Transportation Benefit to Cost Analysis

[dougskiles]

This is an interesting program being implemented in the Bay area.  I wonder how far below 1.0 the outer beltway would fall?

http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_19379547

Bay Area transportation projects to be judged on benefits vs. costs

By Gary Richards
grichards@mercurynews.com
Posted: 11/21/2011 09:42:09 AM PST
Updated: 11/21/2011 09:42:17 AM PST

The highest-rated project in the new survey is BART s plan to run express...
No longer is a speedier commute the primary way to assess the benefits of 90 of the most expensive transportation projects being considered in the Bay Area over the next 25 years.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is looking at factors often ignored when assessing whether it is financially worthwhile to pay millions to widen highways and expand trains. Road fatalities and injuries, emissions reductions, the cost of owning and operating a car and even the health effects of physical inactivity are being considered in the Project Performance Assessment study now under way.

The MTC allocates state and federal funds to the nine Bay Area counties, and without that money some projects rated highly by local agencies could be scrapped -- among them light-rail extensions in Santa Clara County, more Caltrain service to San Francisco, and a BART link to Livermore.

Money will be scarce. More than $180 billion worth of projects is on the wish list in the Bay Area through 2035, while $70 billion may be available.

"Talk to any business person about not having a benefits-vs.-cost discussion and they'll say, 'Duh, you mean you don't do that?' " said the commission's executive director, Steve Heminger. "They insist on it, but in the transportation profession it is not all that common. ... This levels the playing field."
Transit and toll lanes rise to the top of the financial benefits for every $1 it will cost to build, operate and maintain a project.

"This is groundbreaking analysis that could call into question some of the biggest transportation projects," said Stuart Cohen of TransForm, an Oakland-based public transportation advocacy group. "For projects that have a score under 1, or lead to greenhouse gas increases, it will -- and should -- bring on intense scrutiny."

BART's plan to run express trains and more frequent trains is the highest rated project, with a $60 to $1 benefit/cost ratio.  Next is a project many may have never heard about -- Treasure Island congestion pricing, at $59 in benefits per $1 in costs.  This would impose a toll of around $5 per trip on all private vehicles registered to Treasure Island residents that enter or exit the island during morning or afternoon commute times. Revenues from the toll, along with the required purchase of transit passes by new residents, would be used to fund Treasure Island transit improvements, including bus service and new ferry service connecting the island to the Ferry Building in San Francisco.

Running express buses through Oakland on the Grand-MacArthur street corridor came in next at $18 to $1. Maximizing the efficiency of the existing freeway network in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties through ramp metering, traffic signal improvements along adjacent roads and transit signal priority upgrades had benefits of $16 to $1.

Anything over $7 to $1 in benefits is considered a high-performing project, while those with a $1 to $1 ratio or less are rated poorly.

The BART-to-San Jose extension through the downtown area had $5 in benefits to $1 in costs.
"We've recognized that as a region, we don't have the resources to build every transportation project that we'd like to build, and scarcity requires us to adopt a more principled approach to prioritizing projects based on needs and objectives, rather than on logrolling and backroom politicking," said Sam Liccardo, a San Jose council member and MTC commissioner. "I wasn't terribly surprised by the results.

"The cost-benefit analysis confirmed what the voters of Santa Clara County have long believed: The benefits of BART to Silicon Valley heavily outweigh its considerable costs, and it performs extremely well on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transportation costs."

But at risk are light rail and express buses through the South Bay, the Dumbarton commuter train from the East Bay to the Peninsula, and extending BART to Livermore. All had a benefit/cost ratio of $1 or less.

"One of the clear losers in the assessment was light rail in Santa Clara County," Cohen said. "Most of the potential extensions would go through low-density areas and would have low ridership.

"But the most hideous loser is BART to Livermore. This $4.2 million boondoggle shows almost no benefit," said Cohen, "and it would suck up billions needed to keep BART from falling to pieces."

The report will be presented to the MTC board next month and voted on early next year.

Contact Gary Richards at 408-920-5335.

