Citation
User cost customization for a Florida bridge management system

Material Information

Title:
User cost customization for a Florida bridge management system
Creator:
Soares, Roberto
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 144 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Highways ( jstor )
Operating costs ( jstor )
Physical trauma ( jstor )
Roads ( jstor )
Transportation ( jstor )
Travel costs ( jstor )
Travel time ( jstor )
Trucks ( jstor )
User costs ( jstor )
Vehicles ( jstor )
Bridges -- Data processing -- Florida ( lcsh )
Bridges -- Maintenance and repair -- Management ( lcsh )
Civil Engineering thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Civil Engineering -- UF ( lcsh )
City of Tallahassee ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1999.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-142).
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Roberto Soares.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021577915 ( ALEPH )
43707747 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










USER COST CUSTOMIZATION FOR A
FLORIDA BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
















By

ROBERTO SHARES


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1999


























Dedication, to

my wife,

Consuelo,

and

my three children,

Roberto,

Alessandro

and

Andrea.














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am extremely grateful to Dr. Najafi the chairman of my committee who has

given me his continuous support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my career at

the University of Florida. The proposal of the Bridge Management System to Florida

Department of Transportation was originally initiated by Dr. Najafi which has provided

me with an opportunity to conduct this dissertation work. I am also grateful to Dr.

Thompson for his guidance and constant support throughout my career at the University

of Florida. A sincere and wholehearted appreciation is extended to my committee

members Dr. Shrestha, Dr. Glagola, and Dr. Foti for their wise guidance in the work of

this dissertation.

I extend appreciation to the National Highway Institute (NHI) for selecting me as

the 1998 recipient of the Eisenhower Fellowship Grant, for their fellowship during my

research.

I offer special thanks to all library personnel at the University of Florida, at the

Department of Transportation in Washington, DC, and at the American Truck

Association in Virginia, and to the personnel who helped me locate specific material

during my research.

With all my heart, I give very special thanks for the support received from my

family; and, above all, I thank God for providing me protection and care.



















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


LIST OF TABLES ........................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................... ix
ABSTRACT ....................................... x
CHAPTERS


INTRODUCTION ................
1.1. BMS Development.......
1.2.What is BMS in Pontis .....
1.3. Focussing on Pontis ......



PROBLEM STATEMENT .........
2.1 Problem .................
2.2 Survey ..................
2.3 User Cost Need ...........
2.4 Surplus Theory on User Cost
2.5 User Cost Weight Factor ...
2.6 Pontis Default Values Origin
2.7 Statement of the Hypothesis .
2.8 Validation ...............



LITERATURE REVIEW...........
3.1 Accidents ................
3.2 User Costs ...............
3.3 Economic Evaluation ......
3.4 BM S ...................
3.5 Remaining Relevant Entries .



PONTIS BMS BASIC CONCEPTS ..
4.1 Pontis Databas ............
4.2 Prediction Models ........
4.3 Cost Models .............
4.4 Program Integration Model .


. 1
. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... 2
................ ....... ... .. ... ...... 6
. .. 9



. 10
. 10
. 10
.......................... ............ 11
......................... ........... 12
................... ................ 13
. 14
. 15
...................................... 16



. 17
. 18
. 2 1
. .2 4
. .2 5
. 2 6



...................... ................27
. .2 8
. 3 1
. 3 3
. 3 8
13
.2 .. ... .. ... ..... .. 1
.6 ..... ........
9



.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. 107
.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. 108
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .210
.. .. .. .. .. 112
.. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. 1.25
.13 .......... .........2


.14 .......... .........2
.15 .......... .........2
. ..................316


.17 .......... .........3
.1 ............. 8


PONTIS USER COSTS MATHEMATICAL MODEL.......................... 41
5.1.Benefits and User Costs ......................... ..... ......... 41
5.2 FDOT Default Values Policy .......................... ........ 42









5.3 User Cost Models ............................................ 44
5.4 Benefit of Widening .......................................... 45
5.5 Benefits of Raising ..................... ........................ 47
5.6 Benefit of Strengthening ....................................... 47
5.7 Benefits of Replacement ......................... ................. 48
5.8 Detour Cost ...................... .......................... .. 50
5.9 Application Example .......................................... 50


TRAVEL TIME COSTS FOR BMS ....................................... 55
6.1 Background ............................... ................. 55
6.2 Theoretical Basis for Travel Time Evaluation ......................... 57
6.3 Percent Wage Index Analysis ..................................... 59
6.4 Comparing Travel Time Values ................................. 64
6.5 Non Business Travel Time .................. ................... 65
6.6 Business Travel Time ............................................ 66
6.7 Value of One Hour Travel Time ................ .................. 69
6.8 Truck Travel Time Cost for Florida ................................ 71


AVERAGE VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FOR BMS ....................... 72
7.1 VOC Related Factors ......................................... 73
7.2 Running Costs Calculation Methodology ............................. 78
7.3 Variable costs .................................................. 78
7.4 VOC Truck Customization ................ ...................... 82
7.5 New CVv Value ............................................. 86


BRIDGE RELATED ACCIDENT COSTS FOR FLORIDA ..................... 87
8.0 Background ................................................ 88
8.1 Bridge Accident Cost Evaluation Methodology ........................ 88
8.2 Comprehensive Fatality and Injury Costs ............................ .89
8.3 Conversion of MAIS into ABC Classification ......................... 91
8.4 FDOT Crash Data Preparation .................................... 92
8.5 Bridge Related Accident Average Cost ................... ..... ... 95


PONTIS USER COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .......................... 97
9.0 Background ................................................... 98
9.1 Parameters Definitions ........................................... 99
9.2 Scenarios for Simulation ........................................ 100
9.3 Comparing Results From Basis 1 and Basis 2 ........................ 105


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 108
10.1 Conclusions ..................................................108
10.2 Recommendations ........................................... 109

APPENDICES









PONTIS OUTPUT REPORTS ............................... 111
FDOT PONTIS DEFAULT VALUES POLICY .................. 113
EQUIPMENT AND COMMODITY CARRIER TYPES ........... 116
YEAR 2000 FEDERAL HIGHWAY COST AND FEE
RESPONSIBILITIES ............................... .118
KABCO INJURY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION............. 119
CONVERSION OF MAIS INTO ABC INJURY COSTS TABLES... 121
SPREADSHEET SAMPLES OF BRIDGE ACCIDENT EVALUATION24
VOC EVALUATION FOR CARS, VANS AND LIGHT TRUCKS .. 126

REFERENCES .................................... 129
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ......................... 143














LIST OF TABLES

Table P

1. Comparison of the Main Attributes Between Pontis and Bridgit BMS Models .... 6

2. Comparative Types of User Costs in North Carolina, Indiana, and Pontis BMS
Models ..... .......................................... 8

3. Average Number of Traffic Fatalities per Each Weekday--1975-1995 ......... 19

4. Travel Time Cost--Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Miller Approach ............. 24

5. Travel Time Cost-Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Zaniewski Approach .......... 24

6. Pontis Definition of Bridge Element's Environment ....................... 30

7. Basic Inventory Information for Each Bridge ............................. 32

8. Bases for the Need and Benefit Calculations on Improvement Projects ......... 38

9. Cost Matrix Values Adopted by FDOT .............................. 42

10. Composite Listing of Update Travel Time Costs .......................... 65

11. Value of One Hour Travel Time for Business and Non-Business Trips by
Vehicle Category ................................................. 69

12. Research Result Value for TTC ....................................... 71

13. Vehicle Costs Classification Between Fix and Variable Costs ................ 79

14. Variable Costs Assigned at Operating Vehicle Cost Studies ................. 80

15. Estimated Cost for Fuel Per Mile by Truck Category ....................... 84

16. Fuel Costs Distribution by Equipment Type .............................. 84

17. Maintenance Costs for Trucks- CPM/CPK .............................. 85

18. Tire Costs Descriptive Statistics--CPM and CPK ............... ........ 86

19. New VOC Value for Pontis CV, Default Value ......................... 86








20. Injury Costs by Injury Type--Year 1996 ................................ 87

21. Comprehensive Injury Costs, Years 1994 and 1996 ........................ 92

22. Economic Injury Costs, Years 1994 and 1996 ............................ 92

23. Bridge Related Accident Unit Costs, for Florida .......................... 96

24. User Cost Default from Pontis and Research Result Values ................. 99

25. Benefit Percent Change Due to User Costs Percent Change Under Different
Scenarios (Using Pontis Default Values) .............................. 102

26. User Cost Sensitivity Ranking Against % changes in Benefit-- "Basis 1" --
(Using Pontis Default Values) ..................................... 103

27. User Cost Sensitivity Ranking Against % Changes in Benefits-- "Basis 2" --
(Using Research Resulted Default Values) ............................ 104

28. Benefit Percent Change Due to User Costs Percent Change Under Different
Scenarios--Basis 2--(Using Research Resulted Default Values) ............ 105

29. User Costs Variability Under two Different Calculation Basis .............. 106

30. Car, Vans and Small Trucks VOC Values .............................. 110

31. Travel Time Costs for Auto, and Five Truck Types ....................... 110














LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1. Consumers' Surplus For One Period .................................... 13

2. Data Treatment Flowchart ............. .............................. 27

3. Overall BM S Structure ............................. ................... 28

5. Data Flows in Preservation Modeling .................................... 35

6. Flow Chart for BMS TTC Development ................................ 56

7. Flow Chart for BMS VOC Development ................................ 72

8. Flow Chart for the Average Accident Costs Development ..................... 87

9. Flow Chart for User Cost Sensitivity Analysis ................... ....... 97














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

USER COST CUSTOMIZATION FOR A
FLORIDA BRIDGE MANAGE NE NT SYSTEM

By

Roberto Soares

August 1999

Chairperson: Fazil T. Najafi
Major Department: Civil Engineering Department

Bridge Management Systems (BMS) are tools developed to help decision makers

to prioritize projects that gives the highest benefit/cost ratio, where benefits are road user

cost benefits. They are identified by the savings achieved in not spending travel time (TT)

and vehicle operating costs (VOC) doing a detour, and reducing the risk of bridge related

accidents. The state of Florida plus 38 states adopted the BMS Pontis to manage their

bridge inventory.

The hypothesis of this dissertation is that values benchmarked from other areas

are not suitable to replicate the Florida reality. In order to prove this hypothesis a multi-

step methodology was used including bridge-related accident cost using data from 11,332

bridge related accidents which occurred in 1996, sensitivity analyses, using 524 bridges

under 39 different scenarios, modeled by Pontis-BMS version 3.4. The original user cost

default values in Pontis are: $37,600 for each bridge related accident (Ca); $0.25 per

kilometer for VOC costs (Cv), and $19.34 per hour for travel time (Ct).








The findings of this research show the need to raise the Pontis-BMS, user cost

default value rates to 45.05, 24.0 and 16.6 percent respectively for accident costs, VOC

per kilometer costs and travel time values. The new values are $68,404.39 for Ca;

$0.3138 for C,, and $22.55 for C,.

The Project Attractiveness Index (PAI), measured by the benefit/cost ratio

increased 25.96 % with the use of the new user cost parameters. Sensitivity analyses

showed that detour per kilometer is the most sensitive parameter, followed by the detour

per hour, and finally the average bridge related accident cost parameter. Using the new

default values in place of the old ones, deficient bridges that are related with accidents

receive a higher prioritization order to be fixed, giving to decision-makers the possibility

to reduce bridge accident risk.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The objective of this dissertation is to develop three new users cost default values

to be used in a Bridge Management System (BMS) software known as Pontis. The users

cost default values are named Travel Time Costs (TTC), Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC),

and Average Accident Costs (AAC).

Chapter 1 presents BMS and why Pontis BMS was selected in this research.

Chapter 2 presents reasons why it is necessary to develop a new set of user costs default

parameters to be used in Pontis, applicable to Florida BMS. The reasons are the

framework for the hypothesis set in this dissertation. Chapter 3 is the literature review

focusing on the relevant information related to user cost parameters to be used in the

Florida BMS model. Chapter 4 presents the Pontis basic concepts, and the models and

their interactions used to optimize BMS. Chapter 5 discusses how the user models are

used in BMS to quantify, in economic terms, the potential safety and mobility benefits of

functional improvement and elimination of deficiencies to bridges. A hypothetical

example is offered showing the evaluation of total benefits. Chapter 6 discusses TTC and

the methodology used to develop a TTC parameter under BMS. A predictive

mathematical model and the generation of a new TTC are presented in this chapter.

Chapter seven discusses VOC and the methodology used to develop a VOC parameter. A

predictive mathematical model and the generation of a new VOC are presented in this

chapter. Chapter 8 presents bridge-related accident costs and the methodology used to








develop a Florida bridge related AAC parameter. A predictive mathematical model and

the generation of a new AAC value are presented in this chapter. Chapter 9 presents a

sensitivity analysis study comparing the original set of Pontis user cost default values

with the new set of user cost default values developed in this research. The results of the

sensitivity analysis study confirm or negate the hypothesis in this research. Chapter 10

presents the conclusions and the recommendations derived from this research. The main

conclusion is that the developed default user cost values are suitable to Florida BMS to

prioritize projects and to allocate funding to improve Florida bridges.

1.1. BMS Development

New York State can be considered the pioneer in BMS studies using main-frame

computers. Others states also developed BMS studies. However, the one from North

Carolina can be considered the most documented. BMS developments using personal

computers started by the middle of the 1980's resulting in the Bridgit and Pontis BMS

software. This research focuses on the BMS Pontis software because FDOT uses it. The

AASHTO Transportation glossary defines BMS as a system designed to optimize the use

of available resources for the inspections, maintenance and replacement of bridges

(AASHTO, 1994b).

The United States has by far the largest number of bridges in the world: 600,000

as compared to second-place Germany with 160,000 (National Bridge Inventory NBI,

1998). Considering that most bridges built in the past were designed for a service life of

50 years, this leads one to conclude that bridges constructed before 1960 are at the end of

their service life. This also indicates that there will be growing replacement needs for









those structures, and a growing need for deck repair and replacement for the bridge

population constructed during the 1960s (Amrhein 1977).

State Highway Agencies (SHA) responsible for managing the nation's bridges

must use limited funds as wisely as possible. A Bridge Management System (BMS) can

help SHA evaluate current and future conditions, needs, and determine the best mix of

maintenance and improvement work on the bridge network over time with and without

budget limitations.

According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO, 1993) the genesis of BMS is linked with the establishment of the

National Bridge Inventory (NBI) in the 1970s. The purpose of the NBI was to inform

Congress of the status of the nation's bridges, define the magnitude of bridge needs,

support national bridge inspection standards and provide for defense information needs.

The Federal Government required that every bridge on public roads and larger than 6.30

meters (20 feet) in total length be described in a national database. Legislation (CFR,

1988) also required that bridges be inspected and evaluated at regular intervals not to

exceed two years following the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS, 1995).

Scholars (Tuner and Richardson, 1994) and practitioners (Shirole et al., 1994) link the

pre-genesis of BMS with the Silver Bridge collapse in 1967 between Point Pleasant,

West Virginia and Galllipolis, Ohio that killed 46 people (Mair, 1982). This disaster was

highly publicized and drew attention to the aging condition of the nation's bridges.

As of November 1995, the United States had over 590,000 bridges, of which

about 100,000 of these bridges were built prior to 1935. Nearly 187,504 bridges are

classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete due to the increase of legal









weight loads and traffic volumes, combined with the effects of weather and chemicals

The budget needed to remedy the national bridge deficiencies is projected to be over $ 80

billion or an average cost of over $ 426,000/bridge (BRM, 1995).

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Bridge Inventory, 1977

Annual Report, shows a total bridge inventory of 11,156 (Amrhein, 1977) bridges and a

recent publication shows a sample of 941 bridges in Florida with functional needs at an

average projected cost of over $212,000/bridge to overcome these needs (Thompson et

al., 1998). The difference of over $200,000/bridge between the average national cost and

the average Florida cost to overcome the bridge needs, is mainly due to the degree of

uncertainty in the forecasted national value, and the results of an aggressive maintenance

program to extend the useful life of Florida bridges, thereby minimizing the need to

replace a large number of bridges within a short period of time. However, shortage of

funds forced public officials, administrators, and bridge engineers to learn how to manage

limited funds as wisely possible.

By the 1980s many states started to address the problem shown by NBI by

developing new analytical methods and procedures to allocate funds among different

types of problems to overcome the bridge network deficiencies. Wisconsin (Hyman and

Hughes, 1983), North Carolina (Niessner, 1979), Pennsylvania (Krugler,1985), New

York (Wade and Larder, 1973), Kansas (Kulkarni et al., 1984), and Indiana (Youngtae

and Sinha, 1997) were the pioneers in developing customized Bridge Management

Systems (BMS) using mainframe computers. The purpose of a BMS is to combine






5

management, engineering and economic inputs in to determine the best actions that can

be taken on a network over time.

By the middle of the 1980s, many states had independently come to the

conclusion that they needed better bridge management tools, and the national efforts

began to converge. Two competing projects were formed, one by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), and one by the National Cooperative Highway Research

Program (NCHRP). The FHWA project began with a series of 49 workshops held around

the nation that resulted in the 1992 release of Pontis (Thompson and Shepard, 1994), five

years later the 3.2 version of Pontis was released, and by August 1998 the 3.4 version of

Pontis was released. A new version of Pontis is expected by the year 2000. The NCHRP

conducted a study known as Report 300 (NCHRPR, 1987). From this report, the panel

overseeing the project decided to produce a software package which followed the

principles outlined in Report 300. This resulted in the 1995 release of Bridgit (Lipkus,

1994).

The main differences between the features of Pontis and Bridgit with respect to

analysis, policy and optimization are listed on Table 1. The ability of Pontis to provide

analysis at a network level seems to be the main reason why universities and consultants

strongly recommend the use of Pontis to SHAs. Both BMS's use the principle of a

systematic analysis of expected benefits and costs as prescribed by Executive Order

12893, "Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments" (F.R., 1994). However, at the

national level, 39 states were Pontis subscribers (Pontis, 1998b) as of May 1, 1998,

Florida is in the advanced stage of Pontis implementation in their BMS.









Table 1. Comparison of the Main Attributes Between Pontis and Bridgit BMS Models

Attributes Pontis Bridgit
Analysis Level Network Level and Project Project Level
Level
Policy Policy Optimization Subjective Policy Choices
Optimization Top-Down Application of Botton-up Aggregation to
Approach Policies to Project Needs System Wide


1.2.What is BMS in Pontis

BMS is a complex set of formal procedures for analyzing bridge data, which

provides information from which to recommend project prioritization and schedules

considering budget and policy constraints. The Pontis analytical software is only one part

of the minimum BMS requirements. It requires data input generated from the output of

the bridge inspection process, the physical inventory, traffic and accident data, cost

models, deterioration models, definitions and policies. The software analyzes the data at

different levels of analysis and action categories. The output that monetizes the needs is

presented into two main categories: Agency Costs and User Costs. Agency costs are the

amount of funds required for maintenance and repairs, rehabilitation, and bridge

replacement. User Costs are known as the benefits received by the user when a bridge

deficiency is removed (NHI, 1996).

The cost side of the BMS (Agency Costs), is accepted almost without controversy.

The benefit side of the BMS (User Costs), traditionally, is not considered in the bridge

investment decision process. The scarcity of adequate methodology available to evaluate

bridge user costs with accuracy, and the lack of a clear understanding of the role of the

bridge user costs, are probably the main factors that support this tradition. Although the









user costs generated by bridge deficiencies are not paid or assumed directly by

government, the public is both the user and the ultimate owner of the bridge. Thus, the

user costs generated by bridge deficiencies as well as the ownership costs associated with

bridge maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement should be considered in the decision-

making process for bridge improvement. Today's society has a clear understanding of this

concept and for this reason, they have a legitimate right to demand from public officials

the use of a scientific approach, instead of the political approach, in decisions that involve

taxpayers money.

The term user cost in the BMS output means road users "out of pocket" money

spent to overcome bridge deficiencies. In the BMS economic analysis it is named user

benefits, since the users are saving in vehicle operating costs, travel time costs and

accident costs. Federal Legislation (F.R., 1994) demanded a systematic analysis of

expected benefits and costs where benefits and costs should be quantified and monetized

to the maximum extent possible. SHA (FDOT, 1997) estimates that user costs are ten

times larger than agency costs. If this estimate is true, it is envisioned that future

refinement in BMS decision making process will challenge the actual status quo of the

SHA users.

The theoretical basis for the methodology for economic analysis using user cost

was initially presented in the 1960 AASHTO Report, "Road User Benefit Analyses for

Highway Investments (AASHTO, 1960)," and updated by the 1977 ASHTO publication,

"A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements

(AASHTO, 1977)" known as the "Red Book." Besides the fact that both publications









present a procedure to develop a methodology to conduct highway user economic

analyses for highway improvements, the publications do not address properly the BMS

user cost issue. The later presented more clarity for the BMS design development

observed in the decade of 1980. The Pontis BMS was the only one that followed the

theoretical basis recommended by the "Red Book" as a base to develop the user costs

dedicated for BMS. Its basic model of bridge user costs has three components. These are

travel time costs (TTC), vehicle operating costs (VOC), and average accident costs

(AAC), as shown in Equation 1. The Indiana BMS model and the North Carolina BMS

model do not consider all user cost parameters as indicated in Table 2.

User Costs = TTC+VOC+AAC (1)


Table 2. Comparative Types of User Costs in North Carolina, Indiana, and Pontis BMS
Models

North
Indiana Carolina Pontis
Types of User Costs (Son et al., (Johnston et (Pontis,
1996) al., 1994) 1997)

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Detour costs due to load restrictions x x x

Detour costs due to vertical clearance x x x

Travel costs due to load restrictions x x x

Travel costs due to vertical clearance x x x

Narrow width x x x*

Accident costs due to narrow width x x

Accident costs due to vertical clearance x x

Accident costs due to poor alignment x x
*Included in the accident cost mathematical model









The implementation processes for Pontis BMS generally creates a need for the

SHAs to re-engineer the active process related to bridges including clear definitions and

required integrated actions between all the stakeholders of the process. As mentioned

before, users are by definition, the ultimate owners of the bridge, and for this reason the

benefit side of the software should always be considered in the decision making process.

However, Pontis allows practitioners to modulate the cost weight in the range of 0-100 %

during the evaluation of the agency costs. This provision is to conform to the level of

certainty that each practitioner or decision-maker has about user costs. The confidence

level in dealing with user costs when compared with agency costs is low.

1.3. Focussing on Pontis

Because Pontis is already installed and operational in Florida, research is

necessary to improve components of the user cost model, providing a roadmap for the

agency to supplement its existing data resources in the future to ensure continued

improvement in the effectiveness of the models. This research has the objective to fulfill

this need, and will focus on user cost parameters to be used in the Florida Bridge Network

(FBN) system, assuming that the agency costs to run BMS software is in good standing.

A recent survey (University of Florida, 1998) was conducted with all 50 states to

try to find ongoing studies that might not yet have been published relating to BMS user

costs. No such studies were found, which reinforces the need for this research.














CHAPTER 2
PROBLEM STATEMENT

2.1 Problem

The objective of this dissertation is to develop a new set of user cost default

parameters (TTC, VOC, and AAC) to be used in Pontis BMS in Florida. The main

problem was that the FDOT BMS team during the implementation of PONTIS BMS first

recognized that the default user cost values used in Pontis is not applicable to Florida, and

for this reason they funded UF to conduct a user cost study (FDOT, 1997).

The second motive that led to pursue this research was framed by the Highway

Capacity Manual which states that traffic conditions are a function of the roadway

conditions, the environment and the driver behavior (HCM, 1994). In another words, it is

not safe to state that user cost parameters developed for bridge network from state A is

applicable to the bridge network of state B.

The third motive was the result of the survey between all 50 states, which

confirmed the need to develop new BMS user cost parameters. The following sections

detail the problem and the justifications to develop a new set of user costs default values

for Florida.

2.2 Survey

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funded the University of

Florida (UF) to perform a research study to develop user cost models for the









Department's implementation of AASHTOWareTM PontisTM One of the tasks of this

research was to conduct a survey of all 50 SHAs to find out how many states are using

user cost in their decision making related to their BMS. From 72% overall response, 83.3

% have not undertaken any work to develop user cost model factors for their BMS

implementation. Fifty percent (50%) of the respondents have requested additional

information on how to formulate and apply the user cost model efficiently, 55.5% are

concerned with truck factors related with BMS, 48.2% are concerned with bridge related

crashes, 13.8% are concerned with bridge work zone related costs, and 11.1 % are

concerned with bridge deck roughness related costs. The results of this survey confirmed

the need for this research with the UF research team. Furthermore, according to Wall and

Smith (1998) user cost rates, and cost rate assigned to user delay (i.e., the value of time)

are by far the most controversial. Gillespie (1998) states that the state-of-the-art

calculation of vehicle operating cost is still ill defined, and that the state-of-the-art in

estimating accident costs is undergoing rapid change.

2.3 User Cost Need

The use of user costs, as a tool to perform economic evaluations for highway

projects, historically was never a popular choice among decision-makers. The need to

select user costs as an economic tool in the economic evaluation of transportation projects

emerged from increasing public scrutiny or hostility, concerns with the environment, and

legal requirements to avoid undesirable effects to the society.

User costs for road users have existed since 1920. However, the user costs

parameter for BMS models came into practice in the 1990's, and today it is still being






12

refined. There is a real need to increase the knowledge about the importance of user cost

in the economic evaluation of bridge related investments. Pontis employs user cost

models to primarily set priorities, since absolute need is established by the use of level-

of-service standards. The FDOT objective is to remove bias on the existing Pontis user

cost model. The FDOT desires to develop a new FDOT user cost model applicable to

Florida condition.

2.4 Surplus Theory on User Cost

The surplus theory states that bridge improvements bring benefits to the users. In

other words, user costs will be decreased if bridges are maintained regularly and properly.

Service is defined as the design level of service (LOS) which is considered the basis for

an economic engineering analysis. When a bridge develops a deficiency that generates

restriction in traffic flow, this disservice generates a user cost increase. Figure 1 shows

the consumer surplus for one period. The estimate of the net user benefits of a bridge

improvement is represented by the area UoABU1 where a bridge improvement will reduce

the user costs that would have been U0 to U, and the traffic volume is expected to

increase from the base level Vo to V,.

The formula for consumer surplus is (U0 UI) (Vo + V,)/2, or the difference in

user costs times the average traffic volume. This formula can be shown to be the total

benefits to new users plus benefits to present users, as follows:

Benefits to present users (area UoAC U,) = (U0- U ) Vo
Benefits to new users (area ABC) = (Uo- U1) (V, Vo)/2
Total Benefits = (U0 U,) Vo + (Uo U,) (V, V)/2
Total Benefits = (U0 U,) (Vo + V,)/2













,--------- Demand for one Period
USER "
COST
U0o ------- "Surplus" Benefits to New Users
Benefits to
Existing
Users
U



,AV
Vo V1 TRAFFIC VOLUME PER PERIOD


Figure 1. Consumers' Surplus For One Period



User costs at the level Uo are the costs that the traveling public is experiencing for

travel over a bridge that is operating with a volume deficit of AV due to bridge

deficiencies. These correspond to a low LOS that causes a reduced traffic volume ofV0.

User costs at the level U, are the costs that bridge users are experiencing after the bridge

improvement, where its LOS has been improved, offering an increase in traffic volume

corresponding to V,.

2.5 User Cost Weight Factor

The consumer surplus theory provides adequate support to user costs benefits, and

BMS practitioners accept this fact. What they question are the user costs parameters used in

the mathematical models developed to evaluate the user costs benefits magnitude. These

parameters are specifically the values assigned to travel time costs, vehicle operating costs,

and accident costs. The lack of an adequate methodology to develop these cost parameters

has led to a large range of user cost values allowing decision makers the possibility of using









vague values which may result in wrongfully prioritizing bridges for maintenance work.

This approach was the main reason in lowering the state highway engineer's and project

annalist's credibility who relied on vague values of user cost parameters. In order to

improve this situation, the BMS AASHTOWareT PontisTM allows practitioners to select

the weight of user costs benefits according to the credibility assigned by each practitioner

for user cost values used. The weight range selection varies from 0 to 100 percent (Pontis

1997a).

This observed level of variability of user costs in BMS could have several plausible

justifications. One can be the methodology used in the development of user cost parameters

actually used in BMS applications. For example, travel time costs were developed to be

used in urban traffic demand forecast studies where the focus is travel time savings, which

is totally different from BMS. Vehicle operating costs were developed with emphasis on

passenger cars, and BMS requires focus on trucks. Accident costs were developed with

emphasis on roadway accidents as a general rule, not focusing on bridge-related accidents.

2.6 Pontis Default Values Origin

There is a need for the use of user cost parameters in Pontis BMS software to

perform the benefit cost analysis on each bridge in the network on which a deficiency was

located during the inspection. However, Pontis BMS practitioners are not confident about

the correctness of the user cost values used as default values: ($19.34/ hr for detour per

hour; $.25/Km for detour per kilometer; and an average of $37,600.00 per accident). The

Pontis documentation does not outline how these values were developed and from were

they came. According to one officer from the FHWA -Bridge Management Division, Mr.

Romack, the SHA members that participated in the development of Pontis offered these






15

values, which are the ones that normally are used at their agencies to evaluate transportation

projects. The first version of Pontis used an average accident cost default value of $ 14,000

per accident, which is based on California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) data for

1990 (Pontis 1993). This figure has increased to $17,900 as of 1995, (Pontis 1997a) and to

$37,600 as of 1998 Pontis (1998a). The sources from where the VOC and TTC default

values came from were not identified.

At the time of the Pontis development, the accuracy of the default values to be used

in the Pontis mathematical models was not a main concern of the Pontis developers. Each

SHA representative believed that the values developed by their agency were the right ones,

and for this reason it was provided a factor, weight (W), in which each practitioner adjusted

the default values. Based on this scenario a hypothesis for this research was created.

2.7 Statement of the Hypothesis

Current user costs parameters used as default values in Pontis BMS mathematical

models that were benchmarked from other areas are not suitable to evaluate user cost

benefits for the Florida bridge network. A specific and customized development of user

cost parameters is required for Pontis BMS application, considering local SHA policies.

All mathematical models of the BMS software AASHTOWareTM PontisTM will be

assumed to be appropriate with the exemption of the default values for travel time, vehicle

operating costs, and accident costs. The conceptual framework of BMS will be established

and used as criteria to evaluate the suitability of the user cost parameter to satisfy the needs

of the BMS framework applicable to Florida.

The analysis of the theoretical basis for each parameter is discussed in chapters

6,7,and 8 and the results were used as criteria to establish the development of the user cost






16

parameter. Each user cost parameter must satisfy BMS needs and the Florida DOT policies

while confirming that systematic bias does not exist when using Pontis and making

decisions for project selections for replacement or repair work and maintenance. The

degree of hierarchy between two available parameter selections will be in the following

order: local data --first choice; other state data--second choice; national data--third choice;

and international data--fourth choice.

2.8 Validation

The mechanics of the BMS Pontis software are not being questioned in this study.

What is being questioned is the quality of the user cost parameters used in the software.

Pontis software will be used to validate the quality of the user cost parameters that will

come from this investigation. This validation will be performed though a sensitivity

analysis where user cost data from this study will be used as new user cost default values for

the software. Another sensitivity analysis will be performed using the original user cost

default values, and then a comparative study will be performed to define the variability of

each set of data.














CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

There is a scarcity of literature sources about BMS, probably due to the fact that

BMS is relatively new. The strategy used to collect data relative to BMS was to search the

literature under eight main entries in a cross-reference with bridges. The entries used were:

Accidents; User Costs; Economic Evaluation; BMS; Inspection; Maintenance and

Rehabilitation; Technical Issues; and Others. A form was created to record each entry with

the abstract of their contents, the importance for the project, comments and evaluation, and

references. During the first six months of the literature review process a total of 72 entries

led to 1,571 references. With this literature review start-up it became evident that only two

BMS systems are in the process of implementation in the USA, and one in the discussion

process. In the world only four BMS systems were located in the phase of discussion (three

in Europe and one in South America). Another fact learned was about the quality of the

abstracts. In the majority of the abstracts related to BMS, the authors overemphasized the

contents of their studies, promising solutions for a common problem in all BMS, that of

calculating the user costs in BMS environments. A majority of the BMS related studies only

mention that it is possible to evaluate the user costs. However, they do not display how, and

do not show the values of user costs parameters.

The abstract summary of each category entry provides an overview of the BMS

related issues leading to the selection of the three main issues of this research. The relevant

issues found under each category are outlined below.








3.1 Accidents

One of the entries classified as highly relevant was the Blincoe (1996) study, "The

Economic Costs of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 1994". This was the first study that presented

evidence to support the value of $2,854,500 for a life. For this research, the higher cost

values for fatality and injury we can use will contribute more to the economic justification

process of the BMS. North Carolina uses the value of $1,500,000 per life for fatality costs,

using the "willingness-to-pay" approach. Additionally, the Blincoe study supports the

highest cost value for life found in the literature. Blincoe points out that it can be even

higher than what he reported.

Kragh, Miller, Reinert (1986), stress the importance of evaluating social costs under

the classification of indirect accident costs. Under the two existing approaches to determine

accident costs (Human Capital and "Willingness-to-pay"), only the later considers psycho-

social costs. It represents 65% of total accident costs. The human capital approach used by

the NHTSA considers only 10% of the willingness-to-pay approach. Comparing the

numbers used by the National Safety Council (NSC) with the ones used by the NHTSA, it

was observed that NSTSA generates cost figures 2.5 times larger than NSC. The authors

mentioned above present a cost of $1.3 million per fatality in the "willingness-to-pay"

approach which is considered conservative. The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) calls for $5 million/life and the Office of Management Budget calls

for $1.5 million/life. A compromised value between the two offices is $2,000,000 per life.

A USDOT (1996) publication presents the number of motor vehicle occupants

killed and injured in the year 1996. A total of 41,907 people lost their lives in 1996 in motor

vehicle crashes, a 2.0% increase from 1995. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicles miles,









was equal to 1.7 with an average of 115 deaths each day (one every 13 minutes). This

publication shows the magnitude of the problem. The report points out that trucks account

for 12 % of all fatalities, and that accident costs are linked to inadequate truck management

in roadway networks. Cerelli (1996) presents the trends in crash fatalities/day for the period

1975-1995 based on National data. Weekends are the period with the highest fatality

average, Saturday having the greatest number. Table 3 shows the average number of

fatalities per each weekday.


Table 3. Average Number of Traffic Fatalities per Each Weekday-- 1975-1995

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
150 100 100 100 110 110 190


The author claims that the Saturday fatality rate is very likely related to alcohol use.

Another relevant issue related to safety on bridges found in the literature is the issue of

"narrow" bridges whose diminished widths may increase the risk of single vehicle

collisions with roadside appurtenances such bridge ends, railings or approach guardrails as

well as collisions with other vehicles.

Brinkman and Mark (1986) used the bridge and roadway inventory from five states

totaling 11,880 bridges and 24,809 accidents during a three-year period. Bridge related

accidents were found to be approximately twice as likely to result in a fatality as a typical

accident. The same result was found in a North Carolina study. For undivided bridges, the

discriminate variables in order of importance are ADT (Average Daily Traffic), roadside

distraction, percent shoulder reduction, degree of bridge curvature, curb presence, bridge

length, degree of approach curvature and demarcation.








An older investigation made by Turner and Rowan (1982), in a sample of 24,000

accidents occurring between 1972-1979 on Alabama state-route highways, found that

roadway accidents rates increase near bridges. One-fourth of the traffic accidents

investigated occurred within 0.33 miles of a bridge. The authors observed that many bridge

accidents are apparently incompletely investigated, not properly identified, erroneously

recorded, misallocated, or ignored due to limited room for identifying information on the

accident report prepared by the police.

Zegeer and Council (1995) reports that bridge widening can reduce total bridge

crashes by as much 80% depending on the width before and after widening.

Rahim and Johnston (1993) report the accident rate relationship between bridge

accidents and roadway accidents for North Carolina, using a sample of 2,000 bridge related

accidents. The relationship for fatality, injury type A, injury type B, and injury type C are

found to be respectively: 2.0, 1.3, 1.05, and 0.87. The rate 2.0 means that bridge related

accidents are twice as severe as other roadway accidents. The predictor equation used by

the authors shows low values for the coefficient of multiple determination (R2 = 0.33, 0.34).

For this reason it is not recommended to use the equation generated by Rahim and

Johnston. They also found that approach roadway alignment is a parameter with no

significance for the accident rate. That is contradictory to the findings of Behnam and

Laguros (1973), and Brinkman and Mak (1986).









3.2 User Costs

Under this category, the Zaniewski, et al, (1982) study was the second

comprehensive study about Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) found in the literature. This

study was financed by the World Bank and was performed in Brazil. The weakness of this

study is the transposition of the findings in Brazil to the USA assuming similarities between

the roadway networks. However, this study developed tables to update VOC costs against

the roadway grade and speed. Currently, the most updated study about VOC is the HERS--

Highway Economic Requirement System (1996), financed by the USDOT-FHWA, where

VOC values are developed based on an update of the Zaniewski tables. The evolution

observed of VOC studies is as follows.

The genesis of Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) studies in the USA can be traced

back to the period just after the First World War with studies about fuel performance

conducted by Agg (1923). In the following years, under Agg management, the research

staff at the Iowa State Engineering Station, introduced new parameters in the VOC studies.

These included the effect of the roadway geometry on: VOC (Agg and Carter 1928); truck

operations (Winfrey 1933); tractive resistance; and road surface types (Paustian 1934).

One of the earliest surveys of VOC was reported by Moyer and Winfrey (1939),

who examined the fuel, oil, maintenance and tire costs of rural mail carriers. Moyer and

Tesdal (1945) complemented this study with the results from tire wear experiments. In the

1960's, researchers concentrated on the relationships between highway geometry, vehicle

performance and costs. Saal (1942) extended his experimental fuel consumption data using

survey information, while Claffey (1960) developed models and reported results on speed

and fuel experiments incorporating highway and vehicle characteristics.









By the mid-1960s, only fuel consumption could be predicted accurately. Between

1963 and 1969 the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) sponsored

Claffey and Associates (1971) to conduct a VOC research which resulted in the classic

NCHRP Report 111 (Running Costs for Motor Vehicles as Affected by Road Design and

Traffic) where the radioisotope technique was used to measure tire wear. This technique

was found to be unsatisfactory.

With the growing need for economic appraisal of highway transportation projects in

developing countries, the World Bank concluded that the VOC data developed in the USA

was not appropriate to be used in these appraisals. Funds were generated to conduct studies

in four areas: Brazil, India, Kenya and the Caribbean. The primary data collected in the

VOC study performed by Zaniewski, et, al, in Brazil was then used to update a VOC study

made in the USA. In June 1982, the Federal Highway Administration published a

comprehensive study about VOC performed by Zaniewski et al (1982) with the objective to

update the 1971 study of VOC performed by Claffey (1971). This was the last

comprehensive study conducted on VOC.

The Zaniewski study was performed with the objective to determine the VOC

relationship to roadway characteristics in order to determine the effect of pavement type and

condition on these costs. In order to determine the effect of pavement type and condition on

selected parameters, and develop an adjustment procedure for these performance parameters

as a function of the pavement and condition, five parameters were investigated: VOC,

running speed, fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, and accidents. The VOC included

consumption of fuel and oil, tire wear, vehicle maintenance and repair, and use-related

depreciation. A study made by Harrison et al. (1992) for truck operation costs, using a life









cycle cost approach, found a VOC value of $1.07 per mile for the Pennsylvania 1-80

corridor.

In 1996 the Highway Economic Requirement Systems (HERS) sponsored by the

USDOT and the Federal Highway Administration published a set of VOCs to be applied to

pavement applications. These costs were estimated as a function of the average effective

speed, average grade and pavement serviceability rating (PSR), excess operating costs due

to speed change cycles and excess operating costs due to curves.

A new approach to evaluate VOC costs was found by Delucchi (1996). The

Delucchi study introduced the concept of social cost analysis into VOC costs dividing it into

two groups: non-monetary and monetary costs. The author states that costs of travel delay

imposed by others (which is the case of a bridge restriction) remain completely unpriced for

the responsible motor-vehicle user.

Another source of VOC was the American Truck Association. In 1988 they reported

a cost of $1.07 per mile where 79.26 cents/mile represented variable costs (ATA 1990). In

1992, the cost reported per mile was $1.20 (ATA, 1992). In 1996, the cost per mile reported

was $1.25 (ATA, 1996). In 1997 the cost per mile reported jumped to $1.92 (ATA-1997).

The main reason for the discrepancies in the VOC reported by ATA was due to the lack of

methodology to evaluate the VOC. Cost components were included or removed without any

justification.

For travel time costs, the most important source found in the literature was traced to

the studies by Miller (1996). Almost all relevant work on travel time uses Miller's

methodology. In the HERS (1996) study, the value of one-hour travel time by a vehicle was

developed using the Miller approach. They are listed on Table 4 using 1993 dollar.









Table 4. Travel Time Cost--Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Miller Approach

Auto 4-tire truck 6-tire truck 3-4 Axle truck 4-Axle Comb. 5-Axle Comb
$11.22 $12.61 $23.69 $27.7 $30.09 $30.26


Software named MicroBencost was identified as a tool to evaluate travel time on

different roadway scenarios. The Tennessee DOT used it to evaluate the travel time value at

nine (9) different scenarios in the case of a closure of the Interstate 155 bridge crossing the

Mississippi River. The vehicle travel time cost in 1993 dollars per vehicle hour is listed in

Table 5. The basic default numbers used in the software are derived from the Zaniewski

work.


