Evaluation Procedure for Mutually Exclusive Highway Safety Alternatives under Different Policy Objectives
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 138, Issue 7
Abstract
The purpose of evaluating mutually exclusive alternatives is to select the one with the most benefits for implementation. A number of analytic techniques are available for such evaluation purposes. This paper discusses four such techniques: cost effectiveness , benefit-to-cost ratio , internal rate of return (IRR), and payoff period (PP), including their theoretical foundation and data requirements. Also discussed are the measures of effectiveness (MOEs) associated with each of these techniques and how they are to be interpreted. Alternatives to be selected for implementation following such evaluation can typically be funded under different policy objectives. This paper identifies three such objectives: Objective A, constrained resource perspective; Objective B, investment perspective; and Objective C, face-value perspective. The possible relationship between the alternative selection and the program is discussed in the paper. A case study for a set of six mutually exclusive highway safety alternatives is presented using the four analytic techniques and three objectives, resulting in various possible solutions. Results show that under compatible assumptions, and for a given policy objective, the outcome of the evaluation is not affected by the choice of the analytic technique. However, for a given analytic technique, the outcome may be affected by the choice of the policy objective chosen. The principles presented are relevant for most public projects (e.g., transit, airports) involving the investment of taxpayer resources, even though the case study involves a highway safety project.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors greatly appreciate the suggestions from the reviewers, and their viewpoints have substantially improved the presentation of the research. The authors are thankful to MDOT for supporting the study “Safety improvements for urban arterials” in 2005–2006 at Wayne State University (WSU), which served as the foundation of this research. The opinions and viewpoints expressed are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent policies and programs of the agencies mentioned in the paper.
References
Albert, G., Shen, J., and Rodreguez, A. (2005). “Update of Florida crash reduction factors and countermeasures to improve the development of district safety improvement projects.” Final Rep. BD015-RPWO-4, Florida Dept. of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL.
Anguera, R. (2006). “The channel tunnel: An ex post economic evaluation.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.TRPPEC, 40(4), 291–315.
Boardman, A., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., and Weimer, D. K. (1996). Cost benefit analysis: Concepts and practice, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bonnafous, A., and Jensen, P. (2005). “Ranking transport projects by their socioeconomic value or financial internal rate of return?” Transp. PolicyTRPOE9, 12(2), 131–136.
Council, F. et al. (1980). “Crash research manual.” Publication FHWA/RD-80/016.FHWA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Datta, T. K., Bowman, B. L., Opiela, K. S. (1978). “Evaluation of highway safety projects using quality control techniques.” Transportation Research Record 672, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 9–16.
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA). (1981a). “Highway safety evaluation: Procedural guide.” Rep. Prepared for the Federal Highway Safety Administration, GoodellGrivas, Southfield, MI.
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA). (1981b). “Highway safety improvement program.” Rep. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-TS-81-218, GoodellGrivas, Southfield, MI.
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA). (1991). “The cost of highway crashes.” Rep. for the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD-9-055, FHWA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, McLean, VA.
Grant, E. L., Ireson, W. G., and Lavenworth, R. S. (1990). Principles of engineering economy, 8th Ed., Wiley, New York.
Harford, J. D. (2006). “Congestion, pollution, and benefit-to-cost ratios of us public transit systems.” Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 11(1), 45–58.
Hobday, M. B., and Knight, S. (2010). “Motor vehicle collisions involving adult pedestrians in e-Thekwini in 2007.” Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot., 17(1), 61–68.
Holz-Rau, C., and Scheiner, J. (2011). “Safety and travel time in cost-benefit analysis: A sensitivity analysis for North Rhine-Westphalia.” Transp. PolicyTRPOE9, 18(2), 336–346.
Jorgenson Associates. (1977). “Cost and safety effectiveness of highway design elements.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Rep. 197, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Khasnabis, S., Bartus, J., and Alsaidi, E. (2005). “On the relationship. between program missions and analytic techniques in evaluation of mutually exclusive alternatives.” Proc., 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conf., Washington, DC.
Khasnabis, S., Dhingra, S. L., Mishra, S., and Safi, C. (2010). “Mechanisms for transportation infrastructure investment in developing countries.” J. Urban Plann. Dev.JUPDDM, 136(1), 94–103.
Khasnabis, S., Naseer, M., Baig, M. F., and Opiela, K. S. (1999a). “Roadside safety analysis program as a tool for economic evaluation of roadside safety projects.” Transportation Research Record 1690, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC., 31–41.
Khasnabis, S., Opiela, K. S., and Arbogast, R. G. (1982). “Economic evaluation of development projects on transportation ROW.” Transp. Eng. J.JTPEDI, 108(TE 1), 51–70.
Khasnabis, S., Rudraraju, R. K., and Baig, M. F. (1999b). “Economic evaluation of signal preemption projects.” Transp. Eng. J. ASCEJTPEDI, 125(2), 160–167.
Laughland, J. C. (1975). “Methods for evaluation highway safety improvements.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Rep. 162, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Li, Z., and Madanu, S. (2009). “Highway project level life-cycle benefit/cost analysis under certainty, risk, and uncertainty: Methodology with case study.” J. Transp. Eng.JTPEDI, 135(8), 516–526.
Mak, K. K., Sicking, D. L., and Zimmerman, K. (1998). “Roadside safety analysis program: A cost effectiveness analysis procedure.” Transportation Research Record 1647, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 67–74.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (1977). The evaluation of highway traffic safety programs, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
National Safety Council (NSC). (2004). “Estimating the costs of unintentional injuries, 2006.” NSC Rep., Itasca, IL.
Rotaris, L., Romeo, D., Edoardo, M., and Jerome, M. (2010). “The urban road pricing scheme to curb pollution in Milan, Italy: Description, impacts and preliminary cost-benefit analysis assessment.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 44(5), 359–375.
Salling, K. B., and Banister, D. (2009). “Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 43(9–10), 800–813.
Vassallo, J. M. (2010). “The role of the discount rate in tendering highway concessions under the LPVR approach.” Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 44(10), 806–814.
Winfrey, R. (1969). Economic analysis for highways, International Textbook Company, Scranton, PA.
Winfrey, R. (1974). “Traffic crash costs in economic analysis.” Rep. for the Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 138 • Issue 7 • July 2012
Pages: 940 - 948
Copyright
© 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 5, 2011
Accepted: Dec 20, 2011
Published online: Dec 23, 2011
Published in print: Jul 1, 2012
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.