145x Filetype PDF File size 0.50 MB Source: onlinepubs.trb.org
NCHRP SYNTHESIS OF HIGHWAY PRACTICE Engineering Economic Analysis Practices for Highway Investments MICHAEL J. MARKOW oes an engineering economic analysis con- or not to include inflation; whether to use base-year The author is principal tribute worthwhile information about a or current-year dollars; the differences between an and owner, Michael J. highway investment or does it impede interest rate and a discount rate; and what to do when D Markow, P.E., Teaticket, timely decision making? This question essentially funding contributed by others reduces the project’s Massachusetts. underlies the problem statement for National Coop- apparent cost to the highway agency. erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Syn- The report provides brief explanations highlight- thesis Topic 41-03, Engineering Economic Analysis ing the differences between the two types of analy- Practices for Highway Investments. ses, along with examples of good practice by highway The results of the study, published ias NCHRP agencies. A project may be economically feasible— Synthesis 424, affirm the benefits of using engineer- that is, worth doing—but financially infeasible, ing economic methods by showing how select U.S. because it cannot be paid for. The opposite is also transportation agencies have applied exemplary true: a project can be economically infeasible—the practices in benefit–cost analyses and similar proce- expenditure of taxpayer dollars is not economically 1 justified—but financially feasible, because the money dures. The results indicate a remarkably wide range Crews work during a of applications in highway investment decision mak- can be found to pay for it, although the project could weekend closure on the ing. prove a poor use of tax dollars. SR-520 bridge Table 1 (page 44) illustrates these and other com- replacement and high- Economic Versus binations of economic and financial possibilities to occupancy vehicle project Financial Analyses distinguish between the two types of analyses. The in Washington State. NCHRP Synthesis 424 distinguishes between eco- synthesis focuses solely on the economic analysis of Transportation agencies nomic analyses and financial analyses of highway agency investments. often analyze highway investments; both involve streams of dollars and can safety investments in easily become confused in practice. For example, in an Developing Proficiency economic terms, considering the social economic analysis, questions may arise about whether Many U.S. state departments of transportation (DOTs) costs of fewer collisions. 1 www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/167096.aspx. routinely conduct economic analyses for certain cat- egories of investment—for example, for pavement and P HOTObridge preservation, by applying economic models in : W pavement and bridge management systems; for safety ASHINGTON improvements, by considering the social costs avoided S by reducing collisions; and for major projects, such as T A TE DOT expanding the capacity of trunk lines or of large, com- plex urban transportation facilities. TR The findings from this synthesis have demon- NEWS strated, however, that agencies conversant with eco- nomic concepts and methods regularly conduct 292 more extensive applications of engineering economic MA analysis. These agencies have developed a profi- Y–JUNE ciency that enables the integration of economic analyses into daily operations and the application of 2014 economic results to managerial and executive deci- sion making. 43 P A roundabout is installed HOTO : on SR-92 in Washington W State to reduce collision ASHINGTON risk and improve traffic S flow. Roundabouts are a T A TE priority in Washington DOT State DOT’s strategic highway safety plan. Case Examples sampling of agencies identified through a screening Case examples were critical to the findings of the survey. The list is not exhaustive; other agencies also synthesis. Many regard benefit–cost analysis and may have attained similar levels of proficiency in the similar methods solely as tools for project appraisal, use of economic analysis. for application early in project planning and design. This synthesis has shown, however, that state DOTs u Planning. One case example applies to critical and other transportation organizations have applied Interstate bridge and tunnel crossings owned and engineering economic analysis successfully and pro- operated by the Port Authority of New York and New ductively to a much wider range of highway invest- Jersey, with a supporting economic analysis by the ment decisions, from project conception and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of maritime shipping planning to project delivery. to the Port of New York and New Jersey. Another case The cases presented in NCHRP Synthesis 424 are example covers mobility planning by the Washing- listed as follows; the cases detail the practices of a ton State Department of Transportation (DOT). TABLE 1 Economic Versus Financial Assessments of Project Candidate Solutions Economic Justification Financially Feasible Financially Infeasible Economically justified Solution is economically worth doing. The benefits Solution is economically worth doing. Its costs are justify the cost. Of the alternatives considered, the justified by its benefits to the public. solution maximizes benefits to the public. Funding is not sufficient, however, to cover the Solution is financially feasible—funding is available estimated costs including inflation; or the candidate in the amount and time needed to pay for the project is ineligible for funding in the amount and candidate project, including anticipated cost schedule needed. inflation. Implication: Although worth implementing, the Implication: With good management of delivery, a solution cannot be paid for with the current design and worthwhile project can be completed with the funding. The candidate project should not be available budget. recommended. Other financially feasible solutions to the need or problem should be explored. Economically not justified Solution is economically not worth doing. The Solution is neither economically nor financially benefits do not justify the cost. Unless justified by defensible. Even with other, noneconomic reasons to 2014 other, non economic considerations, the project consider the solution, funding is not available in the could be seen as a waste of taxpayer money. amount and time needed. Funding is available to support the candidate project Implication: Reassess the original need or problem to Y–JUNE if worthwhile. gauge its priority in relation to other needs. If the MA Implication: Consider revisiting the original need or priority is relatively high, develop new, economically 292 problem to explore other solutions that are stronger viable solutions and consider other financing options economically, that increase benefits or reduce costs. (including innovative funding mechanisms or redirecting NEWS Otherwise, consider redirecting the funding to viable funding from lower-priority project candidates) to fund project candidates that address other needs. the solution. Otherwise, move on to other needs and TR solutions. 44 u Programming and budgeting. Two case exam- Congestion ples illustrate methods used by Washington State Index DOT for mobility programming and safety pro- Effect of Traffic Growth Assuming “No Work” Scenario gramming; another presents the California DOT (Caltrans) approach to bridge programming and per- mitting, including environmental permitting con- B1 siderations; and a fourth case illustrates the methodological development for an economics- based trade-off analysis by New York State DOT. u Resource allocation following budget Project Duration 1 approval.The New York State DOT case example of economics-based trade-off analysis is instructive for Time projects at the resource allocation stage as well. (a) u Project design and development. A case exam- ple of pavement type selection, comparing the prac- tices of Colorado DOT and Caltrans, addresses this Congestion Index aspect of project design and development, supple- Effect of Traffic Growth Assuming “No Work” Scenario mented by a value engineering case example, which compares the practices of Caltrans and Florida DOT. u Accelerated project delivery. Conventional B1 construction and design–build options are consid- ered in the case example for acceleration of project B2 delivery, developed with Minnesota DOT. Economic analyses involve comparisons of alter- Project Duration 2 natives to evaluate differences in costs and benefits and to identify the preferred—or economically jus- Time tified—approach that delivers the best value to road (b) users and the public at large. For example, Figure 1 (right), from the Minnesota DOT accelerated project FIGURE 1 Illustration of highway user cost savings from project acceleration: (a) conventional construction; (b) accelerated construction with design–build. (B1 = delivery case, illustrates the comparison of road user benefit; B2 = additional benefit. Source: HDR–HLB Decision Economics, Inc., 2006, benefits from conventional construction (upper Figure 7, p. 11, with additional annotations by author.) graphic) and from accelerated construction with design–build (lower graphic). The additional bene- project delivery; and levels of the system analyzed— fit component (B2) in the lower graphic denotes for example, link or project, corridor, program, and additional savings to road users from the faster com- network. pletion of the project. Considered individually, the case examples show how engineering knowledge and the need to under- Practical Frameworks stand the impacts of particular decisions can be orga- Value engineering was Although economic results are important to invest- nized within a practical economic framework. integrated into the ment decisions, they are not the sole criterion in the Considered collectively, however, the case examples project development and final decision. Agencies may consider other factors, reveal common characteristics among agencies that environmental study of quantitative and qualitative, in a comprehensive successfully apply engineering economic practices the I-595 expansion assessment of which project alternative to recom- across a range of projects. project in Florida. mend. ERR In addition to the application of engineering eco- K TR OUG NEWS nomic methods to various decisions in highway D : investment, the case examples also reveal agency HOTO P 292 practices in building analyses—such as compiling data, selecting a discount rate, accounting for risk or MA uncertainty in estimates, defining alternatives, and so Y–JUNE forth. The case examples represent a variety of pro- gram areas, such as preservation, mobility, and safety; 2014 life-cycle stages in the decision process, such as plan- ning, programming, resource allocation, design, and 45 P HOTO Value of Economic Analyses : C The case examples, together with reviews of the lit- OLORADO erature and interviews with agency personnel, iden- DOT tify the following benefits of economic analyses: u The direct or tangible benefit consists of obtaining an economic result that shows the value or merit of a highway investment. This value may be in the benefits received by road users or in the costs avoided by road users and by the agency. Generally, economic performance—the benefits compared with the costs—is linked to the engineering or technical performance of the highway facility. Monetized ben- efits help in understanding the trade-offs between competing alternatives. The preparation of an eco- nomic analysis imposes a discipline that accounts for all costs and all benefits as comprehensively and Concrete work on US-160 Characteristics of as accurately as possible. near Cortez, Colorado. Proficient Agencies u The indirect or intangible benefit comes from Colorado DOT’s Several characteristics differentiate agencies that are encouraging a better decision-making process within pavement type selection conversant with economic methods and are integral the organization. This benefit provides an incentive practices are examined in to the agency’s makeup and approach to solving to identify all realistic alternatives for solution; to a NCHRP Synthesis 424. transportation problems and addressing needs: focus on the purpose of the proposed investment and to avoid “scope creep”—uncontrolled changes u The influence of organizational champions and or growth in a project’s scope; to avoid biases toward culture, with the support and participation of exec- options, such as particular paving materials; and to utive leadership; support these objectives through clear agency guid- u A level of knowledge, proficiency, and comfort ance and communication, backed by analytical tools with economic methods; and effective data collection and processing. u Integration of economics into the business and decision-making processes, so that economic analy- Completing the Steps ses are a part of routine business, not a distinct, NCHRP Synthesis 424, Engineering Economic Analy- somewhat isolated task; sis Practices for Highway Investments, describes the u Creativity in developing alternative solutions; ways that exemplary state DOTs and other trans- u A willingness to experiment and innovate portation agencies complete the steps of engineering when available data and analytic methods do not fit economic analysis: articulating the highway system a situation that requires a decision; need or problem to be investigated; defining alter- u The reliance of upper management on the native solutions to be assessed; quantifying the pa - results of economic analyses in making investment r ameters of the analyses; setting economic and engi- decisions; neering criteria for decisions; introducing other u The availability of information technology to noneconomic or nonquantitative factors that may support not only the economic analysis but also affect the outcome; completing the analysis; and important steps such as diagnosing a problem, defin- interpreting the results. The synthesis also includes ing realistic alternatives, and displaying results; lessons learned from the u Providing staff training in economic methods successful implementa- and tools and encouraging personnel to apply these tion of engineering eco- 2014 capabilities in their daily work; nomic analysis within a u Maintaining a healthy perspective on engi- highway organization. Y–JUNE neering economic analysis, viewing results as infor- MA mation, not as an automatic decision, that becomes For more 292 part of the comprehensive understanding of a proj- information on ect solution; and NCHRP Synthesis NEWS u Recognizing that economic outcomes are an 424, visit www.trb.org/ TR integral part of gauging highway system perfor- Publications/Blurbs/ 46 mance. 167096.aspx.
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.