Benefit Cost Analysis Narrative

Save this PDF as:
Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Benefit Cost Analysis Narrative"

Transcription

1 Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) Grade Separations of: GS21a - Union Pacific and 95 th Street GS11 - Belt Railway Company of Chicago and Columbus Ave. GS 9 - Belt Railway Company of Chicago and Archer Ave. Benefit Cost Analysis Narrative Executive Summary This document provides a narrative summary for the benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for the CREATE Program GS9, GS11, and GS21a joint FASTLANE application. Each of the grade crossing projects and the combination of the three projects was compared against a no-build scenario. No other level of improvements was considered. The primary tool for the benefit-cost analysis was the FRA s GradeDec tool for highway-rail grade crossing investment analysis. A summary of the GradeDec methodology and output is found in Section 2. Preliminary cost estimates were provided by the Chicago Department of Transportation. The benefits included in the BCA are the public benefits that accrue from grade crossing improvements. Benefits were considered over 30 years, beginning in 2022 when the projects were completed. All costs and benefits are discounted using a 3 percent discount rate to 2021 dollars, the year of project construction 1. A summary of the benefit cost analysis is included in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the benefit cost analysis results. This table corresponds to Table 7.1 in the application document. Table 1 Benefit Cost Analysis Summary Current Status / Baseline and Problem Change to Baseline / Alternatives Types of Impacts Affected Populations Economic Benefits Summary of Results Page Reference in Narrative At-grade road/rail atgrade crossings cause congestion and safety hazards Separate three road/rail crossings in Chicago on Archer Avenue (GS9), Columbus Avenue (GS11), and 95st Street (GS21A) Increased Economic Outcomes Increased State of Good Repair Passenger vehicles and trucks at the crossing and on nearby roadways Passenger vehicles and trucks at the crossing congestion and delay vehicle operating costs roadway maintenance needs $172 million in savings over 30 years $9 million in savings over 30 years Details of GS9, GS11 and GS21a construction schedules are found in the application document; 2021 was chosen as a baseline common year of construction for the benefit cost analysis.

2 Increased Safety Same as above, plus train operators chance for a collision between a train and roadway vehicles $6 million in savings over 30 years 19 Emissions Same as above, plus nearby residents vehicle emissions from idling and congestion $500,000 in savings over 30 years 20 Table 2 Benefit Cost Analysis Results (000s) All 3 Projects GS 9 Only GS 11 Only GS 21a Only Economic Outcomes $171,623 $64,802 $30,274 $76,547 Mobility Outcomes $9,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Safety $6,044 $2,544 $2,888 $612 Environmental $503 $236 $118 $149 Benefits beyond 30 years $16,045 $5,292 $5,460 $5,292 Total Benefits $203,215 $75,875 $41,740 $82,635 Capital Costs (Phase I, II, III) $191,000 $63,000 $65,000 $63,000 Benefit Cost Ratio Description of Benefits and Costs Benefits / Merit Criteria Economic Outcomes The grade separation projects each contribute to improving the efficiency and reliability of the surface transportation system. GS9 is located on Archer Avenue within 1 mile of Chicago Midway Airport. GS11 is near an intersection connecting Columbus Avenue with Western Avenue, a Class II arterial in the City of Chicago. At the crossing, traffic can often back up onto Western Avenue, causing delays on that route. Both GS9 and GS11 are located in Industrial Corridors designated by the City of Chicago. GS21a is located on 95 th Street, the only East-West arterial route within several miles without vertical clearance obstructions identified by the City of Chicago in a recent planning study. Connectivity on these roadways is vital for both freight and passenger transportation. Each of these roadways was identified as a truck route in a recent planning study by the City of Chicago. The total economic outcome benefit for the three projects combined is over $172 million. The economic outcomes from each of these projects include: Reduction in delay to passenger vehicles and trucks on the primary crossing route Reduction in delay on the nearby roadway network Reduction in vehicle operating costs - 2 -

