Integrating Travel Demand Model and Benefit–Cost Analysis for Evaluation of New Capacity Highway Projects

Abstract

This study presents a methodology for estimating the benefit–cost ratio for transportation projects by using a regional travel demand model and benefit–cost analysis. The benefit–cost ratio can provide an objective measure with which decision makers can quantitatively evaluate the regional benefits and costs of each proposed transportation project under certain assumptions. This methodology shows the impact of one project on the entire regional transportation network. The key to this methodology is use of the total savings in vehicle hours traveled (VHT) resulting from each proposed project, converted into dollar benefits. The total VHT is estimated with congested travel time and trips instead of a simple summation of each link's VHT. A second key aspect of this methodology is estimating the economic development benefits of the proposed transportation investments. For this process, the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments used the Transportation Economic Development Impact System (TREDIS) web-based software. The input that TREDIS requires for new capacity transportation projects is total VHT or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) before a project and total VHT or VMT after the project, by trip purpose and travel mode. TREDIS offers default values such as economic value factors for driver and occupant time-saving benefits (dollars per VHT or VMT) and the vehicle cost factor for vehicle cost savings (dollars per VHT or VMT). The case study suggests that the proposed approach can be useful and effective in assessing regional transportation projects by considering their economic impacts.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Shelton

, and Medina

Integrated Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Method to Prioritize Transportation Projects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2174, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 51–57.

Office of Management and Budget.

Guidelines and Discount Rate for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. OMB Circular No. A-94, 1992. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html. Accessed July 21, 2010.

U.S. Presidential Documents. Executive Order 12893 of January 26, 1994: Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments. Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 20, 1994.

U.S. Department of Transportation. The Highway Economic Requirements System, State Version: Technical Report. 2002.

U.S. Government Accounting Office. Highway Infrastructure: FHWA's Model for Estimating Highway Needs Is Generally Reasonable, Despite Limitations. GAO/RCED-00-13. Washington, D.C., June 2000.

U.S. Government Accounting Office.

Highway Infrastructure: FHWA's Model for Estimating Highway Needs Has Been Modified for State-Level Planning. GAO/RCED-01-299. Washington, D.C., Feb. 2001.

Concas

, and Winters

P. L.

Estimating the Net Social Benefits of Vehicle Trip Reductions with TRIMMS Model. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.

Lee

D. B.

Jr. , Methods for Evaluation of Transportation Projects in the USA. Transport Policy, Vol. 7, 2000, pp. 41–50.

DeCorla-Souza

, Everett

, Gardner

, and Culp

Total Cost Analysis: An Alternative to Benefit-Cost Analysis in Evaluating Transportation Alternatives. Transportation, Vol. 24, 1997, pp.107–123.

10.

TREDIS Software Group. TREDIS User's Manual. www.tredis.net. Accessed July 22, 2010.

11.

Wardrop

J. G.

Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research. Proc., American Institute of Civil Engineers, Part II, 1952, pp. 325–378.

12.

Litman

T. A.

Air Pollution Cost. In Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2009.