Table 5. Travel Time Cost-Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Zaniewski Approach

Auto 4-tire truck 6-tire truck 3-4 Axle truck 4-Axle Comb. 5-Axle Comb
$10.34 11.74 22.11 25.42 28.16 28.33


3.3 Economic Evaluation

A model used in traffic assessment was developed by Texas A&M University

named QUEWZ-92. It is more oriented to evaluate queue lines for work zones and the total

costs for delay. The default values used for cars and trucks in 1993 dollars are respectively:

$12.64 and $23.09 per hour (Krammes et al., 1993).

Farid, et al. (1994) developed a formula to estimate the annual user cost of an

existing bridge. This formula uses the proportion of vehicles involved in accidents due to

bridge deficiencies and the proportion of vehicles that need to detour, also due to bridge

deficiencies. The weakness of this mathematical formula is the assumption made for the

proportion of each vehicle type that will detour due to load and vertical clearance






25

limitations. Also, it is not clear how to find the proportion of vehicles that will be related to

an accident.

3.4 BMS

As mentioned before, only the BMS Pontis and Bridgit are being implemented.

However, it was observed that new BMS models are under development around the world.

Countries like Russia (Johnson et al., 1998), Poland (Vegosz and Wysokowski 1995) and

Hungary (Kolozsi 1995) are developing BMS models that do not consider user costs. In

Brazil, an Engineering Company named MCN Engenharia Ltda is developing a BMS

named SIMGO (NHI-1999).

A study made at North Carolina State University by Chen and Johnston in 1987,

resulted in a BMS analysis program which considers owner costs and user costs to

determine the optimum improvement action and time for each individual bridge in a system

under various levels of service. A sample of 17,000 bridges in North Carolina were

analyzed using ADT data from 1974-1984. The coefficients used to measure proportions of

vehicles that incur accidents due to deck width, alignment and vertical clearance

deficiencies are assumed to be constant. The proportion of vehicles that detoured due to

load and vertical clearance is also assumed to be constant. These assumptions are not

consistent with the 4.6 % yearly ADT increase observed in the North Carolina Interstate

System. The vehicle classification distribution is adjusted using data from six different

studies. The truck weight distribution is adjusted based on a study made by the FHWA in

1985 about the bridge structure-loading spectrum. The truck speed at a detour is evaluated

by dividing the driver salary and benefits at union scale of$13.35/hr, by the owner-operator

driver salary of 0.311/mile, resulting in an average speed of 40mph. This approach is









mathematically correct, however, conceptually wrong once the average speed changes

according to the salary variation between the two categories. VOC value for cars are based

on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allowance of 20 cents per mile plus 15 cents for

labor. For trucks the VOC value is derived from the data collected by the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) at the value of $1.15 per mile.

The BMS study developed by Yongtae and Sinha (1997) uses a new methodology to

estimate user costs. It was developed to address the needs of the Indiana DOT. It considers

detour costs for load and vertical clearance bridge restrictions, and travel time due to load,

vertical clearance and width bridge restrictions. The weakness of this methodology is the

absence of the user costs related to bridge related accidents. One of the main features of this

work is the calculation of traffic proportion used to evaluate user costs. It has more

flexibility than the North Carolina BMS model.

The VOC cost is calculated based on the update of Zaniewski's work, which

produces extremely low values. The study has an innovative approach to evaluate user costs

due to narrow width.

A brief from the NCHRP that lists all projects in progress, indicates a new BMS

model named StratBENCOST which was to be released in 1997. However, this product

could not be found in the literature (Lewis 1992a, 1992b). Keating and Turner (1994)

report a new BMS software named ALBBRIDGE that is the BMS from North Carolina

customized from the Alabama DOT.

3.5 Remaining Relevant Entries

All sources located under the entries Inspection, Maintenance and Rehabilitation,

Technical Issues and Others were of no importance to the objective of this research.














CHAPTER 4
PONTIS BMS BASIC CONCEPTS

BMS is an analytical tool that empowers decision-makers with the ability to make

effective decisions for optimal use of available resources in the bridge business. This

chapter has the objective to discuss the BMS basic components, their capabilities, and their

decision management support output to accent the importance of user costs into the system.

Shirole et. al. (1994) states that in any BMS, there are only three basic components: data,

data analysis, and decision support. They are expanded in Figure 2. The BMS of focus in

this dissertation is the AASHTOWareTM PontisM.



Input- Processing Output
(Data) (Data analysis) (Decision support)
Data that are necessary The analysis routine to The results of the analysis
for the decision process which the data is routines that will assist the
subjected user in making decisions


Figure 2. Data Treatment Flowchart


Pontis is the Latin world meaning "pertaining to bridges." According to Thompson

(1994), the overall BMS structure involves the input of condition prediction and cost

models to the database. The database is then used to optimize preservation and determine

improvement strategies. Along with additional supporting data, from the database, these are

integrated to form the program. Figure 3 shows this overall BMS structure.






28

According to AASHTO (1993) the database needs to contain inventory, inspection

and appraisal data as well as complete historical information and codes indicating the dates

and nature of detailed, special and supplemental inspections. The BMS software needs a

capability to edit and update the database as appropriate. The database includes many of the

data items in the NBI database, but also needs to include other items, especially a more

detailed inventory, and condition data on the elements of each structure.


Figure 3. Overall BMS Structure


4.1 Pontis Database

The main objective of the BMS database is to provide identification of needs,

accurate economic forecasts, prediction of physical condition, and continuous

improvement. The Pontis approach to generating a database is compatible with the

modeling operations, and includes: the definition of each bridge by its individual element;







29

the establishment of particular classification of the condition of a bridge element. The term

"feasible action" means "a defined BMS preservation activity unique to an element's

material composition and condition state". Preservation activities are referred to as all

actions taken to offset the deterioration caused by traffic, weather, or any chemical or

physical process.

The selection and definition of structural elements is a central issue in preparing a

bridge database for successful modeling. Pontis adopted the AASHTO proposed list of

standard elements referred to as Commonly Recognized Elements (CoRe ,1996). There are

a total of 98 structural elements described in the CoRe Bridge Inspector's Field Guide. The

condition state of each element receives a classification in the range 1 to 4, and 1 to 5

integer scales where 1 indicates excellent. Pontis has about 140 different types of bridge

elements defined. Federal funding apportionment to States is still based on sufficiency

ratings derived from the NBI Structure and Inventory Appraisal (SI&A) data. The primary

NBI data item for prevention of failure is still the condition rating on a scale of 0 to 9, where

9 indicates excellent condition. The NBI requires condition ratings for only three major

structural components: deck; superstructure; and substructure. To merge Pontis and NBI

data, a standard conversion program, commonly refereed as the NBI translator or BMSNBI,

was developed by the University of Colorado (Heam et al, 1997) to compute NBI ratings

from Pontis.

The element listing includes a description, a definition, condition state language,

and a unit of measurement for each element. The element descriptions consider material

composition and, where applied, the presence of protective systems (NHI, 1996)









Each element is also categorized in one environment. Pontis defines four types of

environments to which each element can be exposed: benign, low, moderate and severe.

The definition of each environment type is listed on Table 6 (NHI, 1996).

The efficacy of element-level bridge management systems evaluation, such as used

in Pontis, has been confirmed by Hearn and Renn (1999) for eight highway bridges in

Colorado.


Table 6. Pontis Definition of Bridge Element's Environment

Environmental factors and operating practices are not likely to
Benign significantly change the condition of the element over time or their
effects have been mitigated by past non-maintenance actions or the
presence of highly effective protection systems. Example: desert bridges
Environmental factors and operating practices do not adversely influence
Low the condition of the element or their effects are substantially lessened by
the application of effective protective systems. Example: reinforced
concrete bridge in a warm climate
Environmental factors and operating practices are considered to be
Moderate typical for the Agency and any change in the condition of an element is
likely to be normal. Example: Reinforced concrete bridge in the north
with average use of road salt
Environmental factors and operating practices contribute to the rapid
Severe decline in the condition of an element. Protective systems to negate
environmental effects are not in place or are ineffective. Example: bridge
in brackish water, bridge exposed to excessive deicing chemicals.
Source: National Highway Institute, 1997- (NHI, 1976)


4.1.1 Needs Identification

The identification of needs is classified in two classes: functional and preservation

needs, that are also named as MR&R needs. In order for Pontis to identify functional needs,

it requires data on widths and clearances, load capacity, traffic, and accidents. To identify

preservation needs, it requires evidence of deterioration, such as the condition to describe

the physical symptoms of deterioration which can be visually observed by inspection.









4.1.2 Cost Models

Cost models are related to accurate economic forecasts, economic inputs, including

unit costs, user costs, and the transportation service attributes which determine user costs,

such as traffic and accident rates.

4.1.3 Prediction Conditions

To predict the physical condition of bridges, the BMS needs deterioration rates,

which are developed by making use of all available past inspections as well as expert

judgment. In order to distinguish between the effects of deterioration and the effects of

maintenance, the BMS needs to know what past maintenance was done on each bridge.

4.1.4 Continuous Improvement

Continuous improvement prediction models can be continuously improved over

time if there are methods to compare the predictions with what subsequently actually

happened. The cycle between models and outcome is shown in Figure 4. The database

structure contains four sets of basic information about each bridge, describing the bridge

itself, and each of its elements, roadways and spans or structural units. They are listed on

Table 7 (NHI,1996).

4.2 Prediction Models

There are two kinds of models to predict future bridge conditions: deterioration and

action effectiveness. Deterioration models predict what will happen to the bridge if no

maintenance or improvement is performed. It tells how quickly the bridge element will

reach a condition level where some corrective action might be warranted. Action

effectiveness models tell how the condition is changed if a maintenance or corrective action

is actually performed.









Table 7. Basic Inventory Information for Each Bridge (NHI, 1996)


About Structure
About the Bridge About Elements About Roadways Units
Identification Material Identification Design
Age/Service Type Traffic Material
Geometry Environment Ruts
Clearances Quantity Dimensions
Condition
Appraisals
Navigation
Load Rating


Deterioration models can be divided into two groups according to how they handle

uncertainty: Probabilistic (subject to uncertainty) and deterministic (known for certain).

Pontis applies the probabilistic Markov Chain process, which means that they divide time

into discrete, equal periods; forecast next period condition, without regard to earlier

conditions; and perform this prediction by use of transition probabilities among the

condition states. The strength of the Markovian models used in BMS is that it is simple to

use, (requires low data collection, it is easy to update from historical data, and has the ability

to use an inexpensive visual inspection procedure to collect the required data). The

weaknesses are that it is not precise and can not model latent properties. Kleywegt and

Sinha (1994) state that the developers of Pontis suggested an approach to overcome the

Markovian approach weaknesses by using the subjective judgment of bridge maintenance

experts to obtain estimates of transition probabilities. As data are collected through regular

inspections, these initial estimates are updated and improved. Developers of the BMS

software named BRIDGIT (Lipkus, 1994) and Mansino and Pardi (1999) also employ the

Markov Chain Process to calculate the transitional rates for each condition state of a bridge

element.









4.3 Cost Models

Tuner and Richardson (1994) state that BMS are driven by costs. Everything

eventually is compared in terms of costs. Costs are the common denominator in bridge

management systems. The degree of difficulty to estimate bridge related cost was compared

by Son and Sinha (1994) as the same degree to produce deterioration rate estimates for

groups of bridges.

The aim of BMS is to help decision-makers make cost-effective decisions. For this

reason cost models are also an important set of inputs to BMS. There are many kinds of

cost models, each sensitive to a different set of factors. Pontis uses maintenance, repair and

rehabilitation (MR&R) direct costs, functional improvement and replacement direct costs,

indirect costs, and user costs.

MR&R costs primarily depend on structural characteristics of the bridge and the

extent of deterioration which is to be corrected. They are specific to bridge elements

expressed in dollars per physical unit, specific to the type of action and may depend on

condition location and element properties (NHI, 1996).

Functional improvement and replacement costs are normally provided by the SHA.

Those are the costs to widen or strengthen a bridge. Indirect costs are associated with the

decision to perform any work at all on a bridge. They include design, traffic control, land,

environmental mitigation, demolition, and administration (NHI, 1996).

User costs measure the effect of substandard bridges on road users. Although the

inconvenience to each vehicle is small, the numbers add up quickly. User costs are related

to weight limits and clearances in the areas of truck height/weight distributions, detour

lengths/times, truck driver labor cost per hour, vehicle operating cost per kilometer, bridge









related accidents, traffic delay costs in work zones, and environmental costs. User cost

models require some special inputs of their own. Many agencies maintain these data in their

planning departments because they are used for many other purposes. Accident rate

estimation is the most difficult because it is necessary to identify the accidents which are

specifically associated with bridges.

4.3.1 Preservation Optimization Models

The Pontis preservation model is in reality a comprehensive set of models to

optimize the structure preservation policy, to recommend actions, and to set priorities.

Figure 5 is a simplified schematic diagram of how data flows in preservation modeling. The

main steps of the process are:

Step #1: Development of a probabilistic deterioration model (Pontis, 1997a).

Step #2: Update of the probabilistic deterioration model (Pontis, 1997a).

Step #3: Development of a set of unit costs for preservation actions (Pontis,

1997a).

Step #4: Update of the set of unit costs based on experience (Pontis, 1997).

Step #5: Optimization model that combines the consideration of condition

(Pontis, 1997a) change, action effectiveness, and action cost to

determine the most cost-effective long-term policies.

The guiding principle of the preservation optimization models is to find the long-

term policy for each element in each environment which minimizes the long-term

maintenance funding requirements while keeping the element out of risk of failure.

Another important concept of optimization is steady state. Bridges stay in service

for a very long time, and the overall objective of providing transportation connectivity









means that there is never a point in the future where network-wide preservation policies

might have to be drastically changed or eliminated.

Figure 5. Data Flows in Preservation Modeling


The preservation optimization process is one of the alternative results of the bridge

program. It includes the phases of inspection, policies, programming and project.

The inspection objective is to detect conditions threatening the structural integrity.


Expert Cost
Elicitation (3)


Expert
Deterioration
Elicitation (1)


Past bridge collapses due to failure of fracture-critical members, failure of underwater

members, and scour of foundations soils, have attracted attention to these failure modes.

There are three basic requirements which BMS policy should meet. They are: experience--

the policy and its predicted impacts should be consistent with reasonable expectations of

how bridges will deteriorate and how much proposed actions will cost; feasibility--

recommended actions should be feasible for the agency to accomplish; sustainability--the








policy should be sustainable over a long period of time, because the bridges will be in

service for a long period of time. Automated support for defined objectives, and ways to

quantify them, guide policy decisions. There are four network level objectives: minimize

agency costs; minimize user costs; maximize service life; and maximize progress toward

optimal conditions. There are also constraints: budget and level of service.

With objective quantitative policies and criteria, it becomes possible to generate

project lists automatically as a way to approximate quickly the composition of an objective,

budget-constrained program. Pontis uses the network level policies and standards to

generate projects. A project is a collection of preservation and functional improvement

actions on a single bridge. The basic decision criteria is to accomplish as much as possible

with the current budget, minimize the long term cost of keeping each bridge in service,

minimize inconvenience to road users, and act in a consistent manner across all projects.

The focus should be to find an optimal balance and combination of all alternatives.

Preservation policies are developed with the help of a model which specifies action

selection rules, unit costs and calculated benefits. An action selection policy, for example,

aids in the choice of project level action by specifying the action which gives the lowest

long-term costs, based on condition and environment. Network-level unit costs provide an

initial rough estimate of project costs as an interim step until a more detailed project cost

estimation can be performed. When a network-level policy analysis tool, such as Pontis,

calculates life cycle costs, it can compare the annualized long-term cost if the recommended

action is taken, to the annualized long term cost if no action is taken. The difference can be

expressed as the benefit of the action, and can be allocated to the project on a unit basis.









Functional improvement policies have a similar relationship to the definition of

projects. Standards typically determine the type of improvement action to be taken. Design

standards are generally higher than level-of-service standards, because a bridge, which is

only slightly below design standards, probably would not merit the expense of improving it.

In Pontis, a level of service standards is typically determined by an interactive process

where the budget requirements of the standard are determined, and then the standard is

adjusted so its budget requirements more closely match likely funding availability. Initial

cost estimation is typically handled in the same way as with preservation projects, and

project benefits are typically expressed as savings in user costs.

According to ASSHTO (1993), preservation actions (MR&R actions) should be

evaluated based on their necessity to keep a bridge open and serviceable to users, and a

MR&R program should be formulated to minimize the agency cost of maintaining a

standard. Improvement actions on the other hand, should be evaluated on the basis of

potential user cost savings in travel time, vehicle operating costs and accidents.

Results of the optimization analysis include the long-term percent of each element

in each condition state, the long-term annual cost of each action, and the low cost

recommended action.

4.3.2 Improvement Optimization Models

The ASSTHO BMS guidelines (ASSHTO, 1993) establish a difference between

preservation and improvement actions. Pontis follows the same criteria. Improvement

actions considered by the Pontis improvement models include widening, raising, and









strengthening. Functional needs are determined primarily by design and LOS standards.

Standards are included for lane and shoulder widths, vertical clearances, and load limits.

The original source of level-of-service standards is the June 4, 1991-FHWA Notice of

Proposed Rule-Making on level-of-service standards (F.R., 1991). The design standards are

based on Caltrans practice, which in turn is based on the AASHTO Geometric Design

Policy "Green Book"(AASHTO, 1994b). The bases to perform the decisions in the

preservation model are listed in table 8.


Table 8. Bases for the Need and Benefit Calculations on Improvement Projects

Widening Need Based on comparison of current roadway widths to the width
standards set in the Pontis policy matrix
Widening Benefit Based on estimated reductions in accident costs
Strengthening Based in the structure level operating rating and design load, and
Need LOS standards in the network level policy matrix
Strengthening Based on reduced truck traffic detour costs. These have both a time
Benefit and a distance component.
Raising Need Based on comparison of current roadway vertical clearance to the
clearance standards set in the policy matrix
Raising Benefits Based on reduced traffic detour costs. These have both a time and a
distance component.
Replacement Based on presence of vertical clearance or width deficiencies
Need
Replacement Based on reductions in accident and truck detour costs
Benefit
Reference: Pontis User Manual (Pontis, 1997a)


4.4 Program Integration Model

The integrated project programming model which selects the most cost effective set

of structure projects is described by Pontis User's Manual (Pontis, 1997a) in the following

terms:

"The Pontis project programming model performs a simulation of structure
condition change and traffic growth for up to a 30-year time horizon, and selects the
most cost-effective set of projects which meet the constraints of a user-defined set of
budget limits. The procedure integrates the results of the preservation optimization









and the functional improvement models, developing and evaluating project
alternatives, which incorporate both preservation and functional actions. The
simulation is designed to develop a set of candidate projects to meet the identified
needs, but it will also accommodate a set of projects, which have been manually
defined by the user."

This module basically defines and selects a set of projects which optimize expenditures

with established budget constraints for a given scenario. The determination of needs

changes from year to year over a specific selected planning horizon. The generation of

project alternatives includes preservation only, preservation and functional improvement,

and replacement.

4.5 Pontis Results

Pontis BMS produces more than 60 reports and it has the capability to generate a

customized report. Appendix A shows a list of the reports available from Pontis, covering

the areas of inspection, preservation results, network-level programs, project-level

programs and historical projects.

From the perspective of user cost models the first point is to define costs and

benefits. Agencies use the terms "costs" and "benefits" in many different ways for many

different purposes. In BMS, the definitions are chosen so that they accurately reflect what is

at stake in bridge management decisions. Seven different types of cost were found in the

agency vocabulary. They are direct costs, avoidable costs, budgetary requirements, "full"

costs, first costs, life-cycle costs and social costs. Seven different types of "benefits"

definitions were found. They are avoided costs, budgetary reductions, social benefits,

payback period, internal rate of return, net present value and extended "service life." Some

of these terms will be discussed in the following chapters. Pontis adopts for "cost" and

"benefits" the following definitions:






40

Costs are defined as budgetary requirements, but not as additions to the budget.

Usually when a cost is incurred, it is treated as a reduction of funds available to other

projects. Direct and indirect budgetary first costs are incurred. "Benefits" are defined as

avoided costs to the agency and to road users, minus the first costs. Thus they may be

referred to as "net benefits". As a result of these definitions, any benefit/cost ratio greater

than zero represents an attractive investment. These concepts will be expanded in the

following chapters.














CHAPTER 5
PONTIS USER COSTS MATHEMATICAL MODEL

This chapter discusses user cost mathematical models used to quantify the annual

benefits resulting from widening, raising, strengthening, replacing, and detouring a deficient

bridge, which are evaluated with respect to the user cost default parameters. Florida default

parameters that are related to the benefits listed above are also presented. This information

is extracted from a FDOT user cost study (Thompson, Soares, Najafi, Choung, 1998). One

illustrative example is presented showing the savings in accident costs (SAC), vehicle

operating costs (SVOC) and in travel time (STT), using the original Pontis cost default

parameters.

5.1 .Benefits and User Costs

One of the Pontis requirements is that benefits of functional improvements are

assessed in terms of user cost savings (Glolabi et al., 1992). Benefits are the value of taking

actions to address the functional improvement needs. Standard functional improvement

actions include widening, raising, and replacing a bridge. The benefits of addressing

functional improvement needs are calculated by user-modifiable formulas which are based

on user cost (travel time, accident) reductions gained from eliminating detours and

improving safety (Pontis, 1997a). A functional need is related to the structure's ability to

accommodate user demands. Examples of functional needs include the need to increase

clearances, increase widths, or raise weight limits in order to serve more traffic and/or

improve safety.









5.2 FDOT Default Values Policy

The user cost model is used only for functional improvement and replacement

projects. There are 64 data items that are included in the Pontis user cost model. Seventeen

of those items are related to bridge data variables, and 47 items are related to

mathematical model parameters.

The 47 mathematical model variables resulted from SHA policy. They are defined

to input to seven different models: user costs; traffic; widening; raising; strengthening;

replacement; and detour. The model parameters are defined by the FDOT. Appendix B

presents the widening, raising, replacement, strengthening, detours, and bridge data

adopted by the FDOT to be used in Pontis. The Pontis cost matrix that relate to user costs

as defined by FDOT policies is shown in Table 9.


Table 9. Cost Matrix Values Adopted by FDOT

Model Variable Model Florida Default
Value
Detour cost per hour detour $19.34
Detour cost per kilometer detour $0.25
Cost per Accident widening $14,247*
Weight given to user cost user cost 100 %
Source : Thompson, Soares, Najafi, Choung, (1998)
At the time of the report FDOT was using this value. Current value is $37,600


Bridge data variables are bridge functional class, detour distance, detour speed,

roadway functional class, roadway speed, truck fraction, vertical clearance, operating rating,

future volume, future volume year, traffic volume, traffic volume year, bridge length,

approach alignment rating, approach road width, number of lanes, and roadway width. The

values adopted by FDOT are listed in Appendix B, Table B6.









A user cost model is fed with the weight given to user cost that is expressed in a

percent index. In Florida's case it is 100%. The traffic model is fed with the default traffic

growth period, normally 30 years. The widening model is fed with cost per accident, high

approach alignment rating, low approach alignment rating, approach width factor, design

lane width, design shoulder width, short bridge threshold and two regression constants. The

raising model is fed with height detour default, and 10 different height detour points. The

strengthening model is fed with four weight detour points. The replacement model is fed

with five height eligibility points. The detour model is fed with detour cost per hour, detour

cost per kilometer, detour speed factor, default truck percent and 12 levels of default road

speed.

There are three different tables where these data values are located. They are: cost

matrix; policy matrix; and improvement model tables.

The Cost matrix items include agency functional improvement unit costs, user

detour and accident costs, agency costs for special improvements such as seismic retrofit

and scour protection, and associated agency and user benefits for making special

improvements. For this dissertation, the focus is on the four user cost models defined as

follows:

Detour per hour--user costs per hour of additional travel time incurred by vehicles

that would normally use a structure but cannot due to clearance or load restrictions. This is

used to calculate user cost reductions associated with raising or strengthening a structure

(Pontis 1997a).

Detour per kilometer-user costs per kilometer of additional travel distance incurred

by vehicles that would normally use a structure but cannot due to clearance or load








restrictions. This is used to calculate user costs reductions associated with raising or

strengthening a structure (Pontis 1997a).

Average per accident--the user costs per accident. This is used to calculate the

accident reduction benefits of widening or replacing a deficient structure (Pontis 1997a).

Weight--determines the relative impact ( a percent) of user costs to actual costs in

the benefit-cost calculations. If the user cost weight is 100, user costs are treated on a par

with agency costs. If the user cost weight is 50, user costs would be cut in half (Pontis

1997a).

The policy matrix contains standards when different types of improvement actions

should be applied. These standards can vary for different combinations of ADT class,

functional class, structure funding responsibility, and NHS status. The improvement model

parameter table contains improvement benefit model parameters defined for each

improvement matrix in the programming module.

5.3 User Cost Models

When a deficient NBI approach alignment or roadway width exists on a bridge, road

users are theoretically subjected to a higher accident risk. To evaluate a functional

improvement or replacement which corrects the deficiency, the user cost model predicts a

reduction in accident risk which then is multiplied by an accident cost to yield a user cost

saving. When a bridge has a substandard vertical clearance or load capacity certain trucks

are unable to go on or under the bridge, and must detour, thus incurring higher labor costs

and vehicle operating costs. The user cost model estimates the volume of detoured traffic

and the resulting user costs which would be avoided if the deficiency were corrected. The

total user benefit of the functional needs in a project is therefore:

User benefit B,= W, / 100 x V, ( BW, + BR, + BSr) (5)








Where:
W, is the weight given to user cost benefits, in percent (Pontis cost
matrix)
V, is the forecasted average daily traffic volume for the program year
being analyzed.
BW, is the annual benefit of widening per unit average daily traffic
(calculated below)
BR, is the annual benefit of raising per unit average daily traffic
(calculated below)
BS, is the annual benefit of strengthening per unit average daily traffic
(calculated below)

In the notation for all equations, subscripts indicate either the level of resolution of the

variable, or the entity which the variable describes. These are defined as follows:

b indicates a bridge attribute (corresponds to bridge or inspection event table)
indicates a roadway attribute (corresponds a roadway table)
c indicates a cost matrix parameter (linked to the bridge table)
p indicates a policy matrix parameter (linked to the bridge table)
y indicates a program year within the planning horizon (Thompson et al. 1998).

Variables without a subscript are systemwide parameters. Approach alignment

rating is the only attribute of this type. When a bridge-level attribute is taken from the

inspection event table, it is taken from the most recent inspection for the bridge.

5.4 Benefit of Widening

Pontis estimates the user benefit of widening as the savings in accident costs. The

method for estimating accident user costs in Pontis is derived from the North Carolina BMS

using the following formula:

Benefit of widening BW, = CA ( R, R',) (6)

Where:

CA, is the average cost per accident (Pontis cost matrix)
R, is an estimate of the current annual accident risk per vehicle (calculated
below)
R', is an estimate of the current annual accident risk per vehicle after
improvement (calculated below) (Thompson et al. 1998).







46

This result is calculated only for roadways on a bridge. It is zero for roadways under

a bridge. It is also set to zero if R, < R',. The parameters R and R' can, in principle, be

estimated from actual accident studies. However, no such studies were found in the

literature or from the questionnaire survey. The North Carolina system offers an

approximate way to estimate R based on bridge attributes as follows:

Current accident risk:

R,= 365 x 200 x (3.2808W,)65 [1 + 0.5 (9-Ab) / 7] (7)

Where:

W, is the roadway width (curb to curb) in meters (Pontis roadway table, NBI
item 51)
Ab is the approach alignment rating (typically 2 to9, Pontis inspection event
table NBI item 72)

If the approach alignment rating is missing, it is taken as zero. It would be more

appropriate to take it as nine so it does not add to the accident risk. If roadway width is less

then zero, it is treated as zero. Some of the numeric constants in this formula are user-

modifiable in Pontis in the improvement model parameter table. They are defined as

follows:

365 is the number of days in a year
200 is a regression constant
3.28084 is the constant Pontis uses to convert from meters to feet
6.5 is regression constant
0.5 is a model specification constant
9 is the highest approach alignment rating
7 is the range of allowed approach alignment ratings (Thompson et al. 1998).

The 200 and 6.5 are regression constants derived from the North Carolina study, so

they should be modified only if another statistical analysis of accident data is conducted.

The 0.5 constant arose because of the practice in North Carolina of assigning only even

numbers for approach alignment ratings. It is not important for the model framework, but







47

must be used with North Carolina regression constants. The final two constants are artifacts

of the NBI approach alignment scale, which range from 2 to 9.

The formula for accident risk after improvement is similar to (7), but depends on

the width of the improved roadway.

Improved accident risk:

R', = 365 x 200 x (3.2808W',)-65 [ 1 + 0.5 (9-Ab) / 7 ] (8)

Where:

W', is the roadway width (curb to curb) in meters (Pontis roadway table, NBI item 51)
Ab is the approach alignment rating (typically 2-9, Pontis inspection event table
NBI item 72) (Thompson et al. 1998).

5.5 Benefits of Raising

Pontis calculates the vehicle operating cost and travel time cost associated with

traffic on a detour route, and assumes that this entire cost is saved if a functional

improvement is made. Only trucks are assumed to be affected. Raising is considered only

for roadways under the structure.

Benefit of raising is: BR, = 365 x DC, x PT, / 100 x P, /100 (9)

Where:

DC, is the detour cost per truck for this roadway (calculated below)
PT, is the percentage of the traffic stream occupied by trucks (Pontis roadway
table, NBI item 109)
PH, is the percentage of trucks detoured by the bridge.

If the truck percentage is missing or zero, it is given the value of the improvement

model parameter default truck percent whose default value is 5 percent (Thompson et al.

1998).








5.6 Benefit of Strengthening

Pontis calculates the vehicle operating costs and travel time costs associated

with traffic on a detour route, and assumes that this entire cost is saved if a functional

improvement is undertaken. Only trucks are assumed to be affected. Strengthening is

considered only for roadways on top of a structure.

Benefit of strengthening is: BS, = 365 x DC, x PT, / 100 x PW, /100 (10)

Where,

DC, is the detour cost per truck for this roadway (calculated below)
PT, is the percentage of the traffic stream occupied by trucks (Pontis roadway
table, NBI item 109)
PWb is the percentage of trucks detoured by the bridge

If the truck percentage is missing or zero, it is given the value of the improvement

model parameter default truck percent, whose default value is 5 percent (Thompson et al.

1998).

It is possible that some fraction of trucks exceeds the operating rating, but ignores

any posted signs. Also, many states post bridges at levels different from the operating rating.

The model makes assumptions about these factors since it describes only the percentage of

trucks which are actually detoured at each operational rating level.

5.7 Benefits of Replacement

The user costs model for replacement benefits is very similar to the combined effect

of all of the separate functional improvements. An analysis of the source code reveals just a

few differences as discussed in this section. When a bridge is replaced, Pontis recognizes

the benefits of widening for all roadways on and under the bridge. All roadways are

assumed to have the approach alignment rating of the bridge before the project, and all are

assumed to have an approach alignment rating of 9 after the project.









Pontis assumes that bridge replacement eliminates all operational rating

deficiencies. As a result, the project benefit includes the benefit of strengthening, calculated

in the same way as described above in equation (10).

The replacement benefit model for height- related detours in Pontis is formulated to

allow for the possibility that, when both height and weight restrictions exist, certain trucks

may be affected by both restrictions.

Replacement height benefit = BR,

BR, = 365 x DC, x PT, / 100 x [(1-PWb /100) x PG /100 x P, /100 ] (11)

Where:

DC, is the detour cost per truck for this roadway (calculated below)
PT, is the percentage of the traffic stream occupied by trucks (Pontis roadway
table, NBI item 109)
PWb is the percentage of trucks which are detoured by the bridge due to weight
(Pontis roadway table, NBI item 109)
PGb is the percentage of those trucks not detoured by the weight limit, which are
potentially subjected to height restrictions.

There is a subtle logical inconsistency in the use of PH, in the raising and

replacement models. In the raising model, PH, is the percentage of the entire truck traffic

stream which is detoured since the percentage detoured by weight restrictions is zero. In the

replacement model, on the other hand, PH, is the percentage of only the lighter-weight duals

and tractor-trailers. The (1-PWb) term restricts PH, to lighter-weight vehicles, and the PGb

term restricts PHr to only duals and tractor-trailers (Thompson et al. 1998).

Part of this inconsistency can be removed by setting all the percentages in the PGb

model to 100 so the definition of PH,, is not limited to duals and tractor-trailers. There is no

easy way, however, to remove the effect of (i-PWb) (Thompson et al. 1998). Considering

the Pontis user community as a whole, it would be worthwhile to consider eliminating the

PGb factor and simplifying the definition of PH to conform to its usage in the strengthening








model. This could cause some minor double counting of benefits in cases where both

clearance and weight restrictions exist on the roadway on top of the bridge, but the number

of cases where this is a problem is likely to be small in most states. The benefit of the

change would be to make the user cost model smaller, more consistent, and more

understandable (Thompson et al. 1998).

5.8 Detour Cost

Each time a truck is detoured, it experiences vehicle operating costs associated with

the added detour distance and travel time costs associated with the added detour time.

Pontis uses a model of these factors for raising, strengthening, and replacement.

Detour cost per truck DC, = CV, x D, + CT, x (D, / DS,) (12)

Where:

CV, is the average vehicle operating costs per km of detour (Pontis cost matrix)
CTc is the average travel time cost per hour of detour (Pontis cost matrix)
D, is the detour distance for the roadway in km (pontis roadway table, NBI
item 19)
DS, is the speed on the detour route, kph, (Ponts roadway table)

Since detour speed is not in the NBI data item, many SHA lack this information.

When missing, Pontis estimates the detour speed from the roadway speed (Pontis roadway

table) using the improvement model parameter DetspeedFactor. The default value of this

factor is 80 percent. Since roadway speed is not in the NBI item, Pontis has a set of default

speed values, DefaultRoadspeed FCnn, where nn is the roadway functional class in the

improvement model parameters table. Since these defaults are very rough, it is better to

collect the actual detour speed or at least the bridge roadway speed, if possible (Thompson

et al. 1998).









5.9 Application Example

To clarify how the Pontis user cost mathematical model is integrated into the BMS,

one example of one deficient bridge is presented. This example is an adaptation of the

Blundell (1997) technical notes for a two lane concrete arch bridge.

One two lane reinforced concrete arch bridge has a deficiency that forces 46% of the

truck traffic to detour 38.6 Km. The actual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 7,166 and the

percent trucks composition is 14%. The BMS analysis result indicates a need to spend $ 1,

850,000 to replace the bridge as the best option to overcome the bridge deficiency. What is

the benefit cost ratio for this action assuming the use of the Pontis default values for user

costs?

5.9.1 Savings in Accident Cost (SAC)

SAC = 365 x V (R- R') Ca (13)

Where,

V= 7,166 (Average Daily Traffic)
Ca = 37,600 (Average Accident Costs)
R= 0.000035 (current annual accident risk)
R'= 0.0000028 (Current annual accident risk after improvement), explained below

The values for the current accident risk for the current year is R= 0.000035 (this value

can be taken from project simulation log files for this bridge). The after improvement

widening accident risk is listed by Pontis as R'= 0.0000028 (this value is evaluated by the

BMS using the new values of the roadway width Wr, and the new approach alignment rate,

Ab).

The difference between the two accident rates is the reduction in accidents.

R-R' = 0.000032

Since the values of R are adjusted for year, the total SAC will be:








SAC = 7,166 x 0.000032 x 37,600

SAC = $ 8,622

5.9.2 Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs (SVOV)

SVOC = 365 x VD x C, x D (14)

Where,

VD = 7,166 x 0.14 x 0.46 = 461 (trucks detoured per day)
Cv = 0.25 (average vehicle operating costs per kilometer)
D = 38.62 (detour distance in kilometers)

The percent of trucks detoured is determined by the user settings in the

improvement module. For this particular bridge the percent of trucks detoured was 46%

(0.46). The equipment unit cost (Vehicle Operating Costs to overcome the detour length) is:

38.62 x 0.25 = $9.66/truck.

The number of trucks detoured per year is then trucks detoured per day times 365

days: 461 x 365 = 168,265 trucks detoured per year. Then saving in Vehicle Operating

Costs will be:

SVOC = 365 x 461 x 0.25 x 38.62

SVOC = $1, 623,757

5.9.3 Savings in Travel Time Costs (STTC)

STTC = 365 x VD x Ct x D/S (15)

Where,

VD = 461 (number of trucks detoured per day)
C, = 19.34 (average travel time cost per hour of detour)
D = 38.62 (detour distance in kilometers)
S = 70.24 (speed on the detour route, km/hr) explained below







53

This step is to include the labor cost for the drivers making the detour. The labor cost is

the detour distance divided by the detour speed (in this case Pontis uses as a default value of

80% of the posted road speed, that is 70.24 Km/hr) times the cost of labor per hour.

Detour length (38.62 Km)/ detour road speed (70.24 Km/hr) $19.34/hr labor cost =

$10.62/truck. Then the labor unit cost per truck is $10.62/truck. The resulted STTC is:

STTC= 365 x 461 x 19.34 x 38.62/70.24

STTC= $1,789,279

5.9.4 Total User Cost Benefits (UCB)

UCB = SAC + SVOC + STTC (16)

UCB = 8,622 + 1,623,757 +1,789,279

UBC = 3,421,658

5.9.5 Benefit Cost Ratio

Total User Cost benefits/ Agency Costs

3,421,658 / 1,850,000 = 1.85

The BMS follows this methodology for all deficient bridges found in the network,

and then ranks all the benefit cost ratios. The bridge that receives the highest benefit cost

ratio generates the highest savings for the user when its deficiency is fixed. Assuming that

the bridge from the example is ranked in third place in one hypothetical bridge network

means that it will receive priority number 3 in the budget allocation process if the SHA

decides to use the road users benefit approach.

The main point in this example is that detoured trucks are responsible for 99.75%

of the total user cost benefit. That is, 7.6 % of the ADT volume is charged a total of

$3,413,036.00 per year for not using the bridge. This represents an additional expense of

$20.28 for each truck.








The penalty of $20.28 ($9.66/truck as equipment cost + $10.62/truck for labor

cost) paid for each truck for not using the bridge facility is directly related to the detour

length, the detour road speed, the VOC selected, and the travel time selected. The total

detouring cost is directly related to the number of trucks detoured each year at the bridge.

The lost savings of $ 0.35 cents incurred for each vehicle that uses the bridge is

related to the current ADT the current accident risk rate, and the future accident risk rate

after improvement. Each accident rate is related to roadway width, the approach alignment

rating, and the average cost per accident.

From the 10 inputs data used in the evaluation of user costs, only three are supplied

by the NBI source. Different offices in the SHA organization are responsible for generating

the seven remaining data input. Maintenance, inspection, safety, law enforcement,

engineering and administration offices are normally those involved in data generation for

BMS user costs. Four parameters related to policy decisions and one related to law

enforcement present the most difficulty in the process of selecting the correct ones. They are

the average costs per accident, the average vehicle operating costs, the average travel time

costs the speed in the detour costs, and the proportion of trucks detoured. The implications

involved in selecting each one of these parameters will be discussed in the next three

chapters.














CHAPTER 6
TRAVEL TIME COSTS FOR BMS

The Travel Time Cost (TTC) developed by this research is $22.55/hour. This

chapter describes how this value is developed, the theoretical basis to support its

development, and why TTC values benchmarked from other places are not useful for BMS

applications in Florida. The structure of this chapter is displayed in Figure 6 where the

solid line represents the critical path used to develop the new TTC value, and the dashed

line represents reasons why TTC benchmarked from other areas are not suitable for BMS in

Florida.

6.1 Background

The value of travel time savings is usually considered by transportation analysts as

the most important category of benefits for major highway investments. According to

Strand (1993), for the average road project, 70 to 80 percent or more of the total benefits are

attributed to the time savings of the project. The way in which time is converted into

money is becoming more and more decisive in the calculations to profitability and

feasibility of road projects. Depending on the approach used to monetize travel time, one

can make a project profitable or unprofitable. Chui and McFarland (1986) state that before

1965, the estimated value of time was based more in intuition and non-behavioral estimates

than on a reliable, theoretical model. However, there are several conceptual problems in the

evaluation of time; pertinent questions about research issues and bottlenecks related to a

credible, practical application of time utilization theories. These issues can turn the use of













6.2 Theoretical Basis for TTC Evaluation



6.2.1. Behavioral Approach 6.2.2 Survey Approach 6.2.3 Resource Approach



16.3 Labor Wage Index Analysis



6.3.1 AASTHO I 62 S DIT 6.3.3 HERS 6.3.4 BMS



6.5 Non-business Approach 6.6 Business Approach

Equation 21 MODEL Equation 22 MODEL



6.8 New TTC Value $22.55/Hr



Figures 6. Flow Chart for BMS TTC Development








time both meaningless and misleading.

There is a fundamental conceptual difference between the value of travel time for

transportation planning and for BMS applications. For the former, drivers are offered

several alternatives to choose from on how to move from point A to point B. Road users

have the freedom to select the mode, the route, and also how much they are willing to pay

for time savings and better driving conditions. On the other hand, for BMS applications the

drivers do not have the freedom to select the mode or the route to move from point A to

point B, if point A and point B are connected by a bridge. If the bridge is closed or posted, it

is mandatory to remain in the same mode and take the bridge detour that has a specific

length and characteristic. In summary, planners are interested in knowing what costs an

individual is willing to pay in order to save one unit of trip time. With BMS applications,

the BMS practitioner is interested in evaluating what costs an individual is forced to pay in

order to overcome the extra time incurred in the journey. In the first case, the focus is in

travel time savings, and in the second case, the focus is in travel time costs that will be

considered as savings once the bridge deficiency is removed.