3 Table 1.1 Economic Outcomes Benefits Summary Economic Outcomes Benefits (in $000s) All 3 Projects GS9 Only GS11 Only GS21a Only Reduction in delay to passenger vehicles and trucks on the $163,066 $61,622 $27,413 $74,032 primary crossing route Reduction in delay on the nearby roadway network $2,150 $473 $1,454 $223 Reduction in vehicle operating costs $6,406 $2,707 $1,407 $2,292 Total Economic Outcomes Benefits $171,622 $64,802 $30,274 $76,547 Mobility Outcomes All three roadways are owned by the Illinois DOT and maintained by the Chicago DOT. The grade separation projects improve the movement of people and goods by increasing the state of good repair for the road and railway infrastructure at the grade separation. The construction of the grade separation will increase the condition of the roadway at the point of separation and decrease the future maintenance requirements on the roadway. The estimated benefits due to reduction in future maintenance requirements were provided by the Chicago Department of Transportation was given as $9 million for the three projects. The monetary benefits from reducing congestion at the crossings and alleviating bottlenecks on the surrounding network by increasing connectivity are captured under the Economic Outcomes category. The monetized mobility outcomes of each of these projects are: Maintaining highways and infrastructure in a state of good repair Table 1.2 Mobility Outcomes Benefits Summary Mobility Outcomes Benefits (in $000s) All 3 Projects GS9 Only GS11 Only GS21a Only State of Good Repair Maintenance Savings $9,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Total Mobility Outcomes Benefits $9,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 Safety Outcomes Grade separation projects lead to a reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries by eliminating the potential for a collision between a roadway vehicle and a train. This has a similar benefit to reducing the potential for derailment due to an incident or collision for the 87 trains per day that pass these locations. The total safety benefits due to crash reduction risk are $6 million for the three projects. Furthermore, each of these crossings is a 911 critical crossing. The monetized safety outcomes of each of these projects are: Avoiding future crashes and collisions between roadway vehicles and trains due to separation of the road and railway systems

4 Table 1.3 Safety Benefits Summary Safety Benefits (in $000s) All 3 Projects GS 9 Only GS 11 Only GS 21A Only Savings due to crash reduction $6,044 $2,544 $2,888 $612 Total Safety Benefits $6,044 $2,544 $2,888 $612 Community and Environmental Outcomes The three projects mitigate harm to communities and the environment through reducing emissions due to congestion and delay. Vehicles will no longer idle at the crossings waiting for trains to clear the station. Idling vehicles produce local harmful emissions, including HC, CO and NOx 2, in addition to contributing to raised CO2 levels. The reduction in these types of local emissions leads to over $500,000 in savings. In terms of community improvements, grade separations remove barriers that can affect personal mobility and accessibility. Each of the crossings is a 911 critical crossing. The monetized benefit for Community and Environmental Outcomes is: Avoidance of emissions resulting from vehicle delays Table 1.4 Environmental Benefits Summary Environmental Benefits (in $000s) All 3 Projects GS 9 Only GS 11 Only GS 21A Only Emissions Reduction $503 $236 $118 $149 Total Environmental Benefits $503 $236 $118 $149 Additional Benefits The benefits described above are for the first 30 years after the projects are completed. Additional benefits accrued beyond the time horizon considered are also included in the benefit cost analysis as a single value, known as the salvage value. The total additional benefits beyond the 30 year horizon is $16 million. Table 1.5 Additional Benefits Beyond 30 Years Summary Additional Benefits (in $000s) All 3 Projects GS 9 Only GS 11 Only GS 21A Only Salvage Value at 30-years $16,045 $5,292 $5,460 $5,292 Total Additional Benefits $16,045 $5,292 $5,460 $5,292 2 GradeDec calculates and values emissions for only these three pollutants

