  population II-6).  is As  high  Transportation  (DCCO) t o a s s e s s  the  II-l).  arterial  i s 20  miles  admittedly  i s a proposed highway p r o j e c t i n F a i r b a n k s .  extension  at  (DCCO, 1985A, pg  Metropolitan  30 0  estimated to  growth  the  this  by DeLeuw C a t h e r  t r a f f i c generation  study  Alaska,  continued  f u r t h e r i n Chapter  used  of  p o p u l a t i o n f o r the Borough was  128,000 by  (FMATS) Update p r e p a r e d  "worst-case"  The  grow t o  a  interior  years,  Essentially, i t  with  connections  extending  from  to  1986  to  area  of  of  the  2005.  Figure  2-1  Fairbanks.  shows The  the  proposed  proposed  project  highway  as  project  well runs  as  through  r e l a t i v e l y undeveloped c e n t r a l p a r t of the community.  9  the  The  central the  middle  a d d i t i o n of more  Figure  10  2-1  east-west  capacity  made i n 1969. 1977  when  was  anticipated  However, a f o r m a l  Alaska  Department  i n the  project proposal  of  congestion  downtown a r e a . a n a l y s i s was  on  other  arterials  The and  S e v e r a l a l t e r n a t i v e routes  FMATS  was  Transportation  (ADOT/PF) began p r e l i m i n a r y d e s i g n work. relieve  original  not  and  recommendations put  forth  Public  until  Facilities  o b j e c t i v e of the p r o j e c t i s t o provide  better  were a n a l y z e d  access  although  to  no  the  formal  done of a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y  (e.g., t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system management a l t e r n a t i v e s ) .  Through  the  input  Environmental F i g u r e 2-1)  2.1.1 The  road  Impact  was  analysis  Statement  gained (EIS),  primary  the  the  preparation  of  a  formal  p r e f e r r e d a l t e r n a t i v e (shown i n  s e l e c t e d by ADOT/PF i n e a r l y 1985.  source  of  data  for  network of  and  Maintenance.  characteristics,  the  Fairbanks  etc.)  1  specifications,  by DeLeuw Cather Company  Planning  and  adapted  from  Programming S e c t i o n . a  earlier  B e r g e r and  recent  are  taken Area  (DCCO) and  11  from the  recently  the  Design  volumes, completed  Study  (FMATS)  i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by ADOT/PF on  user  prepared  r e g i o n a l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n study  Associates.  and  (traffic  Transportation  Information  economic e v a l u a t i o n  costs  ADOT/PF D i v i s i o n s of  System a n a l y s i s d a t a  Metropolitan  prepared  an  project  e n v i r o n m e n t a l impacts come from the  Construction,  update  and  from  Sources of C a s e - S p e c i f i c Data  project's and  and  by  costs  i n Alaska  Quadra  of N o r t h e r n A l a s k a  are  Engineering, prepared  by  2.2  Method of Analysis  2.2.1 As  Overview of S o c i a l B e n e f i t - C o a t A n a l y s i s  s t a t e d i n Chapter  the  use  of  Social  One,  the o b j e c t i v e of the case  B e n e f i t Cost  Analysis  As  a decision-making  tool,  basis  f o r t h e a l l o c a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s  of  community  a  (Pearce,  pg  6) .  specifically  SBCA s t r i v e s  The  costs  the G e i s t Road a  rational  i n a manner which maximizes the  It  does  this  by  and  attempting  to  goals  measure  b e n e f i t s t o them  resources.  measurement of t h e s e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y t o be b a s e d  individual must  illustrate  to provide  i n d i v i d u a l community members' assessments of the c o s t s and of a p a r t i c u l a r use of s o c i a l  i s to  (SBCA) i n a s s e s s i n g t h e  b e n e f i t s of an urban t r a n s p o r t a t i o n investment, Extension.  study  use  preferences the  "opportunity  as  expressed  true  economic  cost  cost"  (Pearce,  pg  i n markets.  of  resources  13) .  At  least  To  be  used  as  valid,  on  the a n a l y s i s  reflected  in  t h r e e problems e x i s t  their i n the  attempt t o measure the o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t of r e s o u r c e s used i n a p r o j e c t : 1)  Markets may  value.of  Markets may  amounts may  not  (e.g., t h e v a l u e  of  time,  reflect  In o t h e r words, the p r i c e p a i d i n d o l l a r  o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t of c o u n t r i e s stemming  over v a l u a t i o n of the domestic  ( A d l e r , pg 3)  be d i s t o r t e d .  i n developing  controls, etc.  f o r some r e s o u r c e s  life);  2)  happens  not e x i s t  The  resource  from  rapid  used.  This  inflation,  typically government  c u r r e n c y , underemployment of l a b o r ,  11); use  e x t e n d e d p e r i o d of  of  resources  a s s o c i a t e d with  time.  12  a p r o j e c t occurs  over  an  To  address  the first  pricing.  Shadow  resource's value wage  pg  are willing  38) .  differences  considered  To  an accurate  time,  they  discounting c a p i t a 1  -  a  year or  t o year  might  (Sugden  rates be  plus  fringe  inferred  t o existing  coat  t o pay or by  and Williams,  made  shadow of  F o r example, t h e  are willing  wage  called  opportunity  markets.  data  -Vehicle -User  -Other  t o  and benefits  i s worth  costs  contrasts  years  from  markets  what  benefits geographic  pg 162).  more  today  the  f o r each most  common  than  l i f e  year  point  to reflect  now t o l a t e r  over  with  a  and benefits  Shadow  which  are  next  the project,  practice  which  of the transportation  project  will  include  costs,  costs, costs,  non-user  -Maintenance  of  p o s i t i v e  pg 3 8 ) .  of the project.  planning  and  This  costs  This often  and  need f o r uses  one  f o ranalysis.  operating  -Construction  i n time.  year;  (Pearce,  of  of the project  the productivity  costs:  time  -Accident  discounted  estimated  a n SBCA  following  of the costs  - individuals prefer  be  two t a r g e t  be  discount  must  Typically, the  f o r :  adjustments  the costs  dollar  accurately  benefits  the  i n related  of noise  comparison  should  adjusts  time-preference  To  infer  employers  of housing  include  u s e an approach  distorted.  provide  over  b y what t o work  i n the price  t o  behavior  The v a l u a t i o n  can also  economists  attempts  i s estimated  earners  pricing  pricing  use by observing  of time  (Adler,  two problems,  costs  costs, costs.  such  as noise  and a i r pollution,  a measure o f  These  c o s t s are developed  without  the p r o j e c t .  determine  t h e worth  criterion  (Sugden  f o r the a f f e c t e d  transportation  The u n d e r l y i n g c r i t e r i o n of  a project  and W i l l i a m s ,  pg  which  i s the p o t e n t i a l 89) .  p r o v i d e d by Sugden and W i l l i a m s o f P a r e t o  The  w i t h and  i s used  i n SBCA t o  Pareto  improvement  following  improvement  system  is a  definition  and p o t e n t i a l  Pareto  (Sugden and W i l l i a m s , pg 8 9 ) :  improvement  "In t h e language o f w e l f a r e economics, a change t h a t makes a t l e a s t one member o f a community b e t t e r o f f and makes none worse off i s a P a r e t o Improvement. Undertaking a project provides a p o t e n t i a l Pareto improvement i f i t i s i n principle possible to s e c u r e an a c t u a l P a r e t o improvement by l i n k i n g t h e p r o j e c t w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e s e t o f t r a n s f e r s o f money between g a i n e r s and l o s e r s even i f in fact t h e s e t r a n s f e r s w i l l not take p l a c e . "  Thus,  i f a transportation  which e x c e e d time  costs  savings,  (e.g., through  etc.),  then  p r o j e c t can be c o n s i d e r e d  2.2.2  investment  economic  made a t an aggregate aggregate Toronto  demand.  significant  level,  variations illustrated  speed  User  time  (Nowlan, pg 5) .  cost  as a  segment i s p r e s e n t e d  improvement  exists  road p r o j e c t s  user  and t h e  exist  t o be  speeds a p p l i e d t o an  e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e Spadina  Expressway i n  of 20 m i l e s p e r hour on t h e a f f e c t e d  Analysis at t h i s which over  exist  aggregate  the course  urban  of the volume-to-capacity  i n F i g u r e 2-2 below.  14  ignores the  network  o f a day.  road  p e r m i l e on  level  on an urban  o f u s e r time c o s t s f o r a t y p i c a l function  have tended  demand o f 155,400 v e h i c l e m i l e s  i n speed  i n demand which i n a graph  operating costs,  u s i n g system-wide average  F o r example,  variations  members  Study  e v a l u a t i o n s o f urban  assumed an average  network  Pareto  t o community  worthwhile.  network and e s t i m a t e d a d a i l y the  savings i n v e h i c l e  a potential  Approach Taken i n t h i s  Traditional  creates benefits  This  and t h e can be  r o a d segment.  ratio  of a  road  FIGURE 2-2 USER TIME COST AS A FUNCTION OF VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIO  TIME COST  VOLUME/CAPACITY  In  evaluating  the impacts  of  a  project,  RATIO  this  cost  function  raises  three  issues:  1)  Costs  do n o t v a r y  2)  Use i s not u n i f o r m intersections,  3)  and thus  affect  approach  road the  system road  use  used  times  This  segments e x i s t  i n the costs  The  study  of  several  at a  system-wide  on one s e g m e n t  This  i s t o undertake analysis  network  could  a r e t o be  calculated.  exhibit  wide  o f day, a c c o u n t i n g a system-wide  into Since  variations operating  for differing analysis  15  a detailed  e n t a i l s a more  i s divided  characteristics, link  provides  consisting  segments.  typically  and i n user  a segment  between  changes  i n Fairbanks.  roads  w i t h u s e on a s e g m e n t ,  and  i n this  conditions  urban  various mix.  many  network.  operating on  along  Inter-relationships level  The  linearly  analysis  refined  several  breakdown o f  links  the operating between  conditions auto  peak  f o r which conditions  and o f f peak  are estimated f o r  occupancy  of the project  of the  which  and  vehicle  recognizes  that,  as  each  individual links  link  link  is a  can be  (Griffiths,  pg  part  expected  36).  geographic  The  network,  t o have an e f f e c t  on  a  change  in  some or a l l the  an  other  estimates  More i m p o r t a n t l y , i t can be used t o determine  of the b e n e f i t s ( f o r example by  taken  Essentially, user  analysis  overall  time  of day,  the  road segments or  area).  process  both  the  T h i s approach a l l o w s f o r more a c c u r a t e  of the l e v e l of b e n e f i t s . distribution  of  i n e v a l u a t i n g the  project  i s diagrammed  i n Figure  2-3.  the system a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e s the base d a t a used i n d e t e r m i n i n g  costs and  non-u3er  and  project  circumstances,  costs  in  dotted  reference  recognize  system  under  normal  analysis  e n t a i l s d e f i n i n g t h a t p a r t of the e x i s t i n g road system l i k e l y t o be  affected  by  the  project  and  developing  volume, c a p a c i t y , p e a k i n g presented  i n Chapter  user  c o s t s and  time  analysis  of  Non-user would  ideally  evaluation  as  importance  i n the  arrow  User  costs  presented  evaluated  and  final  t o the  estimates.  road  costs  provides  can  Chapter  Five  entails  traffic  (user c o s t s without  the  include vehicle  input  SBCA, not  calculation  16  for  the  they  are be  process  not  while  Four.  these  impacts  considered  i s indicated  The  evaluation.  in  a t t a c h e d t o them.  of project  (e.g.,  operating costs,  formal  evaluation i t s e l f  of  This analysis i s  i n Chapter  F i v e and,  easily  The  the p r o j e c t  etc.).  are presented  decision-making evaluation.  system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  speeds,  i n Chapter  i n an  a monetary v a l u e  connected  a s e t of  a c c i d e n t c o s t s and  are  be  cost  characteristics,  Three.  project  impacts  project  precede  that  the  system  any  would  connects  The  hence  analysis  to  line  development  and  system  A  the  alternatives  the  impacts.  by  a  this Their  dotted  i s presented  b e n e f i t s to  in  existing  l e s s u s e r c o s t s with the p r o j e c t ) ,  r i c j u r a 2-3 Procasa ( o r P r o j a c t  Evaluation  S Y S T E M ANALYSIS (with and without prnjft^) • NETWORK DEFINITION  • NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS • DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS • SPEED-ROW RELATIONSHIPS • TRAVEL TIMES • TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS PROJECT COSTS  : C h a p t e r .Three.  •CONSTRUCTION • MAINTENANCE  USER COSTS  * VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS * USER TIME COSTS •ACCIDENT COSTS  Ghapler Two  Chapter Four NON-USER COSTS  * AIR POLLUTION * NOISE * OTHER PROJECT IMPACTS Chapter  EVALUATION  Five  '  • CALCULATION OF BENEFITS TO EXISTING TRAFFIC • ESTIMATION OF BENEFITS TO GENERATED TRAFFIC • COMPARISON OF DISCOUNTED COSTS AND BENEFITS " SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Chapter Five  17  the  e s t i m a t i o n  t o t a l  p r o j e c t  S e n s i t i v i t y growth,  While  a  demand  the  p r o j e c t , a  l a c k  of  on  the  p r e s e n t s G e n e r a l l y ,  maintenance  c o s t s .  annual  c a l c u l a t i n g by  the  2.3.1 Table p r o j e c t  b a s i s .  costs  This present w h i c h  only  C o n s t r u c t i o n 2-1  the  provides  engineering  to  a  ensures value. to  the  l i f e  out  of  of  the  rate,  the  p r o j e c t . p o p u l a t i o n  to  evaluated  t h i s  f o r  the  costs  e n t a i l s  which  a s s i g n  are  each  are  g i v e n  to  i t s more  g i v e n  keep  case  the  study.  G e i s t  Road  c o n s t r u c t i o n schedule, the  c o r r e c t l y  breaking  s i n g l e  However,  i n  i n t o  a  p r o v i d e  and  c o n s t r u c t i o n  c o m p l e t e d  sections  might  p a r t .  c o s t s  of  w e l l ,  a n a l y s i s ,  s u b d i v i d e d  the  This be  each  a c c u r a t e l y  that  As  forecast  a l t e r n a t i v e  e v a l u a t i o n  project  t h i s  and  p o s s i b l e  A l a s k a .  p r o j e c t  are  present  of  the  of  i s  of  set  the  e i g h t - y e a r  project  those  a to  of  whole  costs  •are  at  merits  e s t i m a t e d  the  comparison  discount  Fairbanks,  c a r r y  as  a  a n a l y s i s  i t s e l f  r e l a t i v e  these  Given  s e c t i o n s  maintenance  the  the  i n  to  and  analyzed.  segments  project  e v a l u a t i n g  t h e i r  the  i n  a r r i v i n g  of  required  E x t e n s i o n .  an  the  i s  Extension  e v a l u a t i o n  Costs  on  changes  e n t a i l  study  Road  2.3  i n  over  l i m i t s  simple,  important  time  t r a f f i c  d i s c o u n t e d  case  resources  s e c t i o n  user  to  would  information  P r o j e c t  costs  i n  G e i s t  of  generated  c o n d i t i o n s  i l l u s t r a t i o n  T h i s  and  study  separate  meaningful the  value  t h i s  the  to  e v a l u a t i o n  supply  investments,  s c a l e ,  the  complete and  benefits  benefits of  and  of  i t  p r o j e c t  i s  costs  discounted  p r o j e c t  year  and  and  c o s t s  i n  down  a s s i g n i n g  completed.  Costs a  breakdown (design),  of  c o n s t r u c t i o n  r i g h t - o f - w a y  18  costs.  a c q u i s i t i o n ,  These  costs  c o n s t r u c t i o n ,  i n c l u d e and  utilities five  Table  costs.  sections  will  These s e c t i o n s  to begin  The t o t a l  a r e made f o r  a r e h i g h l i g h t e d i n F i g u r e 2-1.  i s presented i n d i c a t i n g  and t h e e s t i m a t e d  i s scheduled 1993.  components  of construction  i s t o be s t a r t e d ,  by l a t e  of these  time  of completion.  i n September  cost  o f 1985, and  i s estimated  t o be 116.1  dollars.  should  be n o t e d t h a t  improvements scheduled will  o f each  a schedule  construction  be c o m p l e t e d  million  It  presents  section  Summarizing,  estimates  o f t h e highway.  2-1 a l s o  when e a c h  Cost  the I l l i n o i s  to existing sections  f o r construction  Street  s e c t i o n of the p r o j e c t  o f t h e network.  until  1992, t h e m a j o r i t y  As t h i s  involves  section  of the added  i s not  capacity  be c o m p l e t e d by 1991. T a b l e 2-1 GEIST EXTENSION - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS 1985  Cost  ($ M i l l i o n ) Sched. CSotnasrtt  CornCon plete  Section  P.E.  ROW  Const  Util  Peger - C o l l e g e Lemeta - B i r c h Hill A u r o r a - Lemeta Illinois U n i v e r s i t y Ave. Peger  0.8  5.9  18.3  1.0  26.0  •86  •87  0.7 1.2 1.0  5.6 3.2 13.9  8.8 18.4 12.4  0.3 0.7 0.8  15.4 23.5 28.1  •88 '89 •92  •89 •90 '93  0.9  5.5  16.5  0.2  23.1  '90  '91  74.4  3.0  116.1  TOTAL  4.6  34.1  P.E. - P r o j e c t e n g i n e e r i n g co3t3 ROW - R i g h t o f way C03ts Const. - Construction costs U t i l . - U t i l i t y costs Source:  ADOT/PF P l a n n i n g  Section.  19  Total  2.3.2  Maintenance Costa  Maintenance average  were d e t e r m i n e d  per lane mile  Maintenance. maintenance project Table  costs  As  completed  cost estimates  the  costs  over  project  were  will  calculated  the l i f e  of the p r o j e c t  based  on  p r o v i d e d by t h e ADOT/PF D i v i s i o n o f be  to  staged  reflect  d u r i n g each year up t o 1993.  over  several  the a c t u a l  years,  amount  the  of the  These c o s t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n  2-2.  TABLE 2-2 E s t i m a t e d Maintenance Cost3 G e i s t Road E x t e n s i o n  1  - S i x Lane -  Year  Lane Miles  Cost  1987 1988 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994-2005  4.86 4.86 4.86 11.64 11.64 11.64 11.64  61,236 61,236 61,236 146,664 146,664 146,664 146,664  1. 2.  -  -Four  Lane Miles -0-020 .44 20.44 20.44 21.04 21.04  ?  Lane  -  Cost  Total Annual Maint. Cost  -0-0183,960 183,960 183,960 183,960 189,360  61,236 61,236 330,624 330,624 330,624 336,024 336,024  $12, 600 p e r m i l e . $9,000 p e r m i l e .  Source:  ADOT/PF D i v i s i o n o f Maintenance.  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER  TWO  1. ADOT/PF i s t h e p u b l i c e n t i t y with t h e r e s o u r c e s t o c a r r y out much o f t h e p l a n n i n g , d e s i g n and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f most t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o j e c t s i n t h e Fairbanks area.  20  CHAPTER THREE System A n a l y s i s 3.1  Introduction  The  purpose  part  of t h i s  chapter  of the Fairbanks  These  operating  travel  time.  i s to assess  road  system most  conditions  These  include  are inputs  the o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s on t h a t affected  by t h e proposed  volume/capacity  ratios  to the c a l c u l a t i o n  data  used  developed  i n the  demand  u n d e r l i e a l l cost  evaluation.  system  part of the process.  f o r use o f t h e network  requires data  The  analysis  This analysis  or  operating  impacts.  t h e system a n a l y s i s  economic  data-intensive the  from  and speed  of vehicle  c o s t s , u s e r time c o s t s , a c c i d e n t c o s t s and o t h e r p r o j e c t  The  project.  builds  calculations i s the  most  on e s t i m a t e s of  and p r o j e c t i o n s o f f u t u r e demand, and  on o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s found  on i n d i v i d u a l  links  which make  up t h e network.  Figure case  3-1 diagrams t h e p r o c e s s t a k e n  study.  affected  The  by  surrounding develop  time  These  f o r base  urban  are  For the a f f e c t e d  the primary essentially,  network,  and f o r e c a s t  years,  network  o r t r a v e l time  levels  of congestion  costs  and  accident  road the  t h e next with  (supply)  arterials step  Based  costs  alternatives.  21  can  time,  vehicle  be  estimated  on  characteristics  over each l i n k c a n be c a l c u l a t e d .  and t r a v e l  i s to  accomplished  techniques.  and t r a v e l  segments  and without t h e  i n t h e network and can be  transportation modelling  of the road  (demand), t h e speed  user  project.  volumes  traditional  speeds,  i s t o determine  T h i s i s done f o r each l i n k  characteristics  on  new  step  the p r o j e c t .  traffic  project. using  the  first  i n a n a l y z i n g t h e road system f o r t h i s  Based  operating costs, for  different  FIGURE 3-1 DIAGRAM OF SYSTEM A N A L Y S I S FOR PROJECT EVALUATION  DETERMINE PRIMARY ROAD SEGMENTS A F F E C T E D BY PROJECT  DEFINE L I N K S AND NODES  Section (3.2)  DEVELOP L I N K VOLUMES FOR BASE AND FORECAST YEARS, WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROJECT  0 TRIP  GENERATION  0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 0 MODAL S P L I T  Section  0 T R A F F I C ASSIGNMENT  (3.3)  0 T R A F F I C GROWTH RATES Section (3.3)  Section  (3.4)  DETERMINE NODAL C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S 0 LINK CAPACITY 0 L I N K DISTANCE 0 AREA T Y P E / F A C I L I T Y TYPE 0 SPEED/FLOW R E L A T I O N S H I P S  BASED ON L I N K VOLUMES/CAPCITY RATIOS, DETERMINE SPEEDS AND TRAVEL TIMES BY TIME OF DAY  DETERMINE TRAVEL C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S 0 T R A F F I C BY TIME OF DAY 0 WEEKLY/SEASONAL V A R I A T I O N S 0 T R I P PURPOSE D I S T R I B U T I O N 0 AUTO OCCUPANCY 0 V E H I C L E MIX  Section (3.5)  Section (3.4)  SYSTEM COSTS (CHAPTER 4)  22  3.2  Development 3-2  Figure  o f Network  presents  t h e road  the  project  one  of the objectives  capacity expected  which  Daily  link  consider traffic  evaluation  3.3.1  is  the 1985  used  i n this  discussed (trip in  will  many also  arterial  arterials  of the  be  Since  are  north-south  affected.  Volumes scenarios.  the project  of the project.  i n Chapter  This  These  scenarios  and t h e growth  section  i n the evaluation.  FMATS  Update.  presents  rate  t h e base  The base  year  of and  of the  used  t o forecast  i n this  generation,  by  section trip  Volumes  t h e source  The v o l u m e s procedure  i n t h e Update. evaluation  Link  Two,  by t h e assignment  parameters  roads  east-west  east-west  well,  f o rvarious  and without  used  As  Link  established  f o rDetermining  di3cusssed  use  impacts.  by t h e project.  more  the existing  and Forecast  t o be  affected  Highlighted are  i s 1986.  As  produced  most  i s t o provide  the east-west  with  volumes  Method  process  were  the life  link  area,  the primary  t h e network  forecast  of the project  o f Base  volumes  over  o f the network  intersect  Development  network, i n c l u d i n g t h e p r o j e c t .  the central  to receive  arterials  3.3  and the part  through  f o r Analysis  A  f o rdaily  f o r the high  assuming  growth  slower  future.traffic.  The b a s i s  examination  distributions,  mode  t h e update.  23  rates  of  choice,  by  scenarios  four-step  scenario  growth  volumes  growth  of the traditional  moderate  through  traffic  was  were  modelling  developed f o r  i n several  f o rthese  the four-step and t r i p  link  of the  volumes i s procedure  assignment)  used  Figure Proposed  Project  and  oo •u 2 24  3-2 A f f e c t e d  Network  3.3.1.1 The in  T r i p G e n e r a t i o n and D i s t r i b u t i o n  first  two s t e p s a r e concerned  the area being s t u d i e d .  zones. the  The f i r s t  number  involves  with the geographic  interchange  of t r i p s  The study a r e a i s u s u a l l y d i v i d e d i n t o  analysis  s t e p o f the m o d e l l i n g p r o c e s s , t r i p  of t r i p s  made i n t h e s t u d y  determining  the  relative  area.  generation  The t r i p  a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of  distribution each  zone  development o f a zone-to-zone t r i p  table.  T r i p p r o d u c t i o n f o r the FMATS Area  was d e r i v e d u s i n g a model which  average based  daily  vehicle t r i p  on average  Home-Based  Other  classifications  productions  production  r a t e s by t r i p  (HBO), and Non-Home Based  purpose  travel  1 o r 2 member  households  o  3 o r 4 member  households  o  5 o r more member  and t h e  generates  f o r each zone  (Home-Based Work  (HBW),  (NHB)) f o r t h r e e h o u s e h o l d  size  households  t r i p p r o d u c t i o n r a t e s f o r t h i s model were o b t a i n e d from a 1983  survey  step  (DCCO 1983, pg 4 ) :  o  The  for residential  determines  o f 284 households  i n the F a i r b a n k s  area  and a r e p r e s e n t e d  telephone i n Table  3-1.  Using  the  attractions  1983  travel  survey  as  a  basis,  average  daily  vehicle  trip  f o r each zone were d e r i v e d by DCCO u s i n g r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s t o  o b t a i n e q u a t i o n s between t r i p purpose and v a r i o u s parameters  DUS = Number of d w e l l i n g u n i t s TOTEMP = T o t a l employment RETEMP = R e t a i l employment OTHEMP = Other employment SCHATT = S c h o o l attendance 25  including:  The  As  final  w i l l  equations  used  be d i s c u s s e d  developing  further  estimates  information  i n t h e update  below,  f o r area-wide  arepresented  these  Trip  P r o d u c t i o n Rates  Wt.  volumes  where  were used i n FMATS  Update  3-1  Generation P e r HH  Factors  (Excludes  Ft.  Wainwright)  HBO  NHB  1-2  1.15  1.61  2.87  5.63  3-4  1.57  3.3  3.69  8.56  5-6  2.56  3.36  3.4  9.32  Avg. Total  1.36  2.15  3.11  6.62  Group  Trip Trip  Attraction  work  HBW = 1 . 3 7 8 2  (TOTEMP)  Homebased  other  HBO = . 8 2 7 6 .2837  (OTHEMP) +  NHB  trip  (DCCO,  = P i *  table  +  3.5659  (RETEMP)  .2132  +  (SCHATT)  3.66  3.66  was d e v e l o p e d  1983, p 17):  A i Fin K i j  ^ A j  (DUS)  - 15.34  = 1 . 2 5 9 4 (DUS) + 5 . 3 0 2 8 (RETEMP) + 1.240 (OTHEMP) + . 0 2 9 4 6 (SCHATT) -  zone-to-zone  Trips  Equation  Homebased  Non-Homebased  All  Equations  Purpose  -  Tij  equations  HBW  HH S i z e  follows  trip  3-1.  was n o t a v a i l a b l e .  FMATS T r i p  as  attraction  daily  TABLE  The  i n Table  F i j K i j  j=l  26  using  the gravity  model  expressed  where, Tij  =  trips  produced  Pi  =  total  trip  production  at i ;  Ai  =  total  trip  attraction  at j ;  Fij  =  friction  factor  "friction"  or  diminishing  =  travel  i  =  origin  j  =  d e s t i n a t i o n a n a l y s i s area  n  =  number o f  equally  truck  traffic  travel  time  noise  reasonably  small.  objective  link  has 1.2  For  a i r  a  representing  a  for interchange  for interchange i =  1,2,3. j =  number,  a  relatively  percent that  .  i j i f  necessary  i j ;  .n;  1,2,3.  this  of  small  daily  any  impacts  reason  the  p r o j e c t , the  volumes,  can  might of  the  .  .n;  share  person  the  of  total  household  trips.  Given  p r o j e c t might  evaluation focuses  the  have on on  i t  auto  and  Assignment  affect  is a  assignment be  better  minimizing  final  critical  product  of  input.  Link  vehicle operating costs,  pollution  accurate  assignment  factors  represents  only.  and  and  number,  i t i s felt  evaluation of the  and  zone j ;  zones  size  Traffic  -  factor  (or impedance)  approximately  be  process  time  public transit  would  the  adjustment  a n a l y s i s area  small  3.3.1.3  i j ;  at  S p l i t  Fairbanks, with  interchange  attracted  f u n c t i o n of T i j ;  t i j  Mode  i , and  distribution  socioeconomic  system's  as  relative  =  trips,  In  for trip  Kij  3 . 3 . 1 . 2  In  i n a n a l y s i s area  total  levels. of  Thus,  traffic. in  terms  travel  time  can  of be  step  volumes  the  route  levels, to  problem choice,  recognized  modelling  determine  important  Ideally  stated  four  accident  i3  i t  the  of  as  the well  ensure  a  traffic where  explicitly  the and  an  " e q u i l i b r i u m "  time  by  changing  While  p r a c t i c a l  years  and  models,  are  e q u i l i b r i u m  of  pg  has  a l l - o r - n o t h i n g  d r i v e r  can  improve  h i s  t r a v e l  methods  use them  and  i n i n  have  the  w e l l  p r a c t i c e  c a p a c i t y  e x i s t e d known  (Eash,  r e s t r a i n t  f o r  UTPS pg  s e v e r a l  package  1).  methods  of  Instead, have  been  1) .  Update  i n c l u d e d  For as  made  no  206).  assignment  been  (Eash,  used  pg  use  used  were  (Kanafani,  for  t r a d i t i o n a l  assignments.  wherein  a v a i l a b l e  l i t t l e  FMATS  routes  reached  r e a d i l y  more  The  s o l u t i o n  purposes  they  are  both  of  a l l - o r - n o t h i n g  t h i s  study  c l o s e r  than  o f  t o t a l  the  the  and  c a p a c i t y  c a p a c i t y  r e s t r a i n e d  r e s t r a i n e d  assignments  a l l - o r - n o t h i n g  to  an  e q u i l i b r i u m  assignment.  The  s e l e c t i o n  an  o f  a d d i t i o n a l  attempt  to  p a r a l l e l s l i n k  a  p r o b l e m  a s s i g n  the  part  volumes  on  i n  a l l  problems the  the  a s s i g n i n g  t r i p s i n  network  an  i n  e v a l u a t i o n  t r a f f i c .  the  area  a l l - o r - n o t h i n g  p a r t i a l  f o r  network  must  It  to  i s  the  not  be  taken  network  The  from  a  poses  a p p r o p r i a t e  p a r t i a l  assignment).  purposes  r e s u l t  complete  to (this  i s  that  network  assignment.  An and  e v a l u a t i o n without  a d d i t i o n  t y p i c a l l y  the  p r o j e c t ,  assignments  e v a l u a t i o n  to  changes  t r a v e l  i n  the  requires f o r  c o u l d  growth  i n  behavior  two  assignments  at  least  be  made  t r a f f i c , (household  a  base  to  peak  year  assess t r a f f i c ,  s i z e ,  28  to  auto  r e f l e c t and the s h i f t s  a  the  network  h o r i z o n  year.  s e n s i t i v i t y i n  ownership,  l a n d e t c ) .  with In  o f  use, Even  the and  though  t h e network, used i n the FMATS Update  a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1,000  and  links),  is relatively  and w h i l e s u b s t a n t i a l  might be done t o reduce the work, manual assignment in  t h i s case.  Given  that  complete which  available  c o m p u t e r - a s s i s t e d network volumes  under  various  scenarios  t h e use of assignments  FMATS  These  Update. (1980)  evaluation,  assignments  the p r o j e c t .  the  ratio  of  To  the  for this  assignments,  method i n v o l v e s  without  (160  zones  a g g r e g a t i o n of  is virtually  zones  impossible  3  r e s o u r c e s were not  link  small  f o r 1980  the  particular  study to c a r r y  a method was  could  represent  obtain  case  be  and  the link  d e v e l o p e d by  approximated.  The  2005 d e v e l o p e d i n t h e  network volumes  assignment  out  (2005)  with  required  and  total  and  f o r the  area  wide 4  weekday t r i p This  attractions  assignment  factor  was was  a t t r a c t i o n s d u r i n g the l i f e assumptions  must  proportionally and  zone  be  then  made t h a t  applied  will  to  trip  of t h e p r o j e c t trip  forecasts  For t h i s  zone-to-zone  z percent of t o t a l  the p r o j e c t  and used as an assignment  of t h e p r o j e c t .  d u r i n g the l i f e  y i s always  assumed t h a t  calculated  (i.e., ends),  of  e a s t - w e s t c a p a c i t y w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g urban a r e a .  in  approach t o be  valid, fixed x  In o t h e r words, i t i s i n t r a v e l behavior  T h i s i s r e a s o n a b l e because t h e p r o j e c t  r o u t i n g f o r some t r i p s ,  trip  t r a v e l between zone  not cause d r a m a t i c s h i f t s  l a n d use p a t t e r n s .  a more e f f i c i e n t  annual  i n t e r c h a n g e s are  or  for  of  factor.  i s an a d d i t i o n  While i t might  allow  i t w i l l not cause a major  shift  t h e r e l a t i v e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of any a r e a i n F a i r b a n k s which might o c c u r i f  this project  were an e x t e n s i o n of the urban road system out i n t o  hinterlands.  29  undeveloped  In  a d d i t i o n ,  the  adjustments  a d d i t i o n  r e f l e c t  more  p r o j e c t .  2005  l i n k  the  the  o f  must  be  While  the i n  part  of  t o t a l  m a j o r i t y  t h i s  be  added  C o l l e g e the  South  n o r t h - s o u t h and  based  routes,  segments  a  c o n s t r u c t i o n  two  Avenue -  South  the  0.5  percent one  Cushman the  use  p r o j e c t .  o f  added  use  f e l t  road  of  with  the  two  percent  T r a f f i c added  to  percent  a l s o  l i n k s  p e r c e n t segment.  G e i s t  added  was  on  added These  approximate  c a p a c i t i e s  t h e s e  which  It  was  roads f e l t  30  that  the  l e a s t  to  A i r p o r t  t o t a l  percent  5.8  p a r t i a l which f i v e  added  network were  to  Steese  to  the  a l l  the  Road major  I l l i n o i s were  a l t e r n a t i v e  and  l i n k s  Expressway  a l l o c a t i o n s  Road  of  volume)  F i e l d  on  the  o c c u r  not  percent  P h i l l i p s  i n c r e a s e d  might  the  t r a f f i c  E x t e n s i o n  of  the  manner.  segments  at  on  o f  t h i s  some  to  road  t h a t  percent  86  and  be  i n  (in  that  r e p r e s e n t s  p r o j e c t ,  segments  would  network;  and  o f  road  the  use  based  p e r c e n t  t h i s  the  encountered  determined  5.8  e v a l u a t i o n  was  Expressway.  with  l i k e l y of  It  Way  was  to  "without  of  be  i l l u s t r a t e ,  i t  and  f o r  l e v e l  might  r e f l e c t  w i t h o u t  base  a c t u a l  To  without  network  which  Update  should  t r i p s  e x i s t i n g  A i r p o r t  judgment  and  t r i p s the  the  to  1986),  i n  r e l e v a n t  f i x e d .  the  Thus,  network.  the  and  U n i v e r s i t y  on  of  a  a p p r o x i m a t l e y  e x i s t i n g  these  Fairbanks  Cushman/Barnett  the  the  r e f l e c t  FMATS  of  (approximately  to  Road  to  on  attractions)  h a n d l e  some  p a r t i a l  not  assignment  1980  (completed  provides  remain  the  routes.  o f  study,  t h i s  system i n  the  c o n d i t i o n s  does  purposes  e x i s t i n g  a t t r a c t i o n s  should  and  For  r e d i s t r i b u t e d  used  on  from  the  to  Expressway  area-wide  w o u l d  a t t r a c t i o n s . ^ d i v e r t e d  the  i t  developed  E x t e n s i o n  made  Fairbanks  f a c t o r s ,  c a p a c i t y  be  assignment  1980  A A D T / t o t a l  assignment  G e i s t  South  to  r e a l i s t i c a l l y  assignment  of  should  the  While  p r o j e c t " terms  of  had  w i t h o u t College  made road the Road  w o u l d  handle  the  Expressway  and  Adjustment  of  S o u t h  P h i l l i p s  the  f o r  as  d e s c r i b e d  As  c o n s t r u c t i o n  adjustments  to  To  r e q u i r e s  do  t h i s  network  "without  to  p r o j e c t "  the  G e i s t  the  p r o j e c t the  added  the  volumes were  "without to  p o r t i o n  the of  f o l l o w i n g e x i s t i n g  the  been  added  to  the  r e l a t i v e l y  to  F a i r b a n k s  l i t t l e .  