6.2 Theoretical Basis for Travel Time Evaluation

One major area of application of the macroeconomic approach to the evaluation of

travel time lies in the appraisal of improvements in transportation systems. The problem

consists essentially of an efficient allocation of resources in the economy, and how time in

transport is applied in benefit cost analyses. IF the principle of the welfare theory is used

(Bruzelius, 1978; Serpa,1971;), that is, on the individual maximization of benefits, the

marginal value of time is the one the consumer is willing to pay for a marginal reduction in

travel time. According to Strand (1993) this theory has been severely questioned, mainly by








the existing imbalance between theoretical and empirical calibration (Heggie, 1983), and

the way small savings and aggregate problems are treated.

Alternatively, a conceptually identical approach is used to evaluate the economic

losses due to unproductive travel time which is addressed in economic theory as

opportunity cost. For one category of time consuming human activity, one can establish a

value based on the marketing mechanism. A market for labor exists so that the time saving

in trips undertaken during working time (on-the-clock trips) can be assigned a value related

either to the wage rate or overhead costs. According to Miller (1996), on-the- clock trips

have values equal to the wage rate, plus fringe benefits and vehicle/inventory costs.

Behavioral models give the value of time from the perspective of the person whose

behavior is being modeled. Thus, models estimated from decisions made by travelers give

the value of time saved to the traveler. Models estimated from decisions made by travelers'

employers give the value of time to the employers (Morrison, 1996). Because of this, the

results from behavioral models are useful when predicting travel demand. However,

because of taxes, among other things, these values will most likely diverge from the

"resource" values appropriate for use in cost benefit analysis. The following are the

description of each of these approaches.

6.2.1 Behavioral Approach

The behavioral approach is an extension of conventional consumer theory that

illustrates why time in general and travel time, in particular, is valuable. At its core is the

tradeoff between time and money.

The state-of-the-art behavioral models indicated at least five approaches for

estimating the value of time. They are identified mainly by the data collected on the choices

that the sample of travelers make, e. g., modal choice model ( McFadden and Reid 1975,









Ben-Akiva 1973, Charles River Associates 1972, Lave 1968, Lisco 1967, Becker 1965,

Morhring 1960), route choice model (Guttman 1975, Thomas and Thompson 1970, Claffey

et al. 1961), speed choice model (Chui & McFarland 1986, Winston & Associates 1987),

usage of safety belt (Blomquist et al. 1996), and housing price approach (Nelson 1977,

Wabe 1976).

6.2.2 Survey Approach

According to Miller (1996) the survey approach is the most effective way to

evaluate the travel time value. He suggests that surveys should be done offering each

respondent just one or two randomly generated choices per question, with the values

implicit in the choices. Another alternative is to find an unbiased starting point then to let

the respondents choose a value from a menu that uniformly covers the entire response

range.

6.2.3 Resource Approach

The resource approach is used to place value on business travel time for project

appraisal. In its simplest form, travel time savings are valued according to the "resources"

that are saved, i.e., the work time for "labor", and vehicle and equipment time for "capital"

(Hensher 1976).

6.3 Percent Wage Index Analysis

Value time estimate modelers use wages as a reference to monetize travel time. For

business travel time they use wages plus fringe benefits. According to Miller (1996), the

theoretical basis for the result that the value of work time (to society) is equal to the gross

wage plus fringes, is based on the assumption that the labor market and the output market

are competitive, that firms are able to substitute capital for labor, that there are no positive

or negative externalities in production, and that firms maximize profits. Miller (1996)









considers that this practice provides an automatic adjustment for inflation and facilitates

comparison across different currencies and cost of living. However, he questions the

validity of the theoretical foundation to support the use of wage to express value of time.

Miller (1996), after analyzing over 30 travel time studies recommends the use of

conservative estimates due to a poor fix on the value of travel time. According to him, for

project evaluation purposes, a value of travel time of 55% of the wage rate is recommended

for drivers with an uncertainty range from 50% to 75%. A value of 40% of the wage is

recommended for car and public transport passengers, and a value of 100% of the wage rate,

plus fringe benefits and vehicle/inventory costs is recommended for on-the-clock travel.

As can be seen, there is a consensus about the percent wage index to be used in the

evaluation of travel time for business. However, for non-business travel there is no

consensus. This is a direct reflection of the contribution level provided by the behavior

models at the present stage in evaluating travel time. In fact, according to Miller (1996),

analysis of highway investments should use travel time values from route choice or speed

choice models, and not from modal choice models. The weakness of mode of choice

models is that they underestimate the value of personal vehicle travel time savings,

comfort, convenience and privacy while ignoring capital investments in a private passenger

vehicle. This observation confirms the critics of Hensher (1976) and Gronal (1976) in the

use of modal choice models for a wide range of decision variables.

The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI 1993) pointed to concerns raised about the

validity of the assumptions made in the speed choice model, which assumes a driver's

knowledge of the relation of driving costs to driving speeds.

For a BMS application the route choice has a relatively low importance, because it

deals with the choice of routes (often a toll road vs. a parallel non-toll road) and in reality






61

under the BMS scenario there is no route selection. There is only the detour route prescribed

in the NBI item 19 related to each bridge which is fed into the BMS mathematical models.

These values do not change; consequently there is no choice involved.

6.3.1 TTC Under AASHTO Methodology

The traditional approach used for analysis of transportation investments is based in

the AASHTO 1977 Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit

Improvements. This manual is an extension and replacement of the 1960 AASHTO report,

Road User Benefit Analyses for Highway Improvements (AASHTO 1960), and the

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 133 (NCHRP 1972). Kinboco

and Henion (1981) critically evaluated the AASHTO 1977 report a few years after it was

published. However, travel time was not evaluated.

6.3.2 TTC Under USDOT Methodology

In 1997, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) released a

memorandum intended to provide DOT staff with the best current available procedures and

empirical estimates for calculating the value of time. The focus was on transportation

investments, not on BMS. This memorandum recommended the use of nationwide statistics

for income/wage rates of the traveling population, using 100 percent of the wage (plus

fringe benefits) for all local and intercity business travel, including travel by truck drivers.

This equals 50% of the wages for all local personal travel and 70% of the wages for all

intercity personal travel (OST, 1997).

6.3.3 TTC Under HERS Methodology

In 1999, the FHWA received the latest version of the HERS (Highway Economic

Requirement System) model, which is the result of DOT's efforts to better examine costs,

benefits and national implications associated with highway investment options. The






62

approach used to estimate the travel time value is to apply a value of 100% of the wage rate,

plus fringe benefits and vehicle/inventory costs for on-the-job travel, and 60 % of the wage

rate exclusive of fringe benefits for other trips (HERS, 1999).

6.3.4 TTC Under BMS Methodology

When a bridge has a deficiency, and this deficiency demands load and height

restrictions in the traffic flow, the SHA is faced with two traffic management alternatives:

post the bridge and divert a proportion of the traffic to a detour route; or close the bridge

and divert 100% of the traffic to a detour route. If the bridge is posted it is assumed that

only heavy vehicles (trucks) are diverted.

For BMS objectives, trucks and buses are always treated as being on business trips

and the rest of the traffic flow is treated as non-business trips. This assumption generates

some bias by ignoring the fact that besides trucks and buses, no other vehicles are engaged

in business trips. However, this assumption is adopted due to the lack of data about the

composition of business trips existing in the traffic stream. Business trips, also known as

on-the-clock trips, have travel time valued on the basis of savings to the employers as

discussed before. The savings include wages, fringe benefits, vehicle costs and inventory

costs (Miller 1996, HERS 1999). This approach, which includes vehicle costs and inventory

costs in the composition of the travel time estimation is not shared by the Canadian

Department of Transportation (Culley and Donkor, 1993). For travel time savings for

business travel, the Canadians use the approach of "equivalent hourly wage rate" that is

calculated dividing the average annual individual earnings by 2,101 hours (52 weeks of

work per year at an average of 40.4 hours of work per week). On top of this "equivalent

hourly wage rate" is added 19.5% for employee fringe benefits, plus 10% for unreported

overtime, plus 14.0% for fringe benefits. As an example a typical "equivalent hourly wage








rate" in 1990 was $16.39 resulting in a final value of $24.01 due to the benefits included

(HERS, 1999).

The rationale to include vehicle costs and inventory costs is the following: For

vehicle costs, capital invested is depreciated for the lifetime of the vehicle assuming a

certain salvage value at the end of the life. The resulting average vehicle cost per year is

then divided by a number of vehicle working hours in service per year per vehicle category.

The weakness of this assumption is that the traffic composition will be treated as having

only vehicles aged to the limit of the selected depreciation time. For example HERS

assumes a five-year life for autos and four-tire trucks. That is, if in the traffic composition

there is a vehicle older than five years, it is treated as a newer vehicle, inflating the

depreciation value of the traffic composition. Data from the 1995 National Transportation

Survey indicates that the average age by vehicle type has been increased since 1977. The

1995 average age for cars and trucks were 8.24 and 14.93 years respectively. These numbers

show that if one uses the HERS approach of five- years life for vehicles to determine their

hour value, one is attributing, to a proportion of old vehicles, the value of a newer vehicle.

The same survey discloses that for 1995 only 37.7 percent of all vehicles are in the 0 to 5

years age range.

For inventory costs the rationale is to select one discount rate and multiply its hourly

value by the average value of the truck cargo. The problem here is knowing what type of

cargo each truck is carrying. HERS assumes that 35% of all combination trucks carry low

value natural resources and agricultural products, and the remaining 65% of trucks carry

manufactured products, including goods of medium to high value, processed foods, building

materials and paper products. The weakness of this approach is due to the assumptions

made. It basically divides the truck population in two groups in which one will be sensitive









to the inventory cost and the other group will not. Using the values published by the 1977

transportation census, we have a median value for manufactured commodities of $2.29 per

pound and a value of $ 0.04 per pound for non-manufactured goods. One more assumption

that is necessary to be made is the assignment of the class of cargo (manufactured versus

non-manufactured) with the type of truck. These assumptions introduce a bias factor in the

evaluation of the inventory cost.

Non-business travel time savings are valued through surveys and behavior models.

Under the classes of business and non-business travel it is necessary to investigate the

implications for the value of time in personal and business travel.

6.4 Comparing Travel Time Values

Walls and Smith (1998) used the All Items Component of the CPI to update the

travel time costs to August 1998 of four different travel time studies (NCHRP 1972,

NCHRP 1990, OST 1997, and HERS 1996). Comparing the values of the NCHRP 1972

(1970 dollar) with the values developed by HERS 1996, increases of 377% for the

passenger and 526% for trucks travel time cost were observed. Table 10 shows the update

to 1996 dollars of the values of travel time from four different sources.

This procedure of updating travel time costs is one of the factors that contribute to

the poor fix on the value of travel time. This procedure freezes all the technological

improvements implemented in the vehicles and in the transportation infrastructure over the

years. Further, it produces a static view of assuming that driver behavior has not changed

since the former travel time value was established. Another factor that contributes to the

low quality of the value of travel time is the practice of using the results of travel time

studies performed outside the United States for applications within the United States. This









practice assumes, for example, that Brazil's roadway network is similar to the United

States' network; it also assumes similarity with vehicles and driver behavior between the

two countries. In fact, according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1994), weather,

pavement conditions, user's level of familiarity with the facility, and incidents in the traffic

flow are the factors considered in the evaluation of the roadways.


Table 10. Composite Listing of Update Travel Time Costs

Source Units Autos Trucks Combination
USDOT-OST* $/Person-Hr $10.80 $16.50 $16.50
MicroBENCOST $/Veh-Hr 11.37 17.44 24.98
NCHRP $/Veh-Hr 11.78 19.64 19.64
HERS $/Veh-Hr 14.30 25.99 31.30
Escalator Factor used: travel time cost- August 1996
*USDOT-OST= US Department of Transportation-Office of Secretary of Transportation.

6.5 Non Business Travel Time

From the perspective of economic theory, non-business trips are those trips that are

not on-the-clock trips. The market value assigned for these trips is not by the employer, but

by the driver. This assumption creates some difficulties in allocating the appropriate value

for each class of drivers. The classical example is the housewife time cost allocation

problem. The work performed in the home by the housewife is not compensated by the

actual exchange of money, and consequently it is not reported to the Internal Revenue

Service, generating the false concept of work performed with no monetary value. However,

if a professional provides the same work previously performed by the housewife, this work

now has a monetary value. The traditional approach used to solve this problem is to select a

percentage of the wage rate and assign this percentage to all non business trips, without

considering fringe benefits.








As mentioned before, a value of 55% of the wage rate is recommended for drivers,

40% for passengers with an uncertainty range from 50% to 75%. Using the 1995 census

data of 1.59 average vehicle occupancy for all purpose trips the following general formula

can be established:

TTNB = ( WPD x FWR) + (WPp x FWR) (OR -1) (17)

Where,

TTB- = travel time for non business
WPD = wage proportion for drivers (%)
FWR = full wage rate ($)
WPp = wage proportion for passengers (%)
OR = vehicle occupancy rate

6.6 Business Travel Time

Considering that one of the objectives of this research is to develop user costs for

BMS applications that includes no bias in its development process, it is important that the

model use concepts that can be supported by a theoretical base accepted by the

transportation community. Concepts supported with preponderance of assumptions should

be avoided or minimized.

In the case of travel undertaken by employees in the course of work, the economic

theory states that the value of travel time consists of the resource value of the time itself,

plus the monetary equivalent of whatever utility or disutility results from spending time

traveling. Assuming time spent traveling would otherwise be spent working, and that no

productive use could be made of travel time, the employee's pre-tax wage rate plus the

monetary value of fringe benefits represent the value of time.

Based on these premises the conceptual mathematical model to evaluate business

(on- the- clock) travel time, can be expressed in the following way:









TTB= (FWRD + FB) + (FWRH +FB) (OCR -1) + VCC + VIC (18)

Where,

TTB = travel time for business
FWRD = full wage rate for drivers
FWR H = full wage rate for helpers
FB = fringe benefits
OCR = vehicle occupancy rate
VCC = vehicle capital costs
VIC = vehicle inventory costs

The values to be used for wage rate and fringe benefits can be found in the US

census for each category of driver. In our case we are interested in truck and car drivers.

Trucks and heavy vehicles (military vehicles) are the main source of bridge structure

degradation. Extensive research has demonstrated that single unit tandum and triaxle dump

trucks have a high potential for overstressing bridge structures. Further, illegal overloading

of trucks is now to a level such as to cause significant overstressing of bridge members

(Schelling, 1985). The Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) lists thirteen

different vehicle categories (Mactavish and Neumann, 1982). HERS uses one classification

for cars and four different classifications for trucks: 4-tire truck; 6-tire truck; 3-4 axle truck;

4-axle combination truck; and 5-axle combination truck. The FDOT Weigh-in-motion

(WIM) study shows that a 5-axle combination truck represents 50% of the truck traffic

composition in the Florida roadway network, and 67% of the truck traffic composition in

the Interstate Highway System. Since cars do not affect the bridge structure, and normally

they are not required to detour due to bridge limitations, the use of one classification for

cars seems appropriate. The classification used by HERS is considered to be equivalent to

the truck composition in the Florida Network, and for this reason it will be used to evaluate

the basic values of each vehicle. After this evaluation, these values will be adjusted







68

according to the FDOT weigh-in motion (WIM) truck percentages in the traffic composition

(WIM, 1998).

Another factor that must be considered is the appropriate vehicle occupancy rate

index to be used in the business travel time evaluation. There are two methods that measure

vehicle occupancy: the travel method and the trip method. The travel method computes the

vehicle occupancy as person miles of travel per vehicle mile, and the trip method computes

the vehicle occupancy as persons per vehicle trip. Because longer trips often have higher

occupancies, the travel method generally yields a higher rate. For BMS applications the

travel method seems more appropriate. The average vehicle occupancy, measured as person

miles per vehicle mile, has decreased consistently over time. This trend is related to an

increase in vehicle ownership, and decreases in household size. Data from 1977 indicates a

vehicle occupancy rate for all purposes of 1.9; in 1995 this rate decreased to 1.59. The

vehicle occupancy rate for trucks is generally accepted to be 1.0 for heavy trucks and 1.1

for small trucks and pick-ups that use helpers on business trips (HERS 1996). Data from

Florida Truck Permit Office shows an occupancy rate for trucks of 1.0, and this value will

be used for heavy trucks. For small trucks and pick ups the occupancy rate of 1.1 will be

used based on HERS data.

6.7 Value of One Hour Travel Time

Table 11 presents the value of one-hour travel time by benefit category and vehicle

type. Labor, fringe benefits, vehicle capital costs, and vehicle inventory costs are the TTC

constituents. The values are in 1997 dollar.







69

Table 11. Value of One Hour Travel Time for Business and Non-Business Trips by Vehicle
Category (1997 dollars)


Vehicle Type
Category Auto 4-Tire 6- Tire 3-4 Axle 4-Axle 5-Axle
Truck Truck Comb. Comb. Comb.
Business
Labor 15.33 14.19 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9
Fringe Benefits 2.97 5.10 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Capital Cost 0.42 0.50 0.86 2.79 1.95 2.00
Vehicle Inventory Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50
Total 18.72 19.79 20.15 22.58 22.24 22.29
Non-Business
Wage 9.27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vehicle Occupancy 1.59 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


6.7.1 Labor/Fringe Benefits

For autos, the hourly wage per vehicle occupant for on-the-clock trips in 1997 was

assumed equal to the Florida median household income of $31,900 (1997 dollar) divided by

2,080 hours/year. The main reason for selecting the Florida median value in place of the US

median value for household income was to follow the criteria established previously for

prioritizing the use of local data. The fringe benefits value used is the US average of 19.73

% published in the Statistical Abstract of the United States (STA 1989). The US and the

Florida Statistical Abstracts use the median to report the household income. Median income

is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, one having

incomes above the median and the other having incomes below the median. For households,

the median income is based on the distribution of the total number of units including those

with no income (FSA, 1998). The median better represents the reality than the mean income

that is obtained by dividing the total income of a particular statistical universe by the

number of units in that universe.









For trucks, the value used for labor is the one published by the US Census Bureau

for weekly median full-time wages for truck drivers, that is $516/week. For truck helpers

the value assigned was the median weekly earnings of full- time wages for freight, stock,

and material handlers of $399/week. The fringe benefit for trucks was the value reported by

HERS of 36% which was taken from the Teamster's Union contract for the Central United

States.

6.7.2 Vehicle Capital Cost

The evaluation of vehicle capital costs made by the HERS model is made assuming

a five-year life with a 15 percent salvage value at the end, and with initial costs taken from

the Motor Vehicle Manufacture Association. This approach is appropriate only if all

vehicles in the traffic composition work only five years. As mentioned before, the average

vehicle age existing in the traffic composition is higher. For this reason a factor will be

introduced to lower the value of each vehicle capital cost. This factor is calculated dividing

5-years by the average vehicle age reported in the 1995 summary of travel trends. The

values are 0.60, 0.57 and 0.33 respectively for cars, four wheel trucks and heavy trucks.

For heavy trucks, the cost per hour was computed as the average vehicle costs per

year divided by the number of hours in service ( assumed to be in service only 1600 hour

per year). For cars, four and six tire trucks it is assumed that they work 2000 hours per year

(HERS, 1999).

6.7.3 Vehicle Inventory Costs

The methodology to calculate vehicle inventory costs, as mentioned before, is based

on applying one discount rate to the value of the payload carried by the truck. The HERS

model uses a discount rate per hour of 0.0011 percent. This rate is derived from a discount

rate of 9.8 percent plus 1 percent. The average payload of a five-axle combination was








assumed to equal 30,000 pounds. The type of cargo carried by all combination trucks was

spilt to 35% carrying natural and agricultural products, and 65% carrying manufactured

products. The median value per pound of the manufactured products indicated in the

Commodity Transportation Survey data is $2.29, and for agricultural and natural products

$ 0.04 per pound. With these values, the average payload is valued at roughly $45,000,

yielding a time value of $0.505 per hour (HERS, 1999).

6.8 Truck Travel Time Cost for Florida

Using the truck composition data from the WIM study for the FDOT that is in

progress at the Civil Engineering Department, University of Florida, only the last three

vehicle types listed on Table 12 are statistically relevant for BMS applications. The research

result values are showed in Table 12.


Table 12. Research Result Value for TTC

Truck Type $/Hr Percent Total (CPK)
3-4 Axle Truck 22.58 92.0 20.7736
4-Axle Combination 22.24 7.0 1.5568
5-Axle Combination 22.29 1.0 0.2229
Total 100.0 22.5533
















CHAPTER 7
AVERAGE VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FOR BMS

The Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) developed by this research is 31.3843

cents/Km. This is the marginal cost for a truck run for one extra kilometer per trip. This

chapter describes how this value is developed, and the methodology used to evaluate the

VOC components (fuel, maintenance, tire and oil change). A VOC for cars and light trucks

is presented in Appendix H. The structure of this chapter is shown in Figure 7, where the

solid line represents the critical path to develop the new VOC for trucks, and the dashed

line represents variable costs not included in this VOC development.



7.1 VOC Related Factors

7.1.1 Weight Limits
7.1.2 VOC Value Ranges
7.1.3 Equipment, Carrier, and Capacity Optimization Types
7.1.4 Political Factors
7.1.5 Road Network Compatibility

7.2 Running Cost Calculation methodology

7.3 Variable Costs]

7.3.1 Depreciation 7.4 VOC Truck Customization
7.3.2 Labor Costs
7.3.3 Miscellaneous Costs
7.3.4 Accident Costs 7.4.1 Fuel Costs
7.4.2 Maintenance
7.4.3 Tires
7.4.4 Oil Changes

7.5 New CV, Value 31.3834 Cents/Killometer




Figure 7. Flow Chart for BMS VOC Development









7.1 VOC Related Factors

According to Equation 19 the motor vehicle operating cost (VOC) is evaluated as a

function of average vehicle operating costs per kilometer of detour (CVv) and detour

distance (D,). CV, is the cost incurred for a truck to run one kilometer. Since the detour

distance is a fixed parameter in the Pontis matrix, the parameter that is variable and

sensitive to user costs is the CV,.

VOC= CVv x D, (19)

Where,

VOC= motor vehicle operating costs
CVv =average vehicle operating costs per kilometer of detour
D, =detour distance for the roadway in km

The term motor vehicle for Pontis BMS means a truck. The reason why Pontis

focuses only on trucks is due to the fact that bridges are designed with the constraints of

bridge formula B, which defines the maximum weight that may be carried on two or more

truck axles. This weight is evaluated as a function of the spacing between any two

consecutive axles and the number of axles according to the following mathematical

relationship:



W= 500 [(LN/(N-1) + 12N +36] (20)

Where,

W =Maximum weight that may be carried on two or more axles, in lbs.,
L =Spacing, in feet, between the outer axles of any two or more consecutive
axles
N =Number of axles being considered (Francher and Gillespie, 1997)









7.1.1. Weight Limits

Current federal limits on truck weight, length and width are defined by the Surface

Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1992. These limits apply to all vehicles using the

Interstate system and other designated federal-aid highways. The weight limits are

nominally defined as

9,000 Kg (20,0001b) on a single axle
15,000 Kg (34,0001b) on a tandem axle group
36,000 Kg (80,0001b) maximum gross weight (with a few exceptions) (Fancher and
Gillespie, 1997).

Since bridge designers use bridge formula B with the maximum constraint value,

that is the maximum vehicle load allowed by legislation, it becomes clear that only heavy

trucks cause stress to bridge structures, with high concentrated loads being more stressful.

Cars, pickups, and light trucks normally do not cause stress to bridge structures, unless the

bridge has severe limitations like historical wood bridges. For this reason, Pontis considers

that under normal circumstances, when a bridge is posted, only a percent of trucks must be

detoured. However, if the bridge is closed, all traffic must be detoured, and for this reason

the evaluation of truck and car operating costs should be considered. The VOC for cars,

vans and light trucks are displayed in Appendix H.

7.1.2 VOC Value Ranges

The evaluation of operating cost is a tough challenge faced by the truck industry.

According to Cox (1996a), it is impossible to come up with an industry "average" cost per

mile, because it depends on a number of variables: the cost of fuel, the number of miles run

per year, the truck age, the driver lifestyle, and so on. However an average cost per mile

(operations cost) is one of the most useful pieces of information necessary for the business.








Truck operating costs will depend on the type of truck and the type of operation in which

they are used. According to Elgin (1998), it is estimated that only ten percent of owner

operators know their cost per mile, and that the old proverb of $1.00 per mile just does not

apply in today's environment.

Comparing the data from a population of 104,561 tractor trucks associated with

332,838 trailers, distributed into 98 carriers in 1997, the operating costs range goes from

14.25 to 111.04 cents per mile (TFM, 1998). Comparing the operation cost of all Florida

truck companies reported in the 1997 Motor Carrier Annual Report a range of 9.3 to 100.9

cents per mile was observed. There are several reasons why there is a large value range in

the operating cost reported. The main reason is a lack of a uniform methodology to evaluate

operating costs associated with the diversity of equipment and carrier types.

7.1.3 Equipment. Carrier and Capacity Optimization Types

According to the 1999 National Motor Carrier Directory Record Counts, there are

11 equipment types and 19 carrier types hauling commodities. They are listed on Appendix

C. To increase complexity, the FHWA uses a classification where vehicles are grouped into

5,000 pound weight categories ranging from 5,000 to 150,000 pounds generating a matrix

of 20 vehicle classifications. That is, there is not a uniform truck classification that covers

all users.

Other factors that contribute to the difficulty in evaluating truck-operating costs are

related to the capacity of each truck. If the truck runs at full capacity, it is classified by the

truck industry as truckload-TL If the truck runs with partial capacity it is classified as Less-

Than Truckload LTD. The ownership type of the truck is also responsible to create new

classifications: owner-operators and fleet operators.








7.1.4 Political Factors

Besides the factors listed above that contribute to the difficulty in evaluating truck

operating costs, there is also a political issue to be considered. That is the old "political

war" between FHWA and the truck industry that is related to the truck maximum load

capacity allowed by law, and the appropriate tax share that the truck industry should pay to

use the roadway network.

At the same time that the truck industry has a strong lobby to increase the limits on

truck weight and length based on the premise that these will improve productivity in the

transportation sector, the FHWA feels that the tax share paid by the truck industry is not

adequate to cover the related pavement damage. Heavier trucks produce more damage and

consequently require more taxation for repair and replacement. As a result of this "political

war" an increase of 9.17 percent in the maximum vehicle load has been achieved during the

last five decades (Noel et al. 1985), and large discrepancies are observed in the tax share

paid by truck owners. In relation to the tax share paid by each FHWA vehicle classification,

the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study results show a negative equity ratio

between revenues and costs. The study presents the estimated cost burden for different

vehicle classes and registered weight groups for the Federal related program cost funded

from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) in 2000. Comparing these costs with the Federal user

fees paid per mile of travel using the same vehicle class and same year, it was found that the

ratio of the shares of revenues contributed by each vehicle class to the share of highway

costs are unbalanced. Pick-ups and vans have the largest over payment of any vehicle class.

Other vehicle classes in the aggregate that pay more than their fair share are 2-axle single

unit trucks, all truck-trailer combinations, and 5- and 6 axle twin trailer combinations.

However, 5-axle tractor semitrailers have the largest underpayment of any vehicle class,







77

followed by automobiles and 3-and 4-axle single unit trucks (USDOT, 1997). Appendix D

shows the breakdown of the 2000 Federal highway cost responsibilities and user fee

payments by vehicle class and weight group in cents per mile, and the percent cost share.

The truck traffic composition in Florida identifies 68% of the trucks as 5 -axle tractor

semitralers (WIM, 1998).

Traditionally, truck-operating costs are not disclosed by the truck industry on the

premise that it is internal information that is part of the negotiation process. Harrington

stated in his 1994 article that the University of Tennessee found a growing desire among

shippers for simpler, more predictable carrier pricing structures. Many are tired of the

mystery surrounding rates and pricing, and in fact find that mystery a hindrance in serving

their customers effectively (Harrington 1994). Some government agencies like the USDA

require a disclosure of the truck operating costs in their contracts. Other sources of

information are the income statement published by commercial carriers, and data from truck

associations. Probably part of this behavior of not displaying clear operating costs is to

protect themselves from higher taxation and extra labor costs.

7.1.5 Road Network Compatibility

The majority of the VOC studies made around the world are concerned with

discovering the relationship between highway design, pavement condition and road user

costs to be used in a transportation investment feasibility analysis. If the findings of these

studies are assumed to be applicable to the USA, with some simplifications of the formulas

developed, it is possible to generate costs for fuel, oil, tire wear and maintenance costs.

However, these studies were developed assuming compatibility between the roadway

network from developing countries with the USA roadway network. Since one of the







78

objectives of this research is to reduce the bias in the user cost calculation these studies will

not be valid for our investigation.

7.2 Running Costs Calculation Methodology

Truck running costs are those costs which are incurred solely when a vehicle is

operating. They have nothing to do with the costs of owning the vehicle or with the

expenses involved in running that transport business as a whole. They are classified as a

variable costs and they are comprised of the following four items: fuel, tires, maintenance,

and lubricants.

Under the vehicle costs classification there are costs which relate directly and solely

to individual vehicles, like licenses, insurance, drive labor, rent, interest and depreciation,

that are labeled as "standing costs"(Lowe, 1974).

All those expenses incurred in running a transport business, which cannot be

directly attributed to any individual vehicle, are labeled "overhead costs". All those

expenses incurred when the vehicle is running are labeled "running costs". The combination

of standing costs plus overhead costs and running costs are recognized by some sectors of

the truck industry as operating costs (Lowe, 1974).

7.3 Variable costs

Running costs are under the classification of vehicle variable costs as listed in Table

13. In reality what Pontis BMS requires is the marginal costs which is the additional cost of

running an extra kilometer, e.g. the variable costs.

In some cases, authors use the term "operating costs" with the same meaning as

running costs. There is not a consensus in the literature about the classification of variable

costs parameters for evaluation of vehicle operating costs.









Table 13. Vehicle Costs Classification Between Fix and Variable Costs

Fixed Costs Variable Costs
Licenses Fuel
Insurance Oil
Depreciation Tires
Rent Maintenance
Interest Tolls
Overhead Labor


7.3.1 Depreciation

Comparing old studies with recent ones, the main change observed is that

depreciation which was considered a variable cost in old studies, is being treated as a fixed

cost in recent studies.

Early studies include depreciation as a variable cost. However, it is noticed that it is

not included in the comprehensive VOC studies after 1987. Table 14 presents the

MicoBENCOST study as a recent study since it was published in 1993. However, the data

used to develop its VOC was based on an old study performed by Zaniewsk in Brazil for

the years 1975-1982. Today some carriers generate two weights for the same measurement.

One hypothetical example can clarify this point. Assume that company A starts a

transportation business with 100 new trucks with a policy to depreciate by mile, and to

replace the trucks when they reach the 400,000 miles. After a period of time (t) that is

defined by the minimum time allowed by the Internal Revenue Service for depreciation and

50% of the trucks really reached of 400,000+ miles and 50% reached only 200,000+ miles

in time (t). Technically speaking company A accrued depreciation costs for all 100 trucks as

expenses in order to maximize its profit. Further 50% of the fleet would subsequently have

zero depreciation in their operating costs.















Table 14. Variable Costs Assigned at Operating Vehicle Cost Studies

VOC study Misc. Labor Fuel Oil Tires Maint. Depr. Acc.
Winfrey, 1962 X X X X X
Welle, 1966 X X X X X
Clafey, 1971 X X X X X X
Zaniewski, 1982 X X X X X
OOM, 1986 X X X X X X
Chester & Harison, 1987 X X X X X
Witconis & Stadden, 1988 X X X X X
FHWA, 1991 X X X X X
USDA, 1991 X XX XX
MicroBENCOST, 1993 X X X X X
MCAR, 1997 X X X X X
Berwick, 1997 X X X X


Hypothetically if a company can extend the life of its trucks by careful maintenance,

working for a period of time with a totally depreciated vehicle, the level of profit will

increase assuming that the maintenance cost are keep under control. According to Ryder, a

large carrier, the operating costs at 500,000 miles were close to those at the million-mile

mark (Romba, 1995). In other words, trucks that experience large mileage per year generate

lower depreciation per mile, and trucks that experience low mileage per year generate

higher depreciation per mile. This policy increases operating costs if the truck is not

running, which is contrary to the standard classification of variable costs. For this reason

depreciation cannot be considered as part of the running costs. The National Accounting &

Finance Council classifies depreciation as a fixed cost (NAFC, 1994).









7.3.2 Labor Costs

The cost for labor was considered in the travel time cost evaluation, and for this

reason it will not be included in this section.

7.3.3 Miscellaneous Costs

Expenses under miscellaneous and other costs are those that do not fit in any other

accounting category. An investigation of log sheets designed to record cost per mile

expenses revealed that miscellaneous and other costs are related more to the driver's life-

style than with the equipment (Witconis and Stadden 1988). The cost per mile log sheet

published by the Overdrive Book Division & Randall publishing Co. provides a breakdown

of the variable costs and divides it into two parts. Variable costs (I) that are related to the

truck, and variable cost (II) that are not related to the truck. When a cost per mile log sheet

does not break down the variable costs into two parts, they list the costs associated with the

truck, and then list miscellaneous costs. From this observation we can conclude that

miscellaneous costs are those costs that are not related to the truck running costs.

7.3.4 Accident Costs

Only one study lists accident costs under vehicle operating costs. For Pontis BMS,

accident costs will be given a specific treatment. These costs are not treated as part of the

VOC costs. They will be discussed in the next chapter.

7.4 VOC Truck Customization

As mentioned before for PONTIS only the truck VOC is important. The values of

fuel, maintenance, oil and tires will be calculated. The weigh-in-motion (WIM) for Florida

during calendar year 1997 shows that 61.61% of the trucks that use the Florida road

network is class 9. Trucks under class 9 are identified as a 3-axle tractor +2-axle trailer, and







82

3-axle truck +2axle trailer. These vehicles have a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 80,000+

pounds. Vehicles, class 5 to 8 have a maximum GVW of 68,000 pounds. For the evaluation

of the average operating costs, it was assumed that the vehicles under class 5 to 8 would

not be required to detour at any bridge site. This is to say that 33.73% of the trucks from the

WIM study will not be classified as heavy trucks. Vehicle classes 10 to 13 are combination

tractors with a number of axles between five and more than seven with GVW ranging from

80,000 to 140,000 pounds. The percent of heavy trucks considered in this study was

calculated to be 92% as a five-axle -80,000 lbs., 7% as a seven axle- 87,000-97,500 lbs.,

and 1% as nine-axle- 80,000 to 113,500 lbs. (WIM, 1998).

7.4.1 Fuel Costs

Fuel costs are by far the trucker's largest variable expense. Cox indicates that the

driver can directly control the fuel consumption in four ways: reduce highway speed, reduce

idling, proper tire inflation and smart driving (Cox, 1996b). Engineers from Donaldson Co.

add to the Cox list some maintenance items like excessive exhaust back pressure or air

intake restrictions that can cause as much as 4% drop in the fuel economy. As a rule of

thumb (since it was not possible to trace the source of the named "fuel tests") for each 1-

mph increase above 55 mph, 1/10 gallon more fuel per mile is consumed. A truck at 65

mph, on the average, will get 1-mpg less than it does at 55 mph. Idling, particularly fast

idling, consumes up to 1 /2 gallon per hour, and according to the Maintenance Council

tests, under- inflated tires (70 psi vs. 100psi) can reduce fuel mileage between 1.5% and 3%

(HDT, 1990). Campbell points out that fuel purchased under credit plans can cost 6 to 12

cents more per gallon than fuel purchased under cash plans (Campbell 1991). According to

MacDonald (1993) if the drivers can run their trucks in the highest possible gear at all times









they will minimize the revolutions per minute, and will maximize mpg at the rate of 1-

gallon less fuel per hour (Macdonald 1993).

Kanapton (1981) developed an empirical equation for estimating unit vehicle inter-

city freight fuel consumption. It is a linear function of weight in which the constant term

represents the fuel consumed in moving the empty vehicle, and the variable term represent

the fuel required moving the payload:

GPVM= FFC + VFC (P) (21)

Where,

GPVM = is the average line-haul fuel consumption in gallons per vehicle mile.
FFC = is the fixed component of fuel consumption which is required to
overcome resistance of the tare weight and aerodynamic drag.
VFC = is the variable component of fuel consumption and is the additional fuel
required to move the payload.
P = is the payload

Jack Faucett Associates (1991) updated the Kanapton formula using a 65-mph speed

limit, and diesel fuel at $1.25 per gallon. One change was made to Kanapton's formulas:

they were modified so that they would be a function of the gross vehicle weight (GVW)

instead of a function of payload. Coefficients for fixed and variable costs were obtained for

four vehicle types (vans, flatbeds, tanks and dump trailers). The fuel cost per vehicle mile

was derived from 1988 dollars. The CPI index was used to update the data to 1998 dollars.

These are listed in Table 15 according to the number of axles and GWV.


Table 15. Estimated Cost for Fuel Per Mile by Truck Category

Axle/L GVW 000 TL Van Refrigerated Flat Bed Tank Hopper Dump
(lbs.) (CPM) Van (CPM) (CPM) (CPM) (CPM) (CPM)
5 axle twin 80 23.0 27.1 22.0 21.3 15.1 15.1
7 axle twin 80-97 23.7 28.8 23.1 22.8 16.1 16.1
9 axle twin 89,2 23.9 30.9*, 24.2*, 22.8*, 15.1*, 16.1*4









Calculated at GVW of: 1=13,500 lbs. *2=90,000 lbs. *3=80,000 lbs. *4=81,000 lbs.
Source: Adapted from Jack Faucett Associates (1991)

Using these percentages it was possible to evaluate the fuel cost per kilometer. The

methodology used was to calculate the average weighted value of each fuel cost listed in

table 15 and then split these values into six selected equipment types shown in Table C 1-

Appendix C. The results are show in Table 16.


Table 16. Fuel Costs Distribution by Equipment Type

Equipment type Percent Fuel Cost Totals
Per mile Cents/ Mile Cents /Km
TL Van 39.19 23.058 9.03643
Refrigerated 12.87 22.289 2.86859
Flat bed 23.19 22.099 5.12475
Tank 7.26 21.420 1.55509
Hopper 10.48 15.180 1.59086
Dump 7.21 15.131 1.06068
Grand Total 1 (1988 dollar value) 21.23642
Grand total 2 (1998 dollar value) 28.88506
Grand Total 3 (1998 cents-per-kilometer) 18.05316


7.4.2 Maintenance

The maintenance cost was calculated based on a formula from Jack Faucett and

Associates (1991) where a scaling procedure was used. The formula is weight sensitive and

is based on a gross vehicle weight of 58,000 pounds. At this level, a value of 10 cents per

vehicle mile is used, and for each 1,000 pounds increase in the GVW .097 cents is added.

The formula for maintenance is:

Maintenance Costs = 10 + [(GVW-58, 000)/1000] 0.097 (22)

Using the same percent of heavy trucks mentioned in section 7.10, the total of 12.4598

cents per mile was calculated as listed in Table 17.









Table 17. Maintenance Costs for Trucks- CPM/CPK

% truck GVW Equation 22 Total
Cents/mile Cents/Km
Composition (000) Cents/mile Cents/e
92.0 80 12.13 11.1596
07.0 97 13.78 1.1207
01.0 113.5 15.38 0.1795
Grand total 1 (1988 dollar value) 12.4598
Grand total 2 (1998 dollar value) 16.7001
Grand total 3 (1998 dollar value) 10.4377


7.4.3 Tires

Tire costs were derived from the Pace Report where truck expenses were reported

by 98 carriers in 1997 (TFM, 1998). A value of 3.5557 cents-per-mile was derived using

1987 dollars. Using the CPI index for 1998, the update value is 3.612303, which is

equivalent to 2.25765 cents-per-kilometer. The statistics with a 95% confidence level is

shown in Table 18.


Table 18. Tire Costs Descriptive Statistics--CPM and CPK

Descriptive Values Results
Mean 3.55570(CPM) 2.2576 (CPK)
Standard Deviation 3.37248
Standard Error Mean 0.34971
Upper 95 % Mean 4.25026
Lower 95 % Mean 2.86114
Number of entries 93


7.4.4 Oil Change

The majority of vehicle operating cost studies found in the literature includes oil

change under fuel. Cox (1997) reports the cost of 1 cent-per-mile after running 125,000









miles in a year. Using the CPI index for 1998, the update value is 1.016119, which is

equivalent to 0.6350 cents-per kilometer.

7.5 New CVv Value

Adding the costs of fuel, maintenance, tire and change oil in cents- per-kilometer,

using 1998 dollars, the sum in 31.3834 cents-per-kilometer which is the new CVv value for

Pontis. The composition of the total cost is listed in Table 19.


Table 19. New VOC Value for Pontis CV, Default Value

Variable Costs Cents per Kilometer
Fuel 18.0531
Maintenance 10.4377
Tire 2.2576
Oil Change 0.635
Total 31.3834















CHAPTER 8
BRIDGE RELATED ACCIDENT COSTS FOR FLORIDA

The new Average Accident Cost (AAC) default value developed by this research is

$68,404.39 per accident under the comprehensive approach (including social costs), and

$27,365.75 per accident under the economic approach. A total of 10,115 crashes were

considered which occurred on 4,505 bridges in Florida in 1996. The injury costs developed

by this research range from $3,014,525 to $8,815.72 per injury. They are shown in Table

20. The structure of this chapter is shown in Figure 8.


Table 20. Injury Costs by Injury Type--Year 1996

Injury Type Cost in 1996 Dollars
Approach Fatality Injury A Injury B Injury C
Comprehensive $3,014,525 $211,515.4 $45,927.2 $29,844.7
Economic $871,697.2 $49,294.19 $12,289.65 $8,815.72



8.1 Bridge Accident Cost Evaluation Methodology

8.2 Comprehensive Fatality and Injury Costs

8.2.1 Fatalities 8.2.2 Nonfatal Injuries

8.3 Conversion ofMAIS into ABC Classification
I
S 8.4 FDOT Crash Data Preparation

8.4.1 Matching Crashes to Bridges 8.4.2 Injuries in the Database

8.4.3 Eliminating Questionable Bridges

8.5 New Bridge Related Accident Average Cost: $68.404.39/Accident


Figure 8. Flow Chart for the Average Accident Costs Development









8.0 Background

According to several studies, bridge related accidents are more severe than other

roadway accidents (Chen and Johnston 1987, Turner 1984, Mitchie 1980, Hilton 1973).