5 Costs Costs estimates were provided by the Chicago Department of Transportation. The grant application seeks funding for Phase II engineering and construction costs for all three grade separation projects. The estimated total cost for the combined project is $191 million. Table 1.6 shows the costs and funding requests for each project. This table corresponds to Table 6.1 in the application document. There are maintenance cost savings due to the increased state of good repair through construction of the roadway improvements that are part of the grade separation. These are monetized as part of the Mobility Outcomes section. Table 1.6 CREATE Funding Request GS9 GS11 GS21a TOTAL Estimated Total Project Cost Prior CDOT funding commitment (Phase I design) Prior FRA grant (Phase I) Total Phase II and III estimated funding needed FASTLANE grant request Matching Funding (public* + railroad**) Percentage FASTLANE request 60% 60% 60% 60% 2. Benefit Cost Analysis Calculation Methodology The primary tool for the benefit-cost analysis was the FRA s GradeDec tool for highway-rail grade crossing investment analysis. is a web-based decision support tool that assists federal, state and local authority decision makers in evaluating the benefits and costs of road-rail grade crossing upgrades. employs benefit-cost methodologies that are used to evaluate road-rail grade crossing investment alternatives at the corridor level. The modeling frameworks in were developed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and include research findings of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). analyses effectively support the planning and investment decision processes. forecasts the transportation and non-transportation effects of highway-rail grade crossing investments and estimates the economic value of these effects over the useful life of the project in dollar terms. The benefit-cost of an investment is calculated by comparing the stream of expected economic benefits with the stream of investmentrelated and other costs over the expected life of the investment, and adjusting for the opportunity cost of capital. Commonly referred to as the time value of money or discounting, this method enables decision makers to assess future benefits and costs of a potential investment from the standpoint of their present-day value. This is a standard way of giving greater weight to nearer-term versus distant (and more speculative) outcomes. A three percent rate is used to discount benefits and costs over a 30 year time horizon to present-value costs in a base year of 2021, the year of construction and the year prior to benefits begin to accrue. The model is transparent in all of its assumptions and the model inputs are readily accessible to users who may want to adjust model inputs to reflect local circumstances. Once the parameters were set, the simulation was run. GradeDec uses simulation to estimate risk. By specifying probability distributions for scenario inputs, the user quantifies their variability and uncertainty. The impact of this uncertainty on the outcomes, as reflected in the GradeDec analytic model, is quantified using simulation. With simulation, rather than solving the model once using "best guess" values for inputs, - 5 -

6 solves the model for many independent trials. In each trial, a random sample is taken from the distribution of each scenario input. Each trial produces an outcome (i.e., a set of values for the result variables) that is as likely to be achieved as any other. By applying statistical analysis to a set of outcomes, derives descriptive statistics for each result variable. Thus, for instance, will tell us not only that "the answer is 50", but also that "with 90 percent probability the answer lies between 30 and 75". As opposed to point estimates or sensitivity analysis (where one variable is arbitrarily varied), risk analysis supports better decisions by explicitly reporting the probability distributions of the results. Table 2.1 shows the output of the GradeDec model used in this benefit cost analysis. Table 2.1 GradeDec Model Outputs, Mean Values Model Output GS9 GS11 GS21a Total Safety benefits, thous $ PV $2,544 $2,888 $612 $6,044 Travel time savings, thous $ PV $61,622 $27,413 $74,032 $163,066 Environmental benefits, thous $ PV $236 $118 $149 $503 Veh operating cost benefit, thous $ PV $2,707 $1,407 $2,292 $6,406 Network benefits, thous $ PV $473 $1,454 $223 $2,150 Total benefits, thous $ PV $72,924 $38,770 $82,635 $194,629 of this, benefits from induced trips, thous $ PV $49 $30 $34 $113 of this, disbenefits from induced trips, thous $ PV $- $- $- $- of this, investment salvage value, thous $ PV $5,292 $5,460 $5,292 $16,045 Safety benefits, thous $ PV $2,544 $2,888 $612 $6,044 Net benefits, thous $ PV $12,924 $(23,230) $19,635 $9,329 Benefit-cost ratio Rate of return (constant dollars), % Local benefits (not included in summary), thous $ PV $3,675 $1,953 $4,137 $9,765 Table 2.2 shows the GradeDec model inputs and settings that were used in this benefit cost analysis using. Crossing data was imported from the National Grade Crossing Inventory into GradeDec, while other inputs were drawn from information provided by the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), Belt Railway of Chicago (BRC) and Union Pacific (UP)

7 Table 2.2 GradeDec Model Inputs and Settings Model Inputs Value Source Comments GS9 GS11 GS21a Selected Model Corridor Model Corridor Model Corridor Model Settings Crossing & Devices Crossing Highway Daily Passenger Trains Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) Current operations Daily Freight Trains UP Current operations Daily Switch Trains UP Current operations Allow Capital Programming? False False False CDOT Investments will be made in one phase Start Year Investment start year Last Year Near Near term is 10 years End Year End year is after 30 years Crossing Paved? True True True CDOT Current condition Crossing Urban? True True True CDOT Current condition Base Case Device Gates Gates Gates CDOT Current operations Base Case Supplementary Safety Measure None None 4 Quad - Detection CDOT Current operations Alternate Case Device Grade Separation Grade Separation Grade Separation CDOT Improvement Number of Lanes CDOT Current condition AADT 19,800 11,500 21,100 Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Current condition Percent of Trucks 18% 18% 12% IDOT Current condition of this, Trailers 40% 40% 31% IDOT Current condition Percent of Buses 1% 0% 3% CDOT Current condition T-O-D Distribution of Auto Day Flat Day Flay Day Flat Default value T-O-D Distribution of Truck Day Flat Day Flat Day Flat Default value T-O-D Distribution of Bus Day Flat Day Flat Day Flat Default value