the  a d d i t i o n  a c c o m p l i s h e d  by  u s i n g  percent  o f  adding  staged  0.5  factors  added the  link3 Thus, a l l  was  l i n k  r e d u c t i o n s p e r i o d  (as  for  of  each  made 1991,  a  of  the  the  SFE  t o t a l  t r i p  equal with  made  to the  - 0 -  1987  1.21  1988  - 0 -  1989  0.82  1990  1.63  1991  1.34  31  the  some  e x i s t i n g  i n  the  As the  the  necessary. form  and  l i n k s  v a r i o u s  weighted  are  o f  of  by  u s i n g  to  which  p a r t s  "with  volume  east-west  p r o j e c t " .  assignment  of  factors  average the  the  t r a f f i c  assignment  completion  factors to  a l s o  accomplished  above).  c o n s t r u c t i o n :  1986  were  (1986-1993)  c o m p l e t e d  was  reduction  assignment were  i s  of  years  resemble  This  d i s c u s s e d  network,  by  p r o j e c t  percent.  s e v e r a l  p r o j e c t "  network  the  100  over  "with  e x i s t i n g  u n t i l  i s  had  over  South  r e f l e c t  and  assignments  assignment  p r o j e c t ,  base  b e i n g  the  p r o j e c t  percentage l i n k s  i s  p r o j e c t "  project.**  was  the  above.  t h a t  p r o j e c t "  a  w h i l e  handle  assignment  (SFE) as  t r a f f i c  " w i t h o u t  d i v e r s i o n  of  the  t r a f f i c  would  project  2005  a t t r a c t i o n s  the  Road  E x p r e s s w a y  f a c t o r s  p r o j e c t  o f  F i e l d  without  F a i r b a n k s  assignment  m a j o r i t y  f a c t o r s  The of  Since  I l l i n o i s  Street  were  a f f e c t e d  somewhat  Once  the  east-west  assignment to  While  and  are  i s  an  t h i s  reasonable volumes  r e s u l t s  o f of  a p p l y i n g  the  land  While  t h e r e  1980  are  to  3.3.2  Forecasts  growth. 1986, t r i p  of  each and  between  c a r r i e d assess  out the  s c e n a r i o dropping  to  an  1-3  2005  t i e s  were  to  occur  t h i s  be  checked  there  case  i s  assignments,  i l l u s t r a t e s i n  the  of  (widening  volumes  some  the  project"  to  increase  each  volumes  the  i n  no  the  both  the  had  major  when s h i f t s  assignments. segment  1980  the  assignment  be  two  road  i n  between  can  assuming  l e v e l s ,  provide  Confidence  confidence  (again  does  c o n s i s t e n c y  of  t r a f f i c  i t  comparing  comparison  percentage  (1989),  "without  study.  by  more  years  from  network.  1994.  l i n k  of  factors  e x i s t i n g  I l l i n o i s  1993  i n  assignment  the  i n t o  i n  o b t a i n i n g  can  of  changed  e v a l u a t i o n  intermediate  were  scenario  1984  'worst  had  the  rest  i t s  and  would  2005.  T r a f f i c developed estimates  Since  were  w i t h  project  I f  patterns  2005.  a t t r a c t i o n s  growth  i n  p r o j e c t ,  the  segment  method  3-3  t r a f f i c  F o r  1995,  to  s i m i l a r  the  then  purposes  d i f f e r e n c e s  appear  o f  the  and  F i g u r e  have  road  approach  t h i s  f a c t o r s  use).  F o r e c a s t s  f o r  the  assignments.  the  of  improvements  hoc  by  b o t h  p a t t e r n s  of  t h i s Its  ad  part  d i f f e r e n t l y  recognized  produced  f a c t o r s  i n  f o r  p r o j e c t " .  capacity)  a l s o  p o r t i o n  f a c t o r s  " w i t h  i s  percent  t r a f f i c  of  two  t o t a l were  from  As  assumption  case' annual  1985.  of  data  e x t r a p o l a t e d  and  the  1986  for  a  high  rate  between  1995  between and  32  a v a i l a b l e , data  based  2005.  growth (DCCO, 1984  high  and  a t t r a c t i o n s  p r e v i o u s l y ,  generation"  growth  t r i p  not  1984  noted  s c e n a r i o s ;  the  were  made  estimates on  FMATS  1985,  II-9)  pg of  for 1986  annual  Update  " i n  1995  of  average  s c e n a r i o  and  moderate  4-5  order .  was to This  percent  Figure  3-3  DAILY LINK VOLUMES AS A.PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ATTRACTIONS (1980 AND 2005)  5HADED= WITH PROJECT LINE= WITHOUT PROJECT  0.00  0.02  0.04  0.06  0.08  0.10  0.12  PCT OF TOTAL ATTRACTIONS  0.14  0.16  To  t e s t the  s e n s i t i v i t y of the e v a l u a t i o n  a more moderate l e v e l in  o i l prices,  FMATS  Update  d e v e l o p e d by (dwelling  a more moderate  would  seem  and  75  percent  of  a t t r a c t i o n equations d e s c r i b e d  of  the  i s no  explicit  t h e s e f o r e c a s t s cannot be project  (Mainheim,  estimation  pg  than  the  high  o f the  that  drop  in  forecasts  were  a  and  zonal 1995  basis. and  growth e s t i m a t e s .  above, e s t i m a t e s o f t o t a l  The  1995  and  Using  the  daily  vehicle  modelling  process  of demand f o r  travel,  s p e c i f i e d years.  supply  i n the on  the  four-step level  s a i d t o i n c l u d e t r i p s g e n e r a t e d as a r e s u l t of  437).  To  of g e n e r a t e d t r a f f i c  the  a t t r a c t i o n parameters  on  1984  recent  presented  growth  of t r i p  attendance)  recognition  e f f e c t s of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  light  moderate  forecasts  t r i p a t t r a c t i o n s were developed f o r the  Because t h e r e  growth  The  school  In  i n t h e s e parameters between  2005 were r e d u c e d t o trip  of  plausible.  employment  change  forecast.  rate  a d j u s t i n g downward the  unit,  percentage  of growth was  t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t e of growth,  address  requires  an  this  ommission  and  e s t i m a t e of the  since  the the  change i n t o t a l  t r a v e l c o s t s , t h i s i s s u e i s d e a l t with i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter F i v e .  The  method d e s c r i b e d  above produces the  following  forecasts  of  total  daily  vehicle t r i p attractions:  High Growth  Year 1986 1995 2005 These  trips  respective  Moderate Growth  238335 314447 361800 will  be  used  years applying  to the  233601 281592 309443  determine  individual  link  assignment method d e s c r i b e d  L i n k volumes by year f o r each s c e n a r i o  34  volumes  for  i n Section  are p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix  A.  the  3.3.1.  3.4 As  Network and T r a v e l described  network  i n Figure  and t r a v e l  calculation link  Characteristics 3-1, once  characteristics  of l i n k o p e r a t i n g  capacities,  characteristics  link traffic  distance, include  need  t o be  conditions. facility  i d e n t i f i e d t o a i d i n the  type,  and  of  purpose,  distances,  FMATS  Link  facility  type  ( p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r weekend  in traffic.  between  f a c i l i t y t y p e s and a r e a t y p e s a r e t a k e n from t h e  capacities  and a r e a  relationship  i t i s important  Characteristics  Link c a p a c i t i e s , Update.  As w e l l ,  by day o f week  vs weekday t r i p s ) and s e a s o n a l f l u c t u a t i o n s  by  Travel  purpose, auto occupancy by t r i p  variations  Network  type.  o f day,  to  3.4.1  include  time  flows by time o f day, and v e h i c l e mix. in traffic  area  traffic  directional consider  estimated  Network c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d a i l y t r i p s by t r i p  volumes have been  type  are calculated  i n which  the l i n k  a r e a / f a c i l i t y type  based  on  has been  and c a p a c i t y  the p a r t i c u l a r  classified. i s based  The  on t h e Q  research  contained  will  be d i s c u s s e d  also  the basis  use.  Link  evaluation  3.4.2  Figure day  further  below,  Manual  the a r e a / f a c i l i t y type  f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n  capacities  Capacity  and o t h e r  o f l i n k speeds network  (HRB, 1965).  As  r e l a t i o n s h i p s are  for different  characteristics  l e v e l s of  used  i n the  a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix A.  Travel  3.4.2.1  i n t h e 1965 Highway  Characteristics  Time of Day C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 3-4 i l l u s t r a t e s  a f i v e year average v a r i a t i o n  in traffic  f o r many of t h e r o a d segments a f f e c t e d by t h e p r o j e c t .  35  by time of  While a l l r o u t e s  Figure  3-4  PERCENT OF AADT SOURCE: A L A S K A DOT/PF TRAFFIC VOLUME REPORTS ( 1 9 7 9 - 1 9 8 3 )  36  tend  to  d u r i n g  Four  f o l l o w the  time  s i m i l a r  p a t t e r n s ,  midday  p e r i o d  p e r i o d s  were  (8  am  doe3  there  -  4  appear  to  be  some  differences  pm) .  c l a s s i f i e d  for  which  operating  c o n d i t i o n s  would  be  c a l c u l a t e d : o  Morning  o  Midday  o  Evening  Peak  -  o  Other  6  to  For  -  8  -  each  f o r  peak  of  r o a d  am  pm  i n  throughout  bulk  of  " s p r e a d i n g "  of  of  One  was  concern road  ( u s u a l l y  pm  where  For  adjacent of  of  t r a v e l  f o r  to  might  then  i n the  d i f f e r e n t l y many  of  data  These  assumes  and  y i e l d  peak  an  p e r c e n t a g e s  were  not  h o u r l y  This  though  determined  evaluation  i n s i g h t s  are  on  used  v a r i a t i o n s  assumption t r a v e l  are  a v a i l a b l e  percentages  that  time.  capacity  which  affect  downtown  volume  t h i s  might  where  used.  which  These  was  often of  the  does  of not  receives benefits  a l t e r n a t i v e s  to  capacity.  e x t e n t  to  were  evaluation,  added  d i s t r i b u t i o n  a v a i l a b l e .  during  the  hourly  segments  project,  a d d i t i o n a l  the  were road  constant of  average  roads  the  peak  c o s t s  an  data  3-2.  segments  U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,  6  periods  benefits  h i g h e r  o p e r a t i n g  pm  am  time  inbound  much  to  r e s u l t s  the  c o n s t r u c t i o n  not  6  remain  the  8  pm  pm  l i f e  the  was  4  from  w i l l  to  4  Table  the  i n v a l i d a t e  has  am  to  these  p e r c e n t a g e s  t h e s e  6  segments  p r e s e n t e d  t r a f f i c  -  the  the  the the  d i r e c t i o n a l  e v a l u a t i o n . morning  other. then  l i n k s ,  a v a i l a b l e .  37  This i f  a  and  of  Often, outbound  can  on  the  speeds  s p l i t the  t r a f f i c  one i n  a f f e c t  50-50  information  s p l i t  i s  on  d i r e c t i o n evening) and  thus  assumed.  d i r e c t i o n a l  s p l i t  TABLE 3-2 Average Annual H o u r l y D i s t r i b u t i o n (% o f Road Segment AADT)  Road Segment  6am-8am  8am-4pm  4pm-6pm  6pm-6am  A i r p o r t Road  3  6.1  7.89  2.47  U n i v e r s i t y Ave.  3.42  6.05  8.23  2.4  C o l l e g e Road  2.68  6.17  8.41  2.39  Cushman S t r e e t  2.38  7.05  7.98  1.93  Peger Road  3.42  6.7  8.19  1.95  Parks Highway  3.6  5.45  7.9  2.8  Source:  A l a s k a DOT/PF Annual T r a f f i c Volume Reports 1979-1983.  However, average  i t was found t h a t , percentage  50-50 s p l i t ) (the  of the t o t a l  traffic  d i d not have a s i g n i f i c a n t  e s t i m a t i o n o f speeds  illustrate,  f o r t h e network b e i n g a n a l y z e d , t h e use o f an  the greatest  moving affect  i n both  directions  (ie, a  on e s t i m a t i o n o f l i n k  i s discussed i n detail  i n Section  speeds  3.5).  v a r i a t i o n was e x h i b i t e d on U n i v e r s i t y Avenue.  To The  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e use o f an average percentage f o r both d i r e c t i o n s and the  a c t u a l percentages e x h i b i t e d  underestimate  o f t h e speed  o v e r e s t i m a t e o f t h e speed  i n t h e d a t a u s i n g 1983 volumes l e a d t o an  i n the northerly  1.04 m i l e s ,  this  difference  t r a v e l time p e r auto o f under more pronounced example, under  mph  T a k i n g U n i v e r s i t y Avenue's  i n speeds  3 seconds.  translates  and an  into  distance  a difference i n  While t h i s d i f f e r e n c e might  become  as t r a f f i c volumes approach t h e c a p a c i t y o f t h e roadway, f o r  a d o u b l i n g o f t h e AADT, t h e d i f f e r e n c e  15 s e c o n d s .  (particularly  by . 65  i n t h e s o u t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n by .94 mph, f o r a net  u n d e r e s t i m a t e i n t h e speed o f .29 mph. of  direction  on  Given urban  i n travel  time  is still  t h e i m p r e c i s e n a t u r e o f speed-flow  relationships  streets),  be  this  critical. 38  difference  cannot  taken  as  On  the  whole,  e x h i b i t e d  i n  treatment  3.4.2.2 In  the  From  how  For  annual  of  i n  the  i t  that  the  great  i n  T r a f f i c  of  t r a f f i c ,  a n a l y z e d .  are  to  found  percent  o f  V a r i a t i o n  be  60  the  and  40  volumes  average  by  t h a t  of  The  as  d i r e c t i o n a l to  r e q u i r e  day  on  can  volumes  be  o f  a  on  the  s p l i t s  e x p l i c i t  to  weekday  be  day  of  week  v a r i a t i o n s  c o s t s .  the  road  segments  (Monday-Friday)  segment;  AADT  by  these  d a i l y  week  road  s a i d  d u r i n g  of  t r a f f i c  the  percent  from  of  weekday  AADT  v a r i a t i o n s  r e s u l t s  c a l c u l a t e d  d i s t r i b u t i o n  was  Sunday  w i t h  Saturdays  r e s p e c t i v e l y . 50  (the  and b a s i s  i s  33 for  Thus, p e r c e n t , volumes  e v a l u a t i o n ) .  purposes  f o l l o w i n g  a n a l y s i s  d i s t r i b u t i o n  costs  averaging  and  t h i s  s i g n i f i c a n t l y  were  t r a f f i c  120  r e s p e c t i v e l y , used  h o u r l y  e v a l u a t e d  Sundays  from  not  Seasonal  the  the  S a t u r d a y  are  v a r i a t i o n s  a p p r o x i m a t e l y and  and  to  a n a l y s i s  b e i n g  concluded  e v a l u a t i o n .  Weekly  seasonal  a f f e c t  i s  Fairbanks  i n  a d d i t i o n  and  i t  of  d a i l y  costs,  the  evidence  presented  above  leads  c o n c l u s i o n s :  Weekdays  =  Saturdays (assumes  251 and  10  Sundays  = 5 2  T o t a l  299  =  days Holidays  weekday *  .33  =  62  h o l i d a y s =  17  *  .5  =  31  equal  to  days  days  39  days Saturday  t r a f f i c  patterns)  to  the  Thus d a i l y network c o s t s f o r each s c e n a r i o developed i n Chapter Four w i l l be factored  up by 299 days  t o a r r i v e a t annual  costs  t o be  i n Chapter  U 3 e d  Five.  This  assumes  several  volumes do n o t v a r y been  found  things.  First,  significantly  to exist weekend  i n many costs  t h e assumption  i s made t h a t  Monday through F r i d a y .  transportation by  when  a percentage  weekday  costs  volumes  (as i s t h e case here) t h e assumption i s made t h a t t h e r e  on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  case of h o u r l y  costs,  this  more r a p i d l y t h e n t h e r i s e factors.  Following  i s not s t r i c t l y v a l i d  i n volumes on any g i v e n  from t h e second  assumption,  pg 1 7 0 ) .  reduction  weekday  r e l a t i o n s h i p between d a i l y c o s t s and volumes on a network. the  p a t t e r n has  (Dickey,  Second,  dependent  are estimated  studies  This  i s a linear  Particularly in  due t o  i t i s also  the  i s not s t r i c t l y v a l i d . evaluation  costs  using  i s sufficiently  this  method)  compute t h e s e c o s t s  small  i t i s felt  separately  i s t o l i k e l y overestimate  3.4.2.3  However, s i n c e t h e impact (approximately that  assumed  weekend d a i l y  16 p e r c e n t  Again,  The e f f e c t  o f annual involved to  o f t h i s method  costs.  D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D a i l y T r i p s by T r i p Purpose  The  1982 h o u s e h o l d s u r v e y conducted d u r i n g the FMATS Update p r o v i d e d  the  distribution  of t r i p  that  o f weekend c o s t s on  the a d d i t i o n a l work  i s not warranted.  to rise  congestion  weekend and weekday t r a f f i c e x h i b i t s i m i l a r p e a k i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . this  of  and weekend  as c o s t s t e n d link  traffic  of d a i l y  trip  t y p e s by time o f day.  o f time t o d i f f e r e n t t r i p t y p e s  by t r i p This  purpose as w e l l  data on  as t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n  i s useful i n assigning different  values  ( t h i s i s d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n Chapter  Four).  40  The  distribution  of d a i l y  t r i p s by t r i p purpose was as f o l l o w s  (DCCO, 1985,  page 11-37) :  Trip  Percent of Daily Trips  Type  Home-Based Work (HBW) Home-Based Other (HBO) Non Home-Based (NHB)  Trip  types d i s t r i b u t e d  Time of Day  21 34.5 44.5  by time o f day were as f o l l o w s :  Trip  Percent o f T r i p Type f o r t h i s Time o f Day  Type  Percent of Total Auto T r i p s Time o f Day  8am  HBW HBO NHB  26 6 3  60.8 23.4 15.8  3am - 4pm  HBW HBO NHB  20 21 18  18.4 29.6 52.0  4pm - 6pm  HBW HBO NHB  37 43 68  21 37 .7 41.3  6pm - 6am  HBW HBO NHB  17 30 11  21 34.5 44.5  6am  -  The p e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l auto t r i p s f o r each t r i p  type was a v a i l a b l e  s u r v e y f o r t h e AM, Midday and PM peak p e r i o d s o n l y .  The d a i l y  from the  distribution  p e r c e n t a g e s were a p p l i e d t o t h e " o t h e r " time p e r i o d as no s p e c i f i c data were available  3.4.2.4  during t h i s time.  Average  Auto Occupancy by T r i p  Average  auto occupancy  purpose  based  will  Purpose  be used, t o determine p e r s o n t r a v e l  on t h e v e h i c l e  travel  While t h e 1982 t r a v e l s u r v e y i n d i c a t e d  time by t r i p  t i m e s t o be e s t i m a t e d i n S e c t i o n  3.5.  t h a t t h e r e was a tendency f o r auto  occupancy  t o be  occupancy  by  analysis.  higher  trip  Thus,  during  purpose  average  peak  periods,  no  by  time  o f day was  daily  auto  occupancy  classification provided  r a t e s from  of  auto  i n the survey the survey  were  used f o r a l l times o f day as f o l l o w s : -  3.4.2.5 An  HBW: 1.25 HBO: 1.64 NHB: 1.43 T r u c k : 1.00  v e h i c l e Mix  analysis  was made  permanent  station  indicated  that  trips  (those  i n t h e FMATS Update  counters  and weighted  approximately  trips  variation  w i t h i n t h e FMATS  of t h i s  following figures,  -  traffic  Study  commercial  by time  8am 4pm 6pm 6am  mix d a t a  volumes.  of the area's area)  This  eight  analysis  internal  vehicle  commercial  (DCCO, 1983, pg 8 ) .  o f day was  estimated  using the  areas:  Percent o f T o t a l  Avg. H o u r l y P e r c e n t  10.0 74.7 12.7 2.6  5.0 9.34 6.35 .22  Source: L e v i n s o n H.S. "Urban T r a v e l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " - Chapter T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g Handbook, Table 10-38, pg 288, 1985.  3.5  from  This  were made by  vehicles  found t o be t y p i c a l f o r urban  Time o f Day 6am 8am 4pm 6pm  by AADT  11.6 p e r c e n t  v e h i c l e s — h e a v y t r u c k s and l i g h t  The  of v e h i c l e  10 o f The  C a l c u l a t i o n of Link Operating Conditions section  calculated  presents  t h e method by which  link  o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s were  f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n and a summary o f t h e r e s u l t s  a n a l y s i s f o r the four scenarios outlined  42  earlier.  o f t h e system  3.5.1  Development of hink Speed Estimates  Essentially, given  the  method  i t s characteristics.  t y p e and  facility  C a p a c i t y Manual, percent  going  constant  type. i t was  from  estimated  CBD  flow  the found  on  to  t o be  findings  t h a t average  locations  average  speeds  residential  speed  150  i n the  1965  determined  link  by  area  Highway  i n c r e a s e roughly  areas  holding  50  volumes  found t o  be  percent.  speed  is  (freeways,  reasonably  r u r a l highways) the  well-behaved  such  that  relationship  speeds  can  w i t h i n the above t y p o l o g y as a f u n c t i o n of v o l u m e - c a p a c i t y  (Dewees, 1978,  a  As w e l l , the d i f f e r e n c e i n speeds between a road  o f u n i n t e r r u p t e d flow and  on  affected  as a two-way a r t e r i a l with p a r k i n g and a freeway was  approximately  For cases  Speeds have been  F o r example, based  (Dickey, pg 104) .  classified  of  involves determining  pg 153).  However, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between f l o w and  be  ratios  speed i s  more complex on urban roads, with i n t e r s e c t i o n c a p a c i t y l i m i t i n g the f l o w of traffic 1978,  pg  more  so  than  154) .  the  Indeed,  street  the  c a p a c i t y between  1965  intersections  Highway C a p a c i t y M a n u a l  states  1 0  strongly that:  "It  i s not  curve  feasible  f o r urban  involved,  which i s i d e a l  curve,  arterials.  are  group  can of  any  be  1 1  and  pg  as was  319).  43  single  represent  t y p e s ; o n l y t y p i c a l curves can be Manual, 1965,  a combination  of  is too  flow  be t o t a l l y out of p l a c e i n  other  curves,  operations a i l - i n c l u s i v e l y ,  speed-volume  r e a d i l y d e f i n e d , because  case may any  'typical'  . .where i n t e r r u p t e d f l o w  involved  i n one  Neither or  show  ' i d e a l s ' cannot  many v a r i a b l e s  another.  to  speed-v/c urban  (Dewees,  ratio  arterial  done f o r o t h e r highway shown" (Highway C a p a c i t y  fairly  Thus,  to  estimate  volumes,  i t  i s  intersections, might  be  programs  but  for  to  an  this  produce  intersection accurate  as  entire using  as  flow  data  timing,  to  included i n the  not  one  at  required to  v e h i c l e mix,  and  the  per can  (or  be  obtain usable data  are  .  This  which  7-F)  time)  drawback  These  through  results.  for to  are  .  each  intersection.  established One  154)  pg  Transyt  each  individual  programs  travel  at  different  of  1978,  computer  auto  at  operation  example,  volumes.  other  arterials  (Dewees,  speeds  delay  various  only  (for  average  average  urban  several  purpose  of  on  network  of  relationships  simulations  light  speeds  street  specific  well  extensive  the  simulate  estimates  speed  performing the  ideal  accomplished  available  is  accurately  a  Thus,  network  these  Turning  required f o r each  by  programs movements,  intersection  12  be  Because is  of  the  limited  Highway  to  he  for  One  are  use  of  types  105).  lane  based  on  material  i t i s be  used  Metropolitan  capacities in  determined  and the  types  speed  should  relationships  were  these  However,  Dickey's  per  of  "typical"  arterials  from  Speeds  the  Manual.  urban  taken  flow  based here  the  use  on are  speeds  that  of  case  study  found  i n  in  the  practice  an  locality-specific presented  i n  Manual  day  under  data. 3-3.  Table  Planning  for various  Capacity  times  this  relationships  Transportation  Highway four  programs  recognized  average  for  of  i n  which  facility  (Dickey, four  and 1983,  scenarios  a l l links.  problem  evaluation v/c  requirements  speed-flow  presents  area pg  of  exact  They  the  Capacity  evaluation The  data  analysis.  ratios  i s  that lack  greater  exists  with  of  theoretically  sound  Beyond t h i s  point  than  any 1.0.  44  of  these  relationships  speed-flow flows  are  i n  the  relationships unstable  and  at  both  volumes  and  s c e n a r i o ,  g r e a t e r  under  these  To  address  remain  than  t h i s the  at  1.0)  to  a v o i d  problem,  demand  or  not  to  zero.  without  c o n d i t i o n s  routes  problem,  decrease  p a r t i c u l a r l y  (v/c  s h i f t i n g  speeds  the  t r a v e l  behavior  the  a  midday  above  The  cost  under  the  experience  and  p.m.  would  severe  peak.  s u r e l y  h i g h  It  congestion  i s  change,  growth  f e l t  w i t h  that  d r i v e r s  bottlenecks.  i s  assumed  that,  b o t t l e n e c k  far  l i n k s  p r o j e c t ,  d u r i n g  i t  on  the  Some  the  l i n k  rated  w h i l e  congestion  d u r i n g  congested  c a p a c i t y  as  some  might  remain  p e r i o d s  users  a  would  t r a n s f e r  to  13 other  routes.  cost  of  demand  It  i s  does  not  cost  have  estimated  for  recognized  route a  t r a v e l l i n g  to  i n c l u d e which  to  the  l i k e l y  bottlenecks  over the  that an  o f  the  t r a n s f e r  congested  o n l y  l i n k  e s t i m a t e has  roughly  o f  assumed  and  i s  to  be  a p p l i e d  d i v e r t e d .  t r a f f i c  which  t r a n s f e r r e d  to  lower  congestion  a  can  approximates  increased  d i v e r t e d  causing  i s  equal to  to  the  the  e n t i r e  l i n k .  t h i s  t r a f f i c  t h i s  be  c o s t s  However, may, cost  i n  cost  to  e x i s t i n g  i s  f e l t  r e a l i t y ,  route) ;  roughly  45  i t  the  the  users  that  b e . t o o t o t a l  approximated.  i n v o l v e d  by  h i g h  on  and the  a s s i g n i n g (ie,  c o s t s  of  they the  Table 3-3 Per Lane C a p a c i t y and E s t i m a t e d Average Speed (MPH) on V a r i o u s F a c i l i t y Types a t D i f f e r e n t L o c a t i o n s Speed  (MPH) a t d i f f e r e n t  0.50  Area Type  Capacity (vph)  CBD Fringe Res. OBD  800 1000 1100 1000  1. 37 44 47 37  400 550 550 550  34 38 44 34  22 29 32 24 3.  CBD Fringe Res. OBD  600 800 800 800  Note: Source:  20 27 30 22  22 29 32 24  700 550 900 650  1.00  33 35 31 33  31 32 38 31  15 25 28 18  12 15 15 13  15 25 28 18  12 15 15 13  15 25 28 18  12 15 15 13  with P a r k i n g  Two-Way A r t e r i a l without  4. CBD Fringe Res . OBD  0.75  Expressway  Two-Way A r t e r i a l CBD Fringe Res. OBD  v/c r a t i o s  Parking  20 27 30 22 One-Way A r t e r i a l  22 29 32 24  20 27 30 22  F o r f a c i l i t y types 2-4 an o p t i m a l s i g n a l p r o g r e s s i o n i 3 Dickey,  assumed.  page 105.  CBD - c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t ; Fringe - area r e s i d e n t i a l ; and OBD - o u t l y i n g b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t .  46  around  CBD;  Res  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER  THREE  1. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , no i n f o r m a t i o n was p u b l i s h e d i n any FMATS update r e p o r t s d e v e l o p e d b y DCCO r e g a r d i n g t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e r e g r e s s i o n models o r i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e s used i n t r i p d i s t r i b u t i o n . 2. G i v e n t h a t t h i s s t e p o f t h e p r o c e s s i s b u i l t on t h r e e p r e v i o u s s t e p s , t e s t i n g t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f assignments t o s e v e r a l parameters (auto ownership, income, h o u s e h o l d s i z e , s h i f t s i n l a n d use p a t t e r n s ) would seem c r u c i a l though t h i s i s not t y p i c a l l y done i n most s t u d i e s . 3. F o r example, even i f t h e 160 zones were a g g r e g a t e d i n t o 40 zones, t h a t s t i l l i m p l i e s 1,600 zone t o zone i n t e r c h a n g e s which must be a s s i g n e d t o particular links. 4. T r i p a t t r a c t i o n s a r e . u s e d h e r e as an a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f t o t a l demand f o r auto t r a v e l i n t h e area d u r i n g an average weekday. The use o f average weekday t r i p s f o l l o w s f r o m t h e FMATS Update t r a v e l s u r v e y which was p r i m a r i l y a d e s c r i p t i o n o f weekday t r i p s (DCCO, 1985, pg 11-32). 5. T h i s i s b a s e d on a w e i g h t e d average o f t h e y e a r 2005 volumes on t h e i n d i v i d u a l l i n k s making up t h e G e i s t E x t e n s i o n . The weighted average volume i s d e t e r m i n e d as f o l l o w s : Weighted Average Volume = (Link D i s t a n c e ) * L i n k Volume (Road Segment D i s t a n c e ) T h i s w e i g h t e d a v e r a g e was t h e n t a k e n a t t r a c t i o n s t o a r r i v e a t 5.8 p e r c e n t .  as a p e r c e n t a g e  o f 2005  total  trip  6. T h i s was done i n p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e percentage which had been added t o t h e l i n k assignment f a c t o r . F o r example, w i t h o u t t h e p r o j e c t , A i r p o r t Road r e c e i v e d an a d d i t i o n a l two p e r c e n t o f t o t a l t r a f f i c which i s e q u a l t o 40 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l added (2/5). Thus, f o r 1987, the assignment f a c t o r f o r A i r p o r t Road w i t h t h e p r o j e c t would be reduced from i t s 1986 l e v e l by (.4 * 1.21) o r .484 p e r c e n t . 7. T h i s r e d u c t i o n i s n o t based on an a l t e r n a t i v e growth s c e n a r i o which might u n d e r l i e t h e development o f lower employment, p o p u l a t i o n , e t c . I n s t e a d , t h e p a r a m e t e r s were r e d u c e d by an a r b i t r a r y f i g u r e (75%) t o r e f l e c t i n some measure, s l o w e r growth i n t h e a r e a . 8. Computer models e x i s t t o compute c a p a c i t y and l i n k speeds. These c o u l d have been u s e d i n a r e a l s i t u a t i o n . However, i n t h e absence o f t h e s e r e s o u r c e s , t h e 1965 Highway C a p a c i t y Manual p r o v i d e s the i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r t h e case s t u d y . 9. T h i s i s n o t so f o r a n n u a l network c o s t s . These c o s t s were found t o be l i n e a r , f o l l o w i n g t h e growth i n o v e r a l l t r a f f i c volumes. As d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r i n C h a p t e r F i v e , i t i s f e l t t h a t t h e a g g r e g a t i o n of h o u r l y l i n k c o s t s , f i r s t t o d a i l y c o s t s and then t o network c o s t s removes the n o n l i n e a r i t y .  47  10. A 1 9 8 5 v e r s i o n of the HCM was d i s t r i b u t e d i n 1 9 8 6 ( a f t e r the methodology f o r t h i s p a p e r had been e s t a b l i s h e d ) . T h i s v e r s i o n t r e a t s f l o w s on urban roads u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t approach than the speed-volume approach used i n the 1 9 6 5 manual. Because the change i n approach would r e q u i r e a major revamping of t h e methodology used i n t h i s paper, the 1 9 6 5 appraoch i s r e t a i n e d . 11. These v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e t u r n i n g t r a f f i c , t i m i n g o f l i g h t s p e d e s t r i a n s , v e h i c l e mix and other i n t e r r u p t i o n s . 12. For t h i s intersections.  case  study,  a  simulation  would  involve  on the network,  approximately  42  13. There a r e methods t o determine the t i m e r e q u i r e d t o d i s s i p a t e queues c a u s e d by e x c e s s c a p a c i t y at an i n t e r s e c t i o n (NHCRP 1 3 3 , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and T r a f f i c Engineering). However, t h e s e methods do not t a k e i n t o account the e l a s t i c i t y o f demand and are of r a t h e r l i m i t e d use i n t h i s c a s e .  48  CHAPTER FOUR User Costs One to  of an  the  primary objectives  urban network i s the  include  v e h i c l e operating  chapter presents  an  future population  costs,  improvement  V e h i c l e Operating Costs  The  calculation  of  total  costs,  vehicle  and  four  capacity  These  costs  costs.  This  scenarios  about  accident  under the  i n Chapter T h r e e .  operating  fixed  a d d i t i o n of  over t i m e .  u s e r time c o s t s , and  growth d e s c r i b e d  both  to o r  i n user costs  a n a l y s i s of t h e s e c o s t s  and t r a f f i c  component  an  reduction  4.1  several  of  costs  variable.  entails  estimation  These component  of  cost's  include: Variable  Eized.  o F u e l and  Oil  o  o Tires  o Insurance  o V e h i c l e Maintenance  o Fees and  Since  this  between  a n a l y s i s i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h the  the  network  with  the  o n l y the v a r i a b l e c o s t s are  There  has  operating as  Depreciation  been  road  conditions  under  costs  are  v e h i c l e mix,  in  "free-flow"  age,  special  and  pavement  conditions.  by  the  cases,  network  regarding  grade,  areas.  costs  type,  the  on  costs  without  the  project  effects  of  various  Such  factors  facility  highways. type  a base c o s t on In  composition  utilization  s e r i o u s i s s u e s i n urban  the  vehicle operating  geometry,  influenced  and  research  are t y p i c a l l y used t o a d j u s t  roads  Except  on  change i n v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g  relevant.  considerable  conditions  grade,  project  Taxes  addition, of  the  (Heggie, pg  pavement  and  level,  total  vehicle  traffic  flow  tangent, paved  vehicle fleet  operating  i n terms  of  82).  type  and  road  geometry  are  not  It  i s necessary  different is  types  necessary  user's  t o have  of f a c i l i t i e s  to assess  costs.  some  presented  It  i s thus n e c e s s a r y  speeds  on  the  link  i n Chapter  of investment  on  Three  to derive  types  and t r a f f i c  estimates flows.  of vehicle This  assumes  be a d j u s t e d  and  vehicle  f o r congestion  ratio  as d i s c u s s e d  operating  affects below.  costs.  by r e l a t i n g Average  This  costs to  cost3  will  be  traffic.  Costs  £ji£i  then  i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r urban auto t r i p s w i t h  38 mph,  fuel  consumption  average t r i p time p e r m i l e  was  types  f o r automobile and t r u c k  Recent r e s e a r c h  It  facility  facility  Auto O p e r a t i n g  4.1.1.1  less  This  and l e v e l o f v e h i c l e u t i l i z a t i o n .  volume/capacity  estimated  4.1.1  will  of a l t e r n a t i v e types  conditions.  on  t o determine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e " f r e e - f l o w "  various  relationship  operating  costs  end, t h i s e v a l u a t i o n makes use o f t h e speed-flow  operating costs f o r various a given v e h i c l e f l e e t  o f d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between  and under v a r i o u s  t h e impact  Toward t h i s  relationships  means  found t h a t  fuel  per mile  (Tobin, pg 5 9 0 ) .  consumption  increases  an average speed o f linearly  with the  1  c o u l d be e s t i m a t e d  using  the following  function: 4 = K Where  < | > i s fuel  related and  x  + K  2  t (Average Speed < -38 mph)  consumption  t o t h e mass and i d l e  per unit fuel  flow  distance;  2  are  constants  rate of the v e h i c l e , r e s p e c t i v e l y ;  t i s t h e average t r i p time p e r u n i t d i s t a n c e  50  and K  (Evans, 1978A, pg 163).  