CIVIL 759 - HIGHWAY & TRANSPORTATION DESIGN = 551o4-1/ 1v.

Problem EE/1(Example)
MIST- --.=• 15.,CCk__') °VI-A .
The following traffic improvement project is proposed on an urban arterial with posted
speed limit of 50km/h, typical traffic mix, use vehicle speed of 55 km/hr - the 5-day ADT is rDe_rted
15,000 vch/day.

Do-minimum option:
vehicle actuated signals at A, B and C.

Proposed option:
co-ordinated signals at A, B and C.

X 300 m A 500 m B 400 m C 300 m Y

Analyses using SIDRA and TRANSYT indicate the proposed option will substaklax reduce ,\( - ck.bskcent_ka(
stops and queuing delays - refer to the following work sheet for details. An examination f
the accident history indicates alreductionlo 4 e..rted minor injury crashes (TCR's) and 0.5 ntect (202,s(nfqt- .
reported serious injury crashes per year can be ex
L-Tecluck
The following evaluation data has been taken from the Economic Evaluation Manual (NZ
Transport Agency, 2018).

Travel time (road user) cost (overall average) $16.27/ hr ).0l9) coSAs -( /*dale --ccAc
Vehicle operating costs: - 55 km/h, 0% grade 26.4c / km
idling cost I .997c / min
(additional fuel)
EEM Crash costs o minor injury (TCR) $28,000 each
o serious injury (TCIt) $475,000 each rf---4RA
a fatal injury (TCR) $4,600,000 each
, Fatal to serious injury ratio Sejtokc
Fatal / (Fatal + Serious) = 0.07
Table A6.3(b) O.s &_,tak
-- vuit n.eect5• 411trio 4f)
Serious / (Fatal + Serious) = 0.93
'fable A6.2(b)
Under-reporting of crashes
Serious injury 1.5

J
Table A6.3(a)
Minor injury 2.75
'fable A6.3(t) '46-1 .. tAp Si / N\
Non-injury 7.0
'fable A6.3(b)

20-EEprbl doc

\&//r\ at.) we ev-‘ct-t So ccvl

gecatik. teal - cAoes IfActvIcA. oGi

42,414744, oh ebie.
match
 ICE?.
1O,7 t cor_.) (\et,o NtDi

Assume the reductions in road costs apply t 70% of the 5-day ADT (ie. benefits from the
proposed option during low flow periods are insignificant) - use 245 days per year.
DG wL v4,1O,,) d p his is Igo/
On the above basis, determine:— P SO COrlySied? (Peak- 7- ) Feitcd$ °f)ttd Tx lei'
CO
(i) the road user cost savin in the first year: hence. determine the FYRR (ic. BCR for L)10'kcj: esHcI A
the first year). if the-ix:7SMsignal co-ordination is expected to be/t450,0001 —

ccpt SChitv13
(ii) the benefit cost ratio (BCR) over a 40 period, based on a 3% annual growth in vehicle
"--- flows and no 0% annual change in accidents / crashes and an 6% discount rate and then
compare against Nr4. 4 method for accident trend adjustment factors.
( l'ABLM D*.rlin Csss' 7
Problem EE/1 (Example) Worksheet (obtained from models) Pro? (tsk. 4-56i
Travel Time
741i= t
Link/Intersection Free Speed Queuing
Travel Change Delay Total
Time secs secs secs
secs
Do-minimum option

A - 14.6 20.5
115.3
B - 14.6 28.5
C
Proposed option
- 14.6 22.5
TIS
A
B
-
-
3.0
3.0
5.1
4.7
23.3
C - 3.0 4.5

A r it
(6(..1
AMA eef 41.bliOtan y 441 firtCCAS ColtSCC(O1,1
C (43kel "fc-4 cOztAs4-
Pen
--hl>106 ca.A pifeSe4 CIALL
7. ciQvfole_
D .1 tle.,Arda

20-EEprbl doe
//Vehicle Operating Costs ittiguE(
Link/lntersection Basic Cost Speed Queuing
cents Change Delay Total
cents cents (cent)
Do-minimum option

