Transportation Systems Impact Evaluation

Dr. Anwaar Ahmed 1

National University of Science & Technology (NUST)

Evaluating the Impacts of Transportation

Systems

1
 INTRODUCTION
• Highway Transportation System: A combination of users,
vehicles and environment interacting in a loosely coordinated
fashion
• Transportation Project Evaluation
• Study of the expected impacts of alternative investment
decisions, policies, and other stimuli on the operations of
existing or planned transportation systems and their
environments
• Economic (quantified benefits and costs)
• Environmental (air and water pollution)
• Technical impacts (mobility, accessibility, and user safety)3

INTRODUCTION
• Major Stake Holders:
• Road Agency
• Road Users
• Community (environment and business)
• Who is Interested in Procedures of Project Evaluation
• Transportation Engineers
• Planners
• Policymakers and Legislators
• Transportation Agency Administrators
• Facility Managers and Service Providers
4
• Environmental groups, General public

2
 INTRODUCTION
• Transportation Projects - Largest public-sector investment
• In Pakistan approximately Rs. 300-400 Billion invested in
transportation facilities each year
• Size of investment levels, multiplicity of transportation system
impacts and stakeholders, necessitates a comprehensive,
approach to evaluation
• Environmental legislation initiatives at national level - major
changes to transportation evaluation tools
• Integration of the interests of all major stakeholders in a
Transportation System
• Lack of a holistic approach leads to an unsustainable system
which may incur high social cost
5

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
• Demand Side
• increasing population, travel demand
• higher user expectations
• more stakeholders
• calls for transparency and accountability in transportation
decision-making

• Supply Side
• aging transportation systems,
• funding inadequacy, uncertainty
6

3
Trends in Facility Extent (Intercity) by Mode, 1960- 2000
(US DOT)
Extent (Inter-city Mileage in millions) 4.0
3.5
Highways
3.0
2.5

2.0
Pipelines
1.5
1.0 Class I Rail
In-land Waterway
0.5
0.0
Observation: Highways
1960 1965 1970 are most
1975 1980 1985 extensive!
1990 1995 2000

Year
Observation: Highways are most extensive!
7

Trends in Facility Extent (Mile) 2001 (US DOT)

Pipelines Airways

Navigable
Channels

Transit

Amtrak
Highway
Class 1 Rail
Observation: Highways are most extensive!

Observation: Highways are most extensive!

8

4
Facility Usage (billions of passenger-miles) by Mode, 1960- 2001
5,000

4,000

Air Carrier
3,000
Highway
2,000 Trans it

Rail
1,000

600
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
500
Y ear

400

300

200

Observation: Highways are most extensive!

100

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001

Year

Observation: Highways are most heavily traveled! 9

Facility Usage (billions of passenger-miles) by Mode, 1960- 2001

10%
0.9%
0.1%

Air Carrier
Transit
Rail
Highway

Observation:
89% Highways are most extensive!

Observation: Highways are most heavily traveled!

10

5
 Trends in Freight Levels by Mode, 1960-2004
1,600

1,400

1,200
Millions of ton-miles

1,000 Highways
Railways
800
Waterways
600 Pipeline

400

200

0
Observation:
1960 Highways
1980 1992 are
1996most2000
extensive!
Year

Observation: Highways are most heavily traveled!

11

Total Energy Consumption Trends & Projections by End-

use Sector (EIA)
50

40
Transpo rtatio n
Q uadrillion B tu

30
Industrial

20
R esidential

10
C o m m ercial
Observation: Highways are most extensive!
0
1970 1980 1990 2003 2015 2025
Y ear
12

6
 Petroleum Use by Sector(1973-2003)

16

Transpo rtatio n

12
M illion barrels per day _

Industrial

Observation: Highways are most extensive!

R esidential
C o m m ercial
0
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
13
Y ear

Pakistan - Energy Consumption by Scetor

Observation: Highways are most extensive!

14

7
 Pakistan - Road Sector Energy Consumption Trends
Energy Consumed (KT of Oil Equivalent)

Observation: Highways are most extensive!

Year
15

Highway Safety Issues

• Global Road Crash Fatalities – WHO 2013
• Annually, 1.24 million road crash fatalities
• 20-50 million non-fatal injuries
• 3,400 deaths and 82,200 non-fatal injuries each day
• 90% occur in low- and middle-income countries
• Projection - 5th leading cause of death by 2030
• Total economic cost exceeds over 100 billion $ annually
• Decreasing in developed countries; rising in developing
countries

16

8
 Highway Safety Issues
• Borne by individuals, insurance companies, and
government
• Consists of Tangible and Intangible Costs
• Tangible costs:
• market productivity
• property damage
• loss of household productivity and workplace costs
• Intangible costs:
• pain and suffering,
• loss of life

17

CURRENT STATE OF ROAD SAFETY IN PAKISTAN

Population Growth Trend – (1981 – 2012)