8 Model Inputs Value Source Comments Distance from closest intersection CDOT Current condition Number of Tracks CDOT Current condition Crossing-Rail Crossing Cost Min. Block Time 36 seconds 36 seconds 36 seconds Default value Max. Timetable Train Speed 25 mph 25 mph 40 mph UP Current condition Avg. Passenger Train Speed 25 mph 25 mph 40 mph UP Current condition Avg. Freight Train Speed 20 mph 20 mph 20 mph UP Current condition Base Case Ann. Oper. & Maint. Cost N/A N/A N/A CDOT Alt. Case Ann. Oper. & Maint. Cost N/A N/A N/A CDOT Alt. Case Capital Cost $63 Million $65 Million $63 Million CDOT Total Project Cost **Maintenance cost savings were not included in the GradeDec analysis. Incremental maintenance savings are directly included in the BC analysis. Safety Number of Accidents in Previous 5 Years FRA Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Report Rail Operations Rate of Growth in Passenger Rail Traffic, Near Rate of Growth in Passenger Rail Traffic, Long Rate of Growth in Freight Rail Traffic, Near - 8 -

9 Model Inputs Value Source Comments Rate of Growth in Freight Rail Traffic, Long Rate of Growth in Switch Rail Traffic, Near Rate of Growth in Switch Rail Traffic, Long Freight Rail Cars Per Train Passenger Rail Cars Per Train Mode: 100 Min: 40 Max: 140 Mode: 6 Min: 5.5 Max: 6.5 Mode: 100 Min: 40 Max: 140 Mode: 6 Min: 5.5 Max: 6.5 Mode: 100 Min: 40 Max: 140 Mode: 6 Min: 5.5 Max: 6.5 Changed to match default values for long term rate of growth in passenger rail traffic Changed to match default values for long term rate of growth in passenger rail traffic Switch Cars Per Train Fixed Value: 5 Fixed Value: 5 Fixed Value: 15 Average Length of Freight Car (feet) Mode: 50 Min: 45 Max: 89 Mode: 50 Min: 45 Max: 89 Mode: 50 Min: 45 Max:

10 Model Inputs Value Source Comments Average Length of Passenger Train Car (feet) Mode: 40 Min: 37 Max: 43 Mode: 40 Min: 37 Max: 43 Fixed Value: 85 Average Length of Switch Car (feet) Mode: 67.5 Min: 60 Max: 75 Mode: 67.5 Min: 60 Max: 75 Mode: 50 Min: 45 Max: 89 Avg Annual Growth in Hwy Auto Traffic, Near Median: 1.5% 10% Lower: 1% 10% Upper: 2% Avg Annual Growth in Hwy Auto Traffic, Long Highway Avg Annual Growth in Hwy Truck Traffic, Near Avg Annual Growth in Hwy Truck Traffic, Long Median: 1.5% 10% Lower: 1% 10% Upper: 2% Median: 1.5% 10% Lower: 1% 10% Upper: 2% Avg Annual Growth in Hwy Bus Traffic, Near

11 Model Inputs Value Source Comments Avg Annual Growth in Hwy Bus Traffic, Long Avg Auto Vehicle Occupancy Median: % Lower: % Upper: Median: % Lower: % Upper: Median: % Lower: % Upper: National Household Travel Survey, 2009 Annualization Factor Fixed Value: 280 Fixed Value: 280 Fixed Value: 280 Elasticity of auto AADT w.r.t. generalized cost of travel Fixed Value: -0.1 Fixed Value: -0.1 Fixed Value: -0.1 Average % of auto trip costs that are GCXrelated Fixed Value: 2.5% Fixed Value: 2.5% Fixed Value: 2.5%