A - 3.2 0.62
_ 0.86 C11.76
B 3.2
C - 3.2 0.68
Proposed option

A - 0.3 0.15
0.3 0.15 6.35
B -
C - Q.3 0.15

Solution EE/1 (Example) GkAs 'for l K

There is no need to consider travel between X and Y, as it is common Asi
to both options. Refer to the Worksheet for details. ?gu.k peitcas
Neuf 72
ravel Time Savings per 607 Diacy =-7 assuwIc 2 x peak.
(1153 - 23.3) / 3600 x $16.27 x 15,000 x 70% x 245 = $1,069,617 (Igemck) Commented [MI]: From trawl time table above
Tfak I Noe. -
Vehicle Operating Cost Savings per year
No difference for Grades and Speed only-delay-and no-ifi-fofniatioti-prok‘ideki-on-whether Table 2 has info for queueing and speed
change cycle delay....but the question does
vehieles-weFe-stopped-ii-kilietsojest-a&sume-all-fiti44-movitig. (This should be added as not provide any details as to how many
there is a queuing difference between options) vehicles are queued or how many are
affected by the speed cycle - in this example
(11.76 -1.35) / 100 x 1.5,000 x 70% x 245 = $267,797 =Qtr e-Ali) we ignored it. In an exam question you will
need to consider it unless it EXPRESSLY
no NA' oivis says to ignore the costs. So you can add in
cod-, dot Qf the assumption that all vehicles are queued
but to a lesser extent in the option case.
Accident (Crash) Reduction per year READ all exam question carefully!
SekO1,O
(4 number x $28,000 x 2.75 under-reporting) + (0.5 number X $475,000 x 1.5 =der-
WItoor . 4tckS IS *42 redUdIVA So no
reporting x 0.93 ratio fatal/minus) + (0.5 x $4,600,000 x 0.07 ratio fsitaVserions) =
$308,000 + $331,312.5 + $161,000 = $800,313 eyt&A nev.).
>
rep rk
(i) Total Road User Savings in the first year ad,; Linde' .-reeAk-
20-EEprbrd6c

ivItoof • K CoSA /ukKoker-qtyl

,K rcki-(o sencus •,-•
den(AS g (s)isux Wit ael -fe u ‘i
it " 't )< `th:t\ CoS
>e COS{ )C f4 •
icd •
 L
0 AV C-
= $1,069,617 + $267,797 + $800,313 +2.137727 x 1061
Therefore, FYRR = $2.137727 x 106 / $450,000 = 4.75 (475%!) PAH

cr.Moi e.spc‘witsr.vy
(ii) Net Present Value (NPV)
AnniAca cauti55 coei 40 ye -4( -
= $2.137727 x 106 x 611,1MF40
+ ($1,069,617 + $267,797) x 6AGPWF40 0.03 37o f..ick-ci IC_ ouci 4c3`tr -
'T'1c. VoC '' -.A"---- grc'
= ($2.137727 x 106 ) x 15.4933 + ($1.337414 x 106) x 199.1528 x 0.03
u,svt‘Ifop Piter4flo
= $41.110938 x 106

Benefit Cost Ratio = $41.110938 x 106/ $450,000 = 91.4! l4 •

20-EEprbl .doc
 ACLIDENC( Vas IhnS is +O a ccpcmi -;cr. q
-f6recaicck (*Ccii“ (alai ( rashes
General Crash Trends (refer to MCBM Appendix 2) fe vc -lb -((cipt. 9/(314/-. /
Should use the MBCM procedures here - usually, do not make a
1-1,12 clisco/Aeliediperrai
significant difference to the BCR results, but can do so particularly when
close to a BCR of 4.0, or where the crash savings are very high.

Solution EE/1 (Example) continued

This part (table A21) adjusts the
3% per annum increase in traffic flows, 50 km/h speed limit area historical crash trend (@3% growth) to
present day values... so crashes reduce
despite historical growth

riables A21 and A22

According to the above in the MCBM, the Accident (Crash)

Reduction per year is Ca p -icikkAC6outC •
1(4 x $28,000 x 2.75) + 0.5 x $47.5,000 x 1.5 x 0.93 L S) + (0.5 x
$4,600,000 x 0.07)] 0.9 = $744,291
- CaStf‘ tc tc tcri'faCce rf 37') 1(°" ilk"
Also, (i) and (ii) should be re-calculated as follows: (...)e_Vt(cAts
(i) Total Road User Savings in the first year
= $1,069,617 + $267,797 + $744,291 = $2.081735 x 106 "&ksc_t.
act stnc. .
Therefore, = $2.081735 x 106 / $450,000
Le. c
(ii) Net Present Value (NPV)
rclt•VY‘ • $2.1 772 ``x 106 x 6USPWElo
1c- Joc_
+ ($1,069,617 + $267,797) x 6AGPWF4o x 0.03
+ $744 291 x 8AGPWF40 x (0.03-0.01) - Refer to Table A22
dootAf
A)te-. • ''''-- _____. crctcti -Eicek4 4 d su silneint •
= ($2.137727 x 106 ) x 15.4933 + ($1.337414 x 106) x 199.1528 x 0.03 - Eil-a. t rukAL,
+ ($744,291) x 199.1528 x (0.02)
kicsc\kiL. w0)(,4k k. — cia&lik ikinct cuksy.tyceND, ..1)

L $44.075491 x 106

..---,
Benefit Cost Ratio =$29:4344029 x 106/ $450,000 i 97.9! \ --%' C4I --( WIL1
4-4.6W491 This part of of the adjustment is discounting an assumed continued
3% traffic growth over the discount period (table A22) to account for
future growth, but with decreasing crash rates despite more traffic
in the FUTURE -
20-EEprbl.doc
BEWARE - make sure the question assumes historical growth is
the same as the future growth - it can be different, also the
historical posted speed could be different to the future posted
speed - therefore different rates could apply for the adjustments -
just like in real projects so....

READ the exam question carefully!