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

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

Freeway Truck Crashes in LVFreeway Truck Crashes in LV

NDOT Crash Data – 2002-2006 -Less safe

Freeway Truck Crashes densityFreeway Truck Crashes density

3

Traditional approach

Systems Approach

Traditional ApproachTraditional Approach Systems ApproachSystems Approach

4

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

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

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

Base Case – Do Nothing ScenarioBase Case – Do Nothing Scenario

8

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

Need for Calibration?Need for Calibration?

10

87 % of link counts are within the 15% Error range.

Acc. To FHWA Primer Vol. III, 85%

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

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

Bypass B (all vehicles)Bypass B (all vehicles)Bypass A (all vehicles) andBypass A (all vehicles) andBypass A1Bypass A1 (only trucks)

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

Travel Time Cost• Annual network travel time cost – trucks

• Annual network travel time cost – autos

• Weekday travel time cost

• Weekend travel time cost

16

Travel Time Cost

17

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

Crash Cost

19

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

Emissions Costs

21

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 )(

Fuel Consumption Costs

23

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

Construction Costs

• Construction cost factors – NDOT report

• Construction cost of alternatives

25

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

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

Life-Cycle Economic Analysis

• Costs linearly interpolated for years 2008-2013, 2013-2020 and 2020-2030

• Costs converted to Net Present Value (NPV)

28

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

$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

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

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

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

Thank You!

34