178.9
200 Pakistan is the sixth most populous million
180 country in the entire world
Number of People (Millions)

160

140

120

100
Average population growth rate =
80 1.55%
60

40

20

0
1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Year

18

9
CURRENT STATE OF ROAD SAFETY IN PAKISTAN
Road Network Growth Trends – (1991 – 2012)

Total Roads Length

170,823 - 261,595 Km

High Type Roads 86,839 -

181,940 Km

Low Type Roads 83,984 -

79,655 Km

19

CURRENT STATE OF ROAD SAFETY IN PAKISTAN

Vehicle Growth Trend – (1981 – 2011)

20

10
 CURRENT STATE OF ROAD SAFETY IN PAKISTAN
Traffic Stream Composition in Pakistan – Year 2012

21

CURRENT STATE OF ROAD SAFETY IN PAKISTAN

Growth Rates of Different Vehicles Classes – Year 1981 - 2012

Tractors Motor cycles Passenger car Motorcycles

6000000 0.32 to
5.5
5000000 million
Number of vehicles

Passenger Cars
4000000 0.21 to
3.9
3000000 million

2000000 Tractors

0.07 to 1
1000000
million

0
1998
1999
2000
2001
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

Years

22

11
 CURRENT STATE OF ROAD SAFETY IN PAKISTAN
Growth Rates of Different Vehicles Classes – Year 1981 - 2012

Buses Rickshaws Trucks

Trucks
250000
0.03 to 0.24
million
200000
Number of vehicles

Buses

150000 0.02 to 0.12

million

100000
Rickshaws
0.03 to 0.10
50000 million

2004

2006

2008

2010
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

2005

2007

2009

2011
2012
Years

23

What this means …

• Thus: transportation agencies now seek
• to identify all possible impacts of projects
• to comprehensively evaluate the costs and
benefits of each project
• making decisions based on multiple criteria
• investigating the investment trade-offs

24

12
 What this means …

25

Safety Vehicle Operating Cost

What will be the

Economic
Ecology and
Development Consequences of Your Wetlands
Transportation Project?

Noise Visual
Quality
Other
Impacts

13
 Transportation System Intervention (Stimuli)
Synonymous to the words “change” and “intervention,” a stimulus may
be defined as “an agent that directly influences the operation of a
system or part thereof” and may be due to a deliberate physical or policy
intervention by the agency or to the external environment

27

Transportation Intervention Impacts

 The identification of the various types and levels of impacts arising
from a stimulus is a key aspect of transportation systems evaluation
and decision-making
 Multiple stakeholders & forceful convictions of different parties
 Example: Construction of Rawalpindi Bypass:
 road users (by decreasing their travel time)
 the highway agency (new road maintenance)
 persons living near vicinity (noise pollution source)
 travelers on the network (by offering them new travel choices)
 environmental groups (environmental impacts)

28

14
Transportation Intervention Impacts Categories & Types
CATEGORY OF IMPACT
“Technical” Impacts
Environmental Impacts
Economic Efficiency Impacts
Economic Development
Impacts
Legal Impacts
Socio-cultural Impacts
IMPACT TYPES
Facility Condition
Travel Time
Vehicle Operating Cost
Accessibility, Mobility, and Congestion
Safety
Intermodal Movement Efficiency
Land-use Patterns (including Urbanization)
Risk and Vulnerability
Air Quality
Water Resources
Noise
Wetlands and Ecology
Aesthetics
Initial Costs
Life-cycle Cost/Benefits
Benefit Cost Ratio
Net Present Value
Employment
Number of Business Establishments
Gross Domestic Product
Regional Economy
International Trade
Tort Liability Exposure 29
Quality of Life

Transportation Intervention Impact Evaluation

Scope/Dimension
 It is useful for the analyst to identify the dimensions of the evaluation,
as it would help guide the scope of the study and to identify the
appropriate performance measures to be considered in the evaluation
DIMENSION (SCOPE) LEVELS
Users
Affected Entities Non-Users
Community
Agency
Project
Geographical Scope of Corridor
Impacts Regional
National/International
Short Term (3-5 Years)
Temporal Scope of Impacts Medium Term
Long Term (20-25 years)
30

15
 Transportation Intervention Impact Evaluation
Scope/Dimension
Geographical Scope of Impacts
Point Generally a node such as a signalized intersection

Segment Generally a part of a transportation link extending from one node (example, signalized intersection) to another

Facility A linear network of reasonable length consisting of a

combination of nodes and segments

A collection of generally parallel facilities

Corridor

Area-wide
A collection of all transportation facilities in a region

31

Tangible vs. Intangible impacts

 Tangible Benefits & Costs

 can be measured in monetary terms
 Intangible Benefits and Costs
 cannot be easily monetized
 Example - Urban Highway Rehabilitation and Up gradation
 Tangible Impacts
 construction cost
 increase in business sales
 Intangible Impacts
 Aesthetic appeal of a rehabilitated highway
 Increased comfort level of travelers