The literature shows indices that measures the severity of bridge related accidents varying

from 2 to 50 times the severity of general roadway traffic accidents. It is difficulty to point

to the main cause of a bridge-related accident. One of the former studies on this subject

found that the average daily traffic (ADT), sharp curvature at approaches, and bridge width

had major effects on bridge related accidents (Raff, 1953). Another study correlates narrow

bridge roadway, width and curved approaches as the most important factors contributing to

accidents at bridges sites (Hilton, 1973). Empirical observations also have confirmed these

results. Recent example was the death of Princess Diana in a car accident that hit a bridge

structure (underpass) in France. The main point in establishing that bridge related accidents

rates are more severe than roadway accidents is that the higher the accident rate the higher

the user cost. According to Chen and Johnston (1987) the average cost of accidents

involving bridges was estimated to be 5 to 8 times the costs of general motor vehicle

accidents.

8.1 Bridge Accident Cost Evaluation Methodology

The number of bridge related accident occurring in Florida was evaluated using the

FDOT bridge accident database for 1996. The data was arranged in a spreadsheet using each

line to record an accident. If the accident occurred in a scenario where two or there bridges

were involved, an allocation factor was used to split the costs. For two bridges an

allocation factor of 0.5 was used, for three bridges the value was 0.33, and for four bridges

the value was 0.25.








There are four types of injury classifications in the database selected from the KABCO

classification listed in Table E-l, Appendix E. The KABCO injury scheme is designed for

police coding at the crash scene. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in

standard D-16.1 defines it.

Besides the injury classification for each accident, a correspondent property damage

is also reported in the FDOT database. A total of 10,015 bridge accidents were found for the

year 1996 in the FDOT database involving 4,505 bridges. The average cost of each accident

was calculated using Equation 23.

ABAC= (FC K + IAC A + IBC B + ICC C + PDO) AF (23)

Where,

ABAC = Average Bridge Accident Cost ($)
FC = Fatality Cost ($) (Research Resulted Value)
K = Number of fatalities (FDOT database)
IAC = Injury Type A cost ($)(Research Resulted Value)
A = Number of Injury A (FDOT database)
IBC = Injury Type B cost ($)(Research Resulted Value)
B = Number of Injury B (FDOT database)
ICC = Injury type C cost ($) (Research Resulted Value)
C = Number of Injury C (FDOT database)
POD = Property damage Only value ($) (FDOT database)
AF = Appropriation Factor (FDOT database)

8.2 Comprehensive Fatality and Injury Costs

The latest comprehensive study about fatality and injury costs is based on 1994 data

prepared by Blincoe (1996), which has its roots in the studies prepared by Miller (1991,

1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995, 1995b, 1995c). The Blincoe study covers 1994 motor vehicle

crashes, where 40,676 people were killed, 5.2 million were injured and 27 million vehicles

were damaged. The estimated cost of these motor vehicle crashes was $150.5 billion.

Death, injury and property damage caused by these crashes were the major

contributions to the financial loss to victims, their families and to society at large.

Included in these costs are: lost productivity; medical costs; legal and court costs;




Full Text

PAGE 1

USER COST CUSTOMIZATION FOR A FLORIDA BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM By ROBERTO SOARES A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1999

PAGE 2

Dedication to my wife Consuelo and my three children Roberto Alessandro and Andrea

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely grateful to Dr. Najafi the chairman of my committee who has given me his continuous support, guidance and encouragement throughout my career at the University of Florida The proposal of the Bridge Management System to Florida Department of Transportation was originally initiated by Dr Najafi which has provided me with an opportunity to conduct this dissertation work I am also grateful to Dr. Thompson for his guidance and constant support throughout my career at the University of Florida. A sincere and wholehearted appreciation is extended to my committee members Dr. Shrestha Dr. Glagola and Dr Foti for their wise guidance in the work of this dissertation. I extend appreciation to the National Highway Institute (NHI) for selecting me as the 1998 recipient of the Eisenhower Fellowship Grant for their fellowship during my research I offer special thanks to all library personnel at the University of Florida at the Department of Transportation in Washington DC and at the American Truck Association in Virginia and to the personnel who helped me locate specific material during my research With all my heart I give very special thanks for the support received from m y family; and above all I thank God for providing me protection and care. lll

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES ................ .. ... ........... ix ABSTRACT ......... .. ......... . .... .... .. ... X CHAPTERS INTRODUCTION ... .......... . ..... ..... .... ......... .. ... 1 1.1. BMS Development ..... ........... .................... .. ... 2 1.2. What is BMS in Pontis ...... ... ... . ... .. .... .. ... ...... 6 1.3. Focussing on Pontis ..... ........ .............. ... ... ... .. .... 9 PROBLEM STATEMENT . ..... ... ... ... .... ..... .. . .. .. 10 2.1 Problem .... ....... ........... ....... ... ......... .. .. ... 10 2.2 Survey ......... ............................. ...... ....... 10 2 3 User Cost Need ..... ........................ .. .. ... ........ .. 11 2.4 Surplus Theory on User Cost ..................... .. ... .. .... 1 2 2.5 User Cost Weight Factor .............. .. ............. ... .. .. ... 13 2.6 Pontis Default Values Origin .............. .. .. .... ...... .. .. .. 14 2. 7 Statement of the Hypothesis .......... ..... ............. ... .. .. 15 2.8 Validation .......... ..... ... . ... ... ........ .. ... ... 16 LITERATURE REVIEW ................ ................ .... .. .. .. .. ... 17 3 .1 Accidents ... .......... .. .. ... ... . ... ... .. ... ............. 18 3.2UserCosts ................ ........... ......... .. .... ........ 21 3.3 Economic Evaluation ....... ..... ........... ......... .. ... 24 3.4 BMS ........................ . . ..... ..... .. .. .. ..... 25 3 5 Remaining Relevant Entries ....... ..... ...... ... .... .. ... . 26 PONTIS BMS BASIC CONCEPTS ..... .. .......... ... ...... .. .... .. 27 4.1 Pontis Databas .... ... ....................... .. .. .. ... ...... 28 4.2 Prediction Models ............ ........... .... ... ....... ... 31 4.3 Cost Models .. ... ........................ .... .. .. .... ... 3 3 4.4 Program Integration Model .. .. .......... ... ....... .. ... 38 PONTIS USER COSTS MATHEMATICAL MODEL ...... ..... .... .. .. ... .. 41 5.1 Benefits and User Costs ......... . ......... .. .. ... .. ..... 41 5.2 FDOT Default Values Policy ..... . . ........ .. ... .. ..... 42 lV

PAGE 5

5.3 User Cost Models ....... ..... ... .. .......... ..... .. ... .... 44 5.4 Benefit of Widening ........ ...... ......... .. ..... ..... .... 45 5.5 Benefits of Raising .. ........ .............. ..... .. .... .... 47 5.6 Benefit of Strengthening ........................ .... ... ...... .. .. 47 5. 7 Benefits of Replacement .................. ..... ......... .. ... 48 5 8 Detour Cost ... .. ... .. ..... .. ..... .. ..... ... .. .... ... 50 5.9 Application Example ... ..... ... .... ... .... .... ..... ... .. .... 50 TRAVEL TIME COSTS FOR BMS ........... ................. ... ... ... 55 6.1 Background ... .... ............................ .... ..... 55 6.2 Theoretical Basis for Travel Time Evaluation ........ ... ... ...... ... 57 6 3 Percent Wage Index Analysis .................... ....... .. .. ... 59 6.4 Comparing Travel Time Values ... .............. ... ........... .. .. 64 6.5 Non Business Travel Time ....... ............... ... ... .. .. ...... 65 6.6 Business Travel Time .... .. .................. .. ........ .. ... .. 66 6. 7 Value of One Hour Travel Time .................. ............ .. ... 69 6 8 Truck Travel Time Cost for Florida .............. ............... .. 71 A VERA GE VEIDCLE OPERA TING COSTS FOR BMS ....... ... .. .. .. ... .. 72 7.1 VOC Related Factors .............. ................ .. .. ... ... 73 7.2 Running Costs Calculation Methodology ............ .. ........ .. ... 78 7.3 Variable costs .... .... ............................. ....... ... 78 7.4 VOC Truck Customization ....... .. .. .... .. .... .. ... ... .. .. ... 82 7.5 New CV v Value ......... .. .... ...... .. .. .. .. ... ... ....... 86 BRIDGE RELATED ACCIDENT COSTS FOR FLORIDA ... .. .... .. .. .. .... 87 8.0 Background ... ......... ...................... ...... .. .. ... .. 88 8 1 Bridge Accident Cost Evaluation Methodology ..... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. 88 8.2 Comprehensive Fatality and Injury Costs .... .... .... .. .. ... ... 89 8.3 Conversion of MAIS into ABC Classification ......... .. .... .. .. .. ... 91 8.4 FDOT Crash Data Preparation . ...................... ......... 92 8 5 Bridge Related Accident Average Cost .. .. ...... .. .. ... .. ... .. .. 95 PONTIS USER COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .. .... ........... ....... 97 9.0 Background ....... ......... .... ........ .. .... .. ... .. ... ... .. 98 9 .1 Parameters Definitions . .. .. ............... .... .... .. ... 99 9 .2 Scenarios for Simulation ............................. .. .......... 100 9.3 Comparing Results From Basis 1 and Basis 2 ... .... .. .. .......... 105 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... .... .. .... .. ... 108 10.1 Conclusions .... .. ............ ......... .... ... .. ... .. 108 10.2 Recommendations ............................ .... ... ... ... .. 109 APPENDICES V

PAGE 6

PONTIS OUTPUT REPORTS .. ............. ..... .. .. .. ... 111 FDOTPONTIS DEFAULT VALUES POLICY ...... .. .. ....... 113 EQUIPMENT AND COMMODITY CARRIER TYPES ....... .. 116 YEAR 2000 FEDERAL HIGHWAY COST AND FEE RESPONSIBILITIES ... .. .. ..... .. .... .. ... ... 118 KABCO INJURY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION ....... .. .. 119 CONVERSION OF MAIS INTO ABC INJURY COSTS TABLES ... 121 SPREADSHEET SAMPLES OF BRIDGE ACCIDENT EVALUATIOl-24 voe EVALUATION FOR CARS VANS AND LIGHT TRUCKS .. 126 REFERENCES .... .. .. .. ... .... ... .. ... .. ... 129 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......... .. ...... .. ... 143 Vl

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES 1. Comparison of the Main Attributes Between Pontis and Bridgit BMS Models .... 6 2. Comparative Types of User Costs in North Carolina, Indiana and Pontis BMS Models ...... .. ........ .. ..... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. .. ..... 8 3 Average Number of Traffic Fatalities per Each Weekday--1975-1995 .. ..... 19 4 Travel Time Cost--Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Miller Approach ... .. ... 24 5. Travel Time Cost-Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Zaniewski Approach .. .. .. 24 6. Pontis Definition of Bridge Element s Environment ... ..... .. .... .. ... .. 30 7 Basic Inventory Information for Each Bridge ...... ... ..... .. .. .. ..... 32 8. Bases for the Need and Benefit Calculations on Improvement Projects .. ... .. 38 9. Cost Matrix Values Adopted by FDOT .. .. ... .. .. ........ .. .. .. .. 42 10 Composite Listing of Update Travel Time Costs ..... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. 65 11. Value of One Hour Travel Time for Business and Non-Business Trips by Vehicle Category ..... .. ......... .. ... .... ... .. .. ........ .. 69 12. Research Result Value for TIC ........ ... .. ... ..... .. ....... .. .... 71 13 Vehicle Costs Classification Between Fix and Variable Costs ................ 79 14 Variable Costs Assigned at Operating Vehicle Cost Studies .... ...... ... .. 80 15. Estimated Cost for Fuel Per Mile by Truck Category .. ... ... .... .. ... 84 16. Fuel Costs Distribution by Equipment Type ...... . ... ... .... .. ..... 84 17. Maintenance Costs for TrucksCPM/CPK ...... ....... .. .. ........ .. 85 18 Tire Costs Descriptive Statistics--CPM and CPK .. .... ... ..... .. .... 86 19. New VOC Value for Pontis CV v Default Value .... . .. .... ..... .. ... 86 Vil

PAGE 8

20. Injury Costs by Injury Type--Year 1996 .......... ................ .. .... 87 21. Comprehensive Injury Costs, Years 1994 and 1996 ....... .. ............... 92 22. Economic Injury Costs, Years 1994 and 1996 ............................ 92 23. Bridge Related Accident Unit Costs, for Florida ........... .............. 96 24. User Cost Default from Pontis and Research Result Values .... ............ 99 25. Benefit Percent Change Due to User Costs Percent Change Under Different Scenarios (Using Pontis Default Values) ........................ ..... 102 26. User Cost Sensitivity Ranking Against% changes in Benefit-"Basis 1" -(Using Pontis Default Values) .............. ....... ......... ..... ... 103 27. User Cost Sensitivity Ranking Against% Changes in Benefits-"Basis 2" -(Using Research Resulted Default Values) .. .......................... 104 28. Benefit Percent Change Due to User Costs Percent Change Under Different Scenarios--Basis 2--(Using Research Resulted Default Values) .. .......... 105 29. User Costs Variability Under two Different Calculation Basis ... .......... 106 30. Car, Vans and Small Trucks VOC Values ................. ............ 110 31. Travel Time Costs for Auto, and Five Truck Types ... .. .. ............... 11 O Vlll

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Consumers Surplus For One Period .... ..... .. .. .. .. ... . .. ... 13 2. Data Treatment Flowchart ... ..... ................... ...... .. ...... 27 3. Overall BMS Structure .. .............. ... ................. .... 28 5 Data Flows in Preservation Modeling .............. ... ... ... .. ... .. .. 35 6. Flow Chart for BMS TTC Development ... . ... ... ..... .... ... 56 7 Flow Chart for BMS VOC Development ..... ..... .. ..... .. .. .. .. ...... 72 8 Flow Chart for the Average Accident Costs Development ... .... .... .. .. ... 87 9 Flow Chart for User Cost Sensitivity Analysis ... ............... .. ... ..... 97 lX

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy USER COST CUSTOMIZATION FOR A FLORIDA BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM By Roberto Soares August 1999 Chairperson: Fazil T. Najafi Major Department: Civil Engineering Department Bridge Management Systems (BMS) are tools developed to help decision makers to prioritize projects that gives the highest benefit/cost ratio, where benefits are road user cost benefits. They are identified by the savings achieved in not spending travel time (TT) and vehicle operating costs (VOC) doing a detour, and reducing the risk of bridge related accidents. The state of Florida plus 38 states adopted the BMS Pontis to manage their bridge inventory. The hypothesis of this dissertation is that values benchmarked from other areas are not suitable to replicate the Florida reality. In order to prove this hypothesis a multi step methodology was used including bridge-related accident cost using data from 11,332 bridge related accidents which occurred in 1996, sensitivity analyses, using 524 bridges under 39 different scenarios, modeled by Pontis-BMS version 3.4. The original user cost default values in Pontis are: $37,600 for each bridge related accident (CJ; $0.25 per kilometer for VOC costs (Cv), and $19.34 per hour for travel time (CJ. X

PAGE 11

The findings of this research show the need to raise the Pontis-BMS user cost default value rates to 45 05 24.0 and 16.6 percent respectively for accident costs VOC per kilometer costs and travel time values. The new values are $68,404.39 for C a; $0.3138 for C v, and $22.55 for C 1 The Project Attractiveness Index (PAI) measured by the benefit/cost ratio increased 25 96 % with the use of the new user cost parameters Sensitivity analyses showed that detour per kilometer is the most sensitive parameter followed by the detour per hour and finally the average bridge related accident cost parameter. Using the new default values in place of the old ones deficient bridges that are related with accidents receive a higher prioritization order to be fixed giving to decision-makers the possibility to reduce bridge accident risk. Xl

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The objective ofthis dissertation is to develop three new users cost default values to be used in a Bridge Management System (BMS) software known as Pontis. The users cost default values are named Travel Time Costs (TTC) Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) and Average Accident Costs (AAC) Chapter I presents BMS and why Pontis BMS was selected in this research. Chapter 2 presents reasons why it is necessary to develop a new set of user costs default parameters to be used in Pontis, applicable to Florida BMS The reasons are the framework for the hypothesis set in this dissertation Chapter 3 is the literature review focusing on the relevant information related to user cost parameters to be used in the Florida BMS model. Chapter 4 presents the Pontis basic concepts and the models and their interactions used to optimize BMS. Chapter 5 discusses how the user models are used in BMS to quantify in economic terms the potential safety and mobility benefits of functional improvement and elimination of deficiencies to bridges A hypothetical example is offered showing the evaluation of total benefits Chapter 6 discusses TIC and the methodology used to develop a TTC parameter under BMS. A predictive mathematical model and the generation of a new TTC are presented in this chapter. Chapter seven discusses VOC and the methodology used to develop a VOC parameter. A predictive mathematical model and the generation of a new VOC are presented in this chapter. Chapter 8 presents bridge-related accident costs and the methodology used to I

PAGE 13

develop a Florida bridge related AAC parameter. A predictive mathematical model and the generation of a new AAC value are presented in this chapter. Chapter 9 presents a sensitivity analysis study comparing the original set of Pontis user cost default values with the new set of user cost default values developed in this research The results of the sensitivity analysis study confirm or negate the hypothesis in this research. Chapter 10 presents the conclusions and the recommendations derived from this research. The main conclusion is that the developed default user cost values are suitable to Florida BMS to prioritize projects and to allocate funding to improve Florida bridges. 1 1. BMS Development 2 New York State can be considered the pioneer in BMS studies using main-frame computers. Others states also developed BMS studies However the one from North Carolina can be considered the most documented BMS developments using personal computers started by the middle of the 1980 s resulting in the Bridgit and Pontis BMS software. This research focuses on the BMS Pontis software because FDOT uses it. The AASHTO Transportation glossary defines BMS as a system designed to optimize the use of available resources for the inspections maintenance and replacement of bridges (AASHTO 1994b ). The United States has by far the largest number of bridges in the world: 600 000 as compared to second-place Germany with 160 000 (National Bridge Inventory NBI 1998). Considering that most bridges built in the past were designed for a service life of 50 years this lead s one to conclude that bridges constructed before 1960 are at the end of their service life. T his also indicates that there will be growing replacement needs for

PAGE 14

those structures and a growing need for deck repair and replacement for the bridge population constructed during the 1960s (Amrhein 1977). State Highway Agencies (SHA) responsible for managing the nation s bridges must use limited funds as wisely as possible. A Bridge Management System (BMS) can help SHA evaluate current and future conditions needs and determine the best mix of maintenance and improvement work on the bridge network over time with and without budget limitations. 3 According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO 1993) the genesis of BMS is linked with the establishment of the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) in the 1970s The purpose of the NBI was to inform Congress of the status of the nation s bridges define the magnitude of bridge needs support national bridge inspection standards and provide for defense information needs. The Federal Government required that every bridge on public roads and larger than 6 30 meters (20 feet) in total length be described in a national database Legislation ( CFR 1988) also required that bridges be inspected and evaluated at regular intervals not to exceed two years following the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS 1995) Scholars (Tuner and Richardson 1994) and practitioners (Shirole et al. 1994 ) link the pre-genesis of BMS with the Silver Bridge collapse in 1967 between Point Pleasant West Virginia and Galllipolis Ohio that killed 46 people (Mair 1982). This disaster was highly publicized and drew attention to the aging condition of the nation s bridges. As ofNo v ember 1995 the United States had over 590 000 bridges of which about 100 000 of these bridges were built prior to 1935. Nearly 187 504 bridges are classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete due to the increase of legal

PAGE 15

4 weight loads and traffic volumes combined with the effects of weather and chemicals The budget needed to remedy the national bridge deficiencies is projected to be over $ 80 billion or an average cost of over $ 426 000/bridge (BRM 1995) The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Bridge Inventory 1977 Annual Report shows a total bridge inventory of 11 156 (Amrhein 1977) bridges and a recent publication shows a sample of 941 bridges in Florida with functional needs at an average projected cost of over $212 000/bridge to overcome these needs (Thompson et al. 1998) The difference of over $200,000/bridge between the average national cost and the average Florida cost to overcome the bridge needs is mainly due to the degree of uncertainty in the forecasted national value and the results of an aggressive maintenance program to extend the useful life of Florida bridges thereby minimizing the need to replace a large number of bridges within a short period of time. However shortage of funds forced public officials administrators and bridge engineers to learn how to manage limited funds as wisely possible. By the 1980s many states started to address the problem shown by NBI by developing new analytical methods and procedures to allocate funds among different types of problems to overcome the bridge network deficiencies Wisconsin (H y man and Hughes 1983) North Carolina (Niessner 1979) Pennsylvania (Krugler 1985 ), New York (Wade and Larder 1973) Kansas (Kulkarni et al 1984) and Indiana (Youngtae and Sinha 1997 ) were the pioneers in developing customized Bridge Management Systems (BMS) using mainframe computers The purpose of a BMS is to combine

PAGE 16

management, engineering and economic inputs in to determine the best actions that can be taken on a network over time. 5 By the middle of the 1980s, many states had independently come to the conclusion that they needed better bridge management tools and the national efforts began to converge. Two competing projects were formed one by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and one by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The FHW A project began with a series of 49 workshops held around the nation that resulted in the 1992 release of Pontis (Thompson and Shepard 1994) five years later the 3 2 version of Pontis was released and by August 1998 the 3 .4 v ersion of Pontis was released. A new version of Pontis is expected by the year 2000. The NCHRP conducted a stud y known as Report 300 (NCHRPR 1987) From this report the panel o v erseeing the project decided to produce a software package which followed the principles outlined in Report 300. This resulted in the 1995 release of Bridgit ( Lipkus 1994). The main differences between the features of Pontis and Bridgit with respect to analysis policy and optimization are listed on Table 1. The ability of Pontis to prov i de analysis at a network level seems to be the main reason why universities and consultants strongly recommend the use of Pontis to SHAs Both BMS's use the principle of a systematic analysis of expected benefits and costs as prescribed by Executive Order 12893 Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments (F.R. 1994). However at the national level 39 states were Pontis subscribers (Pontis 1998b) as of May 1 1998 Florida is in the advanced stage of Pontis implementation in their BMS.

PAGE 17

6 Table 1. Comparison of the Main Attributes Between Pontis and Bridgit BMS Models Attributes Pontis Bridgit Analysis Level Network Level and Project Project Level Level Policy Policy Optimization Subjective Policy Choices Optimization Top-Down Application of Botton-up Aggregation to Approach Policies to Project Needs System Wide 1.2. What is BMS in Pontis BMS is a complex set of formal procedures for analyzing bridge data which provides information from which to recommend project prioritization and schedules considering budget and policy constraints The Pontis analytical software is only one part of the minimum BMS requirements. It requires data input generated from the output of the bridge inspection process the physical inventory traffic and accident data cost models deterioration models definitions and policies The software analyzes the data at different levels of analysis and action categories The output that monetizes the needs is presented into two main categories: Agency Costs and User Costs Agency costs are the amount of funds required for maintenance and repairs rehabilitation and bridge replacement. User Costs are known as the benefits received by the user when a bridge deficiency is removed (NHI 1996). The cost side of the BMS (Agency Costs), is accepted almost without controvers y The benefit side of the BMS (User Costs) traditionally is not considered in the bridge investment decision process. The scarcity of adequate methodology available to evaluate bridge user costs with accuracy and the lack of a clear understanding of the role of the bridge user costs are probably the main factors that support this tradition. Although the

PAGE 18

7 user costs generated by bridge deficiencies are not paid or assumed directly by government the public is both the user and the ultimate owner of the bridge. Thus the user costs generated by bridge deficiencies as well as the ownership costs associated with bridge maintenance rehabilitation and replacement should be considered in the decision making process for bridge improvement. Today s society has a clear understanding of this concept and for this reason they have a legitimate right to demand from public officials the use of a scientific approach instead of the political approach in decisions that in v olve taxpayers money. The term user cost in the BMS output means road users out of pocket money spent to overcome bridge deficiencies. In the BMS economic analysis it is named user benefits since the users are saving in vehicle operating costs travel time costs and accident costs Federal Legislation (F R ., 1994) demanded a systematic analysis of expected benefits and costs where benefits and costs should be quantified and monetized to the maximum extent possible. SHA (FDOT 1997) estimates that user costs are ten times larger than agency costs If this estimate is true it is envisioned that future refinement in BMS decision making process will challenge the actual status quo of the SHA users. The theoretical basis for the methodology for economic analysis using user cost was initially presented in the 1960 AASHTO Report Road User Benefit Anal y ses for Highway Investments (AASHTO 1960) ," and updated by the 1977 ASHTO publication A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements (AASHTO 1977 )" known as the Red Book." Besides the fact that both publications

PAGE 19

present a procedure to develop a methodology to conduct highway user economic analyses for highway improvements, the publications do not address properly the BMS user cost issue. The later presented more clarity for the BMS design development observed in the decade of 1980. The Pontis BMS was the only one that followed the theoretical basis recommended by the "Red Book" as a base to develop the user costs dedicated for BMS. Its basic model of bridge user costs has three components. These are travel time costs (TTC), vehicle operating costs (VOC), and average accident costs (AAC), as shown in Equation 1. The Indiana BMS model and the North Carolina BMS model do not consider all user cost parameters as indicated in Table 2. User Costs= TTC+VOC+AAC (1) Table 2. Comparative Types of User Costs in North Carolina, Indiana, and Pontis BMS Models North Types of User Costs Indiana Carolina Pontis (Son et al., (Johnston et (Pontis, 1996) al., 1994) 1997) Yes No Yes No Yes No Detour costs due to load restrictions X X X Detour costs due to vertical clearance X X X Travel costs due to load restrictions X X X Travel costs due to vertical clearance X X X Narrow width X X x* Accident costs due to narrow width X X Accident costs due to vertical clearance X X Accident costs due to poor alignment X X *Included m the accident cost mathematical model 8

PAGE 20

9 The implementation processes for Pontis BMS generally creates a need for the SHAs to re-engineer the active process related to bridges including clear definitions and required integrated actions between all the stakeholders of the process. As mentioned before users are by definition the ultimate owners of the bridge and for this reason the benefit side of the software should always be considered in the decision making process However Pontis allows practitioners to modulate the cost weight in the range of 0-100 % during the evaluation of the agency costs. This provision is to conform to the level of certainty that each practitioner or decision-maker has about user costs. The confidence level in dealing with user costs when compared with agency costs is low. 1.3. Focussing on Pontis Because Pontis is already installed and operational in Florida, research is necessary to improve components of the user cost model, providing a roadmap for the agency to supplement its existing data resources in the future to ensure continued improvement in the effectiveness of the models. This research has the objective to fulfill this need and will focus on user cost parameters to be used in the Florida Bridge Network (FBN) system assuming that the agency costs to run BMS software is in good standing A recent survey (University of Florida, 1998) was conducted with all 50 states to try to find ongoing studies that might not yet have been published relating to BMS user costs. No such studies were found which reinforces the need for this research.

PAGE 21

CHAPTER2 PROBLEM STATEMENT 2 1 Problem The objective of this dissertation is to develop a new set of user cost default parameters (TTC VOC, and AAC) to be used in Pontis BMS in Florida. The main problem was that the FDOT BMS team during the implementation of PONTIS BMS first recognized that the default user cost values used in Pontis is not applicable to Florida and for this reason they funded UF to conduct a user cost study (FDOT 1997). The second motive that led to pursue this research was framed by the Highway Capacity Manual which states that traffic conditions are a function of the roadway conditions the environment and the driver behavior (HCM, 1994). In another words it is not safe to state that user cost parameters developed for bridge network from state A is applicable to the bridge network of state B. The third motive was the result of the survey between all 50 states which confirmed the need to develop new BMS user cost parameters The following sections detail the problem and the justifications to develop a new set of user costs default values for Florida 2 2 Survey The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) funded the University of Florida (UF) to perform a research study to develop user cost models for the 10

PAGE 22

11 Department's implementation of AASHTOWare Pontis. One of the tasks of this research was to conduct a survey of all 50 SHAs to find out how many states are using user cost in their decision making related to their BMS. From 72% overall response 83.3 % have not undertaken any work to develop user cost model factors for their BMS implementation Fifty percent (50%) of the respondents have requested additional information on how to formulate and apply the user cost model efficiently 55.5% are concerned with truck factors related with BMS, 48.2% are concerned with bridge related crashes 13.8% are concerned with bridge work zone related costs and 11.1 % are concerned with bridge deck roughness related costs The results of this survey confirmed the need for this research with the UF research team Furthermore according to Wall and Smith (1998) user cost rates and cost rate assigned to user delay (i e. the value of time) are by far the most controversial Gillespie (1998) states that the state-of-the-art calculation of vehicle operating cost is still ill defined and that the state-of-the-art in estimating accident costs is undergoing rapid change. 2.3 User Cost Need The use of user costs as a tool to perform economic evaluations for highway projects historically was never a popular choice among decision-makers. The need to select user costs as an economic tool in the economic evaluation of transportation projects emerged from increasing public scrutiny or hostility concerns with the environment and legal requirements to avoid undesirable effects to the society. User costs for road users have existed since 1920. However the user costs parameter for BMS models came into practice in the 1990's and today it is still being

PAGE 23

12 refined. There is a real need to increase the knowledge about the importance of user cost in the economic evaluation of bridge related investments Pontis employs user cost models to primaril y set priorities since absolute need is established by the use of le v el of-service standards. The FDOT objective is to remove bias on the existing Pontis user cost model. The FDOT desires to develop a new FDOT user cost model applicable to Florida condition 2.4 Surplus Themy on User Cost The surplus theory states that bridge improvements bring benefits to the users. In other words user costs will be decreased if bridges are maintained regularly and properly Service is defined as the design le v el of service (LOS) which is considered the basis for an economic engineering analysis. When a bridge develops a deficiency that generates restriction in traffic flow this disservice generates a user cost increase. Figure 1 shows the consumer surplus for one period. The estimate of the net user benefits of a bridge improvement is represented by the area U 0 ABU 1 where a bridge improvement will reduce the user costs that would have been U 0 to u, and the traffic volume is expected to increase from the base level V O to V 1 The formula for consumer surplus is (U 0 U ) (V 0 + V ) / 2 or the difference in user costs times the average traffic volume. This formula can be shown to be the total benefits to new users plus benefits to present users as follows : Benefits to present users (area U 0 AC U,) = (U 0 U, ) V 0 Benefits to new users (area ABC)= (U 0 U 1 ) (V V 0 ) / 2 Total Benefits = (U 0 U,) V 0 + (U 0 U ) (V V 0 ) / 2 Total Benefits = (U 0 U,) (V 0 + V 1 ) / 2

PAGE 24

USER COST U o .,,,,, B e nefit s to Ex i s tin g Us ers C .,..,--------D emand for one Period ,,,,--------"Surplus" Benefits to New Users ,/ AV TRAFFIC VOLUME PER PERIOD Figure 1. Consumers' Surplus For One Period 13 User costs at the level U 0 are the costs that the traveling public is experiencing for travel over a bridge that is operating with a volume deficit of I),, V due to bridge deficiencies. These correspond to a low LOS that causes a reduced traffic volume ofV 0 User costs at the level U I are the costs that bridge users are experiencing after the bridge improvement where its LOS has been improved offering an increase in traffic volume corresponding to V 1 2 5 User Cost Weight Factor The consumer surplus theory provides adequate support to user costs benefits and BMS practitioners accept this fact. What they question are the user costs parameters used in the mathematical models developed to evaluate the user costs benefits magnitude These parameters are specifically the values assigned to travel time costs vehicle operatin g costs and accident costs. The lack of an adequate methodology to develop these cost parameters has led to a large range of user cost values allowing decision makers the possibility of using

PAGE 25

vague values which may result in wrongfully prioritizing bridges for maintenance work. This approach was the main reason in lowering the state highway engineer s and project annalist s credibility who relied on vague values of user cost parameters. In order to improve this situation the BMS AASHTOWare Pontis allows practitioners to select the weight of user costs benefits according to the credibility assigned by each practitioner for user cost values used The weight range selection varies from O to 100 percent (Pontis 1997a). 14 This observed level of variability of user costs in BMS could have several plausible justifications. One can be the methodology used in the development of user cost parameters actually used in BMS applications. For example, travel time costs were developed to be used in urban traffic demand forecast studies where the focus is travel time savings, which is totally different from BMS Vehicle operating costs were developed with emphasis on passenger cars and BMS requires focus on trucks. Accident costs were developed with emphasis on roadway accidents as a general rule, not focusing on bridge-related accidents 2.6 Pontis Default Values Origin There is a need for the use of user cost parameters in Pontis BMS software to perform the benefit cost analysis on each bridge in the network on which a deficiency was located during the inspection. However Pontis BMS practitioners are not confident about the correctness of the user cost values used as default values: ($19 34 / hr for detour per hour ; $.25/Km for detour per kilometer ; and an average of $37 600.00 per accident). The Pontis documentation does not outline how these values were developed and from were they came According to one officer from the FHW A Bridge Management Division Mr. Romack the SHA members that participated in the development of Pontis offered these

PAGE 26

15 values which are the ones that normally are used at their agencies to evaluate transportation projects. The first version of Pontis used an average accident cost default value of$ 14 000 per accident which is based on California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) data for 1990 (Pontis 1993). This figure has increased to $17,900 as of 1995, (Pontis 1997a) and to $37 600 as of 1998 Pontis (1998a) The sources from where the VOC and TIC default values came from were not identified. At the time of the Pontis development the accuracy of the default values to be used in the Pontis mathematical models was not a main concern of the Pontis developers Each SHA representative believed that the values developed by their agency were the right ones, and for this reason it was provided a factor weight (W) in which each practitioner adjusted the default values. Based on this scenario a hypothesis for this research was created 2 7 Statement of the Hypothesis Current user costs parameters used as default values in Pontis BMS mathematical models that were benchmarked from other areas are not suitable to evaluate user cost benefits for the Florida bridge network. A specific and customized development of user cost parameters is required for Pontis BMS application considering local SHA policies All mathematical models of the BMS software AASHTOWare Pontis will be assumed to be appropriate with the exemption of the default values for travel time vehicle operating costs and accident costs The conceptual fran1ework ofBMS will be established and used as criteria to evaluate the suitability of the user cost parameter to satisfy the needs of the BMS framework applicable to Florida. The analysis of the theoretical basis for each parameter is discussed in chapters 6 7 and 8 and the results were used as criteria to establish the development of the user cost

PAGE 27

16 parameter. Each user cost parameter must satisfy BMS needs and the Florida DOT policies while confirming that systematic bias does not exist when using Pontis and making decisions for project selections for replacement or repair work and maintenance. The degree of hierarchy between two available parameter selections will be in the following order : local data --first choice ; other state data--second choice; national data--third choice; and international data--fourth choice. 2.8 Validation The mechanics of the BMS Pontis software are not being questioned in this study. What is being questioned is the quality of the user cost parameters used in the software Pontis software will be used to validate the quality of the user cost parameters that will come from this investigation This validation will be performed though a sensitivity analysis where user cost data from this study will be used as new user cost default values for the software. Another sensitivity analysis will be performed using the original user cost default values and then a comparative study will be performed to define the variability of each set of data.

PAGE 28

CHAPTER3 LITERATURE REVIEW There is a scarcity of literature sources about BMS probably due to the fact that BMS is relatively new The strategy used to collect data relative to BMS was to search the literature under eight main entries in a cross-reference with bridges. The entries used were: Accidents; User Costs ; Economic Evaluation ; BMS ; Inspection; Maintenance and Rehabilitation ; Technical Issues ; and Others. A form was created to record each entry with the abstract of their contents the importance for the project comments and evaluation and references. During the first six months of the literature review process a total of 72 entries led to 1 571 references. With this literature review start-up it became evident that only two BMS systems are in the process of implementation in the USA and one in the discussion process In the world only four BMS systems were located in the phase of discussion (three in Europe and one in South America) Another fact learned was about the quality of the abstracts In the majority of the abstracts related to BMS the authors overemphasized the contents of their studies promising solutions for a common problem in all BMS that of calculating the user costs in BMS environments A majority of the BMS related studies only mention that it is possible to evaluate the user costs However they do not displa y how and do not show the values of user costs parameters. The abstract summary of each category entry provides an overview of the BMS related issues leading to the selection of the three main issues of this research. The rele v ant issues found under each category are outlined below. 17

PAGE 29

18 3 .1 Accidents One of the entries classified as highly relevant was the Blincoe ( 1996 ) stud y, The E conomic Costs of Motor Vehicle Crashes 1994 This was the first study that presented evidence to support the value of $2 854 500 for a life. For this research the higher cost values for fatality and injury we can use will contribute more to the economic ju s tification process of the BMS North Carolina uses the value of $1 500 000 per life for fatality costs using the willingness-to-pay approach. Additionally the Blincoe study supports the highest cost value for life found in the literature. Blincoe points out that it can be even higher than what he reported. Kragh Miller Reinert (1986) stress the importance of evaluating social costs under the classification of indirect accident costs. Under the two existing approaches to determine accident costs (Human Capital and Willingness-to-pay ) only the later considers psycho social costs. It represents 65% of total accident costs. The human capital approach used by the NHTSA considers only 10% of the willingness-to-pay approach Comparing the numbers used by the National Safety Council (NSC) with the ones used by the NHTSA it was observed that NSTSA generates cost figures 2.5 times larger than NSC. The authors mentioned above present a cost of $1.3 million per fatality in the willingness-to-pay approach which is considered conservative. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) calls for $5 million/life and the Office of Management Budget call s for $1 5 million/life. A compromised value between the two offices is $2 000 000 per life A USDOT (1996) publication presents the number of motor vehicle occupants killed and injured in the year 1996. A total of 41 907 people lost their lives in 1996 in motor vehicle crashes a 2. 0% increase from 1995. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicles miles

PAGE 30

19 was equal to 1.7 with an average of 115 deaths each day (one every 13 minutes). This publication shows the magnitude of the problem. The report points out that trucks account for 12 % of all fatalities and that accident costs are linked to inadequate truck management in roadway networks. Cerelli (1996) presents the trends in crash fatalities / day for the period 1975-1995 based on National data Weekends are the period with the highest fatality average Saturday having the greatest number. Table 3 shows the average number of fatalities per each weekday. Table 3. Average Number of Traffic Fatalities per Each Weekday--1975-1995 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 150 100 100 100 110 110 190 The author claims that the Saturday fatality rate is very likely related to alcohol use. Another relevant issue related to safety on bridges found in the literature is the issue of narrow bridges whose diminished widths may increase the risk of single vehicle collisions with roadside appurtenances such bridge ends railings or approach guardrails as well as collisions with other vehicles. Brinkman and Mark (1986) used the bridge and roadway inventory from five states totaling 11 880 bridges and 24 809 accidents during a three-year period Bridge related accidents were found to be approximately twice as likely to result in a fatality as a typical accident. The same result was found in a North Carolina study For undivided bridges the discriminate variables in order of importance are ADT (Average Daily Traffic) roadside distraction, percent shoulder reduction degree of bridge curvature curb presence bridge length degree of approach curvature and demarcation

PAGE 31

20 An older investigation made by Turner and Rowan (1982) in a sample of24 000 accidents occurring between 1972-1979 on Alabama state-route highways found that roadway accidents rates increase near bridges. One-fourth of the traffic accidents investigated occurred within 0.33 miles of a bridge. The authors observed that many bridge accidents are apparently incompletely investigated not properly identified erroneously recorded misallocated or ignored due to limited room for identifying information on the accident report prepared by the police. Zegeer and Council (1995) reports that bridge widening can reduce total bridge crashes by as much 80% depending on the width before and after widening Rahim and Johnston (1993) report the accident rate relationship between bridge accidents and roadway accidents for North Carolina using a sample of2 000 bridge related accidents. The relationship for fatality, injury type A, injury type B and injury type Care found to be respectivel y : 2.0 1.3 1.05 and 0 87 The rate 2 0 means that bridge related accidents are twice as severe as other roadway accidents The predictor equation used by the authors shows low values for the coefficient of multiple determination (R 2 = 0.33 0 34 ). For this reason it is not recommended to use the equation generated by Rahim and Johnston They also found that approach roadway alignment is a parameter with no significance for the accident rate. That is contradictory to the findings of Behnam and Laguros (1973) and Brinkman and Mak (1986)

PAGE 32

21 3.2 User Costs Under this category the Zaniewski et al (1982) study was the second comprehensive study about Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) found in the literature. This study was financed by the World Bank and was performed in Brazil. The weakness of this study is the transposition of the findings in Brazil to the USA assuming similarities between the roadway networks. However this study developed tables to update VOC costs against the roadway grade and speed. Currently the most updated study about VOC is the HERSHighway Economic Requirement System (1996) financed by the USDOT-FHW A where VOC values are developed based on an update of the Zaniewski tables. The evolution observed of VOC studies is as follows. The genesis of Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) studies in the USA can be traced back to the period just after the First World War with studies about fuel performance conducted by Agg (1923). In the following years under Agg management the research staff at the Iowa State Engineering Station introduced new parameters in the VOC studies. These included the effect of the roadway geometry on: VOC (Agg and Carter 19 2 8) ; truck operations (Winfre y 1933); tractive resistance; and road surface types (Paustian 1934) One of the earliest surveys ofVOC was reported by Moyer and Winfrey ( 1939) who examined the fuel oil maintenance and tire costs of rural mail carriers. Moyer and Tesdal (1945) complemented this study with the results from tire wear experiments. In the 1960' s researchers concentrated on the relationships between highway geometry vehicle performance and costs Saal (1942) extended his experimental fuel consumption data using survey information while Claffey (1960) developed models and reported results on speed and fuel experiments incorporating highway and vehicle characteristics.