As most o f the average mph,  the  speeds e s t i m a t e d f o r the e v a l u a t i o n are below 3 8  link  relationship  described  above  will  be  used  to  estimate  consumption f o r a l l f a c i l i t y t y p e s and o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s . tests,  values  gal/hour are  of  and  respectively  likely  because  different  of  represent  lack fuel  of  K  were  2  this  those  used  specific  consumption  to  590)^.  (Tobin, pg then  found  gal/mi  .03707  i n the  empirical  these  estimates  i n Fairbanks.  implied  used  volume/capacity  consumption.  This  provided  volume/capacity  (v/c) r a t i o  on  a  ratios  and  for that  link.  The  consumption p e r m i l e e s t i m a t e d  fuel  various  volumes  i s presented  u s i n g t h e 1 9 8 6 average gallon  A  speed-flow  times per calculate  relationship  between  the e s t i m a t e o f f u e l  B.  Fuel  mile fuel the  consumption  c o s t s were  t y p e s at  calculated  unleaded g a s o l i n e i n F a i r b a n k s o f $ 1 . 0 0 / p e r  Other V a r i a b l e C o s t s  variable  costs include vehicle  1 9 7 9 s t u d y of n a t i o n w i d e  costs  the  to  (less taxes)^.  4 . 1 . 1 . 2  Other  to  taken  for various f a c i l i t y / a r e a  i n Appendix  p r i c e of  were  convenient  a link  .76324  However,  were  Using  the t r a v e l  the  and  tests.  r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i s c u s s e d i n the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r , by  From e m p i r i c a l  Operating conditions i n Fairbanks  data  patterns  be  fuel  automobile  represented approximately  (derived  from D i c k e y ,  nationwide  average  r e p a i r and maintenance, t i r e s operating costs indicated  2 5 percent  pages 1 3 3 t o 1 4 9 ) .  c o s t was  of t o t a l  vehicle  51  that  oil. these  operating cost  Based on a 1 9 8 3 study,  found t o be 2 3 . 9 c e n t s per m i l e .  and  the  Making an  total 11  percent in  adjustment f o r h i g h e r o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s i n A l a s k a  Anchorage) the  c o s t of maintenance, t i r e s  c e n t s per m i l e  (Quadra, pg  5-8).  To  cost  various  adapt  the  this  assumption  experienced flow  by  to  the  was  made  traffic  on  conditions  (v/c  that an  ratio  facility  this  o i l i s estimated  types  cost  and  was  urban a r t e r i a l of  and  operating  .6,  f r i n g e area speed  =  on  costs  t o be  6.7  conditions  representative  i n the  approximately  (based  of  those  under s t a b l e 26  approximately  mph) .  To  adjust  this  facility,  a  the  This  early  conditions. costs,  and  the  various  speed  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  sixties  in  a  operating  conditions  reduction  based on  comparison  and  research  of  on  cost  carried  free-flow  and  a  particular  increase out  by  o t h e r maintenance c o s t s i n c r e a s e d by 5 0 p e r c e n t 45  at  68) .  page  mph  with  no  stops  Interpellating  and  30  mph  between the  with two  Cost Adjustments t o Base  Winch's 1 9 6 1 Cost  Speed  % Speed Reduction  45 42 40 37  .5  05.6  obtained:  Costs  % Cost  Increase  08.3  11.1  16.7  16.7  25.0  35  22.2  32.5  27  30  33.3  33.3 .8  41.7 .72  52  tire  mile  conditions,  0.48 .5  per  Estimate Cost (Cents/Mi lei  Winch  operating  stops  operating  r e l a t i o n s h i p between speed r e d u c t i o n and c o s t i n c r e a s e was  Congestion  between  five  was  stop-and-go  Winch c a l c u l a t e d t h a t brake and c l u t c h maintenance c o s t s ,  conditions (Winch,  to  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  established. in  cost  50.0  a  A l i n e a r e s t i m a t e o f the above r e l a t i o n s h i p r e s u l t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g : P e r c e n t change i n c o s t = 1.5  This  f u n c t i o n was  change  a p p l i e d t o t h e speed-flow  i n the unit  traffic  operating cost per mile  f o r each f a c i l i t y  i t was  5.74  cents  first  to allow  with  i n the flow of  changes  c o s t o f 6.7 c e n t s p e r m i l e t o o t h e r  adjusted to a free-flow  per mile  relationships  for a  type.  To a d j u s t t h e e s t i m a t e d average types  (percent speed change) - .0571  using  the  (approximately  relationship  described  faciltiy  30 mph)  cost of  above.  Using  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between speeds and c o s t s under f r e e - f l o w c o n d i t i o n s , t h e c o s t estimate facility  f o r 30 mph  was a d j u s t e d t o o t h e r  speeds  and a s s i g n e d  to various  t y p e s i n t h e manner shown i n T a b l e 4-1:  Table 4-1 B a s i c C o s t s at V a r i o u s Constant Speed Category Cost Item (Cents/Mile) Tires- Oil Maintenance 1  1  1  TOTAL % o f Cost at 30 mph E s t . Base Cost Facility/ Area Type^ 1. 2. 3.  Speeds  Automobiles  (MPH)  20  25  30  0.3 0.2 3.9  0.4 0.2 4.0  0.5 0.2 4.3  0.6 0.2 4.5  0.9 0.2 5.0  4.4  4.6  5.0  5.1  6.1  0.88 5.05  0.92 5.28  1.0  1.02 5.85  1.22 7 .01  1/1,4  1/2,3  2,3,4/1  5.74  2,3,4/4  35  2  2,3,4/2,3  From Berger and A s s o c i a t e s Table 3.6-1, 1978 c o s t s . D e s c r i b e d above.From Typology p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter Three.  53  40  4.1.1.3 The  R e s u l t s of V a r i a b l e Coat  Estimates  base c o s t s a s s i g n e d t o each f a c i l i t y  adjustments link.  f o r flow  are taken  c o n d i t i o n s to estimate  unit  i n combination  with  operating costs  the  f o r each  T a b l e s showing the f u e l and o t h e r auto r e l a t e d v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g c o s t  estimates  for  Appendix B.  each  facility  T a b l e 4-2  type  and  flow  condition  are  presented  p r e s e n t s examples of the e f f e c t s of f a c i l i t y  type  in and  c o n g e s t i o n on v a r i a b l e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s as e s t i m a t e d by t h e methods d e s c r i b e d above.  Table  4-2  Examples of V a r i a b l e O p e r a t i n g Costs (Auto) f o r V a r i o u s F a c i l i t i e s and C o n d i t i o n s (Cents/Mile)  F a c i l i t y Type/ Area Type  Free F l o w V/O-l  1  Stable Flow v/O.7  Unstable  1  Flow  Arterial/CBD  12.40  15. 60  18 .56  Arterial/Outlying B u s i n e s s Area  12.33  13.86  18 . 49  Arterial/Fringe  12 .22  13.52  18 .70  Expressway/CBD  11.77  12.76  13.44  Expressway/Fringe  12 .71  14.87  15.97  1  1. Flow c o n d i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s and e s t i m a t e d V/C t a k e n from C a r t e r , e t a l , page 494 (Chapter 16 of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and T r a f f i c E n g i n e e r i n g Handbook).  T h i s t a b l e shows t h a t the f r e e - f l o w c o s t e s t i m a t e s move as expected,  falling  up  higher  to  speeds.  a  certain  speed  (approximately  As w e l l , c o s t i n c r e a s e s due  35  mph)  and  then  rising  at  t o c o n g e s t i o n are not as severe  54  on  higher at  speed  l e v e l s  f a c i l i t i e s .  of  high  This  i s  c o n g e s t i o n ,  to  be  are  expected  q u i t e  as  high  the  average  r e l a t i v e  to  speeds,  those  even  on  other  f a c i l i t i e s .  4.1.2 Less  Truck p r e c i s e  estimates of  .24  ton  ~2 6  t r u c k  types.  For  the  to  f a c i l i t y  with  a  This  recent  .24 the  Table Based  on  e a r l i e r t i r e s  below  study,  Based above,  on  shows  base  i n  i s  how  truck  30  mph,  percent f o r  the  t r u c k  were  were  costs  the  costs  Alaska  speed  i n  cost  v a r i o u s of  a  3.5  c o s t s .  at  s t a b l e  from  (Berger,  23.3  f o r  costs  the  flow  equals  f r e e - f l o w  i n t e r a c t i o n  v a r i a b l e  e s t a b l i s h e d . c a l c u l a t e d  o p e r a t i n g  Thus,  v a r i a b l e  e s t i m a t e s  increase  at  t o t a l  operating  the  were  consumption.  average  t r a f f i c  i n  f u e l  cost  study  approximately  o p e r a t i n g  costs  of  an  d e r i v e  t h i s  study  represent  cost  maintenance)  o l d e r  three  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  f r e e - f l o w  to  of  truck  t a k i n g  average  f a c t o r s  to  by  5-7)  speed a  adjustment  d i f f e r e n c e s  and  represent  c e n t s / m i l e  4-3  pg  design  regarding  made  purposes  represents  r e g i o n a l  u s i n g flow,  to  were  (Quadra,  used  mph.  a v a i l a b l e  costs  are  a c c o r d i n g  the  were  c e n t s / m i l e  t r u c k  a  data  of  f a c i l i t y  On  Costs  cost  d e v e l o p e d  Table  o p e r a t i n g  i n  3 . 6 - 4 ) .  c o s t s  a  Thus,  of  s t a b l e  c e n t s / m i l e .  developed  d i f f e r e n t  f o r  speeds  New c o m p o n e n t p r o p o r t i o n  to  the  e v a l u a t i o n .  estimated costs  the  i n  (fuel,  estimates  an o i l , from  study.  t r a f f i c  fuel  and  i n t e r a c t i o n t i r e  costs  f a c t o r s  were  developed  adjusted  55  i n  depending  the on  r e g i o n a l  the  study  r e d u c t i o n  i n  c i t e d speed  from  the design  traffic  speed  ( f r e e - f l o w speed)  resulting  from  the i n t e r a c t i o n o f  (Berger, pg 67).  T a b l e 4-3 B a s i c Costs a t Constant Speed  Speeds  Category  Trucks-  4  Cost  Items. Fuel Tires Oil Maintenance 1  1  1  1  TOTAL % o f Cost at 30 mph E s t . Base Cost Fuel Tires Oil Maintenance  25.  09.7 01.0 00.3 17 .3  08.6 01.3 00.3 18.2  08.1 01.6 00.3 19.7  08.1 02 .0 00.3 21.2  09.0 02.9 00.2 25.0  28.3  28.4  29.7  31.6  37.1  001.0 23.32 06.35 01.26 00 .24 15.45  001.06 24.70 06.33 01.56 00.24 16.57  001.25 29.13 07.07 02.28 00.16 19.62  00.953 22 .20 02.61 00.78 00.24 13.57  3  3  3  3  AO.  lS.  20.  2SL  00.956 22 .27 06.74 01.02 00.24 14.27  2  1. Taken from Berger T a b l e 3.6-4 (3.5 t o n t r u c k s ) 1978 Alaskan c o s t s . 2. As d e r i v e d above. 3. P r o p o r t i o n a l t o e a r l i e r c o s t study component c o s t s . 4. These s p e e d c a t e g o r i e s c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e same f a c i l i t y / a r e a types i d e n t i f i e d f o r auto c o s t s . 5. The h i g h e r c o s t s i n t h e e a r l i e r s t u d y r e s u l t from t h e h i g h e r c o s t o f l i v i n g i n t h e r e g i o n f o r which those c o s t s were o r i g i n a l l y developed.  However,  the  actual  deceleration-acceleration available.  effects cycles)  of  specific  could  not  The i n t e r a c t i o n c o s t s , r e f l e c t e d i n T a b l e  some change i n c o s t s w i t h volume on each f a c i l i t y  4.1.3 Total  be  T o t a l V e h i c l e Operating vehicle  speed  cycles  calculated  from  (ie, data  4-4 below, p r o v i d e f o r  type.  Costs  o p e r a t i n g c o s t s were e s t i m a t e d  under a l l s c e n a r i o s b e i n g e v a l u a t e d .  f o r each  link  by time  Based on t h e v o l u m e / c a p a c i t y  56  o f day  ratios  during cost  each  time  o f day  (established  i n Chapter  Three), a u n i t operating  p e r m i l e was e s t a b l i s h e d f o r autos and t r u c k s .  This per mile cost  m u l t i p l i e d by t h e l i n k d i s t a n c e t o a r r i v e a t i n d i v i d u a l by time o f day.  was  l i n k operating costs  T o t a l v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s f o r auto and t r u c k were then  c a l c u l a t e d based on t o t a l  l i n k volumes.  An example o f t h e worksheet  t a b u l a t e v e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s i s p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix  used t o  B.  Table 4-4 Truck O p e r a t i n g C o s t s A d j u s t e d f o r T r a f f i c  Interaction  (Cents/Mile) Operating  Speed (mph) 15 20 25 .30 35 40 45  4.2  Design Speed  2SL 22.59 22.20  22.88 22.68 22.27  24.71 23.99 23.78 23.30  M  21 27.53 26.44 25.51 25.14 24.70  32.13 31.10 29.89 29.13  V a l u e o f Time i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  The  v a l u e o f u s e r time  all  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n investments.  savings represents the primary b e n e f i t  transportation  projects.  The  i t s h o u l d be a p p l i e d reasons  for this  i n the evaluation  debate  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e v a l u e o f time with s e v e r a l f a c t o r s - User  of v i r t u a l l y  However, much debate e x i s t s as t o t h e exact  n a t u r e o f t h e v a l u e o f time and how of  (mph)  M  25.  stem  from t h e  including:  income  - The time increment over which the v a l u e i s t o be a p p l i e d - The mode and q u a l i t y o f s e r v i c e - Trip  purpose  I t has been shown t h a t t h e u s e r ' s v a l u e of time changes i n p r o p o r t i o n t o h i s o r h e r net wage (DeDonnea, pg 208) .  The v a l u e o f time has a l s o been shown  57  t o v a r y w i t h the amount of time time  savings  421) . value  at a h i g h e r  time.  Thus,  out-of-vehicle (DeDonnea, pg suggests periods Fauth, value  r a t e then  T r a v e l e r s have a l s o of  38) .  that to  pg  a  (Heggie,  and  1972,  f o r the  pg  s h o r t e r time  may  of  time  on  be  study  of  the v a l u e of time  travel  behavior  studies.  at  a very  F o r example,  and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n O f f i c i a l s  involved  purposes  their then  differently  i n downtown  travel  pg  during  Boston  congested  (Gomez-Ibonez  have a d i f f e r e n t  t r i p s or l e i s u r e  are  social thought  trips.  disaggregate  level,  Thus, average  usually  beyond  v a l u e s are used based  i n i t s 1977  average  hourly  percentages various  presented  trip  the  family  represent types  A l a s k a n wage l e v e l s  and  average  income  the  net  levels  on  "Manual of User B e n e f i t A n a l y s i s of  which a r e based on a study of c h o i c e between t o l l  study  the  the American A s s o c i a t i o n of S t a t e Highway  Highway and B u s - T r a n s i t Improvements" uses the values p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e  Another  and  f o r a p a r t i c u l a r community would i n v o l v e the  r e s o u r c e s of most p l a n n i n g a g e n c i e s . empirical  on  to  differently  G e n e r a l l y , the work r e l a t e d t r i p s  t o have a h i g h e r d i s u t i l i t y than shopping  To determine  put  1982,  factor  modes  policies  disutility trip  time  different  restraint  time  different  (Heggie,  t o a t t a c h a comfort in-vehicle  higher  93).  savings  value  of auto  value  Finally,  w i t h people g e n e r a l l y v a l u i n g g r e a t e r  found  value  study  higher  account 145) .  A  been  people  time,  saved,  values  (Dickey, family  of time  (Quadra, page 5-10)  58  roads and n o n - t o l l  i n terms of pg  income,  137) . average  the  values  roads.  percentage  Assuming of  of  Dickey's time  s a v i n g s were d e r i v e d r e f l e c t i n g and are presented i n T a b l e  4-5  4-6.  for 1983  Table  4-5  Value o f Time E s t i m a t e s from Manual o f User B e n e f i t A n a l y s i s o f Highway and B u s - T r a n s i t Improvements 1  Annual Family Income (Dollars)  Time  Value o f Time By Trip Purpose (Dollars)  Savings  (Minutes)  Avg Trips 0-5 5-15  $ 5,000  Over  0-5 5-15  $10,000  Over  15  0-5 5-15  $15,000  Over  (Average)  15  0-5 5-15  $20,000  Over  15  0-5 5-15  $30,000  Over American  15  15  A s s o c i a t i o n o f S t a t e Highway  Table Value  Work  Trips  0.07 0.58 1.26  0 .15 0.77 1.26  0.13 1.55 2.52  0.31 2.52  0.21 1.80 3.90  0.48 2.40 3.90  0, 27 2. 32 5. 03  62 10 03  0. 41 3. 48 7 .55  92 65 55  and Transportation  officials.  4-6  o f Time E s t i m a t e s  -  Alaska  Percentage  Low t i m e s a v i n g s Non-work t r i p s Work t r i p s Truck t r i p s  (0-5  Average  Hourly  Family  Income  High time savings Non-work t r i p s Work t r i p s Truck t r i p s  (5-15  (over  1.  Dickey,  page  137.  Quadra,  page  5-10.  of ($/Hr)  2.8 6.4  0.63 1.43 2.75  24.2 32.2  5.36 7 .15  15  52.3 52.3  11.62 11. 62 23.71  minutes)  minutes)  2  2.  Time  minutes)  2  Medium time savings Non-work t r i p s Work t r i p s  Value 1  59  1  The  values  i n Table  d e t e r m i n e d by auto  4-6 have been a p p l i e d t o t o t a l u s e r s by t r i p purpose (as occupancy  time o f day t o a r r i v e  figures discussed  at t o t a l  user  i n Chapter  The  Accident  and  recommended  While a c c i d e n t significant  i n Appendix B.  Costs  method used t o e s t i m a t e  equation  f o r each  time c o s t s f o r each l i n k . An example o f  t h e worksheet used t o c a l c u l a t e user time c o s t s i s p r o v i d e d  4.3  Three)  accident average  costs e n t a i l s  costs  f o r accidents  c o s t s a r e not always c o n s i d e r e d  amount o f r e s e a r c h  use o f an a c c i d e n t  (and equal  of  various  rate  types.  i n transportation studies, a  amount o f debate) e x i s t s r e g a r d i n g  the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a c c i d e n t s by s e v e r i t y , and t h e economic c o s t s t o s o c i e t y resulting value  from  these  loss of l i f e ,  Adler,  i n h i s text  problems  medical  the order helpful,  decisions"  For et  source  cost3  Bank  has  a practical  reduction.  costs  had  with  but t h e y  accidents  P r o j e c t s " discusses the  quantifying  . . to estimates  and l o s s e s o f output.  can r a r e l y  with  i s what  etc.).  standpoint,  o f magnitude f o r o t h e r  of controversy  associated  "Economic A p p r a i s a l o f T r a n s p o r t  from  of accident  damage,  be  that,  indirect  p a i n and s u f f e r i n g ,  the World  concludes  and  A primary  i s t o be put on t h e more  (i.e.,  value  accidents.  accident  i t i s prudent  costs.  "to limit  o f v e h i c l e and o t h e r An i n d i c a t i o n  He the  property  of l i v e s  saved  c o s t s , such as p a i n and s u f f e r i n g ,  serve  as a m e a n i n g f u l b a s i s  may  f o r investment  ( A d l e r , pg 43).  purposes of t h i s  study,. r e c e n t  a l f o r the N a t i o n a l  Highway  extensive  Traffic  Safety  u s e f u l s e t o f c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d with a c c i d e n t s .  60  research  c o n d u c t e d by M i l l e r ,  Administration  provides  While i t i s r e c o g n i z e d  that  a  some o f t h e s e  costs  are d i f f i c u l t  t o measure,  i t i s also  understood  t h e s e c o s t s a r e l e g i t i m a t e c o s t t o s o c i e t y and t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d by  SBCA.  Analysis  i n Chapter  project evaluation t o accident  In  the approach  indirect  costs.  organized  along  are  described  used These  here,  Five  will  cost using M i l l e r ' s  accident  costs  4-7  costs  are estimated  a Maximum A b b r e v i a t e d i n Table  examine  Injury  and r e p r e s e n t  be a d d r e s s e d  the s e n s i t i v i t y  of the  data.  are d i v i d e d  into  f o r various  accident  Scale  that  o r MAIS.  direct  These  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n developed  and  classes classes by t h e  American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Automotive M e d i c i n e p r i m a r i l y based on t h e t h r e a t t o l i f e posed by a p a r t i c u l a r i n j u r y  ( M i l l e r , e t a l , pg 16).  The  considered  direct  cost  components  normally  19) :  -  Emergency m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s c o s t s Medical costs L e g a l and c o u r t c o s t s P r o p e r t y damage c o s t s  61  include  (Miller,  e t a l , pg  Table Representative  hlS Code  Motor V e h i c l e I n j u r i e s by Injury Scale Level  Minor  2  Moderate  3  Serious  4  Severe  Injury  Maximum I n j u r y (Fatal)  Miller,  et a l , pg  Major nerve l a c e r a t i o n , m u l t i p l e r i b f r a c t u r e , abdominal organ cont u s i o n , hand, f o o t or arm c r u s h / amputation Spleen rupture, l e g c r u s h , c h e s t - w a l l p e r f o r a t i o n , c e r e b r a l concussion w i t h n e u r o l o g i c a l s i g n s (unconcious l e s s than 24 hours)  Injury  6  Source:  Major a b r a s i o n s , c e r e b r a l c o n c u s s i o n (unconcious l e s s than 15 m i n u t e s ) , F i n g e r or toe crush/amputation, closed pelvic fracture  Injury  Critical  Injuries  S u p e r f i c i a l abrasions, sprains, f i r s t degree burns, headache or d i z z i n e s s  Injury  5  Abbreviated  Representative  In-iury-Severity Level  1  4-7  S p i n a l cord i n j u r y , extensive second or t h i r d - d e g r e e burns, c e r e b r a l concussion with severe n e u r o l o g i c a l s i g n s (unconcious more t h a n 24 hours)  Injury  Decapitation, torso transection, massively crushed c h e s t  18.  62  The  indirect  cost  components  normally  considered  include  (Miller,  et a l ,  page 3 0 ) : - S o c i a l mechanism c o s t s - Productivity losses - Psychosocial  costs  Social  mechanism c o s t  listed  i n Table  4-9  include  (police,  fire,  i n n a t u r e and thus c o n s i d e r e d  Productivity  losses  those  costs  i n c u r r e d by t h e p u b l i c  agencies  coroner,  e t c . ) which a r e more  follow-up  as " i n d i r e c t " c o s t s .  a r e an attempt  t o measure t h e l o s s  o f human  capital  c a u s e d by a c c i d e n t s .  Psychosocial accident  costs  victims  reflect after  a s s o c i a t e d with a c c i d e n t  pain  the  and  s u f f e r i n g which may  accident  or,  t h i s evaluation are presented  s a t i s f a c t o r y estimates  The  57).  using in  Thus, p s y c h o s o c i a l  costs  1 9 8 0 accident  1985  higher  presented  d o l l a r s with costs  exist  direct  f o r most  those  people  and i n d i r e c t  costs  used i n  of  4-8  and  costs,  no  (Miller,  well et a l ,  evaluation^.  on n a t i o n a l  4 - 1 0 presents  studies  these  costs  upward adjustment made t o r e f l e c t t h e  i n Alaska costs  Table  costs  in this  4 - 9 a r e based  and 1 9 8 0 d o l l a r s .  average n a t i o n w i d e o p e r a t i n g  these  f o r psychosocial  an 1 1 p e r c e n t  experienced  by  c o s t s a r e not c o n s i d e r e d  i n Tables data  by  4 - 8 and 4 - 9 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .  i n Tables  d e v e l o p e d methods and measures e x i s t pg  incurred  victims.  A d e t a i l e d breakdown o f t h e recommended  While  indirectly  be  (based  on  recommended  i n Quadra, 1 9 8 3 , pg 5 - 7 ) . 63  adjustments  to  Table  4-8  A c c i d e n t Costs Recommended D i r e c t Cost Estimates (1980 D o l l a r s ) Per V i c t i m MAIS  Cost  Per Vehicle PDO  Prop. Damage  $750  Category  Fatal  1  811  1354  2120  2865  2845  3406  92  128  126  126  126  124  Emer. Room Care  42  110  153  253  363  Initial Hosp.  70  888  2054  5146  2981  Phys . Surgeon Service  19  319  771  2059  2981-  Follow On Care, F i r s t Yr.  35  60  96  139  2782  Emer. Medical Service-  1  Home Modify  3  1370  3739  Second Yr. Unique Service  455  4  Follow On Care, Annual  81  2277  96,238  583  2688  5147  7864  13,394  3442  8089  18,467  138,684  18,294  4  Legal & Court  11  532  TOTAL  761  1601  1584  1. Based on r e p o r t e d a c c i d e n t s o n l y . 2. Based on NHTSA's u r b a n - r u r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n assumptions. 3. P h y s i c i a n and surgeon s e r v i c e s i n c l u d e d i n i n i t i a l h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n estimate f o r spinal cord i n j u r i e s . 4. Based on a f o u r p e r c e n t d i s c o u n t r a t e . Source:  Meyer, e t a l , page 123. 64  cost  Table 4-9 A c c i d e n t Costs Recommended I n d i r e c t C a p i t a l Cost (1980 D o l l a r s ) Per V i c t i m MAIS Per Vehicle PDO  Cost Police  8-  1  2  3  38  54  Estimates  Category  4  77  107  Fire Dept.  Fatal  5  44  129  129  44  44  Coroner Medical Exam  168  Insur. Admin.  120  550  550  Welfare & Public Asst.  550  12,540  12,540  12,540  16  398  398  576  109,786  State Motor Veh. Agency State/ L o c a l Hwy. Dept. Human Capital Psycho Social TOTAL A. B. C. D.  98  557  1574  19,475  C  C  C  C  C  132  690  1165  2217  32,564  Reported accidents only. Tentative estimates. No e s t i m a t e s a v a i l a b l e . Based on a f o u r percent d i s c o u n t r a t e .  Source:  Miller,  e t a l , page 125,  65  C 122,897  356,884  C 370,341  The  f o l l o w i n g a c c i d e n t c o s t s w i l l be used i n t h e e v a l u a t i o n : Table 4-10 Adjusted Accident Total Direct Costs  Accident Cla^s— Property Damage Only MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatality  The  Total Indirect Costs  1,102 2,319 4, 986 11,717 26,750 200,891 26,500  Source: Tables P r i c e Index.  4-7 and 4-8.  distribution  breakdown  Costs  191 999 1, 688 3,211 47,171 178,022 536,457 Adjusted  o f a c c i d e n t s by type  o f 1980 n a t i o n w i d e  Total costs  traffic  1,294 3,319 6, 673 14,929 73,921 378,913 562,957  t o 1985 d o l l a r s  using  was determined by use o f a p e r c e n t a g e accidents  as f o l l o w s  (Miller,  page 2 0 ) :  T a b l e 4-11 Incidence  of T r a f f i c Accident  Types  Number o f Accidents (xlQQQ)  Property Damage O n l y MAIS 1 MAIS 2 MAIS 3 MAIS 4 MAIS 5 Fatalities  1  TOTAL 1.  Reported plus estimate  % of Total  44,783 3,273 452 200 35 12 51  91.76 6.71 .93 .41 .07 .02 .10  48,806  100.00  of u n r e p o r t e d .  66  U.S. Consumer  et a l ,  The  number  accident  of  rate  Department  between  =  The  8.5  where  X  estimated  This  Highways  pg C - l ) .  Y  was  equation.  of  relationship 1983,  accidents  on  costs  of  the  per  own  0.335X  -  =  (ADT  27,500/5000)  -  0.233X  of  rate,  more per  under the  various  solid  segment by  and as  using  the  Colorado  studies  traffic  an  of  volume  the  (DCCO,  follows:  2  and miles  local  accident be  road  empirical  v e h i c l e mile  +  e s t i m a t e s d e v e l o p e d here w i l l accidents  developed  e q u a t i o n f o r uban a r t e r i a l s was  lack  (accident  was  their  Y = Accidents/million vehicle  Because  each  equation  based  accidents  for  costs,  used t o  scenarios  data  and  on  a l l aspects  severity  illustrate w i l l be  of  accident  distribution),  the  the  potential costs  treated  separately  in  of the  evaluation.  4.4  Summary  In t h i s c h a p t e r the in  the  costs  In  social  benefit-cost  analysis presented  i n Chapter F i v e .  These  used user  include: 1)  Vehicle operating  2)  User time c o s t s f o r work, non-work, and  3)  Accident  general,  costs  s e t of user c o s t s have been d e v e l o p e d which w i l l be  under  these  c o s t s f o r both t r u c k and  auto  truck  trips  trips  costs costs  a v a r i e t y of  were d e v e l o p e d conditions,  the p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t .  67  to  be  f o r each  applied link,  to  estimating  b o t h w i t h and  user  without  F o r each l i n k , o Traffic o Times of o Trip  these c o s t s can be c o n s i d e r e d t o be s e n s i t i v e t o d i f f e r e n t : volumes day  purposes  o V e h i c l e types which might be e x p e r i e n c e d w i t h and without  the p r o j e c t .  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER  FOUR  1. D e t a i l s on t h i s r e s e a r c h are p r e s e n t e d i n Evans, e t a l , 1976 and Chang, e t a l , 1976.. 2. The o r i g i n a l r e s e a r c h used m e t r i c u n i t s and has measures f o r t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n .  and  1978B,  been t r a n s l a t e d t o  U.S.  3. A more a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e of f u e l c o s t might be made u s i n g a weighted average of d i f f e r e n t f u e l t y p e s based on the c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e community's vehicle fleet. Without d a t a on the v e h i c l e f l e e t the use o f the h i g h e r c o s t u n l e a d e d f u e l i s assumed t o p r o v i d e a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e of f u e l c o s t s . 4. This facility/area type and operating condition i s f e l t to r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the average t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s i n F a i r b a n k s and thus, average c o s t e s t i m a t e was a s s i g n e d here.  be the  5. F o r more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of these c o s t s and t h e i r d e r i v a t i o n readers a r e r e f e r r e d t o M i l l e r e t a l (1984), N a t i o n a l Highway T r a f f i c S a f e t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (1983) , and M c F a r l a n d and R o l l i n s ( 1 9 8 2 ) . I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t M i l l e r e t a l , by way of review and comparison of a v a i l a b l e a c c i d e n t c o s t e s t i m a t e s , recommended a g a i n s t the use of e s t i m a t e s g i v e n i n such s t a n d a r d r e f e r e n c e s as AASHTO's "Red Book", the N a t i o n a l S a f e t y C o u n c i l ' s b u l l e t i n on t h e i s s u e , and TRB's Report on e v a l u a t i n g highway s a f e t y improvements. Lack of comprehensiveness, documentation, improper methodology were c i t e d as reasons f o r the recommendation ( M i l l e r e t a l , page 29) .  68  CHAPTER FIVE Comparison o f C o s t s and B e n e f i t s  To  this  point  project Those  analysis  and i t s l i k e l y impacts  which  to establish  project.  Benefits  discounted extensive  resource  impact  f o r the analyst presents  project  costs  with  and without  the c a l c u l a t i o n  and b e n e f i t s  are used  over  of the  i n this  the l i f e  the d i f f e r e n c e  the p r o j e c t .  illustrated  sight  terms  flows  are simply  o f impacts  to lose  in dollar  resource  o f the p r o j e c t flows  the parameters  on u s e r s o f t h e highway system i n F a i r b a n k s .  network-wide  measurements  chapter  on e s t a b l i s h i n g  are q u a n t i f i a b l e  chapter  easy  has f o c u s e d  between t h e  Given  i n previous  of the  the f a i r l y  chapters  i t  o f t h e purpose o f t h e a n a l y s i s .  of project  benefits,  and t h e c o n c l u s i o n s  is  This  the comparison of  which  result  from  this  analysis.  5.1  C a l c u l a t i o n o f User  Benefits  User  benefits  benefits  are those  of the project  t h o s e making t r i p s on t h e a f f e c t e d network. costs  w i t h and without  Daily  vehicle  obtain  the project  operating  a daily  operating  cost.  An a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g  factors discussed  are  c a l c u l a t e d by a d d i n g annual o p e r a t i n g  d i f f e r e n c e between annual u s e r c o s t s  annual costs  the costs  user benefits  costs  f o r 1986-2005.  (VOT) a r e summed t o  cost  i n Chapter Three.  r e s u l t i n g from c o n s t r u c t i o n  i s factored Annual u s e r  and a c c i d e n t  costs.  with and without the p r o j e c t .  as t h e d i f f e r e n c e  with and without t h e p r o j e c t .  69  from costs  Annual  o f the G e i s t E x t e n s i o n a r e t h e  t o u s e r s o f t h e network with and without are calculated  d i r e c t l y to  Table 5-1 p r o v i d e s a summary o f  (VOC) and u s e r time c o s t  d a i l y cost  calculated  accrue  and annual u s e r b e n e f i t s  the  user b e n e f i t s  using  costs  which  between  Having  the project, annual  user  TABLE 5-1;  I486 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S  VOC 80941 87S30 90392 9334T 96400 99SS3 102810 106173 109618 113236 11615? 111818 119625 121397 123196 125021 126814 128754 130661 132598  •COST SUMMARY WITHOUT PROJECT DAILY ANNUAL ANNUAL ACCIDENT OPERATING OPERATING VOT COST COST COST 333451 4H392 123.903.291 2511512 364992 452522 135,304.147 2104151 377991 4(8382 140,046.264 2189787 391452 484799 144.954.884 2818129 405392 501792 150.035.860 2969268 419829 519382 155,295.255 3063294 434780 537590 160,739.344 3160296 450263 556437 166,374.621 3260371 466298 575946 172,207.812 3363614 182904 596140 178.245.871 3410127 501451 617609 184,664.952 3546245 511100 626918 188,064.383 3593264 520934 640558 191.526.954 3640906 530957 652354 195,053,848 3689180 541173 664369 198.646.268 3138094 551586 67660? 202.305,440 3181651 562199 689012 206,032.614 3831811 701769 209,829.062 3888763 573016 584041 714703 213.696.081 3940323 727876 217,634,992 3992567 595279  ANNUAL USER COST 126,414.803 138,008,304 142.836.051 147,833,013 153.005.128 158,358.549 163.899.640 169,634,992 115.511.426 181.716,004 188.211.196 191,651,646 195.167,861 198,143,029 202.384.363 206.093,091 209.810.491 213,111,824 217.636.404 221.621,559  ION OF BENEFIT STREAM COST SUMMARY WITH PROJECT DAILY ANNUAL ANNUAL OPERATING OPERATING ACCIDENT VOC VOT COST COST COST 80941 333451 414392 123,903.291 2511512 84313 355362 439675 131.462,766 2510958 88763 312667 461430 137,967.667 2626587 69724 392949 482673 144,319.274 2678365 94445 396768 491213 146,872,726 2803634 94008 402654 496662 148.502.047 2875326 97864 419110 516914 154,575.299 3006015 101154 433163 534317 159.760.818 3116103 104565 441661 552242 165.120.377 3230223 108070 462698 570769 170.659.820 3348522 1)0610 415457 586266 175,293.682 3411341 112432 482828 595260 177.982,701 3536213 490313 604391 180,712.998 3602291 114018 491915 115148 613663 183,485,201 3669604 505634 623071 186.299.973 3138115 117443 119162 513413 632635 189,151.948 3808021 521434 642340 192,059,798 3819164 120907 122677 529518 652195 195,006,195 3951611 537127 124413 662200 197,997.824 4025512 546063 612359 201.035.380 4100133 126296  ANNUAL USER COST 126.414.603 133.973,724 140.594,254 146,997.639 149,676,360 151.377.313 157,581,314 162.816.921 168.350.600 114.008.342 178.765.030 181.518.914 184.315.289 187, 154,81 1 190,038.147 192.965.975 195,938.982 198.957.866 202.023,336 205,136,113  ANNUAL PROJECT BENEFITS $0 14.034,580 $2.241.797 $635,374 13.328.768 $6.981,116 $6,318,326 $6,158,011 $1,220,826 $7,707,661 $9,446,161 $10,136,732 $10,852,512 $11,588,218 $12,346,215 $13,121,122 $13,931,509 $14,159,959 $15,613,068 $16,491,446  Thus, a stream o f b e n e f i t s i s c r e a t e d over t h e l i f e 5-1 p r e s e n t s high  the user  population  lines  operating  growth  represents  user  scenario. benefits.  d e v e l o p data u s e d i n S e c t i o n s  The  project  project slope  i s complete  curves  growth r a t e b e g i n n i n g  5.2  Generated  reduction i n user  the  demand f o r t r i p s User  costs  demand curve to  a level  the  and without t h e p r o j e c t under t h e  Appendix C c o n t a i n s  5.1-5.4.  Variations i n operating  o f t h e p r o j e c t over t i m e .  