may 10, 2011
DESCRIPTION
Life-cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis of Alternatives for Accommodating Heavy Truck Traffic in the Las Vegas Roadway Network. Dr. Alexander Paz, P.E. Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Naveen Kumar Veeramisti, E.I. Pankaj Maheshwari, P.E. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
May 10, 2011
Life-cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis of Alternatives for Accommodating Heavy Truck
Traffic in the Las Vegas Roadway Network
Dr. Alexander Paz, P.E.Assistant Professor
Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas
Naveen Kumar Veeramisti, E.I.Pankaj Maheshwari, P.E.
Graduate StudentDepartment of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas
PresentationTRB 13th Planning Applications Conference, Reno, NV
![Page 2: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IntroductionIntroduction• Increase in truck traffic volume
- Increased congestion- Reduced safety
• American trucking agency-ATA,2008- Year 1998 : 5,000 to 10,000 trucks on I-15- Year 2017 : 10,000 to 20,000 trucks on I-15
• Mixed traffic – increased congestion- Perceived safety of passenger cars
- Truck travel productivity less in mixed traffic
(trucking agencies)
1998 2017
2
![Page 3: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Freeway Truck Crashes in LVFreeway Truck Crashes in LV
NDOT Crash Data – 2002-2006 -Less safe
Freeway Truck Crashes densityFreeway Truck Crashes density
3
![Page 4: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Traditional approach
Systems Approach
Traditional ApproachTraditional Approach Systems ApproachSystems Approach
4
![Page 5: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Why Macro-Why Macro-MesoMeso-Micro Modeling-Micro Modeling
Actual System Dynamics
DTA Model Describes System Structural Pattern
Micro Model Describes Finer Dynamic Details
Static Model Describes Overall Average
Period of InterestTime
Vo
lum
e
5
![Page 6: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Why not TDM?Why not TDM?• The static characteristic of the TDM precludes
capture key dynamic phenomena . . .
• TDM uses 4-step model to forecast travel demand
• TDM aggregates all modes of origin destination matrices before traffic assignment step
• There is no difference in a passenger car and a truck after assignment as it assigns the aggregate demand 6
![Page 7: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
1. Base Case – Do Nothing
2. Truck Alternatives
– Truck Restricted Lane
– Truck Only Lane
– Truck Only Toll Lane
– Bypass (Corridor of Future)- Bypass A – both PCs and trucks- Bypass A1 – only trucks
- Bypass B
ScenariosScenarios
7
![Page 8: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Base Case – Do Nothing ScenarioBase Case – Do Nothing Scenario
8
![Page 9: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
NetworkNetwork• Input
– Network– Origin– Destination– Control– Demand – 7 to 9 AM, 547,000 vehicles
• System Components– Freeways, arterials, collectors, interchanges – 215 Beltway - 53 mi– I-15 - 42 mi– US-95 - 42 mi– TAZ’s - 696 (initially 1,646)– Nodes - 9129– Links - 16582– Control - 791
9
![Page 10: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Need for Calibration?Need for Calibration?
10
![Page 11: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
87 % of link counts are within the 15% Error range.
Acc. To FHWA Primer Vol. III, 85%
![Page 12: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
AlternativesAlternatives• Truck Restriction (TR) – Trucks forced to travel in one lane and
passenger cars allowed in all lanes
• Truck Only lane (TOL) – Trucks allowed in all lanes and passenger cars not allowed in one lane (i.e)truck lane
• Truck Only Toll (TOT) – Trucks allowed in all lanes and have to pay toll to travel in truck lane. Passenger cars not allowed in truck lane
• Bypass – New route bypassing Las Vegas metropolitan area to avoid I-15 congestion. Passenger cars and trucks allowed to travel in all lanes
• Truck Bypass – New route bypassing Las Vegas metropolitan area to avoid I-15 congestion. Only trucks allowed to travel in all lanes
12
![Page 13: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Truck Restriction, Truck Only Lane & Truck Only Toll Truck Restriction, Truck Only Lane & Truck Only Toll Toll
I-15 Corridor considered for Analysis of Alternatives
13
![Page 14: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Bypass B (all vehicles)Bypass B (all vehicles)Bypass A (all vehicles) andBypass A (all vehicles) andBypass A1Bypass A1 (only trucks)
![Page 15: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Travel Time Costs
• Annual network travel time
• Hourly travel time costs by vehicle class – Sinha and Labi, 2007
• Travel time costs for 2007 is converted through inflation rate
15
![Page 16: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Travel Time Cost• Annual network travel time cost – trucks
• Annual network travel time cost – autos
• Weekday travel time cost
• Weekend travel time cost
16
![Page 17: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Travel Time Cost
17
![Page 18: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Crash Costs• Crash Evaluation using IDAS methodology
– Crash rates (R) from v/c ratio– Link length (L) in miles (from network)– Daily Volume (V) computed from peak hour volume (peak
hourly volume = 8% of ADT)
• Crash Costs = Fatal * 4,107,200 + Injury * 107,910 + PDO * 9,062 in 2007 dollars
18
![Page 19: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Crash Cost
19
![Page 20: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Emissions Cost• Emission Rates – California Air Resources Board (CARB) and EMFAC