PAGE 33

22 By the mid-1960s only fuel consumption could be predicted accurately Between 1963 and 1969 the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) sponsored Claffey and Associates (1971) to conduct a VOC research which resulted in the classic NCHRP Report 11 l(Running Costs for Motor Vehicles as Affected by Road Design and Traffic) where the radioisotope technique was used to measure tire wear. This technique was found to be unsatisfactory. With the growing need for economic appraisal of highway transportation projects in developing countries the World Bank concluded that the VOC data developed in the USA was not appropriate to be used in these appraisals Funds were generated to conduct studies in four areas: Brazil India, Kenya and the Caribbean. The primary data collected in the VOC study performed by Zaniewski et al in Brazil was then used to update a VOC study made in the USA. In June 1982 the Federal Highway Administration published a comprehensive study about VOC performed by Zaniewski et al (1982) with the objecti v e to update the 1971 study ofVOC performed by Claffey ( 1971). This was the last comprehensive study conducted on VOC The Zaniewski study was performed with the objective to determine the VOC relationship to roadway characteristics in order to determine the effect of pavement type and condition on these costs. In order to determine the effect of pavement type and condition on selected parameters and develop an adjustment procedure for these performance parameters as a function of the pavement and condition five parameters were investigated : VOC running speed fuel consumption vehicle emissions and accidents The VOC included consumption of fuel and oil tire wear vehicle maintenance and repair and use-related depreciation. A study made by Harrison et al. (1992) for truck operation costs using a life

PAGE 34

cycle cost approach found a VOC value of $1.07 per mile for the Pennsylvania I-80 corridor. 23 In 1996 the Highway Economic Requirement Systems (HERS) sponsored by the USDOT and the Federal Highway Administration published a set ofVOCs to be applied to pavement applications. These costs were estimated as a function of the average effective speed average grade and pavement serviceability rating (PSR) excess operating costs due to speed change cycles and excess operating costs due to curves. A new approach to evaluate VOC costs was found by Delucchi (1996) The Delucchi study introduced the concept of social cost analysis into VOC costs dividing it into two groups : non-monetary and monetary costs The author states that costs of travel delay imposed by others ( which is the case of a bridge restriction) remain completely unpriced for the responsible motor-vehicle user. Another source ofVOC was the American Truck Association In 1988 they reported a cost of $1.07 per mile where 79.26 cents/mile represented variable costs (ATA 1990) In 1992 the cost reported per mile was $1.20 (ATA 1992). In 1996 the cost per mile reported was $1.25 (ATA 1996 ). In 1997 the cost per mile reported jumped to $1.92 (ATA-1997). The main reason for the discrepancies in the VOC reported by A TA was due to the lack of methodology to evaluate the VOC Cost components were included or removed without any justification For travel time costs the most important source found in the literature was traced to the studies by Miller (1996). Almost all relevant work on travel time uses Miller s methodology In the HERS (1996) study the value of one-hour travel time by a vehicle was developed using the Miller approach They are listed on Table 4 using 1993 dollar

PAGE 35

24 Table 4 Travel Time Cost--Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Miller Approach Auto 4-tire truck 6-tire truck 3-4 Axle truck 4-Axle Comb 5-Axle Comb $11.22 $12 61 $23.69 $27.7 $30.09 $30 26 Software named MicroBencost was identified as a tool to evaluate travel time on different roadway scenarios. The Tennessee DOT used it to evaluate the travel time value at nine (9) different scenarios in the case of a closure of the Interstate 155 bridge crossing the Mississippi River. The vehicle travel time cost in 1993 dollars per vehicle hour is listed in Table 5. The basic default numbers used in the software are derived from the Zaniewski work. Table 5. Travel Time Cost-Dollar per Hour-Base 1993--Zaniewski Approach Auto 4-tire truck 6-tire truck 3-4 Axle truck 4-Axle Comb. 5-Axle Comb $10 34 11.74 22.11 25.42 28.16 28.33 3 .3 Economic Evaluation A model used in traffic assessment was developed by Texas A&M University named QUEWZ-92. It is more oriented to evaluate queue lines for work zones and the total costs for delay The default values used for cars and trucks in 1993 dollars are respectively: $12.64 and $23 09 per hour (Krammes et al. 1993) Farid et al. ( 1994) developed a formula to estimate the annual user cost of an existing bridge This formula uses the proportion of vehicles involved in accidents due to bridge deficiencies and the proportion of vehicles that need to detour also due to bridge deficiencies. The w eakness of this mathematical formula is the assumption made for the proportion of each vehicle type that will detour due to load and vertical clearance

PAGE 36

25 limitations Also it is not clear how to find the proportion of vehicles that will be related to an accident. 3.4 BMS As mentioned before only the BMS Pontis and Bridgit are being implemented. However it was observed that new BMS models are under development around the world. Countries like Russia (Johnson et al. 1998) Poland (V egosz and Wysokowski 1995) and Hungary (Kolozsi 1995) are developing BMS models that do not consider user costs. In Brazil an Engineering Company named MCN Engenharia Ltda is developing a BMS named SIMGO (NHI-1999) A study made at North Carolina State University by Chen and Johnston in 1987 resulted in a BMS analysis program which considers owner costs and user costs to determine the optimum improvement action and time for each individual bridge in a system under various levels of service. A sample of 17 000 bridges in North Carolina were analyzed using ADT data from 1974-1984 The coefficients used to measure proportions of vehicles that incur accidents due to deck width alignment and vertical clearance deficiencies are assumed to be constant. The proportion of vehicles that detoured due to load and vertical clearance is also assumed to be constant. These assumptions are not consistent with the 4.6 % yearly ADT increase observed in the North Carolina Interstate System. The vehicle classification distribution is adjusted using data from six different studies. The truck weight distribution is adjusted based on a study made by the FHW A in 1985 about the bridge structure-loading spectrum. The truck speed at a detour is evaluated by dividing the driver salary and benefits at union scale of $13.35/hr by the owner-operator driver salary of 0.311 / mile resulting in an average speed of 40mph. This approach is

PAGE 37

26 mathematically correct however conceptually wrong once the average speed changes according to the salary variation between the two categories. VOC value for cars are based on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allowance of 20 cents per mile plus 15 cents for labor. For trucks the VOC value is derived from the data collected by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) at the value of $1.15 per mile. The BMS study developed by Yongtae and Sinha (1997) uses a new methodology to estimate user costs It was developed to address the needs of the Indiana DOT. It considers detour costs for load and vertical clearance bridge restrictions, and travel time due to load vertical clearance and width bridge restrictions The weakness of this methodology is the absence of the user costs related to bridge related accidents. One of the main features of this work is the calculation of traffic proportion used to evaluate user costs. It has more flexibility than the North Carolina BMS model. The VOC cost is calculated based on the update of Zaniewski s work which produces extremel y low values The study has an innovative approach to evaluate user costs due to narrow width. A brief from the NCHRP that lists all projects in progress indicates a new BMS model named StratBENCOST which was to be released in 1997. However this product could not be found in the literature (Lewis 1992a 1992b) Keating and Turner (1994) report a new BMS software named ALBBRIDGE that is the BMS from North Carolina customized from the Alabama DOT. 3.5 Remaining Relevant Entries All sources located under the entries Inspection Maintenance and Rehabilitation Technical Issues and Others were of no importance to the objective of this research.

PAGE 38

CHAPTER4 PONTIS BMS BASIC CONCEPTS BMS is an analytical tool that empowers decision-makers with the ability to make effective decisions for optimal use of available resources in the bridge business. This chapter has the objective to discuss the BMS basic components their capabilities and their decision management support output to accent the importance of user costs into the system. Shirole et. al (1994) states that in any BMS there are only three basic components: data data analysis and decision support. They are expanded in Figure 2 The BMS of focus in this dissertation is the AASHTOWare Pontis Inp u tPr o cessi n g O u tput (Data) (Da t a a n a l ys i s) (De c is i on support) ... D ata th a t ar e n ecessary r T h e anal ys i s routin e t o r The r es u lts of th e an alysis fo r t h e d e ci s i o n pro cess w hi c h t he d a t a i s routin es th at wi ll ass i s t th e s ubj ec t e d u se r in m aki n g d ecisio n s Figure 2. Data Treatment Flowchart Pon tis is the Latin world meaning pertaining to bridges ." According to Thompson (1994) the overall BMS structure involves the input of condition prediction and cost models to the database The database is then used to optimize preservation and determine improvement strategies Along with additional supporting data from the database these are integrated to form the program Figure 3 shows this overall BMS structure. 27

PAGE 39

28 According to AASHTO (1993) the database needs to contain inventory inspection and appraisal data as well as complete historical information and codes indicating the dates and nature of detailed special and supplemental inspections The BMS software needs a capability to edit and update the database as appropriate. The database includes many of the data items in the NBI database but also needs to include other items especially a more detailed inventory and condition data on the elements of each structure. Prediction Models Cost Models D a tabase ... ... ..... -4 l .. H Preservation ... Improvement Optimization ..... Optimization r Program ... Integration ... ..... ..... Figure 3. Overall BMS Structure 4.1 Pontis Database The main objective of the BMS database is to provide identification of needs accurate economic forecasts prediction of physical condition and continuous improvement. The Pontis approach to generating a database is compatible with the modeling operations and includes: the definition of each bridge by its individual element ;

PAGE 40

29 the establishment of particular classification of the condition of a bridge element. The term feasible action means a defined BMS preservation activity unique to an element s material composition and condition state Preservation activities are referred to as all actions taken to offset the deterioration caused by traffic weather or any chemical or physical process. The selection and definition of structural elements is a central issue in preparing a bridge database for successful modeling Pontis adopted the AASHTO proposed list of standard elements referred to as Commonly Recognized Elements (CoRe 1996) There are a total of 98 structural elements described in the CoRe Bridge Inspector s Field Guide The condition state of each element receives a classification in the range 1 to 4 and 1 to 5 integer scales where 1 indicates excellent. Pontis has about 140 different types of bridge elements defined. Federal funding apportionment to States is still based on sufficiency ratings derived from the NBI Structure and Inventory Appraisal (Sl&A) data. The primary NBI data item for prevention of failure is still the condition rating on a scale of Oto 9 where 9 indicates excellent condition The NBI requires condition ratings for only three major structural components: deck ; superstructure ; and substructure To merge Pontis and NBI data, a standard conversion program commonly refereed as the NBI translator or BMSNBI was developed by the U niversity of Colorado (Hearn et al 1997) to compute NBI ratings from Pontis. The element listing includes a description a definition condition state language and a unit of measurement for each element. The element descriptions consider material composition and w here applied the presence of protective systems (NHI 1996 )

PAGE 41

30 Each element is also categorized in one environment. Pontis defines four types of environments to which each element can be exposed : benign low moderate and severe. The definition of each environment type is listed on Table 6 (NHI 1996) The efficacy of element-level bridge management systems evaluation such as used in Pontis has been confirmed by Heam and Renn (1999) for eight highway bridges in Colorado Table 6 Pontis D e finition of Bridge Element s Environment Environmental factors and operating practices are not likel y to Benign significantly change the condition of the element over time or their effects have been mitigated by past non-maintenance actions or the presence of highly effective protection systems. Example: desert bridges Environmental factors and operating practices do not adversely influence Low the condition of the element or their effects are substantially lessened by the application of effective protective systems. Example: reinforced concrete bridge in a warm climate Environmental factors and operating practices are considered to be Moderate typical for the Agency and any change in the condition of an element is likely to be normal. Example: Reinforced concrete bridge in the north with average use of road salt Environmental factors and operating practices contribute to the rapid Severe decline in the condition of an element. Protective systems to negate environmental effects are not in place or are ineffective. Example: bridge in brackish water bridge exposed to excessive deicing chemicals. Source: National Highway Institute 1997(NHI 1976) 4.1.1 Needs Identification The identification of needs is classified in two classes : functional and preservation needs that are also named as MR&R needs. In order for Pontis to identify functional needs it requires data on widths and clearances load capacity traffic and accidents. To identi fy preservation needs it requires evidence of deterioration such as the condition to describe the physical symptoms of deterioration which can be visually observed b y inspection.

PAGE 42

31 4 1.2 Cost Models Cost models are related to accurate economic forecasts economic inputs including unit costs user costs and the transportation service attributes which determine user costs such as traffic and accident rates. 4.1.3 Prediction Conditions To predict the physical condition of bridges the BMS needs deterioration rates which are developed by making use of all available past inspections as well as expert judgment. In order to distinguish between the effects of deterioration and the effects of maintenance the BMS needs to know what past maintenance was done on each bridge. 4 1.4 Continuous Improvement Continuous improvement prediction models can be continuously improved over time if there are methods to compare the predictions with what subsequently actually happened. The cycle between models and outcome is shown in Figure 4. The database structure contains four sets of basic information about each bridge describing the bridge itself and each of its elements roadways and spans or structural units They are listed on Table 7 (NHI 1996 ). 4 2 Prediction Models There are two kinds of models to predict future bridge conditions: deterioration and action effectiveness Deterioration models predict what will happen to the bridge if no maintenance or improvement is performed. It tells how quickly the bridge element will reach a condition level where some corrective action might be warranted. Action effectiveness models tell how the condition is changed if a maintenance or corrective action is actually performed

PAGE 43

32 Table 7. Basic Inventory Information for Each Bridge (NHI 1996) About Structure About the Bridge About Elements About Roadways Units Identification Material Identification Design Age / Service Type Traffic Material Geometry Environment Ruts Clearances Quantity Dimensions Condition Appraisals Navigation Load Rating Deterioration models can be divided into two groups according to how they handle uncertainty: Probabilistic (subject to uncertainty) and deterministic (known for certain). Pontis applies the probabilistic Markov Chain process which means that they divide time into discrete equal periods ; forecast next period condition without regard to earlier conditions; and perform this prediction by use of transition probabilities among the condition states. The strength of the Markovian models used in BMS is that it is simple to use (requires low data collection it is easy to update from historical data and has the ability to use an inexpensi v e visual inspection procedure to collect the required data) The weaknesses are that it is not precise and can not model latent properties Kleywegt and Sinha (1994) state that the developers of Pontis suggested an approach to overcome the Markovian approach weaknesses by using the subjective judgment of bridge maintenance experts to obtain estimates of transition probabilities. As data are collected through regular inspections these initial estimates are updated and improved Developers of the BMS software named BRIDGIT (Lipkus 1994) and Mansino and Pardi (1999) also employ the Markov Chain Process to calculate the transitional rates for each condition state of a bridge element.

PAGE 44

33 4 3 Cost Models Tuner and Richardson (1994) state that BMS are driven by costs. Everything eventually is compared in terms of costs. Costs are the common denominator in bridge management systems. The degree of difficulty to estimate bridge related cost was compared by Son and Sinha (1994) as the same degree to produce deterioration rate estimates for groups of bridges The aim of BMS is to help decision-makers make cost-effective decisions For this reason cost models are also an important set of inputs to BMS There are many kinds of cost models each sensitive to a different set of factors. Pontis uses maintenance repair and rehabilitation (MR&R) direct costs functional improvement and replacement direct costs indirect costs and user costs MR&R costs primarily depend on structural characteristics of the bridge and the extent of deterioration which is to be corrected. They are specific to bridge elements expressed in dollar s per physical unit specific to the type of action and may depend on condition location and element properties (Nlll 1996). Functional improvement and replacement costs are normally provided by the SHA Those are the costs to widen or strengthen a bridge. Indirect costs are associated with the decision to perform any work at all on a bridge. They include design traffic control land environmental mitigation demolition and administration (Nlll 1996). User costs measure the effect of substandard bridges on road users Although the inconvenience to each vehicle is small the numbers add up quickly User costs are related to weight limits and clearances in the areas of truck height/weight distributions detour lengths / times truck driver labor cost per hour vehicle operating cost per kilometer bridge

PAGE 45

34 related accidents traffic delay costs in work zones and environmental costs User cost models require some special inputs of their own. Many agencies maintain these data in their planning departments because they are used for many other purposes. Accident rate estimation is the most difficult because it is necessary to identify the accidents which are specifically associated with bridges. 4.3 .1 Preservation Optimization Models The Pontis preservation model is in reality a comprehensive set of models to optimize the structure preservation policy, to recommend actions and to set priorities. Figure 5 is a simplified schematic diagram of how data flows in preservation modeling. The main steps of the process are: Step # 1 : Development of a probabilistic deterioration model (Pontis 1997a) Step # 2 : Update of the probabilistic deterioration model (Pontis 1997a ) Step #3: Development of a set of unit costs for preservation actions (Pontis 1997a). Step #4 : Update of the set of unit costs based on experience (Pontis 1997 ). Step # 5: Optimization model that combines the consideration of condition (Pontis 1997a) change action effectiveness and action cost to determine the most cost-effective long-term policies. The guidin g principle of the preservation optimization models is to find the long term policy for each element in each environment which minimizes the long-term maintenance funding requirements while keeping the element out of risk of failure Another important concept of optimization is steady state Bridges stay in service for a very long time and the overall objective of providing transportation connectivity

PAGE 46

means that there is never a point in the future where network-wide preservation policies might have to be drastically changed or eliminated. Figure 5. Data Flows in Preservation Modeling 35 The preservation optimization process is one of the alternative results of the bridge program It includes the phases of inspection policies programming and project. The inspection objective is to detect conditions threatening the structural integrity. Expert Cost Elicitation (3) Cost Model Update (4) Preservation Optimization ( 5) E xpert Deterioration Elicitation ( 1) Deterioration Model Update (2) Past bridge collapses due to failure of fracture-critical members failure of underwater members and scour of foundations soils have attracted attention to these failure modes There are three basic requirements which BMS policy should meet. They are : experiencethe policy and its predicted impacts should be consistent with reasonable expectations of how bridges will deteriorate and how much proposed actions will cost ; feasibilityrecommended actions should be feasible for the agency to accomplish ; sustainability--the

PAGE 47

36 policy should be sustainable over a long period of time because the bridges will be in service for a long period of time. Automated support for defined objectives and ways to quantify them guide policy decisions There are four network level objectives : minimize agency costs; minimize user costs; maximize service life; and maximize progress toward optimal conditions There are also constraints: budget and level of service With objective quantitative policies and criteria it becomes possible to generate project lists automatically as a way to approximate quickly the composition of an objective budget-constrained program. Pontis uses the network level policies and standards to generate projects A project is a collection of preservation and functional impro v ement actions on a single bridge. The basic decision criteria is to accomplish as much as possible with the current budget minimize the long term cost of keeping each bridge in service minimize inconvenience to road users and act in a consistent manner across all projects. The focus should be to find an optimal balance and combination of all alternatives. Preservation policies are developed with the help of a model which specifies action selection rules unit costs and calculated benefits. An action selection policy for example aids in the choice of project level action by specifying the action which gives the lowest long-term costs based on condition and environment. Network-level unit costs provide an initial rough estimate of project costs as an interim step until a more detailed project cost estimation can be performed. When a network-level policy analysis tool such as Pontis calculates life c y cle costs it can compare the annualized long-term cost if the recommended action is taken to the annualized long term cost if no action is taken The difference can be expressed as the benefit of the action and can be allocated to the project on a unit basis

PAGE 48

37 Functional improvement policies have a similar relationship to the definition of projects. Standards typically determine the type of improvement action to be taken. Design standards are generally higher than level-of-service standards because a bridge which is only slightly below design standards probably would not merit the expense of improving it. In Pontis a level of service standards is typically determined by an interactive process where the budget requirements of the standard are determined and then the standard is adjusted so its budget requirements more closely match likely funding availability. Initial cost estimation is typically handled in the same way as with preservation projects and project benefits are typically expressed as savings in user costs According to ASSHTO (1993) preservation actions (MR&R actions) should be evaluated based on their necessity to keep a bridge open and serviceable to users and a MR&R program should be formulated to minimize the agency cost of maintaining a standard. Improvement actions on the other hand should be evaluated on the basis of potential user cost savings in travel time vehicle operating costs and accidents Results of the optimization analysis include the long-term percent of each element in each condition state the long-term annual cost of each action and the low cost recommended action. 4 3.2 Improvement Optimization Models The ASSTHO BMS guidelines (ASSHTO 1993) establish a difference between preservation and improvement actions. Pontis follows the same criteria. Improvement actions considered by the Pontis improvement models include widening raising and

PAGE 49

38 strengthening Functional needs are determined primarily by design and LOS standards. Standards are included for lane and shoulder widths vertical clearances and load limits. The original source of level-of-service standards is the June 4 1991-FHW A Notice of Proposed Rule-Making on level-of-service standards (F.R. 1991). The design standards are based on Caltrans practice which in turn is based on the AASHTO Geometric Design Policy Green Book (AASHTO 1994b). The bases to perform the decisions in the preservation model are listed in table 8. Table 8. Bases for the Need and Benefit Calculations on Improvement Projects Widening Need Based on comparison of current roadway widths to the width standards set in the Pontis policy matrix Widening Benefit Based on estimated reductions in accident costs Strengthening Based in the structure level operating rating and design load and Need LOS standards in the network level policy matrix Strengthening Based on reduced truck traffic detour costs. These have both a time Benefit and a distance component. Raising Need Based on comparison of current roadway vertical clearance to the clearance standards set in the policy matrix Raising Benefits Based on reduced traffic detour costs. These have both a time and a distance component. Replacement Based on presence of vertical clearance or width deficiencies Need Replacement Based on reductions in accident and truck detour costs Benefit Reference : Pontis User Manual (Pontis 1997a) 4.4 Program Integration Model The integrated project programming model which selects the most cost effecti v e set of structure projects is described by Pontis User's Manual (Pontis 1997a) in the following terms: The Pontis project programming model performs a simulation of structure condition change and traffic growth for up to a 30-year time horizon and selects the most cost-effective set of projects which meet the constraints of a user-defined set of budget limits. The procedure integrates the results of the preservation optimization

PAGE 50

and the functional improvement models developing and evaluating project alternatives which incorporate both preservation and functional actions. The simulation is designed to develop a set of candidate projects to meet the identified needs but it will also accommodate a set of projects which have been manually defined b y the user. This module basically defines and selects a set of projects which optimize expenditures with established budget constraints for a given scenario. The determination of needs changes from year to year over a specific selected planning horizon The generation of project alternatives includes preservation only preservation and functional improvement and replacement. 4.5 Pontis Results Pontis BMS produces more than 60 reports and it has the capability to generate a customized report. Appendix A shows a list of the reports available from Pontis co v ering the areas of inspection preservation results network-level programs project-level programs and historical projects 39 From the perspective of user cost models the first point is to define costs and benefits Agencies use the terms costs and "benefits in many different ways for many different purposes In BMS the definitions are chosen so that they accurately reflect what is at stake in bridge management decisions. Seven different types of cost were found in the agency vocabulary. They are direct costs avoidable costs budgetary requirements full costs first costs life-c y cle costs and social costs. Seven different types o f benefits definitions were found The y are avoided costs budgetary reductions social benefits payback period internal rate of return net present value and extended service life ." Some of these terms will be discussed in the following chapters Pontis adopts for cost and benefits the following definitions:

PAGE 51

Costs are defined as budgetary requirements, but not as additions to the budget. Usually when a cost is incurred, it is treated as a reduction of funds available to other projects. Direct and indirect budgetary first costs are incurred. "Benefits" are defined as avoided costs to the agency and to road users, minus the first costs. Thus they may be referred to as "net benefits". As a result of these definitions, any benefit/cost ratio greater than zero represents an attractive investment. These concepts will be expanded in the following chapters. 40

PAGE 52

CHAPTERS PONTIS USER COSTS MATHEMATICAL MODEL This chapter discusses user cost mathematical models used to quantify the annual benefits resulting from widening raising strengthening replacing and detouring a deficient bridge which are evaluated with respect to the user cost default parameters. Florida default parameters that are related to the benefits listed above are also presented. This information is extracted from a FDOT user cost study (Thompson Soares Naja:fi Choung 1998). One illustrative example is presented showing the savings in accident costs (SAC) vehicle operating costs (SVOC) and in travel time (STI) using the original Pontis cost default parameters. 5.1.Benefits and User Costs One of the Pontis requirements is that benefits of functional improvements are assessed in terms of user cost savings (Glolabi et al ., 1992). Benefits are the value of taking actions to address the functional improvement needs. Standard functional improvement actions include widening raising and replacing a bridge The benefits of addressing functional improvement needs are calculated by user-modifiable formulas which are based on user cost (travel time accident) reductions gained from eliminating detours and improving safety (Pontis 1997a) A functional need is related to the structure s ability to accommodate user demands Examples of functional needs include the need to increase clearances increase widths or raise weight limits in order to serve more traffic and/or improve safety 41 I

PAGE 53

42 5.2 FDOT Default Values Policy The user cost model is used only for functional improvement and replacement projects. There are 64 data items that are included in the Pontis user cost model. Seventeen of those items are related to bridge data variables and 47 items are related to mathematical model parameters. The 47 mathematical model variables resulted from SHA policy. They are defined to input to seven different models : user costs; traffic ; widening; raising ; strengthening ; replacement ; and detour The model parameters are defined by the FDOT. Appendix B presents the widening raising replacement, strengthening detours and bridge data adopted by the FDOT to be used in Pontis The Pontis cost matrix that relate to user costs as defined by FDOT policies is shown in Table 9. Table 9 Cost Matrix Values Adopted by FDOT Model Variable Model Florida Default Value Detour cost per hour detour $19.34 Detour cost per kilometer detour $0.25 Cost per Accident widening $14 247* Weight given to user cost user cost 100% Source : Thompson Soares Najafi Choung (1998) At the time of th e report FDOT was using this value. Current value is $37 600 Bridge data variables are bridge functional class detour distance detour speed roadway functional class roadway speed, truck fraction, vertical clearance operating rating future volume future volume year traffic volume traffic volume year bridge length approach alignment rating approach road width number of lanes and roadway width. The values adopted b y F DOT are listed in Appendix B Table B6.

PAGE 54

43 A user cost model is fed with the weight given to user cost that is expressed in a percent index In Florida s case it is 100% The traffic model is fed with the default traffic growth period normally 30 years. The widening model is fed with cost per accident high approach alignment rating, low approach alignment rating, approach width factor design lane width design shoulder width short bridge threshold and two regression constants. The raising model is fed with height detour default and 10 different height detour points The strengthening model is fed with four weight detour points. The replacement model is fed with five height eligibility points. The detour model is fed with detour cost per hour detour cost per kilometer detour speed factor default truck percent and 12 levels of default road speed There are three different tables where these data values are located. They are : cost matrix ; policy matrix ; and improvement model tables. Tue Cost matrix items include agency functional improvement unit costs user detour and accident costs agency costs for special improvements such as seismic retrofit and scour protection and associated agency and user benefits for making special improvements. For this dissertation, the focus is on the four user cost models defined as follows: Detour per hour--user costs per hour of additional travel time incurred by vehicles that would normally use a structure but cannot due to clearance or load restrictions This is used to calculate user cost reductions associated with raising or strengthening a structure (Pontis 1997a). Detour per kilometer-user costs per kilometer of additional travel distance incurred by vehicles that would normall y use a structure but cannot due to clearance or load

PAGE 55

restrictions This is used to calculate user costs reductions associated with raising or strengthening a structure (Pontis 1997a). 44 Average per accident--the user costs per accident. This is used to calculate the accident reduction benefits of widening or replacing a deficient structure (Pontis 1997a). Weight--deterrnines the relative impact ( a percent) of user costs to actual costs in the benefit-cost calculations. If the user cost weight is 100 user costs are treated on a par with agency costs. If the user cost weight is 50 user costs would be cut in half (Pontis 1997a ) The polic y matrix contains standards when different types of improv e m e nt actions should be applied. These standards can vary for different combinations of ADT class functional class structure funding responsibility and NHS status The improvement model parameter table contains improvement benefit model parameters defined for each improvement matrix in the programming module 5.3 User Cost Models When a deficient NBI approach alignment or roadway width exists on a bridge road users are theoretically subjected to a higher accident risk To evaluate a functional improvement or replacement which corrects the deficiency the user cost model predicts a reduction in accid e nt risk which then is multiplied by an accident cost to yield a user cost saving When a bridge has a substandard vertical clearance or load capacity certain trucks are unable to go on or under the bridge and must detour thus incurring higher labor costs and vehicle operating costs The user cost model estimates the volume of detoured traffic and the resulting user costs which would be avoided if the deficiency were corrected. The total user benefit o f the functional needs in a project is therefore: U ser bene fi t B r= W e/ 100 x V ry ( BW r + BR + BS,. ) ( 5 )

PAGE 56

Where: w e is the weight given to user cost benefits in percent (Pontis cost matrix) V ry is the forecasted average daily traffic volume for the program year being analyzed. BW r is the annual benefit of widening per unit average daily traffic (calculated below) B~ is the annual benefit of raising per unit average daily traffic ( calculated below) BS r is the annual benefit of strengthening per unit average daily traffic (calculated below) In the notation for all equations subscripts indicate either the level of resolution of the v ariable or the entity which the variable describes These are defined as follows: b indicates a bridge attribute ( corresponds to bridge or inspection event table) r indicates a roadway attribute ( corresponds a roadway table) c indicates a cost matrix parameter (linked to the bridge table) P indicates a policy matrix parameter (linked to the bridge table) Y indicates a program year within the planning horizon (Thompson et al. 1998) Variables without a subscript are systemwide parameters. Approach alignment rating is the only attribute of this type When a bridge-level attribute is taken from the inspection event table it is taken from the most recent inspection for the bridge. 5.4 Benefit of Widening 45 Pontis estimates the user benefit of widening as the savings in accident costs. The method for estimating accident user costs in Pontis is derived from the North Carolina BMS using the followin g formula: Benefitofwidening Where : CA c is the average cost per accident (Pontis cost matrix) ( 6 ) is an estimate of the current annual accident risk per vehicle ( calculated below) R' r is an estimate of the current annual accident risk per vehicle after improvement (calculated below) (Thompson et al 1998).

PAGE 57

46 This result is calculated only for roadways on a bridge. It is zero for roadways under a bridge. It is also set to zero ifR, < R\. The parameters Rand R can in principle be estimated from actual accident studies. However no such studies were found in the literature or from the questionnaire survey The North Carolina system offers an approximate way to estimate R based on bridge attributes as follows: Where: Current accident risk: R, = 365 x 200 x (3.2808WJ 6 5 [1 + 0.5 (9-Ai,) / 7] (7) W, is the roadway width (curb to curb) in meters (Pontis roadway table NBI item 51) A b is the approach alignment rating (typically 2 to9 Pontis inspection event table NBI item 72) If the approach alignment rating is missing it is taken as zero. It would be more appropriate to take it as nine so it does not add to the accident risk. If roadway width is less then zero it is treated as zero Some of the numeric constants in this formula are user modifiable in Pontis in the improvement model parameter table. They are defined as follows: 365 is the number of days in a year 200 is a regression constant 3 28084 is the constant Pontis uses to convert from meters to feet 6.5 is regression constant 0 5 is a model specification constant 9 is the highest approach alignment rating 7 is the range of allowed approach alignment ratings (Thompson et al 1998). The 200 and 6 5 are regression constants derived from the North Carolina study so they should be modified only if another statistical analysis of accident data is conducted. The 0.5 constant arose because of the practice in North Carolina of assigning onl y even numbers for approach alignment ratings It is not important for the model framework, but

PAGE 58

47 must be used with North Carolina regression constants. The final two constants are artifacts of the NBI approach alignment scale which range from 2 to 9. The formula for accident risk after improvement is similar to (7) but depends on the width of the improved roadway Where: Improved accident risk: R', = 365 x 200 x (3 2808W'J 65 [ 1 + 0.5 (9-Ai,) / 7] (8) W' is the roadway width ( curb to curb) in meters (Pontis roadway table, NBI item 51) Ab is the approach alignment rating (typically 2-9, Pontis inspection event table NBI item 72) (Thompson et al. 1998). 5.5 Benefits of Raising Pontis calculates the vehicle operating cost and travel time cost associated with traffic on a detour route and assumes that this entire cost is saved if a functional improvement is made. Only trucks are assumed to be affected. Raising is considered only for roadways under the structure. Benefit of raising is: BR,= 365 x DC, x PT, / 100 x Pf\ / 100 (9) Where: DC, is the detour cost per truck for this roadway ( calculated below) PT, is the percentage of the traffic stream occupied by trucks (Pontis roadway table NBI item 109) PH, is the percentage of trucks detoured by the bridge. If the truck percentage is missing or zero it is given the value of the improvement model parameter default truck percent whose default value is 5 percent (Thompson et al. 1998).

PAGE 59

48 5.6 Benefit of Strengthening Pontis calculates the vehicle operating costs and travel time costs associated with traffic on a detour route and assumes that this entire cost is saved if a functional impro v ement is undertaken. Only trucks are assumed to be affected Strengthening is considered only for roadways on top of a structure Where Benefit o f s trengthening is: BS ,= 365 x DC x PT, / 100 x PW b / 100 (10) DC is the detour cost per truck for this roadway ( calculated below) PT is the percentage of the traffic stream occupied by trucks (Pontis roadwa y table NBI item 109) PW b is the percentage of trucks detoured by the bridge If the truck percentage is missing or zero it is given the value of the improvement model parameter default truck percent whose default value is 5 percent (Thompson et al. 1998). It is possible that some fraction of trucks exceeds the operating rating but ignores any posted signs. Also many states post bridges at levels different from the operating rating The model makes a ssumptions about these factors since it describes only the percentage of trucks which are actually detoured at each operational rating level. 5 7 Benefits of Replacement The user costs model for replacement benefits is very similar to the combined effect of all of the separate functional improvements An analysis of the source code re v eals just a few differences as discussed in this section. When a bridge is replaced Pontis recognizes the benefits of widening for all roadways on and under the bridge. All roadwa y s are assumed to have the approach alignment rating of the bridge before the project, and all are as sumed to have an approach alignment rating of 9 after the project.

PAGE 60

49 Pontis assumes that bridge replacement eliminates all operational rating deficiencies As a result the project benefit includes the benefit of strengthenin g, calculated in the same way as described above in equation (10). The replacement benefit model for heightrelated detours in Pontis is formulated to allow for the possibility that when both height and weight restrictions exist certain trucks may be affected b y both restrictions. Replacement height benefit = BR, BR, = 365 x DC x PT I 100 x [ (1-PW b / 100) x PG b / 100 x PH, /100] ( 11 ) Where: DC is the detour cost per truck for this roadway ( calculated below) PT is the percentage of the traffic stream occupied by trucks (Pontis roadway table NBI item 109) PW b is the percentage of trucks which are detoured by the bridge due to weight (Pontis roadway table NBI item 109) PG b is the percentage of those trucks not detoured by the weight limit which are potentially subjected to height restrictions. There is a subtle logical inconsistency in the use of PH, in the raising and replacement models. In the raising model PH, is the percentage of the entire truck traffic stream which is detoured since the percentage detoured by weight restrictions is zero. In the replacement model on the other hand PH is the percentage of only the lighter-weight duals and tractor-trailers The (1-PW b ) term restricts PH, to lighter-weight vehicles and the PGb term restricts PH to only duals and tractor-trailers (Thompson et al 1998) Part of this inconsistency can be removed by setting all the percentages in the PG b model to 100 so the definition of PH ,, is not limited to duals and tractor-trailers. There is no easy way howe v er to remove the effect of (1-PW b ) (Thompson et al. 1998) Considering the Pontis user community as a whole it would be worthwhile to consider eliminating the PG b factor and simplifying the definition of PH, to conform to its usage in the str e ngthening

PAGE 61

50 model. This could cause some minor double counting of benefits in cases where both clearance and weight restrictions exist on the roadway on top of the bridge but the number of cases where this is a problem is likely to be small in most states The benefit of the change would be to make the user cost model smaller more consistent and more understandable (Thompson et al 1998) 5.8 Detour Cost Each time a truck is detoured it experiences vehicle operating costs associated with the added detour distance and travel time costs associated with the added detour time Pontis uses a model of these factors for raising strengthening and replacement. Detour cost per truck Where : (12 ) CV c is the average vehicle operating costs per km of detour (Pontis cost matrix) CT c is the average travel time cost per hour of detour (Pontis cost matrix) D r is the detour distance for the roadway in km (pontis roadway table NBI item 19) DS r is the speed on the detour route kph (Ponts roadway table) Since detour speed is not in the NBI data item many SHA lack this information When missing Pontis estimates the detour speed from the roadway speed (Pontis roadway table) using the improvement model parameter DetspeedFactor. The default value of this factor is 80 percent. Since roadway speed is not in the NBI item Pontis has a set of default speed values DefaultRoadspeed FCnn where nn is the roadway functional class in the improvement model parameters table Since these defaults are very rough it is better to collect the actual detour speed or at least the bridge roadway speed if possible (Thompson et al. 1998).

PAGE 62

51 5.9 Application Example To clarify how the Pontis user cost mathematical model is integrated into the BMS one example of one deficient bridge is presented. This example is an adaptation of the Blundell (1997) technical notes for a two lane concrete arch bridge. One two lane reinforced concrete arch bridge has a deficiency that forces 46% of the truck traffic to detour 38.6 Km. The actual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is 7 166 and the percent trucks composition is 14%. The BMS analysis result indicates a need to spend$ 1, 850 000 to replace the bridge as the best option to overcome the bridge deficiency. What is the benefit cost ratio for this action assuming the use of the Pontis default values for user costs? 5.9.1 Savings in Accident Cost (SAC) SAC = 365 x V (RR') C a Where, V= 7 166 (Average Daily Traffic) Ca = 37 600 (Average Accident Costs) R= 0.000035 (current annual accident risk) (13) R' = 0.0000028 (Current annual accident risk after improvement) explained below The values for the current accident risk for the current year is R= 0 000035 (this value can be taken from project simulation log files for this bridge). The after improvement widening accident risk is listed by Pontis as R'= 0.0000028 (this value is evaluated by the BMS using the new values of the roadway width Wr and the new approach alignment rate The difference between the two accident rates is the reduction in accidents. R-R' = 0.000032 Since the values of Rare adjusted for year the total SAC will be:

PAGE 63

SAC= 7 166 x 0.000032 x 37 600 SAC= $8 622 5 9.2 Savings in Vehicle Operating Costs (SVOV) svoc = 365 x V O x C V x D (14) Where V 0 = 7 166 x 0.14 x 0.46 = 461 (trucks detoured per day) C v = 0.25 ( average vehicle operating costs per kilometer) D = 38 6 2 (detour distance in kilometers) 52 The percent of trucks detoured is determined by the user settings in the improvement module. For this particular bridge the percent of trucks detoured was 46% (0.46). The equipment unit cost (Vehicle Operating Costs to overcome the detour length) is: 38.62 X 0.25 = $9.66 / truck. The number of trucks detoured per year is then trucks detoured per day times 365 days: 461 x 365 = 168 265 trucks detoured per year. Then saving in Vehicle Operating Costs will be : SVOC = 365 X 461 X 0 25 X 38.62 svoc = $1 623 757 5.9.3 Savings in Travel Time Costs (STTC) Where srrc = 365 x v O x c 1 x 01s (15) V O = 461 ( number of trucks detoured per day) C 1 = 19 34 (average travel time cost per hour of detour) D = 38 62 (detour distance in kilometers) S = 70.24 (speed on the detour route km/hr) explained below

PAGE 64

53 This step is to include the labor cost for the drivers making the detour. The labor cost is the detour distance divided by the detour speed (in this case Pontis uses as a default value of 80% of the posted road speed that is 70.24 Km/hr) times the cost oflabor per hour Detour length (38.62 Km) / detour road speed (70.24 Km/hr)* $19.34/hr labor cost = $10.62 / truck Then the labor unit cost per truck is $10.62 / truck. The resulted STTC is: STTC = 365 x 461 x 19 34 x 38.62/70.24 STTC = $1 789 279 5.9.4 Total User Cost Benefits CTJCB) UCB = SAC + SVOC + STTC UCB = 8 622 + 1 623 757 + 1 789 279 UBC = 3 421 658 5.9.5 Benefit Cost Ratio Total User Cost benefits / Agency Costs 3 421 658 / 1 850 000 = 1.85 (16) The BMS follows this methodology for all deficient bridges found in the network and then ranks all the benefit cost ratios. The bridge that receives the highest benefit cost ratio generates the highest savings for the user when its deficiency is fixed. Assuming that t he bridge from the example is ranked in third place in one hypothetical bridge network means that it will receive priority number 3 in the budget allocation process if the SHA decides to use the road users benefit approach. The main point in this example is that detoured trucks are responsible for 99 75% of the total user cost benefit. That is 7.6 % of the ADT volume is charged a total of $3 413 036.00 per year for not using the bridge. This represents an additional expense of $20 .28 for each truck

PAGE 65

The penalty of $20 28 ($9 .66 / truck as equipment cost + $10.62 / truck for labor cost) paid for each truck for not using the bridge facility is directly related to the detour length the detour road speed the VOC selected, and the travel time selected The total detouring cost is directly related to the number of trucks detoured each year at the bridge 54 The lost sa v ings of $ 0.35 cents incurred for each vehicle that uses the bridge is related to the current ADT the current accident risk rate and the future accident risk rate after improvement. Each accident rate is related to roadway width the approach alignment rating and the average cost per accident. From the 10 inputs data used in the evaluation of user costs only three are supplied by the NBI source Different offices in the SHA organization are responsible for generating the seven remaining data input. Maintenance inspection safety law enforcement engineering and administration offices are normally those involved in data generation for BMS user costs Four parameters related to policy decisions and one related to law enforcement present the most difficulty in the process of selecting the correct ones They are the average costs per accident the average vehicle operating costs the average travel time costs the speed in the detour costs and the proportion of trucks detoured The implications involved in selecting each one of these parameters will be discussed in the next three chapters.