results  from  a change  1  costs  The change i n t h e  i n the annual  population  c o s t s brought about by a p r o j e c t causes an i n c r e a s e i n on t h e o v e r a l l network.  without  the p r o j e c t are at l e v e l  a t B g i v i n g a demand o f OC. OD.  This  i s illustrated OA which  The p r o j e c t reduces t h e u s e r  Assuming a downward s l o p i n g demand c u r v e  on t h e network  will  trips  are represented  by t h e area  are represented  increase  to a level  i n triangle  c a u s e d by the a d d i t i o n o f g e n e r a t e d t r a f f i c level  OG  secondary benefits  which effect lost  again  affects  reduces  as a r e s u l t  i n r e c t a n g l e DGHJ.  OF.  t h e demand  the o v e r a l l  o f the r e d u c t i o n  i n user  existing  i n trips  costs to a  on t h e network.  o f demand  to a level  This  OK.  i n demand a r e r e p r e s e n t e d  The net b e n e f i t s t o g e n e r a t e d t r a f f i c  71  to  The i n c r e a s e  causes a r i s e  level  demand f o r  B e n e f i t s to generated  BIE.  for trips  costs  and d e p e n d i n g on  Benefits  i n r e c t a n g l e DABI.  by the a r e a  i n Figure  i n t e r s e c t s the  e l a s t i c i t y o f demand and thus t h e s l o p e o f t h e demand curve,  traffic  with the  i n 199 6 as d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Three.  trips  area  t h e worksheets u s e d t o  Traffic  The  5-2.  Figure  The p o r t i o n of t h e graph between t h e two  by 1993.  stem from t h e p h a s i n g  of the cost  costs with  of the p r o j e c t .  are the  The  by t h e  A N N U A L U S E R O P E R A T I N G C O S T S WITH AND-WITHOUT GEIST EXTENSION  t-  (/) O O to  O Z  w  ^ C H  a: =  a cn I  o  a. ui (/)  D  140  130  120  "i  86  87  •  1  i  i  i  i  i  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  0  WITHOUT P R O J E C T  r  1  YEAR WITH P R O J E C T  T  3  4  FIGURE 5-2 BEHEFITS TO GENERATED TRAFFIC  ADJUSTED FOR LOST TRIPS  73  difference  between  r e c t a n g l e DGHJ  and t r i a n g l e  BIE.  added t o b e n e f i t s t o e x i s t i n g t r i p s  t o determine  total  These b e n e f i t s user b e n e f i t s  are  (i.e.,  net u s e r b e n e f i t s are ABEG+BEH).  T h i s concept  was a p p l i e d t o the e v a l u a t i o n of G e i s t  are presented  i n T a b l e 5-2.  project  was  Charles  R i v e r A s s o c i a t e s i n 1968  elasticities -0.878,  estimated  The a c t u a l amount  on an annual  f o r work  respectively.  and without  and  basis using e l a s t i c i t i e s  (Manheim,  shopping  trips  pg  an annual  level  The  results  of t r a f f i c g e n e r a t e d  131) .  i n urban  U s i n g the annual percentage  the p r o j e c t  Extension.  This  developed  study  areas  by the  of  by  suggests  -0.494  and  change i n u s e r c o s t s with  o f g e n e r a t e d t r a f f i c was  U s i n g 1995 as an example, t h e c a l c u l a t i o n was performed  estimated.  as f o l l o w s :  1995 E x i s t i n g Demand * % Change i n C o s t s * % Work T r i p s * E l a s t i c i t y = Generated Work T r i p s or;  (65,813,757) * (4.26%) * (.65)  F o r shopping  * (.494) =  899,402  trips:  (65,813,757) * (4.26%) * (.35) T o t a l 1995 Generated  * (.878)  Trips  =  860,747  = 1,760,149  The i n c r e a s e i n u s e r c o s t s r e s u l t i n g from the a d d i t i o n of g e n e r a t e d t r i p s t o t h e network was and  volume  c a l c u l a t e d by e s t i m a t i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between u s e r c o s t s  of t r i p s  on  t h e network.  e s t i m a t e d as the p e r c e n t a g e using  total  annual  This  volume-cost  change i n c o s t f o r a percentage  u s e r c o s t s and network demand without  relationship  change i n volume the p r o j e c t .  r e l a t i o n s h i p e s t a b l i s h e d i s as f o l l o w s : % Change i n Cost = .0293 + .9735  74  was  (% Change i n Volume)  The  TABLE 5-2 CALCULATION OF BENEFITS TO GENERATED TRAFFIC  1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005  ANNUAL ANNUAL DEMAND- GENERATED EXISTING TRAFFIC 49883516 0 51443428 917788 53052318 494811 54711229 150755 56422251 747497 58186656 1599471 60006310 1446028 61882894 1545863 63818082 1650502 65813757 1760149 66743468 2128426 67686364 2280152 68642447 2435475 69612134 2594472 70595425 2757205 71592530 2923743 72603868 3094168 73629438 3268543 74669659 3446952 75724740 3629470  ADDED DAILY TRAFFIC 0 3070 1655 504 2500 5349 4836 5170 5520 5887 7118 7626 8145 8677 9221 9778 10348 10932 11528 12139  TOTAL INCREASE DEMAND IN TRAFFIC E+G E TO G 0.000 49883516 52361217 0.018 53547129 0.009 54861984 0.003 0.013 57169753 0.027 59786127 0.024 61452338 63428757 0.024 65468584 0.025 67573906 0.026 68871895 0.031 69966516 0.033 0.034 71077921 72206605 0.036 0.038 73352629 0.039 74516273 75698036 0.041 0.043 76897981 0.044 78116610 79354210 0.046  ESTIMATED \ RISE IN COSTS E+G 0.000 0.020 0.012 0.005 0.016 0.029 0.026 0.027 0.027 0.028 0.033 0.035 0.036 0.038 0.039 0.041 0.043 0.044 0.046 0.047  LOSS IN TRAFFIC 0 11456 3668 519 7294 28992 23360 25768 28359 31144 43984 49470 55336 61594 68252 75322 82815 9074 1 99111 107938  PER UNIT LOST BENEFITSBENEFITS FROM LOST EXISTING TRAFFIC TRAFFIC 0 0.000 0.075 855 144 0.039 6 0.012 0.056 409 0.117 3385 0.103 2400 0.107 2754 3149 0.111 0.115 3590 6176 0.140 7368 0.149 8718 0.158 0.166 10236 11936 0.175 0.184 13832 15938 0.192 0.201 18268 0.210 20837 0.219 23661  BENEFITS TO NET GENERATED BENEFITS TRAFFIC GENERATEO TRAFFIC 0 0 34267 33411 9693 9550 876 870 20544 20953 93368 89983 74270 71871 82609 79854 91650 88500 101442 97852 143248 149423 169811 162443 183125 191843 215584 205348 229165 241101 268463 254631 297741 281803 329007 310739 362337 341500 374147 397808  NET PROJECT BENEFITS 0 4,067,992 2,251,347 836,243 3,349,313 7,071,159 6,390,197 6,831,925 7,309,326 7,805,514 9,589.414 10,301,175 11,035,697 11,793,565 12,575,380 13,381,153 14,213,312 15,070,698 15,954,568 16,865,593  The  loss  of t r i p s  calculated  was  e s t i m a t e d u s i n g the e l a s t i c i t i e s  i n a s i m i l a r manner as g e n e r a t e d t r a f f i c .  d e s c r i b e d above The  and  exception i s that  g e n e r a t e d volume i s used i n s t e a d of e x i s t i n g demand.  A  per  unit  benefit  (total  annual  c a l c u l a t e d and used t o determine lost to lost  To  This  was  As  indicated  likely  to generated  i n the  traffic  i t was  area of a n a l y s i s  allows  an  approximation  i n Table  5-2  i s small relative due  thus  following  the  the  low  section,  level the  net  t o the  t o the r e l a t i v e l y  e v a l u a t i o n are  5.3  b e n e f i t s to generated t r a f f i c  and  (line  assumed t h a t  segment BE  of per  unit  was  benefits  low  of  impact  generated  to  generate  traffic.  traffic  for  this  level  of o v e r a l l  user b e n e f i t s .  This i s  level  of b e n e f i t s  produced  project  traffic  impacts  of  t h e demand  i n F i g u r e 5-2) .  benefits  e q u a l t o o n e - h a l f the per u n i t b e n e f i t s t o e x i s t i n g  project  and  linear  assumption  traffic  demand)  traffic.  estimate benefits  curve  benefits/annual existing  generated.  of generated  As  traffic  will on  be the  by t h e shown  in  the  outcome o f  the  insignificant.  Comparison pf Costs and  Benefits  With a stream o f u s e r b e n e f i t s and p r o j e c t c o s t s h a v i n g been e s t a b l i s h e d the analysis determine comparison  can the  now  move  economic  to  a  comparison  feasibility  of  o f the  these  Geist  i n time.  and  Road E x t e n s i o n .  the annual r e s o u r c e f l o w s must be brought  a common p o i n t  benefits  costs In  this  t o comparable v a l u e s at  T h i s i s accomplished by d i s c o u n t i n g the r e s o u r c e  76  to  flows  t o 1986, t h e f i r s t  made.  Discounting  method  ratio, the  Other i s s u e s  t o be used  i n comparing  i n this  costs  Value)  include (ie,  be f o r  choice of  Benefit/Cost  and t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f assumptions.  The Discount Rate  mentioned  above,  i t i s not i n the scope  o f an a p p r o p r i a t e  discount  given  that  i n the discount  analysis,  of  rate should  section  comparison t o changes i n some o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g  with  on t h e p r o j e c t i s  and b e n e f i t s  Net P r e s e n t  issue  minor s h i f t s a discussion  rate  of t h i s  paper  to resolve the  i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner. rate  of the r a t i o n a l e  a d i s c u s s i o n o f how highway f u n d i n g  However,  c a n a f f e c t t h e outcome o f t h e  f o r discounting  i s provided  along  i n t h e U.S. might a f f e c t t h e r a t e  discount.  There  a r e two d i s t i n c t  resource  flows  efficient project might  be  social  i n time.  be a t l e a s t as e f f i c i e n t  displacing  (Pearce,  f o r a project  i n general,  cost  have  pg  83) .  First,  i f there  (labor, c a p i t a l ,  as p r o j e c t s This  an o p p o r t u n i t y  of c a p i t a l .  f o r discounting  Second,  project's  i s t o be an  land,  e t c . ) , the  (private or public) i t  i s the idea cost  a  and t h a t  that  resources  there  exists a  i t i s recognized  that  people,  would p r e f e r t h e i r b e n e f i t s t o d a y as opposed t o tomorrow.  the idea  this  put f o r t h  t o a common p o i n t  opportunity  (Pearce,  arguments  a l l o c a t i o n of l i m i t e d resources  must  required  is  an e x p e n d i t u r e  resolved  I n t e r n a l Rate o f R e t u r n ,  5.3.1 As  i n which  r a i s e s t h e i s s u e o f what t h e d i s c o u n t  a public project. the  year  that  pg 38) .  there Either  exists  a positive  one o f t h e s e  project.  77  could  social serve  time  preference  as a d i s c o u n t  This rate  rate f o r  Under i d e a l c o n d i t i o n s , where t h e r e i s an o p t i m a l l e v e l of investment economy, the s o c i a l be  equal  (Pearce,  opportunity  46).  In  the  course  important with  a  financing  level must  being  However, higher  of  determining  agency  funds  f o r use allocate  population  or  a  are  also  the  preference  the two  rate  discount  (ADOT/PF)  direct  grants  t o be  used  specifically this  of  of  from  on  problems  rate  differ  social  receives government  the p r o j e c t  a l l urban  major  i n the  for  of d e c i s i o n  i n highway-related  money t o  miles  level  which  the  this  r a t e would with  time  social  preference  project  bulk  funds  of  its  (both  Thi3  rests  capital  federal  a r e earmarked a t t h e  i n the  i t is  f o r the p r o j e c t  projects.  areas  highways.  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o use t h e s e c a p i t a l  There  time  2  through The  social  in reality  than  t o keep i n mind t h a t t h e  public  state) .  44) .  pg  costs  (Pearce, pg  o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t and  i n the  federal  Further, the  state  restricts  on  the  the  and  state  basis  of  alternative  resources.  use  of a  social  time  preference  rate.  As  n o t e d by Sugden and W i l l i a m s : " I f p r i v a t e m a r g i n a l time p r e f e r e n c e r a t e 3 (MTPR) d i f f e r - as t h e y do - a s o c i a l MTPR can be c o n s t r u c t e d from these p r i v a t e r a t e s o n l y i n a h i g h l y a r b i t r a r y way" (Sugden and W i l l i a m s , pg 223). Again, the  i t i s not the purpose of t h i s paper t o r e s o l v e these i s s u e s .  importance  recognized  and  of the  d i s c o u n t i n g the alternative  costs  and  approaches  d i s c o u n t r a t e have been d i s c u s s e d .  78  to  b e n e f i t s of determining  the an  Rather,  project  is  appropriate  As  a  basis  discount  12  of  comparison  and  guidelines  study  t h i 3  U3ed  by  Pakistan  Planning  d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s (Adler, 1987, percent:  Used  in  pg  Commission  and  Range of 5-15  percent:  range o f d i s c o u n t  for  54);  a n a l y s i s of  Alaska'3  Dalton  U3ed i n S i t k a Bypass Study  r a t e s between 5 and  Highway  (1984)  15 p e r c e n t  the s e n s i t i v i t y of the a n a l y s i s t o changes i n the  5.3.2  following  recommended  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of U.S./Canadian s o c i a l time p r e f e r e n c e r a t e  A  the  r a t e s are r e f e r e n c e d from o t h e r s t u d i e s :  percent:  5.13  for  (1986)  (Olson, pg  as  9) ; 3  (Quadra, pg 3 ) .  will  be  used t o  assess  rate.  Methods f o r Comparing C o s t s and B e n e f i t s  There a r e t h r e e commonly used methods f o r comparing the d i s c o u n t e d c o s t s b e n e f i t s o f p u b l i c investments  in transportation projects:  1)  of  Net  Present  Value  (NPV)  a project -  the  d i f f e r e n c e between  and  the  d i s c o u n t e d v a l u e of c o s t s and b e n e f i t s , 2)  Benefit/Cost Ratio  (B/C R a t i o )  by d i s c o u n t e d p r o j e c t c o s t s , 3)  Internal  Rate  of  - the d i s c o u n t e d p r o j e c t b e n e f i t s d i v i d e d  and  Return  (IRR)  -  the  discount  d i f f e r e n c e between p r o j e c t c o s t s and b e n e f i t s equals  In g e n e r a l , a p r o j e c t can be  rate  at  s a i d t o be a c c e p t a b l e i f :  t h e NPV  i s g r e a t e r than zero a t an a c c e p t a b l e d i s c o u n t r a t e ,  2)  t h e B/C  R a t i o i s g r e a t e r than one  3)  the  exceeds the a c c e p t a b l e d i s c o u n t  Where  there  solutions most v a l u e is  is  a  need  to  of a l i m i t e d  determine  capital  or  at an a c c e p t a b l e d i s c o u n t r a t e ,  the  or  rate.  best  of  a  t o a t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem, or where t h e r e out  the  zero.  1)  IRR  which  set  of  alternative  i s a need t o get  the  budget, the a p p r o p r i a t e measure t o  use  NPV.  79  In  most  (i.e.,  cases  the  analysis  However,  various  alternatives  primary  purpose  generating one  the  given  of  the  proposed this  project  In  a  budget, the  unit  c a p i t a l budgeted.  of  would be  If  there  either  a  discount used  by  considered  i s no B/C  submitted to two  ratio  World  illustrate  the  which u n d e r l y chosen as the  would be  than  in  Extension,  at  an  projects  r a i l r o a d tracks, to  evaluate  the  because  the  involved  in  and tasks  an  economic  analysis,  "build" alternative)  acceptable  determine p r o j e c t s  prioritize  Bank  the  necessary  to  discount  is  rate  be  NPV  rank one or  an  than  project  over  which  exceeds  is justified.  53)  pg  reasons f o r the World Bank's approach  in i t s  of b e n e f i t s  i s greater  IRR  evaluation  (Adler,  NPV  included  per  zero,  it  i n the b u d g e t i n g p r o c e s s .  a project  the  i t for financing  or  one  to  to maximize the  If t h i s project's  greater  over  Geist  as a p o t e n t i a l p r o j e c t  need t o  alternative  i s worthwhile.  r a t e would i n d i c a t e t h a t the  overpass  p o s i t i v e NPV  objective  more  the  flows  ADOT/PF t o  capital  or  resources  (the one  would i n d i c a t e t h a t the p r o j e c t  SBCA were used by  of  is  resource  two  an  for  study  t h i s case,  of  or  lack  alternative project  analyzed.  If  be  between b u i l d i n g a t - g r a d e  etc.).  only  will  of .  This  a  then  threshold  approach i s  transportation  Adler  (Adler, pg  another,  notes that  projects there  are  53):  "First, i t has not been p r a c t i c a l f o r the Bank t o e s t i m a t e appropriate discount rates f o r the more t h a n one hundred d e v e l o p i n g c o u n t r i e s who a r e members of the Bank. Second, the Bank must a s s u r e i t s e l f o n l y t h a t the p r o j e c t i s j u s t i f i e d ; i t need not be the h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y p r o j e c t i n the c o u n t r y " . Without  further  analysis,  E x t e n s i o n as d e s c r i b e d  it  cannot  be  determined  i n t h i s study r e p r e s e n t s  80  the b e s t  whether  the  alternative  Geist  o r whether i t would be expenditures  f o r 1985.  i n c l u d e d i n the most e f f i c i e n t s e t of ADOT/PF However, by  a s s u r i n g t h a t the p r o j e c t ' s IRR  a t a r g e t d i s c o u n t r a t e or by o b s e r v i n g one  a t an a c c e p t a b l e  general  discount  whether the B/C  ratio  exceeds  i s greater  than  r a t e , a d e c i s i o n can be made on t h e p r o j e c t ' s  acceptability.  R e s u l t s of t h e a n a l y s i s are p r e s e n t e d  NPV  ( d i s c o u n t e d at 5%)  B/C  Ratio  below u s i n g a l l t h r e e methods:  - $5,579,985  ( d i s c o u n t e d at 5%)  .944  IRR  Using  capital  4.28%  any  of  these  investment  as  acceptable  discount  measures  the  recommendation  p r e s e n t l y proposed.  the IRR  r a t e , the  NPV  Assuming  would  five  i s negative,  the  one,  and  The  above  The  s e n s i t i v i t y of the a n a l y s i s t o changes i n these  be  to  percent B/C  not  make  i s the  Ratio  the  minimum  i s less  than  f a l l s below the t h r e s h o l d .  figures reflect  high  growth  and  high  value and  of  time  assumptions.  o t h e r assumptions i s  d i s c u s s e d below.  5.3.3  Sensitivity  Given  the  important  Analysis  complexity  involved  in  generating  f o r the a n a l y s t to determine the  changes i n the u n d e r l y i n g  assumptions.  81  project  sensitivity  cash  flows,  of the c a s h  i t is  flows  to  For  this  s t u d y t h e f o l l o w i n g parameters were a n a l y z e d  t o assess t h e i r  impact  on n e t p r o j e c t b e n e f i t s : Generated Accident  traffic, cost  savings,  Value o f time, Population  growth,  D i s c o u n t r a t e , and Project construction  5.3.3.1 Figure vehicle  Generated T r a f f i c . Accident 5-3  illustrates  operating  Generated  Traffic  distribution For  costs.  using  reference,  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  costs  (VOC),  (GEN). high  Cost Savings, and Value o f Time  Time C o s t s  Figure  (TC), A c c i d e n t  5-3 a l s o  and low v a l u e s  the values  of the p r o j e c t ' s  present  o f time  o f time d i s c u s s e d  benefits Costs  (ACC) and  the difference  (discussed  among  i n Chapter  i n this Four).  i n Chapter Four a r e as f o l l o w s :  Value of Low Value o f Time  Time  (S/Hr)  Non-Work T r i p s  $ 0.63  Work T r i p s  1.43  Truck T r i p s  2.75  High Value o f Time Non-Work T r i p s  The  Work T r i p s  11.62  Truck T r i p s  23.71  benefits  insignificant. Time  resulting  This  from  The impacts  and v e h i c l e  benefit.  $11.62  operating  accident  of generated cost  savings  cost . savings traffic,  are  are also  insignificant.  a r e t h e major  areas  i s t y p i c a l o f most highway p r o j e c t s o f t h i s  type.  82  relatively  of project  Figure  5-3  EFFECTS OF VARIOUS BENEFITS FOR BOTH HIGH ANO LOW VALUES OF TIME  LOW VALUE O r TIME  ZZ3  ACC  fV\]  BENEFIT CATEGOF VOC  83  HIGH VALUE OF TIME  VOT  QT  The  most  uncertain  generated accident  traffic  assumptions  and  related  to  the  accident costs relate  rates respectively.  Given  their  calculation  to the e l a s t i c i t y relatively  t h a t no  t h e s e assumptions would s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r the  analysis.  significant  effect  are  lower.  indicated  benefits,  As  discounted  -$5.6  million;  value  of  expected  time. given  discussed o f time  of a lower  at  in Figure five  f o u r times The the  v a l u e o f time  percent  higher  effect  5-3,  than  of v a l u e  Four,  saved per t r i p  of demand  and  reasonable  net b e n e f i t s  of the p r o j e c t s  using  the  project's benefits using  and  high  change i n  and  on  a  Value  overall  high  unit  saved per t r i p ,  of  time  of  value.  f o r each t r i p ,  nor i s  s a i d i s t h a t t h e r e i s l i k e l y t o be a range of t r a v e l time  conclude  individual  that  various t r i p of values  the types  valuations  of  range between t h e are p r o b a b l e  for this analysis.  that high  savings. and  averages and  The  low  P o p u l a t i o n Growth and D i s c o u n t the e f f e c t s  and  i s reasonable  to  of time  used  for  range  outcome of the a n a l y s i s ( r e j e c t i o n o f  5.3.3.2  illustrates  What  savings  thus p r o v i d e an adequate  i s i n s e n s i t i v e the -value of time w i t h i n t h i s  5-4  It  values  project)  Figure  As  t h e h i g h e r the  p o s s i b l e t o determine each i n d i v i d u a l s t r i p maker's v a l u e of t i m e .  of  be  from the p e r s p e c t i v e  it  range  is low  time.  i s not p o s s i b l e to determine the a c t u a l time  a  a  benefits i s to  It  can be  saved  value  values  these v a l u e s were e s t i m a t e d  - the more time  to  i s that t o t a l  Present  of time  d i f f e r e n c e s i n low  i n Chapter  the  savings  minor c o n t r i b u t i o n to  o v e r a l l p r o j e c t b e n e f i t s i t i s s a f e t o conclude  The  of  the  range of v a l u e s .  Rate  of d i f f e r e n t  growth and  discount r a t e s .  U s i n g the b e n e f i t - c o s t r a t i o as a means of comparison, b e n e f i t s o n l y exceed  84  costs  i n t h e range  assumed. is  effort a  illustrates  This  i s w e l l below t h e 5 . 1 3 p e r c e n t  growth i s rate  used i n the  a n a l y s i s and t h e 5 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t  i s made t o e s t i m a t e  source  of u n c e r t a i n t y  project costs i n economic  used  estimate  a r e made r a n g i n g  c a l c u l a t e d using  discount  With a d i s c o u n t  rate of f i v e  accurately,  analysis.  t h e impact o f changes i n p r o j e c t c o s t s .  Increases  from 1 0 t o 4 0 p e r c e n t . rates  h i g h growth r a t e and h i g h v a l u e  one  when moderate  i n the  Pro-iect Costs  typically  are  rates  study.  While e v e r y  cost  or l e s s .  Highway B e n e f i t - C o s t  S i t k a Bypass  5 . 3 . 3 . 3  discount  Assuming high growth, b e n e f i t s exceed c o s t s when t h e d i s c o u n t  4 . 2 8 percent  Dalton  of negative  of zero  and f i v e  these a r e  Figure  5-5  from t h e base  Benefit-cost percent;  ratios  assuming a  o f time.  percent  t h e p r o j e c t has a B/C r a t i o  less  than  even under t h e r e l a t i v e l y o p t i m i s t i c h i g h growth assumptions and u s i n g a  high value  o f time.  the base case,  Thus, s h o u l d  c o s t s a c t u a l l y exceed t h o s e  the p r o j e c t i s even more  When no d i s c o u n t  unacceptable.  r a t e i s used b e n e f i t s exceed c o s t s throughout t h e range o f  cost i n c r e a s e s analyzed.  While t h i s i s an u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y  it  under  illustrates  marginally should  that  even  acceptable.  costs  l e s s and l e s s  estimated f o r  infeasible  assumptions  As i n t h e case u s i n g  exceed those  estimated  a five  85  the project  percent  f o r t h e base case,  attractive.  low d i s c o u n t .rate i s only  discount  rate,  t h e p r o j e c t becomes  F i g u r e 5-4  EFFECTS OF GROWTH A N D DISCOUNT t  r.Rnwm N  \  RATE  ?xnn  \  \ \  \  ^ODf RATE 3R0W1H BE>EF1T>(iOSTF ATIO I  •-fa., , * * * * * — .  -0.050  -0.030  -0.010  0.010  0.030  0.000  0.070  0.090  OISCOUNT RATE  F i g u r e 5-5  I M P A C T O F C H A N G E S IN C O N S T R U C T I O N  COSTS  (ASSUMING HIGH GROWTH. HIGH VOT) [—t:—tn  \\\  V/, y// \ V 777 / / / / / / /  /  V/  s\\  \\\ s  YY ~7YA  \\\  'V/ V/Y V//\ ^ YY v\\ / / /  Y\S  w, YY/  BASE 1771  / / / Y / /  Y / / Y/Y  DISCOUNTED AT 5 %  Y Y A  '// /  Y  / Y YYY /  YY  YY/  Y  YY  >^ \\\  \ \ \  YY/  +10X  / / /  +20%  YY  'A YY/ +30%  CONSTRUCTION COST SCENARIOS H-T^ DISCOUNTED AT 0 % 86  Y// Y.Y/  w. \v\ \\"  YYA +40*  5.4  Results  Meyer  and M i l l e r  process 373)  which  note  leads  that  how  are three  t o investment  Evaluation  value  benefits  policy  i s to  and costs  2)  major  purposes  of public resources  proposals,  measured  i n the evaluation  (Meyer  and M i l l e r ,  pg  a  Specifically  timing  benefits  of  uncertainty,  and major  Table  l i k e l y  be  i n Figure  5-3  areas  planners  summary this  and  conclusions  5.1-5.3,  outlined  estimates  of  the  i s made d e f i n i n g  source  and  timing  of  on t h e impact  of  a c t i o n s a r e made;  with  of uncertainty; and an o p p o r t u n i t y  provides  2005.  Benefits  vehicle  operating  developed  this  of t h e economic  summary  costs from  of  provides  the  the study  of t h e information below  would  determination  to identify  areas  study.  purposes.  sections  whereby  i n f o r m a t i o n t o d e c i s i o n makers  trade-offs,  section provides  much  and  of proposed  Evaluation provides  further  This  be  i s the process  Evaluation provides  3)  are  there  :  1)  of  of Analysis  i s a  presented  by  the  estimates  project, and areas  repetition  section provides  evaluation  on  these  of the source  discusses  and  areas  of further study.  on t h e e v a l u a t i o n  i n the  public  of  While  of the analysis presented  information  analyst  and  based  i n  which  decision  step  1-1.  estimates are  presented  costs,  assuming  of project costs  time  a high  by costs  growth  category:  and b e n e f i t s f o r 1986 savings  and generated scenario  87  i n  accident  traffic.  and a high  value  These of  through costs, figures  time.  TABLE 5-3 SUHMARY OF GEIST EXTENSION COSTS AND BENEFITS  1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005  ANNUAL BENEFITS TIME ACCIDENT COST COST SAVINGS SAVIN6S  VEHICLE OPERATING COST SAVINGS 0  961883 486844 1083360 584584 1657966 1478852 1500856 1522751 1544508 1598918 1628438 1658481 1689058 1720176 1751846 1784077 . 1816879 1850261 1884234  BENEFIT/ COST RATIO  0  0  2879498 1591754 -447751 2578550 5135242 4685193 5112947 5564683 6041548 7772351 8453244 9155475 9879584 10626119 11395645 12188739 13005988 13847996 14715379  193199 163200 199764 165634 187968 154281 144267 133391 121605 74897 57050 38615 19576 -80 -20370 -41307 -62908 -85189 -108166  NET PRESENT VALUE  SAVIN6S TO 6ENERATED TRAFFIC 0  33411 9550 870 20544 89983 71871 79854 88500 97852 143248 162443 183125 205348 229165 254631 281803 310739 341500 374147  INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN  ANNUAL COSTS TOTAL 8ENEFITS  W $4,067,992 $2,251,347 $836,243 $3,349,313 $7,071,159 $6,390,197 $6,837,925 $7,309,326 $7,805,514 $9,589,414 $10,301,175 $11,035,697 $11,793,565 $12,575,380 $13,381,753 $14,213,312 $15,070,698 $15,954,568 $16,365,593  IMPACT AREAS  HIGH GROWTH  0.94  ($5,579,985)  4.28*  MODERATE 6R0HTH  0.56 ($43,500,571)  -1.20*  CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE TOTAL COSTS COSTS COSTS 26000000 61236 $26,061,236 0 61236 $61,236 15400000 115236 $15,515,236 23500000 330624 $23,830,624 23100000 330624 $23,420,624 330624 $330,624 0 336024 $23,436,024 28100000 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336021 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024 0 336024 $336,024  —OTHER IMPACTS— RESULTS OF EIS  AIR  Reduction in Carbon Mono.ride emaissions.  NOISE  Minor decreases along major existing roads. Increases along Geist Rd. and project area.  WETLANDS  No significant impacts.  HISTORIC  Seven historic sites require some relocation.  DISPLACEMENT 14 rental units 6 residences 17 businesses  88  --  Using  these  benefits.  Accident  relatively at  assumptions  cost  insignificant.  a net  present  quantify  in dollar in this  historic  to  the  Environmental  generated  million  These impacts  and displacement  with a b e n e f i t / c o s t  seven  of are  years  ratio  Statement  .94.  impacts  i s the economic c o s t  which are d i f f i c u l t  to  include possible increases i n a i r  impacts  (EIS)  of  percent.  of households  summary of p r o j e c t  Impact  source  traffic  d e s t r u c t i o n o r d i s r u p t i o n o f wetlands a r e a s ,  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and P u b l i c  5.4.1  major  Using a d i s c o u n t r a t e of 5 p e r c e n t the p r o j e c t  r a t e of r e t u r n i s 4.28  manner.  sites  includes a brief  and  businesses.  disruption Table  i n t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s based  prepared  by  the A l a s k a  5-3  on  an  Department  of  Facilities.  Recommendations the  an  given slowed results  results  acceptable the  of the economic a n a l y s i s ,  the p r o j e c t  public  recommendation  current  investment.  This  recessionary trends  growth i n p o p u l a t i o n which has of t h e  Under t h i s is  savings  terms, t h e r e are p r o j e c t  and n o i s e p o l l u t i o n ,  as  and  provide  the measure of v a l u e used t o e v a l u a t e the p r o j e c t  expressed  Given  savings  C o n s t r u c t i o n would t a k e p l a c e over  4  v a l u e of -$5.6  The p r o j e c t ' s i n t e r n a l  While  costs  savings  a c o s t o f $116.1 m i l l i o n .  has  of  time  economic  analysis  more r e a l i s t i c  -$43.5 m i l l i o n  with  r e t u r n of the p r o j e c t  the  occured.  Fairbanks Table  5-3  is  a benefit/cost percent.  89  the net ratio  present  of  .56.  recommended strengthened  economy  and  the  also provides  the  u s i n g a more moderate growth  assumption,  i s -1.2  in  i s not  assumption.  v a l u e of the  project  The  r a t e of  internal  While  this  analysis  economic  sense,  analysis  which  areas  of  i t was  projects. their  costs.  These  smaller  presented  i n  to  in.  invest  5-6  Figure on  an  without  this  further under  be  These  smaller  of  Road and Link  could  be  various  would  growth  of  of be  set  efficient  projects  Peger  Road  not  make  required.  The  flows  of  indicated  using  "package"  include  to  growth  several  benefits  which  improvements  Steese  in  a  does  population  projects'  projects  with  resource  individually  more  the  analyzed  resources  uncertainty  research  downtown  really  smaller  i s  moderate  these  a  proposed  project  analyzed  several  overpass);  College  of  determine  railroad  use  the  to  basis.  North-South  efficient  some  to  projects  Given  study  is  as  investment  under  analyzed  should  no  the  even  that  project  that  establish  Extension  -Linking  These  projects  the  follow  project  is possible  individual  -New  to  i l l u s t r a t e s the  -Geist and  not  that  congestion  The  It  does done  severe  assumptions.  indicates  should  the  smaller  may  exceed  the  method  of  projects  be  analyzed  following:  Illinois  Street  (with  Highway; and  College  combinations  Road.  to  determine  the  most  available.  population to  determine  assumptions.  90  growth the  in  Alaska,  optimum  timing  another of  the  area  of  projects  Figure Potential  Sub-Projects  O o  +> 5C  91  5-6 for Further  Analysis  The  actual  succinct Airport the  conclusions Road, C o l l e g e  results  individual indicates not  presentation  of parts  this may  to  public  decision-makers  and recommendations  Road; recommend c o n s t r u c t i o n study be  -  good  that  the  analysis  of Transportation  as s u g g e s t e d above.  would  exists  that  i s not  along Given  feasible  the system  more  but  analysis  the information  would  Rather, a management d e c i s i o n a t t h e likely  Elected  provide  o f XYZ p r o j e c t ) .  and t h a t  i t i s likely  be p r e s e n t e d t o e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s .  congestion  "package"  investments  problems i n the f u t u r e ;  Department  (i.e.,  would  be made  officials  r e s u l t s o f more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s on t h e s m a l l e r  92  to carry-out  further  would be p r e s e n t e d with t h e projects.  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER  FIVE  1. T h i s v a r i a t i o n i n c o s t s o c c u r s as the r e s u l t of two f a c t o r s . F i r s t , the v a r i o u s phases of the p r o j e c t . a f f e c t o v e r a l l o p e r a t i n g d i f f e r e n t l y (e.g., m a j o r downward i m p a c t s on c o s t s seem t o r e s u l t from p h a s e s b u i l t i n 1990-1993) . Second, o p e r a t i n g c o s t s without the p r o j e c t are driven p r i m a r i l y by t h e p o p u l a t i o n f o r e c a s t s which d e t e r m i n e o v e r a l l traffic demand. The growth between 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 7 i s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of an i n c r e a s e i n p e r s o n n e l at a nearby army b a s e . A f t e r that, population i s i n t e r p o l a t e d between 1 9 8 7 , 1995 and 2 0 0 5 . O p e r a t i n g c o s t s wit the p r o j e c t a r e d r i v e n b o t h by p o p u l a t i o n f o r e c a s t s and impacts of the d i f f e r e n t p r o j e c t phases. One o d d i t y i n F i g u r e 5 - 1 i s t h a t u s e r c o s t s with the p r o j e c t r i s e a t a f a s t e r r a t e t h a n t h o s e w i t h o u t t h e p r o j e c t between 1 9 8 7 and 1 9 8 9 . This r e s u l t s f r o m t h e way i n which t h e p r o j e c t i s phased. C o n s t r u c t i o n of v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s i n 1 9 8 6 - 1 9 8 9 i n c r e a s e volumes on e x i s t i n g s e c t i o n f of the network ( I l l i n o i s f o r example) which a r e not improved u n t i l l a t e r phases ( I l l i n o i s i s widened i n 1 9 9 3 ) . T h i s causes o p e r a t i n g c o s t s t o r i s e on some road segments f a s t e r with the p r o j e c t than without the p r o j e c t . 2. pg  The  p r i m a r y reasons f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e have been a t t r i b u t e d t o  (Pearce,  45):  1) 2)  C o r p o r a t e t a x a t i o n , and The apparent d i f f e r e n c e i n r i s k between p r i v a t e and p u b l i c projects.  3. Olson r e f e r e n c e s the f o l l o w i n g study: Kula, Erhun, " D e r i v a t i o n of S o c i a l Time P r e f e r e n c e Rates f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada," Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Economics, V o l . 9 9 (November, 1 9 8 4 ) , p. 8 7 3 - 8 7 8 . 4. As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , b e n e f i t s t o generate t r a f f i c are n e g a t i v e over the l i f e of t h e p r o j e c t . The n e g a t i v e time c o s t savings i n 1 9 8 9 stems from the way t h e p r o j e c t was phased as d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 5 - 2 . The negative a c c i d e n t c o s t s a v i n g s i n y e a r s 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 5 r e s u l t i n p a r t from t h e l i n e a r e x t r a p o l a t i o n which was used t o d e r i v e v a l u e s between 1 9 9 5 and 2 0 0 5 . The 2 0 0 5 accident cost analysis i n d i c a t e d 1 , 7 9 5 a c c i d e n t s on the network without the p r o j e c t and 1 , 8 4 4 a c c i d e n t s w i t h the p r o j e c t . I t i s not i m p r o b a b l e t h a t t h e r e would be more a c c i d e n t s w i t h the p r o j e c t t h a n without i t . While v e h i l c e m i l e s of t r a v e l are approximately t h e same ( 2 5 2 . 3 mvm without v s . 2 5 2 . 0 6 w i t h ) ; t r a v e l i s r e d i s t r i b u t e d over t h e network, i n c r e a s i n g d r a m a t i c a l l y on some road segments. As a r e s u l t , a c c i d e n t r a t e s on each r o a d segment a r e changed and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of accident types i s a f f e c t e d . F o r example, i n 2 0 0 5 , without t h e p r o j e c t the analysis indicated 1,795 f a t a l a c c i d e n t s at a c o s t o f $ 7 7 4 , 7 1 0 . This compares t o 1 , 8 4 4 f a t a l a c c i d e n t s w i t h the p r o j e c t at a c o s t of $ 7 9 5 , 7 1 9 ; a $ 2 1 , 0 0 0 difference.  93  CHAPTER SIX Conclusions  In t h e  introduction  discussion set  of  by  study two  o f e v a l u a t i o n of  techniques  nature  to t h i s  used  transportation  i n the  o f the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  the  analysis.  evaluating  This  investments;  i s s u e s were r a i s e d as c e n t r a l  analysis, process  study  has  investments:  and  2)  specifically  the  on  the  economic  the  case  study  and  presents  the  findings  political  techniques  analysis.  of  the  i n f o r m a t i o n generated  summarizes t h e methodology used t o a s s e s s the proposed in  specifying  r e c o g n i z i n g the  which uses focused  1)  t o the  used  This  investment  in  chapter presented  recent e m p i r i c a l  research  comparing economic a n a l y s i s and o t h e r e v a l u a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s .  Understanding analysis  i s presented  techniques. into  the p o l i t i c a l  For  the broader  n a t u r e o f the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  i s at  this  least  reason,  as  decision-making  as  important  a means of  Conclusions  Case The  Regarding  as u s i n g p r o p e r  tying  the  i n which analytical  technical  analysis  framework, the use of economic a n a l y s i s i n  t h i 3 process i s also discussed b r i e f l y i n t h i s  6.1.2  process  chapter.  E v a l u a t i o n Technique  Used  i n Geist  Extension  Study economic a n a l y s i s used i n t h i s study t o e v a l u a t e the G e i s t E x t e n s i o n  was  c a r r i e d out based on a f a i r l y d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the r o a d network a f f e c t e d by  the  project.  variables. future based  The  Assumptions had  t o be made r e g a r d i n g s e v e r a l  analysis  was  shown t o be  sensitive  p o p u l a t i o n growth  and  the  time  on assumptions  value  of  to both  assumed.  o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between speed  complexity  of  the  interrelationships  and  their  the  User  level  volumes,  v e h i c l e mix,  variability  c o u r s e o f a s i n g l e road segment p o i n t s t o the need f o r the d e t a i l  of  c o s t s were  and t r a f f i c  l a n d use p a t t e r n s , d i s t r i b u t i o n of t r a f f i c by time of day, The  interrelated  over taken.  etc. the  Most  of  the  data  transportation this  study  used  in  planning  could  the  system  analysis  e f f o r t s i n most c i t i e s .  tie fairly  e a s i l y into  b e i n g performed i n most urban a r e a s . of various  scenarios  is  generated  Thus, the  the  types  Systems d a t a  used i n an economic a n a l y s i s  of  routinely  approach used i n  analysis  required c o u l d be  by  currently  f o r development produced without  much a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t .  The  d a t a which are  the  economic  would be  not  always a v a i l a b l e a t  aspects  of  urban  welcomed r e g a r d i n g  vehicle  operating  r e l a t i v e t r a v e l conditions  More p r e c i s e  d a t a on  of  t r a v e l e r s to  people switch and  traffic  a detraction  with  e x i s t i n g data b e n e f i t - c o s t  from the  example, and  s t a n d a r d s o f t e n employed. makes the  trips,  (i.e.,  the  (Gomez-Ibanez and  O'Keefe, pg  6.2  R o l e of A n a l y s t s  i n the  the  extent  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  to  the  f o r or  benefits  etc.).  response to  which  accidents  However, the  of b e n e f i t - c o s t  i s superior  data  their relationship  As Gomez-Ibonez and  need  better  volumes, d e l a y ,  analysis.  use  analysis  obvious"  The  the  improve the  data  analysis  costs  (i.e. t r a f f i c  modes o r t r a v e l paths) and  volumes would a l s o  "benefit-cost  For  a p a r t i c u l a r road  this  conditions  l e v e l p e r t a i n more to  people v a l u e time f o r v a r i o u s  c o n g e s t i o n on  i s not  local  transportation.  t o speed and  how  the  need f o r  analysis.  Even  simple minimum  O'Keefe p o i n t  out,  from t h i s d a t a  more  86).  Transportation  Investment D e c i s i o n  Making  Process 6.2.1 The  Description  of the T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  decision-making  process  resources i n transportation I t was  noted that there  which  Investment D e c i s i o n  leads  f a c i l i t i e s was  i s o f t e n an o v e r l a p  95  to  the  described  Making P r o c e s s  investment breifly  of  public  i n Section  of p o l i c y debate and  project  5.1.  discussion often  i n this  process.  George W i l s o n  a f f e c t e d by what he c a l l s  mindset  that  economic social  investment  problems and  faced  economic  t h e "Great  i n transportation by a r e g i o n  development  has n o t e d  that  Transportation  p o l i t i c i a n s are Mystique"  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e can s o l v e t h e  (Wilson,  adequate  pg 43) .  In t h e p u r s u i t o f  transportation  c a n , i n some  i n s t a n c e s , be a p r e r e q u i s i t e - though no g u a r a n t e e o f s u c c e s s . factual  a n a l y s i s presented  i n the process  - the  Despite the  o f making t h e investment d e c i s i o n  p o l i t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s can, and o f t e n do, dominate t h e p r o c e s s .  Michael  Meyer quotes an i n s i g h t f u l o b s e r v a t i o n made by J.F. Coates on p u b l i c  p o l i c y decision-making  i n t h e U.S. c o n t e x t :  " D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i s d i s a g g r e g a t e d among a t l e a s t t h r e e l e v e l s o f government and numerous agencies a t each l e v e l . No one has p l e n i p o t e n t i a r y power. W h i l e no one p e r s o n , agency o r i n s t i t u t i o n i s i n charge o r has a c l e a r f i e l d o r t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a c c o m p l i s h t h i n g s , o f t e n dozens, i f not s c o r e s , of u n i t s o f government have t h e power t o i n t e r v e n e , t o slow down, o r t o s t o p a c t i o n by o t h e r s " ( i n Meyer, 1981, page 3) .  This  observation  existence and  to  leads  t o the conclusion  o f an u n d e r l y i n g a  certain  extent  that  o b j e c t i v e process their  there  are, regardless  of the  i n the s e l e c t i o n of p r o j e c t s ,  prioritization,  many  points  at  which  p o l i t i c i a n s and t h e i r l o b b y i s t s can e x e r t i n f l u e n c e .  6.2.2  The Role o f A n a l y s t s  Sugden and W i l l i a m s ,  i n t h e i r book "The P r i n c i p l e s o f P r a c t i c a l  Cost-Benefit  A n a l y s i s " d i s c u s s t h e l i m i t s o f t h e r o l e o f t h e a n a l y s t and what t h e  96  relationship  between  the  analyst  and  decision-maker  ought  to  be  in  d e t e r m i n i n g the nature of a c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s .  They  note  that  consistency should line  be  and  and  explictness  consistent  with  decision  cost-benefit  Williams,  Objectives  Williams,  234) .  is  little  feel  concealed,  strongly  both the  among  of  desirable"  ( S t e i n e r , pg 297) .  rights  t h r o u g h the p o l i t i c a l decision  that  pg  236) .  The  analysis  a l t e r n a t i v e s should  i n showing t h a t  particular, 3tated  explicit  are  and  than not  be  "At  be  in  a particular  objectives  explicit  (Sugden  system"; the  the  to  Without  consent  many i s s u e s  the  and  means,  what  241) .  97  decisions  need  conflicts that  Given that  community,  community ought to have the  for his  and  i s necessary  community. of  (Sugden  ' r i g h t ' answer.  beyond  the  this,  a d e c i s i o n maker  alternative  i s augmented  "stem from  maker a c c o u n t a b l e  the  so  and  responsible  consistent.  window-dressing  present  objectives  p o l i c y maker  d e c i s i o n maker s h o u l d  decision-making  the  between  more  If objectives  discretion  The  Williams,  r e v i s e h i s to ensure the a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e s  Some a n a l y s t s  essential characteristics:  234).  analysis  are  two  explicit  i m p l i c a t i o n of  cost-benefit  only  and  be  i n p a r t i c u l a r need t o be  pg  has  decisions  It should  logical pg  (Sugden  i n that  objectives. is a  analysis  (Sugden and  the or  his  expressed  r i g h t to Williams,  hold pg  From t h i s pursue  perspective  objectives  decision-making these  objectives  community"  Thus, but  cost-benefit  that  a r e , by v i r t u e  process, are,  social  i tmake3  (Sugden and W i l l i a m s ,  the r o l e of the analyst  a decision-making  analysis  process  whole"  (Sugden and W i l l i a m s ,  Within  this  " a s s i s t s the decision-maker to  o f t h e community's  objectives.  And by making  assent  to the  explicit  t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r more a c c o u n t a b l e  what  t o the  pg 2 4 1 ) .  i s to assist, that  "not simply  has t h e a s s e n t  a decision-maker,  o f t h e community  as a  pg 2 4 0 ) .  framework t h e r o l e o f t h e a n a l y s t  includes the f o l l o w i n g  tasks:  1. The a n a l y s t should assist i n a thorough development of a l t e r n a t i v e s e n s u r i n g t h a t " i m p o r t a n t and p r a c t i c a b l e p o l i c y o p t i o n s are not ignored" (Sugden and W i l l i a m s , pg 2 3 1 ) . F o r example, as d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r F i v e , t h e d e c i s i o n f a c e d by t h e community o f F a i r b a n k s would have b e n e f i t e d from, n o t o n l y a b r o a d e r range o f a l t e r n a t i v e s , b u t a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s on s p e c i f i c p a r t s o f t h e p r o j e c t as a n a l y z e d i n t h e case study. 2. Given that cost-benefit analysis requires "a u n i q u e , measurable and o p e r a t i o n a l s o c i a l o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n " (Waters, pg 2 5 ) , the a n a l y s t needs t o e l i c i t t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s which a r e t o d e t e r m i n e a p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n (Sugden and W i l l i a m s , pg 2 3 3 ) . While t h i s may not always be p o s s i b l e , t h e a n a l y s t needs t o a t l e a s t make e x p l i c i t what o b j e c t i v e s he i s assuming i n t h e a n a l y s i s ( i . e . , maximize s o c i a l w e l f a r e , minimize d i r e c t u s e r c o s t , etc) . The s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s i n t h e c a s e s t u d y were t o r e l i e v e congestion on e x i s t i n g a r t e r i a l s and p r o v i d e better access t o downtown, i n economic terms, t o lower t h e d i r e c t u s e r c o s t s on t h e highway network. 3. I n p r e s e n t i n g t h e a n a l y s i s , t h e a n a l y s t s h o u l d show "what judgements remain t o be made and what r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t between particular valuations o f t h e ' u n v a l u e d ' c o s t s and b e n e f i t s and p a r t i c u l a r f i n a l d e c i s i o n s " (Sugden and W i l l i a m s , pg 2 3 8 ) . T h i s might be a c c o m p l i s h e d by n o t i n g t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d i n c l u d e s o n l y t h o s e i m p a c t s which c o u l d be q u a n t i f i e d . Judgement must be made on the v a l u e o f u n q u a n t i f i e d impacts and how they are t o a f f e c t t h e f i n a l decision. I t was n o t e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s t h a t t h e s e i m p a c t s were r e l a t i v e l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t , p o s s i b l y c o n t r i b u t i n g more t o t h e c o s t o f the p r o j e c t .  98  4. At the end of the a n a l y s i s , the analyst should "ensure his findings are not misinterpreted, o r r e a d as i m p l y i n g more t h e y r e a l l y do" (Sugden a n d W i l l i a m s , p g 2 3 1 ) .  that than  1  Carrying  out these  decision-making cost-benefit  process,  analysis  6.3  Conclusions  This  study  These used  Economic impacts  drawn  evaluation analysis  demand  government  The  case  whole  can  effect  analysis.  as  a  project on  which  methods  was  ensure  set  of  shown on  an  a  more  of  the  investment  effective  and i t s e f f e c t  t h e development Assumptions  by the economic  technique a  use  of  commonly  used  volumes  shown  to provide road  useful  project  the  supply.  resource  flows  p o p u l a t i o n growth, on  of a particular  t o be  economic the  state  insights  network  underly  the existing  t o speed  useful  Conclusions  that at  of  which  investments  a given  the road  transportation  analysis.  community.  indicated  urban  was  on  regarding  the attractiveness  on  transportation  relationships  the relationship of t r a f f i c  analysis a  can  nature  of evaluating  for transportation  as determined  of  the political  analyst  complex  e t c . can affect  investment  and  i s a  economic  of time,  network,  were  demand  the  of  the importance  relationships i n an  value  There  aware  i n the process.  h a s shown  carefully. calculated  tasks,  and  from  analysis and  local  i n evaluating empirical was  studies  superior  levels.  development  of  to  Economic  to the relationship of  the  the  supply  alternative  actions.  study  utilized  t o develop  a  fairly  the project  detailed  resource  flows  99  analysis used  of the road  i n the economic  network  as  evaluation  a  of t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t . benefits, project  though  i t was noted t h a t t h i s  was a c t u a l l y  systems a n a l y s i s the p r o j e c t ,  I t was found t h a t t h e p r o j e c t ' s c o s t s exceeded i t s  a series of several  i t i s l i k e l y that  some p a r t s o f t h e p r o j e c t  i f a n a l y z e d independently.  It  that  t h e method  used  r e q u i r e d f o r t h e economic a n a l y s i s in  the evaluation  small  urban  routinely involved  smaller projects.  t h a t the  Given that the  i n d i c a t e d areas o f h i g h c o n g e s t i o n on t h e network  investments  i s felt  was l i k e l y due t o the f a c t  i n the case  Most  generated i n deriving  by  would be e f f i c i e n t  t o develop  the data  i s a p p l i c a b l e t o and a p p r o p r i a t e f o r use  of transportation  area.  study  without  investments  of the d a t a the l o c a l  required  i n o t h e r medium-sized and  f o r t h e systems  governments.  While  some of t h e economic v a l u e s used  analysis i s  there  is a  cost  i n the a n a l y s i s , t h e  v a l u e s , once e s t a b l i s h e d , can be u t i l i z e d i n s e v e r a l a n a l y s e s .  It  was a l s o  investment  was  t o be important  decision-making  cost-benefit  It  found  to consider the p o l i t i c a l  process  and  the a f f e c t s  concluded  that  while,  do g i v e n t h e d i s c r e t i o n  more p r a c t i c a l more  i n the normative  of t h e p o l i t i c a l  t o reduce the p o t e n t i a l  on k e e p i n g  Wildavsky  can  of the  have  on  analysis.  sense  s t r e s s e x p l i c i t n e s s and c o n s i s t e n c y i n the a n a l y s i s , to  this  nature  notes,  grossly  inefficient  s m a l l accomplishment"  this  expenditures where  should  difficult  It i s likely  which o c c u r ,  focusing  out o f t h e budget.  one c a n ' t  (Wildavsky, 1 9 6 8 , pg 3 8 0 ) .  100  i s often  decision-maker.  inefficiencies  " a v o i d i n g the worst  the analyst  get the best  As  i s no  T h i s might be analyst,  the  best  a c c o m p l i s h e d by e n s u r i n g  decision-maker  a l t e r n a t i v e s and  the  and  the  the  a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of  community  s e t t i n g of o b j e c t i v e s t o be  in  the  used i n the  development  the of  analysis.  FOOTNOTES CHAPTER  SIX  1. Sugden and W i l l i a m s f e e l s t r o n g l y on t h i s p o i n t n o t i n g t h a t the a n a l y s t has "the p r o f e s s i o n a l duty to s e t the r e c o r d s t r a i g h t , f o r o t h e r w i s e a n a l y s i s i n g e n e r a l i s brought i n t o d i s r e p u t e " (Sugden and W i l l i a m s , pg 231) .  101  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A d l e r , Hans (1987) "Economic Appraisal of Transport Projects: A Manual with Case Studies" p u b l i s h e d f o r The World Bank by John Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press, Baltimore A l t s h u l e r , A l a n ; Womack, James, P.; and Pucher, John, R.; Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation", Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England  (1979) "The Urban MIT P r e s s ,  Baerwald, J . E . , ed., e t . a l . (1976) "Transportation and Traffic Handbook", ITE, Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y , P r e n t i c e - H a l l  Engineering  B e r g e r and A s s o c i a t e s (1980)"Western and Arctic Alaska Transportation Appendix 1.5.2 - Working Paper on Highway V e h i c l e O p e r a t i n g C o s t s B r e a l e y , R i c h a r d and Myers, Steward (1984) (New York: McGraw H i l l Book Co.)  "Principles  of Corporate  Study"  Finance"  C u r r y , C. (1972) "Procedures for Estimating Highway User Costs, Air Pollution, and Noise Effects" NCHRP Report No. 133 (Washington D.C. Highway Research Board) DeDonnea, F.X. (1971) "The Determinants Cities - Some Disaggregate Stochastic U n i v e r s i t y o f Rotterdam Press)  of Transport Mode Choice in Dutch Models" (Rotterdam, Belgium:  DeLeuw-Cather and Co. (DCCO) (1983) "Traffic A p r i l FMATS Update Working Paper No. 4  Analysis  Zones and  (1983) "Trip Generation and Distribution", Update D r a f t Working Paper No. 5  FMATS  (1983) "Evaluation Working Paper No. 8  Draft  Criteria",  FMATS Update  (1983) " T r a v e l P a t t e r n s Update", FMATS Update Working Paper No. 10 (1985) "Revised Socio-Economic FMATS Update Working Paper No. 3A  Update  (1985) - Final  "Fairbanks Metropolitan Report", August  Transportation  . (1979) "Estimating the Time Costs E c o n o m e t r i c a 47 p. 1499-1512  102  Draft  Data Forecasts",  DeWees, D.N. (1978) "Simulations of Traffic T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research 12 p. 153-161  Congestion  of Highway  Networks",  July  Plan  in  Toronto",  Congestion",  D i c k e y , John W. (1983 - 2nd E d i t i o n ) "Metropolitan Transportation Planning" (Washington D.C.: Hempisphere P u b l i s h i n g Corp. - McGraw H i l l Book Co.) Evans, Leonard and Herman, Robert (1978) "Urban Fuel Economy: An Alternate Interpretation of Recent Computer Simulation Calculations", in T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research V o l . 12, p. 163-165, p r i n t e d i n Great B r i t a i n Gomez-Ibanez, J . , Fauth, V o l . XIV, No. 2, May,  G. (1980) "Downtown Auto Restraint p. 133-153  Policies",  Highway  and Lee, Douglas B. (1984) "Economic Evaluation of Investment Needs", i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board 940  Improved System",  and O'Keeffe, Mary, M. (1985) "The Benefits from Investment Rules: A Case Study of the Interstate Highway U.S. DOT OST U n i v e r s i t y Research Program, Washington D.C.  p.  JTEP,  21  G r i f f i t h s , W i l l i a m , G. (1967) "The Economic Evaluation of Public Investment in Transportation in Underdeveloped Countries", u n p u b l i s h e d Masters T h e s i s , UBC K a n a f a n i , A d i b (1983) "Transportation C a l i f o r n i a : McGraw H i l l Book Co.)  Demand Analysis",  (San F r a n c i s c o ,  MacFarland, W i l l i a m F. and Memmott, J e f f r e y L. (1987) "Ranking Highway Construction Projects: Comparison of Benefit-Cost Analysis with Other Techniques", p r e s e n t e d at 88th Annual Meeting T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board Man-Feng Chang and Horowitz, A l a n J . (1979) "Estimates Through Improved Traffic Flow in Seven U.S. Cities", and C o n t r o l February p. 62-65  of Fuel Savings T r a f f i c Engineering  Manheim, Marvin, L. (1984) "Fundamentals of Transportation Analysis, Volume 1: Basic Concepts", MIT P r e s s Meyer, M i c h a e l D. (1981) "Public Policy Development T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board 837, p 1  Planning:  and M i l l e r , E r i c , J . A Decision Oriented  Systems  Process",  in  (1984) "Urban Transportation Approach", McGraw H i l l Book Company  M i l l e r , T.R.; R e i n e r t , K.A.; and Whiting, B.E.; (1984) " A i t e r n a t i v e Approaches to Accident Cost Concepts: State of the Art", January, ( F e d e r a l Highway A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S a f e t y and Design D i v i s i o n ) 165P  103  Nowlan, D a v i d M. (1972) "The Anatomy of an Expressway Evaluation", P e r s p e c t i v e s i n Economics. ( C o l l i e r - M a c M i l l a n Canada, Ltd) O l s o n , Dennis 0. (1986) "A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Improving Dalton Highway", u n p u b l i s h e d - U n i v e r s i t y of A l a s k a Quade, E.S. (1975) "Analysis E l s e v i e r P u b l i s h i n g Co.,  for Public Inc.)  Decisions",  (New  Canadian  Alaska's  York: American  Quadra E n g i n e e r i n g , Inc. (1983) " S i t k a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Study" f o r A l a s k a Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and P u b l i c F a c i l i t i e s S t a t e of A l a s k a , Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and P u b l i c F a c i l i t i e s (1983) F a i r b a n k s Urban Reconnaissance G e i s t Road E x t e n s i o n E n v i r o n m e n t a l Impact Statement, S p r i n g  Final  (1985) F a i r b a n k s Urban Reconnaissance, Report, S p r i n g  S t e i n e r , P. (1974) "Public Expenditure Budgeting" The Economics of P u b l i c F i n a n c e (Brookings) S t i g l e r , George J . (1982) "Economists May/June, p 13-17  and Public  G e i s t Road E x t e n s i o n ,  i n A.S.  Policy"  Stopher, P e t e r R. and Meyburg, Arnim H. (1975) "Urban Modelling and Planning", (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Co.) Sugden, Robert Cost-Benefit  Blinder, et. a l .  i n Regulation  Transportation L e x i n g t o n Books -  and W i l l i a m , A l a n (1983) "The Principles of Analysis" (Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press)  Practical  T o b i n , Roger (1979) "Calculation of Fuel Consumption Due to Congestion in a Case-Study Metropolitan Area", i n T r a f f i c and C o n t r o l , Dec. p 590-592  Traffic Engineering  (  Waters, W.G. (1976) "Politics, Social Benefit-Cost Analysis and Public Investment Decisions", (unpublished Oxford U n i v e r s i t y : T r a n s p o r t Studies Unit) Wildavsky, A. (1964) "The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis and Program Budgeting" i n (Eds.) F. Lyden and M i l l e r P l a n n i n g Programming-Budgeting. (Markham)  Little,  (1964) "The P o l i t i c s of the Budgetary P r o c e s s " , Brown and Company)  104  (Boston:  W i l s o n , George W. ""Economic Analysis of Transportation: Year Survey", T r a n s p o r t a t i o n J o u r n a l , p 33-44 Winch, D a v i d M. (1962) "The Economics of Highway Planning" O n t a r i o : U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press)  105  A Twenty  Five  (Toronto,  Notes The  on  Appendices  following  appendices  contain  d a t a used  to develop  c o p i e s o f s p r e a d s h e e t s used t o c a l c u l a t e volumes, c o s t s , The  l a y o u t of the Appendices  Appendix  A contains data  discussed traffic  i n Chapter  volumes  are  and  Three.  spreadsheets Using  developed  for different  ratios,  and  travel  case  forecasts  for  of  individual  facility  times  related  t y p e s and  are c a l c u l a t e d  study  and  and the e v a l u a t i o n .  i s diagrammed i n F i g u r e s A - l through  look-up t a b l e s speeds  the  to the  system  system-wide  links.  A-3.  daily  Using  l a n d uses, f o r four  analysis trips  speed-flow  volume/capacity  times  of day,  for  h i g h and moderate growth s c e n a r i o s , with and without the p r o j e c t .  Appendix  B c o n t a i n s d a t a and spreadsheets r e l a t e d t o u s e r c o s t s d i s c u s s e d i n  C h a p t e r Four.  U s i n g the network e v a l u a t i o n o u t l i n e d  operating costs, link.  i n Appendix  A,  u s e r time c o s t s and a c c i d e n t c o s t s are c a l c u l a t e d  vehicle f o r each  Data f o r the h i g h growth - with p r o j e c t s c e n a r i o are p r e s e n t e d h e r e .  V e h i c l e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s are c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g cost-volume both  auto and t r u c k .  three  trip  look-up t a b l e s f o r  V a l u e of time i s e s t i m a t e d f o r f o u r times o f day f o r  purposes.  Accident  costs  are  calculated  using  the  accident-volume r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Four.  The  user  costs  spreadsheets prepare Chapter  the  are  used  presented results  Five.  in  the  development  i n Appendix  of  Project  the  C.  analysis  benefits  and  are  scenarios:  106  These  of  the  project  spreadsheets  sensitivity  calculated  texts  for  evaluation are  used  to  described  in  eight  different  Scenario  Description  1  B e n e f i t s t o e x i s t i n g u s e r s assuming h i g h value o f time  2  B e n e f i t s t o e x i s t i n g u s e r s assuming low value of  A NPV,  3  Scenario 1 p l u s accident cost savings  4  Scenario 2 p l u s a c c i d e n t cost savings  5  Scenario 1 p l u s b e n e f i t s to traffic  generated  6  Scenario 2 p l u s b e n e f i t s to traffic  generated  7  Scenario 1 p l u s accident cost savings plus b e n e f i t s to generated t r a f f i c  8  Scenario 2 p l u s accident cost savings plus b e n e f i t s to generated t r a f f i c  BC/Ratio  and  IRR  are c a l c u l a t e d f o r each of t h e s e s c e n a r i o s .  Notes on Computer Spreadsheet The  time  spreadsheet  combination  used  for  Used the  case  spreadsheed-database.  study  Four  was  databases  VP-Planner  which  were d e v e l o p e d  to  the d a t a g e n e r a t e d d u r i n g system a n a l y s i s and u s e r c o s t a n a l y s i s : 1)  High Growth - w i t h p r o j e c t  2)  High Growth - without  3)  Moderate Growth - with p r o j e c t  4)  Moderate Growth - without  Documentation on  project  project  the s t r u c t u r e of the d a t a b a s e s  A-l.  107  i s provided i n Table  is  a  handle  Figure A - l Guide to Appendix A: System Analysis  Forecast of Daily Trips High and Moderate Growth pg 115  Assignment Factors pg 116  Development of Link Volumes For Base and Forecast Years  Without Project: - High Growth-pg 116 - Moderate Growth pg 116  With Project: - High Growth-pg 118 Moderate Growth pg 120  Speed-Flow Look-up Tables pg 128  Network Evaluation: - Volume/Capacity Ratios Travel Time and Speed by Time of Day  With Project: High Growth-pg 122 - Moderate Growth  Without Project: - High Growth - Moderate Growth  User Cost Analysis Appendix  B  See Figure A-2  107A  Figure  A-2  G u i d e t o A p p e n d i x B: User Cost A n a l y s i s  System Analysis  Appendix A  Cost/Volume Look-up Tables  See Figure A-1  - Auto Fuel, pg 136 - Auto Other, pg 138 - Truck, pg  139  Vehicle Operating Costs pg 130  Value of Time by Trip Purpose  User Time Costs pg 140  Accident-Volume Relationships pg 150 Accident Costs pg 148  Project  Evaluation  Appendix  C  See Figure A-3  108  Figure  A-3  Guide to Appendix C: Evaluation  User Cost Analysis Appendix  B  See Figure A-2  Project  High Growth  Evaluation  - Existing User Costs Without Project, - Existing User Costs With Project, - Calculation of Generated Traffic Benefits, - Accident Costs With and Without the Project,  Project  Benefits Under Various Scenarios  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  - Existing User Benefits, High Value of Time, - Existing User Benefits, Low Value of Time, - #1 plus Accident Cost Savings, - #2 plus Accident Cost Savings, - #1 plus Generated Traffic Benefits, - #2 plus Generated Traffic Benefits, - #1 plus Accident Cost Savings and Generated Traffic Benefits, 8 - #1 plus Accident Cost Savings and Generated Traffic Benefits,  Discount  Rate S e n s i t i v i t y A n a l y s i s For Each Scenario: - Net Present Value, - Benefit/Cost Ratio, - Internal Rate of Return,  109  Moderate Growth  pg 152 pg 152 pg 153  pg 158 pg 158 pg 159  pg 154  pg 160  High Growth pg 154 pg 154 pg 154 pg 154 pg 154 pg 154  Moderate Growth pg pg pg pg pg pg  160 160 160 160 160 160  pg 154  pg 160  pg 154  pg 160  High Growth  Moderate Growth  pg 155 pg 156 pg 157  pg 161 pg 162 pg 163  Table A - l General Information: *,*» * * * * * * * * * . , , , , , *  ... . , _ _. Structure of Database  D a t a b a s e Name: G4.DIM Number o f D i m e n s i o n s : 3 L e n g t h o f Names: S h o r t - 8 c h a r a c t e r s . L o n g - 30 c h a r a c t e r s . D e c i m a l P l a c e D i m e n s i o n i s d i m e n s i o n 2. Number d i s p l a y : - Amounts a r e d i s p l a y e d t o 4 Decimal P l a c e s . - Rates a r e d i s p l a y e d t o 4 Decimal P l a c e s . Dimensions: ************ D i m e n s i o n 1 i s : ROAD SEGMENTS T h e s h o r t name i s : LINK T h e r e a r e 100 c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s Short 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5.  1 2 3 4 5  6.  6  7. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12. 13. 14 . 15 . 16. 17. 18 . 19 . 20. 21 . 22 . 23. 24 . 25 . 26. 27 . 28 . 29 . 30 . 31 . 32 . 33 . 34 .  7 8 9 AIR 10 11 12 13 14 15 STNB 16 17 18 19 20 21 STWB 22 23 RICH 24 25 26 27 28 29 SFEEB  Names  Long  dimension.  Names  AIRPORT WAY  TOTALS  S T E E S E NB  TOTALS  S T E E S E WB  TOTALS  RICHARDSON HWY  TOTALS  SOUTH FBKS EXPWY EB 110  TOTS  Table A - l 35. 30 36. 31 37 . 32 38. 33 39. 34 40. 35 41 . SFEWB 42 . 36 43 . 37 44. 38 45. UNIV 46. 39 47. PARKS 48 . 40 49. 41 50. G E I S T 51. 42 52 . 43 53 . 44 54. 45 55. 46 56. 47 57 . COLL 58. 48 59. 49 60. 50 61 . 51 62. I L L 63. 52 64. 53 65. 54 66. CUSH 67. 55 68. 56 69. SCUSH 70. 57 71. 58 72 . 59 73. PEG 74. 60 75. 61 76. 62 77 . 63 78. P H I L 79. 64 80. AUR 81. 65 82 . THIRD 83 . 66 84 . MIN 85. 67 86. 68 87 . 69 88 . BARN  S t r u c t u r e o f Database  (cont'd)  S FBKS EPWY WB  TOTALS  U N I V E R S I T Y AVE TOTALS PARKS HWY  TOTAL'  G E I S T RD TOTALS  C O L L E G E RD  ILLINOIS  CUSHMAN  TOTALS  ST TOTALS  ST TOTALS  SOUTH CUSHMAN  TOTALS  PEGER RD TOTALS  PHILLIPS AURORA  F I E L D RD  ST TOTALS  THIRD ST TOTALS MINNIE  ST TOTALS  BARNETTE 111  ST TOTALS  TOTS  Table A - l  89. 90. 91. 92 . 93 . 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.  70 71 72 73 74 75 GEXT 76 GILL 77 COLCON NETWORK  Structure  o f Database  GEIST  (cont'd)  EXTENSION  GEIST-ILLINOIS  TOTALS CONN  TOTS  C O L L E G E CONNECTOR NETWORK TOTALS  D i m e n s i o n 2 i s : NETWORK C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S T h e s h o r t name i s : CHAR T h e r e a r e 24 c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s d i m e n s i o n . Short 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16. 17. 18 . 19 . 20. 21 . 22 . 23. 24 .  Names  AADT TVOLAM TVOLMD TVOLPM TVOLO VCRAM VCRMD VCRPM VCRO TIMEAM TIMEMD TIMEPM TIMEO AUTO CV TTTHBW TTTHBO TTTNHB TIMEHBW TIMEHBO TIMENHB LTIMEHBW LTIMEHBO LTIMENHB  Long  Names  AVERAGE ANNUAL D A I L Y TOTAL VOLUME  VOLUME/CAPACITY  TRAVEL  RATIO  TIME PER AUTO  ADJUSTED OPERATING COMMERCIAL V E H I C L E  TIME COST  LOW  HBW  TIME COST  112  TRAFFIC  TRIP  COST-AUTO COSTS(ADJ)  HIGH  HBW  TOTAL  Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Rate Amount Amount Amount Rate Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Rate Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount  Table A - l  S t r u c t u r e o f Database Dimension The s h o r t There  3 i s : YEAR(1984-2005) name i s : YEAR  are 8 categories  Short  (cont'd)  Names  i n this  Long  Names YEAR  dimension.  1.  1986  BASE  2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1995 2005  INTERMEDIATE FORECAST P R O J E C T HORIZON YEAR  113  YEAR  APPENDIX  114  A  1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005  FORECASTS OF TOTAL DAILY TRIPS BY YEAR 1984-2005 HIGH LOW H16H 224100 224100 6RQHTH 231108 228801 RATES 238335 233601 84-95 245788 238501 .031272 253475 243505 95-05 261401 248613 .014126 269576 253B2B 278006 259153 286700 264590 295666 270140 304912 275807 314447 281592 318889 284260 323394 286954 327962 289673 332595 292418 337293 295189 342057 297986 346889 300810 3517B9 303660 356759 306538 361800 309443  115  MODERATE 6R0MTH RATES 84-95 .020978 95-2005 .009476  FORECASTED  LINK VOLUHEB WITHOUT PROJECT-HODERATE  AE8ISNHENT FACTORS LINK  NITH  WITHOUT  PROJECT  PROJECT  6R0HTH SCENARIO 1986 1995  FORECASTED LINK VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT- HI6H GROWTH SCENARIO  2005  1986  1995  2005  1  .0913  .1153  26931  32464  35674  27477  36251  41710  2  .0915 .1227  .1248  29153  29743  39242  45151  30861  35142 37202  38617  .1321  40881  31487  41542  47798  .1346  .1605 .1549  37496  45199 43624  49670 47939  38256  36189  50473 48714  56050  3 4 5  .1219  36923  58074  6  .1257  .1364  31857  38401  42199  32502  42882  49339  7  .1069  .1510  35285  42533  46740  36000  47496  54649  28718 18564  37889  43594  24492  28181  0 13261  15258  8  .0610  .1205  28147  33930  37286  9  .0574  .0779  18195  21933  24103  AIR  .0000  .0000  0  0  10  .0367  9852  11875  0 13050  11  .0287  .0422 .0269  6283  7574  8323  6410  8457  9731  12  .0224  .0579  13521  16298  17910  13795  18200  20941  0 10051  0  13  .0347  .0423  9876  11905  13082  15295  .0491  .0518  14600  16043  16303  18756  .0380  .0516  12111 12063  10076 12357  13293  14 15  12308  16238  18683  .0000  .0000  0  14541 0  15980  STN8  0  0  0  0  16 17  .0555 .0419  .0422 .0269  9852  13050  10051  13261  15258  6283  11875 7574  B323  6410  8457  9731  18 19  .0292 .0374  .0289  6761  8150  8957  6898  9101  10472  .0423  9878  11907  13085  10078  13296  15298  20  .0509  .0519  12113  14602  16046  12359  16306  18761  21 STUB  .0467  .0516  12063  14541  15980  12308  1B683  .0000  .0000  0  0  0  16238 0  22  .0685  .0473  11058  13330  14648  11282  14885  17126  23  .0594  13548 0  11467  15128  .0000  .0461 .0000  11239  RICH 24  .0551 .0324  0 17337  17407 0  .0422 .0248  0 13140  25  0  0  15525  14888 0 17061  7579  9136  10040  7733  10202  11738  14975 19333 15198  11533 14890  15217 19645  17508 22604  12080  11706 9304  15444 12276  17770 14124  0 12879  26  .0370  13627  .0478  .0484 .0625  11304  27  14594  17593  28 29  .0376 .0299  .0491 .0390  11473 9119  13830 10993  19948  SFEEB  .0000  .0000  0  0  0  0  0  0  30  .0306  .0400  9333  11250  12363  9522  12563  14455  31  .0186  5667  6832  7507  5782  7629  32 33 34  .0310  .0243 .0404  11390  .0625 .0581  12516 19355  9640 14907  12718 19668  8778 14634  .0479 .0445  9448 14611  22630  17992  13857  18283  21036  35 SFEUB  .0358 .0000  11139 0  14697 0  16910 0  36 37  .0574  .0467 .0000 .0884  .0577  .0884  22819  13582  17613 16372  10916 0  13161 0  14463 0  20656  24902  27365  21077  27808  31995  20658  24902 27507  27365  21077  27808  31995  38  .0574  .0977  30228  23282  30717  35343  UNIV  .0000  .0000  0  0  0  0  0  39  .0728  .0417  9741  11742  12904  9938  13112  0 15087  PARKS  .0000  .0000  0  40  .0473  .0370  8645  0 10421  11452  B820  11637  13390  41 GEIST  .0785 .0000  .0837 .0000  19552 0  23569 0  25900 0  19949 0  26319 0  30282 0  0  116 V  0  0  0  42 43 44 45 46 47 COLL 4B 49 50 51 ILL 52 53 54 CUSH 55 56 SCUSH 57 5B 59 PEB 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66 HIN 67 68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 BEIT 76 6ILL 77 COLCON  NETWORK  .0329 .0895 .0338 .1145 .0522 .1033 .0B46 .1,252 .0642 .1011 .0353 .0678 .0000 .0000 .0739 .0648 .0682 .0648 .0804 .0973 .08?? .1075 .0000 .0000 .0448 .0284 .0553 .0757 .0389 .0658 .0000 .0000 .0823 .0843 .0500 .0701 .0000 .0000 .0366 .0722 .0327 .0815 .0759 .0327 .0000 .0000 .0187 .0299 .0011 .0443 .0186 .0271 .0158 .0301 .0000 .0000 .0084 .0454 .0000 .0000 .0366 .0463 .0000 .0000 .0492 .0463 .0000 .0000 .0519 .0557 .0463 .0516 .0496 .0506 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0956 .0701 .0000 .0848 .0000 .0420 .0000 .0410 .0000 .0459 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0428 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0489 .0000 .0000 .0000 0.0000  20897 26740 24126 29253 23624 15833 0 15129 1512? 22719 25101 0 6635 17693 15380 0 19703 163B6 0 8547 7640 7640 0 6987 10354 6333 7037 0 10605 0 10807 0 10807 0 13018 12063 11812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  25190 32233 29083 35263 28477 1908& 0 1B237 18237 27386 30258 0 79?B 21327 18540 0 23751 19752 0 10303 9210 9210 0 8422 12481 7634 8482 0 12784 0 13027 0 13027 0 15693 14541 14238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  27682 35421 31959 38750 31293 20973 0 20041 20041 30095 33251 0 B789 23437 20374 0 26100 21706 0 11322 10120 10120 0 9255 13716 8389 9321 0 14049 0 14315 0 14315 0 17245 15980 15647 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  117  21321 28130 32366 27282 35994 41415 24615 32476 37367 29846 39377 45307 24102 317?9 36588 16154 21312 24522 0 0 0 15436 20365 23432 15436 20365 23432 23179 30582 35187 25610 33789 38877 0 0 0 6769 8931 10276 18051 23816 27402 15692 20703 23821 0 0 0 20102 26522 30516 16718 22057 25378 0 0 0 8720 11505 13237 11833 7795 10284 7795 10284 11833 0 0 0 7128 9405 10821 10564 13938 16036 6461 8525 9809 7179 9472 10899 0 0 0 10820 14276 16426 0 0 0 11026 14547 16737 0 0 0 11026 14547 16737 0 0 0 13282 17523 20162 12308 16238 18683 12051 15900 18294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1437145 1653566  LINK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  e  9 AIR 10 11 12 13 14 IS STNB 16 17 18 19 20 21 STNB 22 23 RICH 24 25 26 27 28 29 SFEEB 30 31 32 33 34 35 SFEHB 36 37 38 UNIV 39 PARKS 40 41  HIGH 6R0HTH SCENARIO FORECASTED LINK VOLUMES- MITH PROJECT 1986-2005 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 28336 27960.87 28835.34 28866.76 29769.53 27357.96 30673 30267.45 31214.07 31248.07 32225.3229612.47 32472 32041.75 33043.85 33079.85 34114.39 31346.7 39452 38930.2 40147.74 40191.48 41448.43 38079.62 38077 37573.39 38748.49 38790.71 40003.8436753.44 33519 33075.02 34109.44 34146.6 35214.49 32356.64 37125 36634.05 37779.78 37820.94 39003.75 35835.32 29616 29223.75 30137.72 30170.56 31114.1 28592.33 19144 18891.07 19481.8B 19503.11 20113.0418492.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 10365 10228.31 10548.2 10559.69 10889.94 10025.77 6611 6523.158 6727.17 6734.499 6945.1126404.277 14226 14037.84 14476.87 14492.64 14945.B8 13749.29 10391 10253.36 10574.03 10585.55 10916.61 10050.26 12743 12574.56 12967.83 12981.96 133B7.9512319.05 12692 12524.46 12916.17 12930.24 13334.62 12270.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 10365 10228.31 10548.2 10559.69 10889.94 10025.77 6611 6523.158 6727.17 6734.499 6945.112 6404.277 7114 7019.962 7239.511 7247.398 7474.0526889.864 10393 10255.45 10576.19 10587.71 10918.83 10052.3 12745 12576.65 12969.98 12984.11 13390.1812321.09 12692 12524.46 12916.17 12930.24 13334.62 12270.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 11635 11480.76 11839.82 11852.72 12223.4 11221.54 11825 11668.63 12033.56 12046.67 12423.42 11405.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 13551 13372 13790.21 13805.23 14236.97 13077.18 7974 7868.869 8114.967 8123.809 8377.8717698.303 11894 11736.74 12103.8 12116.99 12495.93 11478.84 15356 15152.65 15626.55 15643.58 16132.8114817.63 12072 11911.91 12284.46 12297.84 12682.44 11650.06 9595 9468.219 9764.336 9774.975 100B0.689261.542 0 0 0 0 0 0 9820 9689.815 9992.863 10003.75 10316.61 9478.135 5963 5884.134 6068.16 6074.771 6264.753 5758.38 9941 9809.81 10116.61 10127.63 10444.36 9595.421 15374 15170.17 15644.62 15661.66 16151.46 14834.75 14291 14101.6 14542.63 14558.47 15013.77 13790.31 11488 11335.59 11690.11 11702.84 12068.83 11086.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 21736 21448.14 22118.93 22143.03 22835.53 20992.28 21736 21448.14 22118.93 22143.03 22835.53 20992.28 24010 23692.11 24433.08 24459.7 25224.65 23185.58 0 0 0 0 0 0 10249 10113.5 10429.8 10441.17 10767.7 9885.158 0 0 0 0 0 0 9096 8975.866 9256.585 9266.67 9556.474 8773.205 20572 20300.07 20934.95 20957.76 21613.19 19841.73 118  1995 36251 39242 41542 50473 48714 42882 47496 37889 24492 0 13261 8457 18200 13293 16303 1623B 0 13261 8457 9101 13296 16306 16238 0 14885 15128 0 17337 10202 15217 19645 15444 12276 0 12563 7629 12718 19668 18283 14697 0 27808 27808 30717 0 13112 0 11637 26319  2005 41710 45151 47798 58074 56050 49339 54649 43594 28181 0 15258 9731 20941 15295 18758 18683 0 15258 9731 10472 15298 18761 18683 0 17126 17407 0 19948 11738 17508 22604 17770 14124 0 14455 B778 14634 22630 21036 16910 0 31995 31995 35343 0 15087 0 13390 30282  BE 1ST 42 43 44 45 46 47 COLL 48 49  §8  51 ILL 52 53 54 CUSH 55 56 SCUSH 57 58 59 PEG 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66 HIN 67 68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 6EXT 76 6ILL 77 COLCON  NETWORK  0 0 0 0 0 0 21988 21696.55 22375.1 22399.48 23100 21235.07 28135 27762.56 26630.83 2B662.03 29558.4 27164.13 25385 25048.93 25832.33 25860.48 26669.23 24511.77 30779 30371.83 31321.7 31355.83 32336.44 29714.4B 24856 24527.08 25294.16 25321.72 26113.62 24001.7 16659 1643B.36 16952.47 16970.94 17501.68 16095.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 15918 15707.77 16199.02 16216.67 16723.83 15367.31 15918 13707.77 16199.02 16216.67 16723.83 15367.31  urn mi-.n miiM m\M mhii  0 28130 35994 32476 39377 31799 21312 0 20365 20363  0 32366 41415 37367 45307 36588 24522 0 23432 23432  m  im  26411 26061.32 26876.39 26905.67 27747.11 25487.1 33789 38877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6981 6B88.455 7103.891 7111.631 7334.0386747.126 10276 8931 18616 1B369.21 18943.71 18964.35 19557.44 17968.67 27402 23816 16183 15968.69 16468.11 16486.05 17001.63 15622.35 20703 23821 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20731 20456.62 21096.4 21119.39 21779.87 2000B.95 26522 30516 17241 17012.4 17544.46 17563.57 18112.85 16642.49 22057 2537B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8993 8873.583 9151.103 9161.074 9447.575 8673.232 11505 13237 8039 7932.161 8180.238 8189.151 8445.2567753.065 10284 11633 8039 7932.161 8180.238 8189.151 8445.2567753.065 10284 11633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7351 7253.752 7480.613 7488.763 7722.965 7097.074 9405 10821 10894 10750.16 11086.38 11098.45 11445.54 10514.54 16036 13938 6664 6575.344 6780.987 67B8.375 7000.6736433.983 9B09 8525 7305.937 7404 10899 9472 7534.43 7542.639 7778.526 7148.081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11159 11011.09 11355.46 11367.83 11723.35 10762.48 14276 16426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11370 11219.83 11570.73 11583.34 11945.59 10966.51 14547 16737 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16737 11370 11219.83 11570.73 11583.34 11945.59 10966.51 14547 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13697 13515.98 13938.7 13953.88 14390.27 13225.02 17523 20162 12692 12524.46 12916.17 12930.24 13334.62 12255.88 18683 16238 12428 12263.54 12647.08 12660.86 13056.81 12000.85 18294 15900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26578.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 17228.26 17767.07 18322.64 18895.65 19486.55 0 0 0 0 23574.42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11664.27 0 0 11403.01 0 0 0 10721.92 11057.24 0 0 0 0 0 11986.3 12361.15 12747.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11910.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12010.87 12386.46 12148.92 13173.31 13585.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1437145 1653566 0 0 0  119  LINK 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 AIR 10 11 12 13 14 15 STNB 16 17 IB 19 20 21 STNB 22 23 RICH 24 25 26 27 28 29 SFEEB 30 31 32 33 34 35 SFEWB 36 37 38 UNIV 39 PARKS 40 41 GEIST 42 43  MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO FORECASTED LINK VOLUMES- WITH PROJECT 1986-2005 1989 1986 1987 1988 1990 1991 26839 26584 27142 20965 26287 24533 29071 28796 22695 2B474 29400 26574 30789 30497 31137 24025 30156 28144 37457 34239 29190 36687 37102 37880 28173 35401 36144 35801 36552 33038 31789 31488 32148 24800 31136 29058 3 5234 27468 34900 35633 32207 34310 28061 27795 28378 21912 27484 25650 18059 17888 14165 17688 18263 16507 0 0 0 0 0 0 7669 9474 9673 9581 9782 8842 4891 5961 6086 6029 6155 5564 10526 13086 13361 13234 13512 12213 7688 9498 9697 9605 9807 8864 9428 11944 11699 11831 12079 10918 11896 9391 11651 11783 12030 10874 0 0 0 0 0 0 7669 9474 9673 9581 9782 8842 4891 5961 6029 6086 6155 5564 S264 6567 6432 6505 6642 6003 7690 9500 9699 9607 9809 8866 9430 11701 11946 11833 12081 10920 9391 11651 11896 11783 12030 10874 0 0 0 0 0 0 8608 10885 11114 11008 11239 10159 8749 11063 11295 11188 11423 10325 0 0 0 0 0 0 10026 12622 12887 117B0 12765 13033 5900 7405 7489 7560 7646 6911 8800 11072 11304 11197 11432 10333 11362 14311 14611 14473 14776 13356 8932 11238 11474 11365 11604 10488 7099 8921 9108 9022 9211 8326 0 0 0 0 0 0 7265 9131 9323 9235 9428 8522 5639 4412 5523 5585 5703 5154 7355 9439 9245 9350 9546 8628 11375 14327 14628 13371 14489 14793 10573 13314 13594 13465 13747 12426 8499 10692 10916 10813 11039 9978 0 0 0 0 0 0 160B2 20112 20534 20340 20766 18770 16082 20112 20534 20340 20766 18770 17764 22240 22491 22963 22706 20756 0 0 0 0 0 0 7583 9589 9790 9697 9901 8949 0 0 0 0 0 0 6730 8510 8689 8606 8787 7942 15221 19247 19651 19465 19873 17963 0 0 0 0 0 0 16268 20348 20775 20578 21009 18990 20817 26099 26647 26394 26948 24357 12 0  1995 25705 25777 34539 37916 34324 35409 30097 17165 16166 0 10346 8074 6294 9782 13821 10710 0 15628 11809 8213 10538 14337 13136 0 19303 16724 0 11882 6992 10429 13465 10585 8414 0 8610 5229 8717 13480 12531 10073 0 16157 16253 16157 0 20493 0 13312 22099 0 9270 9523  2005 28248 28326 37977 41666 37719 38911 33074 18863 17765 0 11369 8873 6917 10749 15188 11769 0 17174 12977 9026 11581 15755 14436 0 21212 18378 0 13058 7684 11461 14796 11632 9246 0 9462 5746 9579 14814 13770 11069 0 17755 17861 17755 0 22520 0 14629 24284 0 10186 10465  44 45 46 47 COU 48 49 SO SI ILL 32 S3 34 CUSH 33 54  SCUSH 57 58 59 PEE 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66 HIN 67 68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 6EIT 76 6ILL 77  COLCON NETWORK  18782 24291 21956 23526 24020 23792 22773 28573 29172 28B96 29502 26666 18391 23031 23515 23292 23780 21494 12326 15362 15685 15536 15862 14337 0 0 0 0 0 0 11778 14781 15091 15262 14948 13795 U77B 14781 15091 15262 14948 13795 176B6 22232 22719 22504 22976 20767 19541 24598 25114 24876 25398 22956 0 0 0 0 0 0 5165 6419 6554 6628 5991 6492 13773 17867 17305 17668 17500 16150 11973 15029 15344 15199 15517 14026 0 0 0 0 0 0 15338 192B4 19688 1 9 9 1 1 19502 17997 12756 16018 16354 16539 16199 14949 0 0 0 0 0 0 6653 B413 8590 8687 8508 7852 5948 7521 7678 7606 7765 7019 5948 7521 7678 7765 7606 7019 0 0 0 0 0 0 5439 6822 6965 6899 7043 6366 8061 10137 10349 10251 10466 9460 4930 6178 6308 6379 5766 6248 547B 6871 7015 6949 7095 6413 0 0 0 0 0 0 8256 10440 10659 10779 10558 9743 0 0 0 0 0 0 8413 10638 10861 1075B 10984 9928 0 0 0 0 0 0 8413 10638 10861 10984 10758 9928 0 0 0 0 0 0 10134 12703 12970 12847 11855 13116 9391 11763 12010 11896 10978 12146 9195 11516 11757 10747 11646 11890 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24776 0 16717 0 1706B 18165 17426 17792 0 0 0 0 21976 0 0 0 0 10873 0 0 0 0 10411 10630 0 10197 0 0 0 11400 11883 11639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11102.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11654.78 11899.3 12148.92 12403.76 12663.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  121  14705 23813 18083 9941 0 20820 19208 22649 25311 0 12612 15580 10948 0 23183 14079 0 20329 22954 21379 0 5271 314 5250 4450 0 2356 0 10294 0 13842 0 14611 13031 13971 0 26922 19738 23879 11815 11550 12912 0 12064 0 13760 0 0  16159 26168 19872 10924 0 22879 21108 248B9 27814 0 13859 17121 12031 0 25476 15471 0 22339 25224 23493 0 5793 345 5769 4890 0 2589 0 11312 0 15211 0 16056 14320 15352 0 29584 21690 26240 12983 12692 14189 0 13257 0 15121 0 0  SE1ST EVALUATION TINE OF DAT FACTOR HOURS IN EACH TINE OF DAY LINK AADT TODFAfl TODFND TODFFH TODFO HRSAH HRSHD HRSPH HRSO 1 25796 .03 .061 .079 .0245 2 8 2 2 27531 .03 .061 .079 .0245 2 8 2 3 28865 .03 .061 .079 .0245 2 8 2 4 34046 .03 .079 .061 .0245 2 8 2 S 33026 .03 .079 .061 .0245 2 B 2 6 29643 .03 .079 .061 .0245 2 8 2 7 32319 .03 .079 .061 .0245 2 8 2 8 26746 .03 .079 .061 .0245 2 8 2 9 18975 .03 .079 .061 .0245 2 8 2 AIR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12459 10 .036 .055 .079 .0275 2 8 2 .036 11 9673 .055 .079 .0275 2 8 2 12 .036 15325 .055 .079 .0275 2 8 2 1J .§§§ mn :§§7§ * e \ 14 14224 .036 .055 .079 .0275 2 8 1 15 .036 14186 .055 .079 .0275 2 8 I STNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 1) 9 16 12459 .036 .055 .079 .0275 ;2 8 2 17 9673 .036 .055 .079 .0275 ;2 8 2 18 10046 .036 .055 .079 .0275 ;2 8 2 19 12480 .036 .055 .079 .0275 ;2 8 2 20 14226 .036 .055 .079 .0275 ;I 8 ;2 21 14186 .036 .055 .079 .0275 :I 8 ;I STNB 0 0 0 0 0 (> 0 () 22 8635 .036 .055 .079 .0275 ;i 8 ;I 23 8776 .036 .055 .079 .0275 ;! 8 ;I RICH 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 () 24 11249 .03 .0789 .061 .0245 ;! B ;! 25 7110 .03 .0789 .061 .0245 ;' 8 ;[ 26 10019 .03 .061 .0789 B ;! .0245 2' 27 12588 .03 .061 .0789 .0245 ;' B ;! 28 10151 .03 .061 .0789 .0245 ;' 8 ;> 29 8313 .03 .0789 .061 .0245 5> B ; SFEEB 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 c 30 8479 .03 .061 .0789 8 : .0245 2 31 5617 .03 .0789 .061 .0245 2 8 2 32 8570 .03 .061 .0789 .0245 2 8 2 33 12601 .03 .061 .0789 .0245 2 B 2 34 11798 .03 .061 .0789 .0245 2 8 2 35 9717 .03 .061 .0789 .0245 2 8 2 SFEHB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 20898 .034 .0605 .0823 .0236 2 8 2 37 20898 .034 .0605 .0823 .0236 2 8 2 38 22586 .034 .0605 .0823 .0236 2 8 2 UNIV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 7606 .036 .0545 .079 .0275 2 8 2 PARKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 6751 .0342 .0605 .0823 .0236 2 B 2 41 15268 .0342 .0605 .0823 .0236 2 8 2 GEIST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 21085 .0268 .0617 .0841 .0237 2 8 2 43 25647 .0268 .0617 .0841 .0237 2 8 2 44 23606 .0268 .0617 .0841 .0237 2 8 2  M  :W  122  12  12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12  0 12 12 12  1? 12 12  0 12 12 12 12 12 12  0 12 12  0 12 12 12 12 12 12  0 12 12 12 12 12 12  0 12 12 12  0 12  0 12 12  0 12 12 12  31 ILL 32 33 34 CUSH 55 56 SCUSH 37 38 59 PEG 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66 HIN 67 68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 6EIT 76 6ILL 77 C0LC0N  NETWORK  21984 0 7564 16199 14393 0 17769 15178 0 6674 5966 5966 0 6647 9277 6137 6686 0 82B1 0 8438 0 8438 0 12549 11803 11607 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  .0238 0 .0238 .0238 .0238 0 .0238 .0238 0 .0342 .0342 .0342 0 .0342 .0342 .0342 .0342 0 .0268 0 .0268 0 .0268 0 .0238 .0238 .0238 0 .0268 .0268 .0268 .0268 .0268 .0268 0 .0268 0 .0268 0 0  .0705 0 .0705 .0705 .0705 0 .0705 .0705 0 .0669 .0669 .0669 0 .0669 .0669 .0669 .0669 0 .0617 0 .0617 0 .0617 0 .0705 .0705 .0705 0 .0617 .0617 .0617 .0617 .0617 .0617 0 .0617 0 .0617 0 0  .0798 0 .0798 .0798 .0798 0 .0798 .0798 0 .0819 .0819 .0819 0 .0819 .0819 .0819 .0819 0 .0841 0 .0841 0 .0841 0 .0798 .0798 .0798 0 .0841 .0841 .0841 .0841 .0841 .0841 0 .0841 0 .0841 0 0  .0191 0 .0191 .0191 .0191 0 .0191 .0191 0 .0194 .0194 .0194 0 .0194 .0194 .0194 .0194 0 .0237 0 .0237 0 .0237 0 .0191 .0191 .0191 0 .0237 .0237 .0237 .0237 .0237 .0237 0 .0237 0 .0237 0 0  123  6 0 8 8 8 0 8 8 0 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 8 8 0 B 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 0 8 0 0  2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0  12 0 12 12 12 0 12 12 . 0 12 12 12 0 12 12 12 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 12 12 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 0 12 0 12 0 0  TOTAL VOLUME ON LINK TVDLAR TVOLHD TVOLPM TVOLO 3600 6699 11119 1367 11154 3611 6720 1371 14957 1839 4843 9011 16399 5310 9880 2016 4809 8948 1626 14652 4959 9228 1883 15318 7848 13026 4216 1602 914 7432 2406 4478 859 6990 2263 4211 0 0 0 0 3028 4037 1450 661 2360 515 3146 1130 2454 681 1840 402 1371 2863 3817 625 4043 5390 1936 882 1499 3130 4174 683 0 0 0 0 2164 4562 6082 995 4604 1653 3453 753 2407 3209 1152 525 3083 1476 673 4111 5589 2007 4192 915 1 8 4 1 3846 5128 639 0 0 0 0 7529 2704 5647 1232 1067 6523 2342 4892 0 0 0 0 3097 1662 632 5141 3024 978 1822 372 1459 2719 4513 555 5827 1884 3511 716 4583 1482 2761 563 1177 3640 2193 448 0 0 0 0 1203 2242 458 3722 279 733 1366 2268 1219 2270 463 3768 5827 3511 1884 716 1753 3265 666 5420 1410 2628 536 4362 0 0 0 0 4057 974 2358 6933 4084 981 6979 2373 4057 974 2358 6933 0 0 0 0 2869 5993 1308 7918 0 0 0 0 3341 807 5710 1942 5548 1340 9482 3225 0 0 0 0 441 4059 1383 2338 1419 2400 4165 452 2193 3708 699 6435  VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO VCRAH VCRHD VCRPH .4170 .5401 .2051 3333 .2057 .4183 .5417 3333 .2759 .5609 .7265 3333 .6150 .3025 .7965 3333 .5570 .7214 3333 .273? .5745 .7440 .2825 3333 .7249 .5597 .2753 2909 .3194 .4136 2909 .1571 .3004 .3890 .1477 2909 0 0 0 0 .0944 .1442 .2071 3500 .2622 .3766 .1716 1500 .2045 .1338 .2937 1500 .4569 .2082 .3181 1500 .2940 .4492 1500 .6452 .3478 1500 .2277 .4996 0 0 0 0 3500 .1422 .2172 .3120 .5510 1500 .2511 .3836 .3841 .1750 .2674 1500 .4921 1500 .2242 .3426 .304? .4658 .6690 1500 .6138 1500 .2797 .4273 0 0 0 0 .2567 .5633 2400 .3922 2100 .2541 .3883 .5577 0 0 0 0 2000 .1580 .4156 .3213 1000 .185? .3780 .4889 .2774 .5641 1000 .7296 .3582 1000 .7264 .9421 .2864 2000 .140? .3705 2000 .2943 .111? .2275 0 0 0 0 .2288 .6017 1000 .4652 . 1394 .3667 1000 .2835 .2317 .6093 1000 .4710 1000 .3582 .7284 .9421 1000 .3332 .8763 .6775 .2554 .6716 1050 .5192 0 0 0 0 .4420 2667 .1826 .3249 .3271 '2667 .1838 .4450 2667 .1826 .4420 .3249 0 0 0 0 1667 .3922 .8607 .5938 0 0 0 0 .1380 .2442 ".3322 2923 .2303 .5543 2909 .4074 0 0 0 0 .0826 .1902 .2593 2667 3091 .0732 .1684 .2296 .4111 .1310 .3016 2667 124  SPEED IN HPH SPDAH SPDfID SPDPH 27.00 28.22 27.40 .1675 27.40 27.00 .1680 28.22 25.40 26.64 .2253 28.01 25.00 26.22 .2470 27.81 28.40 .2237 29.63 31.01 28.40 .2307 29.63 31.01 28.40 .2248 31.01 29.63 27.40 .1263 28.43 27.61 27.60 .1206 28.64 27.81 0 0 0 0 43.07 41.75 .0721 43.75 39.83 41.10 42.40 .1311 41.10 .1022 43.07 41.75 34.30 35.64 35.22 .1590 34.60 33.60 .2246 35.53 .1739 35.84 35.22 34.30 0 0 0 0 43.07 41.75 40.46 .1086 41.10 39.83 .1918 37.46 .1337 41.10 39.83 42.40 34.30 35.84 35.22 .1713 33.40 .2329 34.30 35.22 34.60 33.60 .2137 35.53 0 0 0 0 41.10 39.83 37.46 .1961 .1941 41.10 39.83 37.46 0 0 0 0 .1290 42.40 40.46 39.21 .1518 42.40 39.83 38.60 41.10 .2266 37.46 35.60 .2925 39.83 33.21 35.60 43.07 .1150 41.10 39.83 .0914 43.07 41.10 41.75 0 0 0 0 .1869 41.75 38.60 36.83 43.07 41.10 39.83 .1139 38.60 36.83 .1892 41.75 33.21 .2925 39.83 35.60 40.46 36.21 33.83 .2721 38.00 36.21 .2085 41.10 0 0 0 0 31.43 .1268 30.81 30.40 31.43 30.81 30.40 .1276 30.40 .1268 31.43 30.81 0 0 0 0 39.83 .2996 44.91 43.45 0 0 0 0 31.64 30.81 .0953 31.22 .1589 31.22 30.40 29.63 0 0 0 0 23.87 23.44 23.02 .0731 23.87 23.44 23.23 .0647 .1159 31.64 30.81 30.40  1069 0 S32 65B 462 0 978 594 0 1232 1392 1296 0 320 20 318 271 0 112 0 489 0 658 0 617 550 590 0 1279 938 1134 562 549 613 0 574 0 0 0 0  12662 0 6304 7796 5471 0 11587 7044 0 9643 10893 10141 0 2500 153 2487 2117 0 1035 0 4506 0 6059 0 7313 6519 6990 0 11776 8635 10447 5176 5059 5647 0 5282 0 0 0 0  3583 0 1784 2206 1548 0 3279 1993 0 2951 3334 3104 0 765 47 761 648 0 353 0 1535 0 2065 0 2069 1845 1978 0 4013 2942 3560 1764 1724 1924 0 1800 0 0 0 0  3146 2833 0 0 2562 2167 3168 2250 2223 1950 0 0 4709 1455 2862 1455 0 0 4195 1167 4738 1417 4411 1385 0 0 1087 1333 67 1083 1082 1545 921 1545 0 0 596 1417 0 0 2596 1385 0 0 3491 1385 0 0 2972 - 3400 2649 2550 2841 1700 0 0 6785 4250 4975 4250 6019 2545 2982 2833 2915 2833 3254 2833 0 0 3043 2833 0 0 0 2833 0 0 0 0  .1886 0 .1228 .1462 .1184 0 .3361 .2043 0 .5280 .4912 .4679 0 .1199 .0090 .1029 .0876 0 .0397 0 .1766 0 .2375 0 .0908 .1079 .1735 0 .1504 .1103 .2229 .0992 .0969 .1082 0 .1012 0 .0000 0 0  .5587 0 .3637 .4331 .3507 0 .9955 .6051 0 1.0329 .9610 .9152 0 .2344 .0177 .2012 .1713 0 .0913 0 .4067 0 .5468 0 .2688 .3196 .5140 0 .3464 .2540 .5131 .2284 .2232 .2492 0 .2331 0 .0000 0 0  125  .6324 0 .4116 .4903 .3970 0 1.1268 .6850 0 1.2645 1.1764 1.1204 0 .2870 .0216 .2464 .2097 0 .1245 0 .5543 0 .7453 0 .3043 .3617 .5818 0 .4721 .3462 .6994 .3113 .3042 .3396 0 .3177 0 .0000 0 0  .1514 0 .0985 .1173 .0950 0 .2697 .1639 0 .2995 .2787 .2654 0 .0680 .0051 .0584 .0497 0 .0351 0 .1562 0 .2100 0 .0728 .0866 .1392 0 .1330 .0976 .1971 .0877 .0857 .0957 0 .0895 0 .0000 0 0  28.43 0 21.66 21.66 21.66 0 20.81 21.23 0 30.00 30.20 30.20 0 31.64 32.00 28.64 28.85 0 32.00 0 28.43 0 28.22 0 21.87 21.66 21.44 0 28.43 31.64 31.22 31.85 23. B7 23.65 0 28.64 0 29.00 0 0  26.64 0 20.61 20.40 20.61 0 12.60 18.20 0 15.00 17.60 20.65 0 31.22 32.00 28.22 28.43 0 31.85 0 27.40 0 27.00 0 21.02 20.81 20.00 0 27.81 31.01 30.00 31.22 23.23 23.23 0 28.22 0 29.00 0 0  26.22 0 20.40 20.20 20.61 0 12.00 17.07 0 8.00 12.00 12.00 0 31.01 32.00 28.22 28.22 0 31.64 0 26.64 0 25.40 0 20.81 20.61 19.42 0 27.20 30. Bl 28.81 30.81 22.81 22.81 0 27.81 0 29.00 0 0  TRAVEL TINE IN MINUTES ITANCE TI MEAN TIHEND TIHEPH .3614 .17 .3722 .3778 .14 .2976 .3066 .3111 .5354 .25 .5631 .5906 .8199 .38 .8696 .9120 .5997 .31 .6276 .6549 .9 1.7412 1.8222 1.9014 .28 .5417 .5669 .5915 .78 1.6461 1.6829 1.7079 .76 1.5921 1.6398 1.6519 0 0 0 0 .62 .8502 .8636 .8911 .68 .9622 .9928 1.0244 .28 .4024 .3900 .4088 .21 .3516 .3578 .3673 .5 .8444 .8670 .8928 .35 .5859 .5963 .6122 0 0 0 0 .76 1.0586 1.0923 1.1271 .66 .9636 .9943 1.0571 .28 .3962 .4088 .4218 .21 .3516 .3578 .3673 .52 .8860 .9096 .9341 .5911 .6069 .35 .6249 0 0 0 0 .97 1.4162 1.4613 1.5536 1.04 1.5184 1.5667 1.6657 0 0 0 0 .5 .7075 .7415 .7651 .83 1.1744 1.2504 1.2902 1.13 1.6498 1.8098 1.9045 .99 1.4914 1.6685 1.7886 1.11 1.5462 1.6206 1.6722 .5 .6965 .7186 .7300 0 0 0 0 .48 .6899 .7461 .7819 .83 1.1562 1.2118 1.2504 1.13 1.6241 1.7565 1.840B .99 1.4914 1.6685 1.7886 1.11 1.6462 1.8393 1.9684 .33 .4818 .5211 .5468 0 0 0 0 .21 .4009 .4090 .4145 .64 1.2218 1.2464 1.2631 .44 .8400 .8569 .8684 0 0 0 0 .43 .5745 .5937 .6478 0 0 0 0 1.04 1.9723 1.9987 2.0254 .51 .9801 1.0065 1.0326 0 0 0 0 .88 2.2123 2.2527 2.2938 .17 2.1871 2.2271 2.2473 1.1 2.0861 2.1423 2.1710  TIKEO .3588 .2954 .5315 .8079 .5958 1.7297 .5381 1.6340 1.5921 0 .8502 .9472 .3900 .3485 .8370 .5808 0 1.0586 .9339 .3900 .3485 .8705 .5859 0 1.3725 1.4716 0 .6965 1.1744 1.6241 1.4454 1.5462 .6857 0 .6792 1.1562 1.5989 1.4454 1.6206 .4743 ,o .3983 1.2137 .8344 0 .5668 0 1.9593 .9736 0 2.2123 2.1871 2.0861  I  .09 0 .06 .26 .12 0 .61 .41 0  .1899 0 .2216 .7203 .3325 0 1.7586 1.1587 0  .2027 0 .2329 .7646 .3494 0 2.9048 1.3313 0  .2060 0 .2353 .7723 .3494 0 3.0500 1.4414  l  1.9868  2.9055  5.0000  .1899 0 .2194 .7203 .3292 0 1.7412 1.1472 0  0 .11 1,7200 3. MOO MSOO I,fti3§ .15 1.2914 i.tisf urn A  ,36  .691?  .41 .7687 .7687 .76B7 .6 1.2569 1.2756 1.2756 .3327 .3377 .16 .3402 0 0 0 0 .66 1.2375 1.2434 1.2517 0 0 0 0 .17 .3588 .3722 .3829 0 0 0 0 .57 1.2118 1.2667 1.3465 0 0 0 0 .15 .4115 .4282 .4324 .23 .6631 .6372 .6697 .17 .4757 .5100 .5253 0 0 0 0 1.13 2.3847 2.4381 2.4926 .81 1.5361 1.5671 1.5775 .45 .9000 .8648 .9373 1.26 2.3737 2.4215 2.4539 .75 1.8655 1.9373 1.9727 . .75 1.9026 1.9373 1.9727 0 0 0 0 .9 1.8853 1.9134 1.9418 0 0 0 0 .9 1.8621 1.8621 1.8621 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1.9346 g  .mi .7687 1.2476 .3310 0 1.2375 0 .3588 0 1.2118 0 .4115 .6309 .4710 0 2.3671 1.5260 .8591 2.3737 1.6855 1.8855 0 1.8715 0 1.8621 0 0  127  SPEED-FLOW LOOKUP TABLES  0 .05 .1 .15 .2 .25 .3 .35 .4 .45 .5 .55 .6 .63 .7 .75 .8 .85 .9 .95 1  1/114 1/2 1/3 2,3,4/1 2,3,4/2 2,3,4/3 2,3,4/4 44.00 37.00 47.00 22.00 24.00 29.00 32.00 36.80 43.75 46.77 21.87 23.87 28.85 31.85 43.07 36.48 46.46 21.66 28.64 31.64 23.65 36.16 42.40 46.14 21.44 23.44 28.43 31.43 35.84 41.75 45.83 21.23 28.22 31.22 23.23 35.53 41.10 45.52 21.02 23.02 28.01 31.01 35.22 40.46 45.21 20.81 30.81 22.81 27.81 34.91 39.83 44.91 20.61 27.60 30.60 22.61 34.60 39.21 44.60 20.40 30.40 22.40 27.40 34.30 38.60 44.30 20.20 27.20 30.20 22.20 34.00 38.00 44.00 20.00 30.00 22.00 27.00 37.46 33.81 43.45 19.42 26.64 29.63 21.42 33.60 36.83 42.83 18.20 29.22 26.22 20.51 36.21 33.40 17.07 42.21 25.81 28.81 19.64 35.60 33.20 41.60 16.00 25.40 28.40 18.80 35.00 33.00 41.00 15.00 25.00 28.00 18.00 34.47 32.63 40.46 14.59 28.43 17.49 24.75 32.22 33.83 39.83 13.89 21.84 24.23 16.24 31.81 39.21 33.21 13.23 19.27 20.65 15.08 31.40 32.60 38.60 12.60 17.00 17.60 14.00 31.00 32.00 38.00 12.00 15.00 15.00 13.00  128  APPENDIX B  129  LINK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ? AIR 10 11 12 13 14 IS STNB 16 17 18 19 20 21 STNB 22 23 RICH 24 25 26 27 28 29 SFEEB 30 31 32 33 34 35 SFENB 36 37 38 UNIV 39 PARKS 40 41 6EIST 42 43  VOLUMES TVOLAR TVOLHO TVOLPH TVOLO TRUCKAH TRUCKHD TRUCKPN TRUCKO AUTO API AUTOHO 39159 2350 19110 6187 11513 454 3393 577 118 1B?5 15717 41793 2S0B 20395 12287 6603 485 3621 616 126 2023 16773 43819 2629 21383 12883 6923 508 3797 646 132 2121 17586 51683 3101 25221 8166 15195 600 4478 761 156 2501 20743 50134 3008 24465 14739 7921 4344 582 739 151 2426 20121 44998 2700 21959 13229 7110 3899 322 663 136 2178 18060 49062 2944 23942 14424 7752 369 4251 723 148 2375 19691 40601 2436 19813 11937 6415 471 3518 598 122 1965 16295 28804 1728 14056 8468 4551 334 2496 424 87 1394 11561 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18914 1362 8322 2988 6242 219 1639 27? 57 1142 6683 14684 1057 6461 2320 4846 170 1272 216 44 887 5188 23263 1675 10236 3676 7677 270 2016 343 70 1405 8220 18942 1364 8335 2993 6251 220 1641 27? 57 1144 6693 21593 1555 9501 3412 7126 230 1871 318 65 1304 7630 21535 1551 9476 3403 7107 250 1866 317 65 1301 7609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16914 1362 8322 29B8 6242 219 1639 27? 57 1142 6683 14684 1057 6461 2320 4846 170 1272 216 44 887 5188 15251 1098 6710 2410 5033 177 1322 225 46 921 5389 18945 1364 8336 2993 6252 220 1642 27? 57 1144 6694 21595 1555 9502 3412 7126 251 1871 318 65 1304 7631 21535 1551 9476 3403 7107 250 1866 317 65 1301 7609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13108 944 5767 2071 4326 152 1136 1?3 40 792 4632 13322 959 5862 2105 4396 155 1154 1?6 40 805 4707 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17076 1025 8333 2695 5020 198 1480 252 52 826 6853 10793 648 5267 1703 3173 125 935 15? 33 522 4332 15209 913 7422 2400 4471 176 1318 224 46 736 6104 19109 1147 9325 3015 5618 222 1656 282 58 925 7669 15409 925 7520 2432 4530 179 227 1335 46 746 6184 12619 757 6158 1991 3710 146 1093 186 38 611 5065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12872 772 6282 2031 37B4 149 190 1115 3? 623 5166 8527 512 4161 1346 2507 99 739 126 26 413 3422 13009 781 6348 2053 3825 151 1127 1?2 3? 630 5221 19129 1148 9335 3019 5624 222 165B 282 58 926 7677 17909 1075 8740 2826 5265 208 264 1552 54 867 71BB 14751 BB5 7198 2328 4337 171 1278 217 44 714 5920 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31724 2157 15354 5222 8984 368 2749 467 ?6 1789 12605 31724 2157 15354 8984 5222 368 2749 467 1789 ?6 12605 34286 2331 16594 5643 9710 398 2971 505 103 1934 13623 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11547 831 5034 1824 3810 134 1001 170 35 697 4034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1024B 701 4960 16B7 2902 119 888 151 31 582 4072 23177 1585 11218 3815 6564 269 2008 341 70 1316 9209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32007 1716 15799 5384 9103 371 2773 472 ?7 1344 13025 3B933 2087 19217 6549 11073 452 3374 574 117 1635 15B44 130  44 45 46 47 COLL 48 49 50 51 ILL 52 53 54 CUSH 35 56 SCUSH 57 58 59 PE6 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66 KIN 67 68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 6EIT 76 BILL 77 COLCON NETWORK  35835 41912 35239 26004 0 21552 21552 30548 33373 0 11483 24590 21850 0 26974 23041 0 10131 9056 9056 0 10091 14083 9316 10150 0 12572 0 12810 0 12810 0 19049 17917 17619 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1921 2246 18B9 1394 0 1026 1026 1454 1589 0 347 1171 1040 0 1284 1097 0 693 619 619 0 690 963 637 694 0 674 0 687 0 687 0 907 853 839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  17688 20688 17394 12836 0 12155 12155 17229 18822 0 6476 13869 12323 0 15213 12995 0 5422 4847 4847 0 5401 7537 4986 5432 0 6205 0 6323 0 6323 0 10744 10105 9937 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  6027 7050 5927 4374 0 3440 3440 4876 5326 0 1833 3925 3487 0 4305 3677 0 1659 1483 1483 0 1653 2307 1526 1663 0 2115 0 2155 0 2155 0 3040 2860 2812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  10191 11920 10022 7396 0 4940 4940 7002 7649 0 2632 3636 5008 0 6182 5281 0 2359 2108 2108 0 2349 3278 2169 2363 0 3575 0 3643 0 3643 0 4366 4107 4038 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  131  416 486 409 302 0 250 250 354 387 0 133 285 253 0 313 267 0 118 105 105 0 117 163 108 118 0 146 0 149 0 149 0 221 208 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  3105 3632 3034 2253 0 1868 1868 2647 2892 0 995 2131 1B93 0 2337 1997 0 878 785 785 0 874 1220 807 8B0 0 1089 0 1110 0 1110 0 1651 1553 1527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  528 617 519 383 0 318 318 450 492 0 169 362 322 0 397 339 0 149 133 133 0 149 207 137 150 0 185 0 189 0 189 0 281 264 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  108 126 106 78 0 65 65 92 101 0 35 74 66 0 81 69 0 31 27 27 0 30 42 28 31 0 38 0 39 0 39 0 57 54 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  1505 1760 1480 1092 0 776 776 1100 1201 0 413 883 787 0 971 829 0 575 514 514 0 573 800 529 577 0 528 0 538 0 538 0 686 645 634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  14583 17056 14340 105B2 0 102BB 10288 14582 15930 0 5481 11738 10430 0 12876 10999 0 4544 4062 4062 0 4526 6317 4179 4553 0 5116 0 5213 0 5213 0 9093 8553 8411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  VCRAH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  AIR 10 11 12 13 14 15  STNE 16 17 18 19 20 21  STUB 22 23  RICH 24 25 26 27 28 29  SFEEB 30 31 32 33 34 35  SFEKB 36 37 38  UNIV 39  PARKS 40 41  6EIST  .3525 .3762 .3944 .4652 .4513 .405 .506 .4187 .2971 0 .1945 .3524 .5583 .4546 .5182 .5168 0 .1945 .3524 .366 .4547 .5183 .5168 0 .1966 .2284 0 .2561 .3238 .4563 .5733 .2311 .1893 0 .3862 .2558 .3903 .5739 .5373 .4215 0 .4044 .4044 .4371 0 .2494 0 .1199 .2725 0  VCRHD .7167 .7649 .802 .9459 .9175 .8235 1.0288 .8514 .604 0 .2972 .5384 .853 .6946 .7917 .7896 0 .2972 .5384 .5592 .6946 .7918 .7896 0 .3004 .3489 0 .5208 .6584 .9277 1.1656 .47 .3849 0 .7852 .5201 .7935 1.1669 1.0924 .857 0 .7196 .7196 .7778 0 .3775 0 .2121 .482 0  VCRPH .9282 .9906 1.0386 1.225 1.1883 1.0666 1.3324 1.1026 .7822 0 .4269 .7733 1.2252 .9976 1.1372 1.1342 0 .4269 .7733 .8032 .9978 1.1373 1.1342 0 .4315 .5012 0 .6736 .8516 1.2 1.5077 .6079 .4978 0 1.0156 .6728 1.0264 1.5093 1.413 1.1084 0 .9789 .9789 1.056 0 .5472 0 .2885 .6557 0  VCRO .2878 .3072 .3221 .3799 .3685 .3308 .4132 .3419 .2426 0 .I486 .2692 .4265 .3473 .3959 .3948 0 .I486 .2692 .2796 .3473 .3959 .3948 0 .1502 .1745 0 .2092 .2644 .3726 .4682 .1888 .1546 0 .3154 .2069 .3187 .4687 .4388 .3442 0 .2807 .2807 .3034 0 .1905 0 .0827 .188 0  AUTO FUEIAH  AUTO FUElflD  21.27 182.92 18.69 161.92 35.00 304.55 63.15 616.54 47.83 471.00 124.31 1059.67 42.39 494.62 101.50 933.75 69.51 593.08 0.00 0.00 39.78 235.17 34.59 205.68 23.05 139.99 14.54 85.91 39.59 234.24 27.64 163.53 0.00 0.00 48.77 288.27 33.57 199.63 14.79 88.41 14.54 85.92 41.18 243.64 27.64 163.53 0.00 0.00 43.14 256.32 47.25 279.32 .00 .00 23.45 199.77 24.74 213.24 48.23 422.50 53.65 471.81 46.74 398.01 17.15 145.25 .00 .00 17.15 148.92 19.44 165.60 40.81 354.31 53.70 472.30 56.09 495.77 13.59 118.83 0.00 0.00 24.88 181.22 75.63 552.30 56.34 413.31 0.00 0.00 16.43 95.66 .00 .00 37.79 265.73 42.24 298.66 .00 .00  132  AUTO FUELPH 74.60 70. OB 140.80 252.42 199.75 520.52 176.56 407.03 216.25 0.00 96.88 85.91 57.99 35.68 97.33 67.95 0.00 118.76 83.38 36.95 35.68 101.23 67.95 0.00 105.04 115.72 .00 72.45 77.95 152.79 168.18 144.25 52.34 .00 54.93 60.06 130.69 168.36 176.73 43.28 0.00 83.47 254.39 202.83 0.00 39.48 .00 100.49 114.86 .00  AUTO FUELO 127.07 112.04 209.77 377.25 286.04 743.37 253.51 606.41 416.57 0.00 214.29 185.30 122.82 77.94 212.21 148.15 0.00 262.67 179.85 79.25 77.95 220.72 148.15 0.00 233.53 254.48 .00 140.27 147.94 286.84 319.17 279.56 103.13 .00 102.58 116.28 244.05 319.50 333.57 80.81 0.00 122.45 373.17 278.15 0.00 86.78 .00 185.90 207.26 .00  AUTO AUTO AUTO 01 HER API OTHERHD OTHLRPH 19.82 17.42 32.61 59.61 46.80 120.88 41.72 95.21 63.88 .00 52.32 48.26 33.71 15.59 42.77 29.86 .00 64.14 46.84 20.64 15.59 44.48 29.86 .00 56.73 63.14 .00 31.82 34.05 69.01 78.45 62.46 22.56 .00 23.93 26.38 56.94 78.54 81.20 19.20 .00 23.34 71.13 52.85 .00 21.79 .00 35.32 40.30 .00  181.83 162.60 307.74 679.97 54B.31 10BB.57 568.48 999.51 576.56 .00 319.05 297.77 217.17 94.18 259.23 180.9B .00 391.09 2B9.01 129.29 94.19 269.63 180.98 .00 352.79 384.44 .00 289.21 318.82 661.09 749.68 569.52 202.66 .00 227.07 239.73 540.24 750.46 787.76 184.34 .00 180.15 549.03 415.06 .00 129.65 .00 251.63 292.19 .00  82.28 77.95 155.27 278.37 229.58 598.24 202.93 448.87 217.17 .00 136.94 130.99 92.14 40.89 112.44 78.50 .00 167.86 127.14 56.80 40.89 116.95 78.50 .00 148.47 167.53 .00 108.32 120.93 242.77 267.24 213.36 74.89 .00 87.28 89.79 207.66 267.52 280.81 68.76 .00 92.85 282.96 223.67 .00 54.61 .00 95.87 116.85 .00  42 43 44 45 46 47  COLL 48 49 50  SI  u  52 53 54 CUSH 55 56 SCUSH 57 5B 59 PEG 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66 niN 67 66 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 6EIT 76 GILL 77 CDLCON NETWORK  .3216 .3376 .3601 .4212 .3541 .2613 0 .1611 .1611 .2566 ,2804  . 