2007 Model
• Emissions Pollutants– Emission Factors - based on vehicle speed– Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), – Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), – Sulfur Oxides (SOx), – Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and – Particulate Matter (PM10)
20
gram
tons
mileveh
gramFactorEmissionsmileLengthLinkvehicleVolumeDailytonsEmissions 610 )( )( )(
365$
)(($)
ton
CosttonEmissionsCostEmissionsAnnualTotal
![Page 21: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Emissions Costs
21
![Page 22: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Fuel Consumption Costs
• Fuel consumption – IDAS Methodology– Fuel Consumption rates (FC) based on link speed– Link length (L) in miles (from network)– Daily Volume (V) computed from peak hour
volume (peak hourly volume = 8% of ADT)
• Annual fuel consumption cost
22
365/$ )( gallonCostFuelgallonsFCostnConsumptioFuelAnnual
VLFCFnConsumptioFuelDaily )(
![Page 23: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Fuel Consumption Costs
23
![Page 24: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Vehicle Operating Costs• VOC estimates
– medium auto and truck cost values in cents/vehicle mile.– components used included fuel and oil costs, maintenance
and repair costs, tire costs and depreciation/mile
24
)/( )( )( ($) milevehcentsVOCAvgmileLengthLinkvehVolumeDailyVOCAnnual
![Page 25: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Construction Costs
• Construction cost factors – NDOT report
• Construction cost of alternatives
25
![Page 26: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Salvage Value• The service life of a new freeway facility is assumed to be 40 years
• Salvage value at the end of analysis period is taken as 0.58*Initial construction cost
• Recommended remaining capital value factors – MDOT B/C Program, 2010
• Salvage value
26
![Page 27: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Depreciation• The annual depreciation(Straight Line) is given as
D = (P-S)/23 where:
P = Initial costS = Salvage value
• The annual depreciation cost is converted to present value in year 2007
27
![Page 28: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Life-Cycle Economic Analysis
• Costs linearly interpolated for years 2008-2013, 2013-2020 and 2020-2030
• Costs converted to Net Present Value (NPV)
28
![Page 29: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Life-Cycle Economic Analysis: Net Benefits
$6,951 M$6,065 M $4,630 M
$1,250 M
$6,717 M
-$14,695 M-18000
-13000
-8000
-3000
2000
7000
12000
TR TOL TOT Bypass A Bypass A1 Bypass B
Tota
l Anu
ual B
enefi
t (m
illio
ns)
Alternatives
Life-Cycle Economic Analysis of Net Benefits Fuel Consumption
VOC
Emissions
Crashes
Travel Time
Analysis Period : 2008-2030Benefits in 2007 Dollars
Truck-Restriction lane (TR) – Trucks are forced to travel in one lane and passenger cars are allowed to use all lanes.Truck-Only lane (TOL) – Trucks are allowed to use all lanes and passengercars not allowed in truck-only lane.Truck-Only Toll lane (TOT) – Trucks are allowed to use all lanes but have to pay toll to travel in truck-only lane. Passenger cars are not allowed to use truck-only lane.Bypass A – Bypass Alternative where passenger cars and trucks are allowed.Bypass A1 – This bypass route is the same as in the Bypass A scenario, but only trucks are allowed.Bypass B – New Bypass where trucks and passenger cars are allowed to use all lanes. 29
![Page 30: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
$6,671 M$5,857 M
$4,415 M
$465 M
$5,789 M
-$14,915 M
-18000
-13000
-8000
-3000
2000
7000
12000
TR TOL TOT Bypass A Bypass A1 Bypass B
Annu
al B
enefi
ts vs
. Cos
t (m
illio
ns)
Alternatives
Life-Cycle Economic Analysis: Benefits - Costs
Total Costs
Total Benefits
Analysis Period : 2008-2030Benefits, Costs in 2007 Dollars
Truck-Restriction lane (TR) – Trucks are forced to travel in one lane and passenger cars are allowed to use all lanes.Truck-Only lane (TOL) – Trucks are allowed to use all lanes and passengercars not allowed in truck-only lane.Truck-Only Toll lane (TOT) – Trucks are allowed to use all lanes but have to pay toll to travel in truck-only lane. Passenger cars are not allowed to use truck-only lane.Bypass A – Bypass Alternative where passenger cars and trucks are allowed.Bypass A1 – This bypass route is the same as in the Bypass A scenario, but only trucks are allowed.Bypass B – New Bypass where trucks and passenger cars are allowed to use all lanes.
Life-Cycle Economic Analysis: Benefits - Costs
![Page 31: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Conclusions• DTA methodology was effective for analysis of truck
alternative
• Reducing the capacity of PCs by one lane cause significant congestion and increase in travel time for TOL and TOT alternatives
• Bypass A (all vehicles) and Bypass A1 (trucks only) alternatives provide benefits in travel time
• Cost of constructing new facility might be high
31
![Page 32: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Conclusion
• Ranking of Alternatives:
1. Truck Restriction (TR)2. Truck Only Lane (TOL)3. Bypass A14. Truck Only Toll (TOT)5. Bypass A6. Base Case7. Bypass B
32
![Page 33: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
• NDOT• RTC Southern Nevada
• University Transportation Center, UNLV• Mr. Brian Hoeft and Mr. Gang, RTC-FAST• Ms. Beth Xie, RTC• Mr. Bardia, CH2MHILL• Dr. Yi-Chang Chui, University of Arizona
33
![Page 34: May 10, 2011](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062314/568148d7550346895db5f2aa/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Thank You!
34