BART improvements (express trains, more frequent service): $60
Treasure Island congestion pricing: $59
Bus rapid transit on Grand-MacArthur in Oakland: $18
Improving freeway and adjacent city streets through ramp metering, signal coordination, incident management and transit vehicle signal priority in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties: $16
Irvington BART station: $12
Muni transit improvements: $11
Merging lanes on Highway 85 from El Camino Real to Winchester Boulevard: $7
Connecting road from I-680 to I-880 between Fremont and Union City: $7
Highway 239 expressway from Brentwood to Tracy: $7
Highway 101 carpool extension from Whipple Avenue in Redwood City to Cesar Chavez Street in San Francisco: $6
Express buses on Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco: $6
Express lanes in Santa Clara County: $6
BART to downtown San Jose: $5
Express lanes in Alameda County: $5
Pavement maintenance on city streets throughout Bay Area: $5
I-80 merge lanes from Airbase Parkway in Fairfield to I-680: $5
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout Bay Area: $4 to $5
Hwy. 84-I-680 interchange upgrade: $4
Hwy. 4 bypass from Hwy. 160 to Walnut Avenue in Walnut Creek: $4
I-680-Hwy. 4 interchange: $3
Hwy. 152 realignment: $4
Dumbarton Express buses: $2
Express buses on El Camino Real in Santa Clara County: $1
Ten hourly Caltrain runs: $1
Golden Gate ferry improvements: $1
BART to Livermore: $1
Dumbarton rail: 80 cents
Capitol Expressway light rail: 50 cents
Caltrain downtown San Francisco extension: 10 cents
Union City commuter station: 0
Light-rail extensions to Los Gatos and East San Jose: 0
Fatalities: $4.6 million per fatality
Injuries: $64,000 per injury
Particulate material: As much as $32,200 per ton
Costs of auto ownership: $6,290
Property damage: $2,455
Costs of physical inactivity per adult: $1,222
Travel time for transit users per person per hour of travel: $35
Travel time for truckers per vehicle per hour: $26
Travel time for motorists per vehicle per hour: $16
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission

[tufsu1]

having worked on some benefit-cost analyses (BCA) for TIGER grant applications, it isn't that difficult to get above 1.0....depending on the inputs and assumptions...even for a project like the Outer Beltway.

for example, the first segment down to Blanding is expected to cost $300 million (construction only)....accidents on Blanding from 2004-2009 had a societal cost of about $300 million...so, let's just say that the new expressway alleviated all accidents on Blanding...now you have a BCA of 1.0

[Ocklawaha]

This is an interesting program being implemented in the Bay area.  I wonder how far below 1.0 the outer beltway would fall?

http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_19379547

Bay Area transportation projects to be judged on benefits vs. costs

Bus rapid transit on Grand-MacArthur in Oakland: $18

Before some 'spokesperson' over on Myrtle Avenue jumps in and tells us all how much better and cheaper the Oakland BRT project is, as opposed to rail,  lets look at the REAL request amount:

Grand MacArthur Bus Rapid Transit ($32,500,000) â€" Requested by AC Transit. The project represents a low cost method to improve services in a corridor that already has an established ridership base, thereby ensuring a cost effective method to achieve success.

Jacksonville couldn't stand very many of these so-called 'low cost methods to improve services,' based on magic BRT buses that JTA contends are "just like rail - only cheaper..."

In the 2007 performance report, right after a brief mention of Small Starts funding for MacArthur BRT, there is a note:

Downtown Oakland Plan â€" Staff has incrementally clustered service on the 11th/12th and 20th Street corridors, and plans to work toward an overall formal transit priority streets plan that would increase service, access and reliability throughout the downtown area.

BRT in Jacksonville needn't be a lost cause, but BRT as planned by JTA to date, probably is.  Extravagant over planning for a system that would be nothing if not over built will only result in more public rejection for our local highway builder playing transit operator.  BRT in Jacksonville would be an excellent compliment to a streetcar/light rail, commuter rail, Skyway, express bus and city bus system.

Why any agency in Florida thinks we can leap from covered wagon to space shuttle in one giant leap is the crux of all mass transit failures in the Sunshine State.  (see Florida High Speed Rail in a state that abandoned the use and funding of its rail services 40+ years ago.)  Likewise, putting a system of overbuilt busways around our city is a recipe for another unfinished Skyway. It's not the mode, the vehicle, or the populace that contines to imperial our future flexible mobility.

MetroJacksonville has presented a logical, simple, nonsense approach but is anyone listening?

SEE METROJACKSONVILLE:  http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-nov-the-charlotte-sprinter-brt-without-federal-money

RECOMENDATION #5

5. Introducing Reliable Headways

JTA would like to reduce headways along this corridor to 10-15 minutes.  Current BRT plans suggest that such an improvement can only be achieved by investing $25 million.  However, a look at JTA's current Southside bus routes indicates that several routes tend to parallel each other, providing duplicate services as they flow into downtown.  Metro Jacksonville suggests taking a look at streamlining the duplication and shifting the operational savings generated to upgrade the L7 route (DT - Avenues Mall) to 15 minute headways.


Despite having no money, a bad reputation and a transit system that leaves a lot to be desired, a year later, none of these cost effective ideas have seriously been considered outside of Metro Jacksonville discussion boards.  Nevertheless, we now offer proof of a progressive community that has implemented these "no-frills" concepts described above to immediately enhance local transit service without waiting for years in favor of expensive federal handouts.  That community is Charlotte, NC.  The same community that has a vibrant downtown, a successful starter light rail line, and economic development we'd love to see here.

OCKLAWAHA