7405 . 7771 .829 .9696 .8152 .6016 0 .5363 .5363 .7602  1.0093 1.0593 1.13 1.3216 1.1112 .82 0 .6071 .6071 .8605  .6309  .94  .1261 .2601 .2667 0 .4412 .3769 0 .2969 .2186 .2236 0 .2589 .4447 .2062 .2247 0 .2378 0 .2479 0 .2479 0 .1333 .1672 .2467 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  .3736 .7705 .79 0 1.307 1.1164 0 .5808 .4276 .4374 0 .5064 .8699 .4034 .4395 0 .5474 0 .5707 0 .5707 0 .395 .4954 .7307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  8  8  .4228 .8721 .8942 0 1.4794 1.2637 0 .711 .5234 .5355 0 .62 1.065 .4938 .5381 0 .7461 0 .7778 0 .7778 0 .4471 .5607 .8271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  .2844 .2985 .3184 .3724 .3131 .2311 0 .1453 .1453 .206 .223  8  .1012 .2087 .214 0 .3541 .3025 0 .1684 .124 .1269 0 .1469 .2523 .117 .1275 0 .2103 0 .2192 0 .2192 0 .107 .1342 .198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  85.10 908.05 102.34 1117.35 104.71 1045.80 46.89 5B7.73 56.67 576.15 64.29 6.45 .00 .00 13.15 178.26 95.99 7.08 7.94 110.60 7.09 99.31  422.31 507.85 542.70 242.36 261.40 24.88 .00 54.80 29.31 35.76 34.03  •M •M -.88  2.44 17.23 7.06 .00 45.00 25.71 .00 31.13 20.98 32.26 .00 12.98 20. BO 20.76 6.03 .00 21.87 .00 5.98 .00 20.05 .00 7.59 11.00 8.03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  133  33.15 273.79 112.28 .00 806.53 463.06 .00 250.44 167.45 257.62 .00 103.89 181.14 166.04 48.24 .00 215.29 .00 59.41 .00 199.19 .00 103.11 150.19 123.63 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  10.11 66.93 35.65 .00 244.77 140.53 .00 84.71 55.95 86.08 .00 34.90 77.21 55.35 16.13 .00 83.05 .00 23.04 .00 77.26 .00 31.45 46.51 39.57 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  567.73 662.72 699.67 313.29 378.46 43.07 .00 82.37 44.35 49.70 44.43  -.88  15.33 107.71 44.17 .00 281.32 160.72 .00 125.29 84.43 129.89 .00 52.10 83.47 83.48 24.25 .00 146.50 .00 40.07 .00 134.36 .00 47.67 68.75 50.21 .00 . .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  67.07 80.65 101.19 45.59 52.80 5.93 .00 11.91 6.41 7.29 6.32  -.88  1.71 12.39 5.08 .00 33.16 18.80 .00 29.84 19.95 30.70 .00 12.44 20.37 18.95 5.50 .00 20.72 .00 5.46 .00 18.30 .00 5.31 7.77 5.73 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  EC 1.55 1000.30 1074.32 66G.50 582.17 62.50 .00 169.33 91.18 111.07 100.33  -.88  24.24 227.59 93.34 .00 666.85 382.87 .00 251.59 164.00 252.31 .00 103.15 203.66 155.73 45.25 .00 211.87 .00 57.05 .00 191.29 .00 75.39 111.48 101.70 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  1 2 3 4 S 6 7 e 9 AIR 10 11 12 13 14 15 STNB 16 17 18 19 20 21 STUB 22 23 RICH 24 25 26 27 28 29 SFEEB 30 31 32 33 34 35 SFENB 36 37 38 UNIV 39 PARKS 40 41 GEIST  TRUCK TOTAL TOTAL TVARAK TVARND TVARPN TVARO AUTO TRUCK 23.87 4.71 806.SB 183.76 18.17 137.00 21.14 724.40 161.83 15.97 120.56 4.15 29.91 227.57 7.77 39.88 1379.8B 305.13 13.94 2678.84 553.40 53.76 414.21 71.49 43.00 330.63 56.58 11.11 2105.73 441.31 4969.39 1143.99 111.68 856.03 147.43 28.85 50.01 9.85 2026.72 392.12 38.13 294.14 86.57 662.89 115.28 4153.53 887.20 22.45 76.69 2533.16 601.13 59.61 449.34 15.4B .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 40.19 302.55 52.12 1371.56 405.28 10.41 1239.90 352.82 34.79 263.31 45.75 8.97 860.47 236.02 23.10 176.67 30.32 5.93 85.94 11.43 14.75 446.26 115.08 2.96 31.08 233.96 40.08 8.04 1221.72 313.16 21.70 163.34 27.98 5.61 852.94 218.63 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 49.27 370.87 63.89 12.76 1681.26 496.79 33.77 255.57 44.40 8.70 1203.43 342.44 533.64 151.44 14.88 113.10 19.63 3.83 11.44 85.95 14.75 2.96 446.32 115.09 41.69 8.37 32.33 243.34 1270.73 325.72 21.70 163.34 27.98 5.61 852.94 218.63 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 43.58 329.31 56.51 11.33 1503.15 440.73 47.67 358.85 1646.55 480.99 62.12 12.35 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 29.49 225.16 38.78 7.64 1052.74 301.07 8.04 1138.38 319.74 31.06 239.33 41.31 15.57 60.41 467.62 80.01 2283.44 623.61 2564.88 690.44 67.08 518.01 88.07 17.29 2081.57 600.55 58.85 449.10 77.35 15.24 28.17 753.60 219.65 21.63 164.24 5.62 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 5.57 21.53 166.50 28.76 803.03 222.37 24.44 186.64 6.33 872.65 249.56 32.15 1910.59 529.06 51.23 396.15 68.43 13.25 2567.57 691.17 17.31 67.15 518.55 88.16 92.54 18.09 70.18 544.33 2683.43 725.14 640.04 176.12 17.04 132.03 4.39 22.66 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 18.21 137.10 24.07 4.72 820.90 184.10 55.50 417.82 14.37 2501.80 561.05 73.35 41.24 310.85 10.69 1899.64 417.70 54.92 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 16.65 125.33 21.48 4.32 563.26 167.77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 28.83 216.73 36.97 7.47 1145.44 290.00 42.07 32.28 244.28 8.34 1307.44 326.97 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  134  42 43 44 45 46 47 COLL 48 49 50 51 ILL 52 53 54 CUSH 55 56 SCUSH 57 58 59 PEG 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66  HIN  67 68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 BEIT 76 6ILL 77 COLCON NETWORK  73.44 88.31 108.35 48.54 55.80 6.37 .00 15.22 8.20 9.15 8.18 .00 2.35 16.46 6.75 .00 42.57 24.40 .00 23.73 16.01 24.63 .00 9.89 15.78 15.20 4.42 .00 22.59 .00 5.92 .00 19. B6 .00 7.32 10.57 7.70 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  554.62 668.21 833.20 375.70 424.60 48.04 .00 114.72 61.77 69.24 62.40 .00 17.72 125.00 51.26 .00 324.36 186.23 .00 178.61 120.21 184.93 .00 74.37 120.86 114.14 33.16 .00 172.02 .00 44.64 .00 149.68 .00 55.13 79.78 58.47 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  95.35 114.67 143.49 64.08 74.40 8.27 .00 19.53 10.53 11.96 10.77 .00 3.02 21.32 8.74 .00 55.15 31.66 .00 30.48 20.49 31.52 .00 12.6B 21.02 19.43 5.65 .00 29.63 .00 7.63 .00 25.58 .00 9.39 13.61 9.97 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  19.07 22.93 28.06 12.58 14.49 1.65 .00 3.95 2.13 2.36 2.12 .00 .61 4.27 1.75 .00 11.05 6.33 .00 6.15 4.15 6.39 .00 2.56 4.09 3.94 1.15 .00 5.87 .00 1.54 .00 5.16 .00 1.90 2.74 2.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  135  36B0.74 44B8.05 4864.01 2505.66 2588.22 271.55 .00 637.15 343.08 406.01 369.82 .00 105.15 875.07 35B.86 .00 2485.70 1424.47 .00 979.63 647.35 995.93 .00 403.78 751.80 627.61 182.54 .00 923.52 .00 250.72 .00  840.46 .00 327.06 479.2B 397.35 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 186189.25  742.48 894.12 1113.13 500.90 569.29 64.33 .00 153.45 82.63 92.73 83.47 .00 23.71 167.06 68.51 .00 433.13 248.63 .00 238.97 160.86 247.47 .00 99.50 161.75 152.72 44.38 .00 230.11 .00 59.73 .00 200.28 .00 73.75 106.71 78.14 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 23270.66  Auto Fuel Cost Look-Up Table (By Land Use/Facility Type)  FUEL MULTIPLE TIME/ FR0/1 BASE1/2 USED 1/114 KILE .0577 1.0000 44.00 .0227 0 37.00 .0270 .0578 1.0020 43.75 .0229 36.80 OS .0272 .0580 1 . 0 0 3 1 43.07 .0232 .1 36.48 .0274 .0277 .0582 1.0063 42.40 . .0236 IS 36.16 .0564 1.0116 41.75 35.84 .0240 .2 .0279 .0586 1.0148 41.10 .0243 25 35.53 .0281 .0587 1.0181 40.46 .0247 .0284 .3 35.22 34.91 .0589 1.0214 39.B3 .0251 35 .0286 .0591 1.0248 39.21 .0255 .4 34.60 .0269 .0593 1.0281 38.60 .0259 34.30 45 .0292 38.00 .0595 1 . 0 3 1 5 .0263 34.00 .0294 .5 1 . 0 3 3 8 .0267 .0596 37.46 33.81 .0296 55 .0598 1.0361 36.83 .0272 33.60 .0298 .6 .0599 1.0385 36.21 .0276 33.40 .0299 65 .0601 1.0409 35.60 .0301 .0281 .7 33.20 33.00 .0602 1.0433 35.00 . .0286 75 .0303 .0605 1.0479 34.47 .0290 .8 32.63 .0306 .0608 1.0331 33.83 .0296 85 32.22 .0310 .0611 1.0584 .0301 33.21 .9 31.81 .0314 .0614 1.0638 32.60 .0307 95 31.40 .0318 31.00 .0617 1.0692 32.00 .0313 .0323 t  .0544 .0545 .0548 .0551 .0554 .0556 .0559 .0562 .0565 .0568 .0572 .0574 .0578 .0581 .0585 .0589 .0592 .0596 .0601 .0605 .0609  TIME/ FUEL MULTIPLE 1/3 MILE USED FROM BASE 1.0000 47.00 .0533 1.0000 .0213 1.0018 46.77 .0214 .0534 1.0015 46.46 1.0069 .0215 .0535 1.0036 1.0120 46.14 .0217 .0536 1.0057 1.0172 45.83 .0218 .0537 1.0078 1.0225 .0220 45.52 .0536 1.0099 1.0279 .0540 1.0120 45.21 .0221 1.0334 .0223 .0541 1.0142 44.91 1.0369 44.60 .0224 .0542 1.0164 1.0446 44.30 .0226 .0543 1.0186 .0227 1.0503 44.00 .0544 1.0208 .0546 1.0249 1.0556 43.45 .0230 .0549 1.0297 1.0620 42.83 .0234 .0237 .0552 1.0346 1.0686 42.21 .0554 1.0395 1.0752 41.60 .0240 1.0820 .0244 .0557 1.0446 41.00 1.0882 .0247 .0559 1.0493 40.46 .0562 1.0548 1.0958 .0251 39.83 1.1036 39.21 .0255 .0565 1.0605 .0568 1.0663 1.1115 38.60 .0259 1.1195 .0263 .0572 1.0721 38.00  HULTIPLE TIME/ FUEL HULTIPLE HULTIPLE TINE/ FUEL TINE/ FUEL FUEL HULTIPLE TINE/ F R O M BASE2,3,4/4 U S E D FROH BASE U S E D NILE F R O M BASE2,3,4/3 NILE FROM BASE2,3,4/2 NILE USED USED 2,3,4/1 NILE 24.00 .0417 1.0000 32.00 .0313 .0609 1.0000 .0689 .0634 1.0000 29.00 .0345 .0455 .0718 1.0000 22.00 23.87 .0314 .0610 1.0019 .0419 .0690 1.0026 28.85 .0347 .0635 1.0021 31.85 21.87 .0457 .0720 1.0028 .0349 .0637 1.0052 31.64 .0612 1.0045 23.65 .0423 28.64 .0316 .0693 1.0068 21.66 .0723 1.0077 .0462 23.44 .0427 .0614 1.0071 .0696 1.0111 .0639 1.0063 31.43 .0318 26.43 .0352 .0727 1.0126 21.44 .0466 .0699 1.0154 .0615 1.0098 23.23 .0431 .0354 .0641 1.0114 31.22 .0320 26.22 .0471 .0730 1.0175 21.23 .0434 .0617 1.0125 23.02 .0702 1.0197 .0357 31.01 .0322 26.01 .0643 1.0146 .0734 1.0225 21.02 .0476 .0618 1.0151 .0438 .0705 1.0241 30.B1 .0325 22.81 .0360 .0645 1.0176 .0737 1.0276 27.81 .0480 20.81 .0708 1.0285 .0327 .0620 1.0179 22.61 .0442 .0647 1.0210 30.60 .0741 1.0327 27.60 .0362 .0465 20.61 .0711 1.0329 .0329 .0622 1.0206 22.40 .0446 30.40 .0649 1.0242 27.40 .0365 20.40 .0490 .0745 1.0379 22.20 .0450 .0331 .0623 1.0233 .0715 1.0374 .0651 1.0275 30.20 .0368 .0749 1.0431 27.20 20.20 .0495 .0718 1.0420 .0625 1.0261 22.00 .0453 30.00 .0333 27.00 .0370 .0653 1.0308 .0500 .0752 1.0483 20.00 .0727 1.0556 .0467 .0337 .0628 1.0312 21.42 29.63 26.64 .0657 1.0368 .0375 .0764 1.0643 19.42 .0515 .048B .0743 1.0786 .0632 1.0373 20.51 1.0440 29.22 .0342 .0381 .0662 26.22 .0549 1.1006 .0790 18.20 .0509 .0759 1.1026 1.0434 19.64 .0347 .0636 1.0514 28.81 .0666 25.81 .0388 .0818 1.1397 17.07 .0586 .0777 1.1277 .0639 18.B0 .0532 1.0496 .0671 1.0588 28.40 .0352 .0394 25.40 .0648 1.1813 16.00 .0625 1.0559 18.00 .0556 .0795 1.1539 .0643 28.00 .0357 .0676 1.0664 25.00 .0400 .0667 . .0880 1.2256 15.00 .0639 1.0492 17.49 .0572 .0807 1.1720 28.43 .0352 .0404 .0679 1.0714 24.75 .0894 1.2457 14.59 .0666 .0666 1.1255 16.24 .0616 .0841 1.2208 .0413 24.23 21.84 .0458 .0720 1.1362 .0920 1.2622 13.89 .0720 .0484 .0740 1.2152 13.08 .0663 .0877 1.2733 20.65 19.27 .0519 .0767 1.2098 .0948 1.3205 13.23 .0756 .0804 1.3203 14.00 .0714 .0916 1.3298 .0566 .0820 1.2931 17.60 17.00 .0566 .0976 1.3607 .0794 12.60 .0769 1.3907 .0667 1.4437 13.00 .0958 15.00 .0880 .0667 .0660 1.3875 .1007 1.4029 13.00 12.00 .0833  0.00 .05 .10 .13 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90 .95 1.00  1/U4 37.00 36.80 36.48 36.16 35.84 35.53 35.22 34.91 34.60 34.30 34.00 33.81 33.60 33.40 33.20 33.00 32.63 32.22 31.81 31.40 31.00  2,3,4/2 29.00 28.85 28.64 28.43 28.22 28.01 27.81 27.60 27.40 27.20 27.00 26.64 26.22 25.81 25.40 25.00 24.75 21.84 19,27 17.00 15.00  0.000 .503 1.234 1.960 2.681 3.397 4.107 4.812 5.512 6.207 6.897 8.142 9.589 11.012 12.414 13.793 14.666 24.705 33.563 41.379 48.276  ESTIMATES OF OTHER 1/2 0.000 .000 44.00 .348 5.895 43.75 1.418 5.971 43.07 2.280 6.047 42.40 3.135 6.122 41.75 3.982 6.196 41.10 4.822 6.270 40.46 5.654 6.343 39.83 6.479 6.415 39.21 7.297 6.487 38.60 8.108 6.558 38.00 8.629 6.604 37.46 9.179 6.652 36.83 9.726 6.700 36.21 10.270 6.748 35.60 10.811 6.795 35.00 11.807 6.883 34.47 12.931 6.981 33.83 14.040 7.079 33.21 15.135 7.175 32.60 16.216 7.270 32.00  5.740 5.780 5.843 5.906 5.96B 6.029 6.090 6.151 6.211 6.271 6.331 6.438 6.562 6.685 6.806 6.924 6.999 7.864 8.627 9.299 9.893  2,3,4/3 32.00 31.85 31.64 31.43 31.22 31.01 30.81 30.60 30.40 30.20 30.00 29.63 29.22 28.81 28.40 28.00 28.43 24.23 20.65 17.60 15.00  AUTO VOC 8Y FACILITY/AREA TYPE (CENTS/HILE) 1/3 0.000 7.010 47.00 0.000 7.010 .559 7.063 46.77 .479 7.056 2.105 7.227 46.46 1.153 7.127 3.627 7.387 46.14 1.822 7.198 5.125 7.545 45.83 2.487 7.268 6.599 7.700 45.52 3.148 7.337 8.051 7.853 45.21 3.804 7.406 9.481 8.003 44.91 4.453 7.474 10.888 8.151 44.60 3.102 7.542 12.273 8.296 44.30 3.743 7.610 13.636 8.440 44.00 6.383 7.677 14.858 8.568 43.45 7.546 7.799 16.293 8.719 42.83 8.880 7.940 17.704 8.868 42.21 10.194 8.078 19.091 9.013 41.60 11.489 8.214 20.435 9.157 41.00 12.766 8.348 21.663 9.284 40.46 13.920 8.470 23.105 9.435 39.83 15.258 8.610 24.520 9.584 39.21 16.576 8.749 25.909 9.730 38.60 17.872 8.885 27.273 9.874 38.00 19.149 9.020  0.000 5.740 .473 5.777 1.132 5.834 1.787 5.891 2.437 5.947 3.083 6.002 3.725 6.057 4.362 6.112 4.996 6.167 5.625 6.221 6.250 6.275 7.392 6.373 8.696 6.485 9.982 6.596 11.250 6.705 12.500 6.813 11.156 6.697 24.281 7.827 35.467 8.790 45.000 9.611 53.125 10.311  138  2,3,4/4 24.00 23.87 23.65 23.44 23.23 23.02 22.81 22.61 22.40 22.20 22.00 21.42 20.51 19.64 18.80 18.00 17.49 16.24 15.08 14.00 13.00  0.000 .555 1.451 2.338 3.218 4.090 4.954 5.811 6.659 7.500 8.333 10.751 14.549 18.185 21.667 25.000 27.143 32.347 37.179 41.667 * 45.833  5.280 5.321 5.392 5.462 5.532 5.601 5.669 3.737 5.804 5.B71 5.937 6.126 6.429 6.717 6.993 7.257 7.427 7.839 8.222 8.577 8.907  V/C 1/1,4 RATIO SPEED 0.00 37.00 .05 36.80 .10 36.48 .15 36.16 .20 35.84 .25 35.53 .30 35.22 .35 34.91 .40 34.60 .45 34.30 .50 34.00 .55 33.81 .60 33.60 .65 33.40 .70 33.20 .75 33.00 .80 32.63 .85 32.22 .90 31.81 .95 31.40 1.00 31.00  ESIIMATE5 OF TRUCK OPERATING COSTS B< AREA/FACILITY TYPE 1/2 1/3 COST SPEED COST SPEED . 24.44 44.00 29.20 47.00 24.47 43.75 29.32 46.77 24.51 43.07 29.43 46.46 24.55 42.40 29.55 46.14 24.59 41.75 29.66 45.83 24.62 41.10 29.78 45.52 24.66 40.46 29.89 45.21 24.7 39.83 30.04 44.91 24.74 39.21 30.17 44.60 24.78 38.60 30.30 44.30 24.82 38.00 30.43 44.00 24.86 37.46 30.57 43.45 24.B9 36.83 30.70 42.83 24.93 36.21 30.83 42.21 24.97 35.60 30.97 41.60 25.01 35.00 31.1 41.00 25.05 34.47 31.20 40.46 25.08 33.83 31.30 39.83 25.12 33.21 31.40 39.21 25.16 32.60 31.50 38.60 25.2 32.00 31.6 38.00  2,3,4/2 SPEED 29.00 28.85 28.64 26.43 28.22 28.01 27.81 27.60 27.40 27.20 27.00 26.64 26.22 25.81 25.40 25.00 24.75 21.84 19.27 17.00 15.00  2,3,4/3 COST SPEED 23.32 32.00 23.35 31.85 23.38 31.64 23.41 31.43 23.44 31.22 23.48 31.01 23.51 30.61 23.54 30.60 23.57 30.40 23.60 30.20 23.63 30.00 23.66 29.63 23.69 29.22 23.72 26.81 23.75 28.40 23.7B 28.00 23.97 28.43 24.16 24.23 24.34 20.65 24.52 17.60 24.71 15.00  2,3,4/4 COST SPEED 23.12 24.00 23.24 23.87 . 23.32 23.65 23.39 23.44 23.47 23.23 23.54 23.02 23.62 22.81 23.70 22.61 23.77 22.40 23.85 22.20 23.93 22.00 24.00 21.42 24.08 20.51 24.16 19.64 24.24 18.80 24.32 18.00 24.39 17.49 24.47 16.24 24.55 15.08 24.63 14.00 24.71 13.00 139  COST 22.3 • 22.33 22.36 22.39 22.42 22.45 22.48 22.51 22.53 22.56 22.59 22.62 22.65 22.68 22.72 22.77 22.81 22.85 22.89 22.94 22.98  COST 28.62 28.69 28.76 28.83 28.91 28.98 29.06 29.13 29.21 29.29 29.36 29.44 29.51 29.59 29.66 29.74 29.81 29.89 30.3 30.7 31  LINXS 1 2 S 4 3 6 7 1 9 AIR 10 11 12 13 14 IS STNB 16 17 18 19 20 21 STUB' 22 23 IICH 24 23 26 27 28 29 SFEE8 30 31 32 33 34 33 SFENB 36 37 38 IM1V 39 PARKS 40 41 6EIST 42  TVOLAH TVOLHD WLIMS TVOLPH TVOLO TRUCKAK TRUCOO TRUC0H MJTOAH TRUCKO MJTOPrl AUTOHS 34034 16609 2042 5377 10006 395 2949 1647 301 103 13660 4876 2179 5739 10679 36323 17726 421 3147 335 110 1738 3204 14378 36083 2285 18385 6017 11197 442 3300 361 1843 115 13285 3456 44919 2695 21920 7097 13206 3892 321 2174 662 133 18028 6435 2614 6884 43372 21263 12810 305 3776 642 2109 131 17488 6243 39109 2347 I908S 6179 434 11498 3389 118 376 1893 13696 3603 42640 20808 2338 6737 12336 495 3693 628 129 2064 17114 6109 33287 2117 17220 10374 409 5575 3038 320 106 1708 14162 3036 23034 12217 1302 3935 7360 290 2169 369 76 1212 10047 3387 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14438 1184 7233 2597 3425 191 1424 SO 242 993 3B08 2333 919 12762 5615 4211 2016 148 1106 188 38 771 4509 1826 20218 1436 8896 6672 235 3195 1732 298 61 7144 1221 2897 16463 1185 7244 2601 5433 191 1427 30 243 994 3817 2339 18766 1331 8257 2965 218 6193 1626 57 276 1133 6631 2689 18717 1348 8235 2937 6177 217 1622 276 36 1130 6614 2682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16438 1184 7233 2397 3423 191 1424 242 30 993 380B 2333 12762 919 5613 2016 4211 148 1106 188 38 771 4509 1828 934 13235 3832 2094 4374 134 1149 40 193 801 46B4 1899 16465 1183 7243 3434 191 2602 1427 30 243 993 5818 2339 18769 1331 8258 6194 2965 218 1626 57 1134 276 6632 2689 18717 1348 8235 2957 6177 217 1622 276 36 1130 6614 2682 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U392 820 5013 1800 3739 132 987 34 168 688 4025 1632 11579 834 5095 1829 3821 134 1003 171 33 699 4091 1639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14841 890 7242 2342 4363 172 1286 219 43 71B 5936 2123 9380 363 4578 1480 2758 109 813 434 138 28 3763 1342 13218 793 6451 2086 3886 133 1145 40 193 640 3303 1891 16608 996 8105 2621 4883 1439 193 243 30 804 6666 2376 804 13392 6535 2113 3937 133 1160 40 197 648 337S 1914 10967 638 5352 3224 1731 127 930 162 33 331 4402 1369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11187 671 5459 3289 1763 130 969 34 165 341 4490 1601 7411 445 3617 1169 2179 86 642 109 339 22 2974 1060 11306 678 5518 1784 3324 131 980 167 34 547 4538 1618 16623 998 8113 2623 4888 193 1441 245 30 805 2379 6673 934 15363 7596 2436 4576 181 1349 229 47 753 6247 2227 12820 769 4236 2023 3769 149 1111 189 39 621 3145 1834 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27572 1875 13345 4538 7808 320 2389 406 83 1335 10936 4132 27572 1875 13345 4538 7808 320 23B9 406 83 1535 10956 4132 29798 2026 14422 8439 4905 346 2382 439 90 1681 11840 4466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10035 723 4375 1586 3312 116 870 30 148 3306 606 1438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8907 609 4311 1466 2322 103 772 27 131 3339 306 1333 20143 1378 9749 3316 5703 234 1743 297 61 8004 1144 3019  •  0  0 1491  0 4679  0 7911  0  0  0  0  0  13731  0  323  2410  410  84  0 11321  0 4269  13770  3193  43  27818 33837  1814  16702  5691  9623  393  2932  498  102  1168 1421  44  31143  1669  5239  BBSS  361  2699  439  94  1308  12674  4780  43 46 47  36426 30627  1932  15373 17980  6127  10360  423  337  1330  14824  3590  13117  5151 3801  8710 6428  335  431  92  262  1938  333  68  1286 949  12464  22600  1642 1211  3136 2634  4700 3468  COLL  0 18731  0  0 10564  0 1623  0  892  0 36  0 674  0 2714  892 1264  10364 14974  36 80  674 936  0 8941 8941 12674  3846  48 4?  18731  30  26550  11136  0  0  0  2989 2989  4293  217 217  4237  4293 6083  308  140  1623 2301  276 276 391  no  9197  2714  SI  29003  1381  163S9  4629  6648  336  2513  427  1044  0  13843  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  32  9980  3629  116  147  12034  18990 0 23443  904  10710  0  0  3031 0  248 220  1446 3096  54 CUSH  4898 4332  339 769  4764  21172  1393 3411  2287  S3  473 1017  »  87  0  0  0  1116  13222  3742  3373  20026  933  11294  3196  4390  0  0  0  0  8803  602  4713  0 2030  ILL  53 Si (CUSH 37  865 1832  4202  1646 0  280  30 64 57  0  0  272 232  2031  343 295  71  0 844  60  721  0  0  0  0  0  0  102  763  130  0 27  500  3930  1313  1735  313  -  684  10202 9063 0  2751  11191 9539  3396 2901  0  SB  7871  538  4213  1442 1289  682  116  24  447  3331  1173  7871  338  4213  1289  1832 1832  91  39  91  682  116  24  447  1173  PE6 60  0  0  3531  0  0  0  0  0  0  4694  0 2042  0  600  0 1437  0  8770  102  760  129  26 37  498  3934  1307  695  S490  24  460  3632  1825 1207  501 0 459  3957  1315  61  12239  837  6331  2005  2849  142  1061  62  8097  334  4333  1326  94  702  180 119  63  8822  603  4721  1445  1883 2034  102  764  130  0  27  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  10926 0  386  3393  3107 0  127  947  0  1838 0  0  0  161 0  33 0  3495 0  1873 0  3166 0  129  164  34  3495 0  1873 0 2642 2485  3166 0 3795 3569  0 129 0  965 0 965 0  0 164  0 34 0  192 181  1435 1349  2444 0 0 0 0  3510 0 0 0  178 0  226  0 0  1327 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0  0  0  0  0 0  PHIL 64 MJR  0 597  63 THIRD  11133  66 NIN  11133 0  0 597 0  67  16556 13572  788 741  19313  729 0  68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 73 SEIT 76 SILL 77 COLCON NETWORK  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0  9338 8783 8637  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0  0 0  141  0 244 229 0 0 0  0  0  0  0  4446  1677  0  0  0  468 0 468 0  4531 0 4531  1709  561  46 0 0 0  551 0 0 0  7433 7310 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0  0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0  596  0 7903  SO 47  0 0 0  0 0  0 1709 0 2398 2236 2218 •0 0 0 0  0 0  0 0  0 0 0 0 0  NHBAH NHBHD 1.43 41.49 1.26 37.05 2.36 69.37 4.2? 129.68 3.04 90.70 7.92 233.02 2.71 92.65 6.87 203.74 4.6B 132.49 .00 .00 2.07 41.05 1.B4 37.21 1.26 26.32 .85 17.03 2.35 46.50 1.63 32.46 .00 .00 2.53 50.32 1.79 36.12 .79 15.91 .85 17.03 2.45 48.37 1.63 32.46 .00 .00 2.24 44.51 2.44 49.27 .00 .00 1.22 36.14 1.31 39.07 2.SB 81.48 2.93 96.60 2.45 71.28 .89 25.48 .00 .00 .91 27.88 1.02 29.96 2.18 66.34 2.94 96.70 3.08 97.81 .73 22.35 .00 .00 1.52 36.89 4.63 112.42 3.44 84.73 .00 .00 .81 15.62 .00 .00 2.37 54.86 2.66 62.90 .00 .00 6.36 227.56 7.65 285.81 6.65 229.97 2.99 102.59 3.B2 133.33 .43 14.36 .00 .00 .86 40.04 .47 21.56 .53 25.31  TIHEAH TIPIEHD TIHEPH TIHEO NHBO 12.46 24.09 .3668 .3890 .4122 .3641 12.41 21.17 .3021 .3255 .3847 .2998 26.34 39.64 .5394 .5813 .7785 .5354 60.66 71.61 .8321 .9213 1.5200 .8199 48.00 51.14 .6078 .6643 1.2400 .6037 90.86 132.40 1.7645 1.9014 2.6149 1.7412 42.43 45.51 .5526 .6934 1.1200 .5489 86.30 114.61 1.6954 1.8425 2.7529 1.6705 39.30 78.64 1.6277 1.6889 1.7670 1.6157 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 13.64 31.02 .8773 .9052 .9340 .8636 12.7B 27.25 1.0085 1.0570 1.1268 .9774 9.43 18.63 .4352 .4719 .3250 .4218 5.72 12.B7 .3609 .3750 .3911 .3578 15.93 34.93 .8746 .8982 .9554 .851? 11.12 24.38 .6069 .6287 .6688 .5963 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 16.72 38.02 1.0754 1.1096 1.1449 1.0586 12.40 26.45 .9788 1.0259 1.0936 .9486 5.46 11.65 .4153 .4352 .4640 .4024 5.72 12.87 .3609 .3750 .3911 .3578 16.57 36.33 .9096 .9341 .9936 .8860 11.12 24.38 .606? .6287 .6688 .5963 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 14.79 33.63 1.3725 1.4162 1.4613 1.3512 16.37 37.23 1.4716 1.5424 1.3915 1.4716 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 10.54 20.41 .7186 .7772 .8008 .7075 11.64 21.76 1.2118 1.3293 1.3989 1.1930 24.85 43.07 1.7023 1.9670 2.1187 1.6758 27.35 48.92 1.538? 1.8562 1.8562 1.5149 20.82 40.90 1.5954 1.6986 1.7526 1.5706 7.44 14.85 .7075 .7415 .7651 .6965 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 8.45 15.24 .7119 .7954 .8512 .7008 8.74 16.92 1.1930 1.2902 1.3293 1.1744 20.10 36.27 1.6758 1.B724 2.0039 1.6498 27.38 48.97 1.538? 1.8562 1.8562 1.514? 28.74 50.60 1.7254 2.0053 2.0813 1.6722 6.91 12.01 .4971 .5562 .6074 .4818 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 13.32 20.83 .4117 .4313 .5200 .4036 40.61 63.49 1.2547 1.3143 1.3848 1.2300 35.40 47.48 .8626 .9165 1.2784 .8512 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 5.19 12.26 .5629 .5706 .5824 .5591 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 16.65 32.67 l.?723 1.9855 2.0120 1.9593 19.33 36.71 .9B01 1.0065 1.0326 .9736 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 86.09 118.89 2.2938 2.5746 3.2519 2.2732 111.49 144.27 2.2678 2.6584 3.4622 2.2678 111.15 124.61 2.1423 2.3239 3.7500 2.1281 58.24 56.02 .8234 .8864 1.6BO0 .8180 59.67 71.53 1.2514 1.3701 2.0471 1.2422 4.57 8.13 . 1913 .2000 .2126 .1913 .00 .00 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 9.72 15.42 .5487 .5735 .5776 .5447 5.23 8.30 .2954 .3086 .3111 .2933 6.20 9.31 .2339 .2558 .2598 .2321  142  .47 .00 .1? 1.34  .33  .00 3.36 2.02 .00 1.97 1.32 2.02 .00 .82 1.33 1.38 .40 .00 1.38 .00 .40 .00 1.34 .00 .39 .85 .63 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  22.98 .00 8.58 72.81 29.86 .00 266.49 145.72 .00 53.04 35.13 54.04 .00 21.82 37.66 36.98 10.75 .00 45.52 .00 13.27 .00 44.48 .00 26.68 39.26 31.98 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  5.69 .00 2.09 19.97 8.19 .00 64.23 36.88 .00 14.38 9.40 14.46 .00 5.84 13.48 9.83 2.88 .00 14.09 .00 4.19 .00 14.04 .00 6.50 9.56 B.77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  143  8.32 .00 3.31 23.50 9.64 .00 62.31 35.42 .00 22.05 14.90 22.92 .00 . 9.19 14.81 15.63 4.54 .00 25.88 .00 7.51 .00 25.18 .00 10.30 15.00 11.01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .1913 .0000 .2216 .7348 .3391 .0000 1.7762 1.1820 .0000 1.6638 1.240? 1.9091 .0000 .6919 .8038 1.2662 .3377 .0000 1.2684 .0000 .3614 .0000 1.2118 .0000 .4156 ,6372 .4804 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000  .2126 .0000 .2306 .9141 .421? .0000 3.0500 1.9524 .0000 1.7200 1.2743 1.9605 .0000 .7105 .8786 1.3041 .3478 .0000 1.3113 .0000 .3750 .0000 1.2574 .0000 .4324 .6764 .5603 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000  .2182 .0000 .232? 1.0400 .4800 .0000 3.0500 2.0500 .0000 1.7661 1.2914 1.9868 .0000 .7200 1.1912 1.3138 .3529 .0000 1.3554 .0000 .3953 .0000 1.3253 .0000 .4368 .6832 .6375 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000  .18?? .0000 .2194 .7275 .3358 .0000 1.7586 1.1703 .0000 1.6310 1.2327 1.8965 .0000 .6827 .7880 1.2569 .3352 .0000 1.2600 .0000 .3588 .0000 1.2029 .0000 .4115 .6372 .4757 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000  TRAM  6.64 3.83 10.92 19.87 14.08 36.69 12.33 31.81 21.66 .00 7.67 6.84 4.68 3.16 8.73 6.04 .00 9.40 6.64 2.93 3.16 9.08 6.04 .00 8.31 9.06 .00 3.67 6.04 11.96 13.39 11.36 4.13 .00 4.23 4.70 10.07 13.60 14.28 3.39 .00 6.04 18.39 13.67 .00 3.00 .00 9.34 10.30 .00 33.93 40.80 35.47 15.95 20.38 2.30 .00 5.46 2.94 3.30  TRHD TRPH 52.58 9.47 46.96 9.44 87.92 20.02 164.36 46.10 114.96 36.48 295.33 69.05 117.43 32.25 258.22 65.59 167.92 29.87 .00 .00 59.10 10.37 53.57 9.71 37.89 7.17 24.52 4.35 66.94 12.11 46.73 8.45 .00 .00 72.44 12.71 52.00 9.42 22.91 4.15 24.52 4.35 69.63 12.59 46.73 8.45 .00 .00 64.08 11.24 70.93 12.44 .00 .00 45.81 8.02 49.52 8.86 103.26 18.91 122.43 20.82 90.35 15.85 32.30 5.67 .00 .00 35.34 6.43 37.97 6.65 B4.08 15.30 122.56 20.84 123.96 21.87 28.32 5.26 .00 .00 47.23 9.68 143.92 29.50 108.46 25.72 .00 .00 22.74 3.95 .00 .00 70.23 12.10 80.52 14.04 .00 .00 284.44 61.08 357.25 79.10 287.45 78.86 12B.23 41.32 166.65 42.33 17.95 3.24 .00 .00 42.66 7.31 22.97 3.93 26.97 4.66  1.71 1.51 2.82 5.09 3.64 9.41 3.24 8.15 5.59 .00 1.96 1.72 1.18 .81 2.21 1.54 .00 2.41 1.67 .74 .81 2.30 1.54 .00 2.13 2.36 .00 1.45 1.55 3.06 3.48 2.91 1.06 .00 1.08 1.20 2.58 3.48 3.60 .85 .00 1.54 4.69 3.51 .00 .78 .00 2.41 2.71 .00 8.74 10.61 9.16 4.12 5.26 .60 .00 1.41 .76 .85  HBHAH HBMHD 10.94 29.13 9.62 26.01 18.01 48.70 32.77 91.05 23.22 63.68 60.50 163.60 20.66 65.05 52.45 143.04 35.72 93.02 .00 .00 15.78 28.82 14.08 26.13 9.63 18.48 6.50 11.96 17.96 32.65 12.43 22.79 .00 .00 19.34 35.33 13.67 25.36 6.02 11.17 6.50 11.96 18.68 33.96 12.43 22.79 .00 .00 17.11 31.25 18.64 34.59 .00 .00 9.35 25.38 9.97 27.43 19.73 57.20 22.41 67.82 18.73 50.05 6.80 17.89 .00 .00 6.98 19.58 7.75 21.04 16.61 46.58 22.43 67.89 23.54 68.67 5.59 15.69 .00 .00 11.60 25.90 35.34 78.93 26.26 59.48 .00 .00 6.18 10.97 .00 .00 18.07 38.52 20.31 44.16 .00 .00 48.54 159.77 58.38 200.66 50.76 161.46 22.82 72.03 29.16 93.61 3.29 10.08 .00 .00 6.70 28.11 3.61 15.14 4.05 17.77 144  12.57 12.52 26.57 61.20 48.43 91.66 42.81 87.07 39.65 .00 13.76 12.89 9.51 5.77 16.07 11.22 .00 16.87 12.51 5.51 5.77 16.71 11.22 .00 14.92 16.52 .00 10.64 11.75 25.07 27.5? 21.01 7.51 .00 8.52 8.82 20.28 27.62 2?. 00 6.?7 .00 13.44 40.97 35.72 .00 5.24 ,00 16. ao 19.50 .00 86.86 112.48 112.14 58.76 60.20 4.61 .00 9.81 5.28 6.25  HBVO HBOAH 22.56 2.43 19.82 2.14 37.12 4.01 67.05 7.29 47.8? 5.16 123.97 13.46 42.61 4.60 107.31 11.67 73.63 7.95 .00 .00 2?. 04 3.31 25.52 3.13 17.45 2.14 12.05 1.45 32.70 3.99 22.83 2.76 .00 .00 35.60 4.30 24.76 3.04 10.91 1.34 12.05 1.45 34.02 . 4.15 22.83 2.76 .00 .00 31.49 3.81 34.86 4.15 .00 .00 19.12 2.08 20.37 2.22 40.33 4.3? 45.80 4.98 38.29 4.17 13.91 1.51 .00 .00 14.27 1.55 15.84 1.72 33.96 3.70 45.85 4.?? 47.38 5.24 11.24 1.24 .00 .00 19.51 2.58 59.45 7.86 44.46 5.84 .00 .00 11.48 1.37 .00 .00 30.59 4.02 34.38 4.52 .00 .00 111.32 10.80 135.09 12.?? 116.68 11.2? 52.45 5.08 66.97 6.4? 7.61 .73 .00 .00 14.44 1.4? 7.77 .80 B.72 .?0  H ID HBOPH HBOO 27.08 13.05 21.42 24.1? 13.00 18.82 45.2? 27.58 35.25 84.66 63.50 63.67 59.21 50.25 45.47 152.12 95.12 117.72 60.4? 44.42 40.46 133.01 90.35 101.90 86.4? 41.14 69.92 .00 .00 .00 26.80 14.28 27.58 24.2? 13.37 24.23 17.18 ?.87 16.57 11.12 5.?? 11.44 30.36 16.68 31.06 21.1? 11.64 21.68 .00 .00 .00 32. B5 17.50 33.80 23.58 12.98 23.32 10.3? 5.72 10.36 11.12 5.99 11.44 31.58 17.34 32.30 21.1? 11.64 21.68 .00 .00 .00 29.06 15.48 29.90 32.16 17.14 33.10 .00 .00 .00 23.60 11.04 18.13 25.51 12.19 19.35 53.19 26.01 38.29 63.06 28.63 43.49 46.54 21.80 36.36 16.64 7.79 13.21 .00 .00 .00 18.20 8.84 13.55 19.56 9.15 15.05 43.31 21.04 32.25 63.13 28.66 43.54 63.85 30.09 44.99 14.59 7.23 10.68 .00 .00 .00 24.0B 13.95 18.52 73.39 42.51 56.45 55.31 37.06 42.22 .00 .00 .00 10.20 5.44 10.90 .00 .00 .00 35.B2 17.44 29.05 41.06 20.24 32.64 .00 .00 .00 148.56 90.13 105.71 186.59 116.72 128.28 150.13 116.36 110.80 66.97 60.97 49.81 87.04 62.46 63.60 9.38 4.79 7.23 .00 .00 .00 26.14 10.18 13.71 14.07 5.48 7.38 16.52 6.49 8.2B  2.75 .00 1.18 8.33 3.42 .00 22.14 12.58 .00 7.7? 5.1? 7.99 .00 3.23 5.23 5.45 1.58 .00 7.37 .00 2.14 .00 7.17 .00 3.66 5.28 3.91 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  24.49 .00 9.14 77.3? 31.82 .00 283.97 155.28 .00 60.15 39.83 61.29 .00 24.75 42.71 41.94 12.19 .00 56.90 .00 16.58 .00 55.60 .00 28.43 41.83 34.08 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  4.27 .00 1.57 15.01 6.15 .00 48.28 27.72 .00 10.50 6.86 10.56 .00 4.26 9.84 7.18 2.10 .00 10.00 .00 2.?7 .00 9.96 .00 4.88 7.18 6.59 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .76 .00 .30 2.15 .88 .00 3.70 3.24 .00 1.9? 1.34 2.06 .00 .83 1.33 1.41 .41 .00 1.90 .00 .55 .00 1.85 .00 .94 1.37 1.01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  3.62 .00 1.44 10.24 4.20 .00 27.15 15.43 .00 15.07 10.05 15.46 .00 6.24 10.12 10.55 3.07 .00 10.54 .00 3.06 .00 10.26 .00 4.49 6.47 4.80 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  16.14 .00 6.02 51.12 20.96 .00 187.10 102.31 .00 37.24 24.66 37.94 .00 15.32 26.44 25.96 7.54 .00 31.94 .00 9.31 .00 31.23 .00 18.73 27.56 22.45 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  145  3.74 .00 2.11 20.14 8.26 .00 64.80 37.21 .00 14.50 9.48 14.58 .00 5.89 13.60 9.92 2.90 .00 14.22 .00 4.23 .00 14.17 .00 6.55 9.64 8.85 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  7.79 .00 3.10 22.00 9.02 .00 58.34 33.16 .00 20.65 13.95 21.46 .00 8.61 13.87 14.63 4.25 .00 24.24 .00 7.03 .00 23.58 .00 9.64 14.04 10.31 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  .80 .00 .32 2.28 .93 .00 6.04 3.43 .00 3.35 2.24 3.44 .00 1.39 2.25 2.35 .68 .00 2.35 .00 .68 .00 2.28 .00 1.00 1.44 1.07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  15.00 .00 3.60 47.53 19.49 .00 173.97 95.13 .00 34.63 22.93 35.28 .00 14.25 24.59 24.14 7.01 .00 29.72 .00 8.66 .00 29.04 .00 17.42 25.63 20.88 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  5.95 .00 2.19 20.90 8.57 .00 67.25 38.61 .00 15.05 9.B4 15.13 .00 6.11 14.11 10.29 3.01 .00 14.75 .00 4.38 .00 14.70 .00 6.80 10.01 9.18 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  7.40 .00 2.?4 20.89 8.37 .00 55.40 31.49 .00 19.60 13.25 20.38 .00 8.17 13.17 13.89 4.04 .00 23.01 .00 6.68 .00 22.39 .00 9.15 13.33 9.79 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  TOTAL LOW TOTAL HIGH TINE COST TIHE COST 289.07 3864.25 261.75 3500.46 501.92 6716.80 972.84 13030.08 705.36 9457.98 1692.82 22653.83 669.81 8963.52 1502.08 20109.08 927.69 12402.79 .00 .00 326.44 4342.17 294.58 3916.47 207.40 2754.94 135.59 1803.96 371.17 4936.60 258.92 3444.28 .00 .00 400.15 5322.65 285.91 3801.15 125.98 1674.85 135.61 1804.18 3B&.05 5134.5? 258.92 3444.28 .00 .00 353.94 4708.10 391.25 5205.9? .00 .00 24B.63 3321.73 268.53 35B7.52 553.38 7390.56 639.92 8539.87 492.86 6585.70 177.08 2346.47 .00 .00 191.09 2552.71 206.10 2753.33 454.63 6073.28 640.59 8548.80 656.72 8765.06 153.05 2043.87 .00 .00 266.63 3557.62 812.56 10841.71 628.77 8398.51 .00 .00 126.12 1677.47 .00 .00 390.94 5213.58 446.19 5949.94 .00 .00 1588.78 21296.74 1988.17 26652.02 1712.93 23006.67 798.35 10736.36 972.49 13053.41 99.31 1330.86 .00 .00 233.48 3138.58 125.71 1689.94 146.12 1964.00  146  132.39 1779.36 .00 .00 SO.07 673.04 415.83 5589.00 170.53 2292.09 .00 .00 1396.73 18743.40 775.64 10412.20 .00 .00 331.95 4430.26 220.35 2941.54 339.01 4525.52 .00 .00 136.71 1824.73 244.53 3268.83 231.53 3090.59 67.36 899.12 .00 .00 313.85 4205.12 .00 .00 91.64 1227.99 .00 .00 307.27 4117.27 .00 .00 155.76 2093.85 228.44 3071.22 185.29 2490.96 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 32269.23 431707.62  SE1ST EVALUATION VE1GHTED LINK AADT DISTANCE AV6 VOL 1 25705 .17 not 2 25777 .14 909 3 34559 .25 2176 4 37916 .38 3629 3 34324 .31 2680 6 35409 .9 B027 7 30097 .28 2123 8 17165 .7B 3372 9 16166 .76 3095 AIR 0 3.97 27113 10 10346 .62 2430 11 8074 .66 2080 12 6294 .28 668 13 97B2 .21 778 14 13B21 .5 2618 IS 10710 .35 1420 STNB 0 2.64 9992.60 16 13628 .76 4273 17 11809 .66 2804 IB 8213 .28 B27 19 10538 .21 796 20 14337 .52 2682 21 13136 .33 1654 STUB 0 2.78 13035.11 22 19303 .97 19303 23 16724 1.04 16724 RICH 0 0 0 24 118B2 .3 1174 25 6992 .83 1147 26 • 10429 1.13 2329 27 13465 .99 2634 28 10585 1.11 2322 29 8414 .5 B31 SFEEB 0 5.06 10437.98 30 8610 .48 B49 31 522? .83 891 32 8717 1.13 2023 33 13480 .99 2740 34 12531 1.11 2856 35 10073 .33 683 SFEKB 0 4.87 10041.43 36 16157 .21 2630 37 16253 .64 8064 38 16157 .44 3511 UNIV 0 1.29 16204.79 39 20493 .43 20493 PARKS 0 0 0 40 13312 1.04 8932 41 22099 .51 7271 6E1ST 0 1.55 16203.17 42 9270 .88 2070 43 9523 .87 2103 44 14705 1.1 4105 45 23B13 .42 253B 46 18083 .SB 2662 47 9941 .09 227 COLL 0 3.94 13706.12 48 20820 .26 9022 49 19208 .14 4482 50 2264? .11 4152 148  SI ILL 32 53 34 CUSH 55 56 SCUSH 57 58 59 PE6 60 61 62 63 PHIL 64 AUR 65 THIRD 66 HIN 67 68 69 BARN 70 71 72 73 74 75 GEXT 76 6ILL 77 COLCON NETWORK  25311 0 12612 13580 10948 0 23183 14079 0 20329 22954 2137? 0 5271 314 5250 4450 0 2356 0 10294 0 13842 0 14611 13031 13971 0 26922 19738 23879 11815 11550 12912 0 12064 0 13761 0 0  .0? 3797 .60 21452.S? .08 2193 .26 8806 .12 2856 .46 13855.65 .61 13865 .41 5659 1.02 19323.76 .86 6965 .65 5944 1 8517 2.51 21426.78 .36 1240 .41 84 .6 2059 .16 465 1.53 3848.42 .66 2356 0 0 .17 10294 0 0 .57 13B42 0 0 .15 39B5 .23 5449 .17 4318 .55 13752.4B 1.13 5907 .81 3104 .45 2086 1.26 2891 .75 1682 .75 1880 5.15 17551.02 .9 12064 0 .9 13761 0 0  ROAD SEBHENT AIR STNB STSB RICHNB SFEEB SFEHB UNIV PARKS BEIST C0LLE6E ILL CUSH SCUSH PE6 PHIL AUR THIRD IflNNIE BARN 6EIST BEIT 6ILL RICHSB  ADT  ACCDNTS ' ANNUAL TOTAL DISTRIBUTION OF ACCIDENTS PER HVH VH(HILS) ACCDNTS ' POO NAIS1 NAIS2 KA1S3 NAIS4 HA1S5 FATALS 27112.69 8.4727 32.1836 272.6803 250.211418.2968 2.5359 1.1180 .1909 .0545 .2727 9992.602 4.4703 7.8878 33.2610 32.3555 2.3660 .3279 .1446 .0247 .0071 .0353 13035.11 5.5808 10.8350 60.4682 55.4856 4.0574 .5624 .2479 .0423 .0121 .0605 19302.83 7.3245 5.5984 41.0057 37.6269 2.7315 .3814 .1681 .0287 .0082 .0410 10437.98 4.6437 15.7920 73.3331 67.2905 4.9207 .6820 .3007 .0513 .0147 .0733 10041.43 4.4895 14.6216 65.6442 60.2351 4.4047 .6105 .2691 .0460 .0131 .0656 16204.79 6.5542 6.2503 40.965B 37.5902 2.7488 .3810 .1680 .0287 .0082 .0410 20492.86 7.5729 2.6348 19.9529 18.3087 1.3388 .1856 .0818 .0140 .0040 .0200 16203.17 6.5537 7.5094 49.2142 45.1389 3.3023 .4577 .2018 .0344 .0098 .0492 13706 5.8025 16.1466 93.6905 85.9704 6.2866 .8713 .3841 .0656 .0187 .0937 21452.59 7.7540 3.8486 29.8419 27.3830 2.0024 .2775 .1224 .0209 .0060 .0298 13855.65 5.8507 1.9057 11.1498 10.2310 .7482 .1037 .0457 .0078 .0022 .0111 19523.76 7.3726 5.9544 43.8994 40.2821 2.9456 .4083 .1800 .0307 .0088 .043? 21426.78 7.7493 16.0806 124.6139 114.3457 8.3616 1.1589 .5109 .0872 .0249 .1246 3848.42 1.7018 1.7605 2.9960 2.7491 .2010 .0279 .0123 .0021 .0006 .0030 2355.94 .9230 .4649 .4291 .3938 .0288 .0040 .0018 .0003 .0001 .0004 10294 4.5880 .5232 2.4006 2.2028 .1611 .0223 .0098 .0017 .0005 .0024 13842.22 5.8464 2.3591 13.7925 12.6560 .9255 .1283 .0565 .0097 .0028 .0138 13752.48 5.8175 4.6466 27.0313 24.8039 1.8138 .2514 .1108 .0189 .0054 .0270 17551.02 6.9109 27.0259 186.7737 171.3836 12.5325 1.7370 .7658 .1307 .0374 .1868 12063.78 5.2450 3.2464 17.0273 15.6242 1.1425 .1584 .0698 .0119 .0034 .0170 13761 5.8202 3.7031 21.5529 19.7769 1.4462 .2004 .0884 .0151 .0043 .0216 16724.29 6.6958 5.2006 34.8222 31.9529 2.3366 .3238 .1428 .0244 .0070 .0348 1268.55 1164.02 85.1195 11.7975 5.2010 ' .8880  NETWORK T  COSTS BY TYPE OF ACCIDENT TOTAL PDO NA1S1 HAIS2 HAIS3 HAI54 HAIS5 FATALS COST 2?13B3 58263 16239 16015 13539 1982B 147297 562565 3767? 7534 2100 2071 1751 2564 19047 72747 64616 12920 3601 3551 3002 4397 32664 124752 43818 8762 2442 2408 2036 2982 22150 B4599 78363 15669 4367 4307 3641 5333 39613 151293 70147 14026 3909 3855 3259 4773 35460 135430 43776 8753 2440 2406 2034 2979 22129 84516 21321 4263 1186 1172 991 1451 1077S 41165 52590 10516 2931 2891 2444 3579 26565 101533 100117 20019 5580 5503 4652 6613 50610 193292 3188? 6376 1777 1753 14B2 2170 16120 61567 11915 2382 664 655 554 811 6023 23003 46910 9380 2614 2578 2160 3192 23714 90568 133161 26626 7421 7319 6187 9061 67314 257090 3202 640 178 176 149 218 1618 6181 45? 92 26 25 21 31 232 885 2565 513 143 141 119 175 1297 4953 14738 2947 821 810 685 1003 7450 28455 288B5 5776 1610 1588 1342 1966 14602 55768 199584 39908 11123 10970 9273 13562 100891 385331 18195 3638 1014 1000 845 1238 9198 35129 1070 1567 11642 44466 23031 4605 1284 1266 37211 7440 2074 2045 1729 2532 18810 71841 1082537 21645?  60332 59500  50299  73666 547232  150  261712?  .2537 1.2685  APPENDIX C  151  VEHICLE VEHICLE TIHE TIHE ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL TOTAL OPERATING OPERATING COST COST COST COST COST COST COST-AUTO COST-TRUCK HI8H LOW HI6H LOW HI8H LOW 64609 16332 333451 24934 1986 105875 123,903,291 31,656,503 414392 17369 364992 1987 70161 114819 135,304,147 27290 452522 34,331,002 1988 72530 17862 377991 118652 140,046,264 35,477,088 28261 468382 1989 74979 122614 144,954,884 18368 391452 29267 484799 36,661,607 1990 18889 405392 77511 126709 150,035,860 37,885,854 30308 501792 1991 4 1 9 8 2 9 1 9 4 2 5 80128 31387 519382 130940 155,295,255 39,151,168 1992 82834 19976 434780 32504 537590 135314 160,739,344 40,458,930 20542 450263 1993 85631 139835 166,374,621 41,810,572 33661 556437 199* 21125 466298 144507 172,207,812 88523 43,207,370 34859 575946 21724 482904 1995 91512 149336 178,245,877 36100 596140 44,651,454 1996 22225 501451 93932 153652 184,664,952 617609 45,941,901 37495 1997 22530 511100 95348 156097 188,064,383 38219 628978 46,672,989 22839 520934 1998 96786 47,413,891 38957 640558 158582 191,526,954 1999 5 3 0 9 5 7 2 3 1 5 2 98245 39709 652354 161106 195,053,848 48,170,803 23470 541173 2000 99726 163672 198,646,268 48,937,921 40476 664369 2001 101229 23792 551586 49,717,447 166279 202,305,440 41258 676607 2002 24119 562199 102755 689072 50,509,585 42055 168928 206,032,614 104304 2003 24450 573016 42867 701769 171621 209,829,062 51,314,541 2004 105876 24785 584041 174356 213,696,081 52,132,527 43695 714703 2005 107472 25126 595279 44539 177136 217,634,992 52,963,757 727876  VEHICLE VEHICLE TIHE TIHE TOTAL TOTAL ANNUAL ANNUAL COST COST COST 0PERAT1N6 0PERATIN6 COST COST COST COST-AUTO COST-TRUCK H16H LOW H I G H LOW HI6H LOW 1986 64609 16332 346386 31,945,876 25901 427327 106842 127,770,753 16987 355362 110884 131,462,766 1987 67326 26571 439675 33,154,242 17834 372667 116597 137,967,667 70929 34,862,450 1988 27833 461430 1989 71700 18024 392949 119029 144,319,274 35,589,805 29305 482673 37,107,482 1990 75519 18926 396768 29660 491213 124105 146,872,726 37,107,599 496662 1991 75087 18921 402654 30098 124106 148,502,047 38,630,333 1992 78258 19606 419110 31335 516974 129198 154,575,299 80954 20200 433163 32390 534317 133544 159,760,818 39,929,695 1993 41,272,845 1994 83744 20811 447687 33481 552242 138036 165,120,377 42,661,260 86629 21441 462698 34609 570769 142680 170,659,820 1995 21930 475457 146372 175,293,682 43,765,224 88880 35562 586266 1996 1997 90204 22228 482828 148545 177,982,701 44,414,971 36113 595260 45,074,379 91547 22531 490313 604391 150750 180,712,998 1998 36673 45,743,591 92911 22837 497915 37241 613663 152989 183,485,207 1999 46,422,754 23148 505634 37817 155260 186,299,973 2000 94295 623077 47,112,016 157565 189,157,948 95699 23463 513473 38403 632635 2001 47,811,527 192,059,798 5 2 1 4 3 4 1 5 9 9 0 5 9 7 1 2 4 2 3 7 8 2 3 8 9 9 8 6 4 2 3 4 0 2002 48,521,440 195,006,195 9 8 5 7 1 1 6 2 2 7 9 2 4 1 0 6 5 2 9 5 1 8 3 9 6 0 2 6 5 2 1 9 5 2003 49,241,909 197,997,824 1 6 4 6 8 9 24434 537727 2004 100039 40215 662200 1 6 7 1 3 4 201,035,380 49,973,092 24767 546063 101529 40838 672359 2005 152  DECREASE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED LOSS IN ANNUAL IN USER ADDED TOTAL INCREASE 1 RISE TRAFFIC AS A RESULT DEMAND- COSTS KITH ANNUAL GENERATED TRAFFIC DAILY DEMAND . IN TRAFFIC IN COSTS OF 6ENERATED TRAFFIC EXISTING PROJECT WORK OTHER TOTAL TRAFFIC E*6 E TO 6 E+6 WORK OTHER 49883516 0 0 0 0 0 49883516 0 0 0 0 51443428 .0284 468972 448817 917788 3070 52361217 .0183 .0175 307681 294458 33052318 .0148 252839 241972 494811 1655 53547129 .0142 .0092 244155 233661 54711229 .0044 77033 73722 150755 504 54861984 .0027 .0183 322376 308521 56422257 .0211 381956 365541 747497 2500 57169753 .0176 .0131 326758 312715 SB186656 .0437 817298 782173 1599471 5349 59786127 .0268 .0318 610475 584238 60006310 .0383 738892 707136 1446028 4836 61452338 .0235 .0265 522907 500434 61882894 .0398 789905 755958 1545863 5170 63428757 .0244 .0235 478624 458054 6381B082 .0412 843374 807128 1650502 5520 654685B4 .0252 .0205 430950 412429 65813757 .0426 899401 860748 1760149 5887 67573906 .0260 .0175 379715 363396 66743468 .0507 1087585 1040843 2128428 7118 66871895 .0309 .0204 451141 431752 67686364 .0536 1165113 1115039 2280152 7626 69966516 .0217 .0326 487518 466565 68642447 .0565 1244480 1190995 2435475 8145 71077921 .0343 .0231 527214 504556 69612134 .0593 1325724 1268748 2594472 8677 72206605 .0359 .0245 568046 543633 70595425 .0622 1408877 134B327 2757205 9221 73352629 .0258 .0376 607681 581565 71592530 .0650 1493975 1429768 2923743 9778 74516273 .0392 .0271 648426 620559 72603868 .0678 1581059 1513109 3094168 10348 75698036 .0409 .0284 690309 660641 73629438 .0706 1670161 1598382 3268543 10932 76897981 .0425 .0298 735820 704196 74669659 .0735 1761324 1685627 3446952 11528 78116610 .0441 .0311 780089 746563 75724740 .0763 1854587 1774882 3629470 12139 79354210 .0457 .0324 825573 790092 1  PER UNIT BENEFITS LOST BENEFITS BENEFITS TO TO EIISTIN6 FROM LOST BENERATED NET BENEFITS TO TRAFFIC TRAFFIC TRAFFIC GENERATED TRAFFIC HI6H LOW HI6H LOW H16H LOW HIGH LOW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0747 .0229 44963 13774 34267 10497 -10696 -3277 .0392 .0116 18721 5536 9693 2866 -9028 -2669 .0116 .0196 7329 12359 876 1477 -6454 -10883 .0561 .0138 35850 8B22 20953 5156 -14897 -3666 .1167 .0351 139481 41959 93368 26087 -46113 -13872 .1027 .0305 105121 31185 74270 22033 -30851 -9152 .1069 .0304 100108 28470 82608 23493 -17501 -4977 .1111 .0303 93663 25568 91650 25019 -2013 -550 .1153 .0302 85655 22471 101442 26613 157B7 4142 .1404 .0326 123965 28793 149423 34707 25459 5913 .1489 .0334 142108 31828 169811 38033 27703 6203 .1575 .0341 162545 35195 191843 41539 29297 6344 .1662 .0349 184747 38762 215584 45232 30837 6470 .1749 .0356 207985 42370 241101 49117 33116 6746 .1836 .0364 233041 46182 268463 53201 35422 7020 .1925 .0372 259994 50203 297741 57492 37747 7289 .2013 .0379 289900 54626 329007 61995 39107 7369 .2102 .0387 320957 59100 362337 66719 41380 7619 .2192 .0395 354170 63809 71671 397808 43638 7862 1  m  B e n e f i t s Under V a r i o u s S c e n a r i o s  ANNUAL  WITHOUT  WITH  ANNUAL  ANNUAL  BENEFITS ADJUSTED  BENEFITS ADJUSTED  PROJECT  PROJECT  BENEFITS  BENEFITS  FOR 6ENERATED  FOR 6ENERATED  ANNUAL  ANNUAL  ANNUAL  INCLUDIN6  INCLUDING  TRAFFIC-WITHOUT  TRAFFIC-WITH  ANNUAL  IEFITS  BENEFITS  ACCIDENT  ACCIDENT  ACCIDENT  ACCIDENT  ACCIDENT  ACCIDENT  CONSTRUCTION HAINTENANC  ;H  LOW  COSTS  COSTS  HI6H  LOW  HIGH  0  0  2226B91  3,841,382  1 176 761  2435970  2335863  3,941,489  2522367  2449432  2,131,512  2611628  614 638  2,078,597 635,t>10  1 071  3,163,134  802  778 372  2226891  0  2529623  717,814  2704461  2S485B6  3,319,008  0  LOW  KI6H  LOW  ANNUAL  COSTS  COSTS  0  0  0  0  26000000  868  3852078  1180038  3952166  1260145  0  61236  687 553  2067625  617307  2160540  690222  15400000  113236  642063  1082684  724268  1164889  23500000  330624  3178031  782038  3333905  937912  23100000  330624  1,276 1,154 934  006 246  61236  6,793,209  2 043 369  2800381  2564057  7,029,332  2 , 2 7 9 892  6839322  2057441  7075645  2293764  0  330624  6,164,045  1 828 398  2899702  2717166  6,346,581  2,011  134  6194896  1837750  6377431  2020286  28100000  336024  6,613,803  1 880  877  3002345  2841193  6,775,156  2 , 0 4 2 229  6631304  1685654  6792656  2047206  0  336024  7,087,435  1 934  725  3109037  2970882  7,225,590  2 , 0 7 2 680  7089448  1935275  7227603  2073430  0  336024  7,586,056  1 990  9,371,269  2  193  3219305  3106490  7,698,871  2 , 1 0 3 008  7370269  1986051  7683084  2098866  0  336024  176 678  3290092  3220438  9,440,924  2 , 2 4 6 332  9345811  2170764  9415465  2240419  0  336024  10053979  2251813  10107152  2304986  0  336024 336024  10,081,682  2 258  01B  3333788  3280615  10,134,855  2,311  10,813,957  2 341 512  3378065  3341917  10,850,105  2 , 3 7 7 660  10784659  2335169  10620807  2371317  0  11,568,641  2 427 212  3422930  3404364  11,587,207  2 , 4 4 5 777  11537804  2420742  11556369  2439307  0  336024  12,346,296  2 315 167  3468390  3467979  12,346,707  2 , 5 1 5 578  12313179  2508421  12313591  2508832  0  336024  191  13,147,492  2 605  431  3514454  3532782  13,129,165  2,587  13112070  2598411  13093742  2580084  0  336024  13,972,816  2 698  057  3561130  3598795  13,935,151  2 , 6 6 0 392  13935069  2690769  13897404  2653104  0  336024  793 101  104  14,822,867  2  3608426  3666043  14,765,250  2 , 7 3 5 484  14783760  2785732  14726143  2726115  0  336024  15,698,257  2 B90  61B  3656350  3734547  15,620,060  2 , 8 1 2 421  15656877  2882998  15578661  2604802  0  336024  16,599,612  2 990  665  3704911  3804331  16,500,192  2,891 245  16555974  2982803  16456554  2883383  0  336024  NPV OF KPV OF ANNUAL ANNUAL BENEFITS ADJUSTED NPV NPV BENEFITS BENEFITS FOR GENERATED ANNUAL ANNUAL INCLUDING INCLUDING TRAFFIC-WITHOUT DISCOUNT BENEFITS BENEFITS ACCIDENT ACCIDENT ACCIDENT KATE HIGH LOW HI8H LOW HIGH LOW -.0500 358584603 77349850 359885562 78650808 3S7955B66 0 172386160 39015992 173513169 40145001 172164219 .0050 161028701 36632882 162134641 37738B21 160829905 .0100 150556439 3442B2SS 131639070 35510886 150378700 .0150 140B92726 32387023 141931932 33446227 140734150 131968103 .0200 30493486 133003868 31531252 131826964 123719362 123394296 .0290 28741202 124731966 29733606 116069924 27112838 117079119 28102053 .0300 115979108 .0350 109027255 25600161 109993460 26566366 108929595 102484355 .0400 24193741 103427843 25137228 102398673 .0450 96418296 96343517 22885061 97339382 23806147 .0500 90790006 21666339 91689044 22565378 90725153 .0550 85563901 20530471 86441278 21407848 855060B4 .0600 80707553 19470975 81563677 20327098 60659960 .0650 76191386 18481925 770266B5 19317224 76151276 719B8409 .0700 71955107 17557905 72803326 18372822 68073974 .0750 16693959 68868964 1748894B 68046865 64425559 .0800 15885548 65201081 16661071 64404078 .0850 61022566 15128516 61779087 15865038 61006201 .0900 57846149 14419050 S858413B 15157038 57834431 .0950 54879054 13753652 55598976 14473574 54871552 .1000 52105468 13129112 52807789 13831433 52101793 .1050 49510898 49510691 12542478 50196080 13227660 .1100 47082045 11991040 47750545 12659540 47084978 .1150 44806702 11472301 45458970 12124569 44812476 .1200 42673654 10983964 43310135 11620445 42681997 .1250 40672596 10523914 41293725 11145043 40683256 .1300 38794047 10090199 39400253 10696404 38806796 .1350 37029283 9681020 37620984 10272721 37043910 .1400 35370268 9294717 35947874 9872323 35386583 .1450 33809601 8929756 34373512 9493666 33827427 .1500 32340453 858471B 32891061 9135326 32359631 .1550 30956528 8258294 31494213 B795979 30976911 .1600 29652010 7949269 30177144 8474402 29673464 .1650 26421530 7656520 28934473 8169463 2B443931 .1700 7379006 27761227 7880110 27260123 27283360 .1750 26163199 7115762 26652805 7605368 26187168 .1800 25126508 6665892 25604949 7344333 25151115 .1850 24146117 6628566 24613714 7096163 24171277 .1900 23218382 6403011 23675447 6860077 23244015 .1950 6188510 22786760 6635348 22339922 22365958 .2000 21507604 5984396 21944508 6421300 21533977 .3000 172386160 39015992 11533846 3658105 11271593 .4000 172386160 39015992 7128314 2380675 6947862 .5000 172386160 39015992 4909552 1690884 4776110 .6000 172386160 39015992 3638256 1274804 3538174  155  NPV OF BENEFITS ADJUSTED FOR GENERATED TRAFFIC-KITH ACCIDENT HIGH LOW 77252005 359256823 78552962 38992059 17329322B 40121068 36613026 161935845 37718966 34412086 131461330 35494716 32374183 141793354 33433387 30485653 132862729 31521419 28734083 124606700 29746487 27108186 116968304 28097381 25597694 109895B01 26563900 24193261 103342160 25136748 22886369 97264603 23807455 21669252 91624192 22568291 20534826 86385461 21412203 19476622 81516084 20332745 16488728 769B6575 19324027 17565740 72770024 18380657 16702713 68B41B54 17497703 15895120 65179601 16670643 15138612 61762722 15895334 14429986 58572419 15167974 13765151 55591474 14485073 13141104 52804114 13843425 12554900 50195873 13240082 12003833 4775347B 12672333 11485413 45464745 12137681 10997348 4331847B 11633828 10537526 41304385 11158655 10104000 39413001 10710205 9694974 37635611 10286675 9308792 35964189 9686398 8943922 34391339 9507834 8598949 32910239 9149557 8272566 31514596 8810251 7963560 30198597 8488693 7670810 28956874 8183754 7393278 27784464 7894382 7130000 26676774 7619607 6880083 25629556 7358523 6642695 24638873 7110292 6417068 23701080 6874133 6202484 22812795 6649322 5998277 21970881 6435161 3381510 11559382 3669300 2188291 7148824 2389233 1550006 4925543 1697438 1167274 3650606 1279905  BENEFIT-COST RATIOS DISCOUNT RATE -.0500 0 .0050 .0100 .0150 .0200 .0250 .0300 .0350 .0400 .0450 .0500 .0550 .0600 .0650 .0700 .0750 .0800 .0850 .0900 .0950 .1000 .1050 .1100 .1150 .1200 .1250 .1300 .1350 .1400 .1450 .1500 .1550 .1600 .1650 .1700 .1750 .1800 .1850 .1900 .1950 .2000 .3000 .4000 .5000 .6000  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  2.307 1.413 1.349 1.290 1.233 1.180 1.130 1.082 1.038 .995 .955 .918 .882 .848 .816 .786 .757 .730 .704 .679 .656 .634 .613 .593 .574 .556 .538 .522 .506 .492 .477 .464 .451 .439 .427 .416 .405 .395 .385 .375 .366 .358  .498 .320 .307 .295 .283 .273 .262 .253 .244 .235 .227 .219 .212 .205 .198 .192 .186 .180 .174 .169 .164 .160 .155 .151 .147 .143 .139 .136 .132 .129 .126 .123 .120 .118 .115 .113 .110 .108 .106 .104 .101 .100  2.315 1.422 1.359 1.299 1.242 1.189 1.139 1.092 1.047 1.005 .965 .927 .891 .857 .825 .794 .766 .738 .712 .688 .664 .642 .621 .601 .582 .564 .547 .530 .514 .500 .485 .472 .459 .446 .435 .423 .412 .402 .392 .383 .374 .365  .506 .329 .316 .304 .293 .282 .272 .262 .253 .244 .236 .228 .221 .214 .207 .200 .194 .189 .183 .178 .173 .168 .164 .159 .155 .151 .148 .144 .140 .137 .134 .131 .128 .125 .123 .120 .118 .115 .113 .111 .109 .107  2.303 1.411 1.348 1.288 1.232 1.179 1.129 1.081 1.037 .995 .955 .917 .881 .847 .816 .785 .756 .729 .703 .679 .656 .634 .613 .593 .574 .556 .539 .522 .507 .492 .478 .464 .451 .439 .427 .416 .405 .395 .385 .376 .367 .358  .497 .320 .307 .295 .283 .273 .262 .253 .244 .235 .227 .219 .212 .205 .198 .192 .186 .180 .175 .169 .164 .160 .155 .151 .147 .143 .139 .136 .133 .129 .126 .123 .121 .118 .115 .113 .110 .108 .106 .104 .102 .100  2.311 1.420 1.357 1.297 1.241 1.188 1.138 1.091 1.046 1.004 .964 .926 .890 .856 .824 .794 .765 .738 .712 .688 .664 .642 .621 .601 .582 .564 .547 .530 .515 .500 .486 .472 .459 .447 .435 .424 .413 .403 .393 .383 .374 .363  .505 .329 .316 .304 .293 .282 .272 .262 .253 .244 .236 .228 .221 .214 .207 .201 .195 .189 .183 .178 .173 .168 .164 .160 .155 .151 .148 .144 .141 .137 .134 .131 .128 .126 .123 .120 .118 .116 .113 .111 .109 .107  156  1  PROJECT CASH FLOWS AND INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN 2  4  3  5  6  7  8  1996 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 1987 3780146 1115525 3880253 1215632 3790842 1118802 3890950 1218909 1988 -13436639 -14900598 -13363724 -14827683 -13427611 -14897929 -13354696 -14825014 1989 -23195014 -22758822 -23112810 -22676618 -23188561 -22747940 -23106356 -22665735 1990 -20267490 -22652252 -20111616 -22496378 -20252593 -22648586 -20096719 -22492712 1991 6462585 1712945 6698908 1949268 6508698 1726817 6745021 1963140 1992 -22271979 -26607426 -22089443 -26424890 -22241128 -26598274 -22058593 -26415738 1993 6277779 1544853 6439132 1706205 6295280 1549830 6456632 1711182 1994 6751411 1598701 6889566 1736856 6753424 1599251 6891579 1737406 1995 7250032 1654169 7362847 1766984 7234245 1650027 7347060 1762842 1996 9035245 1840654 9104900 1910308 9009787 1834740 9079441 1904395 1997 9745658 1921994 9798831 1975167 9717955 1915789 9771128 1968962 1998 10477933 2005488 10514081 2041636 10448635 1999145 10484783 2035293 1999 11232617 2091188 11251183 2109753 11201780 2084718 11220345 2103283 2000 12010272 2179143 12010683 2179554 11977155 2172397 11977567 2172808 2001 12811468 2269407 12793141 2251080 12776046 2262387 12757718 2244060 2002 13636792 2362033 13599127 2324368 13599045 2354745 13561380 2317080 2003 14486843 2457077 14429226 2399460 14447736 2449708 14390119 2392091 2004 15362233 2554594 15284036 2476397 15320853 2546974 15242657 2468778 2005 16263588 2654641 16164168 2555221 16219950 2646779 16120530 2547359 .039  -.119  .041  -.118  .039  COST-VOLUME RELATIONSHIP FOR LINKI4  AADT  34328 36687 37102 37457 37880 37916 38079 38930 40147 40191 41448 41666 42379 48716  0 .0687 .0808 .0912 .1035 .1045 .1093 .1341 .1695 .1708 .2074 .2138 .2345 .4191  COST  2518 2670 2704 2727 2747 2847 2903 2986 2971 2980 3074 3269 3377 4074  0 .0604 .0739 .0830 .0909 .1307 .1529 .1859 .1799 .1835 .2208 .2983 .3411 .6180  157  -.119  .040  -.119  VEHICLE VEHICLE TIHE TIHE TOTAL TOTAL ANNUAL ANNUAL 0PERATIN6 OPERATINB COST COST COST COST COST COST COST-AUTO COST-TRUCK HISH LOU ION HIGH LOW HIGH 15994 1986 63137 326025 24373 405156 103504 121,141,629 30,947,820 19B7 65817 16568 341377 32,263,884 25520 423762 107906 126,704,863 16897 349439 1988 67272 32,977,402 26123 433608 110292 129,648,888 1989 68760 17232 357692 26740 443684 33,706,744 112732 132,661,416 17574 1990 70280 366140 34,452,259 27371 453993 115225 135,744,042 1991 71834 17922 374787 2801B 464543 117774 138,898,401 35,214,309 18277 383639 1992 73422 28679 475338 35,993,260 120379 142,126,163 18640 392700 29357 4B6385 36,789,489 1993 75045 123042 145,429,038 76704 19010 1994 401974 30050 497688 37,603,380 125764 148,808,776 19386 30760 509255 1995 78400 411468 38,435,325 128546 152,267,170 19649 39,115,397 1996 79761 420183 31411 519593 130821 155,358,427 1997 19833 80656 425620 31817 526109 132306 157,306,711 39,559,597 81561 20019 431127 1998 32229 532708 40,008,888 133809 159,279,547 1999 82477 20206 436705 32645 539389 40,463,330 135329 161,277,247 20396 83403 442356 2000 33068 546154 40,922,982 136866 163,300,126 20587 2001 84339 448079 138421 165,348,502 33495 553005 41,387,904 20779 453877 2002 33929 559942 41,858,157 85286 139994 167,422,697 20974 2003 86243 459750 34367 566967 141585 169,523,039 42,333,804 2004 21170 87212 465698 34812 574080 143194 171,649,859 42,814,905 88191 21368 2005 471724 35262 581283 144821 173,803,491 43,301,525  VEHICLE VEHICLE TIHE TIHE TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL ANNUAL COST 0PERATIN6 0PERATIN6 COST COST COST COST COST LOW LOW COST-AUTO COST-TRUCK HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW 15994 1986 63137 297563 22423 376695 101555 112,631,749 30,364,818 15959 337172 25171 415992 103991 124,381,519 1987 62861 31,093,421 16595 347482 1988 65556 25874 429633 108025 128,460,287 32,299,470 16598 1989 353466 65465 26921 435529 10B983 130,223,079 32,586,060 17257 1990 68267 360636 112470 133,401,832 33,628,430 26945 446160 17029 33,106,237 1991 66966 357545 26728 441540 110723 132,020,539 17506 1992 69243 370922 27734 457671 114484 136,843,638 34,230,583 17930 1993 71231 382468 35,211,213 28602 471629 117763 141,017,039 1994 73275 18365 394373 29497 486013 36,220,095 121137 145,318,034 1995 75378 18810 406649 124609 149,750,532 37,258,047 30420 500838 1996 76756 19125 37,880,186 411718 30809 507599 126690 151,772,030 1997 77651 19333 415334 31084 512318 12B069 153,183,096 38,292,553 19545 1998 78556 418981 31362 5170B2 38,709,458 129463 154,607,456 1999 79472 19758 422661 39,130,950 31643 521890 130873 156,045,237 19974 2000 80398 39,557,081 426372 31926 526744 132298 157,496,569 20192 430117 2001 81336 133739 158,961,581 39,987,902 32212 531644 82284 20412 433894 40,423,466 2002 32500 536590 135196 160,440,403 20635 40,863,824 2003 83243 437705 32790 541583 136668 161,933,169 2004 20860 84213 441548 33084 546622 138157 163,440,011 41,309,031 21088 41,759,141 2005 85195 445426 33380 551709 139663 164,961,064 158  BENEFITS ADJUSTED BENEFITS ADJUSTED WT I HOUT WITH ANNUAL ANNUAL FOR 6ENERATED FOR GENERATED PROJECT PROJECT BENEFITS BENEFITS TRAFFIC-WITHOUT TRAFFIC-WITH ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL INCLUDING INCLUDING A C C I D E N T C O N S T R U C T I O N HAINTENANC BENEFITS BENEFITS ACCIDENT ACCIDENT ACCIDENT ACCIDENT ACCIDENT L O U L O U COSTS HI6H LOU COSTS COSTS HI6H LOU HIGH HI6H COSTS 0 0 0 2226891 2226891 0 0 0 0 26000000 61236 0 2,323 343 1 170,463 2435970 2335B63 2,423 451 1 270 570 2336983 1177334 2437091 1277442 0 61236 1,186 601 754979 677,933 2522367 2449452 1,261 516 750 648 1195845 682064 1268759 15400000 115236 2,438 336 1 120,684 2611828 2529623 2,520 541 23500000 330624 1 202 889 2452619 U2724B 2534824 1209453 2,342 211 823,829 2704461 2548588 2,498 084 979 703 2355996 828678 2511869 984551 23100000 330624 6,877 862 2,108,072 2800381 2564057 7,114 185 2 344 396 6912572 2118711 7148895 2355035 0 330624 5,282 524 1,762,677 2899702 2717166 5,465 060 1,945 213 5310856 1772131 5493392 1954667 28100000 336024 4,411 999 1,578,277 3002545 2841193 4,573 351 1,739 629 4436339 1586984 4597691 1748336 0 336024 3,490 742 1,383,285 3109037 2970882 3,628 897 1,521 440 3510645 1391172 3648800 1529327 0 336024 2,516 638 1,177,277 3219305 3106490 2,629 453 1,290 092 2531531 1184245 2644346 1297060 0 336024 3,586 397 1,235,210 3290092 3220438 .. 3,656 051 1 304 865 3607026 1242316 3676661 1311970 0 336024 4,123 615 1 267,043 3333788 3280615 7 8 8 3 2 0 2 1 7 1 2 7 4 1 7 0 1 3 2 7 3 4 3 4,176 1 4146808 4199982 0 336024 4,672 091 1,299,430 3376065 3341917 4,708 239 1 335 578 4698102 1306665 4734250 1342813 0 336024 5,232 010 1 332,380 3422930 3404364 5,250 575 336024 1 350 945 5260873 1339730 5279438 1358296 0 5,803 557 1,365,901 3468390 3467979 5,803 968 1 366 313 5834945 1373288 5835356 1373700 0 336024 6,386 921 1 400,002 3514454 3532782 6,368 593 1 381 675 6420812 1407431 6402485 1389104 0 336024 6,982 294 1,434,692 3561130 3598795 6,944 629 1 397 027 7018676 1442167 6981011 1404502 0 336024 7,589 870 1 469,979 3608426 3666043 7,532 254 1 412 363 7629230 1477602 7571614 1419966 336024 0 8,209 848 1,505,874 3656350 3734547 8,131 651 1 427 677 8251741 1513558 8173544 1435361 0 336024 8,842 427 1 542,385 3704911 3804331 8,743 007 1 442 965 8886867 1550136 8787447 1450716 0 336024  WV OF ANNUAL  ANNUAL  NPV OF BENEFITS ADJUSTED  NPV OF BENEFITS ADJUSTED  BENEFITS  FOR GENERATED  NPV  NPV  BENEFITS  FOR GENERATED  NPV  NPV  ANNUAL  ANNUAL  INCLUDIN6 INCLUDING TRAFFIC-NITHOUT  TRAFFIC-KITH  ANNUAL  ACCIDENT HIGH  ANNUAL CONST.  DISCOUNT  BENEFITS  BENEFITS  ACCIDENT  RATE  HIGH  LON  HIGH  ACCIDENT LON  ACCIDENT HIGH  LON  MINI.  LON  93927476  COSTS COSTS 49354023 144273904 11154161 26924640 116100000 5133116  B8I08475 82734613  25485264 113744695 24146305 111460935  5601437  23063674 21840318  77767441  22899603 109246041  5005431  72136362  20701161 73172128  21737735 107097450  473B228 .  20546693  67904683  11641536  6B9170B7  20653940 105012712  4481355  64629079  19540123  639B4466  1B652B62 64973662  1964205B 102969480  425735?  17633289  60990549  18599495  60349624  17730262  61315829  1B696468 101025509  4040112  16776218  57612589  17719703  56976437  16868553  57919944  17812040  99116649  3838718  -.0500  18632B45I  0  923012B5  47794296 187621401 41015253 25655394 93430294 26784403  .0050  86535198  24246668  87641138  25352608  .0100  22938065  82296385  24020696  .0150  81213755 76296187  77355391  .0200  71748537  21721348 20581027  .0250  187323183  4B053066 1BB624142  92798467 87002536  25795631 24371324  22780552  81651982 76708237  727B4303  21624793  67539298  195342B9 68551702  .0300  63639883  18550127  .0330  60024343  .0400  56669102  5292581  .0450  53552725  15975007  54473811  16896093  53843418  16063003  54764503  16964089  97266841  3641108  .0500  S06SS711  15223359  51554750  16124398  50930904  15301212  47960306 45450335  14523344 13B65367  15400720 14721491  4B221067 45697647  14603469 13141921 46553771  .0650  43111048  13248140  4B8376B3 46306458 43946347  16208331 95468112 15480846 93720372  3473230  .0550  51829943 49098444  14083439  43345817  13321342  44181116  14156641 90371886  3007578  .0700  40928992  12668648  41743909  13483565  41152053  1273B699  41966970  13553616  88767339  .0750 .0800  38891860 36988488  12124127  39686861 37764011  39104002 37190384  12191216 11676344  39B9B992 37965906  12986206 12451866  87207169 85689644  .0850  35208556 33542694  12919116 12387565 11886587  2871225 2743164  35400880  II414046 10967975 10546562  33726054 32157264 30686594  36157402 34464042  11948263 11473248  84213894  34280682 10248053 32702227 1844241 31221838 1462155 21832281  11191742 10735259 10304920 9898903  10148137  21306785 28011178  9515535 9153270  32877186 31388913 29991967  11024842 10601225 10200717 9821770  8B106B5 B486466  .0600  .0100  31962305  11612042 11130065  35165078  10676058  .0950 .1000  30519516  .1050 .1100  29147107 27BSB4S3  .1150 .1200  26647474 25S085B3  1102651 28526953 8761937 27219742 8431482 26145064  9771158 9414205 9075963  26713661 25648617  .1250  24436645  8134088  25057774  .1300 .1350  23426936  784463B  24570885 23555714  8179399 7888363  26285098 25192014 24141920  .1400  22475108 21577134  7570102 7309524  24033142 23066809  8755217 8450844  7612322 7350314  .1450  20729382  7062020  .1500  19928386 19171024  6B26771 20478114 660301B 11708701  .1600 .1650  18454391  6310054  17775804  6197226  .1700 .1750 .1800  171327B3  5113125  16523030 15144420  .1850 .1700 .mo  15394981 14B72887  5801585 17012636 5633671 16422860 5465717 15862577  .1550  .2000 .3000 .4000  14376443 13904075 7844211 5057111  .5000  3551182  .6000  26432B4  5305242 515182? 5005080 3038231 2051855 1501280 1150517  8161802  22518734  22154760  78B7130  21695917  21213214  7625932 7377379  20843550  1B979324 182B8747 17633887  15329152 14B232B1 14340179  7140703 6915188  20038211 19276739 18556215  3571327  2755115  1263149  265B363  160  2302565  6800528 8414569  73737610 72576771  1807798 1740257  23190435 22273323  6204022 7127120  71445447  1676253 1615561  7101452 21407462 6864911 20588819  7665363  70342690 69267587  7415511 68219260 717761* 67196B63 695092B 66I995B3 6734794 65226634  1503282 1451320  6528589  64277263  1310164  6331736  63350741 62446369  1267537 1226907  61563470  1188156 1151176 1115864  663992B 6425794  5842130 5665255 5496367 5335007  1648712  j L,  9122946  16614358 16032591  3698614  2501573 2402184  2034201 1154415  6211111 6112119 5133313 5762308 '5518666  7888091 5065614  2622718  77407276 76151816 74928950  6221850  8132001 5258053  82777906 81380527  3307636 .3152877  2207686 "L 2118553  17873943 17227426  5441984 3326021 2260797  92022409  80020453 76696437  6700170 6415021  15480161 14155231 14456081 13981137  14798045  6027485  5180748 503318B 3055449 2071604 1509892 115714?  2B67967B 27445929  19B14424 19081349 183B68B6 I772B330 17103964  9462153  16511039  6143695  15947765 15412296 14902919 14418041  5963963 5792073  8175B81 52B6S56 3718759 2770995  5627585 5470092  60701393 59651511  59037217 3343231 45137257 2272546 37261614 1657325  31224874  1261781 26845375  1871122  1557968  j  1401915 1354911  1082127 635256 416112 218655 225346  ..  BENEFIT-COST RATIOS DISCOUNT RATE -.0500 0 .0050 .0100 .0150 .0200 .0250 .0300 .0350 .0400 .0450 .0500 .0550 .0600 .0650 .0700 .0750 .0800 .0850 .0900 .0950 .1000 .1050 .1100 .1150 .1200 .1250 .1300 .1350 .1400 .1450 .1500 .1550 .1600 .1650 .1700 .1750 .1800 . 1850 .1900 .1950 .2000  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  1.199 .756 .725 .696 .668 .642 .617 .593 .571 .550 .531 .512 .494 .478 .462 .447 .432 .419 .406 .394 .382 .371 .361 .351 .341 .332 .323 .315 .307 .300 .293 .286 .279 .273 .267 .261 .256 .250 .245 .240 .236 .231  .308 .210 .203 .196 .190 .184 .178 .173 .168 .163 .158 .154 .150 .146 .142 .138 .135 .131 .128 .125 .122 .120 .117 .115 .112 .110 .108 .106 .104 .102 .100 .098 .096 .095 .093 .091 .090 .088 .087 .086 .084 .083  1.207 .766 .734 .705 .677 .651 .626 .603 .580 .560 .540 .521 .503 .487 .471 .456 .441 .428 .415 .402 .391 .380 .369 .359 .350 .340 .332 .323 .315 .308 .301 .294 .287 .281 .275 .269 .263 .258 .253 .248 .243 .239  .316 .219 .212 .206 .199 .193 .188 .182 .177 .172 .167 .163 .159 .155 .151 .147 .144 .140 .137 .134 .131 .128 .126 .123 .121 .118 .116 .114 .112 .110 .108 .106 .104 .102 .101 .099 .097 .096 .095 .093 .092 .091  1.205 .760 .729 .699 .671 .645 .620 .597 .574 .553 .534 .515 .497 .480 .464 .449 .435 .421 .408 .396 .384 .373 .363 .353 .343 .334 .325 .317 .309 .302 .294 .287 .281 .274 .268 .263 .257 .252 .247 .242 .237 .233  .309 .211 .204 .198 .191 .185 .179 .174 .169 .164 .159 .155 .151 .146 .143 .139 .136 .132 .129 .126 .123 .120 .118 .115 .113 .110 .108 .106 .104 .102 .100 .098 .097 .095 .093 .092 .090 .089 .088 .086 .085 .084  1.214 .770 .738 .709 .681 .654 .629 .606 .564 .563 .543 .524 .506 .489 .473 .458 .444 .430 .417 .405 .393 .362 .371 .361 .351 .342 .333 .325 .317 .310 .302 .295 .289 .282 .276 .270 .265 .259 .254 .249 .244 .240  .318 .221 .214 .207 .200 .194 .189 .183 .178 .173 .168 .164 .160 .155 .152 .148 .144 .141 .138 .135 .132 .129 .126 .124 .121 .119 .116 .114 .112 .110 .108 .106 .105 .103 .101 ,100 .098 .096 .095 .094 .092 .091  161  PROJECT CASH FLOWS AND INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  1986 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 -26061236 1987 2262107 1109227 2362215 1209334 2275747 1116098 2375655 1216206 1988 -14326635 -14837303 -14253720 -14764388 -14319391 -14833172 -14246477 -14760257 1989 -21392288 -22709940 -21310083 -22627735 -21378005 -22703376 -21295800 -22621171 1990 -21088413 -22606795 -20932540 -22450921 -21074628 -22601946 -20918755 -22446073 1991 6547238 177744B 6783561 2013772 6581948 1788087 6818271 2024411 1992 -23153500 -26673347 -22970964 -26490811 -23125168 -26663893 -22942632 -26481357 1993 4075975 1242253 4237327 1403605 4100315 1250960 4261667 1412312 1994 315471B 1047261 3292B73 1185416 3174621 1055148 3312776 1193303 1995 2180614 841253 2293429 954068 2195507 848221 2308322 961036 1996 3250373 899186 3320027 968841 3271002 906292 3340657 975946 1997 3787591 931019 3840764 984193 3810784 991319 936146 3863958 1998 4336067 963406 4372215 999554 436207B 970641 4398226 1006789 1999 4895986 996356 '4914551 1014921 4924849 1003706 4943414 1022272 2000 5467533 1029877 5467944 1030289 5498921 1037264 5499332 1037676 2001 6050897 1063978 6032569 1045651 6084788 1071407 6066461 1053080 2002 6646270 1098668 6608605 1061003 6682652 1106143 6644987 1068476 2003 7253846 1133955 7196230 1076339 7293206 1141578 7235590 1083962 2004 7873824 1169850 7795627 1091653 7915717 1177534 7837520 1099337 2005 8506403 1206361 8406983 1106941 8550843 1214112 8451423 1114692 -.031  -.173  -.030  -.174  -.031  -.172  -.030  -.174  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097363/manifest

Comment

Related Items