PAGE 66

CHAPTER6 TRAVEL TIME COSTS FOR BMS The Travel Time Cost (TIC) developed by this research is $22 55/hour. This chapter describes how this value is developed the theoretical basis to support its development and why TIC values benchmarked from other places are not useful for BMS applications in Florida. The structure of this chapter is displayed in Figure 6 where the solid line represents the critical path used to develop the new TIC value and the dashed line represents reasons why TIC benchmarked from other areas are not suitable for BMS in Florida 6.1 Background The value of travel time savings is usually considered by transportation analysts as the most important category of benefits for major highway investments. According to Strand (1993) for the average road project 70 to 80 percent or more of the total benefits are attributed to the time savings of the project. The way in which time is converted into money is becomin g more and more decisive in the calculations to profitability and feasibility of road projects. Depending on the approach used to monetize travel time one can make a project profitable or unprofitable. Chui and McFarland (1986) state that before 1965 the estimated value of time was based more in intuition and non-behavioral estimates than on a reliable theoretical model. However there are several conceptual problems in the evaluation of time ; pertinent questions about research issues and bottlenecks related to a credible practical application of time utilization theories. These issues can turn the use of 55

PAGE 67

56 6.2 Theoretical Basis for TTC Evaluation ..................................... .1....-----~-----*----* I 6 2.1. Behavioral Approach I I 6 .2 .2 Survey Approach I 6.2.3 Resource Approach Wae Index Anal sis :t................................................................ . . . ~-------~ 16.3.1 AASTHO I I 6.3 .2 us DOT I 16.3 3 HERS I 6.3.4 BMS 16.5 Non-business Approach I y 6.6 Business Approach y I Equation 21 MODEL I t Equation 22 MODEL 16.8 New TTC Value $22.55/Hr I Figures 6 Flow Chart for BMS TIC Development

PAGE 68

57 time both meaningless and misleading. There is a fundamental conceptual difference between the value of travel time for transportation planning and for BMS applications. For the former drivers are offered several alternatives to choose from on how to move from point A to point B. Road users have the freedom to select the mode the route and also how much they are willing to pay for time savings and better driving conditions. On the other hand for BMS applications the drivers do not have the freedom to select the mode or the route to move from point A to point B if point A and point B are connected by a bridge If the bridge is closed or posted it is mandatory to remain in the same mode and take the bridge detour that has a specific length and characteristic. In summary planners are interested in knowing what costs an individual is willing to pay in order to save one unit of trip time With BMS applications the BMS practitioner is interested in evaluating what costs an individual is forced to pa y in order to overcome the extra time incurred in the journey. In the first case the focus is in travel time savings and in the second case, the focus is in travel time costs that will be considered as savings once the bridge deficiency is removed. 6.2 Theoretical Basis for Travel Time Evaluation One major area of application of the macroeconomic approach to the evaluation of travel time lies in the appraisal of improvements in transportation systems. The problem consists essentiall y of an efficient allocation of resources in the economy and how time in transport is applied in benefit cost analyses. IF the principle of the welfare theory is used (Bruzelius 1978 ; Serpa 1971 ; ) that is on the individual maximization of benefits the marginal value of time is the one the consumer is willing to pay for a marginal reduction in travel time. According to Strand (1993) this theory has been severely questioned mainl y by

PAGE 69

the existing imbalance between theoretical and empirical calibration (Heggie 1983) and the way small savings and aggregate problems are treated 58 Alternati v ely a conceptually identical approach is used to evaluate the economic losses due to unproductive travel time which is addressed in economic theory as opportunity cost. F or one category of time consuming human activity one can establish a value based on the marketing mechanism. A market for labor exists so that the time sa v ing in trips undertaken during working time (on-the-clock trips) can be assigned a value related either to the wage rate or overhead costs According to Miller (1996) on-theclock trips have values equal to the wage rate plus fringe benefits and vehicle / inventory costs Behavioral models give the value of time from the perspective of the person whose behavior is being modeled Thus models estimated from decisions made by travelers give the value o f time saved to the traveler. Models estimated from decisions made b y travelers e mplo y ers give the value of time to the employers (Morrison 1996). Because of this the r esults from behavioral models are useful when predicting travel demand. Howe v er because of taxes among other things these values will most likely diverge from the resource values appropriate for use in cost benefit analysis The following are the description of each of these approaches. 6.2.1 Behavioral Approach The behavioral approach is an extension of conventional consumer theory that illustrates why time in general and travel time in particular is valuable At its core is the tradeoff between time and money The state-of-the-art behavioral models indicated at least five approaches for e stimating the value o f time. They are identified mainly by the data collected on the choices that the sample of travelers make e g ., modal choice model ( McFadden and Reid 1975

PAGE 70

59 Ben-Akiva 1973 C harles River Associates 1972 Lave 1968 Lisco 1967 Becker 1965 Morhring 1960) route choice model (Guttman 1975 Thomas and Thompson 1970 Claffey et al. 1961) speed choice model (Chui & McFarland 1986 Winston & Associates 1987) usage of safety belt (Blomquist et al 1996) and housing price approach (Nelson 1977 Wabe 1976). 6 2 2 Survey Approach According to Miller (1996) the survey approach is the most effective way to evaluate the travel time value. He suggests that surveys should be done offering each respondent just one or two randomly generated choices per question with the values implicit in the choice s. Another alternative is to find an unbiased starting point then to let the respondents choose a value from a menu that uniformly covers the entire response r ange 6.2.3 Resource Approach The resource approach is used to place value on business travel time for project appraisal. In its simplest form travel time savings are valued according to the resources that are saved i.e. the work time for labor ", and vehicle and equipment time for capital ( Hensher 1976). 6.3 Percent Wage Index Analysis Value time estimate modelers use wages as a reference to monetize travel time. For business travel time they use wages plus fringe benefits. According to Miller (1996) the theoretical basis for the result that the value of work time (to society) is equal to the gross w age plus fringes is based on the assumption that the labor market and the output market are competitive that firms are able to substitute capital for labor that there are no positive or negative externalities in production and that firms maximize profits Miller (1996)

PAGE 71

considers that this practice provides an automatic adjustment for inflation and facilitates comparison across different currencies and cost of living. However he questions the validity of the theoretical foundation to support the use of wage to express value of time 60 Miller (1996 ), after analyzing over 30 travel time studies recommends the use of conservative estimates due to a poor fix on the value of travel time According to him for project evaluation purposes a value of travel time of 55% of the wage rate is recommended for drivers with an uncertainty range from 50% to 75% A value of 40% of the wage is recommended for car and public transport passengers and a value of 100% of the wage rate plus fringe benefits and vehicle / inventory costs is recommended for on-the-clock travel. As can be seen there is a consensus about the percent wage index to be used in the evaluation of travel time for business However for non-business travel there is no consensus. This is a direct reflection of the contribution level provided by the behavior models at the present stage in evaluating travel time. In fact according to Miller (1996) analysis of highwa y investments should use travel time values from route choice or speed choice models and not from modal choice models. The weakness of mode o f choice models is that they underestimate the value of personal vehicle travel time savings comfort convenience and privacy while ignoring capital investments in a private passenger vehicle. This observation confirms the critics ofHensher (1976) and Grona! ( 1976) in the use of modal choice models for a wide range of decision variables. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI 1993) pointed to concerns raised about the v alidity of the assumptions made in the speed choice model which assumes a driver s knowledge of the relation of driving costs to driving speeds. For a BMS application the route choice has a relatively low importance because it deals with the choice of routes ( often a toll road vs. a parallel non-toll road) and in reality

PAGE 72

61 under the BMS scenario there is no route selection There is only the detour route prescribed in the NBI item 19 related to each bridge which is fed into the BMS mathematical models. These values do not change ; consequently there is no choice involved 6 3.1 TIC Under AASHTO Methodology The traditional approach used for analysis of transportation investments is based in the AASHTO 1977 Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements This manual is an extension and replacement of the 1960 AASHTO report Road User Benefit Analyses for Highway Improvements (AASHTO 1960) and the National Cooperati v e Highway Research Program Report 133 (NCHRP 1972). Kinboco and Henion (1981 ) critically evaluated the AASHTO 1977 report a few years after it was published. Howev e r travel time was not evaluated. 6.3.2 TIC Under USDOT Methodology In 1997 the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) released a memorandum intended to provide DOT staff with the best current available procedures and empirical estimates for calculating the value of time. The focus was on transportation investments not on BMS This memorandum recommended the use of nationwide statistics for income / wage rates of the traveling population using 100 percent of the wage (plus fringe benefits) for all local and intercity business travel including travel by truck drivers. This equals 50% o f the wages for all local personal travel and 70% of the wages for all intercity personal travel (OST 1997). 6.3 3 TIC Under HERS Methodology In 1999 the FHWA received the latest version of the HERS (Highway Economic Requirement System) model, which is the result of DOT's efforts to better examine costs benefits and national implications associated with highway investment options The

PAGE 73

62 approach used to estimate the travel time value is to apply a value of 100% of the wage rate plus fringe benefits and vehicle / inventory costs for on-the-job travel and 60 % of the wage rate exclusive of fringe benefits for other trips (HERS 1999). 6.3.4 TIC Under BMS Methodology When a bridge has a deficiency and this deficiency demands load and height restrictions in the traffic flow the SHA is faced with two traffic management alternatives: post the bridge and divert a proportion of the traffic to a detour route ; or close the bridge and divert 100% of the traffic to a detour route. If the bridge is posted it is assumed that only heavy vehicles (trucks) are diverted. For BMS objectives trucks and buses are always treated as being on business trips and the rest of the traffic flow is treated as non-business trips. This assumption generates some bias by ignoring the fact that besides trucks and buses no other vehicles are engaged in business trips However this assumption is adopted due to the lack of data about the composition of business trips existing in the traffic stream Business trips also known as on-the-clock trips have travel time valued on the basis of savings to the employers as discussed before. The savings include wages fringe benefits, vehicle costs and inventory costs (Miller 1996 HERS 1999). This approach which includes vehicle costs and inventory costs in the composition of the travel time estimation is not shared by the Canadian Department of Transportation (Culley and Donkor 1993). For travel time savings for business travel the Canadians use the approach of "equivalent hourly wage rate that is calculated dividing the average annual individual earnings by 2 101 hours (52 weeks of work per year at an average of 40.4 hours of work per week) On top of this equivalent hourly wage rate is added 19.5% for employee fringe benefits plus 10% for unreported overtime plus 14 0 % for fringe benefits. As an example a typical "equivalent hourly wage

PAGE 74

63 rate in 1990 was $16.39 resulting in a final value of $24 01 due to the benefits included (HERS 1999). The rationale to include vehicle costs and inventory costs is the following: For vehicle costs capital invested is depreciated for the lifetime of the vehicle assuming a certain salvage value at the end of the life. The resulting average vehicle cost per year is then divided by a number of vehicle working hours in service per year per vehicle category. The weakness of this assumption is that the traffic composition will be treated as having only vehicles aged to the limit of the selected depreciation time. For example HERS assumes a five-year life for autos and four-tire trucks. That is if in the traffic composition there is a vehicle older than five years it is treated as a newer vehicle inflating the depreciation value of the traffic composition. Data from the 1995 National Transportation Survey indicates that the average age by vehicle type has been increased since 1977 The 1995 average age for cars and trucks were 8.24 and 14 93 years respectively. These numbers show that if one uses the HERS approach of fiveyears life for vehicles to determine their hour value one is attributing to a proportion of old vehicles the value of a newer vehicle. The same survey discloses that for 1995 only 37.7 percent of all vehicles are in the Oto 5 years age range. For inventory costs the rationale is to select one discount rate and multiply its hourly value by the average value of the truck cargo The problem here is knowing what type of cargo each truck is carrying. HERS assumes that 35% of all combination trucks carry low value natural resources and agricultural products and the remaining 65% of trucks carry manufactured products including goods of medium to high value processed foods building materials and paper products. The weakness of this approach is due to the assumptions made. It basically divides the truck population in two groups in which one will be sensitive

PAGE 75

64 to the inventory cost and the other group will not. Using the values published by the 1977 transportation census we have a median value for manufactured commodities of $2.29 per pound and a value of$ 0.04 per pound for non-manufactured goods. One more assumption that is necessary to be made is the assignment of the class of cargo (manufactured versus non-manufactured) with the type of truck. These assumptions introduce a bias factor in the evaluation of the inventory cost. Non-business travel time savings are valued through surveys and behavior models. Under the classes of business and non-business travel it is necessary to investigate the implications for the value of time in personal and business travel. 6.4 Comparing Travel Time Values Walls and Smith (1998) used the All Items Component of the CPI to update the travel time costs to August 1998 of four different travel time studies (NCHRP 1972 NCHRP 1990 OST 1997 and HERS 1996) Comparing the values of the NCHRP 1972 (1970 dollar) with the values developed by HERS 1996 increases of 377% for the passenger and 526% for trucks travel time cost were observed. Table 10 shows the update to 1996 dollars of the values of travel time from four different sources. This procedure of updating travel time costs is one of the factors that contribute to the poor fix on the value of travel time. This procedure freezes all the technological improvements implemented in the vehicles and in the transportation infrastructure over the years. Further it produces a static view of assuming that driver behavior has not changed since the former travel time value was established. Another factor that contributes to the l ow quality of the value of travel time is the practice of using the results of travel time studies performed outside the United States for applications within the United States. This

PAGE 76

65 practice assumes for example that Brazil s roadway network is similar to the United States network ; it also assumes similarity with vehicles and driver behavior between the two countries. In fact according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 1994) weather pavement conditions user s level of familiarity with the facility and incidents in the traffic flow are the factors considered in the evaluation of the roadways. Table 10. Composite Listing of Update Travel Time Costs Source Units Autos Trucks Combination USDOT-OST* $/Person-Hr $10.80 $16 50 $16.50 MicroBENCOST $Neh-Hr 11.37 17.44 24.98 NCHRP $Neh-Hr 11.78 19.64 19.64 HERS $Neh-Hr 14.30 25.99 31.30 Escalator Factor used : travel time cost-August 1996 *USDOT-OST= US Department of Transportation-Office of Secretary of Transportation. 6.5 Non Business Travel Time From the perspective of economic theory non-business trips are those trips that are not on-the-clock trips The market value assigned for these trips is not by the employer but by the driver. This assumption creates some difficulties in allocating the appropriate value for each class of drivers. The classical example is the housewife time cost allocation problem The work performed in the home by the housewife is not compensated by the actual exchange of money and consequently it is not reported to the Internal Revenue Service generating the false concept of work performed with no monetary value However if a professional provides the same work previously performed by the housewife this work now has a monetary value. The traditional approach used to solve this problem is to select a percentage of the wage rate and assign this percentage to all non business trips without considering fringe benefits.

PAGE 77

66 As mentioned before a value of 55% of the wage rate is recommended for drivers 40% for passengers with an uncertainty range from 50% to 75% Using the 1995 census data of 1 59 average vehicle occupancy for all purpose trips the following general formula can be established : Where TT NB = ( WP 0 x FWR) + (WPp x FWR) (OR-1) TT NB = travel time for non business WP 0 = wage proportion for drivers(%) FWR = full wage rate ($) WP p = wage proportion for passengers(%) OR = vehicle occupancy rate 6.6 Business Travel Time (17) Considering that one of the objectives of this research is to develop user costs for BMS applications that includes no bias in its development process it is important that the model use concepts that can be supported by a theoretical base accepted by the transportation community. Concepts supported with preponderance of assumptions should be avoided or minimized. In the case of travel undertaken by employees in the course of work the economic theory states that the value of travel time consists of the resource value of the time itself plus the monetary equivalent of whatever utility or disutility results from spending time traveling. Assuming time spent traveling would otherwise be spent working and that no productive use could be made of travel time the employee s pre-tax wage rate plus the monetary value o f fringe benefits represent the value of time. Based on these premises the conceptual mathematical model to evaluate business ( ontheclock) travel time can be expressed in the following way :

PAGE 78

Where TI 8 = (FWRo + FB) + (FWR H + FB) (OCR I) + VCC + VIC Ti s FWR 0 FWR H FB OCR vcc VIC = travel time for business = full wage rate for drivers = full wage rate for helpers = fringe benefits = vehicle occupancy rate = vehicle capital costs = vehicle inventory costs (18) The values to be used for wage rate and fringe benefits can be found in the US census for each category of driver. In our case we are interested in truck and car drivers 67 Trucks and heavy vehicles (military vehicles) are the main source of bridge structure degradation Extensive research has demonstrated that single unit tandum and triaxle dump trucks have a high potential for overstressing bridge structures. Further illegal overloading of trucks is now to a level such as to cause significant overstressing of bridge members (Schelling 1985 ) The Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) lists thirteen different vehicle categories (Mactavish and Neumann 1982). HERS uses one classification for cars and four different classifications for trucks : 4-tire truck ; 6-tire truck ; 3-4 axle truck ; 4-axle combination truck ; and 5-axle combination truck. The FDOT Weigh-in-motion ( WIM) study sho w s that a 5-axle combination truck represents 50% of the truck traffic composition in the Florida roadway network and 67% of the truck traffic composition in the Interstate Highway System Since cars do not affect the bridge structure and normally they are not required to detour due to bridge limitations the use of one classification for cars seems appropriate The classification used by HERS is considered to be equivalent to the truck composition in the Florida Network and for this reason it will be used to evaluate the basic values o f each vehicle. After this evaluation these values will be adjust e d

PAGE 79

68 according to the FDOT weigh-in motion (WIM) truck percentages in the traffic composition (WIM 1998). Another factor that must be considered is the appropriate vehicle occupancy rate index to be used in the business travel time evaluation There are two methods that measure vehicle occupanc y: the travel method and the trip method The travel method computes the vehicle occupancy as person miles of travel per vehicle mile and the trip method computes the vehicle occupancy as persons per vehicle trip Because longer trips often have higher occupancies the travel method generally yields a higher rate. For BMS applications the travel method seems more appropriate. The average vehicle occupanc y, measured as person miles per vehicle mile has decreased consistently over time. This trend is related to an increase in vehicle ownership and decreases in household size. Data from 1977 indicates a vehicle occupanc y rate for all purposes of 1.9 ; in 1995 this rate decreased to 1.59. The vehicle occupanc y rate for trucks is generally accepted to be 1.0 for heavy trucks and 1 1 for small trucks and pick-ups that use helpers on business trips (HERS 1996 ). Data from Florida Truck Permit Office shows an occupancy rate for trucks of 1 0 and this value will be used for heavy trucks For small trucks and pick ups the occupancy rate o f 1.1 will be used based on HERS data. 6.7 Value of One Hour Travel Time Tablel 1 presents the value of one-hour travel time by benefit category and v ehicle type Labor fringe benefits vehicle capital costs and vehicle inventory costs are the TTC constituents The v alues are in 1997 dollar.

PAGE 80

69 Table 11. Value of One Hour Travel Time for Business and Non-Business Trips by Vehicle Category (1997 dollars) Vehicle Type Category Auto 4-Tire 6Tire 3-4 Axle 4-Axle 5-Axle Truck Truck Comb. Comb. Comb. Business Labor 15.33 14.19 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 Fringe Benefits 2.97 5.10 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Capital Cost 0.42 0.50 0.86 2.79 1.95 2.00 Vehicle Inventory Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 Total 18.72 19.79 20.15 22.58 22.24 22.29 Non-Business Wage 9.27 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Vehicle Occupancy 1.59 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.7.1 Labor/Fringe Benefits For autos, the hourly wage per vehicle occupant for on-the-clock trips in 1997 was assumed equal to the Florida median household income of $31,900 (1997 dollar) divided by 2,080 hours/year. The main reason for selecting the Florida median value in place of the US median value for household income was to follow the criteria established previously for prioritizing the use oflocal data. The fringe benefits value used is the US average of 19.73 % published in the Statistical Abstract of the United States (STA 1989). The US and the Florida Statistical Abstracts use the median to report the household income. Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, one having incomes above the median and the other having incomes below the median. For households, the median income is based on the distribution of the total number of units including those with no income (FSA, 1998). The median better represents the reality than the mean income that is obtained by dividing the total income of a particular statistical universe by the number of units in that universe.

PAGE 81

70 For trucks the value used for labor is the one published by the US Census Bureau for weekly median full-time wages for truck drivers, that is $516 / week For truck helpers the value assigned was the median weekly earnings of fulltime wages for freight stock, and material handlers of $399 / week. The fringe benefit for trucks was the value reported by HERS of 36% which was taken from the Teamster s Union contract for the Central United States. 6.7.2 Vehicle Capital Cost The evaluation of vehicle capital costs made by the HERS model is made assuming a five-year life with a 15 percent salvage value at the end and with initial costs taken from the Motor Vehicle Manufacture Association. This approach is appropriate only if all vehicles in the traffic composition work only five years. As mentioned before the average vehicle age existing in the traffic composition is higher. For this reason a factor will be introduced to lower the value of each vehicle capital cost. This factor is calculated dividing 5-years by the average vehicle age reported in the 1995 summary of travel trends. The values are 0.60 0.57 and 0.33 respectively for cars four wheel trucks and heavy trucks. For heavy trucks the cost per hour was computed as the average vehicle costs per year divided by the number of hours in service ( assumed to be in service only 1600 hour per year) For cars four and six tire trucks it is assumed that they work 2000 hours per year (HERS 1999). 6 7.3 Vehicle Inventory Costs The methodology to calculate vehicle inventory costs, as mentioned before, is based on applying one discount rate to the value of the payload carried by the truck The HERS model uses a discount rate per hour of 0.0011 percent. This rate is derived from a discount rate of 9 8 percent plus 1 percent. The average payload of a five-axle combination was

PAGE 82

71 assumed to equal 30,000 pounds. The type of cargo carried by all combination trucks was spilt to 35% carrying natural and agricultural products, and 65% carrying manufactured products. The median value per pound of the manufactured products indicated in the Commodity Transportation Survey data is $2.29, and for agricultural and natural products $ 0.04 per pound. With these values, the average payload is valued at roughly $45,000, yielding a time value of $0.505 per hour (HERS, 1999). 6.8 Truck Travel Time Cost for Florida Using the truck composition data from the WIM study for the FDOT that is in progress at the Civil Engineering Department, University of Florida, only the last three vehicle types listed on Table 12 are statistically relevant for BMS applications. The research result values are showed in Table 12 Table 12. Research Result Value for TIC Truck Type $/Hr Percent Total (CPK) 3-4 Axle Truck 22.58 92.0 20.7736 4-Axle Combination 22.24 7.0 1.5568 5-Axle Combination 22.29 1.0 0.2229 Total 100.0 22.5533

PAGE 83

CHAPTER 7 AVERAGE VEHICLE OPERA TING COSTS FOR BMS The Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) developed by this research is 31.3843 cents/Km. This is the marginal cost for a truck run for one extra kilometer per trip. This chapter describes how this value is developed, and the methodology used to evaluate the VOC components (fuel maintenance tire and oil change). A VOC for cars and light trucks is presented in Appendix H. The structure of this chapter is shown in Figure 7, where the solid line represents the critical path to develop the new VOC for trucks, and the dashed line represents variable costs not included in this VOC development. I 7.1 voe Related Factors I 1 7.1.1 Weight Limits 7 1.2 VOC Value Ranges 7 1.3 Equipment Carrier and Capacity Optimization T y pes 7 1 4 Political Factors 7 I 5 Road Network Compatibility I I 7.2 Running Cost Calculation methodology I I I 7 3 Variable Costs I ... ......... ..... ................ ........................ I on 7.3 1 Depreciatt 7.3 2 Labor Cos 7.3 3 Miscellan 7.3.4 Accident C ts eous Costs ost s I 17.4 voe Truck Customization I I 7.4.1 Fuel Cost s 7 4 2 Maintenance 7 4.3 Tires 7.4 4 Oil Changes 7 5 New CV v Value 31.3834 Cents/Killorneter Figure 7 Flow Chart for BMS VOC Development 72

PAGE 84

73 7.1 VOC Related Factors According to Equation 19 the motor vehicle operating cost (VOC) is evaluated as a function of average vehicle operating costs per kilometer of detour (CV v ) and detour distance (D r ) CV v is the cost incurred for a truck to run one kilometer. Since the detour distance is a fixed parameter in the Pontis matrix the parameter that is variable and sensitive to user costs is the CV v Where VOC=CVvxDr VOC = motor v ehicle operating costs CV v = average vehicle operating costs per kilometer of detour D r = detour distance for the roadway in km (19) The term motor vehicle for Pontis BMS means a truck. The reason why Pontis focuses only on trucks is due to the fact that bridges are designed with the constraints of bridge formula B w hich defines the maximum weight that may be carried on two or more truck axles This weight is evaluated as a function of the spacing between any two consecutive axles and the number of axles according to the following mathematical relationship: Where W = 500 [(LN / (N-1) + 12N + 36] ( 20 ) W =Maximum weight that may be carried on two or more axles in lbs. L = Spacing in feet between the outer axles of any two or more consecutive axles N = Number of axles being considered (Francher and Gillespie 1997 )

PAGE 85

74 7 1 1. Weight Limits Current federal limits on truck weight length and width are defined by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (ST AA) of 1992 These limits apply to all vehicles using the Interstate system and other designated federal-aid highways. The weight limits are nominally defined as 9 000 K g ( 20 000lb) on a single axle 15 000 Kg (34 000lb) on a tandem axle group 36 000 Kg (80 000lb) maximum gross weight (with a few exceptions) (Fancher and Gillespie 1997). Since bridge designers use bridge formula B with the maximum constraint value that is the maximum vehicle load allowed by legislation it becomes clear that only heavy trucks cause stress to bridge structures with high concentrated loads being more stressful. Cars pickups and light trucks normally do not cause stress to bridge structures unless the bridge has severe limitations like historical wood bridges. For this reason Pontis considers that under normal circumstances when a bridge is posted only a percent of trucks must be detoured. However if the bridge is closed all traffic must be detoured and for this reason the evaluation of truck and car operating costs should be considered. The VOC for cars vans and light trucks are displa y ed in Appendix H. 7 1.2 VOC Value Ranges The evaluation of operating cost is a tough challenge faced b y the truck industry. According to Cox (1996a) it is impossible to come up with an industry average cost per mile because it depends on a number of variables: the cost of fuel the number of miles run per year the truck age the driver lifestyle and so on. However an average cost per mile ( operations cost) is one of the most useful pieces of information necessary for the business.

PAGE 86

75 Truck operating costs will depend on the type of truck and the type of operation in which they are used. According to Elgin (1998) it is estimated that only ten percent of owner operators know their cost per mile and that the old proverb of $1 00 per mile just does not apply in today s environment. Comparing the data from a population of 104 561 tractor trucks associated with 332 838 trailers distributed into 98 carriers in 1997 the operating costs range goes from 14 25 to 111.04 cents per mile (TFM 1998). Comparing the operation cost of all Florida truck companies reported in the 1997 Motor Carrier Annual Report a range of9. 3 to 100 9 cents per mile was observed. There are several reasons why there is a large value range in the operating cost reported. The main reason is a lack of a uniform methodology to evaluate operating costs associated with the diversity of equipment and carrier types 7 1.3 Equipment, Carrier and Capacity Optimization Types According to the 1999 National Motor Carrier Directory Record Counts there are 11 equipment types and 19 carrier types hauling commodities. They are listed on Appendix C. To increase complexity the FHWA uses a classification where vehicles are grouped into 5 000 pound weight categories ranging from 5 000 to 150 000 pounds generating a matrix of 20 vehicle classifications. That is there is not a uniform truck classification that covers all users. Other factors that contribute to the difficulty in evaluating truck-operating costs are related to the capacity of each truck. If the truck runs at full capacity it is classified by the truck industry as truckload-TL If the truck runs with partial capacity it is classified as Less Than Truckload LTD. The ownership type of the truck is also responsible to create new classifications: owner-operators and fleet operators.

PAGE 87

76 7.1.4 Political Factors Besides the factors listed above that contribute to the difficulty in evaluating truck operating costs there is also a political issue to be considered That is the old political war between FHW A and the truck industry that is related to the truck maximum load capacity allowed b y law and the appropriate tax share that the truck industry should pay to use the roadway network. At the same time that the truck industry has a strong lobby to increase the limits on truck weight and length based on the premise that these will improve productivity in the transportation sector the FHW A feels that the tax share paid by the truck industry is not adequate to cover the related pavement damage. Heavier trucks produce more damage and consequently require more taxation for repair and replacement. As a result of this political war an increase of 9 .17 percent in the maximum vehicle load has been achieved during the last five decades (Noel et al. 1985) and large discrepancies are observed in the tax share paid by truck owners. In relation to the tax share paid by each FHW A vehicle classification the 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study results show a negative equity ratio between revenues and costs. The study presents the estimated cost burden for different vehicle classes and registered weight groups for the Federal related program cost funded from the Highwa y Trust Fund (HTF) in 2000. Comparing these costs with the Federal user fees paid per mile of travel using the same vehicle class and same year it was found that the ratio of the shares ofrevenues contributed by each vehicle class to the share of highwa y costs are unbalanced. Pick-ups and vans have the largest over payment of an y v ehicle class Other vehicle classes in the aggregate that pa y more than their fair share are 2-axle single unit trucks all truck-trailer combinations and 5and 6 axle twin trailer combinations. However 5-axle tractor semitrailers have the largest underpayment of any vehicle clas s,

PAGE 88

77 followed by automobiles and 3-and 4-axle single unit trucks (USDOT 1997) Appendix D shows the breakdown of the 2000 Federal highway cost responsibilities and user fee payments by vehicle class and weight group in cents per mile and the percent cost share. The truck traffic composition in Florida identifies 68% of the trucks as 5 axle tractor sernitralers (WIM 1998). Traditionally truck-operating costs are not disclosed by the truck industry on the premise that it is internal information that is part of the negotiation process. Harrington stated in his 1994 article that the University of Tennessee found a growing desire among shippers for simpler more predictable carrier pricing structures. Many are tired of the mystery surrounding rates and pricing and in fact find that mystery a hindrance in serving their customers effectively (Harrington 1994). Some government agencies like the USDA require a disclosure of the truck operating costs in their contracts. Other sources of information are the income statement published by commercial carriers and data from truck associations. Probably part of this behavior of not displaying clear operating costs is to protect themselves from higher taxation and extra labor costs. 7. 1.5 Road Network Compatibility The majority of the VOC studies made around the world are concerned with discovering the relationship between highway design, pavement condition and road user costs to be used in a transportation investment feasibility analysis. If the findings of these studies are assumed to be applicable to the USA with some simplifications of the formulas developed it is possible to generate costs for fuel oil tire wear and maintenance costs However these studies were developed assuming compatibility between the roadwa y network from developing countries with the USA roadway network. Since one of the

PAGE 89

78 objectives ofthis research is to reduce the bias in the user cost calculation these studies will not be valid for our investigation. 7.2 Running Costs Calculation Methodology Truck running costs are those costs which are incurred solely when a vehicle is operating. They have nothing to do with the costs of owning the vehicle or with the expenses involved in running that transport business as a whole. They are classified as a variable costs and they are comprised of the following four items: fuel tires maintenance and lubricants. Under the v ehicle costs classification there are costs which relate directly and solely to individual vehicles like licenses insurance drive labor rent interest and depreciation that are labeled as standing costs (Lowe 1974) All those expenses incurred in running a transport business which cannot be directly attributed to any individual vehicle are labeled overhead costs All those expenses incurred w hen the vehicle is running are labeled running costs The combination of standing costs plus overhead costs and running costs are recognized by some sectors of the truck industry as operating costs (Lowe 1974). 7 3 Variable costs Running costs are under the classification of vehicle variable costs as listed in Table 13. In reality what Pontis BMS requires is the marginal costs which is the additional cost of running an extra kilometer e.g the variable costs. In some cases authors use the term operating costs with the same meaning as running costs. There is not a consensus in the literature about the classification of variable costs parameters for evaluation of vehicle operating costs

PAGE 90

79 Table 13. Vehicle Costs Classification Between Fix and Variable Costs Fixed Costs Variable Costs Licenses Fuel Insurance Oil Depreciation Tires Rent Maintenance Interest Tolls Overhead Labor 7 .3 .1 Depreciation Comparing old studies with recent ones, the main change observed is that depreciation which was considered a variable cost in old studies is being treated as a fixed cost in recent studies. Early studies include depreciation as a variable cost. However it is noticed that it is not included in the comprehensive VOC studies after 1987. Table 14 presents the MicoBENCOST study as a recent study since it was published in 1993. However the data used to develop its VOC was based on an old study performed by Zaniewsk in Brazil for the years 1975-1982. Today some carriers generate two weights for the same measurement. One hypothetical example can clarify this point. Assume that company A starts a transportation business with 100 new trucks with a policy to depreciate by mile and to replace the trucks when they reach the 400,000 miles. After a period of time (t) that is defined by the minimum time allowed by the Internal Revenue Service for depreciation and 50% of the trucks really reached of 400,000+ miles and 50% reached only 200,000+ miles in time (t). Technically speaking company A accrued depreciation costs for all 100 trucks as expenses in order to maximize its profit. Further 50% of the fleet would subsequently have zero depreciation in their operating costs.

PAGE 91

80 Table 14. Variable Costs Assigned at Operating Vehicle Cost Studies VOC study Misc. Labor Fuel Oil Tires Maint. Depr. Acc. Winfrey, 1962 X X X X X Welle, 1966 X X X X X Clafey 1971 X X X X X X Zaniewski, 1982 X X X X X OOM 1986 X X X X X X Chester & Harison 1987 X X X X X Witconis & Stadden, 1988 X X X X X FHWA, 1991 X X X X X USDA, 1991 X X X X MicroBENCOST, 1993 X X X X X MCAR, 1997 X X X X X Berwick 1997 X X X X Hypothetically if a company can extend the life of its trucks by careful maintenance, working for a period of time with a totally depreciated vehicle the level of profit will increase assuming that the maintenance cost are keep under control. According to Ryder, a large carrier, the operating costs at 500,000 miles were close to those at the million-mile mark (Romba, 1995). In other words, trucks that experience large mileage per year generate lower depreciation per mile, and trucks that experience low mileage per year generate higher depreciation per mile. This policy increases operating costs if the truck is not running, which is contrary to the standard classification of variable costs. For this reason depreciation cannot be considered as part of the running costs. The National Accounting & Finance Council classifies depreciation as a fixed cost (NAFC, 1994).

PAGE 92

7.3 .2 Labor Costs The cost for labor was considered in the travel time cost evaluation and for this reason it will not be included in this section. 7.3 3 Miscellaneous Costs 81 Expenses under miscellaneous and other costs are those that do not fit in any other accounting category An investigation of log sheets designed to record cost per mile expenses revealed that miscellaneous and other costs are related more to the driver's life style than with the equipment (Witconis and Stadden 1988) The cost per mile log sheet published by the Overdrive Book Division & Randall publishing Co. provides a breakdown of the variable costs and divides it into two parts. Variable costs (I) that are related to the truck and variable cost (II) that are not related to the truck. When a cost per mile log sheet does not break down the variable costs into two parts, they list the costs associated with the truck and then list miscellaneous costs From this observation we can conclude that miscellaneous cost s are those costs that are not related to the truck running costs 7 .3 .4 Accident Costs Only one study lists accident costs under vehicle operating costs. For Pontis BMS accident costs will be given a specific treatment. These costs are not treated as part of the VOC costs. They will be discussed in the next chapter. 7.4 VOC Truck Customization As mentioned before for PONTIS only the truck VOC is important. The values of fuel maintenance oil and tires will be calculated The weigh-in-motion (WIM) for Florida during calendar year 1997 shows that 61.61 % of the trucks that use the Florida road network is class 9. Trucks under class 9 are identified as a 3-axle tractor +2-axle trailer and

PAGE 93

82 3-axle truck +2axle trailer. These vehicles have a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 80 000+ pounds. Vehicles class 5 to 8 have a maximum GVW of 68 000 pounds. For the evaluation of the average operating costs it was assumed that the vehicles under class 5 to 8 would not be required to detour at any bridge site. This is to say that 33 73% of the trucks from the WlM study will not be classified as heavy trucks. Vehicle classes 10 to 13 are combination tractors with a number of axles between five and more than seven with GVW ranging from 80 000 to 140 000 pounds The percent of heavy trucks considered in this study was calculated to be 92% as a five-axle -80 000 lbs. 7% as a seven axle87 000-97 500 lbs ., and 1 % as nine-axle80,000 to 113 500 lbs. (WlM, 1998). 7.4.1 Fuel Costs Fuel costs are by far the trucker's largest variable expense. Cox indicates that the driver can directly control the fuel consumption in four ways: reduce highway speed reduce idling proper tire inflation and smart driving (Cox, 1996b). Engineers from Donaldson Co. add to the Cox list some maintenance items like excessive exhaust back pressure or air intake restrictions that can cause as much as 4% drop in the fuel economy. As a rule of t humb ( since it was not possible to trace the source of the named fuel tests ) for each 1mph increase above 55 mph 1/10 gallon more fuel per mile is consumed. A truck at 65 mph on the average, will get 1-mpg less than it does at 55 mph Idling particularly fast idling consumes up to 1 gallon per hour and according to the Maintenance Council tests underinflated tires (70 psi vs IO0psi) can reduce fuel mileage between 1.5% and 3% (HDT 1990). Campbell points out that fuel purchased under credit plans can cost 6 to 12 cents more per gallon than fuel purchased under cash plans (Campbell 1991). According to MacDonald (1993 ) if the drivers can run their trucks in the highest possible gear at all times

PAGE 94

83 they will minimize the revolutions per minute, and will maximize mpg at the rate of I gallon less fuel per hour (Macdonald 1993). Kanapton (1981) developed an empirical equation for estimating unit vehicle inter city freight fuel consumption. It is a linear function of weight in which the constant term represents the fuel consumed in moving the empty vehicle, and the variable term represent the fuel required moving the payload: Where, GPVM= FFC= VFC= P= GPVM= FFC + VFC (P) ( 21) is the average line-haul fuel consumption in gallons per vehicle mile. is the fixed component of fuel consumption which is required to overcome resistance of the tare weight and aerodynamic drag. is the variable component of fuel consumption and is the additional fuel required to move the payload. is the payload Jack Faucett Associates (1991) updated the Kanapton formula using a 65-mph speed limit, and diesel fuel at $1.25 per gallon. One change was made to Kanapton's formulas: they were modified so that they would be a function of the gross vehicle weight (GVW) i nstead of a function of payload. Coefficients for fixed and variable costs were obtained for four vehicle types (vans, flatbeds, tanks and dump trailers). The fuel cost per vehicle mile was derived from 1988 dollars. The CPI index was used to update the data to 1998 dollars. These are listed in Table 15 according to the number of axles and GWV. Table 15. Estimated Cost for Fuel Per Mile by Truck Category Axle/L GVW000 TL Van Refrigerated Flat Bed Tank Hopper Dump (lbs.) (CPM) Van (CPM) (CPM) (CPM) (CPM) (CPM) 5 axle twin 80 23.0 27.1 22.0 21.3 15.1 15.1 7 axle twin 80-97 23.7 28.8 23.1 22.8 16.1 16.1 9 axle twin 89,2 23.9 30.9*, 24.2*, 22.8*, 15.l *, 16.1 4

PAGE 95

Calculated at GVW of: 1 =113,500 lbs. 2 =90,000 lbs. 3 =80,000 lbs. 4 =81,000 lbs. Source: Adapted from Jack Faucett Associates (1991) Using these percentages it was possible to evaluate the fuel cost per kilometer. The methodology used was to calculate the average weighted value of each fuel cost listed in table 15 and then split these values into six selected equipment types shown in Table C Appendix C. The results are show in Table 16. Table 16. Fuel Costs Distribution by Equipment Type Equipment type Percent Fuel Cost Totals Per mile Cents/ Mile Cents/Km TL Van 39.19 23.058 9.03643 Refrigerated 12.87 22.289 2.86859 Flat bed 23.19 22.099 5.12475 Tank 7.26 21.420 1.55509 Hopper 10.48 15.180 1.59086 Dump 7.21 15.131 1.06068 Grand Total l (1988 dollar value) 21.23642 Grand total 2 (1998 dollar value) 28.88506 Grand Total 3 ( 1998 cents-per-kilometer) 18.05316 7.4.2 Maintenance 84 The maintenance cost was calculated based on a formula from Jack Faucett and Associates (1991) where a scaling procedure was used. The formula is weight sensitive and is based on a gross vehicle weight of 58,000 pounds. At this level, a value of 10 cents per vehicle mile is used, and for each 1,000 pounds increase in the GVW .097 cents is added. The formula for maintenance is: Maintenance Costs= 10 + [(GVW-58, 000)/1000] 0.097 ( 22) Using the same percent of heavy trucks mentioned in section 7.10, the total of 12.4598 cents per mile was calculated as listed in Table 17.