32

16
 Tangible vs. Intangible impacts

Tangible Intangible
Economic Efficiency Economic development
Travel Time Cost Air Quality
Vehicle Operating Cost Noise
Crash Cost Wetland and Ecosystems
Water Resources (infiltration)
Visual
Land-use
Energy-use

33

Classification of Transportation Cost by

Incurring Party

Transportation Cost

• Agency/Owner
Costs • Community or
• User Costs
• Facility Operator’s Non-User Cost
Costs

34

17
 Agency Costs Cost of Feasibility Studies,
Design, Land and ROW Utilities
Relocation etc.

Construction of Lineal Facilities

(Road, Rail Tracks, Runways)
and Nodal Facilities (Terminals,
Capital Costs
Ports, Metro stations etc.)

Purchase of Vehicles (Railcars,

Vessels, Buses, Planes etc.)

• Agency/Owner Cost of Lighting,

Costs Fixed Facility Communications, Incident
• Facility Operating Costs Response, Fare/Toll Collection,
Operator’s Costs Ensuring Security/Safety etc.

Preservation Cost of Rehabilitation and

Costs Maintenance of Lineal and Nodal
Transportation Facilities,
Vegetation/Snow/Ice Control 35
etc.

User Costs

Facility Usage
Fares/Tolls, Taxes etc
Fees

Energy Source: Gasoline,

Vehicle
Diesel, Jet Fuel, Electricity etc.
Operating Costs
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance

• User Costs
Delay and Cost of Delay at Nodes
Travel Time (Terminals, Ports, Stations,
Costs Intersections) and Links

Security/Safety Cost of consequences of Failed

Costs Security/Safety (User)

36

18
 Community or Non-User Costs
(Costs sustained by community)
 Community or nonuser costs represent the costs incurred by the
community as a whole (including entities not directly involved with
use of the facility)
 Often referred to as secondary costs or externalities.
 Community costs can be nonmonetary (such as disruption of
community cohesiveness) or monetary (such as a change in
property values)
Air Pollution Costs

• Community or
Non-user Noise Pollution Costs
Costs

Other Environmental
Resource Costs 37

Transportation Decision Making

 Decision –
 Selecting a Course of Action in Committing Resources
 Purposeful Choice of One from Several Alternatives
 An Evaluation Process Must Have a Clear Definition of Goals
and Objectives

39

19
ROLE OF EVALUATION IN PDP AND BASIC ELEMENTS
OF EVALUATION
Each phase of the PDP requires evaluation of alternative actions so that
the best decision can be made to address the requirements of that
phase.
 The most visible phase that involves explicit evaluation of alternatives
is the systems planning phase, where it is sought to decide whether or
not to undertake a project.
The next common phases are those for systems site selection and
systems design.
The most common evaluation criterion that has traditionally been used
for all phases is economic analysis
In recent times, there are increasing calls to include system
effectiveness and equity evaluation criteria in decision making
40

ROLE OF EVALUATION IN PDP AND BASIC ELEMENTS

OF EVALUATION
Any evaluation process, also need to investigate what-if scenarios
Since transportation systems are often characterized by significant risk
and uncertainty - sensitivity analysis should be for various levels of
factors, such as system use (e.g., traffic volumes) and economic climate
(e.g., interest rates), and should help reveal trade-offs between
competing objectives.
 Due to multiplicity of stakeholders, another important role of
evaluation is consensus building
Performance measures for decision making are typically derived from
conflicting interests and considerations
 Evaluation can therefore generate an impartial solution that yields the
highest “benefits” while incurring the least possible “cost” to all parties
affected. 41

20
 Basic Elements of Evaluation: Overall Goals
 Efficiency:
 monetary value of the return from a project
 life-cycle agency, and user costing
 Effectiveness:
 degree to which an alternative is expected to accomplish the tasks
 monetary and non-monetary
 Equity:
 Social and geographical equity in the distribution of costs and
benefits

42

Reasons for Evaluation

 Assessment of proposed investments

 Special transportation development programs

 Fulfillment of regulatory mandate

 Post implementation evaluation

 Public education

43

21
 Procedure for Transportation System Evaluation
1. Identify the Evaluation Subject
2. Identify Concerns of the Parties Concerned
3. Define Goals and Objectives
4. Establish Performance Measures
5. Establish Evaluation Scope
6. Recognize Legal and Administrative Requirements
7. Identify Possible courses of Action and Develop Feasible
Alternatives
 Appropriateness (of Course of Action)
 Adequacy (of Each Alternative)
 Implementation Feasibility
44

Procedure for Transportation System Evaluation

8. Estimate Agency Cost and User Costs
9. Estimate Other Benefits and Costs
10. Compare the Alternatives
1. Maximum benefit for a given level of investment
2. Least cost for a given level of effectiveness
3. Maximum cost effectiveness

45

22
23