PAGE 96

85 Table 17. Maintenance Costs for TrucksCPM/CPK % truck GVW Equation 22 Total Composition (000) Cents/mile Cents/mile Cents/Km 92.0 80 12 13 11.1596 07.0 97 13.78 1.1207 01.0 113.5 15.38 0.1795 Grand total 1 (1988 dollar value) 12.4598 Grand total 2 (1998 dollar value) 16.7001 Grand total 3 (1998 dollar value) 10.4377 7.4.3 Tires Tire costs were derived from the Pace Report where truck expenses were reported by 98 carriers in 1997 (TFM, 1998). A value of 3 .5557 cents-per-mile was derived using 1987 dollars Using the CPI index for 1998, the update value is 3 612303, which is equivalent to 2.25765 cents-per-kilometer. The statistics with a 95% confidence level is shown in Table 18 Table 18. Tire Costs Descriptive Statistics--CPM and CPK Descriptive Values Results Mean 3.55570(CPM) 2.2576 (CPK) Standard Deviation 3.37248 Standard Error Mean 0.34971 Upper 95 % Mean 4.25026 Lower 95 % Mean 2.86114 Number of entries 93 7.4.4 Oil Change The majority of vehicle operating cost studies found in the literature includes oil change under fuel. Cox (1997) reports the cost of 1 cent-per-mile after running 125,000

PAGE 97

miles in a year Using the CPI index for 1998 the update value is 1.016119 which is equivalent to 0.6350 cents-per kilometer. 7.5 New CVv Value 86 Adding the costs of fuel maintenance tire and change oil in centsper-kilometer, using 1998 dollars the sum in 31.3834 cents-per-kilometer which is the new CVv value for Pontis. The composition of the total cost is listed in Table 19 Table 19 New VOC Value for Pontis CV v Default Value Variable Costs Cents per Kilometer Fuel 18 0531 Maintenance 10.4377 Tire 2 2576 Oil Change 0.635 Total 31.3834

PAGE 98

CHAPTER8 BRIDGE RELATED ACCIDENT COSTS FOR FLORIDA The new Average Accident Cost (AAC) default value developed by this research is $68,404.39 per accident under the comprehensive approach (including social costs), and $27 365.75 per accident under the economic approach. A total of 10,115 crashes were considered which occurred on 4,505 bridges in Florida in 1996. The injury costs developed by this research range from $3,014,525 to $8 815.72 per injury. They are shown in Table 20. The structure of this chapter is shown in Figure 8. Table 20. Injury Costs by Injury Type--Year 1996 Injury Type Cost in 1996 Dollars Approach Fatality Injury A Injury B Injury C Comprehensive $3 014,525 $211,515.4 $45,927.2 $29,844.7 Economic $871,697.2 $49,294.19 $12,289.65 $8,815.72 8.1 Bridge Accident Cost Evaluation Methodology 8 .2 Comprehensive Fatality and Injury Costs 8.2.1 Fatalities 8.2.2 Nonfatal Injuries 8.3 Conversion of MAIS into ABC Classification 8.4 FDOT Crash Data Preparation 8.4.1 Matching Crashes to Bridges 8.4.2 Injuries in the Database 8.4.3 Eliminating Questionable Bridges 8.5 New Bridge Related Accident Average Cost: $68.404.39/Accident Figure 8. Flow Chart for the Average Accident Costs Development 87

PAGE 99

88 8 0 Background According to several studies, bridge related accidents are more severe than other roadway accidents ( Chen and Johnston 1987, Turner 1984 Mitchie 1980 Hilton 1973). The literature shows indices that measures the severity of bridge related accidents varying from 2 to 50 times the severity of general roadway traffic accidents It is difficulty to point to the main cause of a bridge-related accident. One of the former studies on this subject found that the average daily traffic (ADT), sharp curvature at approaches, and bridge width had major effects on bridge related accidents (Raff, 1953). Another study correlates narrow bridge roadway width and curved approaches as the most important factors contributing to accidents at bridges sites (Hilton 1973). Empirical observations also have confirmed these results. Recent example was the death of Princess Diana in a car accident that hit a bridge structure (underpass) in France. The main point in establishing that bridge related accidents rates are more severe than roadway accidents is that the higher the accident rate the higher the user cost. According to Chen and Johnston (1987) the average cost of accidents i nvolving bridges was estimated to be 5 to 8 times the costs of general motor vehicle accidents 8.1 Bridge Accident Cost Evaluation Methodology The number of bridge related accident occurring in Florida was evaluated using the FDOT bridge accident database for 1996. The data was arranged in a spreadsheet using each line to record an accident. If the accident occurred in a scenario where two or there bridges were involved, an allocation factor was used to split the costs For two bridges an allocation factor of 0.5 was used for three bridges the value was 0.33 and for four bridges the value was 0.25.

PAGE 100

89 There are four types of injury classifications in the database selected from the KABCO classification listed in Table E-1 Appendix E. The KABCO injury scheme is designed for police coding at the crash scene. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in standard D-16.1 defines it. Besides the injury classification for each accident a correspondent property damage is also reported in the FDOT database. A total of 10 015 bridge accidents were found for the year 1996 in the FDOT database involving 4 505 bridges. The average cost of each accident was calculated using Equation 23 ABAC= (FC K + IAC A + IBC B + ICC C + PDO) AF ( 23) Where ABAC = FC = K = IAC = A= IBC = B = ICC = C = POD = AF = Average Bridge Accident Cost ($) Fatality Cost($) (Research Resulted Value) Number of fatalities (FDOT database) Injury Type A cost ($)(Research Resulted Value) Number of Injury A (FDOT database) Injury Type B cost ($)(Research Resulted Value) Number of Injury B (FDOT database) Injury type C cost ($) (Research Resulted Value) Number of Injury C (FDOT database) Property damage Only value ($) (FDOT database) Appropriation Factor (FDOT database) 8.2 Comprehensive Fatality and Injury Costs The latest comprehensive study about fatality and injury costs is based on 1994 data prepared by Blincoe (1996) which has its roots in the studies prepared by Miller (1991 1993a, 1993b 1994 1995 1995b 1995c) The Blincoe study covers 1994 motor vehicle crashes where 40 676 people were killed 5.2 million were injured and 27 million vehicles were damaged. The estimated cost of these motor vehicle crashes was $150 5 billion. Death injury and property damage caused by these crashes were the major contributions to the financial loss to victims their families and to society at large. Included in these costs are: lost productivity ; medical costs; legal and court costs ;

PAGE 101

emergency service costs; insurance administration costs; travel delay; property damage; and work place losses. 90 The report uses the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) that was developed by the American Medical Association and the American Association for Automotive Medicine (AAAM), which is different from the KABCO classification used by FDOT. Five levels of injuries are used to report the costs under the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS). For this reason it is necessary to use a methodology to transform the MAIS into the ABC classification. Comparing the components of total costs including fatalities and non fatalities with only fatalities, and only non-fatalities injuries it was observed that market and household productivity are the components that generate the largest cost contribution for each injury category. Table E-2 in Appendix E shows the percent breakdown of each of the cost components. Blincoe (1996) refers to a survey made by Greenblat, et al., ( 1981) which determined the portion of motor vehicle crashes that were reported to the police. They found that for every police-reported crash, there were 27.4 unreported crashes. Blincoe and Faigin (1992) observed a trend in the behavior of drivers involved in accidents. The unreported cases increase with the decrease of injury level. For minor (MAIS 1) injuries, 22 percent were unreported. For property damage only (PDO), 48 percent were unreported. 8.2.1 Fatalities Fatality estimates for 1994 were obtained from the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS). FARS contains information of a complete census of all fatal traffic crashes on public roads in the United States in which a death occurred within 30 days of the crash. The production that is lost by individual crash victims is evaluated using a discount rate of 4 %. There is not scientific proof of the accuracy ofthis discount rate. However, Blincoe (1996) cites four authors that suggest a discount rate in the range of 2 to 6%

PAGE 102

91 8.2.2 Nonfatal Injuries The FARS census provides an accurate count of fatalities. However there is no equivalent data base for injuries. Estimates of nonfatal injuries were derived from a variety of sources including the Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) the general estimates System (GES) the National Accident Sampling System (NASS) the National Healthy Interview Survey (NHIS) and injury estimates provided to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by individual states (NASS 1988) 8.3 Conversion of MAIS into ABC Classification To convert the reported comprehensive costs from MAIS to KABCO it was necessary to create a conversion table. The methodology was to use the NASS data, which includes the KABCO code the MAIS score and a medical description of the injuries First it was necessary to compute the injury costs by MAIS considering the injury as described in medical documents. To compute A B C, equivalent costs the above values are multiplied by the percentage incidence by MAIS (considering the body region for the A-B-C category ) times the cost distribution. The products are then added In our case the NASS data was used from 1982 to 1986 and is summarized in Table F-1 Appendix F The percent of each column was calculated generating Table F-2 Appendix F that is called ABC/NASS distribution factors. The comprehensive and economic costs listed in Table F-3 Appendi x F was then multiplied by the distribution factors generating Table F-2 Appendix F The resulted values are the comprehensive and economic injury costs. They are listed in Tables F -4 and F-5 Appendix F. The total ABC injury costs from Table F-4 and F-5 Appendix F are listed on Table 2 1 and Table 22 respectively for comprehensive and economic values in 1994 dollars The y are update value for 1996 dollars. The reason to update this value is because the FDOT database is in 1996 dollars. They are updated to 1996 dollars using the CPI all items inde x.

PAGE 103

Table 21. Comprehensive Injury Costs, Years 1994 and 1996 Injury Type Cost in 1994 and 1996 Dollars Values Year Fatality Injury A Injury B Injury C 1994 $2,501,292 $199,643.35 $43,350.52 $28,107.2 1996 $3,014,525 $211,515.4 $45,927.2 $29,844 7 Table 22. Economic Injury Costs Years 1994 and 1996 Injury Type Cost in 1994 and 1996 Dollars Values Year Fatality Injury A Injury B Injury C 1994 $697 736 $46,573.26 $11,675.67 $8,402.04 1996 $871,697.2 $49,294.19 $12,289.65 $8,815.72 The resulted Injury costs expressed in 1996 dollars are used to monetize the number of injuries reported in the FDOT database. 8.4 FDOT Crash Data Preparation 92 The estimation data set was prepared by merging FDOT's Pontis data with highway crash data maintained by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (HSMV 1999). The year 1996 was chosen as the analysis year to ensure that all required data would be available for the same year. FDOT maintains Pontis data for 6 383 bridges almost all state-owned bridges in the state highway system. HSMV maintains crash statistics based on police reports for all roads in the state (Thompson et al. 1998). 8.4.1 Matching Crashes to Bridges When the Pontis database was established in 1997-98, it relied on inventory data already maintained in the FDOT's Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI). The RCI contains the same bridges as Pontis, using the same Bridge IDs, and also using the same

PAGE 104

93 linear reference system (County Section Subsection, and Milepost) as the HSMV database. This made it relatively straightforward to develop an automated process to merge the two data sets Using the RCI data it was possible to precisely locate the beginning and end of each bridge along the roadway. Following the recommendation made by (Brinkman and Male 1986) and also by (Johnston et al 1994) all accidents from the HSMV database that were located within 500 feet of the beginning or end of a bridge were attributed to that bridge. A computer program was written to select all accidents occurring in within 500 ft from each bridge end. 8.4.2 Injuries in the Database HSMV data are quite extensive for each accident, including not only the location and time of the crash but also various items of data about drivers vehicles weather injuries and other circumstances. Very little data are provided about bridges Injuries in the crash database are coded according to the traditional A-B-C system (KABCO) expressed in a numeric form defined as follows: 1-No injury 2 Possible injury 3 Non-incapacitating injury 4 Incapacitating injury 5 Fatal injury (within 90 days) An estimate of vehicle and non-vehicle property damage is also recorded. HSMV follows up on crash reports after 90 days to determine the final count of fatalities and to update the property damage estimate if available. The initial matching process characterized the injuries in each accident according to the worst injury sustained and a dollar value of property damage Later in the study it was found that the most reliable

PAGE 105

94 available accident cost data in the literature was expressed as a cost per injury rather than a cost per accident. This distinction is important because each bridge-related accident in the Florida data set in v olves on average 2.09 vehicles each vehicle carrying 1.43 persons The HSMV database does include a listing of each individual ( driver passenger or pedestrian) and his/her injury level in each accident. Since the matching process included a unique accident identifier for each crash it was decided later in the study to request the detailed injury list and merge this with the estimation data set to develop a count of injuries by severity level. This made it possible to determine the average user cost per accident. (Thompson et al. 1998). Out of 11 332 accidents in the matched data set 6 235 matched more than one bridge. More than 98 percent of these cases involved two or more parallel bridges which shared the same ( or nearly the same) linear referencing information. Most of the remaining cases are bridges in series that are less than 1 000 feet apart. Since the functional characteristics of the nearby bridges tend to be identical it was assumed that each bridge was equally likely to be associated with the accident. The accident counts injuries and costs were then di v ided equally among them As is evident from the preliminary data analysis this action has a substantial effect on the statistical properties of the data set b y allowing for fractional accident counts and by reducing the number of bridges having no accidents associated with them Although the matching process was able to match roadways either on or under each bridge it was decided to use only data for roadways crossing over b ridges. This is consistent with the Pontis assumptions for widening since widening usually does not affect the characteristics of roadways under bridges. Pontis is able to account for t he user benefits o f improving the roadway under a bridge when it is replaced but there

PAGE 106

were doubts about the completeness of roadway-under data in the FDQT Pontis database (Thompson et al. 1998). 8.4.3 Eliminating Questionable Bridges 95 A large number of bridges in the Pon tis database have no corresponding accidents in the crash database. Usually this is because no accidents occurred on that bridge during 1996. However sometimes this could be because the bridge is outside the coverage of the crash database. For this reason certain bridges and their associated accidents if any were removed from the data set (Thompson et. al. 1998). Appendix G shows how each bridge related accident is treated in the EXCEL spreadsheet for the case where a crash involves one bridge two bridges three bridges and four bridges. An example is also presented for cases where more than one accident occurred in a year for one specific bridge 8.5 Bridge Related Accident Average Cost Substituting in Equation 23 the Research Resulted (RR) comprehensive and economic injury costs for year 1996 as listed in Table 20 (that are the factor inputs FC IAC IBC ICC) two predictive accident cost models are created. Equation 24 is the model that uses comprehensive injury costs and Equation 25 is the model that uses economic injury cost values. ABAC = (3 014 525 0 K + 211 515.4 A + 45 927.2 B + 29 844.7 C + PDQ)* AF (24) ABAC= (871 697.2 K + 49 294.19 *A+ 12 289.65 B + 8 815.72 C + PDQ ) AF (25 ) Where K = Number of Fatalities (FDQT Database ) A = Number of Injury A (FDQT Database) B = Number oflnjury B (FDQT Database) C = Number of Injury C (FDQT Database)

PAGE 107

96 PDQ = Property Damage Only Value (FDOT Database) AF = Appropriation Factor (FDOT Database) Using Equations 24 and 25 to calculate the contribution of each factor for the bridge population considered and dividing that total number of 10 015 accidents occurring in Florida in 1996 a unit cost per accident is then generated. The final result is listed in Table 23 Table 23 Bridge Related Accident Unit Costs for Florida Method Total Costs($) Number of Unit Cost Unit Cost Accidents 1996 dollar 1998 dollar Comprehensive 655,837 765 10015.40 65 482.91 68 404.39 Economic 262,373 413 10015.40 26 196.99 27 365 75 The Comprehensive value of $68 404,39 includes all social costs and it is the new average accident cost default parameter to be used in Pontis BMS for Florida applications. It will be used as a selected user average cost per accident in the sensitivity analysis study in the next chapter.

PAGE 108

CHAPTER9 PONTIS USER COST SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A sensitivity analysis is made to test the hypothesis ofthis dissertation. The default values of this research were fed into Pontis BMS software and ran under 19 different scenarios. The original Pontis default values were also fed into Pontis BMS software and ran under 20 different scenarios. Comparing the results, the sensitivity of the average accident cost increased 49.12 %, the sensitivity of the travel time decreased 5.67 % and the sensitivity of the vehicle operating costs decreased 2.8%, generating an overall increase of 25.95% in the project attractiveness index. Each Pontis default value is increased by 49.12% 24 0% and 16 % respectively for accident costs travel time and vehicle operating cost. The use of the research resulted default values prioritize more projects that are related with accidents, and consequently increase the safety of the bridge network. The structure of this chapter is shown in Figure 9. 9.2 Scenarios for Sensitivity Analysis Simulation 9.2 1 Basis 1-Pontis Original Default Values 9 2 2 Basis 2-New Default Values 9.3 Comparing Results from Basis I with Basis 2 The Relation Benefit / Costs Is Increased by 25 96% Using the New Default Param et ers Developed by this Research Figure 9. Flow Chart for User Cost Sensitivity Analysis 97

PAGE 109

98 9.0 Background The Pontis BMS has a module named "Programming" that is used to develop network strategies and define multi-year, budget constrained programs for preservation and functional improvement projects. For this case, we will select the functional improvement projects to run different scenarios to conduct a "what-if' analysis. Improvements are aimed at making the structure better able to serve the functional demands placed upon it. Standard types of functional improvement actions included in Pontis are widening, raising, strengthening, scour protection, and seismic retrofit (Pontis, 1997). The database selected to run the different scenarios was the Pontis 34-default database named Pontis 34SQLAny Sample DB, which has the data of 524 bridges. The budget restrictions used were the Pontis default value of $1,100,000/yr over a five year period, 1998 to 2002 A replacement criterion was 100%, and the minimum project cost was set at $0.00 (Pontis, 1998a). "What-if' analyses were conducted changing the user cost parameters of the cost matrix. As mentioned before there are three different user costs listed in the cost matrix: detour per hour; detour per kilometer; and average per accident. Weight parameters used were set at one. That is, the user cost weight is 100, this means that user costs are treated on par with agency costs. Since the aim of the sensitivity analysis study is to find the benefit if we change user cost parameters, no change was made in any agency cost parameters. The default values and the research result values (RR) are listed in Table 24.

PAGE 110

Table 24. User Cost Default from Pontis and Research Result Values Detour Detour Average Parameters per Hour ($/hr) Per Km ($/Km) Per Accident ($) Pontis Default values* 19.34 .25 37 600.00 Research Result values 22.55 .3138 68,404.39 (Pontis, 1997a) The default values from Pontis will be considered as basis l and the research result value will be considered as "basis 2". Increments were made in both directions 99 (negative and positive) for each user cost parameter for each category The ranges of those increments were between -20 to + 20 percent for the detour per hour parameters -16 to +52 percent for the detour per kilometer parameters and 15 to + 38 percent for the average per accident parameters. 9 .1 Parameters Definitions The result of each program simulation is reported in several report types The report PROG003" Total needs vs. programmed work over time" was selected. This report compares cost and benefits of feasible needs vs. programmed work that could be conducted within the budget constraints in each year of the current scenario. It provides a comparison for each combination of district functional class ownership and NHS status. The report also identifies the total work programmed for the number of structures in the inventory A report is produced containing the actual needs by dollar value and year Interpretations of items in this report are listed below Budget--The total budget for each year in this case is $1 100 000 / year (Pontis 1997a). Feasible needs-cost -the cost of following the optimal preservation and functional improvement policies with no budget constraints (Pontis 1997a)

PAGE 111

100 Feasible needs benefit--the annual long-term benefit that would accrue by following the optimal policy. These benefits are the savings that would result from taking the recommendation actions as opposed to doing nothing (Pontis 1997a). Work programmed cost--the work cost are calculated by the programming simulation which selects projects with the highest incremental benefit cost ratios up to the specific budget constraints for each program year (Pontis, 1997a). Work programmed benefit--the annual long-term benefits that would accrue by completing the programmed work. These benefits are the savings that would result from taking these actions rather than doing nothing. Comparing this to the benefits due to the needs will give an idea of how current budget constraints may be necessitating higher expenditures for preservation over the long term (Pontis 1997a). 9 .2 Scenarios for Simulation Two sets of data are used to feed the software module "programming. The first set of data are the user cost default values used in the latest version of PONTIS software (version 3.4) and the second set of data are the user cost values developed by this research Both sets of data are listed in Table 23. Each set of data will provide data that will be used as a basis to compare the results of each data input simulation. Using the first set of data, the total benefits calculated are $2 506 904.00 which is named "basis 1 ". Using the second set of data the total benefits calculated showed an improvement of22 09% resulting in $3 060,723.00 which is named basis 2". Each simulation will generate a correspondent value for total benefits that will be compared with the benefits calculated for each basis.

PAGE 112

101 The percent change of the total benefits due to variations in the user cost parameters will be calculated using Equation 26 Where % Change = CB ci -B bj ) I ~ i 100 (26) B ci is the total benefits calculated due to changes in the user cost parameter i. B bj is the total benefits of the base j in consideration i type of user cost j base 1 or base 2 9.2.l Basis 1 Scenarios Pontis Default Values For basis 1 twenty different scenarios were run. The user cost parameters used the total benefits generated and the percent change occurring in each simulation are listed in Table 25. 9 .2.1.1 Basis 1 Sensitivity Analysis The detour per hour user cost parameter changed six times in the range of + 20% to 20% from the original default value. These changes in the used cost parameter g enerated variations in the benefit cost in the range of+ 7 .17 % to 7 17%. The detour per kilometer user cost parameter changed six times in the range of + 5 2 % to 16% from the original default value. These changes in the used cost parameter generated variations in the benefit cost in the range of 16.34% to 5.02% The average accident user cost parameter changed five times in the range of + 38 to 15% from the ori g inal default value. These changes in the used cost parameter generated v ariations in the benefit cost in the range of + 3.95% to 2 08% The main reason not to use a uniform variation between all user cost parameters is due to the fact that s ome simulations used user cost data found in the literature.

PAGE 113

Table 25. Benefit Percent Change Due to User Costs Percent Change Under Different Scenarios (Using Pontis Default Values) 102 Total User cost Benefits Detour per Detour per Average per Benefits % change % change Hour Km accident $(000) (%) (%) ($/hr) ($/Km) ($) Basis 1 2,506 0 0 19.34 0.25 37,600 Changes in detour per hour user cost parameter 2,598 10 3.57 21.27 0.25 37,600 2,641 15 5.37 22.24 0.25 37,600 2,686 20 7.17 23.21 0.25 37,600 2,417 -10 -3.57 17.41 0.25 37,600 2,372 -15 -5.37 16.44 0.25 37,600 2,327 -20 -7.17 15.47 0.25 37,600 Changes in detour per kilometer user cost parameter 2,601 12 3.77 19.34 0.28 37,600 2,632 16 5.02 19.34 0.29 37,600 2,759 32 10.05 19.34 0.33 37,600 2,916 52 16.34 19.34 0.38 37,600 2,443 -8 -2.51 19.34 0.23 37,600 2,380 -16 -5.02 19.34 0.21 37,600 Changes in average per accident user cost parameter 2,576 20 2.75 19.34 0.25 45,120 2,541 10 1.37 19.34 0.25 41,360 2,559 15 2.08 19.34 0.25 43,300 2 605 38 3.95 19.34 0.25 51,960 2,472 -10 -1.37 19.34 0.25 33,840 2,455 -15 -2.08 19.34 0.25 31,960 2,437 -20 -2.75 19.34 0.25 30,080 Changes made in all user costs parameters analyzed for "basis l" generated linear changes in the work-programmed benefit. The linear function is valid for positive or negative changes in each user cost parameter. That is, savings will increase or decrease in the same proportion as the positive or negative increment observed. The results show that the most sensitive user cost parameter is the detour per hour, followed by the detour per kilometer and the average accident cost parameter. One percent increase/decrease in each of these user cost parameters generates small percents in increase/

PAGE 114

103 decrease on the benefit side. Table 26 shows the resulting benefit increase percent and the correspondent value in dollars due to one percent increase in the user cost value Table 26. User Cost sensitivity Ranking Against% changes in Benefit-" Basis l" --(Using Pontis Default Values) U ser Cost Sensiti v ity User Cost Benefit % Change in total Order % change change Benefits ($) 1 st Detour/km + 1% + 0 3585 % 8 774 2 nd Detour/hr +1% +0 3138 % 7 771 3 r d Average Accident. +1% +0.1379 % 3 259 9.2.2 Basis 2 Scenario Research Result Default Values For basis 2 eighteen different scenarios were run The user cost parameters used the total benefits generated and the percent change occurred in each simulation are listed in Table 26. 9.2.2.1 Basis 2 Sensitivity Analysis The detour per hour user cost parameter changed six times in the range of+ 20% to 20% from the original default value These changes in the used cost parameter generated variations in the benefit cost in the range of +6 76 % to -6 767%. The detour per kilometer user cost parameter changed six times in the range of + 19 35% to 19 35 % from the original default value. These changes in the used cost parameter generated v ariations in the benefit cost in the range of 6.10% to -6.10 %. The average accident user cost parameter changed five times in the range of + 20% to 20% from the original default value. These changes in the used cost parameter generated variations in the benefit cost in the range of +4.11 % to -4 11 % Changes made in all user costs parameters analyzed for basis 2" generated linear changes in the work-programmed benefit. The linear function is valid for positive or

PAGE 115

104 negative changes in each user cost parameter. That is savings will increase or decrease in the same proportion as the positive or negative increment observed. The "basis 2" results shows the same behavior as the results observed for the "basis 1" sensitivity analysis that is, the most sensitive user cost parameter is the detour per hour followed by the detour per kilometer and the average accident cost parameter. One percent increase / decrease on each of these user cost parameters generates small percent increase / decrease in the benefit side. Table 27 shows the resulted benefit increase percent and the correspondent value in dollars due to a one percent increase in the user cost value. Table 27 User Cost Sensitivity Ranking Against% Changes in Benefits--Basis 2(Using Research Resulted Default Values) User Cost Sensitivity User Cost Benefit % Change in total order % change change Benefits ($) 1 s t Detour / hr 1% 0.338334 10 476.85 2 nd Detour / km 1% 0 305296 9 769 828 3 rd Average Accident. 1% 0.205569 5 999 017 The same pattern observed for "basis 1" was observed for the "basis 2" scenario. Changes made in all user costs parameters analyzed "basis 2" generate linear changes in the work programmed benefit. The result confirmed that the most sensitive user cost parameter is the detour per hour, followed by the detour per kilometer and the average accident cost parameter. However the benefit percent change for the one percent increase / decrease in each of these user costs was different from the results found in "basis 1 ". The linearity observed in basis 1" for all three parameters was also observed in basis 2" for all three parameters. Table 28 shows the resulted benefit increase percent and the correspondent value in dollars due to a onepercent increase in the user cost value

PAGE 116

Table 28. Benefit Percent Change Due to User Costs Percent Change Under Different Scenarios--Basis 2--(Using Research Resulted Default Values) Total User cost Detour per Detour per Average per Benefits % change Benefits Hour Km accident $ (%) % Change ($/hr) ($/Km) ($) Basis 2 3,097,205 0 0 22.55 0.31 68,404 Changes in detour per hour user cost parameter 3,306,783 20 6.766682 27.06 0.31 68,404 3,202,226 10.02217 3.390831 24.81 0.31 68,404 3,149,716 5.011086 1.695432 23.68 0.31 68,404 2,887,628 -20 -6.76665 18.04 0.31 68,404 2,992,649 -9.97783 -3.37582 20.3 0.31 68,404 3,044,694 -5.01109 -1.69543 21.42 0.31 68,404 Changes in detour per kilometer user cost parameter 3,286,318 19.35483 6.1059245 22.55 0.37 68,404 3,191,762 9.677419 3.0529784 22.55 0.34 68,404 3,160,242 6.451612 2.0352867 22.55 0.33 68,404 2,908,092 -19.35483 -6.105925 22.55 0.25 68,404 3,002,649 -9.677419 -3.052946 22.55 0.28 68,404 3,034,168 -6.451612 -2.035287 22.55 0.29 68,404 Changes in average per accident user cost parameter 3,224,543 20.00029 4.111384 22.55 0.31 82,085 3,160,869 9.999415 2.055530 22.55 0.31 75,244 3,129,038 4.999707 1.027797 22.55 0.31 71,824 2,969,871 -20.00029 -4.111255 22.55 0.31 54,723 3,033,535 -10.00087 -2.055724 22.55 0.31 61,563 3,065,377 -4.999707 -1.027636 22.55 0.31 64,984 9.3 Comparing Results From "Basis 1" and "Basis 2" 105 Changes in the total benefits of the comparative basis generate changes in the sensitivity of each user cost parameter. Detour per hour and detour per kilometer showed more sensitivity under a lower value base, and accident costs showed more sensitivity under a higher value base. These changes are due to the new proportion of each part in the composition of the total benefits that is given by the summation of detour per hour benefits plus detour per kilometer benefits plus average accident benefits. The major change observed is in the average accident user cost parameter. It increased + 49.12 %. This is due

PAGE 117

106 to the increase of 81 93% in the basis value. As a result of this increase the detour per hour and detour per kilometer parameters decreased from basis l" to basis 2" in the proportions of -5.67% and 2.87% respectively Table 29 shows the variability of each user cost parameters in accordance with the calculated basis. Table 29 User Costs Variability Under two Different Calculation Basis User Cost(~%) Benefits basis 1 User Cost ~%=% (~%) Benefits basis2 (~% ) Parameter difference % = % difference % = % difference Detour per hr + 1 0 3586855 +0.338334 Detour per Km + l 0 314322 + 0.305296 Aver. accident +1 0.1378513 + 0.205569 The results of the sensitivity study agree with the application example in Chapter 5. However a generalization stating that the hierarchy of the user cost sensitivity will be the same for each case cannot be confirmed. For this sample of bridges we observed this hierarchy ; however for another sample it maybe different. Comparing the same increment observed for each user cost parameter it is observed that the contribution of detour costs (hour+ kilometer) is 83 54% and the contribution of average accident costs is only 16.46% on the benefit side Since the main objective to is to shorten the travel time between points A and Bin the network it is expected that if road users cannot use the bridge the travel time will be longer and consequently the associate user costs will increase. The sensitivity analysis among the three user costs parameters seems to confirm this behavior by showing the detour costs being more sensitive then others.

PAGE 118

107 The results of this sensitivity study shows that using the new default values developed by this research the user cost benefits are increased by 23.59% and the relation benefit/cost is increased by 25.96% These new values change the priority of projects by giving a higher priority to projects that are related with safety in place of those that are related with user e x penses. Since each new default parameter resulted in higher benefit cost ratios than those produced by the original default parameters the hypothesis stated for this research is true

PAGE 119

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Conclusions 1. The hypothesis of this dissertation proved to be correct. That is the default values in the Pontis BMS mathematical model used to evaluate user cost benefits are not suitable to evaluate user cost benefits for Florida's bridge network. 2. The BMS user cost customization proved to be necessary to increase the efficiency and quality of the data generated for decision makers. 3 The major contribution of the findings of this research was the disclosure that all three default values previously used in Pontis did not properly represent the reality of Florida user costs. Also, the use of these values provide false information for the decision makers causing them to underestimate the validity of the use of a user cost methodology as a valuable decision tool. The use of under-estimated user cost values does not emphasize the necessity to take immediate actions for bridge related problems creating an illusion that it is safe to postpone actions. 4. User cost parameters for Florida BMS applications developed by this research resulted in the following revised default values : Detour per Hour Detour per Kilometer Average Accident Costs Compared to previous values of: Detour per Hour Detour per Kilometer Average Accident Costs $ 22.55 $ 0.3138 $68 404 39 $ 19.34 $ 0.25 $37 600.00 108

PAGE 120

5. The development of a customized value for all three user cost default parameters demonstrated that it is necessary to increase the Pontis average accident default value by 45.03% an increase in the Pontis detour per kilometer default v alue by 24% and increase the Pontis detour per hour default value by 16.60%. 6 The project attractiveness index measured by the benefit/cost ratio increased 25.96% with the use of the customized user cost parameters developed by this research. 109 7. The willingness-to-pay approach used to evaluate accident costs was best suited to replicate the reality of Florida bridge related accidents. 8 The detour per kilometer user cost parameter resulted in the most sensitive parameter in the Pontis mathematical model. The increase of one cent in the truck running costs resulted in an increase of $31 519 00 in total benefits 9. The detour per hour user cost parameter resulted in the second most sensitive parameter in the Pontis mathematical model. The increase of one dollar in the truck driver travel time resulted in an increase of$ 24 512 00 in total benefits 10 The detour per hour user cost parameter resulted in the third most sensitive parameter in the Pontis mathematical model. The increase of $1 000.00 in the average accident cost resulted in an increase of$ 9 307.00 in total benefits. 10 2 Recommendations 1. It is recommended that the new values be used as default values in the Pontis software for Florida applications as follows: Detour per Hour Detour per Kilometer A v erage Accident Costs $ 22 55 $ 0.3138 $68 404.39

PAGE 121

110 2. For cases where all traffic is diverted, and detour for vehicles other than trucks is necessary, the following user cost parameters are recommended: Table 30. Car Vans and Small Trucks VOC Values Vehicle Size Total Cents/ Kilometer Subcompact 7.2 Compact 7.73 Intermediate 8.70 Full Size Car 9.30 Compact Pickup 8.1 Full size Pickup 10.58 Minivan 9.15 Full Size Van 12.61 3. For cases where all traffic is diverted, the following user costs parameters are recommended: Table 31. Travel Time Costs for Auto, and Five Truck Types Vehicle Type 4-Tire 6-Tire 3-4 Axle 4-Axle 5-Axle Category Auto Truck Truck Truck Comb. Comb. Business 18.72 19.79 20.15 22.58 22.24 22.29 Nonbusiness 9.27 NIA NIA NIA NIA n/A 4. It is recommended that the cost matrix for Pontis be improved to accept data up to three decimal points for more accurate results Currently if the third decimal is over five it rounds to the next highest second decimal. If the third decimal is bellow five it rounds to zero.

PAGE 122

APPENDIX A PONTIS OUTPUT REPORTS Inspection Reports I -Inspection structure, Inspection Appraisal sheet 2-Inspection Tab Card Report 3-Inspection Schedule 4-Inspection Resources 5-NBI Time series 6Element time series Preservation Results Reports 1Total needs vs. programmed work over time 2-Element category needs vs. programmed work over time 3-Element material needs vs. programmed work over time 4Element type needs vs. programmed work over time 5 -Annual results by element 6-Total preservation needs vs. programmed work over time 7-Total element category programmed work over time 8Total element material programmed work over time 9Total element category needs over time 10Total element material needs over time 11Element category and material condition over time 12element condition over time 13-Preservation model details Networklevel Program Results Report I-Annual needs vs. Programmed over time 2District allocation of needs vs programmed work over time 3-Funtional class allocation of needs vs programmed work over time 4-Ownership and district allocation of needs vs. programmed work over time 5Ownership and NHS allocation of needs vs. programmed work over time 6Annual allocation of needs and work by district 7Annual allocation of programmed work by district 8Annual allocation of programmed work by functional class 9Annual allocation of programmed work by ownership and district 10Annual allocation of programmed work by ownership and NHS status 11-Action category cost and benefit over time 12-Action Type costs and benefit over time 13-Total action cost by category over time 111

PAGE 123

112 14-Annual cost and benefit by action type Project-Level Program Results Reports I-Project priority list 2 -Project cost and benefits 3 -Project sche dul e 4-Projects under implementation 5-Project -l evel cost 6-Project identification and status 7-Model-related project data 8-Functional improvements for all types of project status 9Preservation actions for all types of project status Historical Project Reports 1 Historical project listing 2-Historical functional improvement listing 3Historical preservation listing 4-Historical project data sheet Reference: Pontis Release 3.2 User's Manual vo l.1-ASSHTO

PAGE 124

APPENDIXB FDOT PONTIS DEFAULT VALUES POLICY Variables in Pontis related to widening benefits that are related to user costs and where defined by FDOT policies are listed on Table B 1 Table B-1. Widening Variables Related with User Costs Adopted by the FDOT Model Parameters Variable Model Florida Default High approaching alignment rating widening 9 Low approaching alignment rating widening 2 Regression Constant ( AccRiskCoeff) widening 200 Regression Constant (GaccRiskC widening 6.5 Short bridge threshold widening 60 Approach width factor widening 0.9 Design lane width widening 3.7 Design shoulder width -Interstates widening 4.9 Design shoulder widthother classes widening 2.4 Source : (Thompson et al. 1998) Variables in Pontis related to raising benefits that are related with user costs, and where defined by FDOT policies are listed on Table B2. Table B-2. Raising Variables Related with User Costs Adopted by FDOT Model Parameters Variable Model Florida Default Height detour defaut Raising 0 Height detour point A (X) Raising 0 Height detour point A (y) Raising 0 Height detour point B (X) Raising 3 96 Height detour point B (Y) Raising 10.81 Height detour point C (X) Raising 4.11 Height detour point C (Y) Raising 0.18 113

PAGE 125

114 Table B-2--continued. Model Parameters Variable Model Florida Default Height detour point D (X) Raising 4.27 Height detour point D (Y) Raising 0.05 Height detour point E (X) Raising 4.42 Height detour point A (Y) Raising 0.027 Source : (Thompson et al. 1998) Variables in Pontis related to replacement benefits that are related with user costs, and where defined by FDOT policies are listed on Table B3 Table B-3. Replacement Variables Related with User Costs Adopted by FDOT Model Florida Default Re lacement 2.3 Re lacement 18 Re lacement 64.32 Re lacement 41 Re lacement 83.57 Variables in Pontis related to strengthening benefits that are related to user costs, and where defined by FDOT policies are listed on Table B4. Table B-4. Strengthening Variables Related with User Costs Adopted by FDOT Model Parameters Variable Model Florida Default 2.3 18 50.425 41 Variables in Pontis related to detour benefits that are related to user costs, and where defined by FDOT policies are listed on Table BS.

PAGE 126

115 Table B-5. Detours Variables Related with User Costs Adopted by FDOT Model Parameters Variable Model Florida Default Default road speed, FC 1 Detours 94 Default road speed, FC 11 Detours 91 Default road speed, FC 12 Detours 83 Default road speed, FC 14 Detours 83 Default road speed, FC 16 Detours 48 Default road speed, FC 17 Detours 48 Default road speed, FC 19 Detours 32 Default road speed, FC 2 Detours 87.8 Default road speed, FC 6 Detours 80 Default road speed, FC 7 Detours 80 Default road speed, FC 8 Detours 40 Default road speed, FC 9 Detours 40 Default truck percent Detours 5 Detour speed factor Detours .80 Source : (Thompson et al. 1998) Table B6FDOT Bridge Data Adopted for Pontis FDOT Brid!!e Data Variable Model Median Max. Min. Functional class (bridge) Bridge table 11 19 1 Detour distance Roadway Table 1 999 0 Detour speed Roadway Table NIA NIA NIA Functional class (roadway) Roadway Table 11 19 1 Roadway speed Roadway Table NIA NIA NIA Truck fraction Roadway Table 8 80 0 Vertical clearance Bridge table 99.99 100 0 Operating rating Roadway Table 58.9 100 2.7 Future volume Roadway Table 25000 538375 0 Future volume year Roadway Table 2018 2029 2000 Traffic volume Roadway Table 13000 648500 0 Traffic volume year Roadway Table 1995 2031 1980 Bridge Lenlrth Bridge table 51.8 10887.5 1.8 Approach Alignment rate Inspection Event table 8 9 1 Approach road width Roadway Table 12.1 85.3 1.2 Number of lanes Roadway Table 2 84 1 Roadway width Roadway Table 12 66 1 Source: (Thompson et al. 1998)

PAGE 127

APPENDIXC EQUIPMENT AND COMMODITY CARRIER TYPES Table C-1 and C-2 are adapted from the 1999 National Motor Carrier Directory Record Counts The total by equipment type in Table C-1 is 34 128 The total by carrier type listed on table C-2 is 24 571. Table C-1. Percent by Equipment Type Im Percent 5. Van 39.19 6. Flatbed 23.19 7. Refrigerated 12.87 8. Open Top 10.48 9. Tank 7.26 10. Others 3.53 11. Chassis 1.32 12. Autorack 1.25 13. Livestock 0.45 14. Logging 0.42 15 Horse Vans 0.04 Total 100.00 Table C-2 Distribution According Carrier Type by Commodity Commodity Percent I. General Freight 46.8 2. Agricultural Commodities 10.1 3 Heavy Hauling 8.8 4. Bulk Commodities 7.3 5. Household Goods 7.2 6. Building Materials 6.2 7. Refrigerated Solids 3.4 8. Petroleum Products 2.4 9. Tank Truck 1.9 10 Motor Vehicle 1.4 11. Mobile Home 0.8 12 Refrigerated Liquids 0.8 13. Package 0.8 116

PAGE 128

Table C-2--continued Commodity 14. Hazardous Products 15. Others 16 Forest Products 1 7. Cement Hauler 18 Armored 19 Horse Carrier Total Percent 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 100.0 117

PAGE 129

APPENDIXD YEAR 2000 FEDERAL HIGHWAY COST AND FEE RESPONSIBILITIES Table D-1 shows the breakdown of the 2000 Federal highway cost responsibilities, user fee payments by vehicle class and weight in cents per mile, and the percent cost share. Table D-1 Cost Responsibilities and User Costs Fee Payments by Vehicle Class and Weight and the Percent Cost ShareCents per Mile. Vehicle Class/ Cost Fee Equity Ratio Cost Registered Weight Responsibility Payment Revenue/Cost Share(%) Autos 0.65 0.64 0.98 43.8 Pickups and Vans 0.65 0.89 1.37 15.5 Buses 2.57 0.27 0.11 0.7 All Passenger Vehicles 0.66 0.70 1.06 59.9 Single Unit Trucks 25,000 lb. 1.75 2.66 1.52 3.6 25,001-50,000 lbs. 4.38 3.18 0.73 3.1 > 50,000 lb. 14.6 6.57 0.45 4.0 All Single Units 3.51 3.13 0.89 10.7 Combination Trucks ::; 50,000 lb. 2.78 4.53 1.63 0.7 50,001 70,000 lb. 4.25 6.24 1.47 1.7 70,001 75,000 lb. 6.25 6.24 0.99 1.4 75,001 80,000 lb. 7.08 6.41 0 91 22.5 80,001 -100,000 lb. 12.50 7.18 0.57 1.8 > 100,000 lb 16 60 8.30 0.50 1.4 All Combinations 6.90 6.20 0.90 29.4 All Trucks 5.48 4.92 0.90 40.1 Source: 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocat10n StudyUSDOT 1997 118

PAGE 130

APPENDIXE KABCO INJURY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION Table E-1 KABCO Injw:y Classification System I used in Florida Kor F (Killed /Fatal Injury)Any injury that results in death within 30 days of occurrence. 1. 2 3. 15. (Incapacitating Injury)--Any injury other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking,, driving or normally continuing the acti v ities the person was capable of performing before the injury occurred -Inclusions : Severe lacerations broken or distorted limbs skull or chest injuries abdominal injuries unconscious at or when taken from the accident scene; unable to leave accident scene without assistance; and others. E x clusions: Momentary unconsciousness and others (Nonincapacitating / Evident injury)--Any injury other than a fatal injury or an incapacitating injury which is evident to observers at the scene of the accident in which the injury occurred Inclusions : Lump on head abrasions bruises minor lacerations and others. -Exclusions: Limping ( the injury cannot be seen ), and others. (Possible injury)Any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal injury incapacitating injury or nonincapacitating evident injury Inclusions : Momentary unconsciousness claim of injuries not evident limping complaint of pain nausea hysteria and others. (property damage)-Harm to property that reduces the monetary value and others -Inclusions: Harm to wild animals or birds that have monetary value and others -Exclusions: Harm to wild animals or birds that lack monetary v alue ; harm to a snow bank unless for example additional snow removal costs are incurred because of the snow ; mechanical failure during normal operation such as tire blowout broken fan belt or broken axle ; and others 1 Adapted from National Safety Council and Miller (1991) 119

PAGE 131

120 Table E -2 Components Composition of 1994 Motor Vehicle Crashes Components Total Costs Fatalities+ Non-Fatalities Non-fatalities(%) Fatalities(%) (%) Medical costs 11.3 1.5 22.5 Market Productivity 28.2 69.3 25.8 Household Productivity 8.2 15.9 8.0 Insurance Administration 6.9 3.4 9.0 Workplace Cost 2.6 0 3.3 Legal Costs 3.9 7.3 4.6 Property damage 34.6 1.1 23.9 Others 4.3 1.5 2.9 Total 100 100 100

PAGE 132

APPENDIXF CONVERSION OF MAIS INTO ABC INJURY COST TABL E S NASS Injuries The National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) formerly the National Accident Samplin g System is the mechanism through with the National Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) collects nationally representative data on motor vehicle traffic crashes to aid in the development implementation and evaluation of motor vehicle and highway safety countermeasures. It collects data on an annual sample of approximately 55 000 police-reported traffic crashes and additional detailed information on an annual sample of 5 000 police-reported crashes involving passenger vehicles towed from the crash scene due to dama g e resulting from the crash The vehicles under consideration are cars pickup trucks v an s, and sport vehicles. Motorcycle bicycles horse-drawn carriages trucks are not considered in this database USDOT-NTSA (1998). A sample o f 12 345 468 accidents occurring between 1982-1986 from the NASS database is report e d in Table F-1. This data is used to generate the distribution factors used t o convert MAIS injury classification into ABC injury classification (KABCO ). 121

PAGE 133

122 Table F-11982-1986 NASS Injuries MAIS Injury A Injury B Injury C TOTAL 1 1106880 4039582 4731293 9877755 2 628338 636692 445949 1710979 3 376136 153411 99524 629071 4 65427 13620 4229 83276 5 39650 3518 1219 44387 TOTAL 2216431 4846823 5282214 12345468 Source: National Automotive Sampling System Table F-2 is generated by dividing the total of each injury type reported in Table F-1 by the respective MAIS number of injuries. Table F-2 ABC/NASS Distribution Factors MAIS Injury A Injury B Injury C 1 0.499397455 0.83344946 0 89570264 2 0 283490891 0.13136275 0.08442464 3 0 169703456 0.03165187 0.01884134 4 0.029519078 0.00281009 0 00080061 5 0.01788912 0.00072584 0 00023077 1 1 1 Factors from Table F-1 are multiplied by the comprehensive and economic costs reported by Blicoe (1996) based on MAIS category to generate the converted ABC fatality and iajury costs Blincoe costs are listed in Table F-3 and converted ABC costs are listed in T ables F-4 (comprehensive) and Table F-5 (economic).

PAGE 134

Table F-3 Comprehensive and Economic costs by MAIS Injury Category Injury Class MAIS 1 MAIS2 MAIS3 MAIS4 MAIS 5 Economic Costs 3,980 31 367 98 214 221 696 697 736 Source: Blincoe (1996) Social Cost 7 577 130 344 466 519 1 185 514 2 501 292 Table F-4 Converted ABC Fatality and Injury Costs--1994 dollar value-Social Costs (Comprehensive ) MAISl MAIS2 MAIS3 MAIS4 MAIS5 Total Injury A $3 783.93 $36,951.34 $79 169.89 $34 995.28 $44 745.91 $199 646.35 Injury B $6 315.05 $17,122.35 $14 766.20 $3 331.40 $1,815 53 $43 350 52 Injury C $6,786.74 $11,004.24 $8 789.84 $949.14 $577.23 $28 107.20 Table F-5 Converted ABC Fatality and Injury Costs-1994 dollar value-Economic Costs MAIS MAISl MAIS2 MAIS3 MAIS4 MAIS5 Total Injury A $1 987 60 $8 892.26 $16,667.26 $6 544 26 $12 481.88 $46 573.26 Injury B $3 317.13 $4 120.46 $3 108 66 $622 99 $506.44 $11 675 67 Injury C $3 564.90 $2 648.15 $1 850.48 $177.49 $161.02 $8 402 04 123

PAGE 135

APPENDIXG SPREADSHEET SAMPLES OF BRIDGE ACCIDENT EVALUATION I-Bridge Related Accident Cost Spreadsheet Samples (KABCO)K= Fatality, A= Injury A, B= Injury B, C= Injury C, 0 = Property Damage Only The total average cost is calculated according Equation 23. ABAC= (3,014,525.0 K + 211 515.4 A +45,927.2 B + 29,844 7 C + PDO) AF (23) The numerical value for each KABCO injury type is the number of injuries recorded in the data base. AF is the number of allocations recorded in the database. Below are five examples with different allocation factors and different situations. Case 1: Table G-1. One Accident Occurred to Just One Bridge STBR# Alloc K A B C 0 ($) Accident Cost ($) 940098 1 0 1 0 0 3,000 214,515 Case 2: Table G-2. One Accident Allocated to Two Bridges STBR# Alloc K A B C 0 ($) Accident Cost ($) 930414 0.5 0 0 2 0 800 49 865 940140 0.5 0 0 0 0 11,500 5,750 124

PAGE 136

It is not possible to match the two bridges involved in the accident using the spreadsheet. In order to match the two bridges involved in the accident it is necessary to check the original police report for the accident. Case 3: Table G-3. One Accident Allocated to Three Bridges 125 STBR# Alloc K A B C 0 ($) Accident Cost ($) 870727 0.3333 0 0 0 0 7,600 2,533 870694 0.3333 0 0 0 0 900 300 870357 0.0333 0 0 0 0 10,200 2,400 Case 4: Table G-4. One Accident Allocated to Four Bridges STBR# Alloc K A B C 0 ($) Accident Cost ($) 930262 0.25 0 0 0 0 800 200 930261 0.25 0 0 0 0 5,000 1,250 930256 0.25 0 0 0 1 7,000 10,069 930254 0.25 0 0 0 1 7,000 10,069 Case 5: Table G-5. One Bridge With Several Accidents in a Year STBR# Alloc K A B C 0 ($) Accident Cost ($) 150094 0.5 0 0 0 12 39300 219,300 150094 0.5 0 0 1 0 3000 26,233 150094 0.5 0 0 1 0 400 24,933 150094 0.5 0 0 0 1 5700 19,488 150094 0.5 0 0 0 0 900 450 150094 0.5 0 0 0 0 900 450 150094 0.5 0 0 0 0 800 400 150094 0.5 0 0 0 0 200 100

PAGE 137

APPENDIXH voe EVALUATION FOR CARS VANS AND LIGHT TRUCKS I .Background In 1991 the Federal Highway Administration published a study about operating costs for automobiles vans and light trucks (FHWA 1991). The study assumes that each vehicle will run 12 900 miles per year during a lifetime of 12 years. They use as operating cost parameters fuel oil tire maintenance parking & tolls and associated taxes. The cost per mile average for each vehicle category is reported in Table 19. They are adjusted to 1998 by the index of 1.203. This index was generated using the Consumer Price Index -all items by the following escalation factor: Escalation Factor = 163 .9 (Dec.98) / 136.2 (Dec.91 ) = 1.203 (Dec.1998). Table H-1. Adjusted Operating Costs for Automobiles Vans, and Light Trucks--Cost Per Mile (1998 dollars) Size Fuel& Tires tools Total oil Maintenance Cents/Mile Subcompact 5.7 0.84 4 81 0.13 11.52 Compact 6.5 1.08 4 69 0.13 12 37 Intermediate 7.5 1.2 5.05 0.13 13 93 Full Size Car 8.1 1.2 5.41 0.13 14 89 Compact Pickup 6.8 1.2 4 81 0.13 12 96 Full size Pickup 10.22 1.44 5.17 0.13 16 93 Minivan 8.42 1.32 4.81 0.13 14.65 Full Size Van 13.35 1.68 5.05 0.13 20.18 Source: Cost of Owning & Operating Automobiles Vans & Light TrucksUSDOT 1991 126

PAGE 138

127 2.0 Fuel and Oil Fuel and oil was calculated using the following factors: for fuel the price of $1 196 per gallon of gasoline including taxes. The average gasoline mileage used for each vehicle classification was the following : subcompacts 26.23 mpg compacts 22.28mpg intermediates 19.87 full-size cars 17 99 mpg compact pickups 21.69 mpg mini v ans 17.54 mpg full-size vans 11.23 mpg For oil expenses the criterion used is one oil change every 7 500 miles. One e x tra quart of oil is assumed between changes The average capacity used was 4 7 quarts for subcompact cars and compact pickups; 5.5 quarts for full-size pickups and full-s i ze vans ; and 5 0 quarts for all other vehicles 3.0 Tires For tires it was assumed that twelve new radial tires will be purchased during the life of the vehicle The number ofreplacement tires is based on a life expectancy of 40 000 miles for radial tires. 4 0 Repair & Maintenance For repairs and maintenance the criterion used was to subdi v ide scheduled and non scheduled maintenance types Scheduled maintenance is maintenance specified in the owner s manual and assumed to be performed by professional mechanics Unscheduled maintenance was reported by taking data on total costs for repair and maintenance from the 1989 Consumer E xpenditure Survey adjusting for differences across vehicle classes and subtracting the cost of scheduled repair and maintenance. The estimated costs exclude the costs of any repairs that are done by a dealer when a vehicle is traded but that w ould have

PAGE 139

128 to be performed b y the owner if the vehicle is kept for 12 years. About 65% ofrepair and maintenance costs are for labor and 35% are for parts. A Baltimore Maryland labor rate of $48 67 per hour was used 5.0 Parking and Tolls Parking and tolls include an average of 1.19 cents per mile for parking and 0.09 cents for toll charges for using private or public highways tunnels and bridges. The toll charges are considered in the VOC evaluation costs however parking charges were not. 6.0 Average VOC for Cars The average value for all car sizes listed in Table 19 results in a value of 13 .17 cents per mile. Averaging pickups and vans the resulted value is 16.18 cents per mile For the objective of this study the average composite value for cars will be used for the category of cars and the average composite value for vans and pick-ups (light trucks) will be considered under the classification of four-tire truck These average costs converted into cents-per-kilometer are listed in Table 20. Table H-2 Operating Costs-Per-Kilometer for Cars and 4-Tires Trucks Vehicle type Cents per kilometer Cars 8.23 Four Tires Trucks 10.11

PAGE 140

REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1960). Road User Benefit Analyses for Highway Improvements. Author Washington DC. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1977 ). Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements 1977. Author Washington DC. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1993 ). Guidelines for Bridge Management Systems. Author Washington DC. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1994a). Manual For Condition Evaluation of Bridges 1994. Published by the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures Washington DC. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. ( 1994b ). A policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Green Book. Author: Washington DC Adkins W.G. Ward AW. McFarland W F. (1967) Values of Time Savings of Commercial Vehicles Highway Research Board National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Washington DC Agg T.R. (1923 ). The Economics of Highway Grades. Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 65, Iowa State College Ames Iowa. Agg T.R. Carter H.S (1928) Operating Cost Statistics of Automobiles and Trucks. Iowa Engineering E xperiment Station Bulletin 91 Iowa State College Ames Iowa Amrhein W.J (1977 June). Florida Department of Transportation Bridge Inventory 1997 Annual Report State Maintenance Office Tallahassee FL. American Truck A ssociation. ( 1990 March). Line Haul Costs. Controller Magazine. National Accounting and Financial Control Alexandria VA. American Truck A ssociation (1992). Benchmarking. The Private Carrier. Author Alexandria, VA. American Truck A ssociation. (1996 ) 1996 Cost Per Mile (Cents per Mile) AT A Statistics American Trucking A s sociation Alexandria VA. 129

PAGE 141

130 American Truck Association. (1997). 1997 Cost Per Mile (cents per Mile). ATA Trucking Information Services Motor Carrier Annual Report Author Alexandria VA. Becker G.S. (1965). A Theory of the Allocation of Time. Economic Journal. Bein P. Biggs D C. (1993). Critique of Texas Research and Development Foundation Vehicle Operating Cost Model. Transportation Research Record, 1395, pp. 106-113 Transportation Research Board-National Research Council. National Academy Press Washington DC. Behnam J. Laguros J. G. (1973). Accidents and Roadway Geometrics at Bridges Approaches ." Public Works, 1045(4) pp 67-70. Ben-Akiva, M. (1973 ) Structure of Travel Demand Models Massachusetts Institute o f Technology, Cambridge MA Blincoe L. J. (1996) The Economic Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 1994. Report DOT HS 808 425 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington DC. Blincoe L.J. Faigin B.M. (1992) The Economic Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 1990. NHTSA DOT HS 807 876 Washington, DC. Blomquist G. Miller T.R. Levy D M (1996). Values of Risk Reduction Implied b y Motorist Use of Protection Equipment: New Evidence from Different Populations. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 30(1) pp.55-56 Blundell F (1997 ) Improvement Optimization Model. Pontis Technical Notes Restricted access at the web s ite. Brinkman C. P ., Mak K. K (1986). Accident Analysis of Highway Narrow Bridge Sites. Public Roads,49(4 ), pp.127-133. BRM (1995 No v ember). Table. Better Roads Magazine, 65(11) pp.26 Bruzelius N. (1978 ) The Value of Travel Time Theory and Measurement. Croom Helm, Text book, London 1978. Campbell C.A. (1991 October). Fuel Management. The Private Carrier, pp 8-10. Cerelli E.C. (1996 ). Trend in Daily Traffic Fatalities 1975-1995 ." Research Note USDOT-NHTSAhttp: // www nhtsa.dot.gov. Charles River Associates Inc. (1972). A Disegregated Behavioral Model o f Urban Travel Demand. Final Report to Federal Highway Administration Washington D C.

PAGE 142

131 Chen CJ. Johnston D.W. (1987). Bridge Management Under a Level of Service Concept Providing Optimum Improvement Action, Time, and Budget Prediction. Report No FHW A/NC/88-004 Center for Transportation Studies North Carolina State University Raleigh NC. CRF (1998). Code of Federal Regulations." 23 Highways--Part 650 Subpart C-National Bridge Inspection Standards Paragraph 650.305 Effective data October 25 1988. Chesher A. Harrison R. (1987). Vehicle Operating Costs Evidence from Developing Countries. The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London. Chui M.K. McFarland W.F. (1986). The Value of Travel Time: New Estimates Developed Using a Speed-Choice Model. Report 396-2F Texas Transportation Institute Research College Station TX. Claffey P.J. (1960) "Time and Fuel Consumption for Highway User Benefit Studies. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 276 Washington DC. Claffey P J. Associates. (1971) Running Costs for Motor Vehicles as Affected by Road Design and Traffic. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report, 111 Highway Research Board Washington DC Claffey F ., Clair C Weider N (1961). "Characteristics of Passenger Car Travel on Toll Roads and Comparable Free Roads. Highway Research Bulletin, 306 pp. 1-22. CoRe (1986) Bridge Inspectors Field Guide--Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Washington DC. Cox C. (1996a June) Know y our operation s cost per mile. Dollars &SenseOverdrive, pp. 19. Co x, C (1996b July). Make Every Drop of That Costly Fuel Count. Dollars &Sense Overdrive, pp. 23. Cox C (1997 April). By the Numbers. Overdrive Tuscaloosa AL. Culley E.K. Donkor F. (1993) Valuation of Passenger Travel Time Savings. Transport Canada Publication TP No. 11788. Economic Evaluation Branch Transport Canada Ottawa Ontario. Delucchi M.A. (1997) The Annualized Social Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use in the U.S. 1990-1991: Summary of Theory Data, Methods, and Results. Report #1 UCD-ITS-RR-963 (1 ), Institute of Transportation Studies University of California Davis.

PAGE 143

Delucchi M.A. (1996 Spring) Total Costs of Motor Vehicle Use. Acces, 8. E llis R.D. Herbsman Z.J. (1997). Development for Improved Motorist User Cost Determinations for FDOT Construction Projects. Report No 0510748 University of Florida Department of Civil Engineering Gainesville FL. Elgin S. (1998) Cost Per Mile Made E asy. Published by Elgin Trucking Co ., P A. Web page @ costpermile com. 132 Farid F. Johnston D.W. Rihane B.S ., Chen C. (1994) Feasibility of Increment Benefit Cost Analysis for Optimal Budget Allocation in Bridge Management Systems ." Transportation Research Record, 1442, pp. 77-87. FDOT (1997) U ser Cost Study. Contract between University of Florida and Florida DOT FHW A (1991 a) Cost of Owning & Operating Automobiles, Vans & Light Trucks. U SDOT Federal Highway Administration Publication No. FHW A-PL-92-019 FHW A (1991 b). T he 1991 Status of the Nation s Highways and Bridges Conditions, Performance, and Capital Investment Requirements. Publication No FHWA-PL-91-015November 1991 Federal Highway Administration Washington D C. FHWA (1993 ). The Status of the Nation s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance 199 3. Publication No. FHWA-PL-93-0157Federal Highway Administration Washington DC. F R. (1991). Federal Register. Volume 56 Number 107 # 25392 June 4 1991. F R. (1994) Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments. Federal Register Vol. 59 No. 20 Monday January 31 1994Presidential DocumentsExecutive Order 1 2 893 of January 26 1994 Francher P S. Gillespie T.D (1997) Truck Operating Characteristics A Synthesis o f Highway Practice NCHRP Synthesis 241 Transportation Research Board/National Research Council Washington DC. FSA ( 1998). Florida Statistical Abstract 1998 Bureau o f Economic and Busines s Research Warington Colle ge of Business Administration University of Florida Gainesville Gillespie J.S. (1998). Estimating Road Use Costs as a Basis for Incentive/Disincenti v e Amounts in High w ay Construction Contracts Report No FHW A/VTRC 98-Rl 2. Vir g inia Transportation Re s earch Council Virginia.

PAGE 144

Greenblat, J. Merrin M.B. Morganstein D. Schwartz, S. (1981). National Accident Sampling System Non Reported Accident Survey. USDOT,NHTSA DOT HS-902128 Washington DC. Golabi K. Thompson P.D. Hyman, W.A. (1992). Pontis Technical Manual. Federal Highway Administration Washington DC. 133 Gronau R. (1976 ). Economic Approach to Value of Time and Transportation Choice. Transportation Research Record, 587 Transportation Research Board Washington DC. Guttman J. (1975 ) Avoiding Specification Errors in Estimating the Value of Time. Transportation, 4, 1975 pp 19-42 Harison R. McNerney M T ., Euritt, M A. (1992). Determining Truck System Costs for The Pennsylvania Interstate 80 Corridor. Transportation Research Record, 1359, pp. 6875 Harrington L.H. (1994 January) Tap New Opportunities to Control Costs ." Transportation & Distribution, pp 31-36. Hyman W A. Hughes D.J. (1983). Computer Model for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Statewide Bridge Repair and Replacement Needs. TRB 899, Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington DC. HCM (1994). Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209 (3 r d ed.) Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington DC. HTD (1990 December) ." Stretching fuel dollars. Heavy Duty Trucking pp. 100-101. Heggie I. G (1983) Values Savings in Non-Working Travel Time: The Empirical Dilemma. Transportation Research l 7A(l) pp 13-23 Hensher D.A. (1976). Valuation of Commuter Travel Time Savings: An Alternative Procedures. In Heggie LG. (ed.) Modal Choice and the Value of Travel Time. Clarendon Press Oxford Hearn G ., Cavalilin J. Frangopol D.M. (1997). Generation ofNBI Condition Ratings from Condition Reports from Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Elements. University of Colorado 1997. Hearn G Renn D (1999) Segmental Inspection of Highway Bridges. Paper presented at 78 th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board Meeting Washington DC HERS (1996). Highway Economic Requirements System Volume IV: Technical Report. U S DOT Federal Highway Administration Washington DC.

PAGE 145

134 HERS (1999) Highway Economic Requirements System Technical Report. Version 3.1US DOT Federal Highway Administration Washington DC Hilton M.H (1973). Some Cases Studies of Highway Bridges Involved in Accidents. Highway Research Record, 432, pp.41-51. Jack Faucett Associates (1991) The Effect of Size and Weight Limits on Truck Costs Working Paper Prepared as Part of the Truck Size and Weight and Free Policy Analysis Study for the USDOT Bethesda, MD. Johnson B.V. Power T. Queiroz C.A. (1998). Economic Analysis of Bridge Rehabilitation Options Considering Life Cycle Costs Transportation Research Board 77 th Annual Meeting Washington DC. Johnston D.C. Chen C. Rahim I. (1994) Developing User Costs for Bridge Management Systems. Transportation Research Circular, 423, pp 13 9-149 Kanapton D. (1981) An Investigation of Trucks Size and Weight Limits Technical Supplement Vol. 3 Truck and Rail Fuel Effects of Truck Size and Weight Limits. Final Report July 1981 Transportation Systems Center Cambridge MA Keating J.L. Turner D S. (1994) Development of ALBRIDGE An Optimization Module for The Alabama Bridge Information Management System. (Interim Report) University of Alabama, College of Engineering Tuscalosa AL. Kinboko A. Henion L., (1981). "Critical Evaluation of AASHTO s Manual on User Benefit Analyses of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements 1977. Transportation Research Record, 826 pp. 22-28. Kleywegt, A.J. Sinha K.C. (1994 April). Tools for Bridge Management Data Analysis. Transportation Research Circular, 423, pp. 16-26. Kolozsi G ., Gaspar L. Toth E. Csorba A. (1995) Development of Hungarian Bridge Management System. Conference Proceedings 7 Fourth International Engineering Conference Washington, DC. Kragh B.C ., Miller T.R. Reinert K.A. (1986). Accident Costs for Highway Safety Decisionmaking. Public Works, 50(1) pp.15-20. Krammes R. Ulman G.L. Memmont J.L. Dudeck C L. (1993). User Manual for QUEWZ-92. Research Report TTI Texas A&M University Reseach Report Krugler J. (1985) Cost Effective Bridge Maintenance Activities FHWA Paper Presented at 1985 Pan American Highway Maintenance Conference Los Angeles

PAGE 146

Kulkarni R. Alvirti J. Chuang J., Rubinstein J. (1984). A User Manual for the Optimization Model of the Construction Priority System. KDOT Woodward-Clyde Consultants 135 Lave C.A. (1968 ). Modal Choice in Urban Transportation: A Behavioral Approach. Ph.D dissertation Stanford University Palo Alto California. Levinson H.S. Lea & Elliot Abrams-Cherwony & Associates The Urban Institute Cambridge Systematics Inc (1992, September) Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems Revised edition. Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC. Lewis D. (1992a ). Development of an Innovative Highway User Cost Estimation Procedure. Brief from HCHRP projects that are in progress Project 2-18(3), FY 93 Lewis D (1992b ) Research Strategies for Improving Highway User Cost Estimating Methodologies Brief from HCHRP projects that are in progress Project 2-18 FY91 Lisco T.E. (1967 ). The Value of Commuters Travel Time: A Study in Urban Transportation Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Department of Economics Uni v ersity of Chicago. Lipkus S.E (1994 April) Bridge Management System Software. Transportation Research Circular, 423 1994 pp.43-54 National Engineering Technology Corporation. Lowe D (1974). Costing and Pricing Goods Vehicle Operations. Kogan Page Limited London Macdonald M E. ( 1993 November) Tips on boosting your fleet s fuel efficiency ." Traffic Management pp. 52-56. Mactavish D. Neumann D.L. (1982). Vehicle classification Case Study For The Highway Performance Monitoring System. US DOT Federal Highway Administration Washington DC Mair G. (1982). Bridge Down, A True Story. Stein and Day. Mancino E. Pardi L. (1999) The Choice of Maintenance Strategies as Applied T o Bridge Management. Paper presented at 78 th Annual Meeting-Transportation Research Board Meeting Washington DC. McFadden D. (1974) The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand. Journal of Public E conomics,3, 1974 pp 303-328 McFadden D Reid F. (1975). Aggregate Travel Demand Forecasting from Disaggregated Behavioral Models ." Transportation Research Record, 534, pp. 24-37.

PAGE 147

136 Michie J.D (1980). Strategy for Selection of Bridges for Safety Improvement. Transportation Research Record, 575, pp. 17-22. Miller T.R. (1993a October). "Costs and Functional Consequences of U.S. Roadway Crashes ." AAP, 25(5) Torytown NY. Miller T.R (1993b). Cost oflnjuries to Employers ." A NETS Compendium NHTSA. Washington DC. Miller T.R. (1995 July) Societal Cost of Transportation Crashes. Presentation at Bureau of Transportation Statistics Conference on Measuring the Full Social Costs and Benefits of Transportation Irvine California. Miller, T.R. (1996 May) The Value of Time and The Benefit of Time Saving National Public Services Research Institute Londoner MD. Miller T R. Blincoe L.J. (1994). "Incidence and Cost of Alcohol-Involved Crashes in the United States. AAP, 26(5) pp. 583-591. Miller T.R. Galbraith M (1995b ). Safety and Health Care: State and National Estimates of Employer Costs. DOT HS 808234 Washington, DC. June 1995. Miller T.R. Viner J.G. Rosman S.B., Pindus N.M ., Gellert G.W. Douglas J.B. Dillingham A.E ., Plomquist G.C. (1991).The Cost of Highway Crashes. The Urban Institute Washington DC. Miller T.R. Lestina D ., Galbraith M ., Schlax T. Mabery P. Deeving R ., Massie D. Campbell K. (1995c). Understanding the Harm from US Motor Vehicle Crashes. 39 th Annual Proceedings AAAM Des Plaines, IL. Morhing, H (1960) Highway Benefits : An Analytical Framework. Northwestern University Press Evanston Illinois. Morrison S.A. (1996).The Value of Business Travel Time. Unpublished paper Department of Economics Northeastern University Boston Massachusetts Moyer R.A. Tesdall G.L. (1945). "Tire Wear and Cost on Selected Roadway Surfaces Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 161, Iowa State College Ames Iowa Moyer R.A. Winfrey R. (1939) "Cost of Operating Rural-Mail-Carrier Motor Vehicles on Pavement Gravel and Earth Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 143 Iowa State College Ames Iowa. MV A (1987) The Value of Travel Time Savings. A Report of Research Undertaken for the Department of Transport. MV A Consultancy Institute for Transport Studies of the

PAGE 148

University of Leeds and the Transport Studies Unit of the University of Oxford. NAFC (1994 August). Profitable Trucking A Guide for The Independent Contractor. National Accounting & Finance Council (6h ed.). American Trucking Association Inc. NASS (1998). National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data Systems. DOT HS 808 794-USDOT-NTSA Washington DC. 137 NBIS (1995 December). Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation s Bridges Report USDOT /FHWA-PD-96-001 Federal Highway Administration NCHRP (1987). Bridge Management Systems. NCHRP 300 Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington DC. NCHRP (1990). Microcomputer Evaluation of Highway User Benefits Research Project 712 NCHRP Washington DC. NCHRP (1972). Procedures for Estimating Highway User Costs, Air Pollution, and Noise Effects. Report, No. 133, National Research Board National Research Council National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. Nelson J.P. (1977 January). Accessibility and the Value of Time in Commuting.' Southern Economic Journal, pp. 1321-1329 NHI (1996) Bridge Management Training Course ." Management Section Participant Notebook. National Highway Institute Washington DC. NHI (1997) Bridge Management Training Program ." Inspection Training Module National Highway Institute, Washington DC. NHI-1999 (1999 May) Presented at meeting in the National Highway Institute Niessner C.W. (1979) Optimizing Maintenance Activities of Seventh Report-Bridge Painting Federal Highway Administration Report, Washington DC. Noel J.S ., James R.W. Furr H.L. Bonilla F E. (1985). Bridge Formula Development Final Report. Report No. FHW AIRD-85-088. Texas Transportation Institute College Station TX. NPTS (1990) Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. 1990 NPTS databank: Volume 2 Report No. FHWA-PL-94-0lOB Federal Highway Administration Washington DC NPTS (1997). Our Nation s Travel 1995 NPTS Early Results Report. Federal Highway Administration Office of Highway Information Management Publication No. FHWA-PL

PAGE 149

138 97-028 Washington DC NPTS (1999). Summary of Travel Trends 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey Draft. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. web site: www-cta.ornl gov/npts. OST (1997 April 9). Departmental Guidance for the Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analyses, Memorandum Assistant Secretary for Transport Policy USDOT Washington DC. Paustian R.G. (1934). Tractive Resistance as Related to Roadway Surface and Motor Vehicle Operation. Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 119 Iowa State College Ames Iowa Pontis (1993). Pontis Version 2.0 Technical Manual. USDOT-FHWA Washington DC. Pontis (1997a). Pontis Software Version 3.2. AASTHO Washington DC Pontis (1997b). User s Manual. Vol. 1-2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Washington DC Pontis (1998a). Pontis Software Version 3.4. AASTHO Washington DC Pontis (1998b Spring). Pontis States and Actions. AASHTO Newsletter--Volume 6 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Washington DC. Raff M S. (1953 ). Interstate Highway Accident Study. Bulletin 74 HRB National Research Council Washington DC. Rahim I.J.A. Johston D W. (1993). Estimating Bridge Related Traffic Accident Rates and Costs. Transportation Research Record, 1392, pp. 99-106 Romba P. (1995 F ebruary) Bottom Line ." DES Business Journals p 35-36. Saal C.C (1942) Hill Climbing Ability of Motor Trucks. Proceedings, Highwa y Research Board Washington DC. Schelling R.D. (1985). The Influence of Heavy Trucks on the Overload and Allocation of User Costs on Bridge Structures. A Report prepared for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland MD Serpa D (1971). A Theory of The Economics of Time ." Economic Journal, 81 pp 8 2 8845. Sshadri P ., Solminihac E. D. Harrison R. (1993). Modification of QUEWZ Model to Estimate Fuel Costs and Tailpipe Emissions. Transportation Research Record, No. 1395,

PAGE 150

pp. 106-113 Transportation Research Board National Research Council National Academy Press Washington D. C. Shirole A.M. Winkler W.J. Fitzpatric M.W. (1994 April). "Bridge Management Decision Support ." NYSDOT, Transportation Research Circular, 423, pp. 27-34. Skinner L.E (1978). Comparative Costs of Urban Transportation Systems. F ederal Highway Admini s tration Washington DC. Small A.K. (199 2). Urban Transportation Economics. Hardwood Academic Publishers Philadelphia 139 Son Y. Sinha K.C (1996) A Methodology to Estimate User Costs for Bridge Management Systems Research Report School of Civil Engineering Pardue University West Lafayette Indiana SOT (1993 March) The Status of The Nation s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance. Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the U nited States Congress 103 rd Congress 1 st Section Washington DC. SOT (1997). A Report to Congress--Surface Transportation Research and Development Plan Fourth Edition. A Report of the Secretary of Transportation, DOT-T-97-21. Volp National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge Massachusetts. STA (1989). Statistical Abstract of The United States:1989. Bureau of the Census Washington DC. STAA (1992 Jun e). Surface Transportation Act. Cited on 1997 Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study Draft Volume II. FHWA /FRA/ FMA/NHTSA /BTS Washington DC. Stopher P.R. (1969 ). A Probability Model of Travel Mode Choice for the Work Journey ." Highway Research Record, 283, Washington DC. Strand S. (1993). Time in Transport : A Perverted Problem? Arguments for a Fresh Look at Time Utility Research and its Application ." Transportation Research Record, 1395 pp 106-113 Transportation Research Board National Research Council National Academy Press Washington DC TFM (1998 Augu s t ) PACE Report Motor Carrier Cost Analysis ." Truck Fl e et Management Bu s iness Journals Inc ., Norwalk CT. T homas T.C. Thompson G.I ( 1970 ). The Value of Time for Commuting Motorists as a F unction of their Income Level and Amount of Time Saved. Highway Research Record, 314, pp 104-117.

PAGE 151

140 Thomas T.C ., Thompson G.I. (1971). Value of Time Saved by Trip Purpose. Highway Research Record,. 369 pp. I 04-113. Thompson P.D. Najafi F.T. Soares R. Kerr R. (1999) Development of Pontis User Cost Models for Florida. International Bridge Management Conference Transportation Research Board Federal Highway Administration Denver Colorado Thompson P D. (1998 July 30) User Costs Study-Task 1 Results. Memorandum to Florida Department of Transportation Tallahassee FL. Thompson P.D. Choung H.J. Soares R. Najafi F. (1998 November 16). U ser Costs Study--Task 2 Results Memorandum to Florida Department of Transportation Tallahassee FL. Thompson P.D. Choung H.J. Soares R. Najafi F (1999a April 6). User Costs Study Task 3 Results. Memorandum to Florida Department of Transportation Tallahassee FL. Thompson P.D. Choung H.J. Soares R. Najafi F (1999b June 6) User Costs Study Task 4 and 5 Results Memorandum to Florida Department of Transportation Tallahassee FL. Thompson P D. Shepard R. W (1994 April). Pontis ." Transportation Research Circular umber 423, pp. 35-42. TTI (1993). Microcomputer Evaluation of Highway User Benefits. Final Report for NCHRP 7-17 Texas Transportation Institute College Station, TX. Turner D S. Richardson, J. A. (1994 April). Bridge Management System Data Needs and Data Collection. University of Alabama Transportation Research Circular Number 423 pp 5-15. Turner D.S. (1984 ) Prediction of Bridge Accident Rates. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, 110(1). pp 45-54. Turner D.S ., Rowan N.J. (1982). Investigation on Accidents on Alabama Bridge Approaches. Transportation Research Record, 84 7 pp.1-6. Uddin W. George K.P. (1993) User Cost Methodology for Investment Planning and Maintenance: Management of Roads and Highways. Transportation Research Record, 1395 pp. 106-113. Transportation Research Board National Research Council National Academy Press Washington D.C. USDA (1997December 31). Fruit and Truck Rate Report, 40,(52) p 3 USDOT (1977). 1977 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study. Publication No HPP-10 / 997(3M).E.

PAGE 152

141 USDOT (1996) Overview Traffic Safety Facts 1996 http://www nhtsa.dot.gov National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington DC. USDOT-FHW A (1988) U.S. Freight Economy in Motion. Publication NO. FHW A-PL-98034. USDOT-FHWA (1995a). 1995 Status of The Nation s Surface Transportation System: Condition & Performance. Report to Congress Publication No. FHW A-PL-96-007. Federal Highway Administration Washington DC USDOT-FHWA (1995b) 1995 Status of the Nation s Surface Transportation System : Condition & Performance Report to Congress. A Summary. Publication No. FHWA-PL96-023. Federal Highway Administration Washington DC. USDOT-FHWA-FTA (1997). 1997 Status of The Nation s Surface Transportation System: Condition & Performance Report to Congress US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Washington DC. University of Florida (1998) Survey Between all 50 states About User Cost. One of the tasks of the User Cost Study with UF / FDOT. Vegosz A. Wysokowski A. (1995). Bridge Management System: Computer Aid Planning Decision System for Polish Road Administration. Conference Proceedings 7Fourth International Bridge Engineering Conference, 1, pp.16-24. Youngtae S ., Sinha K.C (1997 June 18) A methodology to estimate User Costs in the Indiana Bridge Management System. Transportation Research Board Paper No. 970304 Revised. Wabe J.A. (1976). A Study of House Prices as a Means of Establishing the Value of Journey Time The Rate of Time Preference and The Evaluation of Some Aspects of Environment in the London Metropolitan Region ." Transportation Research Record, 587 Washington DC. Wade B. Larder M (1973) A Program of Bridge Inventory, Inspection and Rating for a local Road Systems. TRB 702--Transportation Research Board National Research Council Washington DC. Walls III J. Smith M.R. (1998). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design. Interim Technical Bulletin Federal Highway Administration Washington DC. Wegmann F J. Han L.D. Chateerjee A. (1995). Development of Road User Costs, Phase II. Tennessee Department of Transportation Nashville TN. WIM (1998) Weight-in-Motion Study. Study in progress at the Civil Engineerin g

PAGE 153

142 Department from U niversity of Florida, Gainesville. Weissmann I.Hudson W.R. Burns N.H. Harrison, R. (1989) A Bridge Management System Module for the Selection of Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects. Report 4394F Center for Transportation Research The University of Texas Winfrey R. (1933 ). Statistics of Motor Truck Operation in Iowa. Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 114 Iowa State College Ames Iowa Winston C. & Associates (1987) Blind Intersection?. Police and the Automobile Industry, The Brookings Institute Washington D. C. Witconis L. Stadden K. (1988 Sept/Oct.). "Cost Per Mile: S View From The Top. Owner Operator, Chilton Research Services Chilton Co. Zaniewski J.P. Butler B.C. Cunningham G ., Elkins G.E. Paggi M.S. Machemehl R. (1982) Vehicle Operating Costs, Fuel Consumption, and Pavement Type and Conditions Factors. Federal Highway Administration Washington DC. Zaniewski J.P ., Mosert B. DeMorais P.J. Kaeschagen R.L. (1979) Fuel Consumption Related to Vehicle Type and Road Conditions ." Transportation Research Record, 702, pp. 328-334 Zaniewski J.P. Mozar B.K. Swait J.D. (1979). Predicting Travel Time and Fuel Consumption for Vehicles on Low-Volume Roads. Transportation Research Record, 702, pp.3345-341. Zegeer C.V ., Council F.M (1995) Safety Relationships Associated With Crosss Sectional Roadwa y Elements. Transportation Research Record, 1512, pp.29-36.

PAGE 154

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH My biographical sketch can be divided into two phases Phase one covers 15 years of experience working in the construction and management of new investments on a total of over $200 million Phase two covers the next 15 years working as a consultant and assistant professor at the Federal Universities in Brazil and as a graduate student here in the United States For part one refer to the publication Article" Loma Linda University s New MBA Program" Inland Empire Magazine, Volume 8 / Number 8 Riverside, CA August 1983 pp 103-104 presented below. For part two below is a summary of the main activities and achievements Roberto Soares earned a degree in chemical engineering from Brazil University in Rio de Janeiro. As he worked for such companies as Atlantic Richfield and American Cyanamid he found himself supervising projects totaling nearly $200 million . Soares says he "studied to be a chemical engineer but in the years since I graduated with the degree I have coordinated three big projects. A Japanese firm hired me as the project coordinator for a $100 million investment in a plant that produced low density polyethylene." "American Cyanamid hired me as project coordinator for a $40 million plant that produced complex malathione and Atlantic Richfield employed me to coordinate the development of a plant that produced Duotreat white oils." 143

PAGE 155

144 In the capacity of project coordinator Soares oversaw the projects from the feasibility and engineering studies through the construction and start-up phases. He also saw to it that the product was produced to specifications "As I did all this work I realized that I was contracting engineers and managing the plants--all business functions. Thus I decided to polish my knowledge by taking an MBA course . I think that my combination of business and engineering will enable me to work any place in the world." Coming to the United States for his degree has cost Soares about $40 000 "I sold all my personal assets in order to come here to study. Some of my friends asked me why I simply told them that I was exchanging them for a flexible asset in my mind-education." After the conclusion of my MBA I started in academia as an assistant professor at Federal Universities of Maceio and Rio de Janeiro in Brazil teaching at the undergraduate and graduate level disciplines in engineering management and finance. In the earl y 90s I started research to create a model to manage the construction of affordable housings that resulted in a Doctor of Science degree by the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. I also conducted research to transform industrial waste as a raw material for the construction industry. In the middle 90s I decided to move definitively to the United States and then I started research about user costs in Bridge Management Systems that resulted in this dissertation that is a partial fulfillment of the Ph D degree at the University of Florida. As a graduate student I received an Eisenhower Fellowship grant for research which allowed me to conclude m y research giving more experience in transportation related issues My plans are to continue in academia as a professor and researcher.

PAGE 156

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. -------i ,. ,....----...._ ,, J. f~ ~),Ch~ 16) a-f Associate Professor of Civil Engineering I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion i t conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ramesh L. Shrestha Professor of Civil Engineering I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of~ Professor of Civil Engineering I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ssor of Civil Engineering

PAGE 157

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Assistant Professor of Instruction and Curriculum This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Engineering and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December 1999 C M. J. Ohanian Interim Dean, College of Engineering Winfred M. Phillips Dean Graduate School

PAGE 158

LO 1780 l99J Sfo1~ UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA II Ill llllll Ill Ill lllll lllll ll llllll llll llll llll llll llll Ill llll I I 3 1262 08555 0449


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EZPTL4Y6U_CNP2HE INGEST_TIME 2013-10-09T21:29:43Z PACKAGE AA00017646_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES