Eem1 Jan2010

Economic evaluation manual (volume 1)
NZ Transport Agency www.nzta.govt.nz First edition, Amendment 0 Effective from January 2010 ISBN 978-0-478-35257-3 (print) ISBN 978-0-478-35256-6 (online)
Copyright information This publication is copyright NZ Transport Agency. Material in it may be reproduced for personal or in-house use without formal permission or charge, provided suitable acknowledgement is made to this publication and the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) as the source. Requests and enquiries about the reproduction of material in this publication for any other purpose should be made to: NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141 The permission to reproduce material in this publication does not extend to any material for which the copyright is identified as being held by a third party. Authorisation to reproduce material belonging to a third party must be obtained from the copyright holder(s) concerned. Disclaimer This manual is intended to provide guidance and processes to assist approved organisations under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) obtain the best value for money spent and to provide procedures for the economic evaluation of land transport activities. Accordingly, the NZTA disclaims any responsibility when these procedures are used for applications in other sectors. All reasonable measures have been taken to ensure the quality and accuracy of that information. However, the NZTA may change, delete, add to or otherwise amend information contained in this manual. While the NZTA has taken care to provide accurate information, this manual is a general guide and is not a substitute for expert advice applicable to specific situations. Where there is a specific query concerning any of the processes or obligations contained in the LTMA, independent professional advice should be sought. This manual has been prepared carefully and in good faith, but the NZTA is not liable for any errors, costs or losses arising from use of this manual or the information contained within this manual. More information Published 2010 ISBN 978-0-478-35257-3 (print) ISBN 978-0-478-35256-6 (online) If you have further queries, call our contact centre on 0800 699 000 or write to us: NZ Transport Agency Private Bag 6995 Wellington 6141 This document is available on the NZTAs website at www.nzta.govt.nz
Page i
Document management plan

1) Purpose This management plan outlines the updating procedures and contact points for the document. 2) Document information The NZ Transport Agencys Economic evaluation manual (volume 1). Print: 978-0-478-35257-3 Online: 978-0-478-35256-6 This document is located in electronic form on the NZ Transport Agencys website at www.nzta.govt.nz. Investment & Revenue Strategy National Manager, Investment & Revenue Strategy
Document name Document number Document availability Document owner Document sponsor 3)
Amendments and review strategy All corrective action/improvement requests (CAIRs) suggesting changes will be acknowledged by the document owner. Comments Frequency As required. At least annually.
Amendments (minor revisions) Review (major revisions) Notification
Updates incorporated immediately they occur. Amendments fundamentally changing the content or structure of the document will be incorporated as soon as practicable. They may require coordinating with the review team timetable. All users that have registered their interest by email to eem@nzta.govt.nz will be advised by email of amendments and updates.
Immediately.
4)
Other information (at document owners discretion) There will be occasions, depending on the subject matter, when amendments will need to be worked through by the review team before the amendment is actioned. This may cause some variations to the above noted time frames.
5)
Distribution of this management plan Copies of this manual management plan are to be included in the NZ Transport Agency intranet at the next opportunity and sent to: eem@nzta.govt.nz.
The NZ Transport Agencys Economic evaluation manual (volume 1) First edition, Amendment 0 Effective from January 2010
Page ii
Record of amendment
Amendment number Description of change Effective date Updated by
Page iii
Foreword
A significant function for the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) is the investment of resources from the National Land Transport Fund to activities proposed by approved organisations, eg regional councils or territorial authorities, and the agency itself. These activities are assessed and prioritised through the NZTA investment and revenue strategy for inclusion in the National Land Transport Programme. The procedures described in this manual have been developed to assist approved organisations evaluate the economic efficiency of activities for which they seek funding from the NZTA, within the value for money framework of the NZTAs overall investment and revenue strategy. The development of evaluation procedures is an ongoing process. The NZTA will revise the economic evaluation procedures in this manual in the light of research and information from across the sector in order to continually improve the procedures to meet the above objectives. The NZTA welcomes suggestions from approved organisations and others for further improvements. The procedures in this manual have been developed pursuant to the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The NZTAs primary objective is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system. In meeting this objective, the NZTA must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility in a manner that seeks value for money. The NZTA would like to thank all those who have contributed to the development of the procedures in this manual
Geoff Dangerfield Chief Executive
Page iv
Contents
Document management plan Record of amendment Foreword 1.0 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 Description Purpose Contents i ii iii 11 11 12 13 21 21 22 23 29 210 211 213 214 215 217 220 221 223 224 226 228 231 31 31 32 34 35 continued
Basic concepts 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 Overview Social cost benefit analysis and financial analysis Benefits External impacts Costs Present value and discounting Time frame Do-minimum and benefit and cost differentials Benefit cost ratios Incremental cost benefit analysis First year rate of return Uncertainty and risk Alternatives and options Packages Transport models Other inputs to funding assessment References
3.0
Evaluation of road activities 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Overview Stages of analysis The do-minimum Road and traffic data
Page v
3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 4.0
Benefits of road activities Costs of road activities Period of analysis Uncertainty and risk for road activities Roading packages References
37 311 314 315 316 317 41 41 42 SP11 SP21 SP31 SP41 SP51 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-5 5-10 5-12 5-14 5-16 5-18 5-20 5-22 5-24 5-42 5-46 5-66 5-86 5-88 5-92 continued
Simplified procedures for road activities 4.1 4.2 SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 Overview Selecting the procedure Road renewals Structural bridge renewals General road improvements Seal extensions Isolated intersection improvements
5.0
Full procedures for activity evaluation 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Overview Application of full procedures Stages of analysis Feasibility report
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary Worksheet 2 Summary of benefits and costs Worksheet 3 Benefit cost analysis Worksheet 4 Incremental analysis Worksheet 5 First year rate of return Worksheet 6 Sensitivity analysis Worksheet 7 Checklist for activity evaluations Worksheet 8 Transport modelling checks Worksheets A1 Discounting and present worth factors Worksheets A2 Traffic data Worksheets A3 Travel time estimation Worksheet A4 Travel time cost savings Worksheet A5 Vehicle operating cost savings Worksheets A6 Accident cost savings
Page vi
Worksheet A7 Vehicle passing options Worksheets A8 External impacts Worksheets A9 Vehicle emissions Worksheets A10 National strategic factors Worksheets A13 Risk analysis Appendices A1 Discounting and present worth factors A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.6 A1.7 A2 Single payment present worth factor Uniform series present worth factor Arithmetic growth present worth factor Annual present worth factors Quarterly present worth factors
5-118 5-124 5-130 5-134 5-136 1 A11 A13 A15 A16 A17 A110 A21 A21 A22 A24 A25 A26 A28 A210 A212 A213 A214 A31 A31 A33 A34 A35 A36 A38 A310 A312 A313 continued
Traffic data A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4 A2.5 A2.6 A2.7 A2.8 A2.9 A2.10 Introduction Traffic composition Separating the activity into its component sections Dividing the year into time periods Vehicle occupancy and travel purpose Traffic volumes Traffic growth rates Future traffic volumes Travel times and speed References
A3
Travel time estimation procedures A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A3.4 A3.5 A3.6 A3.7 A3.8 A3.9 Use of travel time estimation procedures The stages for estimating travel time Determining traffic volumes Calculating free speed travel time Determining the free speed of multi-lane roads Determining the free speed of two-lane rural roads Determining the free speed of other urban Determining the capacity of road sections Determining the capacity of motorways
Page vii
A3.10 A3.11 A3.12 A3.13 A3.14 A3.15 A3.16 A3.17 A3.18 A3.19 A3.20 A3.21 A3.22 A3.23 A3.24 A3.25 A3.26 A4
Determining the capacity of multi-lane roads Determining the capacity of two-lane rural roads Determining whether vehicle interactions are significant Types of delay Average peak interval traffic intensity Determining the peak interval Calculating the average peak interval traffic intensity Calculating the volume to capacity Calculating the additional travel time Calculating bottleneck delay Determining whether to consider peak spreading Determining the additional travel time resulting from speed change Calculating the time period total average travel time Traffic signals Priority intersections Roundabouts References
A315 A316 A318 A319 A320 A321 A323 A324 A325 A328 A331 A332 A334 A335 A340 A343 A344 A41 A41 A42 A43 A44 A413 A419 A51 A51 A53 A55 A57 A58 A59 A510 continued
Travel time values A4.1 A4.2 A4.3 A4.4 A4.5 A4.6 Introduction Base values for travel time Composite values of travel time and congestion Traffic congestion values Benefits from improved trip time reliability Worked examples of trip reliability procedure
A5
Vehicle operating costs A5.1 A5.2 A5.3 A5.4 A5.5 A5.6 A5.7 Introduction Base VOC and VOC by speed and gradient Additional VOC due to road surface conditions Additional VOC due to congestion Additional VOC due to bottleneck delay Additional VOC due to speed change cycles Vehicle operating cost tables
Page viii
A6
Accident costs A6.1 A6.2 A6.3 A6.4 A6.5 A6.6 A6.7 A6.8 A6.9 A6.10 A6.11 Introduction Choosing to undertake an accident analysis Choosing the type of analysis Applying the analysis methods Accident trends Typical injury accident rates and prediction models Typical accident reduction factors Adjusting accident costs to reflect mean speeds Worked example of accident procedures Tables References
A61 A61 A62 A66 A610 A616 A618 A641 A645 A646 A649 A656 A71 A71 A74 A79 A717 A726 A728 A729 A81 A81 A84 A88 A811 A813 A815 A818 A820 A821 A822 A823 continued
A7
Passing lanes A7.1 A7.2 A7.3 A7.4 A7.5 A7.6 A7.7 Introduction Background Passing lane strategies Assessment of individual passing lanes Rural simulation for assessing passing lanes Definitions References
A8
External impacts A8.1 A8.2 A8.3 A8.4 A8.5 A8.6 A8.7 A8.8 A8.9 A8.10 A8.11 Introduction Road traffic noise Vibration Water quality Special areas Ecological impact Visual impacts Community severance Overshadowing Isolation References
Page ix
A9
Vehicle emissions A9.1 A9.2 A9.3 A9.4 A9.5 A9.6 A9.7 A9.8 Introduction Vehicle emissions Vehicle emissions procedure Valuation of emissions Emissions reporting Carbon dioxide emissions Assessment of carbon dioxide emissions References
A91 A91 A92 A94 A96 A97 A98 A99 A910 A101 A101 A102
A10
National strategic factors A10.1 A10.2 A10.3 A10.4 A10.5 A10.6 A10.7 A10.8 A10.9 Introduction Agglomeration economies and transport investment
Measurement and estimation of agglomeration in New Zealand A103 Agglomeration benefits Defining national strategic factors Security of access Investment option values Procedures for national strategic factors References A104 A1010 A1011 A1012 A1013 A1014 A111 A111 A112 A113 A114 A115 A116 A117 A1110 A1111 A1113 A1115
A11
Congested networks and induced traffic A11.1 A11.2 A11.3 A11.4 A11.5 A11.6 A11.7 A11.8 A11.9 A11.10 A11.11 A11.12 Introduction Applying growth constraint techniques Applying peak spreading Applying the matrix scaling method Applying the incremental matrix capping method Applying the shadow network method Applying elasticity methods (FTM) Applying demand models (FTM) Applying variable trip matrix techniques Applying elasticity methods (VTM) Applying activity demand models (VTM)
Conducting cost benefit analyses using variable matrix methods A1116 continued
Page x
A11.13 A12
Checking growth constraint or variable matrix methods A1121 A121 A121
Update factors and incremental BCR A12.1 A12.2 A12.3 A12.4 Introduction
Update factors for construction and maintenance costs A122 Update factors for benefits Target incremental benefit cost ratio A123 A124 A131 A131 A132 A133 A134 A137 A1310 A1312 A1313 A1316 A1317 A141 A142 A144 A145 A146 A147 A148 A149 A1410 A1411 A1421 A1423 A1433 A1443 A1444 A1446 continued
A13
Risk analysis A13.1 A13.2 A13.3 A13.4 A13.5 A13.6 A13.7 A13.8 A13.9 Introduction Risk Risk management Risk analysis Benefit risks Costs risks High risks Relative risk Contingencies
A13.10 Example of risk analysis A14 Blank worksheets Feasibility report Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary Worksheet 2 Summary of benefits and costs Worksheet 3 Benefit cost analysis Worksheet 4 Incremental analysis Worksheet 5 First year rate of return Worksheet 6 Sensitivity analysis Worksheet 7 Checklist for activity evaluation Worksheet 8 Transporting modelling checks Worksheet A1 Discounting and present worth factors Worksheet A2 Traffic data Worksheet A3 Travel time estimation Worksheet A4 Travel time cost savings Worksheet A5 Vehicle operating cost savings Worksheet A6 Accident cost savings
Page xi
Worksheet A7 Vehicle passing options Worksheet A8 External impacts Worksheet A9 Vehicle emissions Worksheet A10 National strategic factors Worksheet A13 Risk analysis
A1459 A1462 A1465 A1467 A1468
Page 11
1.0
1.1
Introduction
Description
This manual presents the procedures to be used in the economic efficiency evaluation of activities submitted to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for funding. Economic efficiency is one of the three assessment factors considered in the NZTAs funding assessment, which is described in part G1.3 of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual. Economic efficiency analysis is also used when selecting between alternatives and options to ensure the best possible use is made of the available resources. The economic analysis procedures contained in this manual include both simplified and full procedures. The emphasis throughout this manual is on the practical use of techniques for evaluating typical transport activities. No attempt has been made to provide full coverage of the theoretical or philosophical basis of the methods presented.
In this chapter
Section
Page
1.1 1.2 1.3
Description Purpose Contents
11 12 13
Page 12
1.2
Purpose
By using the procedures in this manual it is intended that:

the economic evaluations will be presented in a consistent format the costs and benefits, and their relative magnitude, of alternatives and options will be clear any assumptions made will, as far as possible, be standardised between activities the appropriate level of data collection and analysis will be undertaken for economic efficiency evaluations.
Economic evaluation as a input into the funding assessment
This manual provides the procedures to determine the economic efficiency of an activity as part of the NZTA funding assessment. The economic efficiency is typically assessed by the benefit cost ratio (BCR). For activities that are based on generic assessment profiles, the economic efficiency is generally the distinguishing factor between activities. Refer to part G1.3 of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual for more information on the funding assessment.
Page 13
1.3
Contents
The NZTA economic efficiency evaluation procedures are contained in two volumes Economic evaluation manual volumes 1 and 2. Volume 1 (EEM1) contains the basic concepts of economic efficiency evaluation and specific evaluation procedures for road activities. Volume 2 includes procedures to be used for evaluating transport demand management proposals, travel behaviour change proposals, walking and cycling, transport services, private sector financing, toll road activities and parking measures.
Evaluation procedures in two volumes
Basic concepts
Chapter 2 of this volume describes the basic concepts underlying the economic efficiency evaluation procedures for activities and packages of activities. Chapter 3 describes the specific procedures to be used for economic efficiency evaluation of road activities. Chapter 4 contains simplified procedures (SPs) for evaluating road maintenance activities and seal extension works, plus lower capital cost road activities, such as general road improvement, structural bridge renewal and intersection improvement activities. These SPs condense economic efficiency evaluation into a few worksheets. Chapter 5 describes procedures and provides sample worksheets for full economic efficiency evaluation of land transport activities. The full procedures are to be used when either more detailed analysis is required than is provided in the SPs, or the limits specified for the SPs are exceeded. Appendices A1 to A13 describe the methodology for valuing the various benefits and disbenefits considered in economic efficiency evaluation and provide standard unit values and other guidance on estimation of input values. Appendix A14 contains blank worksheets that can be copied and used for evaluations.
Evaluation of road activities Simplified procedures for road activities
Full procedures
Guidance on input values
Blank worksheets
Page 21
2.0 Basic concepts

2.1 Overview
This chapter describes the basic concepts underlying the economic efficiency evaluation procedures for activities and packages of activities submitted to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for funding. Section Page
Introduction
In this chapter
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17
Overview Social cost benefit analysis and financial analysis Benefits External impacts Costs Present value and discounting Time frame Do-minimum and benefit and cost differentials Benefit cost ratios Incremental cost benefit analysis First year rate of return Uncertainty and risk Alternatives and options Packages Transport models Other inputs to funding assessment References
21 22 23 29 210 211 213 214 215 217 220 221 223 224 226 228 231
Page 22
2.2
Social cost benefit analysis and financial analysis

For conventional business investment, an analysis is made of the initial investment costs against the revenue from sales, less operating expenses. If the returns on the investment justify the investment costs, and cash flow forecasts are satisfactory, then the venture is considered worthwhile from a business viewpoint. This is termed financial analysis. Social cost benefit analysis (generally abbreviated to cost benefit analysis) is similar to financial analysis except that a national viewpoint is adopted in which the benefits and costs are those to the nation as a whole. This viewpoint is appropriate in the case of transport activities, which are undertaken on behalf of the nation and are publicly funded. The analysis involves determining the various benefits and costs associated with each activity alternative and option over a certain analysis period, to determine the relative economic efficiency of these alternatives and options. The results for the chosen alternative and option indicate whether the activity is worthwhile from an economic efficiency viewpoint.
Social cost benefit analysis and financial analysis
Economic costs and shadow pricing
A financial analysis considers the monetary costs and revenues to the business contemplating the investment. These monetary costs are the prices of goods and services in the marketplace. In many instances the market prices for goods and services do not equate to their economic costs (also termed national resource costs). This difference may occur from transfer payments, such as taxes, duties and subsidies, or of market imperfections such as monopolistic pricing or other factors. It is necessary, when performing a cost benefit analysis, to substitute the market price of items with a value that takes account of these differences. This technique is termed shadow pricing. The benefit values provided in this manual take account of the differences between market prices and national resource costs, and therefore do not require any adjustment. All construction and maintenance cost estimates used in economic evaluations must exclude good and services tax (GST), so that they are national resource costs.
Page 23
2.3
Benefits
Three types of benefit (or disbenefit) are considered in economic evaluations of transport activities:

Types of benefit
Benefits with monetary values derived from the marketplace, eg vehicle operating costs (VOC) and the value of work travel time. Benefits that have been given a standard monetary value include: the statistical value of human life the value of non-work travel time the comfort value gained from sealing unsealed roads the frustration reduction benefit from passing opportunities the carbon dioxide reduction benefit.
Benefits that have not been given a standard monetary value, either because it is inappropriate or it has not been possible to establish a standard value, eg cultural, visual or ecological impact.
Benefits of transport activities may accrue to both transport users and other parties. Disbenefits are treated as negative benefits. Assignment of benefit value Market-based monetary values for the major land transport benefits are provided in this manual. Appendix A8 provides standard monetary values for several external impacts. There are various techniques that allow economic values to be assigned to benefits, eg willingness to pay, avoidance or mitigation costs. Where benefits that do not have monetary values in this manual are considered likely to be significant, it may be desirable to undertake such an analysis. Where no monetary value is available, the benefits should be described and where possible quantified, and also reported as an input into the NZTAs funding assessment (refer to part G of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual). Level of data collection and analysis Generally, all activity benefits should be included in the economic analysis. In some cases there are practical limits to the amount of time and energy that can or should be spent in gathering information and calculating total activity benefits. If a particular parameter is likely to contribute only a small amount of the total benefits, it is unwise to spend significant effort in obtaining this information and the use of the default values contained in appendices may be appropriate. Activities should be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate level of data collection and analysis to apply.
Page 24
2.3
Benefits continued
The primary benefits used in economic efficiency evaluation of activities are listed below showing the type of activity in which they are normally taken account of. Education, promotion and marketing Transport Demand management Walking and cycling Private sector financing and road tolling
Primary benefits
Travel time cost savings Vehicle operating cost savings Accident cost savings Seal extension benefits Driver frustration reduction benefits Risk reduction benefits Vehicle emission reduction benefits Other external benefits Mode change benefits Walking and cycling health benefits Walking and cycling cost savings Transport service user benefits Parking user cost savings National strategic factors
Services
Parking and land use
Primary benefit Road
Page 25
2.3
Benefits continued
The benefits of traffic congestion reduction and improved trip reliability are accounted for by adjusting the primary benefits:

Secondary benefits
travel time cost savings VOC savings carbon dioxide reduction benefits accident cost savings.
Combined benefit values National strategic factors
In some simplified procedures (SPs), benefit values consisting of combinations of benefits are used to simplify the calculations. When evaluating activities it is expected that most, and in many cases all, of the benefits will relate to the monetised and non-monetised impacts described in this section and section 2.5. However, despite the wide range of factors currently taken into account, there may also be certain national strategic factors that should be included in the analysis, particularly for large activities. National strategic factors are defined as national benefits that are valued by transport users or communities, but are not included elsewhere in the procedures in this manual. National strategic factors may be incorporated as benefits in the evaluation of an activity where they:

will have a material impact on an activitys importance comprise national economic benefits have not already been counted in the core analysis would likely be valued in a normal market.
The criteria for assessing national strategic factors and their valuation are discussed in more detail in appendix A10. National strategic factors currently recognised by the NZTA for road activities are described in section 3.5 of this volume. National strategic factors for transport demand management activities are identified in section 3.8 of volume 2 and for transport services proposals in section 7.6 of volume 2. Other national strategic factor categories may be added to the list over time (particularly where activity promoters can show that transport users are willing to pay for a benefit not included in the current procedures), as long as they can be shown to meet the criteria above. The NZTA will consider other potential instances of national strategic factors on a case-by-case basis.
Page 26
2.3
Benefits continued
In some rare situations, it is possible that increased economic activity within an area resulting from a transport improvement may give rise to economies of scale and, therefore, additional economic efficiency improvements. If these efficiency improvements can be clearly identified, they can also be included as benefits in the analysis. If economies of scale are considered, care must be taken to ensure that:

Economies of scale
only the efficiency gain as a result of the economies of scale is included as an additional benefit there are no diseconomies of scale created in other areas as a result of transferred economic activity there is a clear connection between the efficiency gain and the activity being evaluated.
Business benefits
Benefits to businesses are economic transfers rather than national economic benefits and are therefore not included in the economic efficiency calculation. However, they may be quantified and reported as part of the funding assessment where appropriate (refer to part G of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual). This is particularly relevant to transport demand management (TDM) activities. The standard benefits listed in this manual generally constitute the total economic impact of improved levels of service, accessibility or safety. Certain external impacts of activities, such as increased land values, may arise because of the improved level of service and accessibility to nearby areas. These impacts shall be excluded from the evaluation because including them would be double counting. For example, it would be double counting to claim increased land values as additional benefits if these benefits are merely a capitalisation of road user benefits. In the case of a TDM activity, it would be double counting to include saved energy benefits, VOC savings and travel time savings in the same evaluation.
Double counting of benefits
Page 27
2.3
Benefits continued
Disbenefits considered in the economic evaluation should in most cases be restricted to travel time delays only, and do not need to include vehicle operating costs, accident cost, noise, dust, etc. Where the activity/option results in minimal disruption, eg a tie in that does not require reduction in capacity during construction, there is no need to incorporate the disbenefits in the economic evaluation. Where the impact of disruption is material then the disbenefits of the activity/option shall be included in the evaluation. The impact should be determined through sensitivity analysis, eg a preliminary estimate of the disbenefits to adjust the benefit cost ratio (BCR). If the adjusted BCR remains within its funding profile level (low, medium or high), then there is no need to undertake a detailed evaluation of the disbenefits, provided the difference between the BCRs is less than 10 percent. However, if the adjusted BCR falls to a lower profile level, which could impact the activity's priority or funding source, then a detailed evaluation of the disbenefits shall be undertaken. If the adjusted BCR falls more than 10 percent, regardless of the funding profile level, then a detailed evaluation should be undertaken. Seek guidance from the NZTA if there is any doubt whether or not disbenefits should be taken into account for a particular activity.
Disbenefits during implementation/ construction
Page 28
2.3
Benefits continued
The cost benefit analysis methods described in this manual do not directly deal with the incidence of benefits and costs on different sections of the public. Cost benefit analysis only indicates those activities with the largest resource gains per dollars of expenditure, irrespective of whether benefits and costs are evenly distributed or whether costs fall more heavily on some sections of society while benefits accrue mainly to others. Equity refers to how the benefits and costs of transport activities are distributed across population groups. There are four types of equity related to transport:

Equity impacts
Egalitarianism treating everybody the same, regardless of who they are. Horizontal equity whether benefits, disbenefits, (including externalities) and costs are applied equally to people and groups in comparable condition. Vertical equity with respect to income whether lower income people bear a larger portion of the impacts. Vertical equity with regard to mobility needs and abilities whether transport systems adequately serve people who are transport disadvantaged.
Methods to disaggregate impacts among socio-economic groups or geographical areas include:
spatially based analysis that uses spatial units, such as traffic-analysis zones or census tracts that can be classified by characteristic (income, predominate minority, etc) spatial disaggregation, where a geographical information system raster module is used to disaggregate socio-economic data and impact data to grid cells micro-simulation that uses a set of actual or synthetic individuals or households that represent the population.
An analysis of the distribution of benefits and costs among different groups of people is not required for the economic efficiency evaluation of the activity. However, reporting of the distribution of benefits and costs, particularly where they relate to the needs of the transport disadvantaged, is part of the funding assessment.
Page 29
2.4
External impacts
External impacts are benefits or disbenefits stemming from an activity that do not reside with the responsible government agencies, approved organisations or transport users. Because cost benefit analysis takes the national viewpoint, external impacts must also be considered. Environmental impacts are an important subset of external impacts. The New Zealand Transport Strategy, the Land Transport Management Act 2003 and the Resource Management Act 1991 impose a duty when preparing activities to assess the effect of the activity on the environment and environmental sustainability. The emphasis is on avoiding to the extent reasonable in the circumstances, adverse effects on the environment1. This can be achieved by:

Introduction
Environmental impacts
reducing the negative impacts of the transport system on land, air, water, communities and ecosystems the transport system actively moving towards reducing the use of nonrenewable resources and their replacement with renewable resources.2
Quantifying and valuing external impacts
Most of the potential external impacts are discussed in appendix A8, which contains techniques for quantifying and, in some cases, valuing the impact. Benefits from sealing roads are addressed in SP4. Where impacts are valued, they should be included as benefits or disbenefits in the economic efficiency evaluation. Non-monetised impacts should be quantified, where possible, and reported as part of the funding assessment.
Mitigation of external impacts
Where a design feature to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse external impacts is included in an activity and the feature significantly increases the activity cost, it shall be treated in the following way. If the feature is:
required by the consenting authority in order to conform with the Resource Management Act 1991 or other legislation, then the cost of the feature shall be treated as an integral part of the activity cost not required by the consenting authority in order to conform with the Resource Management Act 1991 or other legislation, then the feature shall be described and evaluated in terms of benefits and costs, and the results reported in worksheet A8.2.
The costs of the preferred mitigation measure shall be included in the activity cost. Transferred external impacts External impacts are not included in the economic evaluation when these merely represent a transfer of impact from one person to another, eg a change of traffic flow may benefit one service station at the expense of another. Although this may be a significant impact locally, from a national economic viewpoint the two impacts are likely to cancel each other out. Also refer to the page on equity in section 2.3.
1 Land Transport Management Act 2003, part 4, section 96(1)(a)(i). 2 The New Zealand Transport Strategy, page 85. The NZ Transport Agencys Economic evaluation manual (volume 1) First edition, Amendment 0 Effective from January 2010
Page 210
2.5
Costs
The costs taken into account in an economic efficiency evaluation depend on the type of activity being evaluated. Costs for road activities are identified in section 3.6 of this volume. Costs to be taken into account for TDM and transport services are listed in volume 2.
Activity costs
Sunk costs
Where expenditure on an activity has already been incurred, it shall still be included in the evaluation if the item has a market value and this value can still be realised, eg land. Costs irrevocably committed which have no salvage or realisable value are termed sunk costs and shall not be included in the evaluation, eg investigation, research and design costs already incurred.
Page 211
2.6
Present value and discounting

The community places a higher value on benefits and costs that occur in the near future, compared with those that occur at a later date. Thus it is not possible to directly combine amounts occurring at different times. A present amount may be invested and is worth more than the same amount at some future time by its return on investment. For example, if it is known that $1.00 invested today will return $1.08 in a years time (based on an eight percent discount rate), then we can say that $1.08 in a years time has a present value (PV) of $1.00. The time value of money is treated in cost benefit analysis by discounting benefits and costs to PVs to provide a common unit of measurement. The discount rate represents the rate at which present benefits and costs can be exchanged for future benefits and costs. Benefits and costs may occur at various times over the duration of an activity and beyond. Benefits and costs are discounted to take this timing into account using appropriate present-worth factors from appendix A1.
Introduction
Example
Treatment in cost benefit analysis
Present value
The PV or present worth of a future benefit or cost is its discounted value at the present day. For a series of annual benefits or costs, the discounted values for each future year are summed to give the PVs of the series. The discount rate shall be eight percent per annum. This is the rate recommended by The Treasury (2008) for public sector transport evaluation and subject to ongoing review. While the base evaluation uses the standard eight percent discount rate. Sensitivity testing at a lower discount rate of four and six percent can be used for evaluations of activities that have long term future benefits that can not be adequately captured with the standard discount rate. Discounting at these lower rates can be applied and reported as a standard sensitivity test for full procedures using the procedures in appendix A1. For the simplified procedures the time profile of costs and benefits allows a simple multiplier of 1.5 for four percent or 1.2 for six percent to be applied to the BCR calculated from an eight percent discount rate to produce a sensitivity test BCR at lower discount rates.
Discount rate
Lower discount rate sensitivity test
Page 212
2.6
Present value and discounting continued

The discount factors for single payments, uniform series payments and arithmetic growth series payments in appendix A1 shall be used to calculate the PV of future costs and benefits. Appendix A1 also gives a detailed explanation of how the discount factors shall be applied. The single-payment discount factors in table A1.1 are in time steps of one year, and therefore part-year benefit and cost flows must be assigned to either the start or end of the financial year in which they occur, whichever is the nearer. Particular care shall be taken with amounts occurring in the first five years of the analysis period to allocate them to the correct time. Table A1.2 provides singlepayment discount factors in time steps of one quarter of a year, which allows improved accuracy. It is important to accurately define the start timing of the benefit flow after completion of construction/implementation.
Use of discount factors
Inflation
Price inflation is a different concept from discounting. In general, all benefits and costs should be calculated in present-day (constant) dollars. The discounting of future values reduces the significance of any future inflation that might be expected to occur between various categories of benefits and costs, and therefore no adjustment for inflation is required in the evaluation.
Page 213
2.7
Time zero
Time frame
Time zero (the date all benefits and costs shall be discounted to) is 1 July of the financial year in which the activity is submitted for a commitment to funding. For example, if an activity is submitted for a commitment to funding in the 2010/11 financial year, time zero is 1 July 2010. All activity options shall use the same time zero for evaluation, irrespective of whether construction for all options would commence at that time. In the case of activities being resubmitted in subsequent years, the evaluation shall be revised to the time zero appropriate to the year for which the activity is being submitted for a commitment to funding.
Analysis period
The time period used in economic evaluation shall be sufficient to cover all costs and benefits that are significant in PV terms. The analysis period for road activities is described in section 3.7 of this volume and for TDM, transport services and other activities in volume 2.
Base date for costs and benefits
The base date for dollar values of activity benefits and costs shall be 1 July of the financial year in which the evaluation is prepared. In the case of an activity being resubmitted in subsequent years, all dollar values of benefits and costs shall be adjusted to the same base date. Factors for updating construction, maintenance and user benefits are given in appendix A12. Where land costs are significant, the most recent possible estimate shall be used. The base date for activity benefits and costs need not coincide with time zero. Generally, the base date for dollar values will be one year earlier than time zero.
Page 214
2.8
Do-minimum and benefit and cost differentials

Most forms of activity evaluation involve choices between different options or courses of action. In theory, every option should be compared with the option of doing nothing at all, ie the do-nothing. For many transport activities, it is often not practical to do nothing. A certain minimum level of expenditure may be required to maintain a minimum level of service. This minimum level of expenditure is known as the do-minimum and shall be used as the basis for evaluation, rather than the do-nothing. It is important not to overstate the scope of the do-minimum, ie it shall only include that work which is absolutely essential to preserve a minimum level of service. Particular attention is required if the cost of the do-minimum is comparable to the cost of the options being considered. In such cases, the do-minimum should be reexamined to see if it is being overstated.
The do-minimum
Future costs in the do-minimum
Estimated future costs of the do-minimum need to be robustly justified and this will typically be based upon historic costs. In cases where the do-minimum involves a large future expenditure, the option of undertaking the activity now should be compared to the option of deferring the activity until this expenditure is due. Similarly, if the capital cost of the activity is expected to increase for some reason other than normal inflation, again the option of undertaking the activity now should be compared with the option of deferring construction and incurring the higher cost.
Benefit and cost differentials
The activity costs required for determining BCRs (section 2.9), incremental BCRs (section 2.10) and first year rate of return (FYRR) (section 2.11) are the differences between the costs of the activity option and the costs of the do-minimum. The activity benefits are similarly the differences between the benefit values calculated for the activity option and those of the do-minimum. It follows that where a particular benefit or cost is unchanged among all the activity options and the do-minimum, it does not require valuation or inclusion in the economic analysis.
Page 215
2.9
Benefit cost ratios

The BCR of an activity is the PV of net benefits divided by the PV of net costs. An activity is regarded as economic or worthy of execution if the PV of its benefits is greater than the PV of its costs, ie an activity is economic if the BCR is greater than 1.0. The NZTA uses the national benefit cost ratio (BCRN) as a measure of economic efficiency from a national perspective. In its basic form, the BCRN is defined as:
PV of national economic benefits BCRN = PV of national economic costs National economic benefits = net direct and indirect benefits and disbenefits to all affected transport users plus all other monetised impacts. National economic costs = net costs to the NZTA and approved organisations (where there is no service provider or nongovernment contribution) net service provider costs plus net costs to the NZTA and approved organisations (where there is a service provider).
Introduction
National benefit cost ratio
Note: Where an external service provider is involved, the net costs to government include the funding gap that is paid by local and central government to the service provider so that the service is financially viable to the service provider. The BCRN applies equally to TDM activities, transport services and road infrastructure activities. It indicates whether it is in the national interest to do the activity from an economic efficiency perspective.
Page 216
2.9
Benefit cost ratios continued

The NZTA also uses a government benefit cost ratio (BCRG), which indicates the monetised benefits obtained for the government expenditure (value for money from a central and local government perspective). In its basic form, the BCRG is defined as:
PV of national economic benefits BCRG = PV of government costs National economic benefits = net direct and indirect benefits and disbenefits to all affected transport users plus all other monetised impacts. Government costs = net costs to the NZTA and approved organisations.
Government benefit cost ratio
Note: Where an external service provider is involved, the net costs to government include the funding gap that is paid by local and central government to the service provider so that the service is financially viable to the service provider. The BCRG is equal to the BCRN where there is no service provider or nongovernment contribution. Benefit cost ratio rounding The BCR shall be rounded to one decimal place if the ratio is below 10 and to whole numbers if the ratio is above 10.
Page 217
2.10
Incremental cost benefit analysis

Where activity alternatives and options are mutually exclusive (section 2.13), incremental cost benefit analysis of the alternatives and options shall be used to identify the optimal economic solution. The incremental BCR indicates whether the incremental cost of higher-cost activity alternatives and options is justified by the incremental benefits gained (all other factors being equal). Conversely, incremental analysis will identify whether a lower cost alternative or option that realises proportionally more benefits is a more optimal solution. Incremental BCR is defined as the incremental benefits per dollar of incremental cost.
Incremental benefits Incremental BCR = Incremental costs
Introduction
Example
The concept of incremental cost benefit analysis is illustrated in the figure below, which considers two options A and B. The BCR for option B is 4.0 (4000/1000). Such a value would usually result in the activity receiving a high rating for the economic efficiency criteria considered under the NZTAs funding assessment. The less-costly option A, with a BCR of 7.5 (3000/400), would receive the same high rating. However, incremental cost benefit analysis demonstrates that the incremental benefits gained by supporting option B ahead of option. Option A represent only a small return on the additional cost, as the incremental BCR is 1.7 ((40003000)/(1000400)).
Costs = (option B) (do-minimum)
Option B
Incremental benefits = (option B) (option A)
4000
Option A 3000 PV benefits

Benefits = (option B) (do-minimum) Incremental costs = (option B) (option A)
2000
Benefits = (option A) (do-minimum)
1000
Costs= (option A) (do-minimum)
0 Do-minimum
200
400
600 PV costs
800
1000
1200
Page 218
2.10
Incremental cost benefit analysis continued

The following procedure shall be used to calculate the incremental BCR of mutually exclusive options: a) b) Rank the options in order of increasing cost. Starting at the lowest cost option, consider the next higher cost option and calculate the incremental BCR of the PV of the incremental benefits to the PV of the incremental costs. If the incremental BCR is equal to or greater than the target incremental BCR, discard the lower cost option and use the higher cost option as the comparison basis with the next higher cost option. If the incremental BCR is less than the target incremental BCR, discard the higher cost option and use the lower cost option as the basis for comparison with the next higher cost option. Repeat the procedure in b, c and d until all options have been analysed. Select the option with the highest cost which has an incremental BCR equal to or greater than the target incremental BCR.
Procedure for calculating the incremental benefit cost ratio
c)
d)
e) f)
Target incremental benefit cost ratio Sensitivity testing of incremental analysis
The method for choosing a target incremental BCR for testing activity options is provided in appendix A12.4. The results of the incremental BCR analysis should be sensitivity tested using a target incremental BCR that is 1.0 higher than the chosen target incremental BCR. If this affects the choice of preferred activity alternative or option, the results of this sensitivity test must be described and included in the activity report. For example, if the target incremental ratio is 3.0, the choice of activity alternative or option should also be tested by using a target incremental ratio of 4.0 and report how this affects the choice of option.
Page 219
2.10
Incremental cost benefit analysis continued

To analyse five mutually exclusive activity options against a target incremental BCR of 3.0, first rank the options in order of increasing cost as follows: Options A B C D E Benefits 110 140 260 345 420 Costs 15 30 45 65 100 BCR 7.3 4.7 5.8 5.3 4.2
Next, calculate the incremental BCR of each higher cost option, discarding those below the target incremental BCR as follows: Base option for Next higher comparison cost option Calculation Incremental BCR Above/below the target incremental BCR Below Above Above Below
A A C D
B C D E
(140110) / (3015) (260110) / (4515) (345260) / (6545) (420345) / (10065)
2.0 5.0 4.3 2.1
Finally select the option that has the highest cost and an incremental BCR greater than the target incremental BCR, which in this example is option D.
Page 220
2.11
First year rate of return

The first year rate of return (FYRR) is used to indicate the best start date for activities. The correct theoretical basis for determining the optimal start time would be to calculate the incremental BCR of starting an activity in year 1 compared to deferring the activity to year 2 or a later year. However, this is a relatively complex calculation. For most activities, the FYRR provides an equivalent basis for determining the best start date. Part C9.7 of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual provides further guidance on the use of the FYRR for activity assessment. For all activities, the FYRR shall be calculated for the preferred option. The FYRR, expressed as a percentage, is defined as the activity benefits in the first full year following completion of construction divided by the activity costs over the analysis period:
PV of the activity benefits in first full year following completion 100 FYRR = PV of the activity costs over the analysis period
Introduction
Page 221
2.12
Uncertainty and risk

The forecasting of future costs and benefits always involves some degree of uncertainty, and in some situations the resulting measures of economic efficiency (the BCR and FYRR) may be particularly sensitive to assumptions or predictions inherent in the analysis. Two types of uncertainty may occur in a transport activity: 1. The size or extent of inputs to an analysis, such as the variation in construction, maintenance or operating costs; future traffic volumes, particularly due to model results, growth rates, and the assessment of diverted and induced traffic; travel speeds; road roughness; or accident reductions. The timing and scale of unpredictable events, either from natural causes (such as earthquakes, flooding and landslips) or from man-made causes (such as accidental damage and injury from vehicle collisions).
Introduction
2.
Assessing the sensitivity of evaluations to critical assumptions or estimates shall be undertaken using either a sensitivity analysis or risk analysis, or both, as appropriate. The uncertainty described here is not directly comparable to assessing the uncertainty as part of the NZTAs funding assessment, which focuses on the confidence in the proposed activity (or package) delivering the desired outcomes. Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis involves defining a range of values for an uncertain variable in evaluating and assessing the effects on the economic evaluation of the assumptions or estimates within the defined range. This will highlight those variables for which a change in the input value has a significant effect on the economic evaluation, particularly the BCR and the FYRR. Risk analysis is a more detailed type of sensitivity analysis involving describing the probability distributions of the input variables and those of the resulting estimates of benefits and costs. For a risk analysis to be possible, both the costs arising from each of the possible outcomes and their probability of occurrence have to be estimated. The purpose of a risk analysis is to develop ways of minimising, mitigating and managing uncertainties. Choosing the appropriate analysis Sensitivity analysis for most activities the completion of a sensitivity analysis will be considered an adequate assessment of uncertainty. Risk assessment must be undertaken for activities which have any of the following characteristics:

Risk analysis
The principal objective of the activity is reduction or elimination of an unpredictable event (eg a landslip or accident). There is a significant element of uncertainty. The activity capital value exceeds $4.5 million.
Part C of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual provides addition guidance on risk analysis.
Page 222
2.12
Uncertainty and risk continued

Guidance on completing a sensitivity analysis for road activities is given in section 3.8 of this volume. Sensitivity analysis for other types of activity is described in volume 2. Appendix A13 outlines the methodology for a risk assessment of road activities. Chapter 12 of volume 2 describes how these risk assessment procedures can be applied to other types of activity. The general procedure for evaluating risk by an analysis of probabilities and expected values comprises the following steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. Identify the uncertain elements in the activity and the chain of consequences for any unpredictable events. Determine the benefits or disbenefits to transport users and the costs to the activity for each possible outcome. Identify an annual probability of occurrence and the period of years over which this probability applies for each uncertain element. Compute the expected values of benefits and costs for the uncertain elements in each year as the product of the costs and the annual probability of occurrence. Include these in the activity benefit and cost streams when discounting the cash flows.
Methods for sensitivity and risk analyses
A numerical-simulation approach may be required in cases where the number and interaction of uncertain variables makes an analytical approach impractical.
Page 223
2.13
Alternatives and options

Early and full consideration must be given to alternatives and options.3 Alternatives are different means of achieving the same objective as the proposal, either totally or partially replacing the proposal. For example, TDM programmes are generally alternatives to the provision of road capacity. Options are variations on the proposal, including scale and scope of components. It is common for economic evaluations to concentrate on one preferred activity option. Narrowing the scope of the analyses too early can cause serious errors, such as:

Need to consider alternatives and options
neglecting options that differ in type or scale, eg a road realignment that may eliminate a bridge renewal neglecting significant externalities, eg the impacts of change in traffic flow upon adjoining properties inconsistencies with wider strategic policies and plans, eg the impacts of improvements to a major urban arterial on downtown congestion.
All realistic activity options shall be evaluated to identify the optimal economic solution. Rigorous consideration of alternatives and options is also a key component of the NZTAs funding assessment. Mutually exclusive alternatives and options Mutually exclusive alternatives and options (and package options) occur when acceptance of one alternative or option precludes the acceptance of others, eg when a new road is proposed and there is a choice between two different alignments. The choice of one alignment obviously precludes the choice of the other alignment and therefore the two options are mutually exclusive. Mutually exclusive options shall be evaluated in accordance with the incremental cost benefit analysis procedure in section 2.10. Independent stages Activity stages shall be treated as independent activities if the different stages could be executed separately, and if their benefits are independent of other activities or stages. Where alternatives or options include features to mitigate or otherwise address external impacts or concerns and the features significantly increase the cost of the options, the options with the features must be compared with the activity option without these features. This analysis shall be undertaken irrespective of whether the features are independent of the activity or mutually exclusive.
Features to mitigate external impacts
Land Transport Management Act 2003, sections 20(2)(e) and 76(e).
Page 224
2.14
Packages
The NZTA seeks to encourage, where appropriate, approved organisations to develop packages of interrelated and complementary activities, either individually or in association with other approved organisations. Packages are by definition multiple activities, which seek to progress an integrated approach to transport. Packages are intended to realise the synergy between complementary activities. Packages may involve different activities, organisations and time periods. Packages should be:
Introduction
clearly meet the requirements from the Land Transport Management Act 2003, as expressed through the relevant regional land transport strategies, regional land transport programmes and long-term council community plans optimised to make the most efficient and effective use of resources.
The extent to which particular packages, and where appropriate components within such packages, are optimised to make the most efficient and effective use of resources, will be determined using the applicable activity evaluation procedures in this manual. Types of packages In general, packages will fall into one of the following three categories: 1. Packages for single agency with multiple activities An example of such a package would be the development of integrated urban traffic control systems and complementary pedestrian and public transport priority measures. Packages for multiple agencies with multiple activities An example of such a package would be where a major state highway improvement is to be combined with traffic calming on local roads to improve the safety of the adjacent local road network. It is quite possible that when considered individually, neither activity represents an efficient use of resources. Travel time and capacity issues may reduce the benefits of the traffic calming when considered as an isolated activity. Similarly, main road traffic volumes may not be sufficient to warrant the highway upgrading as an isolated activity. However, the combined activity will benefit from the complementary nature of the two activities. Packages for multiple agencies with a single activity An example of such a package would be a proposal to seal a currently unsealed tourist route that passes through two local authorities. Such a proposal would be submitted as a package by the two approved organisations as a multiparty activity. There are benefits to existing traffic in sealing each section of the route. However, to realise all the potential benefits, the entire route needs to be sealed. Therefore, separate analyses shall be undertaken for each section of the route and of the route as a whole. In doing so, the evaluation should highlight the efficiencies of a package approach.
2.
3.
Part G3 of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual provides further examples of the different types of packages.
Page 225
2.14
Packages continued
Chapter 3 of this volume describes the procedures for evaluating packages comprised of road activities only, while chapter 3 of volume 2 describes the evaluation of packages comprised either of TDM strategies only or a combination of TDM strategies and road activities.
Evaluation of packages
Page 226
2.15
Transport models
When transportation models are used to generate demand forecasts and assign traffic to transportation networks, documentation should be provided to demonstrate the models have been correctly specified and produce realistic results. The documentation is listed in the series of checklists in worksheet 8.3 and these should be completed for each analysis time period. The aspects of the models covered by the validation checks are listed below:

Validation of transport models
Activity model specification including model type and parameters, data sources, trip matrices, assignment methodology and forecasting checks. A base-year assignment validation comprising checks on link and screen-line flows, intersection flows, journey times and assignment convergence. Strategic demand model checks incorporating validation of the models and techniques used to produce trip matrices.
Model reviewers may also use these checklists to confirm that appropriate documentation has been provided for review purposes. Checks on output from traffic models All activity benefits calculated using a traffic or transportation model shall be checked to show the results are reasonable. The checks shall be done and reported at two levels coarse checks and detailed checks. The objective of these is to check if the travel-time benefits calculated are of the right order of magnitude. Travel-time savings per vehicle shall be calculated for both the first year of benefits and a future year by dividing the daily travel time savings by the average annual daily traffic (AADT) of traffic traversing the activity (worksheet 8.1). The objective of these is to ensure the travel times on individual road sections, through critical intersections and for selected journeys through the network, are reasonable. This analysis shall be undertaken for the first year of benefits and for a future year, and for both peak and off-peak periods if appropriate (worksheets 8.2). These checks shall cover the following:

Coarse checks
Detailed checks
The road section speeds for both the do-minimum and the activity options. The peak-period delays and volumes at critical intersections for both the dominimum and the activity options. Delays shall be based on the intersection approach which incurs the greatest delay. The travel times for both the do-minimum and the activity options for journeys which review the major travel time benefits, based on the travel time savings per vehicle for each journey route. A comparison of the total travel time savings for journeys which receive the major travel time benefits and the total travel time savings predicted by the traffic model, in the first year of benefits and a future year.
Page 227
2.15
Transport models continued

Guidelines are provided in appendix A11 for modelling situations where very high levels of congestion are anticipated over the economic life of the scheme. Professional judgement should be used to determine the appropriate procedures to adopt. In cases where there are excessive or unrealistic levels of congestion in the do-minimum network, a number of techniques may be used to generate a realistic and stable representation of the do-minimum context. These commonly involve upgrading the capacity of the do-minimum network or using some form of growth constraint on the trip matrix, such as matrix capping. The matrix derived from this process remains the same in both the do-minimum and activity option, and is then used in the standard fixed trip matrix (FTM) evaluation procedure. Appendix A11 provides details of growth constraint techniques. In some situations, significant levels of congestion may be expected in the activity option across important parts of the network (spatially) affecting a substantial proportion of the activity life (temporally). The resulting induced travel may affect benefits of the activity option as well as the choice of option. Where this is the case, the evaluation should incorporate an analysis of induced traffic effects and appendix A11 contains procedures for evaluating these effects.
Evaluating congested networks and induced traffic effects
Page 228
2.16
Other inputs to funding assessment

As noted in chapter 1 economic efficiency is only one of three assessment factors considered in the NZTAs funding assessment. This section provides some advice on the New Zealand Transport Strategy objectives to minimise double counting of benefits. Impacts to be considered should relate to enhancement of the economic wellbeing of New Zealanders both the level of wellbeing and economic growth, including the potential for future growth. Impacts include:

Introduction
Economic development
wider economic impacts, eg facilitating transport impacts on land use travel time between economic centres congestion travel time reliability effect on freight energy efficiency.
In a limited number of circumstances, transport activities may have benefits to the economy over and above those included in the economic efficiency calculation. Such benefits might result from:

increased competition in imperfect markets, either for final products or factors of production (particularly labour and land) economies of scale in production leading to reductions in production costs.
Public transport improvements are likely to impact most on labour markets and land use activities. Safety and personal security Road safety activities, some modifications to the road network and activities that reduce vehicle travel can contribute significantly to road safety improvements. Passenger transport, cycling and walking improvements should specifically address safety and personal security issues, as well as effects on vulnerable users.
Page 229
2.16
Other inputs to funding assessment continued

Accessibility for personal activities refers to the ability to reach desired goods, services and activities. For goods movement, accessibility can be defined as the ability to reach suppliers or buyers of products. Mobility refers to the ease of travel. Mobility improvements can result in additional travel that would not otherwise occur, particularly by people who are transport disadvantaged. However, mobility is not the only means of improving accessibility. The TDM programmes can significantly improve access and mobility by increasing transport availability options and coordinating travel alternatives, eg improved transport interchange. Key determinants of accessibility include the following:
Accessibility and mobility
The performance of the transport system for a given land-use pattern, quicker, more reliable and/or lower cost transport alternatives provide greater accessibility. The land-use patterns, including the density and mix of development for a given level of transport performance, a more dense arrangement of land uses means greater accessibility because more activities can be reached within a given distance/time (the mix of land uses also influences accessibility).
Various measures of accessibility are:

the number of jobs (or other opportunities accessible within X minutes of the average person in a region) the number of residents accessible within X minutes of a typical employment site.
Accessibility can also be distinguished by travel mode, income or other factors. Potential benefits of improved accessibility could be presented as the following factors:
A goal in itself Providing individual or community accessibility to desired activities is often a fundamental objective for the transportation system. A greater economic activity Businesses benefit from easier access to suppliers, a larger labour pool and expanded consumer markets. These factors can reduce transport costs both for business-related passenger travel and the movement of goods. Access to larger worker numbers, consumers and suppliers also provides greater choice and allows greater specialisation, thus increasing business efficiencies. An improved land-use pattern Interaction between accessibility and land use means the relationship between transport improvements and accessibility gains is complicated. For example, the construction of a new road immediately improves accessibility and may lead to significant land development in its proximity. Eventually, the traffic generated by new developments can cause significant congestion, reducing the original accessibility benefits provided by the road.
While making the transport system more efficient, road tolling and other pricebased TDM strategies may have a negative impact on mobility.
Page 230
2.16
Other inputs to funding assessment continued

Improvements to public health can occur through increased physical activity and fitness, and through reducing exposure to pollutants or injury-causing activities. Walking and cycling can have significant health benefits through increased exercise levels. However, this could be offset by an increased exposure to pollutants if the activity involves sharing road space (the NZTAs Economic evaluation manual volume 2 (EEM2), section 8.4).
Public health
Environmental sustainability
Environmental sustainability can be defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Activities that contribute directly to environmental sustainability are those that reduce noise and other pollutants, eg measures that manage or reduce vehicle use. Evaluation of environmental effects (monetised and nonmonetised) is described in appendices A8 and A9. Sustainability of activity performance describes how activity benefits are maintained over time. Some activities have immediate impacts, while others may take years to have significant effects. In particular, the effects of TDM activities tend to change over time. In general, programmes that incorporate financial incentives, improve transport choice or involve land use management may become more effective over time as consumers incorporate them into long-term decisions. Conversely, the effects of travel behaviour change programmes, which appeal to peoples good intentions, tend to decline over time if promoters and participants lose interest.
Sustainability of activity performance
Integration
Proposals should endeavour to improve the arrangement of land use, walking and cycling networks, public transport, and local and strategic roads.
Page 231
2.17
References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Bone I, Butcher G and Nicholson A (1997) Incorporation of risk analysis in activity evaluation Stage I (draft). Report to Transit New Zealand. Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd (1998) Recommended procedures for evaluating congested networks. Report to Transfund New Zealand. The New Zealand Treasury (2005) Cost benefit analysis primer. The New Zealand Treasury (2008) Public sector discount rates for cost benefit analysis. Travers Morgan (NZ) Ltd (1993) Sensitivity analysis. Transit New Zealand research report 13.
Page 31
3.0 Evaluation of road activities

3.1 Overview
This chapter describes the specific procedures to be used for economic efficiency evaluation of road activities submitted to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for funding. Section Page
Introduction
In this chapter
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10
Overview Stages of analysis The do-minimum Road and traffic data Benefits of road activities Costs of road activities Period of analysis Uncertainty and risk for road activities Roading packages References
31 32 34 35 37 311 314 315 316 317
Page 32
3.2
Stages of analysis
At every stage of the economic evaluation of road activities, the analysis is carried out for the do-minimum and any other options as outlined in the table below with references to the relevant section. A similar table referring to the specific procedures and worksheets is provided in chapter 5. The final stages of the economic evaluation involve a check on the quality and completeness of the evaluation. Stage Description 1 2 3 4 5 6 Where appropriate, complete a feasibility report. Describe the do-minimum, alternatives and options and consider packages. Assemble road and traffic data. Undertake transport model checks as required. Calculate travel times for the do-minimum and options. Quantify and calculate the appropriate monetised benefits and disbenefits for the do-minimum and options, including: travel time cost savings vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings accident cost savings seal extension comfort and productivity benefits driver frustration reduction benefits risk reduction benefits vehicle emission reduction benefits disbenefits during construction other external benefits. Describe and quantify where possible any significant nonmonetised external impacts. Describe and quantify any national strategic factors relevant to the activity and if possible determine the monetary value(s). Estimate the appropriate activity costs, including: investigation and design property construction, including preconstruction and supervision maintenance, renewal and operating risk management mitigation of external impacts. Section Chapter 5 2.8, 2.13, 2.14, 3.3 and 3.9 3.4 2.15 3.4 3.5
Introduction
Stages
7 8 9
3.5 3.5 3.6
Page 33
3.2
Stages of analysis continued

Stage Description 10 Summarise the benefits and costs of the do-minimum and activity options, including their: type timing estimated value year in which estimate was made growth rate over activity evaluation period. Where appropriate, describe and evaluate the benefits and costs of mitigation measures. Discount the benefits, disbenefits and costs for the do-minimum and activity options over the period of analysis and sum them to obtain the present value (PV) of net national economic benefits and costs. Apply update factors as necessary. Calculate the national benefit cost ratio (BCRN) and if appropriate, the government benefit cost ratio (BCRG). Where there is more than one mutually exclusive option, use incremental analysis to select the preferred option. Calculate the first year rate of return for the preferred activity option. When the full procedures for activity evaluation are used, conduct a sensitivity analysis on the uncertain elements of the preferred activity option. Where the activity costs are greater than $4.5 million or there are other unpredictable events that may affect the activity, undertake a risk analysis. When the full procedures for activity evaluation are used, complete the activity evaluation checklist to verify completeness of information, accuracy of calculations and validity of assumptions. Section 2.6, 2.7, 3.7, chapters 4 and 5
Stages continued
11 12
2.13 and 3.6 2.6, 2.7 and 3.7
13 14 15 16 17 18
2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 and 3.8 2.12 and 3.8 Chapter 5
19
Complete the activity evaluation summary, including the activity details, Chapter 4 or 5 location, do-minimum, alternatives and options, timing, PV of costs for the dominimum, PV of net costs and net benefits for the preferred option, benefit cost ratio (BCR) and first year rate of return (FYRR).
Page 34
3.3
The do-minimum
Generally, the do-minimum for road activities shall only include work that is absolutely essential to preserve a minimum level of service. However, in some cases, as described below, the do-minimum may need to be specified differently. It is important that the do-minimum is fully described in the evaluation.
Introduction
Low volume roads
For some activities on low volume roads, the existing level of maintenance expenditure may not be the do-minimum. In such cases, particularly where the existing level of maintenance expenditure is high, the maintenance expenditure shall be justified as an option along with other improvement options, and the dominimum shall only be the work necessary to keep the road open. Similarly, if a bridge serves little traffic and is expensive to replace, a replacement option should not automatically be taken as the do-minimum, particularly if alternative routes are available to traffic presently using the bridge. In this case the do-minimum may be to not replace the existing bridge and to have no bridge. If it is unacceptable to have no bridge at all, then another possible do-minimum could be rehabilitating the existing bridge. The do-minimum generally should not include pavement rehabilitation to an improved standard. The only exception is when the PV of the cost of the activity and its future maintenance is less than the PV of continued maintenance of the existing situation. For example, on steep unsealed roads, which need frequent grading, to remove corrugations the continued maintenance of the unsealed road can be more costly than sealing the road. In such a situation it is possible that sealing the road may be the do-minimum, so long as it is the lowest cost option available (eg there is not a realignment option available that is even cheaper).
Bridges serving little traffic
Pavement rehabilitation
Page 35
3.4
Road and traffic data

For purposes of economic evaluation, a road activity needs to be divided into sections with similar geometric and traffic flow characteristics and with similar costs of construction and maintenance. In some cases it may be necessary to separately consider individual traffic movements at intersections. In other cases, vehicle operating costs may differ by direction of travel, for example on continuous sections of grade, and in these cases it will be necessary to consider each direction as a separate section. For the do-minimum and for each activity option, the road should be divided into:

Road sections, intersections and time periods
road sections over which the terrain, road width, road roughness, speed limit and traffic volume are essentially constant, and/or intersections.
For minor activities and for preselection studies, all time periods can be considered together. For significant capital activities, it will be necessary to consider traffic variation with time of day and weekday versus weekend and holiday periods. The year or day must be divided into appropriate time periods (refer to appendix A2.4). Data for road sections For each road section and intersection, the following data is collected as required:

route data including length, average gradient and roughness traffic data for each time period accident data.
Activity location and layout
Information provided must include:

a location/route map a map showing linked activities and/or strategic routes a layout plan of the activity.
As is appropriate to the particular activity, the layout plan shall show:

section end points by name, physical features, including the start and end points of the activity intersections approaches and traffic movements identifying numbers for each road section, intersection approach and traffic movement road section lengths, average gradient and surface type speeds, if road sections are determined by speed changes locations of traffic survey points traffic volumes of intersection movements.
If accident savings are claimed for the activity a separate diagram showing accident sites in collision diagram format shall be attached to the report.
Page 36
3.4
Road and traffic data continued

Traffic data required for road activities includes:

Traffic data (appendices A2 and A11)
traffic composition vehicle occupancy and travel purpose traffic volumes travel times and speeds.
Appendix A2 provides default values for traffic composition, vehicle occupancy and travel purpose. Guidance is given on estimating traffic volumes and traffic growth, and measuring travel times and speeds. Where the traffic growth is likely to vary from the normal traffic growth, future traffic volumes shall be predicted by taking account of:

normal traffic growth diverted traffic intermittent traffic suppressed traffic induced or generated traffic (appendix A11).
For activities with congested conditions it may be necessary to consider growth suppression or variable matrix techniques (see appendix A11). Irrespective of their capital cost, the effect of activities on traffic flows in the surrounding network should also be assessed. For example, a traffic management scheme having a small capital cost may have significant effects on traffic flows. Estimation of travel time (appendix A3) Accident data requirements Appendix A3 sets out procedures for determining travel times for various road and intersection types. Accident records kept in the NZTAs crash analysis system shall be used for determining the historic accident numbers at the site and typical accident rates. Other accident records, such as those kept by the ambulance or fire service, may be considered if crash analysis system records are incomplete. If accident savings are claimed for the activity, a separate diagram showing accident sites in collision diagram format shall be attached to the report.
Page 37
3.5
Benefits of road activities

Typical benefits for a road activity are the reduction in road user costs and the reduction in external impacts compared with the do-minimum. Road user benefits considered include:

Introduction
travel time cost savings (including those gained from reduced traffic congestion and improved trip reliability) VOC savings accident cost savings comfort and productivity benefits from sealing an unsealed road driver frustration reduction benefits from passing options benefits from reducing or eliminating the risks of damage. carbon dioxide reduction benefits other external benefits national strategic factors.
Travel time cost savings (appendix A4)
Travel time savings are a function of travel times and traffic volumes and vary by travel purpose and mode, vehicle occupancy, traffic composition and congestion. Appendix A4 provides unit values for vehicle occupant, vehicle and freight time costs, along with values for travel in congested conditions and procedures for estimating the costs of improved trip reliability. Unit travel time values are given for standard traffic compositions on urban arterial, urban other, rural strategic and rural other roads by time period. New trips generated or induced as a result of travel time savings for existing traffic (see appendix A11) shall be assessed at half the benefits from travel time saving per vehicle for existing traffic.
Reduced traffic congestion (appendix A4)
Road users value improvements in traffic congestion over and above the benefits gained from travel time saving. The benefits from reduced traffic congestion apply to both work and non-work travel time, and are calculated using the procedures in appendix A4. The change in congestion calculated using the procedures in appendix A4, may also help demonstrate how a particular activity contributes to the wider objectives considered under the NZTAs funding assessment.
Page 38
3.5
Benefits of road activities continued

Journey times tend to vary throughout the day, particularly between peak and offpeak periods, and between weekdays and weekends. This type of variation is well known to regular drivers and is taken into account in calculating the travel time values (including congestion values). Trip reliability is a different type of variability, which is much less predictable to the driver. (For example, drivers that make a particular journey at the same time every day, some days it takes as little as 20 minutes, and on other days as much as 40 minutes.) Hence, when drivers plan their trips, they have to consider not just the expected travel time but also its variability. Where an activity improves trip reliability, the benefits apply to both work and non-work trips, and can be calculated using the procedures in appendix A4. The change in trip reliability calculated using appendix A4 may also help demonstrate how a particular activity contributes to the wider objectives considered under the NZTAs funding assessment. In addition to the normal day-to-day variation in travel times, there can be occasional large delays resulting from major incidents (eg crashes or breakdowns). Assessing this type of variability is best handled separately from normal day-to-day variability and is outside the scope of the procedures contained in appendix A4.
Improved trip reliability (appendix A4)
Vehicle operating cost savings (appendix A5)
The VOC savings for road sections are functions of the length of the section, traffic volume and composition on the section, and vary by road roughness condition, gradient and vehicle speed. Unit values for VOC are given in appendix A5. The values are made up of the following components:

basic running costs of the vehicle, such as fuel, repairs and maintenance additional running costs due to the road surface additional running costs due to any significant speed fluctuations from the cruise speed additional running costs due to traffic congestion additional fuel costs due to being stopped, such as queuing at traffic signals.
Page 39
3.5

Accident cost savings are a function of predicted numbers of accidents and unit accident costs. Unit accident costs vary by accident type and severity, and vehicle speed, while predicted accident numbers need to take account of the road environment, under-reporting and the exposure to the risk of having an accident. Based on historical data of accidents at the site and other information (including typical accident rates), the following methods can be used for estimating future accident numbers and costs:
Accident cost savings (appendix A6)
Accident by accident analysis, when there are limited modifications to an existing site and a high number of accidents (ie five or more injury accidents at the site, or three or more injury accidents per kilometre). Accident rate analysis, when a new facility is being provided or an existing site is being modified to such an extent that the historic accident record can no longer be used as the basis for prediction. Weighted accident procedure, when there are limited numbers of accidents and information is used from both of the above procedures, drawing on both site history and predictive model information.
Formulae for determining typical accident rates are given in appendix A6. Unit values of accident costs are provided in appendix A6 for each accident type by movement category, speed limit, severity and vehicle involvement. Driver frustration reduction benefits (appendix A7) Vehicle passing options may be provided through the construction of dedicated passing lanes, climbing lanes, slow vehicle bays and improved alignments. Providing passing options releases vehicles from platoons of slower moving vehicles, allowing them to travel along the road at their desired speed until they are once again constrained by platoons. Typically, the evaluation of passing options has been undertaken by micro-simulation programmes, which use various vehicle performance models together with terrain data to establish, in detail, the speeds of vehicles at each location along the road. These assessments can be excessively complex, particularly given the general magnitude of such activities. An alternative method is based on multiple simulations and the unified passing model described in appendix A7. This method can be used to:

identify the most appropriate strategy for providing improved vehicle passing options over a route, and assess the benefits of individual vehicle passing options within those strategies.
Other external benefits (appendix A8)
Where an indicative monetary value has been established in appendix A8, the external impact should be quantified, and the total benefit calculated using worksheet A8.1. Benefits and disbenefits that do not have monetary values shall be described and, where appropriate, quantified in their natural units. This information is taken into account in the funding assessment.
Page 310
3.5

Road user comfort benefits and productivity gains from sealing an unsealed road should also be taken into account. Appendix A8 provides information on productivity gains. A value of 10 cents per vehicle per kilometre can be used for road user comfort, which takes account of the other benefits associated with avoiding unsealed roads. Where there is a quantifiable risk of disruption to traffic, damage to vehicles, the roadway or structures, or injuries to road users from natural or man-made events, and the activity reduces or eliminates the impacts compared with the dominimum, then the benefits of the reduced or eliminated impacts must be included in the activity evaluation. The benefits of risk reduction shall be included for each year of the analysis period over which they occur, both in the do-minimum and the activity options. These benefits shall be included either as expected values or as a probability distribution, depending on the size and nature of the activity as discussed in section 3.8.
Seal extension benefits (appendix A8)
Risk reduction benefits (appendix A13)
Vehicle emission impacts (appendix A9)
Benefits to the environment and public health result from the reduction of vehicle emissions. Appendix A9 provides procedures for the estimation of vehicle emissions. Carbon dioxide has been given a standard value of $40 per tonne and therefore any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is included in the calculation of the BCR. The reduction of particulate emissions has also been assigned a monetary value and is included in the calculation of the BCR. The NZTA recognises the following as national strategic factors for transport activities:

National strategic factors (appendix A10)
agglomeration providing for security of access on busy inter-regional routes providing for investment option values including building in extra capacity or flexibility today to enable easier future expansion.
The criteria for assessing national strategic factors and the valuation of the above factors are discussed in more detail in appendix A10.
Page 311
3.6
Costs of road activities

For road activities, costs are those incurred by approved organisations and comprise:

Introduction
planning, investigation and design fees costs of property required for the activity construction costs, including preconstruction and supervision maintenance and renewal costs, including repair and reinstatement operating costs risk management costs external impact mitigation costs provisional costs contingencies.
Planning, investigation and design costs Capital, maintenance and operating costs
The costs of engineering investigation and design, and the costs of environmental and planning procedures shall be included unless they have already been incurred, in which case they are sunk costs (and are not included in the evaluation).
Activity capital costs comprise property acquisition and construction costs, including pre-construction and supervision costs. Costs for the maintenance and renewal of an asset shall be included as part of the activity costs where these occur in the analysis period. Depreciation of capital assets is fully accounted for by the inclusion of maintenance and renewal costs so that no separate allowance shall be made for depreciation. To do otherwise would be double counting. Operational costs (ie those routine or periodic costs not associated with the maintenance or renewal of an asset) shall be included as part of the activity costs where these occur in the analysis period.
Property costs
Where land has to be acquired for road development, its resource cost shall be assumed to equate to its market value for evaluation purposes. Similarly, land available for sale due to obsolescence of an existing road shall be included as a cost saving. Where land required for an activity is already owned by the road controlling authority, its market value at the base date shall be included in the analysis. Land shall not be treated as a sunk cost, as the option of alternative use nearly always exists. Market value shall be assessed on the basis that the land is available indefinitely for other use. Small isolated or irregularly shaped lots of land are often difficult to develop. If amalgamation with adjacent property is impracticable, the resource cost of the land is its amenity value only. If amalgamation is possible, the market value of the main property, with and without the addition of the small lot, shall be assessed. The difference is the resource value of the lot, which in some cases may be considerably more than the achievable sale price.
Page 312
3.6
Costs of road activities continued

Where there is a quantifiable risk of disruption to traffic, damage to vehicles, the roadway or structures, or injuries to road users from natural or man-made events, and the activity reduces or eliminates the impacts compared with the dominimum, then the appropriate risk management costs must be included in the activity evaluation. The costs of mitigation, repair and reinstatement shall be included for each year of the analysis period over which they occur, both in the do-minimum and the activity options. These costs and benefits shall be included either as expected values or as a probability distribution, depending on the size and nature of the activity as discussed in section 3.8.
Risk management costs
External impact mitigation costs
Where a design feature to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse external impacts is included in an activity and the feature significantly increases the activity cost, it shall be treated in the following way. If the feature is: a) required by the consenting authority in order to conform with the Resource Management Act 1991 or other legislation, then the cost of the feature shall be treated as an integral part of the activity cost not required by the consenting authority in order to conform with the Resource Management Act 1991 or other legislation, then the feature shall be described and evaluated in terms of benefits and costs, and the results reported in worksheet A8.2.
b)
Where several features are to be included or there are several ways of mitigating an adverse impact, they should be evaluated separately in worksheet A8.2. The cost of the preferred mitigation feature should be included in the cost calculations. Provisional costs Provisional costs shall be included for those costs that are expected to be incurred, but are not quantified at the time of preparing the estimate. For example, it may be known that street lighting is required but detailed costing for the lighting is yet to be undertaken. Contingency allowances shall be included in the activity costs to allow for possible cost increases and the uncertainty of cost estimates. These allowances shall be based on the phase of development of the activity and the level of accuracy of the estimate and that phase. The following table of default contingency allowances provides guidance. This information is to be used when the analyst does not have better information based on road controlling authority experience: Phase Feasibility report Scheme assessment Design and contract estimate Contract Earthworks component 30% 25% 20% 10% Other works 20% 15% 10% 5%
Contingencies
Page 313
3.6
Costs of road activities continued

Capital costs shall be included in the analysis as lump sums in the year in which the work is carried out, irrespective of any arrangements to finance the activity by way of loans. Interest payments on loans shall be excluded from the analysis. The residual value of an investment at the end of 30 years when discounted at eight percent has only a small impact on the economic evaluation and shall generally be omitted. Where two options have widely differing service lives, this must be noted in the activity summary sheet.
Loans and interest payments
Residual value
Page 314
3.7
Period of analysis
The analysis period for road activities shall start at time zero and finish 30 years (unless otherwise agreed with the NZTA) from the year in which significant benefit or cost commences. Where several options are being evaluated, the analysis period for all options shall be determined by the option with the earliest benefit or cost. The start of construction/implementation shall be the earliest feasible date, irrespective of expectations of funding.
Page 315
3.8
Uncertainty and risk for road activities

See section 2.12 for discussion and application of sensitivity analysis and risk analysis. Cost benefit analysis of road activities will involve making assumptions and estimates, which may involve uncertainty or be subjective in nature. The input value of significant factors must be subject to sensitivity testing (and a risk analysis if appropriate) for the effect on the economic efficiency of the activity.
Introduction
Significant inputs
Inputs to road activities that should be considered for testing include:

maintenance costs, particularly where there are significant savings traffic volumes, particularly model results, growth rates, and the assessment of diverted and induced traffic travel speeds road roughness accident reductions.
For each significant input the following shall be listed:

The assumptions and estimates on which the evaluation has been based. An upper and lower bound of the range of the estimate, and the resultant BCR at the upper and lower bound of each estimate.
Risk analysis
Risk analysis must be undertaken for all road activities with any of the following characteristics:

The principal objective of the activity is reduction or elimination of an unpredictable event (eg a landslip or accident). There is a significant element of uncertainty. The capital value of the activity exceeds $4.5 million.
Appendix A13 outlines the procedures for risk analysis of road activities and gives examples. These risk analysis procedures are not intended for activities subject to minor risks, such as occasional small slips from adjacent hills onto the road.
Page 316
3.9
Roading packages
Where a package of activities includes a series of proposals that form a strategic long-term plan for a road corridor or area network, the following procedure should be used to determine the most cost-effective package of activities: a) b) Develop options comprising alternative combinations, staging and sequences of components. Calculate the optimal start date for each component using a target first year rate of return (FYRR) as the criteria. The target FYRR is based on the target incremental BCR divided by 11 and expressed as a percentage (ie if the target incremental BCR is 3.0 the target FYRR will be 27 percent). The procedures to use for determining the year when each activity in each option is likely to qualify for funding are as follows:
i.
Evaluation of roading packages
starting with the first activity in the sequence of activities in each option, calculate the PV of the benefits in each year and the PV of the activity costs, and on this basis determine the timing of this activity which will yield a FYRR above the target FYRR include the first activity in the do-minimum and repeat (i) above to determine the timing of the second activity, which will yield a FYRR above the target FYRR for this next activity repeat this process for each activity in order.
ii.
iii.
c) d) e) f)
Calculate the benefits for each year and option, based on the year when each activity will qualify for funding under (b) above. Calculate the PV of the benefits and costs of the activities in each strategy option. Calculate the incremental BCR of each option in accordance with the procedures set out in section 2.10. Select the package with the highest net present value (NPV) which has an incremental BCR equal to or greater than the target incremental BCR.
Evaluating packages of activities will generally be undertaken over the full life of the activities. Accordingly, it may sometimes be necessary to extend the evaluation period to capture the benefits of all the activities during their expected useful lives. It should be noted that options may consist of varying numbers of activities. Some options may consist of just one activity, in which case the year when this activity is likely to qualify for funding should be determined as the basis for comparing this option with other options. Sequenced components When considering packages of road activities that are to be sequenced over time, the FYRR should be used to confirm the appropriate start time of each individual component of the package. The method of evaluation for packages comprising road and TDM activities (such as passenger transport or travel behaviour change strategies) is described in chapter 3 of the NZTAs Economic evaluation manual volume 2 (EEM2).
Evaluation of packages comprising road and transport demand management activities
Page 317
3.10
References
1. 2. 3. 4. Beca Carter Hollings, Ferner Ltd and Sinclair Knight Merz (2002) Method to assess the benefits of improved trip reliability: final report. Bone I, Butcher G and Nicholson A (1997) Incorporation of risk analysis in activity evaluation Stage I (draft). Report to Transit New Zealand. Travers Morgan (NZ) Ltd (1993) Sensitivity analysis. Transit New Zealand research report 13. Works Consultancy Services Ltd (1993) Reliability of capital cost estimates. Transit New Zealand research report 23.
Page 41
4.0 Simplified procedures for road activities

4.1 Overview
This chapter provides simplified procedures (SPs) for road activities of lower capital cost or of a routine nature. The SPs condense an evaluation into a few pages. Guidance on the application of these procedures is found in section 4.2. For any activity that meets the criteria for evaluation, it is feasible to use either the appropriate SP or the full procedure in chapter 5. However, a choice should be made prior to evaluation, rather than using both methods to see which will give a higher benefit cost ratio (BCR). Each SP is intended to be a stand alone procedure and can be lifted out of the manual and photocopied for each option being evaluated. Tables in appendix A6 need to be referred to for accident cost savings, table A12.3 for benefit update factors, and appendix A12.4 for target incremental BCR. In this chapter Section Page
Introduction
Application
4.1 4.2 SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5
Overview Selecting the procedure Road renewals Structural bridge renewals General road improvements Seal extensions Isolated intersection improvements
41 42 SP11 SP21 SP31 SP41 SP51
Page 42
4.2
Selecting the procedure

The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) has developed separate SPs for evaluating the different types of road activities. If the activity is
Introduction
Selecting the appropriate procedure
Use SP1
a road renewal, namely: pavement rehabilitation drainage renewals seal widening preventive maintenance. Geometric improvements are excluded. No cost limit applies.
a structural bridge replacement or renewal, where the: undiscounted cost is $1 million and the AADT is 50 vpd undiscounted cost is $500,000, the AADT is 50 vpd and a low cost option is not suitable undiscounted cost of providing a suitable low cost option is $30,000 cheaper than providing a replacement bridge and the AADT is 50 vpd. a general road improvement, where undiscounted cost is $1 million. a seal extension no cost limit applies. an isolated intersection improvement where the undiscounted cost is $500,000.
SP2
A decision chart is provided in SP2 to assist selection of the appropriate procedure.

SP3 SP4 SP5
Page SP11
SP1
Road renewals
These procedures (SP1) provide a simplified method of evaluating the economic efficiency of work to be funded under work categories4:

Introduction
214: pavement rehabilitation 213: drainage renewals 231: associated improvements (seal widening) 241: preventive maintenance.
To be eligible for funding under these categories, the work must be shown to be the long-term, least cost option for the road controlling authority, and must not include geometric improvements. (This requirement is not intended to prevent investment in work that will coincidentally give benefit to road users. For example, seal widening will usually provide some safety benefits to road users but if the investment is justified on the grounds that it is the most cost effective way to maintain a road shoulder it shall be funded under the seal widening work category). Under these procedures the present value (PV) cost of the option is determined and compared with the existing maintenance strategy. An existing maintenance strategy commonly includes pavement maintenance work, reseals, and/or other localised repairs needed to hold the condition of an asset. The worksheets use an eight percent discount rate and 30-year evaluation period. The procedures assume that activities will be completed within the first year and will be in service by the start of year 2. Where costs are common to both the existing maintenance strategy and the option(s), they are not included in the analysis. All costs shall be exclusive of good and services tax (GST). Worksheet Description 1 2 3 Evaluation summary Cost of existing maintenance strategy Cost of option
The NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual, chapter F8.
Page SP12
SP1
Road renewals continued
Worksheet 1 Explanation Worksheet 1 provides a summary of the general data used for the evaluation as well as the results of the analysis. The information required is a subset of the information entered into Land Transport Programmes online (LTP online). 1. 2. 3. Enter the full name, contact details, name of organisation, office location of the evaluator and reviewer. Provide a general description of the activity and package (where relevant), describe the issue being addressed in the existing maintenance strategy. Provide a brief description of the activity location including: a location/route map a layout plan of the activity. 4. Describe the do-minimum strategy against which options will be compared. Describe the options assessed and how the preferred option will improve on the existing maintenance strategy and reduce or eliminate any issues. For purposes of the economic efficiency evaluation, the construction start is assumed to be 1 July of the financial year in which the activity is submitted for a commitment to funding. Enter the timeframe information, the PV cost of the do-minimum, the PV cost of the preferred option and the PV total net benefits of the preferred option. Use worksheet 2 to calculate the PV cost of the existing maintenance strategy that will keep the road in service without any improvements. Use worksheet 3 to estimate the PV cost of the preferred activity option. Calculate the cost saving (in PV terms) for the preferred option compared with the do-minimum.
5. 6.
7.
Page SP1-3
SP1
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the issue to be addressed 3 Location Brief description of location 4 Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits AADT at time zero Traffic growth rate at time zero (%) PV cost of do-minimum (existing maintenance strategy) PV cost of preferred option $ $ A B 1 July 1 July
PV cost saving
(A B) = $
Note: The preferred option is justified if the PV cost saving is positive.
Page SP14
SP1
Worksheet 2 Explanation The existing maintenance strategy for pavement rehabilitation will normally include pavement maintenance work and reseal for the whole period of the analysis. For major drainage work, seal widening and preventative maintenance work, the existing maintenance strategy will usually include localised repairs and patching. 1. 2. Provide the actual (or estimated) maintenance costs for the site for the past three years as well as forecasted costs for the current year and future years. Enter the average annual maintenance work costs (including costs not associated with resealing work). Multiply by 11.70 to get the PV for 30 years (a). To convert dollar values from different years to base date values, use the update factors in appendix A12.3. For pavement rehabilitation, enter the costs for heavy maintenance and maintenance resealing. Heavy maintenance includes activities such as crack bandaging, which are often carried out immediately prior to maintenance reseal. For major drainage work, seal widening and preventative maintenance work enter the costs of work required less often than annually. Enter the appropriate single payment present worth factors (SPPWF) from table 1 below. The sum of the PV costs of periodic maintenance is entered at (b). Add (a) + (b) to get A, the PV cost of the existing maintenance strategy. Transfer the PV cost of the existing maintenance strategy A on worksheet 1.
3.
4.
Table 1: Single payment present worth factors (for eight percent discount rate) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SPPWF 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.32 Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SPPWF 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10
Page SP1-5
SP1
Worksheet 2 Cost of existing maintenance strategy 1 Historic maintenance cost data (indicate whether assessed or actual) Maintenance costs for the site over the last three years. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Maintenance costs for the site this year Assessed future maintenance costs 2 PV of annual maintenance costs Brief description of location 3 PV of periodic maintenance costs Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV Total = $
X 11.70 =
$ $ $ $ $
(a)
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance costs$ 4 PV cost of existing maintenance strategy (a) + (b) = $
(b)
Transfer the PV cost of the existing maintenance strategy A, to A in worksheet 1.
Page SP16
SP1
Worksheet 3 Explanation Worksheet 3 is for calculating the PV costs of the proposed option. Cost items to include are: investigation, design, construction, annual maintenance and periodic maintenance (eg resealing). 1. Enter the cost of the work. The cost of the proposed option is estimated separately on an estimate sheet, which shall be attached to worksheet 3. Multiply the cost of the proposed option by the discount factor 0.93 and enter the cost at (a). Enter the cost of annual routine maintenance for year 1 at (b). As this is assumed to be the year that the proposed option works are carried out, this cost will commonly be the same as that for the existing maintenance strategy, as per step 2 on worksheet 2. Enter the estimated cost of annual maintenance (following completion of the works) and multiply by 10.74 to get the PV for years 2 to 30 inclusive. Enter this cost at (c). Enter the years when periodic maintenance is required, the type of maintenance, the amount and the SPPWF. The sum of these gives the PV of periodic maintenance. Enter this at (c). Obtain the SPPWF from table 1. Sum (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) to get the PV of total costs for the option and enter at B. Transfer the PV of total costs for the preferred option B, to B on worksheet 1.
2.
3. 4.
5.
Page SP1-7
SP1
Worksheet 3 Cost of the option(s) 1 PV of estimated cost (as per attached estimate sheets) $ 2 PV of annual maintenance cost in year 1 (Enter actual dollar amount) = 3 PV of annual maintenance and inspection costs following completion of works (year 2 to 30 inclusive) $ 4 PV of periodic maintenance costs (including second coat seal if appropriate) Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV
X 10.74 = X 0.93 =
(a)
(b)
(c)
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance costs $ 5 PV of total cost of option (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) = $
(d)
Transfer PV of total costs for the preferred option B, to B on worksheet 1.
Page SP21
SP2
Structural bridge renewals

These procedures (SP2) provide a simplified method for appraising the economic efficiency of replacing a bridge for structural reasons. The benefits analysis focuses on the change in heavy commercial vehicle (HCV) users costs as a result of the activity. Guidance on the application of these procedures is found in section 4.2 and through the decision chart on the following page. If road improvements are being considered in conjunction with the bridge renewal, then the improvements are to be evaluated separately (using SP3, if applicable refer to section 4.2), when it is confirmed that bridge renewal is the preferred option. The procedure for analysing structural bridge renewals is somewhat different to other activities, in that all options are identified and costed at the outset, including:

Introduction
cost of replacement bridge average daily traffic viability of low cost option such as a concrete ford the HCV users of the bridge existence of an alternative route, its length and any necessary upgrade costs the cost to repair the bridge to a posted limit of 10 tonnes.
Once this has been done, the decision chart on the following page can be used to determine the appropriate course of action and analysis procedure. The worksheets use an eight percent discount rate and 30-year evaluation period. The procedures assume that funded activities will be completed within the first year and will be in service by the start of year 2. Where costs are common to all the options, they are not included in the analysis. All costs are to be exclusive of good and services tax (GST). Total bridge failure This procedure does not allow for the possibility of total bridge failure. If this is a real possibility when certain options are chosen, then account should be taken of the extra costs this would impose on road users multiplied by the probability of failure occurring. The calculation of these probabilities should be undertaken by the same engineers who make the decisions regarding posting the bridge. Worksheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Building a ford on a low volume road Evaluation summary for bridge renewal Cost of option HCV user costs when there is an alternative route HCV user costs when there is no alternative route BCR and incremental analysis
Page SP22
SP2
Structural bridge renewals continued
Decision chart for bridge replacement
Page SP2-3
This page is blank.
Page SP24
SP2
Worksheet 1 Explanation Worksheet 1 is used to record and summarise the decision to construct a ford on a low volume road (average annual daily traffic (AADT) less than 50 vehicles per day) when the cost of the ford is significantly less than a bridge as specified in section 4.2. The information required is a subset of the information entered into LTP online. 1. 2. 3. Enter the full name, contact details, name of organisation, office location, etc of the evaluator(s) and reviewer(s). Provide a general description of the activity and package (where relevant), describe the issues with the existing bridge and the issues to be addressed. Provide a brief description of the activity location including: a location/route map a layout plan of the activity. 4. Describe the do-minimum. The do-minimum should be chosen after analysis of low-cost options. The dominimum will not necessarily maintain the capacity of the bridge to carry 100 percent Class I loading or even to maintain a crossing at all. Describe the options assessed and how building a ford will affect HCVs. (For example, will they use the ford or an alternative route?) For purposes of the economic efficiency evaluation, the construction start is assumed to be 1 July of the financial year in which the activity is submitted for a commitment to funding. Enter the timeframe information and road and traffic data for the economic efficiency calculation. Identify the existing route length, the length of any available alternative route(s), the proportion of HCVI and HCVII vehicles using the existing bridge, the load factor of the bridge and the existing bridge posting weight limit. If the bridge is on a route regularly used by HCVs provide a (separate) list of common users together with contact details. Calculate the PV cost of all possible options and select the least PV cost option as the do-minimum. The do-minimum will not necessarily maintain the capacity of the bridge to carry 100 percent Class I loading or even maintain a crossing at all. Worksheet 3 may be helpful to this process. Enter the PV costs of building a suitable ford. Calculate the cost saving (in PV terms) for the ford compared with the do-minimum.
5. 6.
7.
8. 9.
Page SP2-5
SP2
Worksheet 1 Bridge renewal on a low volume road 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the issues to be addressed 3 Location Brief description of location 4 Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits AADT at time zero Traffic growth rate at time zero (%) % HCVI % HCVII Number = Number = Existing bridge posting weight limit Existing route length % Class I km 1 July 1 July
Attach list of regular HCV users with contact details Load factor % Is alternative route available If yes, length of alternative = 7 8 9 PV cost of do-minimum PV cost of building the chosen option PV cost saving Note: The bridge renewal is justified if the PV cost saving is positive. (A B) = $ $ $
Yes No
km A B
Page SP26
SP2
Worksheet 2 Explanation Worksheet 2 provides a summary of the general data used for the evaluation where a decision is for a structural bridge renewal. 1. 2. 3. Enter the full name, contact details, name of organisation, office location of the evaluator(s) and reviewer(s). Provide a general description of the activity and package (where relevant), describe the issues with the existing bridge and the issues to be addressed. Provide a brief description of the activity location including: a location/route map a layout plan of the activity. 4. Describe the do-minimum. The do-minimum should be chosen after analysis of low-cost options. The dominimum will not necessarily maintain the capacity of the bridge to carry 100 percent Class I loading or even maintain a crossing at all. Describe the options assessed and how the preferred option will affect traffic, particularly HCVs. For purposes of the economic efficiency evaluation, the construction start is assumed to be 1 July of the financial year in which the activity is submitted for a commitment to funding. Enter the timeframe information and road and traffic data for the economic efficiency calculation. Identify the existing route length, the length of any available alternative route(s), the proportion of HCVI and HCVII vehicles using the existing bridge, the load factor of the bridge and the existing bridge posting weight limit. If the bridge is on a route regularly used by HCVs provide a (separate) list of common users together with contact details. Use worksheet 3 to calculate the PV cost of all possible options and select the least cost option as the dominimum. Use worksheet 3 to estimate the PV cost of the preferred option. Enter the economic evaluation data from worksheet 4 or 5. To convert the road user costs to base date values use the update factors in appendix A12.3. If the road user costs of the do-minimum are less than the road user costs of the chosen option, then the option should be abandoned. The national BCR (BCRN) is calculated by dividing the PV of the net benefits (PV benefits of the dominimum subtracted from the PV benefits of the option) by PV of the net costs (PV costs of the dominimum subtracted from the PV costs of the option). The FYRR is calculated as the benefits in the first full year following completion divided by the activity costs. The first year benefits are calculated by dividing the totals at Y and Z by the BDF from table 1 of worksheet 4. Then multiply by 0.93 to get the PV.
5. 6.
7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
Page SP2-7
SP2
Worksheet 2 Evaluation summary for bridge renewal 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the issues to be addressed 3 Location Brief description of location Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits AADT at time zero Traffic growth rate at time zero (%) % HCVI % HCVII Number = Number = Existing bridge posting weight limit Existing route length % Class I km 1 July 1 July
Attach list of regular HCV users with contact details Load factor % Is alternative route available If yes, length of alternative = 7 8 9 PV cost of do-minimum PV cost of building the chosen option PV cost saving HCV user costs of do-minimum HCV user costs of option 10 BCRN = PV net benefits PV net costs PV 1st year benefits PV net costs $ $ = C x update factor voc D x update factor YZ BA =
voc
Yes No
km $ $ A B
=$ =$ =
Y Z
11
FYRR =
[ (Y Z) / BDF ] x 0.93 BA
Page SP28
SP2
Worksheet 3 Explanation Worksheet 3 is used to calculate the costs of the different options. At the top of the worksheet, circle the option being evaluated. A separate Worksheet 3 is required for each option evaluated. To convert dollar values from different years to base date values, use the update factors in appendix A12.3. 1. 2. Tick the option being considered. Enter the capital cost (including professional services for design and supervision) of the proposed option. The cost is estimated separately on an estimate sheet, which should be attached to this worksheet. Multiply the cost by the discount factor 0.93 and enter at (a). Enter the cost of maintenance for year 1 (b). As this is assumed to be the year that the proposed option works are carried out, this cost will commonly be the same as that for the existing maintenance strategy, as per step 2 on worksheet 2. Enter the cost for annual maintenance and inspections following completion of the works. Multiply by 10.74 to get the PV of annual maintenance costs (c) for years 2 to 30 inclusive. Enter the costs of periodic maintenance. Determine which years this maintenance will be required (if at all) and enter the year, estimated cost and SPPWF (from table 1 below). Calculate the PV (estimated cost SPPWF) for each cost and sum these to obtain the PV of the total periodic maintenance cost (d). Where an alternative route is being considered, the PV cost of additional maintenance required for the road due to extra HCV trips should be calculated. Enter additional annual maintenance costs for the route and multiply by 11.70 to get the PV costs for years 1 to 30 inclusive (e). If the option is to close the existing bridge then (e) will be the cost of the option. Sum all of the PV costs for the option (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e) to determine the PV total costs for each option. Once the costs of all viable options have been calculated, the lowest cost option is chosen as the do-minimum. Transfer total to A (if do-minimum) or B (if preferred option) on worksheet 1.
3.
4. 5.
6.
7.
Page SP2-9
SP2
Worksheet 3 Costs of the option(s) 1 Option (tick option being considered) posting 2
strengthening
new bridge
ford
culvert
alternative route
(a)
PV of estimated cost of proposed work (as per attached estimate sheets) $

X 0.93 =
PV of maintenance cost in year 1 = $ (b)
PV of annual maintenance and inspection costs following the work (years 2 to 30 inclusive) $
X 10.74 =
(c)
PV of periodic maintenance costs Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance costs $ 6 PV cost of additional annual maintenance (due to extra HCV trips) $ 7 PV of total costs of option PV total costs (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e) = $
X 11.70 =
(d)
(e)
A or B
Transfer total to A (if the do-minimum) or to B (if preferred option) on worksheet 1. If the preferred option is to close the bridge, then transfer (e) to worksheet 1.
Page SP210
SP2
Worksheet 4 Explanation Worksheet 4 is used for calculating the HCV road user costs for the various options when there is an alternative route. If posting the bridge is the do-minimum, then the HCV users will either choose to: a) b) use the existing bridge with load restriction and make more trips in lightly loaded vehicles, or use the longer alternative route with fully loaded vehicles.
The HCV users operating costs for both alternatives should be calculated and the lowest HCV user cost used in the benefit cost analysis. If bridge is closed and an alternative route takes all diverted traffic, then the additional VOC, travel time and accident costs for the whole traffic stream are calculated. The additional costs per kilometre, including an adjustment for CO2 emission costs, have been standardised for the HCV user cost calculations. The values are already included in the worksheet. 1. 2. Tick the option being considered. Calculate the HCV user costs for the existing route at _____ percent Class I loading by entering the information indicated below. Multiply across the lines to get the annual user costs for HCVI and HCVII. Sum these values to get the total HCV user costs (a). Multiply (a) by the appropriate bridge discount factor (bridge renewal discount factors (BDF) in table 1) to give the PV of HCV user costs for 30 years (b). Required information: L Length of existing route in kilometres (between intersections with the alternative route). A survey of local transport operators and businesses will provide data to allow an estimate of the trip lengths for HCVs on trips that cross the bridge. LA Length of alternative route in kilometres. ADT HCVI The average daily tally of HCVI on the existing route. ADT HCVII The average daily tally of HCVII on the existing route. LF HCV Load factor (percentage of fully loaded vehicles). Use 70% unless better data is available. FCF Freight cost factor (from table 2) used to calculate increased costs due to extra trips required by posting a load restriction on a highway. 3. 4. 5. Repeat step 1 for the option of the alternative longer route, to derive values for (c) and (d). Repeat step 1 for the option of the existing route at 100 percent Class I loading for (e) and (f). Where the option to maintain the existing route at 100 percent Class I loading requires downgrading the bridge and constructing a low cost option, such as a ford. The additional user costs must be calculated and added to (f). Repeat the process for step 1 for the option of a ford, to derive the values for (g) and (h). To get the total HCV user costs for the option add (f) and (h) to get (j). Transfer the HCV user costs for the do-minimum to A and preferred option to B on worksheet 2. 0% 11.70 0.5% 12.27 1.0% 12.84 1.5% 13.40 2.0% 13.97 2.5% 14.54 3.0% 15.10 3.5% 15.67 4.0% 16.24
6.
Table 1: Bridge renewal discount factors for years 1 to 30 inclusive HCV growth rate Discount factor BDF Table 2: Freight cost factors Percentage Class I 100 90 80 70 60 50
HCVI 1.00 1.18 1.44 1.85 2.60 4.33
HCVII 1.00 1.22 1.57 2.22 3.67 11.00
Page SP2-11
SP2
Worksheet 4 HCV user costs when there is an alternative route 1 Option (tick option being considered) The existing route at % Class I loading
The existing route at 100% Class I (bridge downgraded) with a low cost option, such as a ford crossing 2 The existing route at L L x ADT HCVI x ADT HCVII
The existing route at 100% Class I (bridge retained)

The alternative longer route x FCF x FCF x $2.20 x 365 = $ x $3.03 x 365 = $ (a) (b)
% Class I loading x LF x LF
Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs = $ PV total HCV user costs for 30 years = $ 3 The alternative longer route LA LA x ADT HCVI x ADT HCVII x LF x LF x FCF* x FCF* x $2.20 x 365 = $ x $3.03 x 365 = $ (a) x BDF =
Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs = PV total HCV user costs for 30 years = $ (c) x BDF =
(c) (d)
* FCF will normally be 1.0 for the alternative route if not use value from FCF table 2.
The existing route at 100% Class I loading (bridge retained) L L x ADT HCVI x ADT HCVII x LF x LF x FCF x FCF x $2.20 x 365 = $ x $3.03 x 365 = $ (e) (f)
Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs = PV total HCV user costs for 30 years 5 (e) x BDF =
The existing route at 100% Class I loading (bridge downgraded and a low cost option, such as a ford constructed) ADT HCVI ADT HCVII x LF x LF x $1.97 x 365 = $ x $2.85 x 365 = $ (g) (h)
Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs = $ PV user costs for using a low cost option for 30 years = $ (g) x BDF
PV total HCV user costs for existing route at 100% class I loading where a low cost option is provided: Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs for existing route (f) + using a low cost option (h) = 6 Transfer (b), (d), (f) or (j) to A (if do-minimum) or to B (if preferred option) on worksheet 2, as appropriate. (j)
Page SP212
SP2
Worksheet 5 Explanation Worksheet 5 provides a method for calculating the HCV road user costs when no alternative route is available. In this situation, the HCV user costs for bridge crossings should be calculated for the distance between the origin and destination of the trips. 1. 2. Tick the option being considered. Calculate the HCV user costs for the existing route at _____ percent Class I loading as follows by entering the information indicated below. Multiply across the lines to get the annual user costs for HCVI and HCVII. Sum these two values to get the total HCV user costs (a). Multiply the total in (a) by the appropriate bridge discount factor (BDF in table 1 of worksheet 4) to give the PV of HCV user costs for 30 years (b). Required information: L Length of existing route in kilometres (between intersections with the alternative route). A survey of local transport operators and businesses will provide data to allow an estimate of the trip lengths for HCVs on trips that cross the bridge. The average daily tally of HCVI on the existing route. The average daily tally of HCVII on the existing route. Load factor (the percentage of fully loaded vehicles) for HCVs. Use 0.7 (70%) unless better data is available. Freight cost factor (from table 2 of worksheet 4) used to calculate increased costs due to extra trips required by posting a load restriction on a highway.
ADT HCVI ADT HCVII LF FCF
3. 4.
Repeat step 1 for the option of the existing route at 100 percent Class I loading (bridge retained), to derive the values for (c) and (d). Where the option to maintain the existing route at 100 percent Class I loading requires downgrading the bridge and constructing a ford, the additional user costs of a ford must be calculated and added to (d) to get the total HCV user costs for the option (g). Transfer the HCV user costs for the selected do-minimum to C and preferred option to D on worksheet 2.
5.
Page SP2-13
SP2
Worksheet 5 HCV user costs when there is no alternative route 1 Option (tick option being considered) The existing route at % Class I loading
The existing route at 100% class I loading (bridge downgraded and ford constructed) 2 The existing route at L L x ADT HCVI x ADT HCVII % Class I loading x LF1 x LF1
The existing route at 100% class I loading (bridge retained)
x FCF x FCF
x $2.20 x 365 = $ x $3.03 x 365 = $ $ (a) (b)
Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs = PV total HCV user costs for 30 years =
1
(a) x
BDF =
LF is likely to be greater than 0.7 when there is no alternative route.
The existing route at 100% Class I loading (bridge retained) L L Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs = PV total HCV user costs for 30 years = $ (c) x x ADT HCVI x ADT HCVII x LF x LF x 2.20 x 365 = $ x 3.03 x 365 = $ $ BDF = (c) (d)
The existing route at 100% Class I loading (bridge downgraded and a ford constructed) ADT HCVI ADT HCVII Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs = PV total HCV user costs for 30 years = $ (e) x x LF x LF x $1.97 x 365 = $ x $2.85 x 365 = $ $ BDF = (e) (f)
PV total HCV user costs for existing route at 100% class I loading where a ford is provided: Sum of HCVI and HCVII user costs for existing route (d) + using ford (f) = 5 Transfer (b), (d) or (g) to A (if do-minimum) or to B (if preferred option) on worksheet 2, as appropriate. (g)
Page SP214
SP2
Worksheet 6 Explanation Cost benefit analysis 1. 2. Under benefits, enter the PVs for the benefits for the do-minimum and for each option. Then subtract the benefits for the options from the benefits for the do-minimum to get the net benefits of each option. Under costs, enter the PVs of the capital and maintenance costs for the do-minimum and each option. Subtract the PV costs for the do-minimum from the costs for the options to get the net costs of each option. Calculate the BCRN by dividing the net benefits by the net costs.
3.
Incremental analysis 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Select the appropriate target incremental BCR from appendix A12.4. Rank the options in order of increasing cost. Compare the lowest cost option with the next higher cost option to calculate the incremental BCR. If the incremental BCR is less than the target incremental BCR, discard the second option in favour of the first and compare the first option with the next higher cost option. If the incremental BCR is greater than the target incremental BCR, the second option becomes the basis for comparison against the next higher cost option. Repeat the procedure until no higher cost options are available that have an incremental BCR greater than the target incremental BCR. The highest cost option with an incremental BCR greater than the target incremental BCR is generally considered as the preferred option.
Page SP2-15
SP2
Worksheet 6 BCR and incremental analysis Time zero Base date BCRN Do-minimum Option A Option B Option C Option A Option B PV of net benefits Option C
PV of benefits as calculated HCV vehicle operating costs Other road user costs when bridge is closed PV total net benefits PV of costs as calculated Capital costs Maintenance costs PV total net costs BCRN
PV of net costs
Target incremental BCR (from appendix A12.4)
Base option for comparison Option Total costs (1) Total benefits (2) Option
Next higher option Total costs (3) Total benefits (4)
Incremental analysis Incremental Incremental Incremental costs benefits BCRN (5) = (3) (1) (6) = (4) (2) (7) = (6) / (5)
Page SP31
SP3
General road improvements

These procedures (SP3) provide a simplified method of evaluating the economic costs and benefits of general road improvements, including road reconstruction, new roads and structures. They specifically exclude seal extension work (SP4), bridge renewals (SP2) and pavement rehabilitation (SP1). The method is for the evaluation of activities that have a capital cost less than or equal to the limits specified in section 4.2. The procedures are designed to consider one option at a time. All suitable options for the proposed works should be considered in order to select the optimal solution. In most situations this will involve incremental analysis of the benefits and costs of the different options analysed. A description of all options considered should be described in worksheet 1 and included in the incremental analysis. For all other worksheets, only the details for the preferred option need to be included. To use the worksheets it is necessary to determine the traffic growth rate for the activity. This can be done either by analysing the traffic count data (for at least the last five years and preferably for the last 10 years) or by using the default values in appendix A2.5. The worksheets use an eight percent discount rate and 30-year evaluation period. The procedure assumes that funded activities will be completed in the first year and will be in service by the start of year 2. Where costs are common to the dominimum and the options, they are not included in the analysis. All costs are to be exclusive of good and services tax (GST). Worksheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description Evaluation summary Cost of the do-minimum Cost of the option(s) Travel time cost savings Vehicle operating cost savings Accident cost savings BCR and incremental analysis
Introduction
Page SP32
SP3
General road improvements continued
Worksheet 1 Explanation Worksheet 1 provides a summary of the general data used for the evaluation as well as the results of the analysis. The information required is a subset of the information entered into LTP online. 1. 2. 3. Enter the full name, contact details, name of organisation, office location, etc of the evaluator(s) and reviewer(s). Provide a general description of the activity and package (where relevant). Describe the issues with the existing road section and the issues to be addressed. Provided a brief description of the activity location including: a location/route map a layout plan of the activity. 4. Describe the do-minimum that is usually the least cost option to maintain the road section in an unimproved state. Describe the options assessed and how the preferred option will improve the road section. For the economic efficiency evaluation the construction start is assumed to be 1 July of the financial year in which the activity is submitted for a commitment to funding. Enter the timeframe information, the road and traffic data, identify the existing and predicted traffic speed, the existing and predicted roughness (IRI or NAASRA), and the length of road before and after works. Use worksheet 2 to calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum. This should be the lowest cost option that will keep the road in service. It will provide no improvements. Use worksheet 3 to estimate the preferred option PV cost. Enter the benefits values from worksheets 4 (travel time savings), 5 (vehicle operating cost savings) and 6 (accident cost savings). To bring the benefits up to the base date values, use the appropriate update factors supplied in appendix A12.3. The base VOC incorporates the CO2 costs and no separate adjustment is required. The BCRN is calculated by dividing the PV of the net benefits (PV benefits of the do-minimum subtracted from the PV benefits of the option) by PV of the net costs (PV costs of the do-minimum subtracted from the PV costs of the option). The FYRR is calculated as the benefits in the first full year following completion divided by the activity costs. The first year benefits are calculated by dividing the totals at W, Y and Z by the discount factors used on worksheets 4, 5 and 6 respectively, and then multiplying by 0.93 to get the PV.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
Note: The discount factor for VOCs and travel time (see explanation for worksheets 4 and 5) is different to the discount factor for accidents (see explanation for worksheet 6).
Page SP3-3
SP3
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the issues to be addressed 3 Location Brief description of location Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits AADT at time zero Traffic growth rate at time zero (%) Existing roughness Predicted roughness Length of road before works Length of road after works 7 8 9 PV cost of do-minimum PV cost of the preferred option Benefit values from worksheet 4, 5, 6 PV travel time cost savings PV VOC and CO2 savings PV accident cost savings 10 BCRN = PV net benefits PV net costs PV 1st year benefits PV net costs $ $ $ = C x update factor TTC D x update factor E x update factor W+Y+Z BA =
voc AC
1 July
1 July
IRI or NAASRA Existing traffic speed IRI or NAASRA Predicted traffic speed
km/h km/h km km
$ $
A B
=$ =$
W Y
11
FYRR =
[ (W + Y) / DFVOC + (Z /DFAC) ] x 0.93 BA
Page SP34
SP3
Worksheet 2 Explanation Worksheet 2 is used to calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum. The do-minimum is the minimum level of expenditure necessary to keep a road open and generally consists of maintenance work. 1. The annual and periodic maintenance costs should be obtained from maintenance records and resealing records. If pavement rehabilitation is proposed at some future date as part of the do-minimum, then: it must be tested against the option of continued pavement maintenance in order to establish that it is the true do-minimum, and only the costs of basic sealed smoothing work shall be used in the analysis. 2. 3. Calculate the PV of annual maintenance costs (a) for the do-minimum by multiplying the annual cost by the discount factor of 11.70. Schedule any periodic maintenance, according to the year in which this work is expected to be undertaken. Apply the appropriate SPPWF from table 1 below to determine the PV at time zero. Sum the PV of the periodic costs to determine the PV of total periodic maintenance costs (b). Calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum by adding (a) + (b). Transfer the PV costs of the do-minimum A, to A on worksheet.
4.
Page SP3-5
SP3
Worksheet 2 Cost of the do-minimum 1 Historic maintenance cost data (indicate whether assessed or actual) Maintenance costs for the site over the last three years Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Maintenance costs for the site this year Assessed future maintenance costs 2 PV of annual maintenance costs Total = 3 $
X 11.70 =
$ $ $ $ $
(a)
PV of periodic maintenance costs Periodic maintenance will be required in the following years: Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance $ 4 PV of the do-minimum (a) + (b) = $
(b)
Transfer the PV costs of the do-minimum A, to A on worksheet 1.
Page SP36
SP3
Worksheet 3 Explanation Worksheet 3 is used to calculate the PV costs of the different options. A separate Worksheet 3 is required for each option evaluated. To convert dollar values from different years to base date values, use the update factors in appendix A12.3. 1. Enter the capital cost (including professional services for design and supervision) of the proposed option. The cost is estimated separately on an estimate sheet, which should be attached to this worksheet. Multiply the cost by the discount factor 0.93 and enter at (a). Enter the cost of maintenance for year 1 at (b). As this is assumed to be the year that the proposed option works are carried out, this cost will commonly be the same as that for the existing maintenance strategy, as per step 2 on worksheet 2. Enter the cost for annual maintenance and inspections following completion of the works. Multiply by 10.74 to get the PV of annual maintenance costs (c) for years 2 to 30 inclusive. Enter the costs of periodic maintenance. Determine which years this maintenance will be required (if at all) and enter the year, estimated cost and SPPWF (from table 1 of worksheet 2). Calculate the PV (estimated cost multiplied by SPPWF) for each cost and sum these to obtain the PV of the total periodic maintenance cost (d). The annual costs (for years 2 to 30) associated with the improved road section, but not maintaining the capital assets, are specified and multiplied by the discount factor of 10.74 to get (e). The sum of (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e) gives the PV total cost of the option, B. Transfer the PV total costs for the preferred option B, to B on worksheet 1.
2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
Page SP3-7
SP3
Worksheet 3 Cost of the option(s) 1 PV of estimated cost of proposed work (as per attached estimate sheet) $ 2 PV of maintenance cost in year 1 $ 3 PV of annual maintenance and inspection costs following the work (years 2 to 30 inclusive ) $ 4 PV of periodic maintenance costs Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV
X 10.74 = X 0.93 =
(a)
(b)
(c)
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance costs $ 5 PV cost of additional annual maintenance $ 6 PV of total costs of option PV total costs (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e) = $ x 10.74 = $
(d)
(e)
Transfer the PV of total costs for the preferred option B, to B on worksheet 1.
Page SP38
SP3
Worksheet 4 Explanation Worksheet 4 is used for calculating travel time cost savings. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Tick the road type. Enter the data required to complete the travel time cost savings calculations. Default values for travel time costs are found in the table 1 below. Calculate the annual travel time costs for the do-minimum using the formula provided. Calculate the annual travel time costs for the option using the formula provided. The vehicle speed and route length will be the same for both the do-minimum and the activity option if the work does not either shorten the route or increase vehicle speeds. Calculate the annual travel time cost savings by subtracting the travel time costs for the option (b) from the do-minimum travel time costs (a) to get (c). Determine the PV of the travel time cost savings, C by multiplying (c) by the appropriate discount factor from table 2 below. Transfer the PV of travel time cost savings for the preferred option C, to C on worksheet 1.
Table 1: Travel time cost for standard traffic mixes for all periods combined (July 2002) Road type Urban arterial Urban other Rural strategic Rural other Description Arterial and collector roads within urban areas carrying traffic volumes greater than 7000 vehicles/day. Urban roads other than urban arterial. Arterial and collector roads connecting main centres of population and carrying traffic of over 2500 vehicles/day. Rural roads other than rural strategic. Travel time cost ($/hour) 16.27 16.23 23.25 22.72
Table 2: Travel time cost discount factors for different traffic growth rates for years 2 to 30 inclusive Traffic growth rate Travel time cost discount factors (DF TTC) 0% 10.74 0.5% 11.30 1.0% 11.87 1.5% 12.43 2.0% 13.00 2.5% 13.56 3.0% 14.13 3.5% 14.69 4.0% 15.25
Page SP3-9
SP3
Worksheet 4 Travel time cost savings 1 Road type (tick option being considered) urban arterial 2
urban other
rural strategic
rural other
Travel time data AADT (or the traffic volumes affected by the improvement) Travel time cost (TTC) Do-minimum Length of route (km) Mean vehicle speed Ldm VSdm Lopt VSopt $ Option
Annual travel time costs for the do-minimum AADT x 365 x Ldm x TTC VSdm =$ (a)
Annual travel time costs for the option AADT x 365 x Lopt x TTC VSopt =$ (b)
Value of annual travel time cost savings (a) (b) = $ (c)
PV of travel time cost savings (c) x DFTTC = $ Transfer the PV of travel time cost savings for the preferred option C, to C on worksheet 1. C
Page SP310
SP3
Worksheet 5 Explanation Worksheet 5 is used for calculating vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings. 1. Enter the base data required for analysis of VOC savings. Table 1 provides the base VOCs (CB) in cents/km for different gradients and mean vehicle speeds, while table 2 provides roughness costs (CR) in cents/km for different road roughness. Calculate the annual VOCs (a) for the do-minimum using the formula provided. Calculate the annual VOCs (b) for the option using the formula provided. Calculate the annual VOC savings by subtracting the VOCs for the option (b) from the do-minimum VOCs (a) to get (c). Determine the PV of the annual VOC savings D, multiplying (c) by the appropriate discount factor from table 3. Transfer the PV of VOC savings for the preferred option D, to D on worksheet 1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
Table 1: Base vehicle operating costs including CO 2 in cents/km (July 2008) Gradient (%) 0 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 Mean vehicle speed (over length of route) 0 30km/h 43.8 44.5 47.2 51.2 56.0 31 50km/h 33.4 34.0 36.9 41.7 47.7 51 70km/h 32.2 32.8 35.8 40.9 47.5 71 90km/h 33.9 34.5 37.5 42.8 49.8 91 105km/h 36.5 37.1 40.2 45.6 52.9
Table 2: Roughness costs (CR) in cents/km (July 2008) Unsealed road roughness before sealing can be assumed to be 6.5 IRI ( 170 NAASRA counts) and 2.5 IRI ( 66 NAASRA counts) after sealing. If values higher than 6.5 IRI (or 170 NAASRA) for initial roughness of unsealed roads are used these need to be substantiated. IRI m/km 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 NAASRA counts/km 66 79 92 106 119 132 145 CR cents/km urban 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.8 4.2 5.8 CR cents/km rural 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.9 5.3 7.9 10.6 IRI m/km 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 NAASRA counts/km 158 172 185 198 211 224 238 CR cents/km urban 7.6 9.4 11.3 13.3 15.2 17.1 19.0 CR cents/km rural 13.2 15.8 18.4 21.0 22.1 23.1 24.0
Table 3: Vehicle operating cost discount factors for different traffic growth rates for years 2 to 30 inclusive Growth rate Vehicle operating discount factors (DFVOC) 0% 10.74 0.5% 11.30 1.0% 11.87 1.5% 12.43 2.0% 13.00 2.5% 13.56 3.0% 14.13 3.5% 14.69 4.0% 15.25
Page SP3-11
SP3
Worksheet 5 Vehicle operating cost savings 1 Base data Traffic growth rate (per annum) AADT (or the traffic volumes affected by the improvement) Do-minimum Length of route (km) Roughness (IRI/NAASRA) Roughness cost Mean vehicle speed Gradient Base cost 2 CBdm CBopt CRdm VSdm CRopt VSopt Ldm Lopt Option %
Annual vehicle operating cost for the do-minimum Ldm x (CRdm + CBdm) x AADT x 365 =$ 100 (a)
Annual vehicle operating cost for the option Lopt x (CRopt + CBopt) x AADT x 365 =$ 100 (b)
Value of annual vehicle operating cost savings (a) (b) = $ (c)
PV of vehicle operating cost savings (c) x DFVOC = $ Transfer the PV of vehicle operating cost savings for the preferred option D, to D on worksheet 1. D
Page SP312
SP3
Worksheet 6 Explanation These simplified procedures are suitable only for accident by accident analysis (method A in appendix A6). There must be five years or of more accident data for the site and the number and types of accidents must meet the specifications set out in appendix A6.1 and A6.2. If not, either the accident rate analysis or weighted accident procedure described in appendix A6.2 should be used. The annual accident cost savings determined from such an evaluation are multiplied by the appropriate discount factor and entered in worksheet 1 as total E. 1. 2. Enter number of years of typical accident rate records at (3) and the number of reported accidents in the reporting period for each of the severity categories at (4). Redistribution of fatal and serious accident costs. If the number of fatal and serious accidents at the site is greater than the limiting number specified in appendix A6.4, leave line (5) blank and go to line (6). Otherwise, in line (5) enter the ratio of fatal/(fatal + serious) and serious/(fatal + serious) from the table A6.19 series (all movements, all vehicles). Multiply the total fatal + serious accidents (4) by the ratios (5) to get the adjusted fatal and serious accidents (6) for the reporting period. For minor and non-injury accidents, transfer the accident numbers from (4). To get the accidents per year (7), divide (6) by (3). Enter the adjustment factor for the accident trend from table A6.1(a) in line (8). Multiply (7) by (8) to obtain the accidents per year (at time zero) for each accident category (9). Enter the underreporting factors from tables A6.20(a) and A6.20(b) in line (10). Multiply (9) by (10) to get the total estimated accidents per year (11). Enter the accident costs for 100km/h speed limit (12) and 50km/h speed limit (13) for each accident category (all movements, all vehicles) from the table A6.21 series. Calculate the mean speed adjustment for the do-minimum [((1) 50) divided by 50] in (14). Calculate the cost per accident for the do-minimum (15) by adding (13) plus (14) and then multiplying this by the difference between accident costs in (12) and (13). Multiply accidents per year (11) by (15) to get cost per accident per year (16). Add the costs for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents in line (16) to get the total accident cost per year (17). Determine the forecast percentage accident reduction for each accident category (18). Determine the proportion of accidents remaining [100 percent minus the percentage reduction in (18)] and record in (19). Calculate the predicted accidents per year (20) by multiplying the accidents per year of the do-minimum (11) by the percentage of accidents remaining (19). Repeat the calculations from lines (12) through (15), in lines (21) through (24) using the option mean speed (2), to obtain the cost per accident for the option (24). Multiply the predicted number of accidents per year (20) by the cost per accident (24) to get the total accident costs per year for each accident category in line (25). Add together the costs for fatal, serious, minor and noninjury accidents to get total accident costs per year (26). Calculate the annual accident cost savings by subtracting the values in (26) from (17). Multiply the annual accident cost savings (27) or the total from the accident rate or weighted accident analysis by the discount factor in table 1 for the appropriate speed limit and traffic growth rate to determine the PV accident cost savings. Transfer this total, E for the preferred option to worksheet 1.
3.
4. 5. 6.
7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12.
13.
Table 1: Accident cost discount factor (DF AC) for different traffic growth rates and speed limits for years 2 to 30 inclusive Traffic growth rate 50 and 60km/h
70km/h
0% 7.35 9.61
0.5% 7.92 10.18
1.0% 8.48 10.74
1.5% 9.05 11.30
2.0% 9.61 11.87
2.5% 10.18 12.43
3.0% 10.74 13.00
3.5% 11.30 13.56
4.0% 11.87 14.13
Page SP3-13
SP3
Worksheet 6 Accident cost savings Movement category 1 Do-minimum mean speed Posted speed limit 2 Option mean speed Do-minimum Fatal 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Number of years of typical accident rate records Number of reported accidents over period Fatal/serious severity ratio (tables A6.19(a) to (c)) Number of reported accidents adjusted by severity (4) (5) Accidents per year = (6)/(3) Adjustment factor for accident trend (table A6.1(a)) Adjusted accidents per year = (7) x (8) Underreporting factors (tables A6.20(a) and (b)) Total estimated accidents per year = (9) x (10) Accident cost, 100km/h limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((1) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (13) + (14) x [ (12) (13) ] Accident cost per year = (11) x (15) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (16) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) Option 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Percentage accident reduction Percentage of accidents remaining [ 100 (18) ] Predicted accidents per year (11) x (19) Accident cost, 100km/h speed limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h speed limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((2) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (22) + (23) x [ (21) (22) ] Accident cost per year = (20) x (24) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (25) fatal + serious + minor + non-injury) Annual accident cost savings = (17) (26) PV accident cost savings = (27) x DF
AC
Vehicle involvement Road category Traffic growth rate
Severity Serious Minor Non-injury
1.0
1.0
$ $ $ E
Transfer PV of accident cost savings, E for the preferred option to E on worksheet 1.
Page SP314
SP3
Worksheet 7 Explanation Cost benefit analysis 1. 2. Under benefits, enter the PVs for the benefits for the do-minimum and for each option. Then subtract the benefits for the options from the benefits for the do-minimum to get the net benefits for each option. Under costs, enter the PVs for the capital, maintenance and operating costs for the do-minimum and each option. Subtract the PV costs for the do-minimum from the costs for each of the options to get the net costs of each option. Calculate the BCR by dividing the net benefits by the net costs.
3.
Incremental analysis 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Select the appropriate target incremental BCR from appendix A12.4. Rank the options in order of increasing cost. Compare the lowest cost option with the next higher cost option to calculate the incremental BCR. If the incremental BCR is less than the target incremental BCR, discard the second option in favour of the first and compare the first option with the next higher cost option. If the incremental BCR is greater than the target incremental BCR, the second option becomes the basis for comparison against the next higher cost option. Repeat the procedure until no higher cost options are available that have an incremental BCR greater than the target incremental BCR. The highest cost option with an incremental BCR greater than the target incremental BCR is generally the preferred option.
Page SP3-15
SP3
PV of benefits as calculated Travel time cost savings VOC and CO2 savings Accident cost savings PV total net benefits PV of costs as calculated Capital costs Maintenance costs PV total net costs BCRN
PV of net costs
Next higher option Total costs (3) Total benefits (4)
Incremental analysis Incremental Incremental Incremental costs benefits BCRN (5) = (3) (1) (6) = (4) (2) (7) = (6) / (5)
Page SP41
SP4
Seal extensions
These procedures (SP4) provide a simplified method of appraising the economic benefits and costs of proposed seal extension works. The method may be subject to capital cost limits specified in section 4.2. There are no capital limits set. The procedures are designed to consider one option at a time. All suitable options for the proposed works should be considered in order to select the optimal solution. In most situations this will involve incremental analysis of the benefits and costs of the different options analysed. A description of all options considered should be provided in worksheet 1 and included in the incremental analysis. For all other worksheets, only the details for the preferred option need to be included. To use the worksheets it is necessary to determine the traffic growth rate for the activity. This can be done either by analysing the traffic count data (for at least the last five years and preferably for the last 10 years) or by using the default values in appendix A2.5. The worksheets use an eight percent discount rate and 30-year evaluation period. The procedure assumes that funded activities will be completed in the first year and will be in service by the start of year 2. Where costs are common to both the do-minimum and the option under consideration, they are not included in the analysis. All costs are to be exclusive of good and services tax (GST). Worksheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description Evaluation summary Costs of the do-minimum Cost of the option Travel time cost savings and seal extension benefits Vehicle operating cost savings Accident cost savings BCR and incremental analysis sheet
Introduction
Page SP42
SP4
Seal extensions continued
Worksheet 1 Explanation Worksheet 1 provides a summary of the general data used for the evaluation as well as the results of the analysis. The information required is a subset of the information entered into LTP online. 1. 2. 3. Enter the full name, contact details, name of organisation, office location of the evaluator(s) and reviewer(s). Provide a general description of the activity and package (where relevant). Describe the issues with the existing road section. Provide a brief description of the activity location including: a location/route map a layout plan of the activity. 4. 5. 6. Describe the do-minimum. This is to maintain the road in an unimproved state. Describe the options assessed and how the preferred option will improve the road section. For purposes of economic evaluation the construction start is assumed to be 1 July of the financial year in which the activity is submitted for a commitment to funding. Enter the timeframe information, the road and traffic data, identify the existing and predicted traffic speed, the existing and predicted roughness (IRI or NAASRA), the length and width of road before and after works. Use worksheet 2 to calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum. This should be the lowest cost option that will keep the road in service. It will provide no improvements. Use worksheet 3 to estimate the preferred option PV cost. Enter the benefits values from worksheet 4 (travel time cost savings and seal extension benefits), worksheet 5 (vehicle operating cost savings) and worksheet 6 (accident cost savings). To bring the benefits up to the base date values, use the appropriate update factors supplied in appendix A12.3. The base VOC incorporates the CO2 costs and no separate adjustment is required. The BCRN is calculated by dividing the PV of the net benefits (PV benefits of the do-minimum subtracted from the PV benefits of the option) by PV of the net costs (PV costs of the do-minimum subtracted from the PV costs of the option). First year rate of return is calculated as the benefits in the first full year following completion divided by the activity costs. The first year benefits are calculated by dividing the totals at W, Y and Z by the discount factors used on worksheets 4, 5 and 6 respectively then multiplying by 0.93 to get the PV.
7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
Note: The discount factor for accident cost savings (see explanation for worksheet 6) is different to the discount factor for the other benefits (see explanation for worksheets 4 and 5).
Page SP4-3
SP4
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the issues to be addressed 3 Location Brief description of location Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits AADT at time zero Traffic growth rate at time zero (%) Existing roughness count Predicted roughness count Length of road before works Length of road after works 7 8 9 PV cost of do-minimum PV cost of the preferred option Benefit values from worksheets 4, 5, 6 PV travel time cost savings PV seal extension benefits PV VOC and CO2 savings PV accident cost savings 10 BCRN = PV net benefits PV net costs PV 1st year benefits PV net costs $ $ $ $ = C x update factor TTC K x update factor D x update factor E x update factor W+X+Y+Z BA =
TTC voc AC
1 July
1 July
IRI or NAASRA Existing traffic speed IRI or NAASRA Predicted traffic speed km km Width of road before works Width of road after works $ $
km/h km/h km km A B
=$ =$
W X Y Z
11
FYRR =
[ (W + X + Y) / DFVOC + (Z /DFAC) ] x 0.93 BA
Page SP44
SP4
Worksheet 2 Explanation Worksheet 2 is used to calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum. The do-minimum is the minimum level of expenditure necessary to keep a road open and the costs are generally maintenance grading and maintenance metal. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Enter the length of the work in km and the number of gradings per year. Enter the cost of grading per km and calculate the annual cost of maintenance grading (a). Estimate the quantity in m3 and the cost/m3 for metal dressing and calculate the annual costs (b). Add (a) and (b) together, then multiply by 11.70 to calculate the PV of the do-minimum maintenance costs (c). Schedule any periodic heavy maintenance, according to the year in which this work is expected to be undertaken. Apply the appropriate single payment present worth factor (SPPWF from table 1) and determine the PV at time zero. Sum the PV of the periodic costs to determine the PV of total periodic maintenance costs (d). Calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum by adding (c) + (d). Transfer the PV cost of the do-minimum A, to A on worksheet 1.
6.
Page SP4-5
SP4
Worksheet 2 Costs of do-minimum 1 Section maintenance data Section length (L) Number of gradings per year (G) 2 Maintenance grading costs per year Length L 3 x gradings G x rate/km = $ / year (a) km
Maintenance metal costs per year Quantity m3 x rate = $ / year (b)
PV of annual maintenance costs (years 1 to 30) [ (a) + (b) ] x 11.70 = $ (c)
PV of periodic maintenance costs Periodic maintenance will be required in the following years: Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF Present value
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance $ 6 PV cost of the do-minimum (c) + (d) = $
(d)
Transfer the PV costs of the do-minimum A, to A on worksheet 1.
Page SP46
SP4
Worksheet 3 Explanation Worksheet 3 is used for calculating the PV cost of the seal extension works. Indicate if the option is with or without improvements and describe improvements (if any). These may be need to be evaluated separately using SP3 for road improvements. 1. Enter the capital cost (including professional services for design and supervision) of the proposed option. The cost is estimated separately on an estimate sheet, which should be attached to this worksheet. Multiply the cost by the discount factor 0.93 and enter at (a). Enter the cost of maintenance for year 1 at (b). As this is assumed to be the year that the proposed option works are carried out, this cost will commonly be the same as that for the existing maintenance strategy, as per step 2 on worksheet 2. Enter the cost for annual maintenance and inspections following completion of the works. Multiply by 10.74 to get the PV of annual maintenance costs (c) for years 2 to 30 inclusive. Enter the costs of periodic maintenance (including second coat seal; heavy maintenance prior to resealing; and the cost future of reseals as appropriate). Determine which years this maintenance will be required (if at all) and enter the year, estimated cost and SPPWF (from the table 1 in worksheet 2). Calculate the PV (estimated cost SPPWF) for each type of cost and sum these to obtain the PV of the total periodic maintenance cost (d). The sum of (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) gives the PV total cost of the option, B. Transfer PV total costs of the preferred option to B on worksheet 1.
2.
3. 4.
5.
Page SP4-7
SP4
Worksheet 3 Costs of the option(s) 1 PV of estimated cost of proposed work (as per attached estimate sheets) $ 2 PV of maintenance cost in year 1 =$ 3 PV of annual maintenance costs following completion of the work (years 2 to 30 inclusive) $ 4 PV of periodic maintenance costs Periodic maintenance will be required in the following years: Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV x 0.74 = $ (c) (b) x 0.93 = $ (a)
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance $ 5 PV of total maintenance costs PV total costs (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) = $
(d)
Transfer PV total costs of the preferred option to B on worksheet 1.
Page SP48
SP4
Worksheet 4 Explanation Worksheet 4 is used for calculating the travel time cost savings and the benefits for seal extensions. 1. 2. Tick the road type. Enter the data required to complete the travel time savings and comfort benefits calculations. The increase in mean vehicle speeds and travel time costs for the do-minimum and options can be obtained from the tables 1 and 2 below. Calculate the annual travel time costs for the do-minimum (a) using the formula provided. Calculate the annual travel time costs for the option (b) using the formula provided. Calculate the annual travel time cost savings by subtracting the travel time costs for the option (b) from the do-minimum travel time costs (a) to get (c). Determine the PV of the travel time cost savings, multiplying (c) by the appropriate discount factor from table 3 below. Transfer the PV of travel time cost savings, C to worksheet 1. Seal extension benefits: the standard value for comfort benefits associated with sealing unsealed roads is 10/vehicle/km. Productivity gains are: $50/km/year for beef and sheep farms, $150/km/year for dairy farms and $300/km/year for horticulture land. The length (km) of the do-minimum unsealed road that is sealed is used to obtain the annual comfort benefit (d) and the annual productivity benefit (e). Determine the PV of the seal extension benefits, multiplying (d) + (e) by the appropriate discount factor from table 3 below. Transfer the PV of seal extension benefits for the preferred option K, to K on worksheet 1.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
Table 1: Increase in mean speed for seal extension works Unsealed section mean speed of light vehicles
>60km/h
Sealed section increase in mean speed (km/h) for increase in carriageway width (m) No increase (seal as is ) 0 5 10 15 Increase of 1 metre 5 10 15 20 Increase of 2 metres 10 20 25 30
45 to 60km/h 35 to 45km/h
<35km/h
Table 2: Travel time cost for standard traffic mixes for all periods combined (July 2002) Road type Urban other Rural strategic Rural other Description Urban roads carrying traffic of less than 7000 vehicles/day. Arterial and collector roads connecting main centres of population and carrying traffic of over 2500 vehicles/day. Rural roads other than rural strategic. Travel time cost ($/hr) 16.23 23.25 22.72
Table 3: Travel time cost and seal extension benefit discount factors (DF TTC) for different traffic growth rates for years 2 to 30 inclusive Growth rate Discount factors (DF
VOC
0% ) 10.74
0.5% 11.30
1.0% 11.87
1.5% 12.43
2.0% 13.00
2.5% 13.56
3.0% 14.13
3.5% 14.69
4.0% 15.25
Page SP4-9
SP4
Worksheet 4 Travel time cost savings and seal extension benefits 1 Road type (tick option being considered) urban other 2 Base data AADT (or the traffic volumes affected by the improvement) Traffic growth rate (per annum) Travel time cost (TTC) Do-minimum Length of route (km) Mean vehicle speed 3 Ldm VSdm Lopt VSopt Option
rural strategic
rural other
Annual travel time costs for the do-minimum AADT x 365 x Ldm x TTC VSdm =$ (a)
Annual travel time costs for the option AADT x 365 x Lopt x TTC VSopt =$ (b)
Value of annual travel time cost savings (a) (b) = $ (c)
PV of travel time cost savings (c) x DFTTC = $ Transfer PV of travel time cost savings, C for the preferred option to C on worksheet 1. C
Value of annual seal extension benefits Annual comfort benefit Annual productivity gain LDM x AADT x 365 x LDM x 0.10 = $ $= (d) (e)
PV of seal extension benefits [ (d) + (e) ] x DFTTC = $ Transfer PV of seal extension benefits, K for the preferred option to K on worksheet 1. K
Page SP410
SP4
Worksheet 5 Explanation Worksheet 5 is used for calculating vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings. 1. Enter the base data required for analysis of VOC savings. Table 1 provides the base VOCs (CB) in cents/km for different gradients and mean vehicle speeds, while table 2 provides roughness costs (CR) in cents/km for different road roughness. Calculate the annual VOCs (a) for the do-minimum using the formula provided. Calculate the annual VOCs (b) for the option using the formula provided. Calculate the annual VOC savings by subtracting the VOCs for the option (b) from the do-minimum VOCs (a) to get (c). Determine the PV of the VOC savings, D by multiplying (c) by the appropriate discount factor from table 3. Transfer the PV of VOC savings, D for the preferred option to worksheet 1.
2. 3. 4. 5.
Table 1: Base vehicle operating costs (CB) including CO2 in cents/km (July 2008) Percentage gradient 0 30km/h 0 1 to 3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 43.8 44.5 47.2 51.2 56.0 33.4 34.0 36.9 41.7 47.7 Mean vehicle speed (over length of route) 31 50km/h 51 70km/h 32.2 32.8 35.8 40.9 47.5 71 90km/h 33.9 34.5 37.5 42.8 49.8 91 105km/h 36.5 37.1 40.2 45.6 52.9
Table 2: Roughness costs (CR) in cents/km (July 2008) Unsealed road roughness before sealing can be assumed to be 6.5 IRI ( 170 NAASRA counts) and 2.5 IRI ( 66 NAASRA counts) after sealing. If values higher than 6.5 IRI (or 170 NAASRA) for initial roughness of unsealed roads are used these need to be substantiated. IRI m/km 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 NAASRA counts/km 66 79 92 106 119 132 145 CR cents/km urban 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.8 4.2 5.8 CR cents/km rural 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.9 5.3 7.9 10.6 IRI m/km 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 NAASRA counts/km 158 172 185 198 211 224 238 CR cents/km urban 7.6 9.4 11.3 13.3 15.2 17.1 19.0 CR cents/km rural 13.2 15.8 18.4 21.0 22.1 23.1 24.0
Table 3: VOC discount factors (DFVOC) for different traffic growth rates for years 2 to 30 inclusive Growth rate Discount factors (DFVOC) 0% 10.74 0.5% 11.30 1.0% 11.87 1.5% 12.43 2.0% 13.00 2.5% 13.56 3.0% 14.13 3.5% 14.69 4.0% 15.25
Page SP4-11
SP4
Worksheet 5 Vehicle operating cost savings 1 Base data Traffic growth rate (per annum) AADT (or the traffic volumes affected by the improvement) Do-minimum Length of route (km) Roughness (IRI/NAASRA) Roughness cost Mean vehicle speed Gradient Base coat 2 CBdm CBopt CRdm VSdm CRopt VSopt Ldm Lopt Option %
Annual vehicle operating cost for the do-minimum Ldm x (CRdm + CBdm) x AADT x 365 =$ 100 (a)
Annual vehicle operating cost for the option Lopt x (CRopt + CBopt) x AADT x 365 =$ 100 (b)
Value of annual vehicle operating cost savings (a) (b) = $ (c)
PV of vehicle operating cost savings (c) x DFVOC = $ Transfer PV of vehicle operating cost savings, D for the preferred option to D on worksheet 1. D
Page SP412
SP4
Worksheet 6 Explanation These simplified procedures are suitable only for accident by accident analysis (method A in appendix A6). There must be five years or more accident data for the site and the number and types of accidents must meet the specifications set out in appendix A6.1 and A6.2. When the data does not meet the specifications an accident analysis for sealing unsealed roads will not be possible, refer to appendix A6.1. The annual accident cost savings determined from such an evaluation are multiplied by the appropriate discount factor and entered in worksheet 1 as total E. 1. 2. Enter number of years of typical accident rate records at (3) and the number of reported accidents in the reporting period for each of the severity categories at (4). Redistribution of fatal and serious accident costs. If the number of fatal and serious accidents at the site is greater than the limiting number specified in appendix A6.4, leave line (5) blank and go to line (6). Otherwise, in line (5) enter the ratio of fatal/(fatal + serious) and serious/(fatal + serious) from the table A6.19 series (all movements, all vehicles). Multiply the total fatal + serious accidents (4) by the ratios (5) to get the adjusted fatal and serious accidents (6) for the reporting period. For minor and non-injury accidents, transfer the accident numbers from (4). To get the accidents per year (7), divide (6) by (3). Enter the adjustment factor for the accident trend from table A6.1(a) in line (8). Multiply (7) by (8) to obtain the accidents per year (at time zero) for each accident category (9). Enter the under-reporting factors from tables A6.20(a) and A6.20(b) in line (10). Multiply (9) by (10) to get the total estimated accidents per year (11). Enter the accident costs for 100km/h speed limit (12) and 50km/h speed limit (13) for each accident category (all movements, all vehicles) from the table A6.21 series. Calculate the mean speed adjustment for the do-minimum [((1) 50) divided by 50] in (14). Calculate the cost per accident for the do-minimum (15) by adding (13) plus (14) and then multiplying this by the difference between accident costs in (12) and (13). Multiply accidents per year (11) by (15) to get cost per accident per year (16). Add the costs for fatal, serious, minor and noninjury accidents in line (16) to get the total accident cost per year (17). Determine the forecast percentage accident reduction for each accident category (18). Determine the proportion of accidents remaining [100 percent minus the percentage reduction in (18)] and record in (19). Calculate the predicted accidents per year (20) by multiplying the accidents per year of the do-minimum (11) by the percentage of accidents remaining (19). Repeat the calculations from lines (12) through (15), in lines (21) through (24) using the option mean speed (2), to obtain the cost per accident for the option (24). Multiply the predicted number of accidents per year (20) by the cost per accident (24) to get the total accident costs per year for each accident category in line (25). Add together the costs for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents to get total accident costs per year (26). Calculate the annual accident cost savings by subtracting the values in (26) from (17). Multiply the annual accident cost savings (27) or the total from the accident rate or weighted accident analysis by the discount factor in table 1 for the appropriate speed limit and traffic growth rate to determine the PV accident cost savings. Transfer this total, E for the preferred option to worksheet 1.
3.
4. 5. 6.
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
13.
70km/h
0% 7.35 9.61
0.5% 7.92 10.18
1.0% 8.48 10.74
1.5% 9.05 11.30
2.0% 9.61 11.87
2.5% 10.18 12.43
3.0% 10.74 13.00
3.5% 11.30 13.56
4.0% 11.87 14.13
Page SP4-13
SP4
Worksheet 6 Accident cost savings Movement category 1 Do-minimum mean speed Posted speed limit 2 Option mean speed Do-minimum Fatal 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Number of years of typical accident rate records Number of reported accidents over period Fatal/serious severity ratio (tables A6.19(a) to (c)) Number of reported accidents adjusted by severity (4) (5) Accidents per year = (6)/(3) Adjustment factor for accident trend (table A6.1(a)) Adjusted accidents per year = (7) x (8) Underreporting factors (tables A6.20(a) and (b)) Total estimated accidents per year = (9) x (10) Accident cost, 100km/h limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((1) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (13) + (14) x [ (12) (13) ] Accident cost per year = (11) x (15) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (16) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) Option 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Percentage accident reduction Percentage of accidents remaining [ 100 (18) ] Predicted accidents per year (11) x (19) Accident cost, 100km/h speed limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h speed limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((2) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (22) + (23) x [ (21) (22) ] Accident cost per year = (20) x (24) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (25) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) Annual accident cost savings = (17) (26) PV accident cost savings = (27) x DF
AC
$ $ $ E
Page SP414
SP4
Worksheet 7 Explanation Cost benefit analysis 1. 2. Under benefits, enter the PVs for the benefits for the do-minimum and for each option. Then subtract the benefits for the options from the benefits for the do-minimum to get the net benefits for each option. Under costs, enter the PVs for the capital, maintenance and operating costs for the do-minimum and each option. Subtract the PV costs for the do-minimum from the costs for each of the options to get the net costs of each option. Calculate the national BCR by dividing the net benefits by the net costs.
3.
Page SP4-15
SP4
PV of benefits as calculated Travel time cost savings and seal extension benefits VOC and CO2 savings Accident cost savings PV total net benefits PV of costs as calculated Capital costs Maintenance costs PV total net costs BCRN
PV of net costs
Next higher option
Incremental analysis
Total costs Total benefits Incremental Incremental Incremental costs benefits BCRN (3) (4) (5) = (3) (1) (6) = (4) (2) (7) = (6) / (5)
Page SP51
SP5
Isolated intersection improvements

These procedures (SP5) provide a method of evaluating the economic efficiency of isolated intersection improvements and are intended for activities that have an undiscounted capital cost up to the limits specified in section 4.2. Accident analysis involving an isolated intersection is only to be undertaken where the site has an accident history of:

Introduction
four or more non-injury accidents one injury and three or more non-injury accidents, or two or more injury accidents.
The procedures are designed The most recent five calendar year accident history for the site should be used. Detailed accident listings, collision diagrams, a description of common factors in the accidents and a diagnosis of the site factors contributing to the issue should be submitted with the evaluation. All suitable options for the proposed works should be considered in order to select the optimal solution. In most situations this will involve incremental analysis of the benefits and costs of the different options. A description of all options considered should be provided in worksheet 1 and included in the incremental analysis. For all other worksheets, only the details for the preferred option need to be included. It is necessary to determine the traffic growth rate for the activity. This can be done by analysing traffic count data (for at least the last five years and preferably for the last 10 years) or by using default values in appendix A2.5. The worksheets use an eight percent discount rate and 30-year evaluation period. The procedure assumes that funded activities will be completed in the first year and will be in service by the start of year 2. Where costs are common to both the do-minimum and the option under consideration, they are not included in the analysis. All costs are to be exclusive of good and services tax (GST). Worksheet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description Evaluation summary Cost of the do-minimum Cost of the option(s) Travel time cost savings Vehicle operating cost savings Accident cost savings BCR and incremental analysis
Page SP52
SP5
Isolated intersection improvements continued
Worksheet 1 Explanation Worksheet 1 provides a summary of the general data used for the evaluation and the analysis results. The information required is a subset of the information entered into LTP online. 1. 2. 3. Enter the full name, contact details, name of organisation, office location of the evaluator(s) and reviewer(s). Provide a general description of the activity and package (where relevant). Describe the issues with the existing intersection. Provide a brief description of the activity location including: a location/route map a layout plan of the activity. 4. Describe the do-minimum, which is usually the least cost option to maintain the intersection in an unimproved state. Describe the options assessed and how the preferred option will improve the intersection. For purposes of the economic efficiency evaluation, the construction start is assumed to be 1 July of the financial year in which the activity is submitted for a commitment to funding. Enter the timeframe information, road and traffic data, posted speed limit and traffic volume entering the intersection. Use worksheet 2 to calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum. This should be the lowest cost option that will keep the road in service. It will provide no improvements. Use worksheet 3 to estimate the preferred option PV cost. Enter the benefits values from worksheets 4 (travel time cost savings), 5 (vehicle operating cost savings) and 6 (accident cost savings). To bring the benefits up to the base date values, use the appropriate update factors supplied in appendix A12.3. The base VOC incorporates the CO2 costs and no separate adjustment is required. The BCRN is calculated by dividing the PV of the net benefits (PV benefits of the do-minimum subtracted from the PV benefits of the option) by PV of the net costs (PV costs of the do-minimum subtracted from the PV costs of the option). First year rate of return is calculated as the benefits in the first full year following completion divided by the activity costs. The first year benefits are calculated by dividing the totals at W, Y and Z by the discount factors for travel time cost, VOC and accidents respectively. Then multiplying by 0.93 to get the PV.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
10.
11.
Note: The discount factor for accidents (see explanation for worksheet 6) is different to the discount factor for VOC and travel time cost (see explanation for worksheets 4 and 5). Table 1: Travel time cost and VOC discount factors (DF TTC and DFVOC) for different traffic growth rates for years 2 to 30 inclusive Traffic growth rate Discount factors (DFVOC) 0% 10.74 0.5% 11.30 1.0% 11.87 1.5% 12.43 2.0% 13.00 2.5% 13.56 3.0% 14.13 3.5% 14.69 4.0% 15.25
Page SP5-3
SP5
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the issue to be addressed 3 Location Brief description of location Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits AADT at time zero Traffic growth rate at time zero (%) Traffic volume entering the intersection Posted speed limit 7 8 9 PV cost of do-minimum PV cost of the preferred option Benefit values from worksheets 4, 5, 6 PV travel time cost savings PV VOC and CO2 savings PV accident cost savings 10 BCRN = PV net benefits PV net costs PV 1st year benefits PV net costs $ $ $ = C x update factor TTC D x update factor E x update factor W+Y+Z BA =
voc AC
1 July
1 July
in the year km/h $ $ A B
=$ =$ =$ =
W Y Z
11
FYRR =
[ (W + Y) / DFVOC + (Z /DFAC) ] x 0.93 BA
Page SP54
SP5
Worksheet 2 Explanation Worksheet 2 is used to calculate the PV cost of the do-minimum. The do-minimum is the minimum level of expenditure necessary to keep an intersection open and generally consists of maintenance work. In a limited number of cases, the do-minimum will involve capital expenditure. The cost of any works (including investigation, design and construction) must be included in the evaluation. The costs should be discounted to PV by multiplying by the single payment present worth factor (SPPWF) for year 1 (0.93) and reported as one of the periodic maintenance costs. 1. 2. 3. Enter the historic maintenance cost data. The annual and periodic maintenance costs should be obtained from maintenance records and resealing records. Calculate the PV of annual maintenance costs (a) for the do-minimum by multiplying the annual cost by the discount factor of 11.70. Schedule any periodic maintenance, according to the year in which this work is expected to be undertaken. Apply the appropriate SPPWF from table 1 below to determine the PV at time zero. Sum the PV of the periodic costs to determine the PV of total periodic maintenance costs (b). Calculate the PV of the annual costs associated with operating the intersection (c) for the do-minimum by multiplying the annual cost by the discount factor of 11.70. Note: Operating costs must be distinct from, and in addition to, maintenance costs. Calculate the PV total costs of the do-minimum by adding (a) + (b) + (c). Transfer the PV cost of the dominimum A, to A on worksheet 1.
4.
5.
Page SP5-5
SP5
Worksheet 2 Costs of the do-minimum 1 Historic maintenance cost date (indicate whether assessed or actual) Maintenance costs for the site over the last three years Year 1 $ Year 2 $ Year 3 $ Maintenance costs for the site this year Assessed further maintenance costs 2 PV of annual maintenance costs Total = $ 3 PV of periodic maintenance costs (include any capital works) Periodic maintenance will be required in the following years: Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV x 11.70 = $ (a) $ $
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance $ 4 PV of annual operating costs Total = $ 5 PV of total maintenance costs (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) = $ x 11.70 = $
(b)
(c)
Transfer the PV cost of the do-minimum A, to A on worksheet 1.
Page SP56
SP5
Worksheet 3 Explanation Worksheet 3 is used for calculating the PV cost of the isolated intersection improvements. 1. Enter the capital cost (including professional services for design and supervision) of the proposed option. The cost is estimated separately on an estimate sheet, which should be attached to this worksheet. Where construction items have an estimated life of less than 30 years, the cost of the item should be multiplied by the factor (MF) given in table 1 below to obtain the total cost for that item over 30 years. Add the cost of the works together, including the adjusted capital items costs. Multiply the cost by the discount factor 0.93 and enter at (a). Enter the cost of maintenance for year 1 at (b). As this is assumed to be the year that the proposed option works are carried out, this cost will commonly be the same as that for the existing maintenance strategy, as per step 2 on worksheet 2. Enter the cost for annual maintenance following completion of the works. Where periodic renewal of capital items (including traffic signs, delineation, spray plastic and road markings) have been included in the cost of works at (a), these should be excluded from the maintenance cost stream. Multiply the annual maintenance costs by 10.74 to get the PV of annual maintenance costs (c) for years two to 30 inclusive. Enter the costs of periodic maintenance. Determine which years this maintenance will be required (if at all) and enter the year, estimated cost and SPPWF (from the table in worksheet 3). Calculate the PV (estimated cost SPPWF) for each type of cost and sum these to obtain the PV of the total periodic maintenance cost (d). Calculate the PV of the annual costs associated with operating the intersection (e) for the option by multiplying the annual cost by the discount factor of 10.74. Note: Operating costs must be distinct from, and in addition to, maintenance costs. The sum of (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e) gives the PV cost of the preferred option B. Transfer B for the preferred option to worksheet 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Table 1: Multiplication factors for items with an estimated life of less than 30 years Construction item Traffic signs Delineation (eg edge market posts, raised pavement markets, sight railing and chevrons) Spray plastic Road markings Multiplying factor (MF) 2.1 2.7 4.9 13.7
Page SP5-7
SP5
Worksheet 3 Cost of the option 1 PV of estimated cost of proposed work (as per attached estimate sheets) $ 2 PV of maintenance cost in year 1 =$ 3 PV of annual maintenance costs following completion of the work (years 2 to 30 inclusive) $ 4 PV of periodic maintenance costs Year Type of maintenance Amount $ SPPWF PV x 10.74 = $ (c) (b) x 0.93 = $ (a)
Sum of PV of periodic maintenance = $ 5 PV of annual operating costs (separate to maintenance costs) (years 2 to 30 inclusive) $ 6 PV of total cost of the preferred option PV total cost (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) = $ x 10.74 = $
(d)
(e)
Transfer the PV cost of the preferred option B, to B on worksheet 1.
Page SP58
SP5
Worksheet 4 Explanation This worksheet is used for calculating travel time cost savings from modifying or changing the control of an intersection, eg from priority control to traffic signals. Intersection analysis requires modelling to be used for both the do-minimum and activity option. It is not allowable to compare calculated delay and measured delay. Instead, the measured delay must be used to calibrate the calculated delay. The annual travel time costs for the do-minimum and the activity option are to be calculated either using direct output from a suitable computer programme or by aggregating outputs for representative time periods. Output and notes should be attached. Alternatively, fill in the tables in worksheet 4 as per the instructions below. Default travel time costs (TTC) are in the table 1 below for the standard road types. Table 1: Travel time cost for standard traffic mixes for all periods combined (July 2002) Road type Urban arterial Urban other Rural strategic Rural other Description Arterial and collector roads within urban areas carrying traffic volumes greater than 7000 vehicles/day. Urban roads other than urban arterial. Arterial and collector roads connecting main centres of population and carrying traffic of over 2500 vehicles/day. Rural roads other than rural strategic. Travel time cost ($/hour) 16.27 16.23 23.25 22.72
The TTC calculations start at the beginning of year 2 (following completion of construction works in year 1) and finish at the end of year 30. For each six-year period: 1. 2. 3. 4. Enter the value of the TTC at the midpoint for the do-minimum (1). For example, in the first six-year period (years 2 7), the end of year 4 is the midpoint; in years 26 30, the midpoint is the end of year 28. Enter the value of the TTC at the midpoint for the activity option (2). Calculate the midpoint benefits (3) by subtracting the option TTC (2) from the do-minimum TTC (1) from to obtain c1, c2, c3, c4, and c5. Using the formula provided, calculate the PV of the travel time cost savings for the activity option C. In the formula, each midpoint benefit value is multiplied by six to obtain the six yearly totals, which is then discounted to get the PV for each six-year interval. The results for each six-year period are summed to obtain the PV total travel time savings, C. Transfer C for the preferred option to worksheet 1.
Page SP5-9
SP5
Worksheet 4 Travel time cost savings Annual travel time costs Period Period start year Period end year Midpoint at the end of year Duration of period 1 2 3 Midpoint benefits (1) (2) 4 PV travel time cost savings [ (c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12) ] = $ Transfer the PV travel time cost savings, C for the preferred option to C on worksheet 1. C Do-minimum travel time cost at midpoint Option travel time cost at midpoint c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 1 2 7 4 6 2 8 13 10 6 3 14 19 16 6 4 20 25 22 6 5 26 30 28 6
Page SP510
SP5
Worksheet 5 Explanation This worksheet is used for calculating VOC savings from modifying or changing the control of an intersection, eg from priority control to traffic signals. Intersection analysis requires modelling to be used for both the dominimum and activity option. The annual VOC for the do-minimum and the activity option are to be calculated either using direct output from a suitable computer programme (such as SIDRA, INTANAL or SCATES) or by aggregating outputs for representative time periods. Output and notes should be attached. Alternatively, fill in the tables in worksheet 5 as per the instructions below. For intersections, VOC are not directly proportional to growth in traffic volumes. Hence, the calculations of VOC savings are undertaken in six yearly steps and the discounted values are summed to more accurately reflect the savings over the 30-year evaluation period. The VOC calculations start at the beginning of year 2 (following completion of construction works in year 1) and finish at the end of year 30. For each six-year period: 1. 2. 3. 4. Enter the value of the VOC at the midpoint for the do-minimum (1). For example, in the first six-year period (years 2 7), the end of year 4 is the midpoint; in years 26 30, the midpoint is the end of year 28. Enter the value of the VOC at the midpoint for the activity option (2). Calculate the midpoint benefits (3) by subtracting the option VOC (2) from the do-minimum VOC (1) from to obtain c1, c2, c3, c4, and c5. Using the formula provided, calculate the PV of the VOC and CO2 benefits for the activity option D. In the formula, each midpoint benefit value is multiplied by six to obtain the six yearly totals, which is then discounted to get the PV for each six-year interval. The results for each six-year period are summed and multiplied by a factor of 1.04 to account for CO2, to obtain the PV total VOC and CO2 savings, D. Transfer D for the preferred option to worksheet 1.
Page SP5-11
SP5
Worksheet 5 Vehicle operating cost savings Annual VOC Period Period start year Period end year Midpoint at the end of year Duration of period 1 2 3 Midpoint benefits (1) (2) 4 PV travel time cost savings [ (c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12) ] x 1.04 Transfer the PV of VOC and CO2 savings, D for the preferred option to D on worksheet 1. =$ D Do-minimum travel time cost at midpoint Option travel time cost at midpoint c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 1 2 7 4 6 2 8 13 10 6 3 14 19 16 6 4 20 25 22 6 5 26 30 28 6
Page SP512
SP5
Worksheet 6 Explanation These simplified procedures are suitable only for accident by accident analysis (method A in appendix A6). There must be five years or more accident data for the site and the number and types of accidents must meet the specifications set out in appendix A6.1 and A6.2. If not, either the accident rate analysis or weighted accident procedure described in appendix A6.2 should be used. The annual accident cost savings determined from such an evaluation are multiplied by the appropriate discount factor and entered in worksheet 1 as total E. 1. 2. Enter number of years of typical accident rate records at (3) and the number of reported accidents in the reporting period for each of the severity categories at (4). Redistribution of fatal and serious accident costs. If the number of fatal and serious accidents at the site is greater than the limiting number specified in appendix A6.4, leave line (5) blank and go to line (6). Otherwise, in line (5) enter the ratio of fatal/(fatal + serious) and serious/(fatal + serious) from the table A6.19 series (all movements, all vehicles). Multiply the total fatal + serious accidents (4) by the ratios (5) to get the adjusted fatal and serious accidents (6) for the reporting period. For minor and non-injury accidents, transfer the accident numbers from (4). To get the accidents per year (7), divide (6) by (3). Enter the adjustment factor for the accident trend from table A6.1(a) in line (8). Multiply (7) by (8) to obtain the accidents per year (at time zero) for each accident category (9). Enter the under-reporting factors from tables A6.20(a) and A6.20(b) in line (10). Multiply (9) by (10) to get the total estimated accidents per year (11). Enter the accident costs for 100km/h speed limit (12) and 50km/h speed limit (13) for each accident category (all movements, all vehicles) from the table A6.21 series. Calculate the mean speed adjustment for the do-minimum [((1) 50) divided by 50] in (14). Calculate the cost per accident for the do-minimum (15) by adding (13) plus (14) and then multiplying this by the difference between accident costs in (12) and (13). Multiply accidents per year (11) by (15) to get cost per accident per year (16). Add the costs for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents in line (16) to get the total accident cost per year (17). Determine the forecast percentage accident reduction for each accident category (18). Determine the proportion of accidents remaining [100 percent minus the percentage reduction in (18)] and record in (19). Calculate the predicted accidents per year (20) by multiplying the accidents per year of the do-minimum (11) by the percentage of accidents remaining (19). Repeat the calculations from lines (12) through (15), in lines (21) through (24) using the option mean speed (2), to obtain the cost per accident for the option (24). Multiply the predicted number of accidents per year (20) by the cost per accident (24) to get the total accident costs per year for each accident category in line (25). Add together the costs for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents to get total accident costs per year (26). Calculate the annual accident cost savings by subtracting the values in (26) from (17). Multiply the annual accident cost savings (27), or the total from the accident rate or weighted accident analysis, by the discount factor in table 1 for the appropriate speed limit and traffic growth rate to determine the PV accident cost savings. Transfer this total, E for the preferred option to worksheet 1.
3.
4. 5. 6.
7. 8. 9.
10. 11. 12.
13.
70km/h
0% 7.35 9.61
0.5% 7.92 10.18
1.0% 8.48 10.74
1.5% 9.05 11.30
2.0% 9.61 11.87
2.5% 10.18 12.43
3.0% 10.74 13.00
3.5% 11.30 13.56
4.0% 11.87 14.13
Page SP5-13
SP5
Worksheet 6 Accident cost savings Movement category 1 Do-minimum mean speed Posted speed limit 2 Option mean speed Do-minimum Fatal 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Number of years of typical accident rate records Number of reported accidents over period Fatal/serious severity ratio (tables A6.19(a) to (c)) Number of reported accidents adjusted by severity (4) (5) Accidents per year = (6)/(3) Adjustment factor for accident trend (table A6.1(a)) Adjusted accidents per year = (7) x (8) Underreporting factors (tables A6.20(a) and (b)) Total estimated accidents per year = (9) x (10) Accident cost, 100km/h limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((1) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (13) + (14) x [ (12) (13) ] Accident cost per year = (11) x (15) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (16) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) Option 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Percentage accident reduction Percentage of accidents remaining [ 100 (18) ] Predicted accidents per year (11) x (19) Accident cost, 100km/h speed limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h speed limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((2) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (22) + (23) x [ (21) (22) ] Accident cost per year = (20) x (24) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (25) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) Annual accident cost savings = (17) (26) PV accident cost savings = (27) x DF
AC
$ $ $ E
Page SP514
SP5
Worksheet 7 Explanation Cost benefit analysis 1. 2. Under benefits, enter the PVs for the benefits for the do-minimum and for each option. Then subtract the benefits for the options from the benefits for the do-minimum to get the net benefits for each option. Under costs, enter the PVs for the capital, maintenance and operating costs for the do-minimum and each option. Subtract the PV costs for the do-minimum from the costs for each of the options to get the net costs of each option. Calculate the national BCR by dividing the net benefits by the net costs.
3.
Page SP5-15
SP5
PV of benefits as calculated Travel time cost savings and seal extension benefits VOC and CO2 savings Accident cost savings PV total net benefits PV of costs as calculated Capital costs Maintenance costs PV total net costs BCRN
PV of net costs
Next higher option
Incremental analysis
Total costs Total benefits Incremental Incremental Incremental costs benefits BCRN (3) (4) (5) = (3) (1) (6) = (4) (2) (7) = (6) / (5)
Page 5-1
5.0 Full procedures for activity evaluation

5.1 Overview
This chapter describes the procedures and provides worksheets for full economic efficiency evaluation of land transport activities submitted to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for funding. Section 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Overview Application of full procedures Stages of analysis Feasibility report Page 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-5 5-10 5-12 5-14 5-16 5-18 5-20 5-22 5-24 5-42 5-46 5-66 5-86 5-88 5-92 5-118 5-124 5-130 5-134 5-136
Introduction
In this chapter
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary Worksheet 2 Summary of benefits and costs Worksheet 3 Benefit cost analysis Worksheet 4 Incremental analysis Worksheet 5 First year rate of return Worksheet 6 Sensitivity analysis Worksheet 7 Checklist for activity evaluations Worksheet 8 Transport modelling checks Worksheets A1 Discounting and present worth factors Worksheets A2 Traffic data Worksheets A3 Travel time estimation Worksheets A4 Travel time cost savings Worksheets A5 Vehicle operating cost savings Worksheets A6 Accident cost savings Worksheets A7 Vehicle passing options Worksheets A8 External impacts Worksheets A9 Vehicle emissions Worksheets A10 National strategic factors Worksheets A13 Risk analysis
Page 5-2
5.2
Application of full procedures

The full procedures are used for economic efficiency evaluation when either more detailed analysis is required than is provided in the simplified procedures or the limits specified for the simplified procedures are exceeded. The full procedures may be used for all types of land transport activities with appropriate adaptation. The benefits and costs considered in the evaluation should be adjusted or added to as appropriate to the activity type. The evaluation must comply with the requirements for the particular type of activity as follows: Activity type Road activity Transport demand management (TDM) Transport services Walking and cycling Education, promotion and marketing Parking and land use Private sector financing and road tolling Reference Volume 1, chapter 3 Volume 2, chapter 3 Volume 2, chapter 5 Volume 2, chapter 8 Volume 2, chapter 9 Volume 2, chapter 10 Volume 2, chapter 11
Relationship to activity type requirements and simplified procedures
Worksheets
The full procedures consist of a series of worksheets to guide the calculation and encourage consistency of presentation. These worksheets are used as far as is practical when preparing evaluations. Non-standard worksheets may be submitted with evaluation reports provided the necessary information can be readily gleaned from such worksheets and is referenced on the activity checklist. The worksheets provided in this manual are designed to allow some flexibility in methods of calculation since no two activity evaluations are exactly the same. All activity evaluation reports shall contain an executive summary which is made up of worksheets 1 to 8 (WS 1 to WS 8) inclusive. Worksheets A1 to A13 are provided to assist with the calculations reported in WS 1 to WS 8. Much of the information required for WS 1 to WS 8 contributes to other components of the NZTAs funding assessment. The expectation is that the data entered on these worksheets can be transferred to the Land Transport Programmes online (LTP online) and vice versa as appropriate.
Blank worksheets
Within chapter 5, some worksheets have been completed as an example. The remainder have been left blank. For convenience, appendix A14 contains a complete set of worksheets WS 1 to WS 8 and A1 to A13.
Page 5-3
5.3
Stages of analysis
The stages of the full economic evaluation are outlined in the table below. The final stages of the economic evaluation involve a check on the quality and completeness of the evaluation and completion of the activity summary. The worksheets relevant to each stage are shown. Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 Description Where appropriate, complete a feasibility report. Describe the do-minimum, alternatives and options and consider packages. Assemble basic information on route, traffic, demand estimates, travel impacts as appropriate. Undertake transport model checks as required. Where appropriate, calculate travel times for the do-minimum and options. Quantify and calculate the appropriate monetised activity benefits and disbenefits for the do-minimum and options, including: travel time cost savings, including disbenefits during construction, if appropriate (WS A4) vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings (WS A5) accident cost savings (WS A6) vehicle passing lane benefits (WS A7) monetised external impacts (WS A8) vehicle emissions (WS A9) national strategic factors (WS A10). Describe and quantify where possible any significant non-monetised external impacts. Estimate the appropriate activity costs. Summarise the benefits and costs of the do-minimum and activity options, including their: type timing estimated value year in which estimate was made growth rate over activity evaluation period. Describe and evaluate the benefits and costs of mitigation measures for external impacts. If appropriate, describe business benefits and equity impacts (particularly those relating to transport disadvantaged). Discount the benefits, disbenefits and costs for the do-minimum and activity options over the period of analysis and sum them to obtain the total present value (PV) of benefits and costs. Apply update factors as necessary. WS A1 See Feasibility report WS 1 WS A2 WS 8 WS A3 WS A4 to WS A10
Introduction
7 8 9
WS A8 WS 2 WS 2
10 11 12
WS A8.2
Page 5-4
5.3
Stages of analysis continued

Stage Description See
Introduction continued
13
List the PV of benefits and costs for the do-minimum and each option, calculate the benefit and cost differentials for each option (compared to the do-minimum) and calculate the national benefit cost ratio (BCRN) and the government benefit cost ratio (BCRG), if appropriate, for all options. Where there is more than one mutually exclusive option (including different mitigation measures), use incremental analysis to select the preferred option. Calculate the first year rate of return (FYRR) for the preferred activity option. Conduct a sensitivity analysis on the uncertain elements of the preferred activity option. Where the activity costs are greater than $4.5 million for infrastructure activities or $1 million for travel demand management, rail and sea freight activities or there are other unpredictable events that may affect the activity, undertake a risk analysis Complete the activity evaluation checklist to verify completeness of information, accuracy of calculations and validity of assumptions. Complete the activity evaluation summary, including the activity description (which is the same as LTP online), road and traffic data, travel times, PV of benefits and costs, BCR and FYRR for the do-minimum and preferred option
WS 3
14
WS 4
15 16 17
WS 5 WS 6 WS A13
18 19
WS 7 WS 1
Page 5-5
5.4
Feasibility report
The feasibility report is provided as a shortened form of appraisal to decide initially if an activity is worth pursuing and if so, to assist in pre-selection of activity options before carrying out more detailed appraisal. The feasibility report is not intended as a complete evaluation procedure in itself but rather as a quick evaluation method before proceeding to a full evaluation. In the context of the funding assessment, the feasibility report is used in conjunction with activity development as follows:

Introduction
identification of activities for the National Land Transport Programme (a feasibility report is submitted with the rough order of cost estimate) investigation activities (work categories 311, 411 and 412) property purchase (work categories 331, 332 and 333).
There are certain types of activity for which the feasibility report will not be applicable, ie traffic signalisation, intersection analysis, passing lanes. In such cases, the simplified procedures in chapter 4 of this manual or another similar assessment process could be used. In a few instances, it may be necessary to use the full procedures contained in this chapter. Feasibility report The feasibility report is comprised of two worksheets, one which provides a summary of the proposed activity and completes a simple economic evaluation and the other which provides a simplified accident analysis.
Page 5-6
5.4
Feasibility report continued
Explanation Preliminary evaluation For this preliminary evaluation, the feasibility report assumes that activity costs are incurred in time zero (and therefore are not discounted). The maintenance cost savings occur in years 2 to 30, and benefits occur in years 2 to 32. Growth rates are assumed to be two percent per annum across the board. 1. Provide a general description of the activity, including the do-minimum and activity options. Apart from the details about the evaluator(s) and checker(s), the information required corresponds directly with the information entered in LTP online. Summarise the inputs to the analysis, including the do-minimum and option costs, route length, average roughness, average vehicle speed and average annual daily traffic (AADT). Default values for travel time costs, base vehicle operating costs and roughness costs are provided in tables 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Calculate the potential activity benefits and maintenance cost savings, using the formulae provided in the worksheet. Determine the PV total benefits using the formula provided and calculate the provisional BCR.
2.
3. 4.
Table 1: Travel time costs (TTC) for standard traffic mixes in $/h (July 2002) Road type Urban arterial Urban other Rural strategic Rural other Description Arterial and collector roads within urban areas carrying traffic volumes greater than 7000 vehicles/day. Other urban roads carrying less than 7000 vehicles per day. Arterial and collector roads connecting main centres of population and carrying traffic of over 2500 vehicles per day. Rural roads other than rural strategic. $/h 16.27 16.23 23.25 22.72
Table 2: Base vehicle operating costs (CB) in cents/km (July 2008) Average speed CB (cents/km) 30 50km/h 33.4
>50 70km/h >79 90km/h >90km/h
32.2
33.9
36.5
Table 3: Roughness costs (CR) in cents/km (July 2008) IRI m/km 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 NAASRA counts/km 66 79 92 106 119 132 145 CR urban cents/km 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.8 4.2 5.8 CR rural cents/km 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.9 5.3 7.9 10.6 IRI m/km 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 NAASRA counts/km 158 172 185 198 211 224 238 CR urban cents/km 7.6 9.4 11.3 13.3 15.2 17.1 19.0 CR rural cents/km 13.2 15.8 18.4 21.0 22.1 23.1 24.0
Page 5-7
5.4
Preliminary evaluation 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the problem to be addressed Brief description of location Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 2 Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits Road type (tick one) TTC from table 1 AADT at time zero Variable PV cost Length Average vehicle speed (VS) Base cost (CB) from table 2 Average roughness (IRI or NAASRA counts) Roughness cost (CR) from table 3 Annual maintenance costs(MC) 3 Calculations VOC savings = {[LM (CBM + CRM)] [LP (CBP + CRP)]} AADT 3.6 Travel time savings = (LM / VSM LP / VSP) AADT TTC 365 Comfort benefits from sealing = LM 0.10 AADT 365 PV accident cost savings (from feasibility report accident cost savings worksheet) Maintenance cost savings = (MCM MCP) 10.7 4 Benefits = (C + D + E) 11.4 + F Costs = B A G Provisional BCR = Y / Z =$ =$ =$ =$ =$ = = = C D E F G Y Z A LM VSM CBM CRM MCM Urban arterial 1 July 1 July
Urban other
$/h
Rural strategic
Rural other
km/h
Posted speed limit
vehicles/day Do-minimum (M) B LP VSP CBR CVR MCP Option (P) km km/h /km /km $/yr
Page 5-8
5.4
Explanation Accident analysis This worksheet is suitable only for accident by accident analysis (method A in appendix A6). There must be five years or more accident data for the site and the number and types of accidents must meet the specifications set out in appendix A6.1 and A6.2. If not, either the accident rate analysis or weighted accident procedure described in appendix A6.2 should be used. The annual accident cost savings determined from such an evaluation are multiplied by the appropriate discount factor and entered in the feasibility report preliminary evaluation as total F. 1. 2. Enter number of years of typical accident rate records at (1) and the number of reported accidents in the reporting period for each of the severity categories at (2). Multiply the total fatal + serious accidents (2) by the ratios (3) to get the adjusted fatal and serious accidents (4) for the reporting period. For minor and non-injury accidents, transfer the accident numbers from (2). To get the accidents per year (5), divide (4) by (1). Multiply the accidents per year (5) by the underreporting factors (6) to get the total estimated accidents per year (7). Enter the accident costs for each accident severity (all movements, all vehicles) for the posted speed limit from table 4. Multiply accidents per year (7) by (8) to get cost per accident per year (9). Add the costs for each severity in line (9) to get the total accident cost per year (10) for the do-minimum. Determine the forecast percentage accident reduction for each accident severity category (11) for the option. Determine the proportion of accidents remaining [100 percent minus the percentage reduction (11)] and record in (12). Calculate the predicted accidents per year (13) by multiplying the accidents per year of the do-minimum (7) by the percentage of accidents remaining (12). Enter the accident costs (14) for each accident severity (all movements, all vehicles) for the posted speed limit from table 4. Multiply accidents per year (13) by (14) to get cost per accident per year (15). Add the costs for each severity in line (15) to get the total accident cost per year (16) for the option. Calculate the annual accident cost savings (17) by subtracting the values in (16) from (10). Multiply the annual accident cost savings (17) or the total from the accident rate or weighted accident analysis by the discount factor from table 5 for the appropriate speed limit to determine the PV accident cost savings. Transfer this total F to the feasibility report preliminary evaluation.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Table 4: Cost per reported injury accident in $ (July 2006) Speed limit 50 and 60km/h
70km/h
Fatal 3,350,000 3,800,000
Serious 360,000 405,000
Minor 21,000 24,000
Non-injury 2100 2400
Table 5: Discount factors (DF) for different speed limits for years 2 to 30 inclusive Traffic growth rate 2.0% 50 and 60km/h 9.61
70km/h
11.87
Page 5-9
5.4
Accident analysis Do-minimum Fatal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of years of typical accident rate records Number of reported accidents over period Fatal/serious severity adjustments Number of reported accidents adjusted by severity (2) x (3) Accidents per year = (4)/(1) Under-reporting factors Total estimated accidents per year = (5) x (6) Accident cost (table 4) Accident cost per year = (7) x (8) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (9) fatal + serious + minor + non-injury) Option 11 12 13 14 15 16 Percentage accident reduction Percentage of accidents remaining [ 100 (11) ] Predicted accidents per year (7) x (12) Accident cost (tables 4) Accident cost per year = (13) x (14) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (15) fatal +serious + minor + non-injury) Annual accident cost savings = (10) (16) PV accident cost savings = (17) x DF (table 5) $ $ 1.0 2.0 3.0 10 fatal + serious 0.15 0.85 1.0 1.0 Severity Serious Minor Non-injury
$ $ F
Transfer the PV of accident cost savings, F to F on preliminary evaluation worksheet.
Page 5-10
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary

Explanation Worksheet 1 provides a general description of the activity or package, including the do-minimum and the alternatives and options considered, along with a summary of the data used for the evaluation and the results of the economic efficiency evaluation. The information in worksheet 1 is a subset of the information required for LTP Online. 1. 2. 3. Enter the full name and contact details of the evaluator(s) and of the checker(s). Provide a general description of the activity, including the do-minimum and the activity options. If the evaluation is for a package as a whole, describe the component activities. Information provided shall include:

a location/route map a layout plan of the activity.
4. 5. 6.
Provide a general description of the do-minimum and summarise the alternatives considered and the options assessed. The expected construction start should be within the financial year. Enter the timeframe information, the PV cost of the do-minimum, the PV total net costs of the preferred option and the PV total net benefits of the preferred option from worksheet 3. The preferred option is selected as a result of the incremental analysis in worksheet 4. Enter the BCR for the preferred option from worksheet 3. Enter the FYRR from worksheet 5. Briefly describe any non-monetised external impacts evaluated in worksheet A8.1. List any national strategic factors described in worksheet A10.
7. 8. 9. 10.
Page 5-11
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary continued

Example 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the predominant issue 3 Location Brief description of location 4 Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the alternatives considered Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Earliest construction start date (mm/yyyy) Expected construction start date (mm/yyyy) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Time zero Base date for costs and benefits PV cost of the do-minimum PV net cost of preferred option PV net benefits of preferred option 7 8 9 10 BCR FYRR Non-monetised impacts National strategic factors % $ $ $ 1 July 1 July
Page 5-12
Worksheet 2 Summary of benefits and costs

Explanation This worksheet provides a summary of the benefits and costs of the do-minimum and activity option(s) as estimated at the outset of the evaluation. Details are provided about their occurrence throughout the life of the do-minimum and activity option(s), along with projected growth rates. 1. 2. Indicate whether the summary is for the do-minimum or activity option Enter the type of benefit or cost being considered. Note that for the do-minimum, the property, preconstruction and construction costs should be nil. If this is not the case, an explanation should be provided. Using time zero as the start of construction and assuming a 30-year period for the life of the activity, enter the start and end year of the time stream for each cost and benefit item. For single payment items write the year in the from column. Enter the estimate, which will be in dollars if it is a single payment or dollars per year if it is an annual or recurring benefit or cost. Estimates are determined using worksheet A2 to A9, and A13 as indicated in worksheet 2. Default contingency values are indicated below. Enter the year in which the benefit or cost was estimated, if different from the base date. If the benefit or cost stream is an arithmetic growth one, enter the appropriate growth rate. An adjusted growth rate should be used for accident benefits based on appendix A6.4.
3.
4.
5. 6.
Contingency costs The following table of default contingency allowances provides guidance. This information is to be used when better information based on experience is not available. Phase Activity feasibility report Scheme assessment Design and contract estimate Contract Earthworks component 30% 25% 20% 10% Other works 20% 15% 10% 5%
Page 5-13
Worksheet 2 Summary of benefits and costs continued

Example 1 Activity (do-minimum or option) (2) Benefit or cost component From Benefits TTC savings VOC savings Accident cost savings Vehicle emission reduction Reduced driver frustration Monetised external impacts (list) WS A2, A3, and A4 WS A3 and A5 WS A6 WS A9 Appendix A7 WS A8 (3) Time To Reference (4) Estimate (5) (6)
Year of Growth rate estimate
Costs Investigation Design Property Construction/implementation (including pre-construction)
Maintenance Renewal Operating External impact mitigation Risk management Activity contingency costs WS A8.2 WS A13 Explanation sheet
Page 5-14
Worksheet 3 Benefit cost analysis

Explanation This worksheet is used to summarise the PV of the actual and net benefits and costs of the do-minimum and activity options, as calculated in WS A1.2 as well as to determine the benefit cost ratio (BCR) of the activity options. If there are more than three options, then more than one worksheet will be required. For each benefit and cost of the do-minimum and the option(s), the PV of the total benefits and costs is entered. The PV net benefits (net costs) of the activity and options are calculated by subtracting the PV benefits (costs) of the do-minimum from the PV benefits (costs) of the activity option. PV benefits 1. 2. Enter the PV travel time cost savings and vehicle operating cost savings for the do-minimum and the activity options from worksheet A1.2 (or worksheet A7.3 for passing lanes). 1. 2. When reporting results of a variable matrix evaluation enter the PV activity travel time savings plus the VOC net benefits in the net benefits columns. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Enter the PV accident cost savings for the do-minimum and the activity options from worksheet A1.2. Enter the PV net driver frustration savings for passing lanes from worksheet A7.3 in the net present benefits columns. Enter the PV vehicle emissions for the do-minimum and the activity options. Enter the PV of any other valued externalities. Calculate the total net benefits of the do-minimum and activity options by summing (1) to (6) for each option.
PV costs 8. 14. Enter the PV of the approved organisations costs for the do-minimum and the activity options from worksheet A1.2. 15. 16. 17. 18. Enter the PV of any mitigation cost from worksheet A1.2. Enter the PV of contingency costs from worksheet A1.2. Enter the PV of risk management costs from worksheet A1.2. Calculate the PV total net costs of the do-minimum and activity options by summing (8) to (17).
Benefit cost ratios 19. Calculate the BCR of the activity options by dividing the PV total net benefits (7) by the PV total net costs (18).
Page 5-15
Worksheet 3 Benefit cost analysis continued

Example PV of net benefits (PV option PV do-minimum benefits) Option C 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 50,000 Option A 150,000 500,000 350,000 25,000 Option B 300,000 500,000 550,000 25,000 Option C 600,000 900,000 900,000 45,000
Benefits Do-minimum 1 2 3 TTC VOC savings Accident cost savings 1,700,000 1,900,000 1,800,000 95,000
PV of benefits as calculated Option A 1,550,000 1,400,000 1,450,000 70,000 Option B 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,250,000 70,000
4 Vehicle emission reduction 5 Reduced driver frustration
6 Monetised external impacts (list)
PV total net benefits Costs PV of costs as calculated
1,025,000
1,375,000 2,445,000
PV of net costs (PV option PV do-minimum costs)
8 Investigation 9 Design 10 Property 11 Construction/implementation 12 Maintenance 13 Renewal 14 Operating 15 External impact mitigation 16 Activity contingency 17 Risk management 18 PV total net costs 19 BCR = (7) / (18) 150,000 6.8 300,000 4.6 450,000 5.4 10,000 20,000 40,000 10,000 20,000 40,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 65,000 128,000 40,000 246,000 40,000 27,000 54,000 54,000 100,000 266,000 45,000 128,000 -25,000 246,000 -25,000 27,000 54,000 54,000 100,000 266,000 -20,000
Page 5-16
Worksheet 4 Incremental analysis

Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the incremental BCR of the activity options ranked in order of increasing cost. The procedure is repeated for all activity options. 1. 2. Enter the target incremental BCR as selected from appendix A12.4. Enter the base option for comparison as follows:

Step 1: The lowest cost activity option. Subsequent steps: The base option for the next step from (11) of the previous iteration.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Enter the PV total net cost of the base option from worksheet 3, row (18). Enter the PV total net benefits of the base option from worksheet 3, row (7). Enter the next higher cost activity option not previously analysed. Enter the PV total net cost of the next higher cost activity option from worksheet 3, row (18). Enter the PV total net benefits of the next higher cost activity option from worksheet 3, row (7). Calculate the incremental costs by subtracting the cost of the lowest cost activity option (3), from the cost of the next higher cost activity option (6). Calculate the incremental benefits by subtracting the benefits of lowest cost activity option (4) from the benefits of the next higher cost activity option (7). Calculate the incremental BCR by dividing the incremental benefits (9) by the incremental costs (8). Select the base option for comparison for the next step. If the incremental BCR is less than the target incremental BCR, discard the higher cost activity option in favour of the base option. If the incremental BCR is greater than the target incremental BCR, then the higher cost activity option is chosen as the base option for the next step. Select the preferred activity option. If the highest cost activity option with an incremental BCR greater than the target incremental BCR is not the preferred activity option, provide the rationale for this decision. Repeat the process above using a target incremental ratio 1.0 higher than that selected in (1). For example, if the target incremental ratio is 3.0, test the preferred activity option by using a target incremental BCR of 4.0. Report on this analysis as indicated.
12. 13. 14.
Page 5-17
Worksheet 4 Incremental analysis continued

Example 1 Target incremental BCR (from appendix A12.4) Step Option (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 Preferred activity option Rationale for selection Results of sensitivity testing of target incremental BCR Option D A B C D Base option for comparison Costs (3) 150,000 150,000 450,000 700,000 Benefits (4) 1,100,000 1,100,000 2,600,000 3,700,000 Option (5) B C D E 4.0 Next higher cost option Costs (6) 300,000 450,000 700,000 1,000,000 Benefits (7) 1,500,000 2,600,000 3,700,000 4,200,000 Incremental costs (8) = (7) (4) 150,000 300,000 250,000 300,000 Incremental benefits (9) = (7) (8) 400,000 1,500,000 1,100,000 500,000 Incremental analysis Incremental BCR (10) = (9) (8) 2.5 5.0 4.4 1.7 Base option for next step (11) A C D D
Page 5-18
Worksheet 5 First year rate of return

Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the FYRR for the preferred activity option. 1. 2. 3. Enter the preferred activity option from worksheet 4, row (12). Enter the PV of total net cost of the preferred option from worksheet 3, row (18). Enter the midpoint of the first year of benefits relative to time zero by adding six months to the end of construction. For example, if the end of construction is 1 years after time zero, the midpoint of the first year of benefits is 2 years after time zero. Enter the single payment present worth factor (SPPWF) corresponding to the midpoint of the first year of benefits from table A1.2 in appendix A1. Annual benefits of preferred option (at time zero): Enter the undiscounted (time zero) value of the net annual benefits for the preferred option from worksheet 2, column (4). Enter the undiscounted (time zero) value of the net annual benefits for the do-minimum from worksheet 2, column (4). Enter the undiscounted (time zero) value of the net annual benefit by subtracting the do-minimum value (5) from the preferred option value (6). Enter the growth rate at time zero from worksheet 1. Calculate the PV of the first year benefits using the formula shown on the worksheet. Sum the PV of all the net benefits to get the PV total net benefits in the first year. Calculate the first year rate of return (FYRR) by dividing the PV of the first year of benefits (10) by the PV of the total net costs (2). Express this as a percentage by multiplying the result by 100.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Page 5-19
Worksheet 5 First year rate of return continued

Example 1 2 3 4 Preferred activity option PV of total net cost Midpoint of first year benefits SPPWF of first year of benefits Benefit Annual benefits of preferred option (5) Travel time savings Vehicle operating cost savings Accident cost savings Reduced driver frustration Vehicle emission reduction External impacts Vehicle emissions 50,000 30,000 20,000 0.02 17,577 5000 2500 200,000 100,000 250,000 D $ 500,000 2.25 0.8410 Annual benefits of do-minimum (6) 100,000 50,000 200,000 Net annual benefit (at time zero) (7) 100,000 50,000 50,000 N/A 2500 Growth rate (decimal) (8) 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 2,197 PV of benefits in first year (9) = [ 1.0 + (3) x (8) ] x (4) x (7) 87,885 43,942 42,996
10 11
Sum of PV of benefits in first year FYRR [ (10) / (2) x 100 ]
194,597 39 %
Page 5-20
Worksheet 6 Sensitivity analysis

Explanation This worksheet is used to analyse the sensitivity of the activity results to variations in the major input parameters. 1. 2. Enter the preferred activity option from worksheet 4, row (12). Enter the BCR of the preferred activity option from worksheet 3, row (19).
Assumption 3. Enter the variables to which the activity is particularly sensitive. These may include: maintenance costs, traffic volumes, travel times or speeds, road roughness, accident reduction, other external impacts, and others. Describe the assumptions made to arrive at the value of the variable used in the evaluation. Explain the basis for the proposed lower and upper bounds of the variable.
4.
Base case 5. Enter the value of the variable used in the evaluation.
Lower bound 6. 7. Determine the lower bound value for the variable. Calculate the BCR that results from using the lower bound of the variable, following the procedure in worksheet 3.
Upper bound 8. 9. Determine the upper bound value for the variable. Calculate the BCR that results from using the upper bound of the variable, following the procedure in worksheet 3.
Page 5-21
Worksheet 6 Sensitivity analysis continued

Example 1 2 Preferred activity option BCR Variable (3) Discount rate Maintenance costs Traffic volumes Travel times or roughness Accident reduction External impacts Other (list) Basic assumptions (4)
Variable (3) Discount rate Maintenance costs Traffic volumes Travel times or speeds Road roughness Accident reduction External impacts Other (list)
Base case Value (5) 8% Value (6) 4%
Lower bound BCR (7) Value (8) 6%
Upper bound BCR (9)
Page 5-22
Worksheet 7 Checklist for activity evaluations

Explanation The checklist should be used to check that the evaluation is complete and presented in sufficient detail to allow the activity to be forwarded for consideration for funding. Space is provided for comments or explanations if necessary. Where a component is not applicable and the reason for this is not obvious, it may be helpful to comment on this. Space is provided at the bottom of the checklist for general comments. For each component of the evaluation, indicate whether or not: 1. 2. 3. the calculation(s) has been done accurately the information is complete the assumptions made about the component are valid.
Mark Y = yes, N = no or NA = not applicable as appropriate. Make any comments as suggested above.
Page 5-23
Worksheet 7 Checklist for activity evaluation continued

Activity name Preferred option Component of the evaluation Has this component been checked for? Accuracy of Completeness Validity of calculations of assumption information (1) (2) (3) Activity capital costs Do-minimum Option Maintenance costs Do-minimum Option Travel time savings Do-minimum Option VOC savings Do-minimum Option Accident cost savings Do-minimum Option Monetised external impacts Time stream of costs and benefits Discounting Benefits Costs BCR Incremental analysis FYRR Transport model validation Sensitivity analysis General comments Comments
Page 5-24
Worksheet 8 Transport modelling checks

Explanation Worksheet 8.1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Enter the activity name. Enter the total travel time for road sections for each of the do-minimum and the activity option, for each of the first year of benefits and the future year, and calculate the travel time savings. Enter the total intersection delay for each of the do-minimum and the activity option, for each of the first year of benefits and the future year, and calculate the savings. Calculate the totals by summing the columns above. Calculate the daily travel time benefit for each of the first year and the future year by multiplying the total time (4) by the value of travel time from appendix A4. Enter the daily total traffic which will use the new facility. Calculate the travel time savings by dividing the total travel time (4) by the total traffic using the activity (6). Calculate the travel time benefits per vehicle by dividing the daily travel time benefit (5) by the total traffic using the activity (6). Add any comments that may be relevant.
Page 5-25
Worksheet 8 Transport modelling checks continued

Worksheet 8.1 Coarse check on transportation model outputs 1 Activity name
Do-minimum First year 2 Road section travel time (minutes) 3 Intersection delay (minutes) 4 Total time (minutes) Future years
Activity option First year Future years
Savings First year Future years
First year 5 Daily travel time benefit ($) 6 Daily traffic (vehicles) 7 Travel time savings (minutes/vehicle) 8 Travel time benefits ($/vehicle) 9 Comment
Future year
Page 5-26

Explanation Worksheet 8.2 The detailed checks in worksheet 8.2 comprise a total of 21 steps. Steps (3) to (16) are repeated for each time period (eg AM peak, inter-peak, PM peak periods). Worksheet 8.2(e) compares the results of detailed check with the stated annual travel time benefit value in the evaluation. Worksheet 8.2(a) Typical road section speeds 1. 2. 3. 4. Enter the activity name. Enter the analysis year. One sheet will be required for each analysis year and analysis time period. Enter the analysis time period, eg AM peak, inter-peak, PM peak. For those roads most affected, enter the length, traffic volumes and speeds for the do-minimum and the activity option.
Worksheet 8.2(b) Critical intersections 5. 6. 7. Identify all of the critical intersections for both the do-minimum and the preferred activity option. Enter the traffic volume (vehicles/hour) on the most congested approach for each critical intersection for the do-minimum and the activity option. Enter the delay (seconds/vehicle) on the most congested approach for each critical intersection for the do-minimum and the activity option.
Worksheet 8.2(c) Journey components 8. 9. Identify the journey components which receive the greatest benefit for the do-minimum and the option. Enter the travel time per vehicle (seconds/vehicle) for each of the identified journey components.
Worksheet 8.2(d) Journeys 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Sum the journey components from (9) to get journeys. Enter an identifying name for the journey. Calculate the difference between the do-minimum and the option to get the travel time savings per vehicle. Enter the number of vehicles trips which incorporate the journey. Multiply the number of trips (12) by the travel time savings per vehicle (11) to get the total travel time savings for the journey (13). Sum all journeys to get the total travel time savings (in seconds). Select the appropriate value of travel time savings for the road type from appendix A4. Multiply (14) by the unit cost (15) to get the total travel time savings benefit.
Worksheet 8.2(e) Summary of detailed checks and comparison with evaluation values 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Enter each time period (3) analysed in the detailed check. Enter the total benefit for each time period as calculated in (16). Enter the number of times the benefit time period (17) occurs in a year. Multiply the number of time periods per year (19) by the benefits per time period (18) to get total benefits per year (20). Sum the benefits over all time periods in (20) to get total annual travel time benefits and compare with travel time benefits in the activity evaluation report.
Page 5-27

Worksheet 8.2(a) Typical road section speeds 1 Activity name 2 Analysis year 3 Analysis time period (AM peak, inter-peak, PM peak, etc) Road name (4) Length (metres) Volumes (vehicles/hour) Do-minimum Option Speed (km/h) Do-minimum Option Time (seconds) Do-minimum Option
Page 5-28

Worksheet 8.2(b) Critical intersections
Intersection (5)
Volume (vehicles/hour) (6) Do-minimum Option
Delay (seconds/vehicle) (7) Do-minimum Option
Page 5-29

Worksheet 8.2(c) Journey components
Journey/component (8)
Travel time (seconds/vehicle) (9) Do-minimum Option
Page 5-30

Worksheet 8.2(d) Journey
Journey (10)
Travel time (seconds/vehicle) (11) Do-minimum Option Savings
Trips (12)
Travel time savings (seconds) (13)
14 Total travel time savings 15 Unit cost 16 Total benefit
Page 5-31

Worksheet 8.2(e) Summary of detailed checks and comparison with evaluation values
Time period (17)
Total benefit in time period (18)
Time periods per year (19)
Total benefits per year (20)
21 Total annual travel time benefits for option Annual travel time benefits in economic evaluation Percentage of travel time benefits explained by check
Page 5-32

Explanation Worksheet 8.3 Worksheet 8.3 may be used as a guideline to checking that the specification of the activity model reflects good practice and is appropriate for the activity being evaluated. A checklist of suggested information is listed on the worksheet, which may be included with information for the model reviewer. In section A, part (4), several time periods should be chosen for the analysis so that the model adequately reflects the changing flow profile across a day. The worksheet is completed by ticking the boxes as appropriate.
Page 5-33

Worksheet 8.3 Activity model specification checklist A General information
Tick if a specification statement has been provided for the following: 1. Type of model used, together with reasons for selecting that model. 2. Geographic area covered by the model study area and density of zones. 3. Network detail (eg motorways/arterials/minor streets, number of links). 4. Time periods modelled (eg AM peak 7:30am 9:00am, inter-peak 9:00am 4:30pm). 5. Vehicle types included (eg car, light, heavy commercial vehicles). 6. How external trips are handled (eg external or cordon zone system). 7. Other (please specify).
B Data sources
Tick if a description of the data source and the sources reliability (eg errors, biases, consistency) have been provided for the following: 1. Network data (eg link lengths, free flow speeds, capacities, posted speed limits, number of lanes, intersection types). 2. Travel data and collection methods (eg traffic counts, speeds, origin/destination surveys). 3. Interface with external demand modelling (eg outputs from a subregional model). 4. Other (please specify).
C Matrices
Tick if a statement of the following has been provided: 1. Description of each step in the assembly of the base year trip matrices, including methods, assumptions and factors applied
(eg derivation from external demand model, ME2 matrix estimation procedures).
2.
Matrix fit to observed data (eg screenlines, comparison with independent origin and destination flows). Note: If the ME2 estimation procedure is used to estimate matrices from traffic counts, an independent validation will only be obtained if different counts are used to validate the model. If variable matrix methods or growth constraint techniques have been used, a statement of the method and parameters adopted, and justification of the approach.
3.
4. Other (please specify).
Assignments
Tick if a specification statement has been provided for the following: 1. Description of how the network was constructed. 2. Assignment method (eg incremental, equilibrium). 3. Generalised cost function used for routing. 4. Volume delay functions (eg equations, coefficients, calibration). 5. Basis of intersection delay modelling (lane by lane, approachbased, SIDRA computations). 6. Other (please specify).
Page 5-34

Worksheet 8.3 Activity model specification checklist continued E Forecasting
Tick if a specification statement has been provided for the following: 1. Comparison of forecast year growth rates with historical trends (may include land use, household size, car ownership, traffic volumes,
and commercial vehicle volumes).
2. 3.
Checks of average growth across selected screenlines to ensure local growth is reasonable. Comparisons with other forecasts.
Activity models that include strategic demand elements If travel demand (including mode choice) is modelled within the activity model, rather than in an external demand model, the demand elements of the activity model should be validated in accordance with part C of worksheet 8.5.
Page 5-35

Explanation Worksheet 8.4 Worksheet 8.4 may be used as a guide to checking that present year assignment results are consistent with observed flows and times in the base network. For the validation, a reasonable range of links and intersections relevant to the activity evaluation should be chosen. Typically, this would include links in the scheme corridor, along with a sample of links outside the corridor. Usually preliminary checks of the assignment model are conducted to verify that the model has been initialised correctly. These pre-checks need not be reported, but should be included in the validation of the model. The prechecks and other validation checks outlined in the checklist should be carried out for each time period used in the evaluation. A 1. Link flows Link volume plots (mandatory check) For each time period, produce a map of the network showing modelled and observed link volumes and the differences between them. Totals should be summarised for available screenlines. If the assignment software does not generate these plots automatically, manually annotating a map of the study area with the relevant volumes could be considered. These plots will be used to check modelled and observed volumes by geographic area and level of flow. Given the recognised potential for error in the traffic counting method and/or in the sampling method, which will result in some variation between modelled and observed volumes, an allowance for error in observed volumes should be allowed when judging the fit of the model. Generally, a reasonable error tolerance for hourly volumes on most individual major links (eg carrying in excess of 15,000 vehicles per day in one direction) would be approximately 20 percent. For links carrying less traffic, the error tolerance may be greater than this, providing that the links do not significantly affect the activity evaluation. In the case of screenlines, the advisable error tolerance will be narrower in the majority of cases less than 10 percent. Where errors fall outside reasonable tolerances, the relevant links should be highlighted on the link volume plot. 2. Scatter plot of observed and modelled flows (mandatory check) Produce an XY scatter plot of modelled versus observed flows for:

all individual links, and screenlines.
Superimpose the line y = x on each plot. Report the coefficient of determination (R2) for each plot. Generally, the coefficient should be greater than 0.85 and greater than 0.95 in the vicinity of the scheme. Outliers may be acceptable, providing that they are within reasonable bounds and the flows on the corresponding links do not affect the activity evaluation.
Page 5-36

Explanation Worksheet 8.4 continued 3. GEH statistic (recommended check) The GEH statistic is a form of Chi-squared statistic that is designed to be tolerant of larger errors in low flows. It may be computed for individual hourly link flows and also for hourly screenline flows. The GEH statistic has the following form:
2(qmodel qobs)2
qobs Where:
= observed hourly flow
(qmodel + qobs)
qmodel = modelled hourly flow
It should be noted that the GEH statistic applies to hourly flows only. Total time period flows should be converted to hourly flows before using the above formula. In the checks:

at least 60 percent of individual link flows should have GEH less than 5.0 at least 95 percent of individual link flows should have GEH less than 10.0 all individual link flows should have GEH less than 12.0 screenline flows should have GEH less than 4.0 in most cases.
4.
Percentage root-mean-square error (RMSE) (recommended check) Unlike the GEH statistic (which applies to individual flows and screenlines), the RMSE applies to the entire network. In general, the RMSE should be less than 30 percent. The percentage RMSE is calculated as:
(qmodel qobs )2
Number of counts - 1 Percentage RMSE = 100
qobs
Number of counts
5.
Vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) (optional check) If data on actual VKT are available, measurements of modelled VKT in the study area should be within five percent of observed VKT.
Page 5-37

Explanation Worksheet 8.4 continued B 1. Intersection flows and delays Intersection turning flow plots (mandatory check) For each intersection critical to the scheme appraisal, provide a diagram showing the modelled and observed turning flows at the intersection. Diagrams should be produced for each time period of the analysis. As a general guide, modelled turning flows should be within 30 percent of observed flows. 2. Intersection approach delays (optional check) Where delay information is available, provide a diagram showing modelled and observed approach delays for intersections critical to the scheme appraisal. 3. Intersection queue lengths (optional check) Where queue length information is available, provide a diagram showing modelled and observed queue lengths for intersections critical to the scheme appraisal. C 1. Journey times and speeds Corridor travel time plots (mandatory check) Provide a comparison of modelled and observed journey times, either as an XY scatter plot (with the line y = x superimposed on it) or as a simple table of values. Comparisons should be provided for each time period in the analysis. 2. Cumulative travel time plots (recommended check) For corridors relevant to the activity evaluation, plot cumulative travel time by distance for modelled and observed runs. A sample plot is shown below:
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1000 2000 Observed 3000 4000 Modelled 5000
3.
Link speed plots (optional) On a map of the network, produce a diagram showing modelled link speeds. For each time period in the analysis, verify that link speeds are consistent across the network.
Page 5-38

Explanation Worksheet 8.4 continued D Assignment convergence and stability Assignment convergence may be verified using a summary sheet for each activity option and time period. The sheet is filled out as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Enter the activity name. Enter the name and version of the assignment program used to model the activity. Enter the assignment type (eg equilibrium, incremental, volume averaging). Enter the number of iterations required for convergence.
5. Enter the percentage change in total generalised user cost in the final iteration. For stability, there should be consecutive iterations with percentage change less than one percent. 6. 8. Enter at least one additional convergence performance indicator. Several appropriate indicators are suggested below. As a general guideline, the degree of assignment convergence should be such that the difference in activity benefits computed from successive iterations is only a small fraction of the total activity benefit. The following measures are suggested:
The proportion of links in the entire network with flows changing less than five percent from the previous iteration. For stability there should be consecutive iterations with proportion greater than 95 percent. Where available, the normalised gap, , which expresses the flowweighted difference between current total costs and the costs incurred if all traffic could use minimum cost routes, should be less than one percent for convergence. Other measures of stability and convergence provided by transportation modelling packages may also be included.
Page 5-39

Worksheet 8.4 Base year assignment validation A Link and screenline flows
1. 2. 3.
Link volume plots (mandatory). Scatter plots of observed and modelled flows (mandatory). GEH statistic for critical screenline flows and individual link flows (recommended).
4. Percentage RMSE (recommended). 5.
Comparison of modelled vehicle kilometres travelled with observed values (optional).
Intersection flows and delays

1. 2. 3. 5.
Intersection turning flow plots (mandatory). Intersection approach delays (optional). Intersection queue lengths (optional). Other (please specify). Corridor travel time plots (mandatory). Cumulative travel time plots (recommended). Link speed plots (optional).
Journey times and speeds

1. 2. 3.

D 1 2 3
Assignment convergence and stability Activity name Assignment software and version Type of assignment Do-minimum Run year Base Year 1 Forecast Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
4 5 6 7 8
Convergence achieved at iteration number Percentage change in total generalised user cost (mandatory) Proportion of links with flows changing <5% (recommended) Normalised gap (recommended) Other convergence measure (optional) Option Run year Base Year 1 Year 2 Forecast Year 3 Year 4
4 5 6 7 8
Convergence achieved at iteration number Percentage change in total generalised user cost (mandatory) Proportion of links with flows changing <5% (recommended) Normalised gap (recommended) Other convergence measure (optional)
Page 5-40

Explanation Worksheet 8.5 Worksheet 8.5 may be used to check the modelling approaches used in the demand model are appropriate and the outputs of the model are reasonable. The worksheet is completed by filling in the check boxes and comments for each validation topic.
Page 5-41

Worksheet 8.5 Strategic demand model checks A Is there a precedent of approval (review or audits) for the demand or subregional model used to generate matrices?
Yes (no further documentation needs to be supplied).
No (proceed to part B below). Does the NZTA agree that a full model review is not feasible for the activity? Yes (provide evidence of a check that the incoming data from the strategic demand model is reasonable. No further review is required). No (proceed to part C below). Full model review
1. A description of the model, including:
the model type and reasons for choosing the model the zoning system and geographic coverage of the study area time periods used in the model.
2. A specification of data sources, including:
travel surveys: sample sizes, biases and validation transport network data: digital maps, inventory surveys, timetables, etc. demographic and employment data.
3. A report of the model specification and estimation, including:
variables, equations and coefficients outputs of statistical estimation procedures.
4. Evidence of validation, including:
fit to independent data comparison with other models sensitivity tests/elasticities.
5. Record of model applications ideally includes evidence of a successful history of model application 6. Other (please specify)
Page 5-42
Worksheets A1 Discounting and present worth factors

Explanation Worksheet A1.1 This worksheet is used to identify the timing of capital costs and the start and end points of the benefit and cost streams. Time zero must be the same for each option evaluated. A separate worksheet is required for each option. Once the activity benefits and costs have been calculated, they are entered on the bar charts to give a picture of the magnitude and incidence of the benefit and cost streams. The duration of benefits and costs are indicated on the bar charts by a bar showing start and end points. Each separate benefit or cost shall have such a bar. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Enter the activity option (eg do-minimum, option A). Enter the base date for costs and benefits. Enter time zero. Draw a bar on the chart from the start to the end of the time stream for each benefit item. Draw a bar on the chart from the start to the end of the time stream for each cost item. Where construction is spread over more than one year, an appropriate cost breakdown by year is required, allocating costs to the nearest year start or end.
Page 5-43
Worksheets A1 Discounting and present worth factors continued

Worksheet A1.1 Benefits and costs time streams Option (1) Time (years from time zero) Benefits (4) Travel time savings VOC savings Accident cost savings Vehicle emissions reductions Reduced driver frustration Monetised external impacts (list) 0 1 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Base date (2) 1 July Time zero (3) 1 July
Costs (5) Land Investigation Design Construction Annual maintenance Periodic maintenance Operating Environmental mitigation Contingency Risk mitigation
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Page 5-44

Explanation Worksheet A1.2 This worksheet is used for discounting future costs and benefits to their present value. More than one worksheet may be required. Refer to appendix A1 for a description of the discounting procedures and example calculations. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Enter the activity option. Enter the base date. Enter time zero. Enter the type of benefit or cost, eg construction, maintenance, travel time. Only one benefit or cost type is entered in each column Enter the year for which the benefit or cost was estimated, if different from base date. Calculate the PV of single payments as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) Enter the amount. Enter the time when the benefit or cost is measured (in years since time zero). Enter the SPPWF for that time (refer to table A1.1, appendix A1). Calculate the PV at time zero = amount x SPPWF. Provision is made for two single payments, so for instance a construction activity which is built over two years can be accommodated in one column. If longer than two years, use extra columns and add together to get a total. 7. Calculate the PV of a uniform series as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 8. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (h) (i) 9. 10. 11. Enter the amount of the cost or saving in dollars per year. Enter the start time (s) of the benefit or cost streams (in years since time zero). Enter the end time (e) of the benefit or cost streams (in years since time zero). Enter the USPWF for (s) years and the USPWF for (e) years (refer to table A1.1). Calculate the PV at time zero = annual amount x {USPWF(e) USPWF(s)}. Enter the initial amount (at time zero) of the benefit or cost in dollars per year. Enter the growth rate expressed as a decimal fraction, eg three percent is 0.03. The growth rate for accidents is adjusted as per appendix A6.4. Enter the start time of the benefit or cost stream (in years since time zero). Enter the end time of the benefit or cost stream (in years since time zero). Enter the USPWF for (s) years, the USPWF for (e) years, the AGPWF for (s) years and the AGPWF for (e) years refer to table A1.1 Calculate the PV at time zero: Initial amount x [(USPWF(e) USPWF(s)) + (growth rate x {AGPWF(e) AGPWF(s)})]. Where necessary, sum the single payments in a column to get the total PV of the benefit or cost at time zero. Otherwise, transfer the PV of the benefit or cost from 6 (d), 7 (f) and 8 (i). If the year in which the benefits or costs were estimated is different from base date, use update factors from appendix A12.3 to convert benefits and costs to the base date. Multiply (9) by (10) to calculate total PV time zero adjusted to base date. Transfer this value to the appropriate line in worksheet 3.
Calculate the PV of an arithmetic growth series as follows:
Page 5-45

Example: Worksheet A1.2 Discounting and update factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activity option Base date Time zero Type of benefit or cost Year of estimate (1 July) Single payment (a) Amount (b) Time (n) (c) SPPWF for time (n) (d) PV time zero (a) x (c) 6 Single payment (a) Amount (b) Time (n) (c) SPPWF for time (n) (d) PV time zero (a) x (c) 7 Uniform series (a) Annual amount (b) Start time (s) (c) End time (e) (d) USPWF for (s) years (e) USPWF for (e) years (f) PV time zero (a) x [(e) (d)] 8 Arithmetic series (a) Initial amount (time zero) (b) Arithmetic growth rate (c) Start time (s) (d) End time (e) (e) USPWF for (s) years (f) USPWF for (e) years (g) AGPWF for (s) years (h) AGPWF for (e) years (i) PV time zero (a) x [(f) (e) + (b) x {(h) (g)}] 9 10 11 Total PV time zero Update factor for year of estimate Total PV time zero at base date (9) x (10) 15,760 1.00 15,760 1,343,310 1.05 1,410,476 341,010 1.00 341,010 70,000 0.03 2 27 1.854 11.367 1.806 103.779 715,430 880,053 1.00 880,053 30,000 0 27 0 11.367 341,010 900,000 2 0.8573 771,570 50,000 15 0.3152 15,760 600,000 1 0.9259 571,740 Periodic reseal 2008 Construction 2007 Maintenance 2008 VOC 2008
Page 5-46
Worksheets A2 Traffic data

Explanation Worksheet A2.1 This worksheet is used to list road sections and intersection approaches/traffic movements in accordance with the activity location diagram(s) provided in worksheet 1. If there are only a few road sections or intersection approaches/traffic movements for each activity option, details of all activity options can be recorded on one page. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Enter the activity option. Enter the identifying number of each road section and intersection approach/traffic movement. Enter the length of each road section or intersection approach/traffic movement in metres. Describe each road section or intersection approach/traffic movement in words or location reference points. Enter the direction for each road section which may be two-way (ie both directions) if the gradient is level or nearly level. Enter the percent gradient, using the following sign convention:

positive (+) for uphill negative () for downhill plus and minus () for two way.
7.
Enter the road surface, using the following:

S for sealed U for unsealed roads.
8.
Enter road roughness, in NAASRA counts per kilometre or IRI, as follows: Do-minimum Enter the measured values determined from a calibrated survey. In the absence of measured roughness counts, measured values from similar roads nearby can be used. Activity options Enter expected average roughness over the life of the activity based on typical values for similar roads in the area.
Page 5-47
Worksheets A2 Traffic data continued

Worksheet A2.1 Route data
Activity option (1)
Road section/ movement (2)
Length
Description
Traffic direction (5)
Gradient
Road surface
Road roughness (8)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(7)
Page 5-48

Explanation Worksheet A2.2 This worksheet is used to summarise data collected from travel time, traffic speed, vehicle occupancy and travel purpose surveys. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Enter the road section or movement number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the start and finish dates (day(s)/month(s)/year) of survey Enter description of survey location. Enter the traffic characteristic measured by the survey, ie travel time, speed, occupancy or travel purpose. Enter survey method, eg automatic traffic counter, manual count. Enter the survey time period. Enter the survey duration.
Page 5-49

Worksheet A2.2 Summary of surveys on traffic data 1 Road section/movement Start date of survey (2) Location of survey station (3) Type of survey (4) Method of survey (5) Survey time period (6) Survey duration (7)
Page 5-50

Explanation Worksheet A2.3 This worksheet is used to calculate the AADT for section or intersection traffic movement. Section A of the worksheet works out the AADT from each individual survey, while section B establishes the average AADT based on the counts from the surveys in each year combined. Generally, one worksheet will be completed for each road section/movement. Further guidance is found in appendix A2.3 and A2.4. A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B 7. 8. 9. Calculating AADT from individual surveys Enter the road section or movement number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the date of the survey. Determine the week of the year that the survey was carried out in accordance with appendix A of the Transit New Zealands Traffic counting guidelines. Determine the week factor from appendix A of the Transit New Zealands Traffic counting guidelines. Enter the measured average daily traffic (ADT) from the survey data. Calculate the AADT by multiplying (4) by (5). Averaging AADT from all surveys in each year combined Enter the year which the AADT was estimated, one column for each year. Enter the AADT estimates for each year from (6). Calculate the average of the AADT for each year.
Page 5-51

Worksheet A2.3 Surveyed average annual daily traffic 1 Road section/movement
A Calculating AADT from individual surveys Date of survey (2) Week (3) Week factor (4) ADT (5) AADT (6) = (4) x (5)
B Averaging AADT from all surveys in each year combined 7 Year 8 AADT
9 Average
Page 5-52

Explanation Worksheet A2.4 This worksheet is used to calculate traffic volumes and growth rates at time zero for a road section or movement from traffic counts. Refer appendix A2.6 and A2.7 for further guidance. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Enter the activity option. Enter the road section or movement number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period for the counts, eg day, weekday, weekend day, AM peak (7:00am 9:00am). Enter the year of the traffic count. Enter the AADT or average traffic volume for the year. AADTs are obtained from worksheet A2.3.
Where a full time series of traffic counts (eg continuous counts) is available: 6. 8. Perform a linear regression using a suitable programme between the data in (4) and (5). Calculate the regression slopes and coefficients. 9. 10. 11. Enter the date for time zero. Calculate the time zero traffic volume using the regression model. Calculate the growth rate at time zero being the X coefficient (7) divided by the time zero traffic volume (10) as a percentage.
Where no full time series of traffic counts is available: 9. 10. 11. Enter the date for time zero. Determine the growth rate, being the default value growth rate given in appendix A2, table A2.5, the growth rate for the area based on traffic surveys or traffic demand forecasts. Calculate the increase in traffic volume by multiplying the latest traffic volume (5) by the traffic growth (11) and the number of years between the latest traffic volume and time zero. Add this increase to the latest traffic volume to get the time zero traffic volume.
Page 5-53

Worksheet A2.4 Time zero traffic volume and growth rates 1 Activity option
2 Road/section/movement 3 Time period Year (4) AADT or average volume (5) 6 Constant 7 X coefficient 8 R square Regression output
Average volume Traffic volume
Time zero volume
1980
1985
1990
1995 Year
2000
2005
9 Time zero 10 Time zero traffic volume 11 Growth rate at time zero
Page 5-54

Explanation Worksheet A2.5 This worksheet is used to calculate part week traffic volumes such as weekday and weekend/holiday where the time period differs from that used in the time zero traffic volume calculation in worksheet A2.4. Appendix A2.6 provides further guidance. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Enter the road section or movement number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the AADT from worksheet A2.4. Determine the traffic pattern control group in accordance with the Transit New Zealands Traffic counting guidelines. Enter the day(s) for which the traffic volume is being determined, eg weekday, weekend/holiday. Determine the day factor from the Transit New Zealands Traffic counting guidelines. If the average volume for more than one day is being calculated, then the factor to be used is the average of the factors for those days. Calculate the daily traffic volume for the part week period by dividing the AADT (2) by the day factor (5).
6.
Page 5-55

Worksheet A2.5 Part week traffic volumes
Road section/movement (1)
AADT (2)
Traffic count control group (3)
Day (4)
Day factor (5)
Traffic volume (6) = (2) / (5)
Page 5-56

Worksheet A2.6 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the part day (eg peak period) traffic volumes where the time period differs from that used in the time zero traffic volume calculation in worksheet A2.4. Appendix A2.6 provides further guidance. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Enter the road section or movement number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time interval (eg a 15-minute interval, AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, etc). Enter the day to which the volume applies, eg Wednesday, Monday Friday. Enter the traffic volume for the time interval from the survey data. Calculate the average day factor being the factor to convert the data from the survey day to the average for the part week, eg to factor Thursday data to average weekday calculate the factor by dividing the day factor for Thursday by the average of the Monday through Friday factors. If the survey data covers the days required, then the day factor is 1.0. Enter the week factor as determined on worksheet A2.3. Calculate the traffic volume for the time interval by multiplying the traffic volume (4) by the day factor (5) by the week factor (6).
6. 7.
Page 5-57

Day
Time interval
Traffic volume
Day factor
Week factor
Part day traffic volume (7) = (4) x (5) x (6)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Page 5-58

Worksheet A2.7 Explanation This worksheet is used to provide forecasts of traffic volumes over the analysis period for the dominimum for each time period for each activity option. Properly calibrated and validated transport models (see worksheets A8) may be used for the forecast. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Enter the option number. Enter the road section or movement number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period. The time period may be a part of a day or all day. Divide the analysis period into growth periods during which the traffic growth rate can be assumed approximately constant. Enter the start and finish times in years after time zero. Calculate the number of years in the growth period (subtract the finish year from the start year). Specify the vehicle class in accordance with appendix A2.2 (eg car, LCV or alternatively one of the standard traffic mixes such as rural strategic etc). Vehicle classes may be combined.
For each of the columns (6) to (8) and (10) enter the unit of traffic volume in the column heading, eg vehicles/ hour (veh/h), vehicles/day (veh/d). 7. Enter the traffic volume at the start of the growth period. For the first growth period this will be the existing traffic volume. For later growth periods, it will be the finish traffic volume from the previous growth period. Enter the volume of traffic diverted by this activity or other changes to the roading network, the traffic generated by this activity and any intermittent traffic. Calculate the adjusted start traffic volume by summing (6) and (7). Enter the arithmetic growth rate as a percentage. Calculate the increase in traffic volume using the formula provided. Multiply the adjusted start traffic volume (9) by the traffic growth rate (10) and the number of years in the growth period (5). Add this increase to the adjusted start traffic volume to get the finish traffic volume. Describe the basis and assumptions for the growth rate and any diverted, generated or intermittent traffic.
8. 9. 10. 11.
12.
Page 5-59

Worksheet A2.7 Traffic volume forecasts 1 Activity option Road section/ movement Time period Growth period Number of years Vehicle class Start traffic volume Diverted, generated or intermittent traffic volume ) (7) (veh/ (8) ) Adjusted start traffic volume Growth rate (%) Finish traffic volume
(veh/ (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(veh/ (9)
) (10)
(veh/
(11) = (8) x [(1.0 + (9)] x (5)
12 Assumptions
Page 5-60

Worksheet A2.7 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the volume of traffic in each vehicle class. Appendix A2.2 provides description of vehicle classes. Note that traffic composition information is not provided for buses.) Separate traffic counts for buses or regional council information should be sought where buses form part of the normal traffic stream. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10 Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time zero traffic volume from worksheet A2.4 (10). Enter the time periods for which the survey data requires analysis. The time period may be all day. Specify the unit in the column heading, eg vehicles/ hour (veh/h), vehicles/day (veh/d). Record the traffic volume in each time period. Calculate the number of vehicles in each time period for each vehicle class defined in appendix A2.2 by applying the proportions or actual counts of each vehicle class surveyed to the traffic volume in the time period. Vehicle classes may be combined. If classification counts have not been undertaken, the standard traffic compositions given in appendix A2, table A2.3 is used. Buses are not included in standard traffic compositions.
Page 5-61

Worksheet A2.7 Traffic volume by vehicle class
Road section/ movement
AADT
Time period Traffic volume Car (veh/ ) (5) (6) LCV
Vehicle classes MCV HCV I HCV II Bus
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Page 5-62

Worksheet A2.8 Explanation This worksheet is used to summarise survey data on travel time or traffic speed, speed changes cycles, stops and queuing or bottleneck delay. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period for the survey (eg day, weekday and AM peak). Specify one of the standard classes given in appendix A2.2. Vehicle classes may be amalgamated when individual class volumes are relatively small. Enter the free speed travel time (FSTT) derived from the surveys. Tick the appropriate unit (min/km or km/h) in the column heading. Enter the average speed at which vehicles are travelling before they begin to reduce speed for an impediment, eg a curve or intersection. Enter the average minimum speed to which vehicles reduce in the speed change cycle (SCC). More than one SCC may be included in a road section by using two or more lines in the worksheet. Enter the average the average number of stops experienced by vehicles for this vehicle class. Near stops, (average minimum speed less than 10km/h) may be included as stops rather than a speed change. Note that a stop is a simplified method of describing a major SCC. The same manoeuvre must not be entered as both a speed change and a stop. Enter the queuing delay at intersections or the bottleneck delay on road sections.
8.
Page 5-63

Worksheet A2.8 Speed cycles and delay traffic data
Time period
Vehicle class
FSTT High min/km km/h
SCC Low (km/h)
Stops (number)
(km/h)
Queuing or bottleneck delay (min)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Page 5-64

Worksheet A2.9 Explanation This worksheet is used to summarise data on vehicle occupancy and travel purpose as described in appendix A2.5. Note that in many cases, particularly for travel purpose, default values from table A2.4 in appendix A2.5 will be used for the activity evaluation. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg day, weekday, AM peak). Enter the average number of occupants (including the driver) for each vehicle class and time period. Enter the average percent working for each vehicle class and time period. The definition of working must be as set out in appendix A2.5. Enter the average percent commuting for each vehicle class and time period. Enter the average percent other non-working, ie other than working and commuting.
Page 5-65

Worksheet A2.9 Occupancy and travel purpose traffic data
Time period (2)
Occupancy (persons/vehicle) (3)
Percent working (4)
Percent commuting (5)
Percent other non-working (6)
Page 5-66
Worksheets A3 Travel time estimation

Worksheet A3.1 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the parameters relating to the peak traffic interval for a given time period. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the length of the time interval in minutes. This will usually be five, 10 or 15 minutes. Calculate the number of intervals in the given time period. Enter the time (eg 7:00, 7:10, etc) in the left hand column and the corresponding traffic volume in the right hand column. Calculate the average time period traffic intensity (number of vehicles per x minutes) by summing the traffic volumes in (6) and dividing by the number of time intervals in the time period (5). Calculate the start of the peak interval as follows: (a) (b) Search down the traffic volumes by interval (6) and find the first interval where the volume which exceeds the average intensity (7) and then identify the previous interval time and traffic volume. Calculate the time in the interval where the traffic volume will exceed the average by subtracting the traffic volume of the previous interval identified in (a) from the average intensity (7). Divide the result by the difference between the traffic volumes in (a) and the next time interval and then multiply by the length of the time interval. Add this time to the previous interval time determined in (a).
9. 10. 11.
Calculate the end of the peak interval in a similar manner to (8) above, except the search is for the first interval where the traffic volume drops below the average intensity (7). Calculate the length of the peak interval by subtracting the peak interval start time (8) from the end time (9). See appendix A3.15. Calculate the traffic volume in the peak interval by summing the volume of vehicles in each interval. Where the peak interval is part of a time interval, take the proportion of traffic that falls within the peak interval. See example calculation in appendix A3.16 Calculate the peak interval traffic intensity (in vehicles /hour) by dividing the peak interval traffic volume (11) by the length of the peak interval (10). See example calculation in appendix A3.16
12.
Page 5-67
Worksheets A3 Travel time estimation continued

Worksheet A3.1 Peak interval traffic for a given time period 1 Activity option
2 Road section movement 3 Time period 4 Length of time interval (min) 5 Number of intervals in time period 6 Traffic volumes by interval Interval time Traffic volume
Total traffic volume in all intervals 7 Average time period traffic intensity 8 Peak interval start time 9 Peak interval end time 10 Length of peak interval (minutes) = (9) (8) 11 Peak interval traffic volume (vehicles) 12 Peak interval traffic intensity (vehicles/hour)
Page 5-68

Worksheet A3.2 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the motorway travel time. Note: Worksheets A3.2 and A3.5 will need to be completed simultaneously in order to calculate the time period total average travel time, which is the final step of worksheet A3.2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the section length in kilometres. Enter the design speed for the motorway. Enter the number of through lanes in the direction of travel. Enter the proportion of trucks (HCV I and HCV II) in the traffic stream during the peak period. Enter the terrain type, eg level, rolling or mountainous. Enter the free speed from worksheet A2.8 or the default speed from appendix A3.4. If necessary, convert the FSTT from kilometres per hour (km/h) to minutes per kilometre (min/km) by dividing (9) by 60. Enter the basic motorway capacity in pcu/hour from appendix A3.9. Based on the terrain type, enter the passenger car unit equivalent factor for trucks from appendix A3.9. Calculate the truck adjustment from the formula in appendix A3.9. Calculate the capacity (in vehicles/hour) by multiplying the basic capacity (11) by the truck adjustment factor (13). Determine the volume to capacity ratio (VC ratio) by dividing the peak traffic intensity from worksheet A3.1 by the capacity (14). Refer appendix A3.17. Based on the VC ratio, determine the appropriate factor from appendix A3.18. Calculate the time period additional travel time (TPATT) by multiplying the FSTT (10) by the peak interval additional travel time factor (16). Refer to appendix A3.18. If the VC ratio 1.0 at any time during the time period calculate the bottleneck delay in minutes from worksheet A3.5 and enter here. Refer to appendix A3.19 for further explanation. If required, determine the additional travel time required for any SCCs for the road section/movement using worksheet A3.6 and enter here. Appendix A3.21 provides further guidance. Calculate the time period total average travel time in minutes by multiplying the FSTT (10) plus the peak interval (16) and the TPATT (17) by the section length (4) and then adding the bottleneck delay (18) and the SCC travel time (19). Refer to appendix A3.22.
Page 5-69

Worksheet A3.2 Motorway travel time
Activity option
2 Road section movement 3 Time period 4 Section length Characteristic of motorway section 5 Design speed 6 Number of through lanes 7 Proportion of trucks 8 Terrain type 9 Free speed 10 FSTT (9) / 60 11 Basic capacity 12 PCU equivalent for trucks 13 Truck adjustment factor 14 Capacity (11) x (13) 15 VC ratio 16 Peak interval additional travel time 17 TPATT 18 Bottleneck delay 19 SCC travel time 20 Time period total average travel time (4) x [(10) + (16) + (17)] + (18) + (19) Appendix A3.17 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.5 Appendix A3.6 Appendix A3.22 min/km min/km min min min Appendix A3.9 Appendix A3.9 Appendix A3.9 min/km veh/h Appendix A3.4 km/h min/km pcu/h Worksheet A2.1 Reference km/h km
Page 5-70

Worksheet A3.3 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the travel time on multi-lane roads. Note: Worksheets A3.3 and A3.5 will need to be completed simultaneously in order to calculate the time period total average travel time, which is the final step of worksheet A3.3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the section length in kilometres. Enter the posted speed limit in kilometres per hour (km/h). Enter the basic free speed as determined from appendix A3.5 Tick Yes or No to indicate if a physical median is present. Enter the appropriate speed reduction factor (in km/h) from appendix A3.5. Enter the lane width in metres. Enter the appropriate speed reduction factor (in km/h) from appendix A3.5. Enter the lateral clearance in accordance with appendix A3.5. Enter the appropriate speed reduction factor (in km/h) from appendix A3.5. Enter the number of access points per kilometre. Enter the appropriate speed reduction factor (in km/h) from appendix A3.5. Calculate the sum of the basic free speed reductions by adding (7), (8), (9), and (10) together. Calculate the free speed (in km/h) as the basic free speed (6) less the sum of the basic free speed reductions (11). Calculate the FSTT in minutes per kilometre (min/km) by dividing 60 by (12). Based on the sum of basic free speed reductions (11), determine the capacity in vehicles/ hour/lane from appendix A3.10. Determine the VC ratio by dividing the peak traffic intensity from worksheet A3.1 by the capacity (14). Refer appendix A3.17. Based on the VC ratio determine the appropriate factor from appendix A3.18. Calculate the time period additional travel time (TPATT) (min/km) by multiplying the FSTT (13) by the peak interval additional travel time factor (16). If the VC ratio 1.0 at any time during the time period, calculate the bottleneck delay in minutes from worksheet A3.5. Refer appendix A3.19. If necessary (see appendix A3.21), determine the additional travel time required for any speed change cycles (SCCs) for the road section/movement using worksheet A3.6 and enter here. Calculate the time period total average travel time in minutes by multiplying the FSTT (13) plus the peak interval (16) and the TPATT (17) by the section length (4) and then add the bottleneck delay (18) and the SCC travel time (19). Refer to appendix A3.22.
Page 5-71

Worksheet A3.3 Multi-lane roads travel time
Activity option
2 Road section movement 3 Time period 4 Section length 5 Posted speed limit Characteristic of motorway section 6 Basic free speed Reduction 7 Dividing median present 8 Lane width 9 Lateral clearance 10 Number of access points per km 11 Sum of basic free speed reduction (7) + (8) + (9) + (10) 12 Adjusted free speed (6) (11) 13 FSTT 60/(12) 14 Capacity 15 VC ratio 16 Peak interval additional travel time 17 TPATT 18 Bottleneck delay 19 SCC travel time 20 Time period total average travel time (4) x [(13) + (16) + (17)] + (18) + (19) Appendix A3.10 Appendix A3.17 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.5 Appendix A3.6 Appendix A3.22 min/km min/km min min min Appendix A3.5 km/h m km/h
Yes
No
km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h min/km veh/hour/lane
metres metres per kilometre
Page 5-72

Worksheet A3.4(a) Explanation This worksheet is used to determine the free speed and the FSTT for two-lane rural roads. The capacity and time period total average travel time are calculated using worksheet A3.4(a). Appendix A3.6 provides guidance. For multi-lane rural roads, worksheet A3.3 should be used to determine the free speed, the FSTT and time period total average travel time. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Where applicable, indicate whether the road section is a straight/tangent or curve Enter the section length in kilometres. Enter the design speed of the road section/movement. In the case of a curve enter the design speed as per the activity plan or diagrams. For straights/tangents use the default speeds from appendix A3.6. Calculate the travel time at the design speed in minutes by dividing the length (4) by the design speed (5) and multiplying by 60. Calculate the total length for the road by summing column (4). Calculate the total travel time by summing column (6). Calculate the average design speed in kilometres/hour by dividing the total length (7) by the total travel time (8) and multiplying by 60. Determine the free speed (in kilometres/hour) based on the average design speed, as given in appendix A3.6. Calculate the FSTT in minutes/kilometre by dividing 60 by the free speed (10).
Page 5-73

Worksheet A3.4(a) Two-lane rural road free speed 1 Activity option Road section/ movement (2) Description of road section (3) Section length Design speed Travel time at design speed (min) (6) = 60 x (4) / (5)
(4)
(5)
7 Total length sum of (4) 8 Total travel time - column (6) 9 Average design speed (7) / (8) x 60 10 Free speed (Appendix A3.6) 11 FSTT 60 / (10)
km min km/h km/h min/km
Page 5-74

Worksheet A3.4(b) Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the capacity and time period total average travel time on two-lane rural roads. Appendix A3.11 provides guidance. In the first instance, the ideal capacity of 2800 vehicles/hour is adjusted to account for a number of factors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the section length from worksheet A3.4(a). Enter the total traffic volume for the time period under consideration. Enter the percentage of the total traffic volume for the time period travelling in the peak direction Enter the FSTT from worksheet A3.4(a). Enter the directional distribution adjustment factor, being the ratio of the volume of traffic in the peak direction to the total traffic volume. Enter the adjustment factor from appendix A3.11. Enter the total roadway width which includes the lane width(s) plus the sealed shoulder width(s). Enter the adjustment factor from appendix A3.11. Determine the passenger car unit (PCU) equivalent factor for trucks from appendix A3.11 based on the terrain type (level, rolling, mountainous). Enter the proportion (as a decimal) of trucks in the traffic stream. Calculate the truck adjustment factor from the formula, 1 / [1 + (4) x {(10) 1}], as presented in appendix A3.11. Calculate the capacity (in vehicles/hour) from the formula, 2800 (8) (9) (11). Calculate the peak direction capacity (in vehicles/hour) as the capacity (13) multiplied by the proportion of traffic in peak direction (6). Determine the VC ratio by dividing the peak traffic intensity from worksheet A3.1 by the capacity (13). Refer appendix A3.17. Enter the percentage of road length for which there is no passing. Factro the peak interval additional travel time which is based on the VC ratio, the percentage of no passing, and the terrain type, determine the appropriate factor from appendix A3.18. Calculate the TPATT in minutes/kilometre, by multiplying the FSTT (7) by the peak interval additional travel time factor (17). If the VC ratio 1.0 at any time during the time period calculate the bottleneck delay in minutes from worksheet A3.5 and enter here. Refer appendix A3.19. If necessary (see appendix A3.21), determine the additional travel time required for any SCCs for the road section/movement using worksheet A3.6 and enter here. Calculate the time period total average travel time in minutes by multiplying the FSTT (7) plus the peak interval (17) and the TPATT (18) by the section length (4) and then adding the bottleneck delay (19) and the SCC travel time (20). Refer to appendix A3.22.
Page 5-75

Worksheet A3.4(b) Two-lane rural road travel time 1 Activity option
2 Road section 3 Time period 4 Section length 5 Total traffic volume in time period 6 Proportion of traffic in peak direction 7 Free speed travel time Characteristic of rural road (Appendix A3.11) 8 Directional distribution ratio 9 Total roadway width 10 PCU equivalent for trucks (based on terrain) level metres Worksheet A3.4(a) Adjustment Worksheet A3.4(a) % min/km km
rolling
mountainous
pcu %
11 Proportion of trucks 12 Truck adjustment factor 1 / [1 + (11) x {(10) 1}] 13 Capacity 2800 (8) (9) (12) 14 Capacity of traffic in peak direction (13) x (6) 15 VC ratio 16 Percentage of no passing 17 Peak interval additional travel time factor 18 TPATT 19 Bottleneck delay 20 SCC travel time 21 Time period total average travel time Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.5 Appendix A3.6 Appendix A3.22 Appendix A3.17
veh/h veh/h
% min/km min/km seconds min min
Page 5-76

Worksheet A3.5 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the bottleneck delay for all time periods during which demand exceeds capacity (VC ratio 1.0). For further guidance and an example of the calculations, refer appendix A3.19. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the length of the time interval in minutes. This will usually be five, 10 or 15 minutes. The interval capacity is calculated by taking the total capacity (vehicles per hour) from worksheet A3.2, A3.3 or A3.4 as appropriate and dividing it by the number of intervals per hour Enter the interval start time (eg 7:00, 7:10, etc). Enter the traffic volume (vehicle count) for the time interval. Calculate the cumulative volume for the time period by adding the traffic volume for the current interval to the cumulative total from the previous interval. Enter the number of vehicles moving through (exiting) the section/movement during the interval. Note: During one or more intervals, the number of vehicles discharged in the interval will be equivalent to the time period interval capacity (maximum number of vehicles per interval) of the road section/ movement. 10. 11. 12. 13. Calculate the cumulative volume of vehicles discharged from the section/ movement for the time period by adding the volume discharged for the current interval to the cumulative total from the previous interval. Calculate the number of vehicles remaining in the queue at the end of the interval by subtracting the cumulative total of vehicles discharged (10) from the cumulative volume (8). Enter the number of vehicles in the queue at the start of the interval. This is equivalent to the number of vehicles remaining in the queue at the end of the previous interval (11). Calculate the average delay (in vehicle minutes) by adding together the number of vehicles in queue at start of interval (12) and the number of vehicles remaining in queue at end of interval (11) and dividing this total by 2. Multiply this result by the length of the time interval (4). The time period total delay (in vehicle minutes) is determined by adding together the values for the average delay per interval. The time period average delay per vehicle (in minutes per vehicle) is calculated by dividing the time period total delay (14) by the final cumulative total volume of vehicles discharged (10).
14. 15.
Page 5-77

Worksheet A3.5 Calculating the bottleneck delay 1 Activity option
2 Road section/movement 3 Time period 4 Length of time interval (min) 5 Capacity (vehicles/interval) Interval start time Demand (vehicles) Cumulative demand (vehicles) (8) Vehicles discharged (vehicles) (9) Cumulative discharge (vehicles) (10) Queue at end Queue at start Average delay of interval of interval (veh/min)
(6)
(7)
(11)
(12) = (8) (10)
(13) = [(11) + (12)] / 2 x (4)
14 Time period total delay = sum of average delay per interval (13) 15 Time period average delay per vehicle (vehicle/ minutes) = (14) / final cumulative total volume of vehicles discharged (10)
Page 5-78

Worksheet A3.6 Explanation If vehicles are required to slow to negotiate some isolated feature and then accelerate back to cruise speed, this worksheet is used to calculate the additional travel time for the SCC. Where the initial cruise speed and the final speed are available, appendix A5.7 provides the additional travel time in seconds for the SCCs. For further guidance and an example of the calculations, refer appendix A3.21. 1. 2. 3. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the length of SCC section in metres (m) which is where vehicles are required to slow to negotiate some isolated feature and then accelerate back to cruise speed. It may be a subsection of the section identified in (2). Enter the free speed as determined from worksheet A3.2, A3.3 or A3.4(a) depending on the road type. Enter the horizontal curve radius (m). Enter the FSTT (minutes/km) as determined from worksheet A3.2, A3.3 or A3.4(a) depending on the road type. Divide this by the length of the speed cycle change section (3) to obtain the FSTT for the SCC section. Enter the TPATT per vehicle (minutes) as determined from worksheet A3.2, A3.3 or A3.4(a) depending on the road type. Divide this by the length of the speed cycle change section (3) to obtain the TPATT for the section. Calculate the ideal vehicle speed for each relevant vehicle type using the formula provided and the free speed (4) and curve radius (5). Using the formula provided, calculate the operating speed for the SCC section. Based on the operating speed for each vehicle type (9), their ideal speed for negotiating the SCC section, select the additional travel time in seconds from appendix A5, tables A5.24, A5.26, A5.28, A5.30 and A5.32, A5.34. Note: The initial speed in the table is the operating speed and the final speed is the ideal speed. 11. Sum the values for each vehicle type to get the total SCC travel time for the SCC section. Enter this value in the appropriate worksheet A3.2, A3.3 or A3.4(a) depending on the road type.
4. 5. 6.
7.
8. 9. 10.
Page 5-79

Worksheet A3.6 Speed change cycle additional travel time
Activity option
2 Road section/movement 3 Length of the SCC section 4 Free speed 5 Curve radius 6 FSTT for the SCC section = FSTT for whole section (from earlier worksheets) x (3) 7 TPATT for the SCC section = TPATT for whole section (from earlier worksheets) x (3) Vehicle f1 x a 1 type a0 a2 Operating speed for speed change cycle (km/h) (f1 x a1) x (4) + a0 + a2 / (6) 60 / [(6) + (7)] (8) Car LCV MCV HCV I HCV II Bus 0.5833 0.4395 0.4222 0.3702 45.21 54.51 51.77 59.16 -3892 -3337 -3245 -3506 -3768 -3506 (9) Ideal travel speed (km/h) Speed change cycle travel time by vehicle type (appendix A5) (10) m km/h m min/km min/km
0.2807 69.57 0.3702 59.16
14 SCC travel time for speed SCC section = sum of SCC travel time by vehicle type (10)
Page 5-80

Worksheet A3.7 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the travel time on other urban roads. It is possible to use one worksheet per activity option. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM 7:00 9:00am, PM peak 4:00 6:00pm). Enter the section length in kilometres. Enter the design category from appendix A3.7. Enter the functional category from appendix A3.7. Enter the road classification from appendix A3.7. Enter the free speed from appendix A3.7. Calculate the FSTT for the section (in minutes/km) by multiplying the free speed (8) by the section length (4) and dividing this by 60.
Page 5-81

Worksheet A3.7 Other urban road travel time 1 Activity option
2 Time period Road section/ movement (3) Section length (4) Design category (5) Function category (6) Road classification (7) Free speed (km/h) (8) FSTT (min) (8) / (60 x (4) (9)
Page 5-82

Worksheet A3.8 Explanation With respect to intersections, travel time is measured using delay. This worksheet is used to calculate or report on the delays at a signalised intersection. The primary calculation for delay generally involves the use of some type of transport model or intersection software. Further information is provided in appendix A3.23. The ideal saturation flow rate is given as 2000 passenger car units per hour of green. This is modified according to the worksheet adjustment factors as indicated. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the approach number. An approach is a lane or arm feeding into the intersection. Enter the lane width in metres. Enter the number of lanes at the stop line. Enter the approach grade in percent. Enter the number of parking manoeuvres per hour within 50 metres on either side of the intersection. Enter the locality type consistent with appendix A3.23, table A3.4. Enter the signal type consistent with appendix A3.23, table A3.6. Enter the lane width factor from appendix A3.23, table A3.1. Enter the approach grade factor from appendix A3.23, table A3.2. Enter the parking factor from appendix A3.23, table A3.3. Enter the locality factor from appendix A3.23, table A3.4. Calculate the saturation flow rate (pcu/hour) from the formula provided. Determine the arrival type from appendix A3.23, table A3.5. Determine the delay adjustment factor from appendix A3.23, table A3.6 for the saturation ratio (15) and arrival type (16). Calculate the total delays for each of the movements in minutes using appropriate transport model or intersection software. Calculate the total time period delay by summing the time period total average travel time (18) for all approaches into the intersection. This may be generated by a transportation model. Enter the traffic volume (number of vehicles entering the intersection during the time period). Calculate the average delay per vehicle by dividing the total time period delay (19) by the traffic volume (20).
Page 5-83

Worksheet A3.8 Traffic signal delay
Activity option
2 Road section 3 Time period 4 Approach 5 Lane width 6 Number of lanes 7 Approach grade 8 Parking manoeuvres 9 Locality type 10 Signal type 11 Lane with factor 12 Approach grade factor 13 Parking factor 14 Locality factor 15 Saturation flow rate 2000 x (11) x (12) x (13) x (14) 16 Arrival type 17 Delay adjustment factor 18 Time period average delay 19 Total time period delay (sum (18) for all approaches) 20 Traffic volume for the intersection 21 Average delay per vehicle (19) / (20) minutes vehicles per time period minutes per vehicle
Page 5-84

Worksheet A3.9 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate the delays at priority intersections and/or roundabouts. It is expected that the primary calculations for capacity and/or delay generally involve the use of some type of transport model or intersection software, particularly in the case of roundabouts. Further guidance is provided in appendix A3.24 and A3.25. Steps (7) through (17) only apply to movements and controls within priority level (b) and (c) approaches. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Enter the activity option (eg do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the approach number. An approach is a lane or arm feeding into the intersection. If there are more than three approaches, two worksheets may be required. Determine the priority level of the approach in accordance with appendix A3.24. Only priority levels b and c experience delay. Enter the movement and control for the analysis. Refer appendix A3.24, table A3.8. Enter the average speed (km/h) for the movement and control either <60 or 60km/h) Enter the conflicting traffic volume during the peak interval in vehicles/hour. Select the critical gap from appendix A3.24, table A3.8. Enter the minimum head in conflicting flow as either 2.0 (where there is a single lane conflict) or 0.5 seconds (in all other cases). Using the formula provided, calculate the follow up headway based on the critical gap (9). Calculate the capacity of the movement and control as a function of the minimum headway in conflicting flow, the critical gap, followup headway and conflicting volume during peak interval. Calculate the VC ratio by dividing the traffic volume (8) by the capacity (12), up to a maximum VC ratio of 1.05 for any approach. Based on the VC ratio, select the time period total average travel time (in minutes/vehicle) for the movement and control, which is taken as being equal to the average peak interval delay, from appendix A3.24, table A3.9. Calculate the total peak interval delay for the intersection by summing the time period total average travel time (14) for all movements and controls from all approaches into the intersection. Enter the total traffic volume (number of vehicles) entering the intersection during the time period. Calculate the average movement delay by dividing the total time period average travel time for the intersection (15) by the traffic volume (16).
15. 16. 17.
Page 5-85

Worksheet A3.9 Priority intersection and roundabout delay
Activity option
2 Road section/movement 3 Time period 4 Approach 5 Priority 6 Movement and control 7 Average speed <60 or 60km/h 8 Conflicting traffic volume during peak interval 9 Critical gap 10 Minimum headway in conflicting flow (either 2.0 seconds or 0.5 seconds) 11 Follow up headway 0.2 x (9) + 2.0 12 Capacity (veh/h) [3600 / (11)] x exp [- (8) x (9) / 3600] 13 Volume to capacity ratio (8) / (12) 14 Peak interval average travel time 15 Total time period average travel time for the section (sum of (14) for all approaches) 16 Traffic volume for the intersection 17 Average delay per vehicle (15) / (16) minutes vehicles per time period minutes per vehicle
Page 5-86
Worksheet A4 Travel time cost savings

Worksheet A4.1 Explanation This worksheet is used to calculate travel time costs. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Enter the activity option (eg do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section or movement identifying number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the time period (eg AM peak 7:00am 9:00am, PM peak 4:00pm 6:00pm). Enter the number of time periods per year. Enter the road category consistent with appendix A2.2. Enter the number of vehicles for the vehicle class in the time period from worksheet A2.7. Enter the total travel time from the appropriate worksheet A3.2 through A3.8. Determine the travel time cost from appendix A4, table A4.3 (or tables A4.1 and A4.2 for nonstandard vehicle composition percentages). Determine the additional value for congestion from appendix A4.4. Determine the additional value of trip time reliability from appendix A4.5. Note: Change in trip time reliability applies only to the option(s). Calculate the total cost per year according to the following formula: (11) = (4) (6) (7) ((8) + (9)) / 60 + ((4) (10))
Page 5-87
Worksheets A4 Travel time cost savings continued

Worksheet A4.1 Travel time cost savings Option Road section/ movement Time period Time periods per year Road category Vehicles per time period Total travel time (min) Travel time cost Congestion cost Trip time ($/hour) ($/hour) reliability cost ($/period) (8) (9) (10) Total cost/year ($)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(11)
Page 5-88
Worksheet A5 Vehicle operating cost savings

Worksheet A5.1 Explanation This worksheet is used to compute unit vehicle operating costs (ie operating costs per vehicle). The output of this worksheet is used as input to Worksheet A5.2. If there are only a few road sections/intersections and a few time periods to be analysed, it may be possible to accommodate all activity options on one sheet. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Enter the activity option. Enter the road section/movement number from worksheet A2.1. Enter the length of the road section/movement. Enter the gradient of the road section/movement in percent from worksheet A2.1. Enter the road roughness for the road section from worksheet A2.1, or if the road section has not been maintained or graded in accordance with normal maintenance procedures, except for rehabilitation activities, enter the road roughness which would pertain. Enter one of the standard vehicle classifications described in appendix A2, eg car, LCV, etc. Alternatively, if the traffic vehicle composition is to be assumed to be typical of one of the standard road traffic classifications described in appendix A2, then enter the classification, eg rural strategic, etc. Enter the average cruise speed. Enter the volume/capacity ratio as determined in appendix A3.17. Determine the base cost from appendix A5, tables A5.1 to A5.11. The inputs are section speed (7) and average gradient from (4). The output is base operating cost in cents per kilometre. Determine the total pavement related costs, ie the sum of roughness costs, road surface texture costs and pavement elastic deflection costs (appendix A5.3). Determine the additional vehicle operating costs due to congestion (appendix A5.4). Enter the lowest speed reached during the speed change cycle. For stops enter zero or stop. Determine the additional cost for a speed change or stop from appendix A5.6. If there are several speed changes or stops in a section, the total additional cost of these is determined. Enter the time spent idling or creeping forward in congested conditions from worksheet A2.8. This does not include geometric delay which is allowed for by speed changes and stops. Calculate the cost of fuel used while queuing by multiplying the queuing delay (14) by the unit cost in appendix A5.5, table A5.22 or A5.23. Calculate the unit cost for the section using the formula: (16) = (((9) + (10) + (11)) (3)/1000) + (13) + (15).
6.
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Page 5-89
Worksheets A5 Unit vehicle operating costs continued

Worksheet A5.1 Unit vehicle operating costs Time period Option Section/ Section movement length (m) Average gradient (%) Surface roughness (IRI) Vehicle type Section speed VC ratio Base cost Pavement Congestion Speed changes and (cents/km) related related stops cost cost (cents/km) (cents/km) Minimum Additional speed cost (km/h) (cents) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Queuing delay Section cost (cents)
Time (min)
Fuel (cents)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Example 1: Urban T-intersection Dominimum 1 2 3 4 5 6 500 500 550 550 550 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All UA All UA All UA All UA All UA All UA 50 50 50 50 50 50 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 29.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 10 0 0 0 10.2 14.6 14.6 14.6 0.2 2.2 4.5 0.66 7.22 14.76 15.25 15.25 26.98 32.04 38.60 46.14
Example 2: Rural road realignment A B 1 1 530 450 +5 +6 3.0 3.0 All RO All RO 80 75 0.55 0.50 36.6 37.6 0.3 0.3 1.7 1.0 60 0.8 21.26 17.51
Page 5-90

Worksheet A5.2 Explanation This worksheet is used to compute vehicle operating costs using the unit costs determined in worksheet A5.1. If the activity is small it may be possible to accommodate all activity options on one sheet. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Enter the activity option. Enter the road section/movement number from worksheet A2.1. Specify the time units to be used in the calculations, eg hours, days or years. Enter the time periods under consideration. Calculate the time periods per year in the period specified in (4). For instance if time periods are hours and period is 7:00am 9:00am on workdays the time periods per year is two (hours per period) 245 (workdays per year) = 490. Enter the vehicle types as determined under (6) in worksheet A5.1. Enter the vehicles per time period from (6) in worksheet A4.1. Include decimal fractions of a vehicle if dealing with low volumes as these can have a significant influence on the total cost. Enter the section unit cost from (16) in worksheet A5.1. Calculate the total cost per year for the section using the formula: (9) = (5) (7) (8) / 100.
6. 7. 8. 9.
Page 5-91

Worksheet A5.2 Vehicle operating cost savings Time period Option Section/movement Time units Period Time units per year Vehicle type Vehicles per time unit (7) Section cost (cents) Total cost per year ($) (8) (9)
(1) Example 1 Do-minimum
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1 2 3 4 5 6
hours hours hours hours hours hours
Weekdays 7.30 9.30 Weekdays 7.30 9.30 Weekdays 7.30 9.30 Weekdays 7.30 9.30 Weekdays 7.30 9.30 Weekdays 7.30 9.30
490 490 490 490 490 490
All UA All UA All UA All UA All UA All UA
3650 2500 330 210 360 240
15.25 15.25 26.98 32.04 38.60 46.14
272,746 186,813 43,627 32,969 68,090 54,261 658,506
Example 2 A B 1 1 days days All All 365 365 All RO All RO 2210 2210 21.26 17.51 17,494 141,244
Page 5-92
Worksheets A6 Accident cost savings

Worksheet A6.2 Explanation There must be five years or more accident data for the site and the number and types of accidents must meet the specifications set out in appendix A6.1 and A6.2. 1. 2. Enter number of years of typical accident rate records at (3) and the number of reported accidents in the reporting period for each of the severity categories at (4). Redistribution of fatal and serious accident costs. If the number of fatal and serious accidents at the site is greater than the limiting number specified in appendix A6.4, leave line (5) blank and go to line (6). Otherwise, in line (5) enter the ratio of fatal/(fatal + serious) and serious/(fatal + serious) from the table A6.19 series (all movements, all vehicles). Multiply the total fatal + serious accidents (4) by the ratios (5) to get the adjusted fatal and serious accidents (6) for the reporting period. For minor and non-injury accidents, transfer the accident numbers from (4). To get the accidents per year (7), divide (6) by (3). Enter the adjustment factor for the accident trend from table A6.1(a) in line (8). Multiply (7) by (8) to obtain the accidents per year (at time zero) for each accident category (9). Enter the under-reporting factors from tables A6.20(a) and A6.20(b) in line (10). Multiply (9) by (10) to get the total estimated accidents per year (11). Enter the accident costs for 100km/h speed limit (12) and 50km/h speed limit (13) for each accident category (all movements, all vehicles) from the table A6.21 series. Calculate the mean speed adjustment for the do-minimum [((1) 50) divided by 50] in (14). Calculate the cost per accident for the do-minimum (15) by adding (13) plus (14) and then multiplying this by the difference between accident costs in (12) and (13). Multiply accidents per year (11) by (15) to get cost per accident per year (16). Add the costs for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents in line (16) to get the total accident cost per year (17).
3.
4. 5. 6.
7. 8.
Page 5-93
Worksheets A6 Accident cost savings continued

Worksheet A6.2 Accident by accident analysis do-minimum Option Movement category 1 Do-minimum mean speed Posted speed limit Do-minimum Fatal 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Number of years of typical accident rate records Number of reported accidents over period Fatal/serious severity ratio (tables A6.19(a) to (c)) Number of reported accidents adjusted by severity (4) (5) Accidents per year = (6)/(3) Adjustment factor for accident trend (table A6.1(a)) Adjusted accidents per year = (7) x (8) Underreporting factors (tables A6.20(a) and (b)) Total estimated accidents per year = (9) x (10) Accident cost, 100km/h limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((1) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (13) + (14) x [ (12) (13) ] Accident cost per year = (11) x (15) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (16) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) $ 3,340,000 464,260 391,000 210,358 0.139 1.0 0.139 3,100,000 0.269 2.0 0.538 370,000 0.3 25,100 102,408 2,880 82,368 1 0.33 0.66 0.136 1 0.67 1.33 0.264 1.02 1.02 4.0 4.08 30,000 23,000 1.43 20 28.60 4,000 2,400 5 1 7 1.4 Oblong realignment Head-on 65km/h 100km/h Vehicle involvement All vehicles Road category Rural strategic Traffic growth rate 2% Severity Serious 5 5 7 Minor Non-injury
3,900,000 440,000
859,394
Page 5-94

Worksheet A6.3 Explanation There must be five years or more accident data for the site and the number and types of accidents must meet the specifications set out in appendices A6.1 and A6.2. 1. Determine the forecast percentage accident reduction for each accident category from appendix A6.7 (18). Determine the proportion of accidents remaining [100 percent minus the percentage reduction in (18)] and record in (19). Calculate the predicted accidents per year (20) by multiplying the accidents per year of the do-minimum (11) by the percentage of accidents remaining (19). Repeat the calculations from lines (12) through (15), in lines (21) through (24) using the option mean speed (2), to obtain the cost per accident for the option (24). Multiply the predicted number of accidents per year (20) by the cost per accident (24) to get the total accident costs per year for each accident category in line (25). Add together the costs for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents to get total accident costs per year (26).
2. 3. 4.
Page 5-95

Worksheet A6.3 Accident by accident analysis options Option Movement category 2 Option mean speed Posted speed limit Option Fatal 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Percentage accident reduction Percentage of accidents remaining [100 (18)] Predicted accidents per year (11) x (19) Accident cost, 100km/h limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((2) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (22) + (23) x [(21) (22)] Accident cost per year = (20) x (24) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (25) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) $ 3,420,000 331,740 398,000 150,046 30 70 0.097 3,100,000 30 70 0.377 370,000 0.4 25,800 73,685 3,040 60,860 Oblong realignment Head-on 70km/h 100km/h Severity Serious Minor 30 70 2.856 30,000 23,000 Non-injury 30 70 20.0 4,000 2,400 Vehicle involvement All vehicles Road category Rural strategic
3,900,000 440,000
616,331
Page 5-96

Worksheet A6.4(a) Explanation Worksheet A6.4(a) is used for accident rate analysis of the do-minimum and/or the option(s) (or part of an option) where the benefits are a linear projection of the first year of crash benefits. This spreadsheet should not be used when the relationship between volume and accident is non-linear. This worksheet is used with accident costs from table A6.22. Use several worksheets as necessary. Header 1. or 1a. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category. Determine whether an accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6), and enter the reference number in (1) or (1a). Then, either: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Enter parameter b0 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b1 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b2 from table identified in (1), if applicable. Enter traffic volume of the minor approach. Enter traffic volume of the major approach. Calculate the typical accident rate by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.6. Or 2a. 3a. Enter the b0 coefficient from the table/section identified in (1a). Enter the cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13, if appropriate (if not, use 1.0 for (3a)). Adjustment is only applied when the seal width differs from the base seal width given for each flow band (6.7, 8.2 and 9.5 metres). Adjust the b0 coefficient using the cross section adjustment factor, by multiplying (2a) by (3a). Determine the exposure X for the traffic volume at time zero. Calculate the typical accident rate by multiplying (4a) by (5a). Determine the factor for adjusting the typical accident rate based on the posted speed limit from appendix A6.5 method B. Calculate the adjustment factor for accident trend from (8) and the time in years from the time zero year to year 2006, refer to appendix A6.5 method B. Adjust the typical accident rate for accident trends by multiplying (7) by (9). Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the typical accident rate (10) by the cost per reported injury accident (11).
4a. 5a. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Page 5-97

Worksheet A6.4(a) Accident rate analysis (PV based on the first year accident prediction) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (appendix A6.6) Go to step 8. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 7 8 9 10 11 12 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (4a) x (5a) Accident trends factor for adjusting typical accident rate (appendix A6.5 method B) Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (8) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B) Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT (7) x (9) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Total accident cost per year (10) x (11) Traffic growth rate Time zero
Page 5-98

Worksheet A6.4(b) Explanation Worksheet A6.4(b) is used for accident rate analysis of the do-minimum and/or the option(s) (or part of an option). This worksheet is used with accident costs from table A6.22. Use several worksheets as necessary. Header 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category. Determine which accident prediction model equation will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6), and enter the reference number in (1). Enter parameter b0 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b1 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b2 from table identified in (1), if applicable. Enter traffic volume of the minor approach. If the volume is below or above the flow band specified for the model then cap the volume or agree with NZTA staff before proceeding. Enter traffic volume of the major approach. If the volume is below or above the flow band specified for the model then cap the volume or agree with NZTA staff before proceeding. Calculate the typical accident rate by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.6. Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. Calculate the future minor volume for each analysis year, using the traffic growth rate and time zero AADT (s). If the volume of traffic exceeds that specified for the model used for (7), cap the volume at the top limit of the volume band. Calculate the future major volume for each analysis year, using the traffic growth and time zero AADT (6). If the volume of traffic exceeds that specified for the model (used for (7)), cap the volume at the top limit of the volume band. Calculate the typical accident rate for each analysis year by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.6. Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the typical accident rate (10) by the cost per reported injury (11). Calculate the present value of the total accident cost savings using the formula provided.
10.
11. 12. 13.
Page 5-99

Worksheet A6.4(b) Accident rate analysis (using accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate in time zero (accidents per year), AT (appendix A6.6) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years QMinor (9) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 13 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 QMajor (10) AT (appendix A6.6) Accident cost per year (11) (12) = (8) x (11) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
PV accident cost savings [(c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5x 6 x 0.12)] = $
Page 5-100

Worksheet A6.4(c) - Explanation Worksheet A6.4(c) is used for accident rate analysis of the do-minimum and/or the option(s) (or part of an option). This worksheet is used with accident costs from table A6.22. Use several worksheets as necessary. Header 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category. Determine which exposure-based accident prediction equation will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6), and enter the reference number in (1). Enter parameter b0 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b1 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b2 from table identified in (1), if applicable. Determine the exposure X for the traffic volume at time zero. Calculate the typical accident rate by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.5. Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. Calculate the exposure x for each analysis year using the total traffic volume and traffic growth rate. If the traffic volume and exposure exceeds that specified for the equation, cap the traffic volume and exposure at the top limit of the volume band. Calculate the typical accident rate for each analysis year by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.6. Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the typical accident rate (9) by the cost per reported injury accident (7). Calculate the present value of the total accident cost savings using the formula provided.
9. 10. 11.
Page 5-101

Worksheet A6.4(c) Accident rate analysis (using exposure-based accident prediction equation) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate in time zero (accidents per year), AT (4a) x (5a) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 11 Period years 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 Exposure (8) AT ( 9) Accident cost per year (10) = (7) x (9) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
PV accident cost savings [(c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12)] = $
Page 5-102

Worksheet A6.5(a) - Explanation Worksheet A6.5(a) is used for the weighted accident procedure analysis of the do-minimum and should not be used where the relationship between volume and accidents is non-linear. This worksheet uses the accident costs from table A6.22. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category. Enter the number of years of accident records used in the analysis (refer to appendix A6.2). Enter the number of reported injury accidents that occurred during the accident period. Calculate the number of accidents per year by dividing (2) by (1). Enter the adjustment factor for general accident trends for the appropriate speed limit category and traffic growth rate from table A6.1(a), appendix A6.4. 5. Calculate the site-specific accident rate (AS) by multiplying the number of accidents per year (3) by the trend adjustment factor (4). 6. or 6a. Determine whether an accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6), and enter the reference number in (6) or (6a). Then, either 7. Enter parameter b0 from table identified in (6). 8. Enter parameter b1 from table identified in (6). 9. Enter parameter b2 from table identified in (6), if applicable. 10. Enter traffic volume of the minor approach. 11. Enter traffic volume of the major approach. 12. Calculate the typical accident rate by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.6. Or 7a. Enter the b0 coefficient from the reference identified in (6a). 8a. Enter the cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13, when the seal width differs from the base seal width given for each flow band (6.7, 8.2 and 9.5 metres). If not, use 1.0 for (8a). 9a. Adjust coefficient b0 using the cross section adjustment factor, by multiplying (7a) by (8a). 10a. Determine the exposure X for the traffic volume at time zero. 12. Calculate the typical accident rate by multiplying (9a) by (10a). 13. Determine the accident trend factor for adjusting the typical accident rate based on the posted speed limit from appendix A6.5 method B. 14. Calculate the adjustment factor for accident trend from (13) and the time in years from the time zero year to year 2006 refer to appendix A6.5 method B. 15. Adjust the typical accident rate for accident trends by multiplying (12) by (14). For mid-blocks, the typical accident rate should be divided by the length because the k value is calculated for a one kilometre mid-block section. 16. Obtain the k value for the accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation from appendix A6.6. 17. Assess the accident history reliability (refer to appendix A6.4), or use default value of 1.0. 18. Assess the reliability of the accident prediction equation (refer to appendix A6.4 and A6.6), or use default value of 1.0. 19. Calculate the value of the weighting factor using the formula provided (refer to appendix A6.4). 20. Calculate the weighted accident rate (AW,dm) using the formula provided. The formula uses the site specific accident rate (5), the typical accident rate (15) and the weighting factor (19). 21. Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. 22. Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the do-minimum weighted accident rate (20) by the cost per reported injury accident (21).
Header 1. 2. 3. 4.
Page 5-103

Worksheet A6.5(a) Weighted accident procedure do-minimum (PV based on the first year accident prediction) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of years of accident records Number of reported injury accidents over period Number of accidents per year (2)/(1) Trend adjustment factor (table A6.1(a)) Site-specific accident rate (accidents per year), AS (3) x (4) Accident prediction model Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (formula from appendix A6.6) Go to step 13. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 12 13 14 15 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (7a) x (8a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,dm (9a) x (10a) Accident trend factor for adjusting typical accident rate, ft (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (13) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT,dm (12) x (14)*
* For all mid-block analyses, the typical accident rate (15) must be divided by the mid-block length (in km).
Traffic growth rate Time zero
Weighting factor 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 k value (appendix A6.6) Reliability of accident history, X (default is 1.0) Reliability of accident prediction model or equation, M (default is 1.0) Weighting factor, w, (17)2 x (16) / ((17)2 x (16) + (18)2 x (15)) Do-minimum weighted accident rate, AW,dm [(19) x (15)] + [1 (19)] x (5) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Total do-minimum accident cost per year (20) x (21)
Page 5-104

Worksheet A6.5(b) Explanation Worksheet A6.5(b) is used for the weighted accident procedure analysis of the do-minimum. This worksheet uses the accident costs from table A6.22. Header 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category.
Enter the number of years of accident records used in the analysis (refer to appendix A6.2). Enter the number of reported injury accidents that occurred during the accident period. Calculate the number of accidents per year by dividing (2) by (1). Enter the adjustment factor for general accident trends for the appropriate speed limit category and traffic growth rate from table A6.1(a). Calculate the site-specific accident rate (AS) by multiplying the number of accidents per year (3) by the trend adjustment factor (4). Determine which accident prediction model will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6) and enter the reference number in (6). Enter parameter b0 from table identified in (6). Enter parameter b1 from table identified in (6). Enter parameter b2 from table identified in (6), if applicable. Enter traffic volume of the minor approach. If this value is below or above the flow band specified for the model then cap the volume or agree with NZTA staff before proceeding. Enter traffic volume of the major approach. If this value is below or above the flow band specified for the model then cap the volume or agree with NZTA staff before proceeding. Calculate the typical accident rate by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.6. For mid-blocks, the typical accident rate should be divided by the length because the k value is calculated for a one kilometre mid-block section. Obtain the k value for the accident prediction model from appendix A6.6. Calculate the value of the weighting factor using the formula provided (refer to appendix A6.4). Calculate the weighted accident rate (AW,dm) using the formula provided. The formula uses the site specific accident rate (5), the typical accident rate (12) and the weighting factor (14). Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. Calculate the future minor volume for each analysis year, using the traffic growth rate and time zero AADT (10). If the volume of traffic exceeds that specified for the model, cap the volume at the top limit of the volume band. Calculate the future major volume for each analysis year, using the traffic growth rate and time zero AADT (11). If the volume of traffic exceeds that specified for the model, cap the volume at the top limit of the volume band. Calculate the typical accident rate for each analysis year by using the formula from appendix A6.6. Calculate the weighted accident rate for each analysis year by using the weighted accident rate formula in appendix A6.4. Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the typical accident rate (20) by the cost per reported injury accident (16). Calculate the present value of the total accident cost savings using the formula provided.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
18.
19. 20. 21. 22.
Page 5-105

Worksheet A6.5(b) Weighted accident procedure do-minimum (using accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Number of years of accident records Number of reported injury accidents over period Number of accidents per year (2)/(1) Trend adjustment factor (table A6.1(a)) Site-specific accident rate (accidents per year), AS (3) x (4) Accident prediction model Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,dm (formula from appendix A6.6) Weighting factor k value (appendix A6.6) Weighting factor, w, (13) / [(13) + ((12) x (1))] years of accident records*
* For all mid-block analyses, the typical accident rate (12) must be divided by the mid-block length (in km) for calculation of the weighting factor only.
15 16
Do-minimum weighted accident rate at time zero, AW,dm [(14) x (12)] + [1 (14)] x (5) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22)
Analysis years
Period years
Qminor (17)
Qmajor (18)
AT,dm (19)
AW,dm (20)
Accident cost per year (21) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits
2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30
22 22 PV accident cost savings [(c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12)] = $
Page 5-106

Worksheet A6.5(c) Explanation Worksheet A6.5(c) is used for the weighted accident procedure analysis of the do-minimum. This worksheet uses the accident costs from table A6.22. Header 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category. Enter the number of years of accident records used in the analysis (refer to appendix A6.2). Enter the number of reported injury accidents that occurred during the accident period. Calculate the number of accidents per year by dividing (2) by (1). Enter the adjustment factor for general accident trends for the appropriate speed limit category and traffic growth rate from table A6.1(a). Calculate the site-specific accident rate (AS) by multiplying the number of accidents per year (3) by the trend adjustment factor (4). Determine which exposure-based accident prediction equation will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6), and enter the reference number in (6). Then, either 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Enter the b0 coefficient from the reference identified in (6). Enter the cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13, when the seal width differs from the base seal width given for each flow band (6.7, 8.2 and 9.5 metres). If not, use 1.0. Adjust coefficient b0 using the cross section adjustment factor, by multiplying (7) by (8). Determine the exposure X for the traffic volume at time zero. Calculate the typical accident rate by multiplying (9) by (10). Determine the accident trend factor for adjusting the typical accident rate based on the posted speed limit from appendix A6.5 method B. Calculate the adjustment factor for accident trend and the time in years from the time zero year to year 2006 refer to appendix A6.5 method B. Adjust the typical accident rate for accident trends by multiplying (11) by (13). For mid-blocks, the typical accident rate should be divided by the length because the k value is calculated for a one kilometre mid-block section. Obtain the k value for the accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation from appendix A6.6. Calculate the value of the weighting factor using the formula provided (refer to appendix A6.4). Calculate the weighted accident rate (AW,dm) using the formula provided. The formula uses the sitespecific accident rate (5), the typical accident rate (14) and the weighting factor (16). Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. Calculate the exposure x for each analysis year using the total traffic volume and traffic growth rate. If the traffic volume exceeds that specified for the equation, cap the traffic volume and exposure at the top limit of the volume band. Calculate the typical accident rate for each analysis year by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6.6. Calculate the weighted accident rate for each analysis year by using the weighted accident rate formula from appendix A6.4. Calculate the total accident cost year by multiplying the weighted accident rate (21) by the cost per reported injury accident (18). Calculate the present value of the total accident cost savings using the formula provided.
15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
20. 21. 22. 23.
Page 5-107

Worksheet A6.5(c) Weighted accident procedure do-minimum (using exposure-based accident prediction equation) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 Number of years of accident records Number of reported injury accidents over period Number of accidents per year (2)/(1) Trend adjustment factor (table A6.1(a)) Site-specific accident rate (accidents per year), AS (3) x (4) Go to step 13. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (7a) x (8a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (9a) x (10a) Accident trend factor for adjusting typical accident rate, ft (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (12) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT,dm (11) x (13)*
Weighting factor 15 16 17 18 k value (appendix A6.6) Weighting factor, w, (15) / [(15) + (14) x (1)] years of accident records Do-minimum weighted accident rate at time zero, AW,dm [(16) x (14)] + [1 (16)] x (5) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years Exposure (19) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 AT ,dm (20) AW,dm (21) Accident cost per year (22) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
23 PV accident cost savings [(c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12)] = $
Page 5-108

Worksheet A6.6(a) Explanation Worksheet A6.6(a) is used for weighted accident procedure analysis of the options. This spreadsheet should not be used where the relationship between volume and accidents is non-linear. This worksheet uses the accident costs from table A6.22. Use one worksheet for each. Header 1. or 1a Fill in the boxes for option, posted speed limit and road category. Determine whether an accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.5), and enter the reference in (1) or (1a). Then, either 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Enter parameter b0 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b1 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b2 from table identified in (1), if applicable. Enter traffic volume of the minor approach. Enter traffic volume of the major approach. Calculate the typical accident rate by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6. Or 2a 3a 4a 5a 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Enter the b0 coefficient from the reference identified in (1a). Enter the cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13, when the seal width differs from the base seal width given for each flow band (6.7, 8.2 and 9.5 metres). If not, use 1.0 for (3a). Adjust the b0 coefficient using the cross section adjustment factor, by multiplying (2a) by (3a). Determine the exposure x for the traffic volume at time zero. Calculate the typical accident rate by multiplying (4a) by (5a). Determine the factor for adjusting the typical accident rate based on the posted speed limit from appendix A6.5 method B. Calculate the adjustment factor for accident trend from (8) and the time in years from the time zero year to year 2006, refer to appendix A6.5 method B. Adjust the typical accident rate for accident trends by multiplying (7) by (9). Obtain the do-minimum typical accident rate (AT,dm) from worksheet A6.5(a) row (15). Obtain the weighted accident rate for the do-minimum (AW,dm) from worksheet A6.5(a) row (20). Calculate the weighted accident rate for the option (AW,opt) using the formula provided. Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the option weighted accident rate (13) by the cost per reported injury accident (14).
Page 5-109

Worksheet A6.6(a) Weighted accident procedure option (PV based on the first year accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (formula from appendix A6.6) Go to step 8. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,opt (4a) x (5a) Accident trend factor for adjusting typical accident rate, ft (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (8) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT,opt (7) x (9) Weighting factor Do-minimum weighted accident rate, AT,dm (from worksheet A6.5) Do-minimum weighted accident rate, AW,dm (from worksheet A6.5) Option weighted accident rate, AW, opt (10) x (12) / (11) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Total option accident cost per year (13) x (14) Traffic growth rate Time zero
Page 5-110

Worksheet A6.6(b) Explanation Header 1. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category. Determine which accident prediction model o will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6), and enter the reference in (1). Then, either 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Enter parameter b0 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b1 from table identified in (1). Enter parameter b2 from table identified in (1), if applicable. Enter traffic volume of the minor approach. If this value is below or above the flow band specified for the model then cap the volume or discuss with NZTA staff before proceeding. Enter traffic volume of the major approach. If this value is below or above the flow band specified for the model then cap the volume or discuss with NZTA staff before proceeding. Calculate the typical accident rate by using the appropriate formula from appendix A6. Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Calculate the future minor volume for each analysis year using the traffic growth rate and time zero AADT (5). If the volume of traffic exceeds that specified for the model, cap the volume at top limit of the volume band. Calculate the future major volume for each analysis year using the traffic growth rate and time zero AADT (6). If the volume of traffic exceeds that specified for the model, cap the volume at top limit of the volume band. Calculate the typical accident rate for each analysis year by using the formula from appendix A6.6. Obtain the weighted accident rate for the do-minimum from worksheet A6.5(b) (20). Obtain the typical accident rate for the do-minimum from worksheet A6.5(b) (19). Calculate the weighted accident rate for the option using the formula in appendix A6.4 ((11) x (12) / (13)). Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the option weighted accident rate (14) by the cost per reported injury accident (8). Calculate the present value of the total accident cost saving using the formula provided.
10.
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Page 5-111

Worksheet A6.6(b) Weighted accident procedure option (using accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate in timer zero (accidents per year), AT (appendix A6.6) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years Qminor Qmajor AT,opt AW,dm AW,dm from from A6.5(b)(20) A6.5(b)(19) (12) (13) AW,opt Accident cost per year (15) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
(9) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 16 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30
(10)
(11)
(14)
Page 5-112

Worksheet A6.6(c) Explanation Header 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Fill in the boxes for the option, posted speed limit and road category. Determine which exposure-based accident prediction equation will be used to establish the typical accident rate (see appendix A6.6), and enter the reference in (1). Enter the b0 coefficient from reference identified in (1). Enter the cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13, when the seal width differs from the base seal width it provides values for each flow band (6.7, 8.2 and 9.5 metres). If not use 1.0. Adjust coefficient b0 using cross-sectional adjustment factor, by multiplying (2) by (3). Determine the exposure x from traffic volume on the minor approach as time zero. If this value is below or above the flow band specified for the model then cap the volume or agree with NZTA staff before proceeding. Calculate the typical accident rate by multiplying (4) by (5). Determine the factor for adjusting the typical accident rate based on the posted speed limit from appendix A6.5 method B. Calculate the adjustment factor for accident trend from (7) and the time in years from the time zero year to year 2006, refer to appendix A6.5 method B. Adjust the typical accident rate for accident trends by multiplying (6) by (8). Enter the cost per accident from table A6.22. Use the appropriate accident costs for the posted speed limit. Calculate the exposure x for each analysis year using the total traffic volume and traffic growth rate. If the traffic growth volume exceeds that specified for the equations, cap the traffic volume and exposure to the top limit of the volume band. Calculate the typical accident rate for each analysis year by using the formula in appendix A6.6. Obtain the weighted accident rate for the do-minimum from worksheet A6.5(c) (21). Obtain the typical accident rate for the do-minimum from worksheet A6.5(c) (20). Calculate the weighted accident rate for option using the formula from appendix A6.4 ((12) x (13) / (14)). Calculate the total accident cost per year by multiplying the weighted accident rate (15) by the cost per reported injury (10). Calculate the present value of the total accident cost saving using the formula provided.
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
Page 5-113

Worksheet A6.6(c) Weighted accident procedure option (using exposure-based accident prediction equations) Option Posted speed limit Road category Exposure-based accident prediction equation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,opt (4a) x (5a) Accident trends factor for adjusting typical accident rate (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (8) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT (6) x (8) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years Exposure * (11) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 17 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 AT,opt (12) AW,dm from A6.5(c)(21) (13) AT,dm from A6.5(c)(20) (14) AW,opt* (15) Accident cost per year (16) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
* Cap traffic volume if above or below traffic volume bans specified for each model.
Page 5-114

Worksheet A6.7 - Explanation Worksheet A6.7 may be used for accident rate analysis in place of worksheet A6.4 for urban routes consisting of a number of road types. Parameters for the accident rate prediction models in appendix A6.6 have been provided in this worksheet. 1. Break the urban route being analysed into the various mid-block types, in accordance with the official road hierarchy in the urban area. An urban route has a commercial land use when over 50 percent of the adjoining land use is either commercial or industrial; otherwise it is an other land use. Where possible separate out mid-block sections in commercial and industrial areas. Check that the traffic flow in each mid-block section falls within the AADT range specified. Where traffic flows are outside these ranges then this should be specified in the evaluation report, as this will affect the accuracy of the evaluation. The AADT is the daily one way traffic volume on the road section. Enter the length of mid-block section of each road type (L) in kilometres. If there is a significant difference in traffic flows on various mid-block sections of each road type then add extra rows to bottom of table. Enter average annual daily traffic for the do-minimum at time zero (Qc). Where AADTs vary between mid-block sections, use the average. Enter average annual daily traffic volume for each option at time zero (Qd ) after implementation. Where AADTs vary between mid-block sections, use the average. Typical accident rate prediction model parameter (b0) from appendix A6.6. Typical accident rate prediction model parameter (b1) from appendix A6.6. For each mid-block road type calculate the do-minimum accident rate (Ac) using current AADT (4) and the equation provided from appendix A6.6. For each mid-block road type calculate the option accident rate (Ad) using the AADT after implementation (5) and the equation provided from appendix A6.6. For each mid-block road type calculate the difference between the do-minimum (8) and option (9) accident rates (AL). For collectors and arterials add in the accident rate for intersections by multiplying mid-block accident rates by 2.0. This assumes that approximately 50 percent of accidents occur at intersections. If there is information that is contrary to this assumption then it is permissible, with supporting evidence, to use a factor other than 2.0. Obtain cost per reported injury accident (Az) from table A6.22 all other sites. Where there is more than one speed limit for each road type, then use the cost associated with most prevalent speed limit. Alternatively, break road types into each speed limit zone. Calculate the accident cost per link type (C) using the change in accident rate, adjusted for intersections (11) and the cost per reported injury accident (12). Sum the accident cost per link type (13) to obtain the accident cost saving for the urban section of the proposal per year.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
12.
13. 14.
Page 5-115

Worksheet A6.7 Accident rate analysis (urban routes) Option Posted speed limit Road category Midblock road type AADT range Length in Current km AADT L (1) Local street commercial land use Collector commercial land use Collector other land use Two and four lane arterial commercial land use Two and four lane arterial other land use Motorway (each direction) Four-lane divided rural road (each direction) (2) (3) Qc (4) AADT after Qd (5) Parameter Do-minimum accident rate b1 (7) Option accident rate Change in link accident rate AL = A c Ad Intersection adjustment factor AT = AL x 2 (11) = (10) x 2 Cost per reported injury accident Az (table A6.22) (12) Accident cost per link type C = AT x Az (13) = (11) x (12)
b0 (6)
Ac = b0 x Qcb1 x L Ad = b0 x Qdb1 x L
(8) = (6) x (4)(7) (9) = (6) x (5)(7) (10) = (8) (9) x (3) x (3)
<3000
2.53 x 104 2.24 x 105 3.46 x 105 7.66 x 106 1.34 x 104 2.96 x 107 3.55 x 107
0.98 1.08 1.08 1.20 0.88 1.45 1.45
AT = AL
2000 to 8000 2000 to 8000 3000 to 24,000 3000 to 24,000 15,000 to 68,000 15,000 to 68,000
AT = AL AT = AL
14 Accident cost saving for urban section per year (sum of column (13))
Page 5-116

Worksheet A6.8 - Explanation Worksheet A6.8 may be used for accident rate analysis in place of worksheet A6.4 for rural routes consisting of a number of different terrain and AADT volume types. Refer to appendix A6.6 (12). 1. 2. 3. Break the rural route up into a number of sections, according to terrain type (2) and average annual daily traffic volume (3). Specify the AADT for each rural road section. A distinction should be made between road sections with AADT <4000 and those with AADT 4000, as different accident rates apply. Specify the terrain type for each rural road section. A road section is specified as flat when the gradient typically varies from zero to three percent; rolling when the gradient is typically in the range three to six percent; above six percent the terrain type is mountainous. In mountainous sections, low gradients, between three and six percent, are acceptable, as long as they are short and occur within a predominantly mountainous section of road. For each road section specify the current number of HCVs per day (Tc) from classified traffic counts. For each road section calculate the number of HCVs that will be removed from the rural route (generally this will be the same over the entire route). Subtract this from the current number of HCVs per day (4) to get the number of HCVs after implementation of the proposal (Td). Calculate the length of each road section (L). The do-minimum HCV exposure (Xc) is the current number of HCV kilometres of travel per year for each road section, expressed in 100 million HCV kilometres of travel. Use the formula provided. The option HCV exposure (Xd) is the number of HCV kilometres of travel per year on each road section following implementation of the proposal, expressed in 100 million HCV kilometres of travel. Use the formula provided. The accident rate parameter (b0) for each road section is selected from appendix A6.6 (12) HCV rural two lane roads 80km/h, based on terrain type and AADT. The do-minimum accident rate per year (Ac) is the accident rate parameter (9), multiplied by the dominimum HCV exposure (7). The option accident rate per year (Ad) is calculated by multiplying the accident rate parameter (9), by the option HCV exposure (8). The change in the link accident rate (AL) is the difference between the do-minimum (10) and option (11) accident rate per year. Obtain cost per reported accident from table A6.22 all other sites (Az). Where there is more than one speed limit in each road section, use cost associated with the most prevalent speed limit. Alternatively, analyse as sections by speed limit. Calculate accident cost per road section (C) using the change in accident rate (12) and cost per reported injury accident (13). Sum the accident cost per road section type (14) to obtain accident cost savings for the rural section of the proposal per year.
4. 5.
6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
14. 15.
Page 5-117

Worksheet A6.8 Accident rate analysis (rural two-lane HCV) Option Posted speed limit Road category Road section AADT Terrain Length in km Current HCV HCV AADT Do-minimum Option HCV (table A6.14) AADT after HCV exposure exposure L Tc Td Xc = Tc x L x Xd = Td x L x 365/108 365/108 (7) = (5) x (4) (8) = (6) x (4) x 365 / 108 x 365 / 108 Parameter Do-minimum Option Change in accident rate accident rate link accident rate b0 (table A6.14) (9) Ac = b0 x Xc Ad = b0 x Xd AL = A c Ad Cost per reported injury accident Az (table A6.22) (13) Accident cost per link type C = AL x Az
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(10) = (9) x (7)
(11) = (9) x (8)
(12) = (10) (11)
(14) = (12) x (13)
Page 5-118
Worksheet A7 Vehicle passing options

Worksheet A7.1 - Explanation
This worksheet is used in the analysis of passing lane strategies. The worksheet is completed as follows.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Enter the activity option. Enter the initial analysis year for the strategy. Enter the name and simple description of the road section under consideration (see appendix A7.3). For each subsection (see appendix A7.3) enter:

subsection name start description (route position if applicable) finish description (route position if applicable) subsection length traffic growth rate (as percentage of analysis year).
5.
Enter the AADT for the analysis year and each five year increments up to 30 years.
Page 5-119
Worksheets A7 Vehicle passing options continued

Example: Worksheet A7.1 Passing lane strategy analysis Activity option Initial analysis year Road section Subsection number 1 2 3 4 Subsection name Subsection 1 Subsection 2 Subsection 3 Subsection 4 Passing lane strategy 2006 From 109/0 to 200/7 (increasing direction) Start Finish Length Growth rate Analysis year 109/0 130/0 160/2 180/5 130/0 144/12 160/13 200/7 21 24 11 20 2% 2% 2% 2% 3250 3363 3133 4036 + 5 years 3575 3700 3446 4439 + 10 years 3900 4035 3760 4843 AADT + 15 years 4225 4372 4073 5247 + 20 years 4500 4709 4386 5650 + 25 years 4770 5000 4600 6000
Page 5-120

Worksheet A7.2 - Explanation This worksheet is used in the analysis of passing lane strategies. The worksheet is completed as follows. 1. 2. 3. Enter the activity option. Enter the initial analysis year for the strategy. Enter the name and simple description of the road section under consideration (see appendix A7.3).
For each subsection enter: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The sum of the absolute rises and falls, expressed in metres per kilometre. The sum of the horizontal deviation expressed as degrees of curvature per km. Using (4) and (5) to determine the terrain type from table A7.5. Enter the percent of road with safe passing sight distance. Identify the method used to determine the proportion of road with passing sight distance. For the given terrain type (6), percent of road with safe passing sight distance (7), and the AADT (worksheet A7.1) determine from figures A7.3 to A7.6 the benefit cost ratio assuming a two percent traffic growth. Use the appropriate factor from table A7.7 to adjust the benefit cost ratio for traffic growth. Repeat this procedure to determine the optimal passing lane strategy in five-year increments. The optimal strategy for any particular analysis year is determined by considering in turn the BCR for each spacing alternative, beginning with the closest passing lane spacing strategy. If, when all other aspects of the strategy are taken into account, the BCR for the closest spacing is not sufficient to obtain funding (refer the NZTAs National Land Transport Programme) consider the next most frequent passing lane strategy.
Page 5-121

Example: Worksheet A7.2 Passing lane strategy analysis summary Activity option Initial analysis year Road section Passing lane strategy 2006 From 109/0 to 200/7 (increasing direction) PSD % (7) Method (8) Analysis year BCR 1 2 3 4 45 60 20 45
<60
Subsection Generalised Generalised Terrain type number gradient curvature (4) (5) (6)
Passing lane spacing strategy and BCR (9) + 5 years 2.0 2.0 2.8 1.3 3.8 Spacing 5 5 5 5 + 10 years BCR 2.8 3.5 1.5 4.8 Spacing 5 5 5 5 + 15 years BCR 3.0 4.2 1.8 5.6 Spacing 5 5 5 5 + 20 years BCR 3.2 4.8 2.1 6.2 Spacing 5 5 5 5 + 25 years BCR 3.4 4.5 2.3 7.0 Spacing 5 5 5 5
Spacing 5 5 5 5
150 300 50 150
Hilly Rolling
10% 15% 10% 15%
A7.5 A7.5 A7.5 A7.5
1.8 2.0 1.0 3.0
150 300 Mountainous 50 150 Rolling
20 45
Page 5-122

Worksheet A7.3 - Explanation This worksheet is used for the analysis of individual passing lanes within an overall strategy. The worksheet is completed as follows: 1. 2. Enter costs for the do-minimum and option. Data:
Enter the passing lane spacing from the passing lane strategy. If an isolated passing lane enter 20 kilometres. Enter the terrain type (from worksheet A7.2 or table A7.5). Enter the AADT for the analysis year. Enter traffic growth (expressed as a proportion of the time zero AADT). Enter the percentage of road with safe passing sight distance. Enter the length of the passing lane excluding tapers. Enter the proportion of heavy vehicles (the sum of the proportions of MCV, HCVI and HCVII). Enter the coefficient of variation of vehicle speeds if available. If not enter the default value of 13.5 percent.
3.
Calculations:
Determine the travel time and vehicle operating cost savings from figure A7.7 and multiply with the appropriate factors from table A7.9 and table A12.2. Determine the driver frustration benefits from figure A7.8 and multiply with the appropriate factors from table A7.9 and table A12.2. Calculate the base value of road user benefits. Enter the passing lane length adjustment from table A7.11. Adjust the base road user benefits. Adjust for variations in the proportion of heavy vehicles at the site. Adjust for variations in the distribution of vehicle speeds at the site. Determine the accident cost savings from figures A7.9 to A7.12. Multiply by the appropriate factor from table A7.12 and table A12.2. Alternatively, if appropriate, use accident by accident analysis. Calculate the total benefits. Calculate the total costs.
4.
Calculate the BCR.
Page 5-123

Example: Worksheet A7.3 Individual passing lane strategy analysis Activity option 1 Costs Do-minimum Activity option 2 Data Passing lane spacing (5, 10 or 20km) Terrain type (see table A7.5) Analysis year AADT (vehicles/day) Traffic growth (per year) Percentage PSD (proportion) Passing lane length Heavy vehicles (proportion) COV of speed (proportion) 3 Calculations Travel time, VOC savings (figure A7.7, adjusted using table A7.9 and table A12.2) Driver frustration benefits (figure A7.8, adjusted using table A7.10 and table A12.2) Base road used benefits (E + F) Passing lane length factor (table A7.11) Passing lane length adjustment (G x H) Heavy traffic adjustment I x [1 + (C 0.12)] Adjust for COV of speed J x [1 + (D 0.135) x 2.5] Accident cost savings (figures A7.9 to A7.12, adjusted using table A7.12 and table A12.2 or by accident by accident analysis) Benefit (K + L) Costs (B A) 4 BCR (Y/Z) C ( 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 860,000 E 81,000 F 941,000 G 1.07 H 1,006,870 I 1,027,007 J 1,001,332 K 430,000 L 5 km Rolling 4036 2 % 0.15 1.1 km 0.14 C 0.125 D $ $ 0 A 350,000 B
1,431,332 Y 350,000 Z 4.1
Page 5-124
Worksheets A8 External impacts

Worksheet A8.1 - Explanation Worksheet A8.1 is used to record external impacts. Refer to appendix A8 for guidance on the description, quantification and indicative valuation of external impacts. 1. 2. 3. Enter the activity option. Enter the types of monetised impacts Describe:
the groups affected. These may be residents of nearby properties, users of recreational facilities, pedestrians and cyclists, vehicle occupants, etc. They may also include flora and fauna affected by the proposed activity the extent of the effect, including the size of the impacts, eg increases in noise decibels, the number of households affected. If applicable, also state the time and duration of the effect.
4. 5. 6. 7.
Where it is feasible to derive a value for the external impact, describe the basis for valuing the effect. Calculate the value of the effect in dollars per unit per year by multiplying the numbers affected (3) by the unit value of the effect (4), or otherwise determine an overall value of the effect. Calculate for all monetised impacts by add the values of the individual impacts in (5) to determine the annual dollar value. Calculate the present value of all monetised impacts by multiplying the annual value in (6) by 11.70.
Page 5-125
Worksheets A8 External impacts continued

Example: Worksheet A8.1 External impacts summary 1 Activity option Nature of impact (2) Noise Alignment D Description of impacts (3) Reduced noise of 4dB(A) to pedestrians and adjacent houses (300 houses). Basis for valuing impacts (4) Reduced noise to individuals and residential buildings. Value of impacts (5) $228,000
$190 per dB(A) x 300 houses Air pollution Reduction in PM10 of 0.05g/m3 for three months of the year for city of 100,000. Restricted view of the museum due to the new infrastructure, affecting visitors and local residents (50,000 people/year). No change Improved access to the recreation area and reduced disturbance from the arterial road to the recreation area. No change $ $ 328,000 3,837,900 Increased number of people using the facility, and greater enjoyment for the users. $100,000 $40 per year per person exposed per g increase. $50,000
Visual impact
Estimated value per person of reduced view of the building.
($50,000)
Severance Special areas
Access 6 7
Annual value of monetised impacts (undiscounted) Present value of monetised impacts (annual value x 11.70)
Page 5-126

Worksheet A8.2 - Explanation This worksheet is used to analyse environmental mitigation measures incorporated in the preferred activity option. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Enter the preferred activity option. Describe the environmental mitigation measure. Describe the effect being mitigated. Enter the additional cost of the environmental mitigation measure to the activity. Enter the benefits of the environmental mitigation measure. The benefits of measures to reduce effects are assessed in accordance with the procedures specified in appendix A8. Calculate the BCR of the mitigation measure by dividing column (4) by column (3).
Page 5-127

Example: Worksheet A8.2 Analysis of environmental mitigation measures
Activity option Description of mitigating measure (2) Elevated roadway to allow existing kauri tree roots to remain.
Option A Effect being mitigated (3) Costs of measure (4) Benefit of measure (5) $2.0m BCR (6) = (5) / (4) 4.0
Damage to kauri tree $0.5m roots and hence the kauri trees.
Page 5-128

Worksheet A8.3 - Explanation This worksheet is used for comparing predicted noise levels with the ambient noise levels and the design guidelines. If the activity is small, it may be possible to accommodate all activity options on one sheet. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Enter the name of the activity option. Describe the types of facility affected by noise related to the activity, ie residences, educational facilities, shops and offices. Enter the number of households affected by noise or the length of frontage for other types of properties. Determine the ambient noise level in accordance with appendix A8.2. Determine the predicted noise level 10 years after the completion of the activity by referring to appendix A8.2. Calculate the change in noise level by subtracting the predicted noise level from the ambient noise level. Determine the noise design level in accordance with appendix A8.2, table A8.1. Calculate the variance from the design level by subtracting the noise design level from the predicted noise level, (6) (7).
Page 5-129

Example: Worksheet A8.3 Road traffic noise Activity option Facility affected Number of households/ frontage length (m) (3) Ambient noise level (db(a)) Predicted noise level (db(a)) Predicted change (db(a)) Noise design level (from table A8.1, db(a)) Variance from design guideline (db(a))
(1) Option A
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6) = (5) (4)
(7)
(8) = (5) (7)
Residences
100 200
52 68 52 68
68 65 68 65
16 -3 16 -3
62 70 62 -
6 6 -
Schools Shops Option B Residences Shops
2 200
200 200
68 68
71 71
3 3
70 -
1 -
Page 5-130
Worksheet A9.1 - Explanation This worksheet is used for comparing predicted noise levels with the ambient noise levels and the design guidelines. If the activity is small, it may be possible to accommodate all activity options on one sheet. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Enter the activity option and road section information from worksheet A4.1. Enter the road section length in km. Enter the section travel time from worksheet A4.1. Calculate the average road section speed as 60 x (2) / (3). Enter the ADDT for the road section. Enter the proportion of light vehicles as the sum of the passenger car and LCV (%). Enter the proportion of heavy vehicles as the sum of the MCV, HCVI, HCVII and bus (%). These are the default emission rate coefficients from appendix A9.3. Calculate the emission rate for each vehicle type and emission component using the equation from appendix A9.3, (10) x (4) 2 + (11) x (4) + (12). Calculate the weighted emission rate by multiplying the vehicle type emission rate by the appropriate percentage light or percentage heavy proportions from (6) or (7). Add together the light and heavy weighted emission rate to obtain the total for each emission component. Calculate the total emission component rate for the road section and time period by multiplying the emission component total rate (15) by the road section length (2) and the number of vehicles (5).
Page 5-131
Worksheets A9 Vehicle emissions continued

Worksheet A9.1 Component vehicle emissions
Activity option (do-minimum or option) Road section Time period
2 Road section length (km) 3 Travel time (min/vehicle) 4 Average road section speed (km/h) 5 AADT 6 Percentage light (Passenger + LCV) 7 Percentage heavy (MCV + HCVI + HCVII + Bus) Emission (8) CO CO CO CO NOX NOX NOX NOX PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 VOC VOC VOC VOC Light Heavy 5.53 x 10-4 3.07 x 10-4 Emission component total Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) Light Heavy 2.45 x 10
-5
Vehicle (9) Light Heavy
A (10) 3.6 x 10-3 6.47 x 10

-4
B (11) -0.545 -0.11
C (12) 25.5 7.31
Rate (13)
Weighted (14)
Emission component total Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) Light Heavy 2.46 x 10
-4 -3
Add light and heavy (14)
-0.0287 -0.275
1.67 17.4 Add light and heavy (14)
2.04 x 10
Emission component total Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) -0.00342 -0.0455
3.82 x 10-4 Emission component total
Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) -0.081 -0.0584 3.55 3.30 Add light and heavy (14)
Page 5-132

Worksheet A9.2 - Explanation This worksheet is used to summarise and calculate any monetised impact for vehicle emissions for the dominimum or option. Worksheet A9.1 can be used to calculate the emission rate as an input. 1. 2. 3. 4. Enter the activity option (eg the do-minimum, option A). Enter the road section information from worksheet A4.1. Enter the time period under consideration. Calculate the time periods per year in the period specified in (3). For instance if time periods are hours and period is 7:00am 9:00am on workdays the time periods per year is two (hours per period) 245 (workdays per year) = 490. Enter the vehicle emission component under consideration: CO2, CO, NOx, PM10 or volatile organic compounds (VOC). Enter the emission rate for the time period. The emission of CO, NOx, PM10, or VOC can be estimated from worksheet A9.1. CO2 emissions are calculated below as described in Appendix A9.7. For road links:

5. 6.
light CO2 (in tonnes) = road section vehicle operating cost x 0.0009 heavy CO2 (in tonnes) = road section vehicle operating cost x 0.0016 no CO2 savings can be claimed from shape corrections and reduced roughness costs.
From modelling of intersection improvements:

light CO2 (in tonnes) = fuel consumption (in litres) x 0.0022 heavy CO2 (in tonnes) = fuel consumption (in litres) x 0.0025.
7. 8.
Calculate the emission load. Calculate the total emission load per year for the section using the formula: (7) = (4) (6). Where a value has been provided in appendix A9, monetise the emission:
for CO2: one tonne CO2 = $40, or four percent of vehicle operating cost
for PM10: $40/person/year exposed per PM10 microgram/m3, or 0.001 x PM10 concentration x population exposed x normal death rate x value of life.
Page 5-133

Worksheet A9.2 Vehicle emissions summary
Option (1)
Time period (3)
Vehicle emission (5)
Emission rate (6)
Emission load (7)
Monetised impact (8)
Page 5-134
Worksheets A10 National strategic factors

Worksheet A10 - Explanation Worksheet A10 is used to record national strategic factors. Guidance is given in appendix A10 regarding valuation of these factors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Enter the activity option. Enter the nature of the national strategic factor. Describe the factors. Guidance is given in appendix A10 regarding those factors so far identified. Describe the basis for valuing the factor. Guidance is given in appendix A10. Calculate the present value of the factor(s). Calculate the total PV of the national strategic factors (if there is more than one).
Page 5-135
Worksheets A10 National strategic factors continued

Example: Worksheet A10 National strategic factors 1 Activity option Highway realignment
Nature of factor (2) Security of access
Description of factor (3) Reduces the probability from 0.05 to 0.01 of a slip obstructing access on a road carrying 2000 AADT with the average alternative route delay of 35 minutes, and reduces the average duration of slip obstruction from five hours to one hour. Realignment has two options the more expensive option would allow for future addition of a passing lane and connection to a planned road, whereas the cheaper option would not permit the additions. Current best forecasts of the rate of traffic growth and urbanisation indicate that the four laning and connection may never be economic. However, the traffic growth forecasts are very uncertain. If the cheaper option is chosen now, and the highest growth scenario eventuates, it may be impossible to provide the additions in the future due to planning constraints and extremely high costs of retrofitting. It is therefore recommended that the higher cost realignment is undertaken now, so that the ability to add the passing lane and road connection is retained.
Basis for valuing factor (4) Calculate the reduced travel time costs of using the alternative route from the reduced frequency and duration of obstructed access due to slips. Compare with the results of survey of drivers willingness to pay to reduce the frequency and duration of obstructed access due to slips. It will cost an additional $300,000 to construct the more expensive option, preserving the ability to expand in the future. This represents a 9% increase in cost. However, this additional expenditure reduces the BCR from 4.1 to 3.7. The added capital cost of $300,000 compares favourably with the potential retrofitting cost of $1,500,000. However the probability of requiring retrofitting may be low. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to the final choice of preferred activity option, and the rational for the final choice must be clearly provided.
Value of factors (5) $278,000 NPV vs $430,000 NPV Security of access NSF = $152,000 NPV
Investment option value
6 PV of national strategic factors
$ 152,000
Page 5-136
Worksheets A13 Risk analysis

Worksheet A13 - Explanation Explanations and examples for the risk analysis worksheets are contained in appendix A13. Worksheet A13.1 A13.2(a) A13.2(b) A13.3 Explanation and examples Appendix A13.5 and A13.6 Appendix A13.7 Appendix A13.8 Appendix A13.9
Page 5-137
Worksheets A13 Risk analysis continued

Worksheet A13.1 Summary of benefit risks A tick () should be placed alongside any risk which is judged to be either low or high. Where detailed information on risks is unavailable for the subcategories, an overall assessment should be given in the shaded row for the risk category as a whole. Low rating Benefit risks 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Base travel demand Age of data source Data scope Data quantity and statistical reliability Data validation Travel composition Other Growth forecasts High city population growth Development-related traffic as proportion of scheme traffic Time series projection Other Assignment Other future activities Path derivation method Routeing parameters Supply relationships Convergence Other Accidents Proportion of benefits accounted for by accidents Observed accident sample size Judgemental accident reduction risk Other High rating
Page 5-138

Worksheet A13.1 Summary of cost risks A tick () should be placed alongside any risk which is judged to be either low or high. Where detailed information on risks is not available for the subcategories, an overall assessment should be given in the shaded row for the risk category as a whole. Low rating Cost risks 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8 8.1 8.2 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Environmental and planning Tngata whenua issues Emissions Landscape and visual Ecological effects Archaeological and historic sites Social networks and severance Economic/amenity impacts on land users Natural hazards Other Land and property Property acquisition Property economic value Other Earthworks Knowledge of ground conditions Complex/unpredictable conditions Road design form Extent of topographical data Source and disposal of material Other Other engineering costs Engineering complexity Other Services Existence, location and condition Site flexibility Cooperation of utilities Other High rating
Page 5-139

Worksheet A13.1 Summary of cost risks A tick () should be placed alongside any risk which is judged to be either low or high. Where detailed information on risks is unavailable for the subcategories, an overall assessment should be given in the shaded row for the risk category as a whole. Low rating Cost risks 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 High rating
Page 5-140

Worksheet A13.2(a) Identified high risks Road category (a) Description (b) Estimated impacts on benefits and costs (c) Implications (d) Recommended actions (e)
Page 5-141

Example: Worksheet A13.2(b) Relative risk indicators
Risk category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Other relative risk indicators
Cost risk
Benefit risk (R1 =) (R2 =) (R3 =) (R4 =)
Programming risk
(R5 =) (R6 =) (R7 =) (R8 =) (R9 =) (R10 =) (RC =) (R11 =) (RB =)
(R12 =) (R13 =) (R14 =) (R15 =) (R16 =) (R17 =) (RBCR =)
Page 5-142

Worksheet A13.3 Activity cost contingencies Expected cost ( $)
Cost item
Contingency ($)
Total expected cost and overall contingency Confidence attributable to contingency

This should be expressed as the likelihood that the outturn costs would exceed the total estimated cost including the contingency.
Appendices
Introduction This chapter contains procedures and values used in economic evaluations and support both volumes of the NZ Transport Agencys Economic evaluation manual. Appendix Page
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14
Discounting and present worth factors Traffic data Travel time estimation procedures Travel time values Vehicle operating costs Accident costs Passing lanes External impacts Vehicle emissions National strategic factors Congested networks and induced traffic Update factors and incremental BCR Risk analysis Blank worksheets
A11 A21 A31 A41 A51 A61 A71 A81 A91 A101 A111 A121 A131 A141
Page A11
A1
A1.1
Discounting and present worth factors

Introduction
This appendix provides tables of present worth factors for use in discounting. A discussion on the economic principles of discounted cash flow and present worth is contained in chapter 2 of this manual. Topic Page
Introduction
In this appendix
A1.1 A1.2 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.6 A1.7
Introduction Discounting Single payment present worth factor Uniform series present worth factor Arithmetic growth present worth factor Annual present worth factors Quarterly present worth factors
A11 A12 A13 A15 A16 A17 A110
Page A12
A1.2
Discounting
Benefits and costs generally arise throughout the life of activities and to calculate their present worth or present value (PV) they need to be discounted back to time zero. Based on a discount rate of eight percent, sets of present worth factors have been calculated to convert future benefits and costs to their PVs (see tables A1.1 and A1.2). Some benefits and costs occur at a single point in time in which case single payment present worth factors (SPPWF) shall be used to discount the amounts to their PV. Other benefits and costs occur continuously over a number of years in which case either uniform series (USPWF) or arithmetic growth present worth factors (AGPWF) shall be used to discount the amounts to a PV, depending on whether the amounts are uniform or increase arithmetically over time (eg traffic and patronage growth). When discounting accident benefits the traffic growth rate will need to be adjusted in accordance with the procedures in appendix A6 to determine the appropriate arithmetic growth rate to apply. External impacts are assumed to remain constant so the uniform present worth series should be used to obtain the PV of monetised impacts. When discounting benefits or costs determined from a transportation model, the present worth factors specified in this appendix shall be used. If necessary, adjust values to time zero equivalents. Traffic growth rate may require a similar adjustment to time zero.
Page A13
A1.3
Single payment present worth factor

Where a single benefit or cost arises at some future time, an SPPWF shall be applied to calculate its PV. The formula for determining SPPWF factors is:
1 SPPWFin = (1 + i)n Where: n = time in years after time zero, and i = the discount rate in percent. = 1.08n 1 for an 8% discount rate
Single payment present worth factor
The PV of a single benefit or cost at time n shall be calculated as follows:

PV of benefit (or cost) = SPPWFin x benefit (or cost)
Example 1
For a section of road resealed 15 years after time zero at a cost of $50,000, the PV of the reseal cost using a discount rate of eight percent is: PV = $50,000 x SPPWF815 = $50,000 x 0.3152 = $15,760
Example 2
An activity costing $2 million with an implementation period of 15 months starting in the 8th month after time zero, has the following cash flow for expenditure: Second half of year 1 Month $ (000s) 7 0 8 50 9 50 10 50 11 100 12 150 Total 400
First half of year 2 Month $ (000s) 13 200 14 200 15 300 16 300 17 200 18 100 Total 1300
Second half of year 2 Month $ (000s) 19 50 20 50 21 100 225 100 23 0 24 0 Total 300
The PV of the implementation expenditure is: Using annual SPPWF from table A1.1 PV = ($400,000 + $1,300,000) x SPPWF81 + $300,000 x SPPWF82 = $1,700,000 x 0.9259 + $300,000 x 0.8573 = $1,831, 220
Page A14
A1.3
Single payment present worth factor continued

A more accurate calculation using quarterly SPPWF from table A1.2: PV = $150,000 x SPPWF80.75 + $450,000 x SPPWF81.00 + $800,000 x SPPWF81.25 + $350,000 x SPPWF81.50 + $250,000 x SPPWF81.75 = $150,000 x 0.9439 + $450,000 x 0.9259 + $800,000 x 0.9083 + $350,000 x 0.8910 + $250,000 x 0.8740 = $1,815,230
Example 2 continued
time zero +1.25 years

900 time zero + 1.00 years time zero + 0.75 years
$800k
Implementation expenditure
time zero + 1.25 years 600

$450k $350k
$300k $300k
time zero + 1.50 years
300
$150k
$50k $50k $50k $150k $100k
$200k $200k
$200k $100k $50k $50k
$250k
$100k $100k
0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Months after time zero
Quarterly cashflow
Monthly cashflow
Page A15
A1.4
Uniform series present worth factor

Where a series of equal benefits or costs arise each year or continuously over a period, USPWF shall be applied to calculate their PV. The USPWF factors shown in table A1.1 assume that the annual benefits or costs are evenly spread over each year and are continuously compounded. The formula for determining these USPWF factors is:
(1 (1 + i) - n ) USPWFin = loge (1 + i) Where: n = time in years after time zero, and i = the discount rate in percent.
Uniform series present worth factor
The PV of a time stream of equal annual benefits or costs shall be calculated as follows:
PV of benefits (or costs) = Annual benefit (or cost) x (USPWFe USPWFs) Where: s = the start year, and e = the end year of the cost or benefit stream.
Example
If maintenance costs for the do-minimum are $30,000 a year over a 32-year evaluation period (30 years plus two years to the start of construction), the PV of the maintenance costs is: PV = $30,000 x (USPWF832 USPWF80) = $30,000 x (11.8865 0) = $356,595
Page A16
A1.5
Arithmetic growth present worth factor

Where costs or benefits increase (or decrease) each year arithmetically, AGPWF together with the corresponding USPWF factors shall be applied to calculate their PVs. It shall be assumed that traffic growth is arithmetic. The AGPWF factors shown in table A1.1 assume that the annual benefits or costs occur continuously throughout the year and are continuously compounded. The formula for determining these AGPWF factors is:
AGPWFin = [loge (1 + i)]2 n.(1 + i)n. [loge (1 + i)]1 (1 + i)n. [loge (1 + i)]2 Where: n = time in years after time zero, and i = the discount rate in percent.
Arithmetic growth present worth factor (AGPWF)
The PV of a time stream of benefits or costs which increase or decrease arithmetically shall be calculated as follows:
PV of benefits (or costs) = Annual benefits (or costs) x {(USPWFe USPWFs) + (R x (AGPWFe AGPWFs))} Where: R = the arithmetic growth rate at time zero, s = the start year, and e = the end year of the cost or benefit stream.
Example
If vehicle operating costs are $70,000 with traffic growth of three percent at time zero, and construction finishes two years from time zero, the PV of the vehicle operating costs on the new construction is: PV = $70,000 x [(USPWF832 USPWF82) + 0.03 x (AGPWF832 AGPWF82)] = $70,000 x [(11.887 - 1.854) + 0.03 x (119.023 - 1.8061)] = $702,313
Page A17
A1.6
Annual present worth factors
Table A1.1(a): Annual present worth factors for eight percent discount rate (base case) Time (years from time zero in period 1 July to 30 June) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
1 2
Single payment SPPWF 1
Time (years from time zero) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Uniform series USPWF 2
Arithmetic growth AGPWF 2 0.000 0.4751 1.8061 3.8638 6.5331 9.7121 13.3107 17.2493 21.4577 25.8744 30.4454 35.1236 39.8681 44.6434 49.4188 54.1682 58.8692 63.5029 68.0536 72.5079 76.8554 81.0873 85.1970 89.1793 93.0305 96.7482 100.3311 103.7787 107.0914 110.2703 113.3171 116.2338 119.0230 121.6876 124.2307 126.6558 128.9663 131.1660 133.2586 135.2478 137.1375
1.0000 0.9259 0.8573 0.7938 0.7350 0.6806 0.6302 0.5835 0.5403 0.5002 0.4632 0.4289 0.3971 0.3677 0.3405 0.3152 0.2919 0.2703 0.2502 0.2317 0.2145 0.1987 0.1839 0.1703 0.1577 0.1460 0.1352 0.1252 0.1159 0.1073 0.0994 0.0920 0.0852 0.0789 0.0730 0.0676 0.0626 0.0580 0.0537 0.0497 0.0460
0.000 0.9625 1.8537 2.6789 3.4429 4.1504 4.8054 5.4120 5.9736 6.4936 6.9750 7.4209 7.8337 8.2159 8.5698 8.8975 9.2009 9.4818 9.7420 9.9828 10.2058 10.4123 10.6035 10.7806 10.9445 11.0963 11.2368 11.3670 11.4875 11.5990 11.7023 11.7980 11.8865 11.9685 12.0445 12.1148 12.1799 12.2401 12.2960 12.3476 12.3955
Assuming cost or benefit occurs at end of year. Assuming costs or benefits for year occur continuously throughout the year and are continuously compounded.
Page A18
A1.6
Annual present worth factors continued
Table A1.1(b): Annual present worth factors for six percent discount rate (sensitivity testing) Time (years from time zero in period 1 July to 30 June) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
1 2
1.0000 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 0.1643 0.1550 0.1462 0.1379 0.1301 0.1227 0.1158 0.1092 0.1031 0.0972
0.0000 0.9714 1.8879 2.7524 3.5680 4.3375 5.0634 5.7482 6.3943 7.0038 7.5787 8.1212 8.6329 9.1157 9.5711 10.0008 10.4061 10.7885 11.1493 11.4896 11.8107 12.1136 12.3993 12.6689 12.9232 13.1631 13.3895 13.6030 13.8044 13.9945 14.1738 14.3429 14.5025 14.6530 14.7950 14.9290 15.0554 15.1746 15.2871 15.3932 15.4933
Page A19
A1.6
Annual present worth factors continued
Table A1.1(c): Annual present worth factors for four percent discount rate (sensitivity testing) Time (years from time zero in period 1 July to 30 June) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
1 2
1.0000 0.9615 0.9246 0.8890 0.8548 0.8219 0.7903 0.7599 0.7307 0.7026 0.6756 0.6496 0.6246 0.6006 0.5775 0.5553 0.5339 0.5134 0.4936 0.4746 0.4564 0.4388 0.4220 0.4057 0.3901 0.3751 0.3607 0.3468 0.3335 0.3207 0.3083 0.2965 0.2851 0.2741 0.2636 0.2534 0.2437 0.2343 0.2253 0.2166 0.2083
0.0000 0.9806 1.9236 2.8302 3.7020 4.5403 5.3463 6.1213 6.8665 7.5831 8.2721 8.9345 9.5715 10.1841 10.7730 11.3393 11.8838 12.4074 12.9108 13.3949 13.8604 14.3079 14.7382 15.1520 15.5499 15.9325 16.3003 16.6540 16.9941 17.3212 17.6356 17.9380 18.2287 18.5082 18.7770 19.0355 19.2840 19.5229 19.7527 19.9736 20.1860
Page A110
A1.7
Quarterly present worth factors
Table A1.2: Quarterly single payment present worth factors for eight percent discount rate Time (years form time zero to quarters from 1 July to 30 June) 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.75 7.00 7.25 7.50 7.75 8.00 SPPWF eight percent discount rate (base case) 1.0000 0.9809 0.9623 0.9439 0.9259 0.9083 0.8910 0.8740 0.8573 0.8410 0.8250 0.8093 0.7938 0.7787 0.7639 0.7493 0.7350 0.7210 0.7073 0.6938 0.6806 0.6676 0.6549 0.6424 0.6302 0.6182 0.6064 0.5948 0.5835 0.5724 0.5615 0.5508 0.5403 SPPWF six percent discount rate (sensitivity testing) 1.0000 0.9855 0.9713 0.9572 0.9434 0.9298 0.9163 0.9031 0.8900 0.8771 0.8644 0.8519 0.8396 0.8275 0.8155 0.8037 0.7921 0.7806 0.7693 0.7582 0.7473 0.7365 0.7258 0.7153 0.7050 0.6948 0.6847 0.6748 0.6651 0.6554 0.6460 0.6366 0.6274 SPPWF four percent discount rate (sensitivity testing) 1.0000 0.9902 0.9806 0.9710 0.9615 0.9522 0.9429 0.9337 0.9246 0.9155 0.9066 0.8978 0.8890 0.8803 0.8717 0.8632 0.8548 0.8465 0.8382 0.8300 0.8219 0.8139 0.8060 0.7981 0.7903 0.7826 0.7750 0.7674 0.7599 0.7525 0.7452 0.7379 0.7307
Page A21
A2
A2.1
Traffic data
Introduction
This appendix provides standard values for traffic composition (based on the vehicle classes listed below), vehicle occupancy and trip purpose. Guidance is also provided on measuring and estimation traffic volumes, traffic growth and speed. These procedures can be used to provide traffic data for:

Introduction
the procedures in appendix A3 for estimating travel time in the absence of measured data, or in the absence of data from calibrated and validated transportation models.
Use of measured data
Wherever practical, measured data shall be used in preference to the default values given in the tables. Topic Page
In this appendix
A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4 A2.5 A2.6 A2.7 A2.8 A2.9
Introduction Traffic composition Separating the activity into its component sections Dividing the year into time periods Vehicle occupancy and travel purpose Traffic volumes Traffic growth rates Future traffic volumes Travel times and speed
A21 A22 A24 A25 A26 A28 A210 A212 A213
Page A22
A2.2
Traffic composition
The definitions for vehicle classes are provided in table A2.1. Road categories for the traffic data classifications in this appendix are provided in table A2.2. Vehicle classes Passenger cars Light commercial vehicles (LCV) Vehicle class composition Cars and station wagons, with a wheelbase of three metres or less. Vans, utilities and light trucks up to 3.5 tonnes gross laden weight. LCVs mainly have single rear tyres but include some small trucks with dual rear tyres. Two axle heavy trucks without a trailer, over 3.5 tonnes gross laden weight. Rigid trucks with or without a trailer, or articulated vehicle, with three or four axles in total. Trucks and trailers and articulated vehicles with or without trailers with five or more axles in total. Buses, excluding minibuses.
Vehicle classes Road categories
Table A2.1: Vehicle classes
Medium commercial vehicle (MCV) Heavy commercial vehicle I (HCV I) Heavy commercial vehicle II (HCV II) Buses Table A2.2: Road categories
Road categories Urban arterial
Definition Arterial and collector roads within urban areas carrying traffic volumes of greater than 7000 vehicles/day. Other urban roads, carrying less than 7000 vehicles/day. Arterial or collector roads, connecting main centres of population and carrying over 2500 vehicles/day. Other roads outside urban areas.
Urban other Rural strategic Rural other
Page A23
A2.2
Traffic composition continued

Table A2.3 provides standard traffic compositions. For larger activities or sites with unusual traffic characteristics, classification counts are required. Bus numbers are site dependent and are not included in the standard traffic composition. Note that traffic composition data is not provided for strategic routes on the fringes of large population centres (ie populations greater than 40,000). Such routes are characterised by predominantly rural strategic traffic mixes but with high commuter peaks more typical of an urban arterial road. On these routes individual surveys of traffic composition will normally be required. Also traffic stream compositions are likely to vary throughout the day, and the result of a single period survey may not accurately reflect the daily traffic composition if this is the case more surveys through the day will be required. Road category and time period Car Urban arterial Morning commuter peak Daytime interpeak Afternoon commuter peak Evening/nighttime Weekday all periods Weekend/holiday All periods Urban other Weekday Weekend/holiday All Periods Rural strategic Weekday Weekend/holiday All periods Rural other Weekday Weekend/holiday All Periods 78 84 81 11 6 9 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 75 83 78 12 5 10 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 86 87 86 8 9 8 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 85 84 84 85 85 87 85 10 11 11 9 10 8 10 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 LCV Vehicle class MCV HCVI HCVII
Standard traffic composition
Table A2.3: Traffic composition (%)
Page A24
A2.3
Procedure
Separating the activity into its component sections

Follow the steps below to separate the activity into its component sections:
Step 1 Separate the activity into: motorway sections multi-lane roads twolane rural roads other urban roads signalised intersections priority intersections roundabouts. Identify any bottleneck locations.
Action
General guidance
Sections must be chosen so as to ensure conservation of vehicle movements (ie the sum of the flows into a section must equal the sum of the flows out). Section lengths may be divided into subsections when it comes to calculating vehicle operating costs. Each motorway section or multi-lane road section shall consist of a length of road with:

uniform design speed one direction of travel uniform number of through lanes boundaries which generally extend between major interchanges where significant flows leave or join the section.
Guidance for two lane rural roads
Each twolane rural road section shall be at least one kilometre and not more than five kilometres in length. The twolane rural road section to be analysed may be longer than the activity length.
Page A25
A2.4 Dividing the year into time periods

Days of the year Each year is defined as having 365 days comprising of:

245 weekdays 52 Saturdays 68 Sundays and public holidays.
Weekends and holiday periods cover Saturday and Sunday, all public holidays and two weeks over Christmas and New Year. These account for 120 days per year. Time periods The default weekday time periods are:

morning commuter peak (7:00am 9:00am) daytime inter-peak (9:00am 4:00pm) evening commuter peak (4:00pm 6:00pm) evening/night time (6:00pm 7:00am).
Saturdays and Sundays do not usually need to be divided into time periods unless there are substantial demands. Follow the steps below to divide the year into time periods: Step 1 2 Action Divide the year into the days specified above. Divide each day type into time periods as follows: If there are only very low levels of vehicle interaction throughout any day is significant levels of vehicle interaction Then no division of the day is necessary Divide each day into a number of time periods to allow analysis at different flow levels, such that: operating conditions (such as proportion of traffic turning, percent working and vehicle composition) are essentially constant the period is long enough to ensure sufficient total capacity is available, even though for some of the time the capacity is exceeded.
Page A26
A2.5
Vehicle occupancy and travel purpose

Standard vehicle occupancy and travel purpose figures are provided in table A2.4. For large activities or sites with unusual traffic characteristics, vehicle occupancy surveys shall be conducted by roadside observation of the traffic stream in conjunction with classification counts. Vehicle occupancy counts shall include drivers and passengers. 'Working' refers to trips carried out in the course of paid employment. 'Commuting' refers to trips between home and work, while other refers to all other non-work trips (ie other than commuting). Travel purposes is a difficult characteristic to survey and recourse to the standard values provided in table A2.4 will be required in most cases. At present there is no accepted method of differentiating between work and non-work trips by observing moving traffic stream. Field surveys of trip purpose require roadside interviews. Survey results from urban transportation studies can be used where appropriate. The values in table A2.4 have been derived from the National Household travel survey.
Vehicle occupancy and travel purpose
Page A27
A2.5
Vehicle occupancy and travel purpose continued
Table A2.4: Vehicle occupancy and travel purpose Car Road category Occupancy Work Urban arterial AM peak Daytime interpeak PM peak Evening/night-time Weekday all periods Weekend All periods Urban other Weekday Weekend All periods 1.4 1.7 1.5 20 5 15 20 5 15 60 90 70 1.6 2.0 1.7 65 10 45 10 10 10 25 80 45 1.2 1.6 1.3 90 75 85 5 5 5 5 20 10 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 10 30 10 10 20 5 15 50 10 30 5 20 5 15 40 60 60 85 60 90 70 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 65 65 65 65 65 10 50 20 5 15 15 10 10 10 15 30 20 20 25 80 40 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.3 90 90 90 90 90 75 85 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 5 5 5 20 10 Commute Other Travel purpose (%) Occupancy Work Commute Other LCV Travel purpose (%) Occupancy Work Commute Other MCV and HCV Travel purpose (%)
Rural strategic and rural other roads Weekday Weekend All periods 1.6 2.2 1.7 40 5 30 10 5 10 50 90 60 1.6 2.0 1.7 75 10 55 5 10 5 20 80 40 1.3 1.8 1.4 90 75 85 5 5 5 5 20 10
Page A28
A2.6 Traffic volumes

Use of transportation models to predict traffic volumes Wherever properly calibrated and validated transportation models are available in urban areas, they shall be used to assess the effects of the activity on traffic volumes and predict future traffic volumes. As well as the normal validation required to ensure that the models are operating satisfactorily, they shall also be validated in the local area containing the activity. Transportation models usually account for but do not separately identify normal and diverted traffic. In determining the do-minimum traffic volumes, models shall be iterated from distribution to assignment until convergence is achieved. The same trip matrix shall then normally be used for evaluating the do-minimum and the activity options. In highly congested activity option networks, variable matrix methods (see appendix A11) need to be applied. Traffic volumes Traffic volumes are generally expressed in terms of annual average daily traffic (AADT) and average weekday, average weekend/holiday, average hour or average quarter hour volumes. The methods given below for determining traffic volumes based on traffic counts are derived from Transit New Zealands Guide on estimating AADT and traffic growth. To estimate AADT from a sample count it is necessary to adjust the count data for a number of factors. Count data shall be checked for consistency and reasonableness and axle pair counts (eg from tube counters) shall be corrected by applying an adjustment factor to convert from axle pair counts vehicle counts. Daily counts for less than a week shall be adjusted by applying day factors (for the appropriate typical traffic pattern) to derive weekly average daily traffic. Weekly average daily traffic figures shall then be adjusted by applying the appropriate week factors to derive AADTs. If more than one week is counted, the AADT shall be determined for each week, and then averaged. To determine day and week factors, the appropriate traffic pattern control group shall be identified from Transit New Zealands Guide on estimating AADT and traffic growth. Alternatively these factors may be derived from rigorous local traffic counting programmes. Method for estimating weekday or weekend/holiday volume The weekday, Saturday and Sunday/holiday volumes shall be derived from AADTs by applying locally derived day factors where these are available, or the factors in Transit New Zealands Guide on estimating AADT and traffic growth if local data is not available. The Saturday and Sunday/holiday volumes so obtained shall be averaged to derive an average weekend/holiday daily volume. Where traffic volumes are required for shorter time periods than a day, then these shall be obtained from directional counts. Counts done to produce estimates of the AADT will usually have been obtained from traffic counters that record volumes by 60 or 15-minute intervals. Week factors shall be applied to these counts to obtain estimates of 60 or 15-minute traffic volumes. For intersection volumes, manual counts of turning movements should be consistent with the requirements of NZS 5431:1973 clause 5.4.
Method for estimating AADT
Method for estimating hourly or quarter hourly directional volumes
Page A29
A2.6 Traffic volumes continued

Axle pair adjustment factors Wherever possible measured data shall be used to determine the axle pair adjustment factors, but in absence of such data the following factors shall be used. To convert axle pairs to vehicles, multiply by the appropriate factor. Road category Urban Rural Axle pair adjustment factor 0.91 0.83
Page A210
A2.7
Traffic growth rates

Traffic growth rates shall be arithmetic growth rates (not geometric growth rates) and expressed as a percentage of the predicted traffic volume at the time zero. Actual traffic counts at the site (or at adjacent sites) shall be used to determine current traffic growth rates wherever possible. This requires at least four counts in the last six years sufficient to estimate traffic volumes (or seven or more counts in the last 10 years). This information shall be checked for consistency with traffic counts at nearby sites and with the default values provided in table A2.5. The traffic volume and the average traffic growth rate at time zero shall then be determined using linear regression to best fit the traffic volume data. To estimate the traffic growth rate for several sites combined, traffic growth rates shall be calculated for each site for which count data are available, and a weighted average calculated (where the traffic growth rate for each site is weighted by its traffic volume at time zero). It might not be appropriate to assume continuation of current traffic growth rates over the whole activity analysis period. The current traffic growth rate shall be adjusted, as appropriate, to account for the influences described in appendix A2.8.
Traffic growth rates
High traffic growth rates
When actual traffic counts produce high growth rates an explanation shall be provided that identifies the reason for the high growth and whether the rate will be sustained over the analysis period. High growth is defined as being twice the relevant default value or four percent when no default value is provided in table A2.5. When a high growth rate is used in the base analysis, a sensitivity analysis is required using the default value provided in table A2.5 or four percent when no default value is provided.
Default traffic growth rates
Where local traffic growth rates cannot be established reliably, the default values for the region and road category given in table A2.5 shall be used. The default traffic growth rates given in table A2.5 were determined principally from counts taken over the period 1980 to 2000, taking into account factors such as trends in population growth, gross domestic product and car ownership. The default traffic growth rates are provided for each region of New Zealand and the cities of Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau within the Auckland Region.
Page A211
A2.7
Traffic growth rates continued
Table A2.5: Annual percentage arithmetic traffic growth for period zero to 30 years Region Arterial percentage growth Northland Auckland Region Auckland City North Shore City Waitakere City Manukau City Waikato Bay of Plenty Gisborne Hawkes Bay Taranaki Manawatu Wanganui Wellington Nelson Marlborough Canterbury West Coast Otago Southland 3 N/A 1.5 3 3 3 2 2.5 1 1.5 1.5 2 2 2.5 2 N/A 1.5 1 Urban Other percentage growth 2 N/A 1.5 2 2 2 1 2 1 1.5 1 1.5 2 2 2 2 1.5 1 Strategic percentage growth 3 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 2.5 1 2 1.5 2 2 2.5 3 N/A 2 1 Rural Other percentage growth 2.5 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.5 2.5 1 1 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 2.5 2 1.5 1
Note: N/A means not applicable.
Page A212
A2.8 Future traffic volumes

Future traffic volumes In predicting future traffic volumes, normal traffic growth, diverted traffic, generated and redistributed traffic, and intermittent traffic shall be taken into account. The procedure adopted for estimating future traffic volumes must fulfil the requirement that demand is in approximate equilibrium with supply. Traffic growth rates determined in accordance with appendix A2.7 are considered to provide a sound basis for predicting future traffic demands provided there are no traffic restraints. If there are capacity restrictions in the system then the traffic volume shall not exceed capacity available within the time period under analysis, taking into account the potential for trip diversion, peak spreading and trip suppression. If the level of service is low, peak spreading should be considered. Appendix A11 provides guidance on the treatment of peak spreading. If the site is upstream or downstream of a bottleneck and the bottleneck is not being relieved by the activity, the volume at the site will be constrained by the capacity of the bottleneck, and therefore traffic volumes and traffic growth rate at the activity site shall reflect this restriction on growth, subject to peak spreading. In some situations changing land use patterns can significantly alter the traffic volumes at a site. For example, the development of large supermarket in an urban area may cause a one off upward step in traffic volumes. Diverted traffic Diverted traffic to or from the route(s) served by the activity occurs when:

Normal traffic growth
traffic reroutes from another route because the activity (or another activity on the route) now makes this the preferred route traffic reroutes to another route because an activity on that route now makes it the preferred route capacity restraints at the activity site or elsewhere on the route cause traffic to reroute to other routes capacity restraints on other routes cause traffic to reroute to the route.
These effects shall be taken into account in estimating future traffic volumes. Induced traffic Activities that reduce the cost of travel by reducing travel time or removing constraints can induce new trips or redistribute trips. In the cases where induced or redistributed trips are expected to significantly affect the evaluation, then a variable matrix approach should be adopted (see appendix A11). Intermittent traffic is traffic that will not occur over the full life of the activity. Examples include traffic from forestry lots which produce a short-term demand at logging time, or traffic generated by major construction activity such as power station which produces traffic for duration of the construction period. In calculating future traffic volumes, intermittent traffic shall be taken into account.
Intermittent traffic
Page A213
A2.9 Travel times and speed

Travel time and/or speeds shall be measured where required. Suitable methods for measuring average travel times or speed depending on circumstances include:

floating car survey number plate survey spot measurement of speed.
The floating car and number plates survey methods measure the average travel time over a length of road. The floating car survey methods is relatively cheap and convenient method but will not readily differentiate the average travel times of light and heavy traffic. It is only suitable for higher traffic volumes in excess or 500 vehicles/hour/lane. The number plate method is a larger undertaking but potentially more accurate and has ability to give data on the average travel times of individual or categories of vehicle. Several software packages are available for analysing number plate survey data as are electronic field-book programmes for facilitating the data input. The average travel time over a section of road may not provide sufficient information for calculating vehicle operating costs if one or more speed change cycles occur within the section. Speed change cycles should be separately identified in urban areas where speeds reduce to below 20km/h and for rural areas where vehicles slow down for example to negotiate a sharp bend or at an intersection. In such cases, spot measurement of speed will be required at a sufficient number of other locations to establish the average cruise speed for the road section and at the points of minimum speed. If vehicles stop at any point on the road section, then the average length of stopped time will also be required for the operating cost calculations. An alternative to spot measurements of speed will be to arrange number plate survey points such that they do not contain speed change cycles within their length. When averaging the results of speed spot measurements, the space mean speed should be calculated using the following formula:
v= n
1 v1 +
1 v2 +
1 v3 +
1 v4
+ +
1 vi
1 vn
Where: vi = spot speed measurement. n = total number of spot speed measurements.
Page A214
A2.10 References
1. Bennett, CR (October 1985) A methodology for conducting traffic surveys for use with TRARR analyses, National roads board roading directorate report RRS005. Carpenter P, Mara M, Morgan Y, Tate F and Wilkie S (2004) Monitoring and Data management protocol: Environmental indicators for transport. Ministry for the Environment New Zealand. Standards New Zealand (1973) NZS 5431: Specification for traffic signals. Transfund New Zealand (2000) Update and enhancement of traffic count guide. Transfund New Zealand research report 202. Transfund New Zealand (2000) Guide to estimates and monitoring of traffic counting and traffic growth. Transfund New Zealand research report 205. Transit New Zealand (1994) Guide on estimating AADT and traffic growth.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6.
Page A31
A3
A3.1
Travel time estimation procedures

Use of travel time estimation procedures
Travel times shall be estimated according to the procedures in this appendix. Definitions for classifying traffic data and default traffic data values are provided in appendix A2. Where a specific procedure is not given, the travel time shall be determined according to a recognised procedure compatible with the manuals and procedures referred to in this appendix. The methods are capable of application by hand, spreadsheet and within transportation models. The methodology gives a reasonable approximation for travel time without having to analyse dynamic queuing situations. More precise methods are not precluded.
Introduction
Use of measured data
Wherever practical, measured data shall be used in preference to the default values given in the tables. The procedures for road sections are based on and are consistent with the Highway capacity manual (HCM). The procedures for intersections are drawn from Akcelik and Rouphail(1), ARRB internal report 3671(2), ARRB research report 123(3), Kimber and Hollis(10) and Austroads Guide to traffic engineering practice, part 6 Roundabouts(4).
Basis of methodology
Transportation models
When a transportation model is used for activity analysis, the model shall have been satisfactorily validated on both traffic volumes and travel times. Checklists for validating transportation models are provided in worksheet 8 of the full procedures. It is necessary that the travel times used by the model to derive the flows must be consistent with the travel times estimated by using this appendix during evaluation. To adhere to this it is suggested that the functions implied by the procedures in this appendix be used as a starting point, and modified as necessary to get a satisfactory validation.
In this appendix
Topic
Page
A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A3.4 A3.5 A3.6
Use of travel time estimation procedures The stages for estimating travel time Determining traffic volumes Calculating free speed travel time Determining the free speed of multi-lane roads Determining the free speed of two-lane rural roads
A31 A33 A34 A35 A36 A38 continued
Page A32
A3.7 A3.8 A3.9 A3.10 A3.11 A3.12 A3.13 A3.14 A3.15 A3.16 A3.17 A3.18 A3.19 A3.20 A3.21
Determining the free speed of other urban Determining the capacity of road sections Determining the capacity of motorways Determining the capacity of multi-lane roads Determining the capacity of two-lane rural roads Determining whether vehicle interactions are significant Types of delay Average peak interval traffic intensity Determining the peak interval Calculating the average peak interval traffic intensity Calculating the volume to capacity Calculating the additional travel time Calculating bottleneck delay Determining whether to consider peak spreading Determining the additional travel time resulting from speed change Calculating the time period total average travel time Traffic signals Priority intersections Roundabouts References
A310 A312 A313 A315 A316 A318 A319 A320 A321 A323 A324 A325 A328 A331
A332 A334 A335 A340 A343 A344
A3.22 A3.23 A3.24 A3.25 A3.26
Page A33
A3.2
The stages for estimating travel time

The flow chart below shows the basic stages for estimating road section travel time (the stages are slightly different for intersections).
Flow chart for estimating travel time
Page A34
A3.3
Determining traffic volumes

This procedure details the base and future year traffic volumes that need to be determined for estimating travel time. In some cases, growth constraint methods may be needed to estimate the dominimum and activity option matrices where high future levels of congestion are anticipated, usually because the network(s) have insufficient capacity to meet unrestrained travel demands. In some cases, variable matrix methods may be needed to estimate the do-minimum and activity option matrices (refer to appendix A11).
Introduction
Definition
The base traffic volumes are the traffic volumes as at either:

a recent census year adjusted to time zero, or a year at which the transportation model has been calibrated to time zero.
Procedure
Follow the steps below to determine traffic volumes: Step 1 2 Action Determine the base traffic volumes for each section using the procedure outlined in appendix A2.6, or by means of a transportation model. Estimate the traffic volumes for each section for at least two future years using a suitable prediction method. Note: The method adopted for estimating future traffic volumes must satisfy the requirement that demand is in approximate equilibrium with supply. Judge whether future year capacity problems occur. Note: This step requires an estimate of the capacity that is not determined until appendix A3.8. A first iteration of this whole procedure may be used before judging whether this step is relevant. If there is Sufficient capacity for future year traffic volumes in the do-minimum and activity option. Adequate levels of service for future year traffic volumes in the activity option, but not in the do-minimum (typically a dominimum level of service of E or F). Then Generally apply standard fixed trip matrices and evaluation procedures.
Generally improve the capacity of the do-minimum network and/or apply growth constraint techniques to the do-minimum matrix (see appendix A11.1). When evaluating activity benefits, use the procedures in worksheet 3. Generally apply variable matrix methods (see appendix A11.9). When evaluating activity benefits, use the procedures in worksheet 3. For verification purposes, carry out a fixed matrix analysis using growth constraint techniques (appendix A11.2).
High congestion (typically level of service E or F) in both the do-minimum and activity options.
Page A35
A3.4 Calculating free speed travel time

When to use Procedure Use this procedure for all road section types. Follow the steps below to determine traffic volumes: Step 1 Action Take measurements of free speed in the field at flow rates below 600veh/h per lane. Alternatively, measurements of free speed from a similar road section in the locality, with similar characteristics, can be used. Note: To proceed with a preliminary value of free speed before measurements have been collected or if the road section is part of a proposed facility, then follow step 2. If measured speeds are not available, then determine the free speed using the appropriate procedure as follows: If the road section is a motorway section a multli-lane road a two-lane rural road an other urban road 3 Then use the procedure in 105km/h where design speed >110km/h Appendix A3.5 Appendix A3.6 Appendix A3.7
Using the free speed determined in either step 1 or 2, calculate the travel time in minutes per kilometre. Example: Free speed = 100km/h Free speed travel time = 60/100 = 0.600min/km. Determine the capacity from appendix A3.8. Other urban road capacity is not required for calculating travel time but used in determining additional vehicle operating cost of congestion.
Page A36
A3.5
Determining the free speed of multi-lane roads

This procedure is called from appendix A3.4. The free speed of proposed or existing facilities for which there is no measured data is estimated by adjusting the basic free speed under ideal conditions. Adjustments to the basic free speed are made for:

When to use
dividing medians lane width lateral clearance density of access points.
Lateral clearance
The lateral clearance is the sum of any median shoulder and sealed left hand shoulder widths beyond the edge of the through lanes that are continuously available. Follow the steps below to determine the free speed of a multi-lane road section. Step 1 Action If measured speeds are not available, then determine the basic free speed for the multilane road section as follows: If the section has a posted speed limit of 100km/h 80km/h 70km/h 50km/h 2 Then use a basic free speed of 105km/h 90km/h 80km/h 60km/h
Procedure
Adjust the basic free speed to account for dividing medians as follows: Dividing median Has a dividing median No dividing median Adjustment to basic free speed No reduction Reduce by 3km/h
Adjust the basic free speed to account for lane widths as follows: If lane width are 3.5 metres or greater Less than 3.5 metres Adjustment to basic free speed No reduction Reduce by 3km/h
Page A37
A3.5
Determining the free speed of multi-lane roads continued

Step 4 Action Adjust the basic free speed to account for lateral clearance as follows: If the section has lateral clearance of 3 metres or greater Less than 3 metres but at least 2 metres Less than 2 metres but at least 1 metre Less than 1 metre 5 Adjustment to basic free speed No reduction Reduce by 2km/h Reduce by 4km/h Reduce by 9km/h
Procedure continued
Adjust the basic free speed to account for density of access points along the section as follows: If the section has a density of access points per km of Less than 40 No dividing 40 or more Adjustment to basic free speed 0.4km/h per access point 16km/h
Example calculation
Below is an example calculation for the free speed of a multi-lane road section where measured speeds are not available. Posted speed limit Median divided Lane width Lateral clearance Access points density Basic free speed Dividing median speed reduction Lane width speed reduction Lateral clearance speed reduction Access point speed reduction Free speed = = = = = = = = = = = 70km/h yes 3.5m 1.0m 10 per kilometre 80km/h 0km/h 0km/h 4km/h 10 0.4 = 4km/h 80 0 0 4 4 = 72km/h
Page A38
A3.6 Determining the free speed of two-lane rural roads

When to use This procedure is called from appendix A3.4 and should be used if no measured speeds are available. The procedure adopted in this section provides a realistic but approximate method for assessing travel times. Alternatively the HCM provides a more detailed methodology for the evaluation of local improvements, such as design speed increases and climbing and passing lanes, and the computer programme TRARR may be used for detailed analyses. The definition of design speed used in this section is that used by the HCM and the Austroads Guide to traffic engineering practice, part 2 Roadway capacity. The free speed of a two-lane rural road is determined by the speed environment that can be approximated by the average design speed of the road section under consideration and the associated approaches. Follow the steps below to determine the free speed of a two-lane rural road section. Step 1 Action Obtain the following basic data for the road section: length of road section centreline length of each curve including transitions length of each straight (tangent) design speed of the straights (tangents) design speed of the curves. Calculate the travel time for each curve and straight, as per steps 3 and 4. Note: It is acceptable to assume an abrupt change in speed where straights and curves meet. Calculate the travel time on curves (including transitions). Example: Curve 1 length = 0.200km Curve 1 design speed = 80km/h Curve 1 travel time = 0.2/80 60 = 0.150 minutes Curve 2 length = 0.150km Curve 2 design speed = 70km/h Curve 2 travel time = 0.15/70 60 = 0.129 minutes Curve 3 length = 0.100km Curve 3 design speed = 70km/h Curve 3 travel time = 0.10/70 60 = 0.086 minutes Total curve travel times = 0.150 + 0.129 + 0.086 = 0.365 minutes
Option for more detailed methodology
Design speed
Procedure
Page A39
A3.6 Determining the free speed of two-lane rural roads continued

Procedure continued Step 4 Action Calculate the travel time on the straights (tangents). Note: Unless constrained by other design criteria the design speed for straights (tangents) should be assumed to be 100km/h in severe terrain and a maximum of 120km/h in gentler country (Austroads Rural Road Design). Example: Tangent length = 0.550km Tangent design speed = 120km/h Tangent travel time = 0.550/120 60 = 0.275 minutes Calculate the total travel time on the road section. Example: Travel time on curves = 0.365 minutes Travel time on straights = 0.275 minutes Total travel time = 0.365 + 0.275 = 0.640 minutes Calculate the average design speed for the road section. Example: Road section length = 1 kilometre Total travel time = 0.640 minutes Average design speed = 1/0.640 60 = 93.75km/h Determine the free speed as follows: If the average design speed is Above 100km/h Below 100km/h Example: Average design speed Free speed = = = 93.75km/h 105 ([(100 93.75) / 18] 13) 100.5km/h Then the free speed is 105km/h 105km/h minus 13km/h for every 18km/h reduction in design speed below 100km/h
Page A310
A3.7
Determining the free speed of other urban

This procedure is called from appendix A3.4 and should be used if no measured speeds are available. Follow the steps below to determine the free speed of an other urban road. Step 1 Action Determine the classification of the other urban road section as follows: If the design category of the road section is suburban suburban intermediate intermediate urban urban Design category Criterion Driveway/ access density Arterial type Suburban Low density Intermediate Moderate density Urban High density And the functional category is principal minor principal minor principal minor Then the road classification is Class I Class II Class II Class II or III Class II or III Class III
When to use
Procedure
Multi-lane divided, undivided or twolane with shoulders. No Yes 0.6 3.0 Little Low to medium
Multi-lane divided or undivided, oneway, two-lane. Some Usually 26 Some Medium to moderate
Undivided oneway, two-way, two or more lanes. Significant Some 48 Usually High
Parking Separate right-turn lanes Signals/km Pedestrian activity Roadside development density
Page A311
A3.7
Determining the free speed of other urban continued

Step 1 continued Functional category Criterion Mobility function Access function Points connected Principal Very important Very minor Motorways, important activity centres, major traffic generators. Relatively long trips between major points and throughtrips entering, leaving, and passing through the city. Minor Important Substantial Principal arterials Action
Procedure continued
Predominant trips served
Trips of moderate length within relatively small geographical areas
Determine the free speed for the road section as follows: If the road classification is Class I Class II Class III Then the range of likely free speeds is between 60 and 65km/h 50 and 60km/h 45 and 55km/h And a typical free speed would be 63km/h 55km/h 50km/h
Page A312
A3.8 Determining the capacity of road sections

Introduction In the absence of measured capacities, the capacity of a road section shall be determined by the methods specified in this appendix for each facility type according to the conditions that prevail during the time interval. For example, when estimating capacity: the proportion of commercial vehicles, the average intensity of conflicting flows, and the performance of traffic control devices during the time interval shall be taken into account. For other road types not covered by these procedures refer to the HCM. In fulfilling the requirement that demand is in approximate equilibrium with supply, the procedure adopted for estimating future traffic volumes must ensure that in particular, the estimated traffic volume over any time period is less than the total available capacity for the time period of all road sections and intersections located within and near the activity under analysis Blocking back onto upstream sections Where traffic volumes exceed capacity, the resulting queues may block back onto upstream links. In such circumstances care must be taken that the delays arising on the under capacity section are not double counted on any upstream section. Follow the steps below to select the appropriate procedure for determining the capacity of each road section. Step 1 Action Select the appropriate procedure for determining the capacity of each road section as follows: If the road section is a motorway section a multi-lane road a two-lane rural road an other urban road Then go to appendix A3.9 appendix A3.10 appendix A3.11 appendix A3.22 It is not necessary to determine capacity for travel time. However the capacities below are required when determining the additional congestion vehicle operating cost. Road class Class I Class II Class III 2 Once the capacity has been determined go to appendix A3.12. Capacity 1200veh/lane/hour 900veh/lane/hour 600veh/lane/hour
Selecting the appropriate procedure
Page A313
A3.9 Determining the capacity of motorways

When to use This procedure is called from appendix A3.8.
Procedure
Following the steps below to determine the capacity of a motorway section where each direction of travel is a separate motorway section component (see appendix A2.3). Capacities are expressed as passenger car equivalents (pcu). Step 1 Action Determine the basic capacity for the motorway section as follows: If the road section has 2 through lanes 3 through lanes 4 through lanes 2 Then use a basic capacity of 4500pcu/h 6900pcu/h 9600pcu/h
Determine the passenger car equivalent to be used for trucks for the motorway section as follows: If the terrain type is level rolling mountainous Then use a passenger car equivalent for trucks (Et) of 1.7pcu 4.0pcu 8.0pcu
Calculate the adjustment factor for trucks using the passenger car equivalent for trucks (Et) determined in step 2. Adjustment factor (ft) = 1/ (1 + Pt x (Et 1)) Where: Pt = the proportion of trucks in the traffic stream during the peak period. Example: Terrain type = rolling Proportion of trucks (Pt) = 0.12 Pcu for trucks (Et) = 4.0pcu Adjustment factor (ft) = 1/(1 + 0.12 (4.0 1 )) = 0.735 Calculate the motorway section capacity by multiplying the basic capacity, determined in step 1, by the adjustment factor for trucks (ft) determined in step 3. Motorway section capacity = Basic capacity x ft Example: Through lanes = 3 lanes Basic capacity = 6900pcu/h Adjustment factor (ft) = 0.735 Motorway section capacity = 6900 0.735 = 5072veh/h
Page A314
A3.9 Determining the capacity of motorways continued

Using field measurements If actual field measurements at the site give a different capacity from that which is determined above, then the field measurements should be used. However, if field measurements are used, then the analyst must prove that the measurements are representative of the average capacity in a variety of conditions. Auxiliary lanes within road sections may contribute to the roads capacity in which case the detailed procedures of the HCM shall be used. Otherwise the auxiliary lanes shall be considered not to contribute to the capacity.
Accounting for auxiliary lanes
Page A315
A3.10 Determining the capacity of multi-lane roads

When to use This procedure is called from appendix A3.8.
Procedure
Follow the steps below to determine the capacity of a multi-lane road. Step 1 Action Obtain the sum of the basic free speed reductions for the multi-lane road section, as determined in appendix A3.8. Example: Free speed reductions for: dividing median = 0km/h lane width = 0km/h lateral clearance = 4km/h access points = 4km/h Sum of the basic free speed reductions = 8km/h Note: If the free speed for the multi-lane road section was measured rather than estimated, then use step 1 of the procedure in appendix A3.8 to determine the multi-lane road basic free speed and subtract the measured free speed to obtain the equivalent of the sum of the basic free speed reductions. 2 Determine the capacity of the multi-lane road section as follows: If the sum of the basic free speed reduction is zero between zero and 30km/h above 30km/h Example: Sum of the basic free speed reductions Road section capacity Then use a capacity of 2200veh/h per lane 2200veh/h per lane minus 10veh/h per lane for every km/h of basic free speed reductions 1900veh/h per lane
= = =
8km/h 2200 8 10 2120veh/h per lane
Page A316
A3.11 Determining the capacity of two-lane rural roads

When to use This procedure is called from appendix A3.8. The capacity of the road section shall be calculated by adjusting the ideal capacity of 2800veh/h (total in both directions of travel) to account for the following factors:

directional distribution of traffic during the time period the presence of narrow lanes and restricted shoulders the proportion of heavy vehicles in the flow.
Procedure
Follow the steps below to determine the capacity of a two-lane rural road section. Step 1 Action Determine the adjustment factor for traffic directional distribution during the time period as follows: If the directional distribution is Then use an adjustment factor of: 100/0 90/10 80/20 70/30 60/40 50/50 2 3 0.71 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.94 1.00
Determine the total roadway width. The total roadway width equals the lane width(s) plus sealed shoulder width. Round to the nearest metre. With the total roadway width determined in step 2 determine the adjustment factor for trafficable width as follows: If the total roadway width is 8 metres or greater 7 metres 6 metres 5 metres 4 metres less than 4 metres Then use an adjustment factor of: 1.00 0.91 0.82 0.73 0.65 0.60
Page A317
A3.11 Determining the capacity of two-lane rural roads continued

Procedure continued Step 4 Action Determine the passenger car equivalent for trucks for the road section as follows: If the terrain type is level rolling mountainous 5 Then use a passenger car equivalent for trucks (Et ) of: 2.2pcu 5.0pcu 10.0pcu
Calculate the adjustment factor for trucks using the passenger car equivalent for trucks (Et) determined in step 4. Adjustment factor (ft) = 1/(1 + Pt x (Et 1 )) Where Pt is the proportion of trucks in the traffic stream during the time period Example: Terrain type = rolling Proportion of trucks (Pt) = 0.10 pcu for trucks (Et) = 5.0pcu Adjustment factor (ft) = 1/[1 + 0.10 (5.0 1))] = 0.714 Calculate the road section capacity by multiplying the ideal twoway capacity of 2800veh/h by the adjustment factors determined in steps 1, 3 and 5. Road section capacity = Ideal capacity x adjustment factor for directional distribution x adjustment factor for trafficable width x ft Example: Directional distribution = 70/30 Trafficable width = 7.0 metres Adjustment factors: directional distribution trafficable width trucks Road section capacity = = = = = 0.89 0.91 0.714 2800 0.89 0.91 0.714 1620veh/h
Calculate the peak direction capacity using the road section capacity determined in step 6. Peak direction capacity = road section capacity x proportion of traffic in the peak direction Example: Proportion of traffic in peak direction = 0.7 Peak direction capacity = 1620 0.7 = 1134veh/h
Page A318
A3.12 Determining whether vehicle interactions are significant

Introduction When the effects of vehicle interactions are significant on road sections it is necessary to calculate the additional travel time caused by those interactions. Vehicle interactions do not apply to other urban roads. Follow the steps below to determine whether the effects of vehicle interactions are significant: Step 1 2 3 Action Use the capacity for the road section determined in appendix A3.8. Take a time period with its corresponding traffic volume (demand) as determined in appendix A3.3. Calculate the volume to capacity ratio. Example: Time period = Time period traffic volume = Traffic flow = = Capacity = Volume to capacity ratio (VC ratio) = =
Procedure
7:00am to 9:00am 6202 vehicles 6202/2 3101veh/h 4300veh/h 3101 / 4300 0.72
Determine whether the effects of vehicle interactions are significant as follows: If the road section is a motorway section motorway section multi-lane road multi-lane road two-lane rural road two-lane rural road And the VC ratio is greater than 0.7 0.7 or less greater than 0.7 0.7 or less greater than 0.7 0.7 or less Then vehicle interactions shall be considered (go to appendix A3.13) are not considered (go to appendix A3.21) shall be considered (go to appendix A3.13) are not considered (go to appendix A3.21) shall be considered (go to appendix A3.13) are not considered (go to appendix A3.21)
Repeat steps 2 to 4 for any other time periods in which traffic volumes are likely to result in significant vehicle interactions.
Page A319
A3.13 Types of delay

Introduction This section describes the difference between vehicle interaction delay and bottleneck delay, explaining why the two types of delay require different procedures to calculate their levels. Vehicle interaction delay is the delay that occurs as demand approaches capacity, and each vehicle's progress is impeded by the proximity of other vehicles. Ideally, no delay would occur when demand was below capacity, but variations in driver behaviour and differences in speed between individual vehicles mean that delay does occur. Because the actual delay depends on the many variable factors, vehicle interaction delay is also known as random delay. Definition of bottleneck delay Bottleneck delay is the delay which is experienced when the demand at some location exceeds the capacity of the road at the location. Such delays occur at a point on the road section where the capacity is below that of the upstream capacity, and equal to or less than the downstream capacity. Because bottleneck delay occurs when demand exceeds capacity (ie when the VC ratio exceeds 1.0), it is also known as over-saturation delay. Diagram The diagram below shows approximately when vehicle interaction (or random) delay and bottleneck (or over-saturation) delay occur.
Definition of vehicle interaction delay
Delay
Over-saturation delay
Random delay
0.5
1.0 Ratio of demand to capacity
1.5
Page A320
A3.14 Average peak interval traffic intensity

Background As traffic volumes on a road increase vehicle interactions increase, and as a result the average travel time per vehicle increases. The additional travel time that results from vehicle interactions is a function of the volume to capacity flow ratio, where the VC ratio is the ratio of demand volume to road capacity averaged over a period of time. When predicting the average travel time to traverse a section of road, the extent to which averaging smoothes the flow profile will affect the accuracy of the estimate of the additional travel time due to vehicle interactions. Peak interval analysis is one method of correcting for potential loss of accuracy. The average time period traffic intensity is the average traffic flow for the time period under analysis. It is generally reported as vehicles per hour, or vehicles per x minutes. The peak interval (in minutes) is that portion of the time period over which the demand is greater than the average time period traffic intensity. The average peak interval traffic intensity is the average traffic flow for the peak interval. The average peak interval traffic intensity is used in the analysis to determine delays. Generally average peak interval traffic intensity is reported in vehicles per hour. The diagram below shows the relationship between the time period and the peak interval, and the relationship between the average traffic intensities for the time period and the peak interval.
Average time period traffic intensity
Peak interval
Average peak interval traffic intensity
Peak interval diagram
Demand
Peak interval l
Demand profile Average time period traffic intensity Time period
Average peak interval traffic intensity
Time
Page A321
A3.15 Determining the peak interval

When to use Use this procedure if the conclusion from the procedure in appendix A3.12 'determining whether vehicle interactions are significant' was that vehicle interactions shall be considered. Follow the steps below to determine the peak interval. Step 1 Action Select a time period to be analysed (usually the weekday morning or evening commuter peak). See appendix A2.4. Note: The time period must be long enough to ensure sufficient capacity, even though for some time that capacity is exceeded. Identify the time interval that traffic data for the time period has been collected (usually five, 10 or 15 minute intervals). Set out the traffic data for the time period. Example Time 7:00 7:15 7:15 7:30 7:30 7:45 7:45 8:00 8:00 8:15 8:15 8:30 8:30 8:45 8:45 9:00 4 Observed traffic volume 800 1040 1200 1280 1240 1140 1020 840
Procedure
2 3
Calculate the average time period traffic intensity (Ftp) (see definition in appendix A3.14) Example: Time period traffic volume = 8560 vehicles Length of time period = 2 hours Traffic data time interval = 15 minutes Average time period traffic intensity (Ftp) = 8560 / (2 60 / 15) = 1070 per 15 minutes
Page A322
A3.11 Determining the peak interval continued

Procedure continued Step 5 Action Identify when the observed traffic volume rose above the average time period traffic intensity (Ftp) Example: From step 3, the interval 7:30am 7:45am was the first interval with an observed traffic volume greater than the average time period traffic intensity (Ftp) Start time of interval (ti) = 7:30am Volume in interval (vi) = 1200 vehicles Volume in prior interval (vi1) = 1040 vehicles Calculate the peak interval start, which is the notional time at which the flow rate rose above the average time period traffic intensity (Ftp). Peak interval start = ti + (Ftp vi1)/vi vi1) interval from step 2 Example: Peak interval start = 7:30am + (1070 1040) / (1200 1040) 15 = 7:32.8am Identify when the observed traffic volume fell below the average time period traffic intensity (Ftp). Example: From step 3, the interval 8:30am 8:45am was the first interval after the peak with an observed traffic volume lower than the average time period traffic intensity (Ftp). Start time of interval (ti) = 8:30am Volume in interval (vi) = 1020 vehicles Volume in prior interval (vi 1) = 1140 vehicles Calculate the peak interval end, which is the notional time at which the flow rate fell below the average time period traffic intensity (Ftp). Peak interval end = ti + (vi1 Ftp)/(vi1 vi) x interval Example: Peak interval end = 8:30am + (1140 1070) / (1140 1020) 15 = 8:38.8am Calculate the length of the peak interval. Example: Peak interval start = Peak interval end = Length of peak interval = =
7:32.8am 8:38.8am 8:38.8am 7:32.8am 66.0 minutes
Page A323
A3.16 Calculating the average peak interval traffic intensity

When to use Use this procedure after having determined the peak interval in appendix A3.15.
Procedure
Follow the steps below to calculate the average peak interval traffic intensity. Step 1 Action Calculate the peak interval traffic volume. Example: Peak interval start = Peak interval end = Volume 7:30am 7:45am = Volume 7:45am 8:00am = Volume 8.00am 8.15am = Volume 8:15am 8:30am = Volume 8:30am 8:45am = Peak interval traffic volume =
= 2
7:32.8am 8:38.8am 1200 vehicles 1280 vehicles 1240 vehicles 1140 vehicles 1020 vehicles (7:45am 7:32.8am) / 15 1200 + 1280 + 1240 + 1140 + (8:38.8am 8:30am) / 15 1020 5234 vehicles
Calculate the average peak interval traffic intensity (Fpi). Example: Length of peak interval = 66.0 minutes Average peak interval traffic intensity (Fpi) = 5234 60 / 66.0 = 4758veh/h
Page A324
A3.17 Calculating the volume to capacity

When to use The volume to capacity ratio is also known as the saturation ratio. Follow the steps below to determine the volume to capacity ratio (VC ratio). Step 1 Action Determine the appropriate capacity for calculating the VC ratio as follows: If the road section is a motorway section multilane highway twolane rural road other urban road 2 Then use the capacity determined in appendix A3.9 capacity determined in appendix A3.10 peak direction capacity determined in appendix A3.11 capacity specified in appendix A3.8
Procedure
Obtain the average peak interval traffic intensity (Fpi) as determined in appendix A3.16, and use this volume in step 3. Note: If the VC ratio is being calculated for a time period for which it is not appropriate to calculate Fpi, then use an appropriate peak volume. Calculate the VC ratio using the appropriate capacity and traffic volume determined in steps 1 and 2. Example: VC ratio = volume/capacity = 4758/5072 = 0.938
Page A325
A3.18 Calculating the additional travel time

Introduction The average additional travel time above that experienced when travelling at the free speed shall be determined as a function of the volume to capacity ratio during the peak interval of a given time period. The additional travel time calculated for the peak interval is also used as the value for time period additional travel time. Procedure Follow the steps below to calculate the additional travel time. Step 1 Action Determine the appropriate procedure for the road section as follows If the road section is a motorway section multi-lane highway twolane rural road 2 Then go to step 2, and then step 4 step 2, and then step 4 step 3, and then step 4
Calculate the peak interval additional travel time factor, using the VC ratio determined in appendix A3.17, as follows (for motorways and multi-lane roads only): If the peak interval VC ratio is less than or equal to 0.7 between 0.7 and 1.0 equal to or greater than 1.0 Go to step 4. Then the peak interval additional travel time factor (Fdr) equals 0 0.27 (VC ratio 0.70) 0.081
Determine the peak interval additional travel time factor from the tables below, using the VC ratio determined in appendix A3.17 for twolane rural roads only. Additional travel time factor for level terrain VC ratio 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.32 20 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.32 Percent nopassing 40 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.32 60 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.32 80 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.32 100 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.28 0.32
Page A326
A3.18 Calculating the additional travel time continued

Procedure continued Step Action
3 continued Additional travel time factor for rolling terrain VC ratio 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.38 0.50 20 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.32 0.42 0.55 Percent nopassing 40 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.35 0.45 0.59 60 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.37 0.47 0.62 80 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.31 0.38 0.49 0.64 100 0.02 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.31 0.39 0.50 0.65
Additional travel time factor for mountainous terrain VC ratio 0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.35 0.43 0.54 0.68 0.86 20 0.00 0.09 0.16 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.40 0.48 0.59 0.73 0.92 Percent nopassing 40 0.01 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.36 0.43 0.52 0.64 0.78 0.98 60 0.02 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.33 0.39 0.47 0.56 0.68 0.83 1.03 80 0.03 0.13 0.22 0.29 0.35 0.42 0.50 0.59 0.72 0.87 1.07 100 0.03 0.14 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.44 0.53 0.63 0.75 0.92 1.12
Page A327
A3.18 Calculating the additional travel time continued

Procedure continued Step Action
3 continued Alternatively calculate Fdr directly using the expression: Fdr = min(a + b.PNP+ d.PNp2 g.PNP3 + c.VC ratio + e.VC ratio2 + h.VC ratio3 + f.PNP.VC ratio + i.PNP.VC ratio2 + j.PNP2.VC ratio ,0) where: VC ratio = the volume to capacity flow ratio PNP = the percent no-passing Coefficients a to j are given below: Coefficient a b c d e f g h i j 4 Level terrain 1.906 102 1.420 104 0.617 3.260 10 0.771 6.43 10
4 6
Rolling terrain 2.658 102 1.640 104 1.008 3.610 10 1.918 6.220 10
4 6
Mountainous terrain 3.039 102 1.480 103 1.059 1.378 105 1.515 1.570 103 5.260 108 1.346 2.897 104 1.379 106
2.42 108 0.496 8.70 10

4
9.470 109 1.440 1.748 10

3
6.49 107
1.320 105
Calculate the peak interval additional travel time by multiplying the free speed travel time in appendix A3.4 by the factor from step 2 or 3. Peak interval additional = free speed travel time x peak interval travel time additional travel time factor (Fdr) Example 1 (motorway or multi-lane highway): Free speed travel time = 0.571mins/km VC ratio = 0.938 Fdr (from step 2) = 0.27 (0.938 0.70) = 0.0643 Peak interval additional travel time = 0.571 0.0643 = 0.037mins/km Time period additional travel time = Peak interval additional travel time = 0.037mins/km Example 2 (twolane rural road): Free speed travel time = 0.636mins/km Terrain type = rolling Percent nopassing = 60% VC ratio = 1.10 Fdr (from tables in step 3) = 0.62 Peak interval additional travel time = 0.636 0.62 = 0.394mins/km Time period additional travel time = Peak interval additional travel time = 0.394mins/km
Page A328
A3.19 Calculating bottleneck delay

When to use Use this procedure for all time periods during which demand exceeds capacity (VC ratio greater than one) at some time. Where traffic volumes exceed capacity, the resulting queues may block back onto upstream links. In such circumstances care must be taken to ensure that the delays that arise on the under-capacity section are not double counted on any upstream section. Follow the steps below to calculate bottleneck delay. Step 1 2 3 4 Action Select a time period to be analysed (usually the weekday morning or evening commuter peak). Determine the capacity of the road section. See appendix A3.8. Identify the time interval step that traffic data for the time period has been collected (usually 5, 10 or 15-minute periods). Set out the traffic data for the time period. Example: Time 7:00 7:15 7:15 7:30 7:30 7:45 7:45 8:00 8:00 8:15 8:15 8:30 8:30 8:45 8:45 9:00 9:00 9:15 5 Observed traffic volume 264 475 591 600 591 475 264 250 234
Blocking back onto upstream sections
Procedure
At each time interval, calculate the cumulative demand with a running total of observed traffic volume since the time period start. Cumulative demand at time interval = sum of observed traffic volume since time period start Example from step 4: Cumulative demand for time interval 8:00am to 8:15am = 264 + 475 + 591 + 600 + 591 = 2521
Page A329
A3.19 Calculating bottleneck delay continued

Procedure continued Step 6 Action At each time interval, calculate the vehicles discharged. If the traffic volume for the time interval is below the road section capacity then all the traffic is discharged. Only the number of vehicles equivalent to the road section capacity is discharged if the traffic volume exceeds capacity. Example from step 4: Time interval = 8:00am to 8:15am Capacity = 500 vehicles Traffic volume = 591 vehicles Vehicles discharged = minimum of traffic volume or capacity = minimum (591, 500) = 500 At each time interval, calculate the cumulative discharge with a running total of vehicles discharged since the time period start. Cumulative discharge at time interval = sum of vehicles discharged since time period start At each time interval, calculate the queue at the end of the interval when traffic volume exceeds capacity. Example from step 4: Time interval = 7:30am 7:45am Traffic volume = 591 vehicles Capacity = 500 vehicles Queue at end of interval = traffic volume capacity, if traffic volume > capacity = 0, if traffic volume capacity = 591 500 = 91 vehicles 9 At each time interval, calculate the queue at the start of the interval. This is the queue at the end of the previous interval. Time interval = 7:30am 7:45am Queue at start of interval = queue at end of previous interval = 91 vehicles
Page A330
A3.19 Calculating bottleneck delay continued

Procedure continued
Step 10
Action At each time interval, calculate the average delay in vehicle minutes. Average delay = interval time step x (queue at end of interval + queue at start of interval) / 2 Sum the average delays over the entire time period to obtain the time period total delay. Calculate the time period average delay per vehicle from the time period total delay divided by the cumulative discharge of vehicles at the time period end. Average delay per vehicle = total delay / cumulative discharge of vehicles at the time period end
11 12
Example
An example of the bottleneck delay calculation using the data from step 4 and a road capacity of 500 vehicles. Start time Demand (veh) Cumulative Vehicles Cumulative Queue at demand discharged discharge end of (veh) (veh) (veh) interval 5 264 739 1330 1930 2521 2996 3260 3510 3744 6 264 475 500 500 500 500 500 271 234 7 264 739 1239 1739 2239 2739 3239 3510 3744 8 0 0 91 191 282 257 21 0 0 Queue at start of interval 9 0 0 0 91 191 282 257 21 0 Average delay (vehmin) 10 0.0 0.0 682.5 2115.0 3547.5 4042.5 2085.0 157.5 0.0
Step 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45 8:00 8:15 8:30 8:45 9:00
4 264 475 591 600 591 475 264 250 234
Step 11: Time period total delay = 682.5 + 2115 + 3547.5 + 4042.5 + 2085 + 157.5 = 12,630veh/min Step 12: Time period average delay per vehicle = 12,630 / 3744 = 3.37min/veh
Page A331
A3.20 Determining whether to consider peak spreading

Introduction Some peak spreading may occur at low levels of bottleneck delay, but in general, drivers will only begin to refine their trips when bottleneck delays are severe. Follow the steps below to determine whether peak spreading should be considered. Step 1 Action Calculate the average delay per delayed vehicle, using the time period average delay per vehicle determined in appendix A3.19. Average delay per delayed vehicle = Time period average delay per vehicle x (Time period traffic volume / sum of traffic volumes of intervals with an end queue) Example (using the example in appendix A3.19): Average delay per delayed vehicle = 3.37 x (3744 / (591 + 600 + 591 + 475 + 264)) = 3.37 x (3744 / 2521) = 5.0mins/veh Determine whether peak spreading should be considered as follows: If the average minutes delay per delayed vehicle is between zero and 15 between 15 and 25 between 15 and 25 25 or greater an alternative route no alternative route And there is Then peak spreading
Procedure
does not need to be considered does not need to be considered shall be considered, use appendix A11.2 shall be considered, use appendix A11.2
Page A332
A3.21 Determining the additional travel time resulting from speed change
Introduction If vehicles are required to slow to negotiate some isolated feature and then accelerate back to cruise speed the travel time estimated above must be increased to account for the time lost during this speed change cycle. Where the initial cruise speed and the minimum speed are available, tables in appendix A5.7 provide the amount of additional travel time in seconds for speed change cycles. In the absence of measured data, the additional travel time that occurs as a result of having to slow for substandard horizontal curves can be approximated using this procedure. Procedure Follow the steps below to determine the additional travel time resulting from speed change cycles associated with substandard curves. Step 1 Action Determine the curve negotiating speed for each vehicle type in the traffic mix. The desired negotiation speed for an isolated curve (Sc) is related to the ideal approach speed (Sa) and the curve radius (R) by the following equation: Sc = a0 + a1.Sa + a2 / R Where: Sa = f1.FS Fs is the average free speed determined from appendix A3.9 and the coefficients f1,a0, a1, and a2 are as follows: Vehicle type Car LCV MCV HCV I HCV II Bus f1 1.00 0.97 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.91 a0 45.21 54.51 51.77 59.16 69.57 59.16 a1 0.5833 0.4531 0.4744 0.4068 0.3085 0.4068 a2 3892 3337 3245 3506 3768 3506
Example: A horizontal curve of radius 100m exists within a road section where the free speed is estimated at 94.33km/h. Ideal approach speed = 0.89 94.33 For MCV = 84km/h Desired negotiation speed for MCV = 51.77 + 0.4744 84 3245/100 = 59km/h
Page A333
A3.21 Determining the additional travel time resulting form speed change continued
Procedure continued Step 2 Action Determine the initial operating speed of the road section. The operating speed is the sum of the free speed travel time and the time period additional travel time all divided by the section length. This accounts for the reduction in the ideal approach speed as a result of traffic interactions. Initial operating speed = length / (TTFS + TTATT) Example: 1km at free speed travel time = 0.636mins/km 1km additional travel time for vehicle interactions (appendix A3.18) = 0.636 0.2 = 0.127mins/km Initial operating speed = 1.00 / (0.636+0.127) 60 = 1.00/0.763 60 = 79km/hr The additional travel time associated with speed change cycles is then determined from the appropriate table in appendix A5.7. Note: Where the desired negotiating speed is greater than the operating speed no speed change will occur. Example: Using table A5.28 Initial cruise speed for all vehicles = 79km/h Curve speed for MCV = 59km/h MCV additional travel time per speed change = 2.0seconds Calculate the total speed change cycle travel time for a road section with the additional following information. Traffic volume for the time period Traffic composition (default values available in appendix A2.2) For each vehicle type: proportion in traffic from traffic composition number of vehicles = traffic volume x proportion in traffic additional travel time = number of vehicles x additional travel time for speed change cycles. Sum over all vehicle types to obtain the total additional travel time.
Page A334
A3.22 Calculating the time period total average travel time

When to use Use this procedure once free speed and delays caused by vehicle interactions and speed changes have been calculated. Note: For 'other urban roads', this procedure is called from appendix A3.8. Procedure Follow the steps below to calculate the time period total average travel time per vehicle. Step 1 Action Use the following previously calculated values: free speed travel time (appendix A3.4) time period additional travel time (appendix A3.18) time period average delay per vehicle (appendix A3.19) additional travel time due to speed changes (appendix A3.21). 'Other urban roads' only have a free speed travel time. Other urban roads' do not exhibit reductions in travel times with increasing traffic volumes. Travel times generally remain constant at the free speed. All delays due to increasing traffic volumes can be attributed to intersections as calculated in appendices A3.23 to A3.25. For motorway sections and multilane roads: time period additional travel time is only calculated if the VC ratio exceeds 0.7 (see appendix A3.12) bottleneck delay is only calculated if demand exceeds capacity at some time during the time period. Multiply the free speed travel time and the time period additional travel time by the road section length. Sum the values in step 2 and the bottleneck delay to get the time period total average travel time per vehicle.
2 3
Example
Section length Free speed travel time Time period additional travel time Speed change additional travel time Bottleneck delay per vehicle Time period total average travel time =
= = = = =
1.00km 0.636mins/km 0.232mins/km 0.003mins 1.5mins/veh
(TTFS + TT ATT) length + bottleneck delay + speed change
= (0.636 + 0.232) 1.00 + 1.5 + 0.003 =2.371 mins/veh
Page A335
A3.23 Traffic signals

Traffic signals Travel time delays associated with traffic signals are the result of a complex interaction between arrivals on opposing phases, the response of the signal controller to detector impulses and external control commands, and vehicle driver responses. The physical layout, location, and phasing strategy also affect operations. Commonly available analysis procedures are based on simplifying assumptions that reduce an essentially dynamic and stochastic process to a deterministic approximation of real events. Reliable estimates of delay require the careful selection of values for the governing variables and a thorough understanding of traffic operations at each site. While the procedures of the HCM provide a useful guide, the more commonly understood methods of the ARRB publication ARR 123 should be followed. This appendix uses HCM to derive a major modification to the ARR 123 methods to account for the proximity of other signals including linking or coordination. Capacity or saturation flow rate The average delay to all vehicles, irrespective of the turns made, shall be the basis of the analysis. Thus the methodology is approach based, not movement based. Ideally, saturation flow rates for each approach should be determined from direct observation at the site. Approach saturation flow rates for the relevant lane groups can be estimated as specified below. The procedure consists of adjusting an ideal saturation flow rate of 2000 passenger cars units per hour of green by the factors tabulated in the following tables. Parking movements refers to the number of such movements, in and out, within a length of 50 metres on either side of the intersection.
Page A336
A3.23 Traffic signals continued

Table A3.1: Lane width factors Lane width (metres) 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 Table A3.2: Approach grade factors Gradient (%) -4 -2 0 +2 +4 Table A3.3: Parking factors Parking movements (number/hour) 1 0 10 20 30 40 Table A3.4: Locality factors Type of street CBD shopping Suburban shopping Other Factor 0.90 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 2 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.87 0.85 Approach lanes 3 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.85 0.89 Factor 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 Factor 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95
Page A337

Cycle times and phase splits Appropriate cycle times and phase splits shall be determined according to the conditions that prevail during the peak interval. In particular, the influence of minimum phase times for parallel pedestrian facilities, actual allred periods, and other influences on losttime shall be included. The peak interval average travel time shall be the average delay calculated by the methods of ARR 123 adjusted to account for controller type and the arrival pattern of platoons produced by nearby intersections by applying the relevant delay adjustment factor specified below. The arrival type is best observed in the field, but can be assessed by examining time space diagrams for the arterial or street on which the approach is located. It should be noted that fully vehicle actuated controllers, remote from other signals, produce delays 15 percent below that estimated by the methods of ARR 123. Care must be exercised in applying the adjustment factors. Arrival types 1 and 5 will seldom occur unless either unfavourable or efficient linking control is imposed. Platoons released by upstream signals will disperse according to the prevailing speed environment and the distance between successive signal controlled intersections. The following table provides a broad guide to such effects.
Peak interval average travel time
Page A338

Table A3.5: Arrival type Arrival type 1 2 3 4 5 Condition Dense platoon arriving at the commencement of red.

Dense platoon arriving near the middle of the red phase, or Dispersed platoon arriving at the commencement of red.
Random arrivals or dispersed platoons arriving throughout both the green and red phases. This condition applies to isolated intersections or those with cycle times differing from nearby signal controlled intersections.

Dense platoon arriving near the middle of the green phase, or Dispersed platoon arriving throughout the green phase.
Dense platoon arriving at the commencement of the green phase.
Table A3.6: Delay adjustment factor Type of signal VC ratio 1 Pre-timed

0.6
Arrival type 2 1.35 1.22 1.18 1.08 0.98 0.94 1.35 1.22 1.18 1.18 1.07 1.04 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4 0.72 0.82 0.90 0.62 0.71 0.78 0.72 0.82 0.90 0.86 0.98 1.00 5 0.53 0.67 0.82 0.40 0.50 0.61 0.42 0.53 0.65 0.70 0.89 1.00
1.85 1.50 1.40 1.54 1.25 1.16 1.85 1.50 1.40 1.48 1.20 1.12
0.8 1.0 Actuated

0.6
0.8 1.0 Semiactuated on main road approach

0.6
0.8 1.0
Semiactuated on side road approach
0.6
0.8 1.0
Table A3.7: Platoon dispersal distance (m) Platoon type 50 64 Dense Dispersed Random
<100
Speed environment (km/h) 65 105

<300
150 500
>1000
350 1000
>2000
Page A339

Intersection departure delay The HCM specifies reductions in the free speed according to the distance between signal controlled intersections along the route. This amounts to a nearly constant delay of six seconds (0.10 minutes) at each intersection. The effect can be represented by adding this constant delay in addition to actual intersection delays. The time period total average travel time for the intersection is approximated by the peak interval time period delay obtained plus the intersection departure delay as described in the previous sections of this appendix. Delays associated with traffic signals can be estimated by traffic models, provided: a) b) c) input parameters such as running speeds and saturation flow rates are determined in a manner consistent with this appendix the delay calculated by the model is consistent with the definitions of this appendix, ie the average delay per vehicle over the relevant approach the delay outputs of the model are based on the general procedure and delay equations of ARR 123 and this appendix.
Time period total average travel time
Application of traffic models
Worked example
Basic data Lane width Number of lanes Approach grade Parking movements/h Locality Arrival type Signal type Lane width factor (from table A3.1) Approach grade factor (from table A3.2) Parking factor (from table A3.3) Locality factor (from table A3.4) 3.3m 2 +2% 20 CBD Random Actuated = 0.98 = 0.99 = 0.89 = 0.90
Saturation flow rate = 2000 0.98 0.99 0.89 0.90 = 1554pcu/h Arrival type (from table A3.5) Delay adjustment factor (from table A3.6) =3 = 0.85
In using a traffic model to analyse this example intersection, a saturation flow rate of 1554pcu/h shall be used, and the resulting delays multiplied by 0.85.
Page A340
A3.24 Priority intersections

Priority intersections Priority intersections include all intersections where entry is not controlled by traffic signals. Roundabouts are a particular class, and are separately considered in appendix A3.25. Travel time delays are only incurred by movements where the priority of entry is controlled by stop signs, give way signs, or by the general intersection driving rules. Three levels of priority are involved: a) b) c) movements that have priority movements that yield the right of way to the priority flows movements that must give way to both the above categories.
Only priority levels (b) and (c) will experience delay. Minimum headway in conflicting flow The distribution of headways in the opposing traffic streams in turn depends on other variables, and is influenced by the proximity of signal controlled intersections. When the priority intersection is remote from traffic signals and the conflicting flows well below the capacities of their approach roadways, the distribution of headways in the conflicting traffic flows can be assumed to be random with a minimum headway of either 2.0 seconds (single lane conflict) or 0.5 seconds in other cases. The capacity of a non-priority movement shall be determined as a function of the following variables:

Capacity
the distribution of headways, being the time between successive users of the conflict area the critical gap in the opposing traffic flow through which a non-priority movement vehicle will move the follow-up headway being the time interval between successive vehicles which use the same gap in the opposing traffic stream.
The capacity of the non-priority movement shall be then estimated from:

c Where: c To Hm Tg Tf V = = = = = = capacity. Tg Hm (Hm = 0.5 or 2.0). minimum headway in conflicting flow. critical gap. followup headway. conflicting volume during peak interval (veh/hr). = (3600 / Tf) exp (V To / 3600)
To, Tg, Hm and Tf are expressed in seconds, and c and V are expressed in vehicles per hour.
Page A341
A3.24 Priority intersections continued

Critical gap and follow-up headways The critical gap (Tg) and follow-up headway (Tf) are related and depend on the speed of the conflicting traffic flow, the class of control, and the movement type. In the absence of actual values determined by observations at the site or similar sites elsewhere in New Zealand, the values in table A3.8 should be used. Where the turning movement is required to cross more than one lane, a further 0.5 seconds shall be added to the values of the table. If the left turn from a minor road is provided with an acceleration lane, the critical gap of the table shall be reduced by 1.0 seconds. Follow-up headway The follow-up headway is related to the critical gap, by the expression:
Tf = 2.0 + 0.2 Tg
Modifying critical gap
Table A3.8: Critical gap
Movement and control

<60
Average speed (km/h)

60
Right turn from:
major road.
4.5
5.0
Stop sign on minor road:

left turn through right turn.
5.0 5.5 6.0
6.0 7.0 7.5
Give way on minor road:

left turn through right turn.
4.5 5.0 5.5
5.0 6.0 6.5
Volume to capacity ratio Peak interval average travel time Time period total average travel time
The movement VC ratio is the ratio of the average movement traffic demand for that movement during the peak interval divided by the capacity. The peak interval average travel time is equivalent to the delay for each movement. This delay depends on the VC ratio as tabulated in the table next page. The total average travel for the intersection is approximated by the peak interval time period.
Page A342
A3.24 Priority intersections continued

Application of traffic models Table A3.9: Average peak interval delay The provisions of appendix A3.23 shall also apply to traffic models used to calculate delays at priority intersections.
VC ratio 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.05 1.10
>1.10
Average peak interval delay (min/vehicle) 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.28 0.58 2.75 5.70 10.2 12.0
Page A343
A3.25 Roundabouts
Roundabouts Roundabouts are a special case of a priority intersection. Delays at each approach can be estimated in a manner similar to that of appendix A3.24, ie each approach can be considered as an independent elemental intersection with one-way conflicting flows circulating round the central island. The procedures and methods of Austroads Guide to traffic engineering practice, part 6 Roundabouts shall be used to obtain the capacities of each approach lane. The VC ratio for each approach lane shall be estimated as the expected average flow during the peak interval using that lane divided by the capacity. The peak interval travel time is equivalent to the peak interval average delay for each lane. The peak interval delay shall be estimated from table A3.9 up to a maximum VC ratio of 1.05, and the average peak period delay for the approach shall be estimated as the weighted average of the individual approach lanes. The performance of a roundabout becomes indeterminate for high flows, much beyond the capacity of an approach, due to a tendency for the flows to lock round the central island. Time period total average travel time Application of traffic models The time period total average travel time is the average delay during the time period, and shall be estimated from the peak interval delay. The provisions of appendix A3.23 shall also apply to traffic models used to calculate delays at roundabouts.
Capacity
Volume to capacity ratio Peak interval average travel time
Page A344
A3.26 References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Akcelik R and Rouphail NM (1993) Estimation of delays at traffic signals for variable demand conditions. Transportation research part B 27 B. No. 2. Akcelik R (1980) Time dependent expressions for delay, stop rate and queue length at traffic signals. ARRB internal report 3671. Akcelik R (1981) Signalised intersection: capacity and timing guide. ARRB research report 123. Austroads (1993) Guide to traffic engineering practice. Part 6 Roundabouts. Austroads (1988) Guide to traffic engineering practice. Part 2 Roadway capacity. Austroads (1989) Rural road design: guide to the design of rural roads. Bennett CR (1994) A Speed prediction model for rural two-lane highways. University of Auckland, School of Engineering. Department of Civil Engineering report 541. Foster J (1997) (1997) Estimating travel times. Transit New Zealand research report PR3-0048, stage 2. Hoban CJ, Fawcett GJ and Robinson GK (1985) A Model for simulating traffic on two-lane rural roads: user guide and manual for TRARR version 3.0. ARRB technical manual STM 10A. Kimber RM and Hollis EM (1979) Traffic queues and delays at road junctions. TRRL laboratory report 909. Transportation research board (1994) Highway capacity manual. Special report 209, 3rd edition. National research council. Washington, DC.
8. 9.
10. 11.
Page A41
A4
A4.1
Travel time values

Introduction
This appendix contains travel time values for vehicle occupants, passenger transport users, pedestrians, cyclists, and freight vehicle travel time. The road user values are used to produce composite travel time values for the different road categories for uncongested and congested traffic conditions. Values and procedures are also provided to calculate the values for changes in road user journey time reliability. The travel time benefits for an activity option shall be calculated as the difference between the do-minimum and option travel time costs as follows: Total travel time savings = + + base travel time benefits for improved flow travel time benefits for reduced traffic congestion (if applicable) travel time benefits for improved trip reliability (if applicable). Page
In this appendix
Topic
A4.1 A4.2 A4.3 A4.4 A4.5 A4.6
Introduction Base values for travel time Composite values of travel time and congestion Traffic congestion values Benefits from improved trip time reliability Worked examples of trip reliability procedure
A41 A42 A43 A44 A413 A419
Page A42
A4.2 Base values for travel time

Base values for travel time For vehicle occupants, dollar values are provided for travel time during the course of paid employment (work travel), commuting to and from work, and for other nonwork travel purposes. Table A4.1 gives values of time for transport users, it also gives the maximum values for congestion (denoted as CRV), which may be added to the base values of time for transport users, as described in appendix A4.4. Table A4.2 gives values of travel time for vehicles and freight. Lower travel time values are not used when evaluating the benefits of activities that encourage a change from car or motorcycle driver to shared or active modes. The travel time values pertaining to the original mode (where these values are higher) should be adopted for proposals that have a high proportion of mode switching. This includes activities which have the primary objective of changing modes or maintaining mode share. Table A4.1: Values for vehicle occupant transport user time in $/h (all road categories; all time periods July 2002) Vehicle occupant Work travel purpose Commuting to/ from work Other non-work travel purposes
Mode switching
Base values of time for uncongested traffic ($/h) Car (motorcycle driver) Car (motorcycle passenger) Light commercial driver Light commercial passenger Medium/heavy commercial driver Medium/heavy commercial passenger Seated bus and train passenger Standing bus and train passenger Pedestrian and cyclist 23.85 21.70 23.45 21.70 20.10 20.10 21.70 21.70 21.70 7.80 5.85 7.80 5.85 7.80 5.85 4.70 6.60 6.60 6.90 5.20 6.90 5.20 6.90 5.20 3.05 4.25 4.25
Maximum increment for congestion (CRV, $/h) Car (motorcycle driver) Car (motorcycle passenger) Commercial vehicle driver Commercial vehicle passenger Table A4.2: Base values for vehicle and freight time in $/h (July 2002) for vehicles used for work purposes 3.15 2.35 3.15 2.35 2.75 2.05 2.75 2.05
Vehicle type Passenger car Light commercial vehicle Medium commercial vehicle Heavy commercial vehicle I Heavy commercial vehicle II10 Bus
Vehicle and freight time ($/h) 0.50 1.70 6.10 17.10 28.10 17.10
Page A43
A4.3 Composite values of travel time and congestion

Composite values of travel time and congestion Travel time values combining passenger and commercial (including freight) occupants, and vehicle types for standard traffic compositions are given in table A4.3. These include different time periods for the four road categories defined in appendix A2.2. The righthand column gives the maximum additional values for traffic congestion (CRV), to be applied as described in appendix A4.4. Road category and time period Base value of time ($/h) Maximum increments for congestion (CRV $/h)
Table A4.1: Composite values of travel time in $/h (all occupants and vehicle types combined July 2002)
Urban arterial Morning commuter peak Daytime interpeak Afternoon commuter peak Evening/nighttime Weekday all periods Weekend/holiday All periods Urban other Weekday Weekend/holiday All periods Rural strategic Weekday Weekend/holiday All periods Rural other Weekday Weekend/holiday All periods 24.84 18.59 22.72 4.24 5.23 4.40 25.34 19.21 23.25 4.23 5.22 4.39 16.89 14.10 16.23 3.82 4.32 3.98 15.13 17.95 14.96 14.93 16.83 14.09 16.27 3.88 3.60 3.79 3.68 3.79 4.26 3.95
Page A44
A4.4 Traffic congestion values

Introduction Road users value relief from congested traffic conditions over and above their value of travel time saving. The maximum increments for congestion values apply to vehicle occupants or road category and time periods as indicated in tables A4.1, A4.2 and A4.3. The actual additional value for congestion used in the evaluation is adjusted according to the requirements set out below. An exception to the procedures below is made in the case of passing lane activities evaluated using the procedures in appendix A7 of this manual. The procedures in appendix A7 include a separate value for the reduction in driver frustration and the effect of reducing travel time variability. When evaluating passing lanes using the procedures in appendix A7, no additional allowance shall be made for congestion or improvements in trip reliability. Similarly, if passing lanes are evaluated using the values for congestion and/or reliability outlined in this appendix, then no allowance can be included for driver frustration. To allow for congestion, the following addition should be made on sections of rural two-lane highways. Section lengths for this analysis should normally be greater than two kilometres. Peak traffic intensity and volume to capacity ratio (VC ratio) are first calculated in the normal manner (see appendix A3.17). Using the VC ratio, terrain type and percentage nopassing for the road section, the percentage of time delayed (PTD) following slower vehicles is selected from figure A4.1 or table A4.4. Alternatively, the formulae shown in figure A4.1 can be used to calculate PTD, within a limiting range of PTD greater than or equal to 30 percent. For lower values of PTD the curves are linear.
Incremental value for congestion = CRV (PTD / 90) $/h Where CRV is the value for congestion (in $/h) and is given in table A4.1 for drivers or passengers and in table A4.3 for standard traffic compositions.
Treatment of passing lane activities
Congested traffic conditions rural two-lane highways
Percentage of time delayed has a maximum limit of <90 percent, for situations where PTD is 90 percent, the maximum increment for congestion (CRV) should be added to the base value of travel time. Congested traffic conditions urban roads, multi-lane rural highways and motorways To allow for congestion, the following addition should be made to road section travel time values where the time period VC ratio exceeds 70 percent.
Incremental value for congestion = CRV (road section traffic volume 70% of road section capacity volume) ($/h) 30% of road section capacity volume
Bottleneck delay
For all bottleneck delay, the maximum increment for congestion from table A4.1 or table A4.3 should be added to the base value of travel time.
Page A45
A4.4 Traffic congestion values continued

Worked examples Four worked examples are given below of the calculations for the value of congestion. In each case, the example describes the calculation for a single time period and for the base year. For a full activity evaluation, the calculations would be made for each flow period and for future year traffic forecasts as necessary. An activity involves the realignment of a busy two kilometres section of rural highway, which improves sight distances, providing more overtaking opportunities for following traffic. The road is classified as rolling terrain. From calculations in appendix A2 and/or A3, the road section carries 12,500veh/day, with a peak interval intensity of 1000veh/h, 60/40 directional split and 12 percent heavy truck component. In the do-minimum, the alignment offers no-passing opportunities (zero percent overtaking sight distance), and after realignment there is no restriction on overtaking sight distance (100 percent overtaking sight distance). The hourly capacity of the road in the do-minimum is calculated as:
2800 ft fd = 2800 0.675 0.94 = 1775veh/h Where: 2800 is the ideal capacity of the road section, ft and fd are adjustment factors for directional distribution and the proportion of trucks (see appendix A3.11). The peak interval traffic intensity (1000 veh/h) divided by capacity gives a VC ratio of 56 percent.
Example 1 Rural highway (realignment)
From figure A4.1(b), the PTD in the do-minimum is 79 percent, and 71.5 percent after realignment. The maximum increment for congestion (CRV) for rural strategic roads is $4.23 per veh/h (from table A4.3). The incremental values for congestion for the do-minimum and activity option are calculated as follows:
Do-minimum: 4.23 (79 / 90) = $3.71 per veh/h Activity option: 4.23 (71.5 / 90)= $3.36 per veh/h
The time period total average travel time for the road section is calculated using the procedures in appendix A3.22 (based on component values calculated in other sections of appendix A3). For this example, the average travel times per vehicle have been calculated as 1.70 and 1.30min/veh for the do-minimum and realignment option, respectively. The congestion cost savings are calculated by multiplying the peak interval traffic intensity by the incremental value for congestion and the time period average travel time divided by 60. For example: Do-minimum = 1000 3.71 1.70/60 = $105.1/h. Activity option = 1000 3.36 1.30/60 = $72.8/h. Congestion cost saving = $105.1 $72.8 = $32.3/h over the peak period.
Page A46

Example 2 Rural highway (four laning) A section of two-lane rural strategic road is approaching capacity. One option is four laning. The road carries 20,000veh/day in rolling terrain with 20 percent overtaking sight distance, peak interval traffic intensity of 2050veh/h, 70/30 directional split and seven percent heavy truck component. The ideal capacity for a two-lane rural road is 2800 vehicles/hour (total in both direction of travel). For the do-minimum, the congestion cost is calculated in the same way as in example 1. The capacity is 2800 fd ft = 2800 0.89 0.92 = 2290. This compares with a traffic volume of 2050, which gives a VC ratio of 0.90. The percentage of time delayed is 90 percent from table A4.4. The incremental value of congestion is therefore equal to is the maximum incremental value of $4.23 per veh/h from table A4.3. For the four-laning option, assuming there are no restrictions requiring a reduction in the lane capacity, a capacity of 2200veh/h/lane is applicable (see appendix A3.10). The VC ratio is 2050 / (4 2200) = 0.23, which is below 70 percent, so congestion costs are not applicable. The saving in congestion costs over the peak period is $4.23 per veh/h multiplied by the section traffic volume and time period average travel time for the do-minimum. Example 3 Urban arterial road (additional traffic lanes) An activity provides a four-lane clearway in the peak direction for an urban arterial road and improves the capacity of a signalised intersection half way along the activity length. The morning peak interval traffic intensity is 1000veh/h in the peak flow direction (from appendix A3.16). Capacity has been established to be 1250veh/h for the do-minimum and 2000veh/h with the clearway activity (based on the multilane road capacity procedure in appendix A3). The road section VC ratio reduces from 80 percent to 50 percent as a result of the activity. Intersection stopped delay will be reduced from 15s/veh in the do-minimum to 6s/veh after widening for the 2000veh/h through the intersection. The incremental value of congestion for the road section in the do-minimum for the peak direction of flow is given by:
$3.88 (1000 0.7 1250) / (0.3 1250) = $1.29 per veh/h Where: $3.88 per veh/h is the CRV value from table A4.3.
With the clearway, the VC ratio in the peak direction is below 70 percent, so no incremental value for congestion is applicable. The congestion cost saving for the road section travel time is therefore $1.29 per veh/h multiplied by the traffic volume and average vehicle travel time for the section. For the bottleneck delay, the incremental value for congestion is given by: Do-minimum = $3.88 15 / 3600 = $0.0162/veh through the intersection Intersection improvement = $3.88 6 / 3600 = $0.0065/veh through the intersection. Congestion cost saving per vehicle = $0.0162 $0.0065= $0.0097/veh through the intersection. The congestion cost saving attributable to reduction in bottleneck delay is $0.0097/veh multiplied by 2000veh/h using the intersection = $19.40/h over the peak period.
Page A47

Example 4 Urban intersection improvement An activity proposal will reduce delay and improve safety at a priority controlled T-intersection through the installation of a roundabout. Traffic volumes on the three approaches to the intersection are evenly balanced, there is a high proportion of turning traffic and the configuration of the site is such that a roundabout can be constructed without additional land take. Bottleneck delay to side road traffic during the peak interval of the morning peak period has been observed to average 35s/veh for the 500veh/h on the side road approach, and 5s/veh for the 300veh/h turning off the main road. With the roundabout, traffic volume and bottleneck delay for the three approaches has been modelled at: 500veh/h and 7s/veh, 700veh/h and 5.5s/veh, and 600veh/h and 6s/veh. Total bottleneck delay is calculated as: Do-minimum = (500 35 + 300 5) / 3600 = 5.28veh/h Roundabout option = (500 7 + 700 5.5 + 600 6) / 3600 = 3.04veh/h Reduction in bottleneck delay = 5.28 3.04 = 2.24veh/h Congestion cost saving = 2.24 CRV = 2.24 $3.88 = $8.68/h over time period.
Page A48

Table A4.4(a): VC ratios for level terrain, overtaking sight distance and PTD following slow vehicles PTD % 100 0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.39 0.50 0.64 0.80 1.00 90 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.22 0.29 0.38 0.49 0.63 0.80 1.00 80 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.28 0.37 0.49 0.63 0.80 1.00 Level terrain percentage of overtaking sight distance 70 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.26 0.36 0.48 0.62 0.79 1.00 60 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.18 0.25 0.35 0.47 0.61 0.79 1.00 50 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.24 0.34 0.46 0.61 0.79 1.00 40 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.23 0.33 0.45 0.60 0.78 1.00 30 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.15 0.22 0.32 0.44 0.60 0.78 1.00 20 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.21 0.31 0.44 0.59 0.78 1.00 10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.30 0.43 0.58 0.77 1.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.20 0.30 0.42 0.58 0.77 1.00
Table A4.4(b): VC ratios for rolling terrain, overtaking sight distance and PTD following slow vehicles PTD % 100 0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.38 0.49 0.62 0.78 0.97 90 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.27 0.36 0.47 0.60 0.76 0.96 80 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.33 0.44 0.58 0.74 0.94 Rolling terrain percentage of overtaking sight distance 70 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.16 0.23 0.32 0.42 0.56 0.73 0.93 60 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.30 0.41 0.54 0.71 0.92 50 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.20 0.28 0.39 0.53 0.70 0.92 40 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.27 0.38 0.52 0.69 0.91 30 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.25 0.36 0.51 0.68 0.91 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.24 0.35 0.49 0.67 0.90 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.34 0.48 0.67 0.90 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.32 0.47 0.66 0.89
Page A49

Table A4.4(c): VC ratios for mountainous terrain, overtaking sight distance and PTD following slow vehicles PTD % 100 0 7.5 15.0 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 52.5 60.0 67.5 75.0 82.5 90.0 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.36 0.46 0.58 0.73 0.91 90 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.42 0.55 0.70 0.89 80 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.21 0.29 0.39 0.52 0.68 0.87 Mountainous terrain percentage of overtaking sight distance 70 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.26 0.36 0.49 0.65 0.86 60 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.34 0.47 0.63 0.84 50 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.45 0.62 0.83 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.20 0.29 0.43 0.60 0.82 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.27 0.41 0.58 0.81 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.26 0.39 0.57 0.80 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.24 0.37 0.55 0.79 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 0.35 0.53 0.78
Page A410

Figure A4.1(a): PTD two-lane rural roads (level terrain)
1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 VC ratio 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 0% overtaking sight distance (N = 1) 100% overtaking sight D=distance (N = 0)
PTD following slower vehicles S/Smax = (PTD/PTDmax)[a + b. (N - 1). (PTD/PTDmax)^] a = 3.01, b = 0.47, c = - 0.90, for PTD >30%
c
Page A411

Figure A4.1(b): PTD for two-lane rural roads (rolling terrain)
1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 VC ratio 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 PTD following slower vehicles S/Smax = (PTD/PTDmax)[a + b. (N - 1). (PTD/PTDmax)^] a = 3.51, b = 0.94, c = - 0.59, for PTD >30%
c
100% overtaking sight distance (N = 0)
0% overtaking sight distance (N = 1)
Page A412

Figure A4.1(c): PTD for two-lane rural roads (mountainous terrain)
1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 VC ratio 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
0% overtaking sight distance (N = 1) 100% overtaking sight distance (N = 0)
PTD following slower vehicles (S/Smax) = (PTD/PTDmax)[a + b.(N - 1) . (PTD/PTDmax)^] a = 4.34, b = 1.75, c = -0.37, for PTD >30% )
c
Page A413
A4.5 Benefits from improved trip time reliability

Introduction This section outlines how likely variations in journey time can be assessed and the benefits from improvements to trip time reliability incorporated into activity evaluation. Trip time reliability is measured by the unpredictable variations in journey times, which are experienced for a journey undertaken at broadly the same time every day. The impact is related to the day-to-day variations in traffic congestion, typically as a result of day-to-day variations in flow. This is distinct from the variations in individual journey times, which occur within a particular period. Travel time reliability is in principle calculated for a complete journey and the total network variability is the sum of the travel time variability for all journeys on the network. In practice, models may not represent the full length of journeys and this is accounted for in the procedure. Travel time variability is expressed as the standard deviation of travel time. The sources of variability are bottlenecks on road sections and delays at intersections. Reduced variability arises from a reduction in congestion on links and at intersections along a route. For a single section or intersection approach the standard deviation of travel time can be calculated using that section or intersection movements VC ratio:
Standard deviation of travel time =
Where: The VC ratio is represented by s, s0, b and a are taken from table A4.5.
Major incidents
The travel time variability that may result from major incidents on the road network is not accounted for in this procedure. For example, where there are high levels of congestion on motorways, a major incident will produce large travel time delays. These delays are not included in the day-to-day variability calculations. The effect of a major incident will be related to the amount of spare capacity at the location. A specific analysis should be undertaken to determine the economic cost of delays from major incidents.
Reliability benefits calculation
The claimable benefits from improving trip reliability are calculated as:
0.9 travel time value ($/h) (table A4.1, A4.2 or A4.3) reduction in the network variability (in min) / 60 traffic volume for time period (veh/h) correction factor (table A4.6)
Where the reduction in network variability is the difference between the sums of the variability for all journeys in the modelled area for the do-minimum and activity option. The 0.9 factor is the value of reliability based on a typical urban traffic mix. For activities with a significantly different vehicle mix, evaluators should use 0.8 for cars and 1.2 for commercial vehicles.
Page A414
A4.5 Benefits from improved trip time reliability continued

Table A4.5: Coefficients to calculate standard deviation of travel time Context Motorway/multi-lane highway (70 100km/h) Urban arterial Urban retail Urban other (50km/h) Rural highway (70 100km/h) (two lanes in direction of travel) Signalised intersection Unsignalised intersection s 0.90 0.89 0.87 1.17 1.03 1.25 1.20 b -52 -28 -16 -19 -22 -32 -22 a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s0 0.083 0.117 0.150 0.050 0.033 0.120 0.017
Note: Evaluations of small retail areas on 50km/h sections of a rural highway should use the urban other (50km/h) context. Adjustment factor for variability calculations In many cases, an activity evaluation will consider a defined area which does not represent the full length of most journeys. As a result, the changes in journey time reliability will be overestimated. In these cases the variability estimates need to be adjusted. Table A4.6 gives some illustrative contexts where different factors might apply. An estimation of the variance of journey times which occurs outside of the evaluation area must be made and the appropriate correction factor in table A4.6 applied. The trip time reliability benefit is adjusted by multiplying the calculated variability benefit by the factor. Table A4.6: Adjustment factors to apply variability calculations Percentage of variance outside of study area
<20%
Factor for benefit calculation
Indicative transport network model coverage
100% 90% 70% 50% 30%
Regional model Subregional model Area model Corridor model Intersection model, individual passing lane
20% 50% 75% 90%
Page A415

Process for evaluating reliability benefits 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Calculate standard deviation of travel time on each link between intersections and for each intersection movement or approach. Square the standard deviations to produce variances. Sum variances along each origin destination path to obtain the total variance for journeys between each origin and destination. Take the square root of the aggregated variance for a journey to give the standard deviation of the journey time. Multiply the total trips for each origin destination pair by the standard deviation of travel time and sum over the matrix to give the networkwide estimate of the variability. Calculate the difference in variability between the activity and do-minimum networks. Assess the percentage of variance occurring outside of the selected study area and select the adjustment factor. Calculate the benefit from improving trip reliability using the formula provided above, namely: 0.9 travel time value reduction in the network variability/60 traffic volume for time period (veh/h) adjustment factor.
6. 7. 8.
Network models with origin destination information
Intersections should be analysed by movement at traffic signals and by movement or by approach for roundabouts and priority intersections. Variability for the uncontrolled movements at priority intersections should be set to zero. For road sections, the calculation of the standard deviation of travel time assumes there is only one link between junctions or between changes in link context. If the model has more than one link between junctions then variability associated with such artificial network nodes should be set to zero. Network skims compatible with the assigned flows should be used to aggregate travel time variances (square of standard deviation) along paths to create a matrix (or matrices where multiple paths are used) of journey time variance for origin destination pairs. The square root of each cell in the resulting matrix will provide the variability (standard deviation) of travel time for that journey. The total network variability is the sum of the products of the number of journeys between origin destination pairs and the standard deviation of travel time for that journey. It is important to note that the process above produces estimates of travel time variability as a function of VC ratio, reflecting the impact of day-to-day variations in travel demand. This is not the same as variations in individual journey times within a modelled period, a possible output of micro-simulation models. The variation in individual journey times from such models will be influenced by the driver, vehicle type, and generation factors used in the stochastic processes used in the model.
Page A416

Evaluations without origin destination information For individual intersection upgrades, the turning movements can be used as a proxy origin destination matrix with the movement weighted standard deviation being calculated for the intersection. For activity areas with more than a single congested intersection or link, an estimate of the proportion of trips that travel through more than one of these sources of variability must be made in order to approximate the total study area variability. For two sources of variability, the reliability estimate for each trip direction is the sum of:
Variability for trips which travel only through source x: Fx SDx
2 2
and, for trips travelling through both source x and y: Where: Fx Fx.y SDx SDy = = = = trips that travel through only source x. trips that travel through both x and y.
Fx.y
SDx
SDy
standard deviation of travel time for trip at source x. standard deviation of travel time for trip at source y.
Note: The result of the above method should be multiplied by a correction factor from table A4.6. Three sources of variability For each of the three sources of variability, the reliability estimate is the sum of the individual components below:
Through source x only: Through sources x and y only: Through sources x and z only: Through sources x, y and z only: Fx Fx.y Fx.z Fx.y.z SDx SDx SDx SDx
2
+
2
SDy SDz SDy
+
2
SDz
Where: Fx,y,z = trips that travel through all three sources x, y and z.
The result should be multiplied by a correction factor from table A4.6. If traffic passes through more than three sources of significant congestion in the modelled area then evaluators must estimate the trip matrix and perform the calculation using the aggregation of journey variance method (with the correction factor from table A4.6).
Page A417

Rural two-lane roads Table A4.7 contains travel time variability values for rural twolane roads of varying terrain and the VC ratio (see appendix A3.17). The time period used to calculate the VC ratio must contain a relatively constant level of traffic volume. Standard deviation of travel time (minutes) percent no-passing for level terrain VC ratio 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Table A4.7(b): Travel time variability (rural two-lane road, rolling terrain) 0% 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.18 20% 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.18 40% 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.15 60% 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.15 80% 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.17 100% 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.18
Table A4.7(a): Travel time variability (rural two-lane road, level terrain)
Standard deviation of travel time (minutes) percent no-passing for rolling terrain VC ratio 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0% 0.03 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.14 0.26 0.43 20% 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.18 0.29 0.44 40% 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.21 0.32 0.47 60% 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.23 0.34 0.46 80% 0.24 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.34 0.47 100% 0.27 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.34 0.49
Page A418

Table A4.7(c): Travel time variability (rural two-lane road, mountainous terrain) Standard deviation of travel time (minutes) percent no-passing for mountainous terrain VC ratio 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0% 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.105 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.28 0.37 0.43 0.43 20% 0.25 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.39 40% 0.32 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.29 0.37 0.44 0.50 60% 0.40 0.28 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.38 0.45 0.51 80% 0.51 0.32 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.41 0.50 0.59 100% 0.65 0.33 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.26 0.34 0.43 0.55 0.73
Page A419
A4.6 Worked examples of trip reliability procedure

Introduction Three worked examples of the calculations for trip reliability benefits are given below. An urban arterial activity involves the addition of traffic lanes to the north and south approaches of a four-leg intersection. This will improve the reliability of travel time. The traffic volumes for the north, south, east and west approaches are 1506veh/h, 168veh/h, 1662veh/h and 57veh/h respectively. The average delay for do-minimum is 30 seconds and average delay for the activity option is 20.8 seconds. Total flow is 3393veh/h. Travel time savings
Travel time savings = $15.13 3393 (30 20.8) / 3600 = $131.19/h Where: $15.13 is value of travel time for morning commuter peak hour (table A4.3)
Example 1: Signalised intersection upgrade
Trip reliability savings The standard deviation of delay (in mins) is calculated by:
SD(TT) = S0 + (S S0) / (1 + eb * (VC ratio a))
For signalised intersections: S = 1.25, b = 32, a = 1, S0 = 0.120 (table A4.5). Do-minimum Approach Lane number Movement Traffic volume (veh/h) 1370 136 44 124 416 1232 14 57 VC ratio SD(TT) (min) SD(TT) x volume (veh-min) 226.934 161.832 5.280 154.546 49.920 167.927 1.680 6.840 774.950 For the do-minimum, the total standard deviation in delay for the intersection is 774.950vehmin.
South
1 2
LT R L TR L T R LTR
0.901 1.09 0.163 1.179 0.551 0.868 0.149 0.626
0.166 1.190 0.120 1.246 0.120 0.136 0.120 0.120
East
1 2
North
1 2 3
West
Page A420
A4.6 Worked examples of trip reliability procedure continued

Example 1: Signalised intersection upgrade continued Activity option Approach Lane number Movement Traffic volume (veh/h) 702 668 136 44 124 416 616 616 14 57 VC ratio SD(TT) (min) SD(TT) x volume (veh-min) 85.886 81.726 17.150 5.280 14.880 49.920 74.107 74.107 -1.680 6.840 411.574
South
1 2 3
LT T R L TR L T T R LTR
0.807 0.807 0.837 0.103 0.324 0.487 0.743 0.743 0.097 0.417
0.122 0.122 0.126 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120
East
1 2
North
1 2 3 4
West
* Additional traffic lane
With additional traffic lanes for the north and south approaches, the standard deviation drops to 411.574veh/min. The drop in standard deviation of delays is due to: 1. 2. increase in capacity for North and South approaches as an extra lane is added for the through traffic. increase in capacity for East and West approaches as the signal controller can allocate a higher proportion of cycle time to movements on these approaches.
Variability benefits per hour of the time period are calculated as: 0.9 $15.13 (774.950 411.574) / 60 30% = $24.74/h. Where $15.13 is the value of travel time for morning commuter peak hour (table A4.3), 0.9 is the variability travel time factor and the correction factor for an intersection model of 30 percent has been judged to be appropriate. Example 2: Rural highway (four-laning) A section of rural strategic road is approaching capacity. One option is four-laning part of this section. The road carries 20,000veh/day in level terrain, with a peak period intensity of 2050veh/h, 70/30 directional split, seven percent heavy truck component and has 60 percent no-passing. For the do-minimum, the capacity is calculated as 2800 fd ft = 2800 0.89 0.92 = 2290veh/h. The values for fd and ft are drawn from appendix A3.11. With a traffic volume of 2050veh/h, the VC ratio = 2050 / 2290 = 0.90. The standard deviation of travel time (denoted as SD(TT)) is 0.09 minutes (from table A4.7). For the activity option, assuming there are no restrictions requiring a reduction in the lane capacity, a capacity of 2200veh/h/lane is applicable (see appendix A3.10). The VC ratio is 2050 / (4 2200) = 0.23.
Page A421

Example 2: Rural highway (four-laning) continued The standard deviation of delay (in min) is calculated by:
SD(TT) = S0 + (S S0) / (1 + eb* (VC ratio a)) For a rural highway (two lanes in each direction of travel): S = 1.03, b = 22, a = 1, S0 = 0.033 (from table A4.5). SD(TT) = 0.033 + (1.030 0.033) / (1 + e22 * (0.231)) = 0.033 min Variability benefits per hour are calculated as: 0.9 $25.34 (0.09 0.033) 2050 / 60 30% = $13.32/h Where: $25.34 is the value of travel time for weekday period for rural strategic roads (from table A4.3). 0.9 is the variability travel time factor and 30 percent is selected as the appropriate adjustment factor (from table A4.6).
Example 3: Township bypass activity
An activity provides a township (urban arterial) bypass from A to E to remove through traffic from the town centre. The existing through-traffic between A and E is 2400veh/h with 1200 vehicles in each direction. It is expected that the traffic volumes between A and E will remain the same once the bypass is built, but 1400 vehicles will use the new bypass each hour (700 in each direction). C Arterial C 1800 v1 1200 A v2 500 Retail C 1500 v1 1200 v2 500 Arterial C 1800 v1 1200 v2 500
Signalised intersection I
'Township bypass'
Arterial C 1800 v1 700 D
Traffic volume and VC ratio at the signalised intersection I are summarised on the following page.
Page A422

Example 3: Township bypass activity continued Do-minimum Approach Lane number Movement Traffic volume (veh/h) 1121 82 249 62 252 947 9 35 VC ratio
South (B)
1 2
LT R L TR L T R LTR
0.840 0.595 0.706 0.442 0.271 0.774 0.072 0.290
East (D)
1 2
North (E)
1 2 3
West (C) Activity option Approach
Lane number
Movement
Traffic volume (veh/h) 421 82 249 62 252 247 9 35
VC ratio
South (B)
1 2
LT R L TR L T R LTR
0.664 0.330 0.286 0.246 0.237 0.433 0.040 0.161
East (D)
1 2
North (E)
1 2 3
West (C) Matrices of flows Do-minimum To A
To B
To C
To D
To E via town 1120 0 20 60 0 0 1200
To E via bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum
From A B C D E via town E via bypass Sum
0 0 4 249 947 0 1200
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 2 9 0 12
82 0 11 2 252 0 345
1203 0 35 311 1208 0 2757
Page A423

Example 3: Township bypass activity continued Matrices of flows continued Project option To A To B To C To D To E via town 420 0 20 60 0 0 500 To E via bypass 700 0 0 0 0 0 700 Sum
0 0 4 249 247 700 1200
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 2 9 0 12
82 0 11 0 252 0 345
1203 0 35 311 508 700 2757
Page A424

Example 3: Township bypass activity continued For road section, standard deviations of travel times in minutes are calculated by:
SD(TT) = S0 + (S S0) / (1 + eb*(VC ratio a))
For urban arterial: S = 0.89, b = 28, a = 1, S0 =0.117 (table A4.5). For urban retail road: S = 0.87, b = 16, a = 1, S0 =0.150 (table A4.5). From A B I A To B I E E Do-minimum 0.117 0.178 0.117 Activity option 0.117 0.150 0.117 0.117
For intersection C, standard deviations of delays in minutes for each movement are calculated by:
SD(TT) = S0 + (S S0) / (1 + eb(VC ratio a))
For signalised intersection: S = 1.25, b = 32, a = 1, S0 =0.120 (table A4.5) From B B B D D D E E E C C C To C E D B C E D B C E D B Do-minimum 0.127 0.127 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.121 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 Activity option 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120
Page A425

Example 3: Township bypass activity continued The total variability is the square root of the sum of individual link/intersection variability. For instance, from origin A to destination C, the total variability for the do-minimum and activity option are calculated by:
2 2 2
Variability AC do-minimum
SDLink (AB)
SDLink (BI)
SDIntersection (BC)
= = Variability AC activity option = =
0.117
0.178
0.127
0.248 min
2 2 2
0.117
0.150
0.120
0.225 min
Matrices of standard deviations of travel times Do-minimum To A To B To C To D To E via town 0.274 0 0.168 0.168 0 0 To E via bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0
From A B C D E via town E via bypass
0 0 0.244 0.244 0.271 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.248 0 0 0.120 0.168 0
0.244 0 0.120 0 0.168 0
Do-minimum
To A
To B
To C
To D
To E via town 0.254 0 0.168 0.168 0 0
To E via bypass 0.117 0 0 0 0 0
From A B C D E via town E via bypass
0 0 0.225 0.225 0.254 0.117
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.225 0 0 0.120 0.168 0
0.225 0 0.120 0 0.168 0
Page A426

Example 3: Township bypass activity continued Networkwide estimate of variability Multiply the element in the flow matrix with the corresponding element in the standard deviation matrix to derive the variability for each movement. Sum each line to get the total for the approach. Add the final column together to derive the networkwide variability. Matrixes of flow x standard deviation of travel time Do-minimum To A To B To C To D To E via town 306.880 0 3.360 10.080 0 0 320.320 To E via bypass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sum
0 0 0.976 60.756 256.637 0 318.369
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.248 0 0 0.240 1.512 0 2.000
20.008 0 1.320 0 42.336 0 63.664
327.136 0.000 5.656 71.076 300.485 0.000 704.353
Do-minimum
To A
To B
To C
To D
To E via town 106.680 0 3.360 10.080 0 0 120.120
To E via bypass 81.9 0 0 0 0 0 81.9
Sum
0 0 0.900 56.025 62.738 81.9 201.563
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.225 0 0 0.240 1.512 0 1.977
18.450 0 1.320 0 42.336 0 62.106
207.255 0.000 5.580 66.345 106.586 81.900 467.666
The total variability for the do-minimum is 704.353veh/min and for 'activity option' is 467.666veh/min. Variability benefits per peak hour are calculated as: 0.9 $15.13 (704.353 467.666) / 60 30% = $16.11/h Where $15.13 is the value of travel time for morning commuter peak hour for urban arterial (table A4.3), 0.9 is the variability travel time factor, and 30 percent is the adjustment factor as there is only one major source of variability.
Page A51
A5
A5.1
Vehicle operating costs

Introduction
This appendix provides values for vehicle operating costs (VOC) categorised into running costs, road surface related costs, speed change cycle costs, congestion costs, and costs while at a stop. Values are provided by vehicle classes and for standard traffic compositions on four different road categories. The vehicle classes are defined in appendix A2.2. The VOC for each vehicle class are based on the weighted average costs of the vehicles of different types within each class. The VOC are given for the standard traffic compositions using the four road categories defined in appendix A2.2, namely: urban arterial, urban other, rural strategic and rural other. The road category costs contained in the tables in this appendix are for the all time periods traffic mix. The VOC in this appendix are provided as resource costs, ie exclusive of duties and indirect taxation, such as excise and other taxes on fuel, import duties, and GST on all cost inputs. Topic Page
Introduction
Vehicle classes
Standard traffic compositions
Nature of costs in this appendix
In this appendix
A5.1 A5.2 A5.3 A5.4 A5.5 A5.6 A5.7
Introduction Base VOC and VOC by speed and gradient Additional VOC due to road surface conditions Additional VOC due to congestion Additional VOC due to bottleneck delay Additional VOC due to speed change cycles Vehicle operating cost tables
A51 A53 A55 A57 A58 A59 A510
Page A52
A5.1
To assist analysts, regression equations are provided which can be used to predict the VOC when using spreadsheets or other applications. Note: The regression coefficients vary between vehicle classes and road categories. The regression equations were used to generate the corresponding VOC tables so the results will be consistent, irrespective of which approach is used. Minor differences will arise when calculating road category costs from individual vehicle class costs due to the regression equations being developed from the road category data. Where high precision is required, the vehicle class equations should be summed and used in preference to the road category equations.
Regression equations
Components of VOC
The total VOC are calculated by adding the following components: VOC = base running costs by speed and gradient + road roughness costs (if appropriate) + road surface texture costs (if appropriate) + pavement elastic deflection costs (if appropriate) + congestion costs (if appropriate) + bottleneck costs (if appropriate) + speed change cycle costs (if appropriate). All components except the base running costs are marginal costs that reflect the additional cost due to that component.
Page A53
A5.2
Base VOC and VOC by speed and gradient

The base vehicle operating costs (base VOC) comprise fuel, tyres, repairs and maintenance, oil, and the proportion of depreciation related to vehicle use. Standing charges, ie those incurred irrespective of use, are excluded from these costs. Such charges are included in the travel time costs for vehicle types (table A4.2) and the composite travel time values (table A4.3). The breakdown of the base VOC by component is given in table A5.0(a) below.
Base vehicle operating costs
Table A5.0(a): Breakdown of base VOC by component
Vehicle class
Percentage of total base VOC by component Fuel and oil Tyres Maintenance and Depreciation repairs 25.6 21.3 33.0 29.7 29.9 29.8 20.9 17.9 9.1 10.5 6.4 9.2
PC LCV MCV HCVI HCVII Bus Road type Urban arterial Urban other Rural strategic Rural other VOC by speed and gradient
49.1 53.8 52.1 57.0 54.0 56.7
4.4 7.0 5.8 7.8 9.6 4.3
49.8 49.8 50.1 50.0
4.8 4.7 5 4.9
25.4 25.6 25.8 25.7
20.0 19.9 19.1 19.4
Tables for VOC by speed (between 10 and 120km/h) and gradients (between zero and 12 percent) are provided in tables A5.1 to A5.10. The regression coefficients for running costs by speed and gradient are provided in table A5.11. Each table is accompanied by a graph. The tables give calculated values for each 5km/h and percentage gradient. The values are the average of the uphill and downhill gradient costs. While VOC are provided for all vehicle classes over the speed and gradient ranges, certain combinations of vehicle class, speed and gradient do not occur in practice, eg sustained operation of laden heavy vehicles at high speed on steep gradients. VOC estimates at these extremes are less reliable than those in the range of normal operation. Intermediate values should be interpolated or predicted using the regression equation. To use the graphs, the line of average traffic speed on the X axis shall be read upwards to where it intersects with the appropriate gradient curve and then the running costs read off the Y axis.
Page A54
A5.2
Base VOC and VOC by speed and gradient continued

For all vehicle classes and road categories, the graph curves slope steeply upwards at low speeds. This arises because as vehicle speeds decrease the fuel consumption is governed by the minimum fuel consumption of the vehicle. As vehicle speeds increase above 60 70km/h the graph curves start to rise due to the effects of increasing aerodynamic drag. Tables A5.1 to A5.6 provide VOC for individual vehicle classes for use when an evaluation requires costs for a particular vehicle class or road category and where the traffic composition does not fall into one of the four standard road categories. One set of tables is provided for each vehicle class and these combine the VOC for both urban and rural road categories. Where a non-standard traffic composition is considered, the combined VOC are estimated from the costs of the individual vehicle classes, and the mean speed of each vehicle class shall be used rather than the mean speed of the traffic stream as a whole. Tables A5.7 to A5.10 provide the VOC for standard traffic compositions in the four road categories.
VOC by speed and gradient continued
Buses
Buses are not included in these standard traffic compositions. If buses form a significant component of the traffic stream they shall be included in proportion to their representation.
Page A55
A5.3
Additional VOC due to road surface conditions

For some activities, road surface roughness is an important contributor to VOC. Activities for which roughness measurements are necessary include shape correction, seal extension and any other work in which the riding characteristic of the road surface is changed by the activity. The base VOC and VOC by speed and gradient outlined in appendix A5.2 are calculated assuming zero road roughness (as measured on the international roughness index (IRI) m/km scale) and shall be supplemented for the additional costs caused by road roughness when relevant to the activity evaluation. Roughness costs are made up of two components: vehicle costs and values for vehicle occupants willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid rough road conditions. The WTP values reflect the preference of road users for driving on smooth roads and are based on New Zealand research. The WTP values indicate that road users on rural roads have a higher WTP value for a given roughness than urban users because of their higher average speeds. However, at very high roughness levels the WTP values are the same for both urban and rural road users. These two components are combined in tables A5.12 to A5.15. Tables A5.12 and A5.13 provide the additional costs due to road roughness for individual vehicle classes for urban and rural conditions. Table A5.14 provides the costs for the standard traffic composition on the four road categories and table A5.15 provides the regression coefficients for predicting the roughness costs.
Road roughness
Measurement of road roughness
To use the VOC tables for road roughness requires the measurement of road roughness. Previously, NAASRA counts/km were the primary measure but with the increased use of profilometers the IRI has been adopted as the primary measure. The NAASRA roughness can be estimated from the IRI using the conversion 1 NAASRA counts/km = 26.49 x IRI m/km 1.27. A vehicles rolling resistance is influenced by the macrotexture of the road surface and impacts on fuel and tyre consumption. The base VOC and VOC by speed and gradient provided in appendix A5.2 are calculated on the basis of zero texture.
The effect of surface texture on VOC (July 2008) is as follows: 1mm increase in surface macrotexture = 0.2265cents/km / vehicle (all vehicle classes combined) Macrotexture is expressed in millimetres (mm) either as a mean profile depth (MPD) or a sand circle (SS). The conversion between the two measures is: SS = 0.2 + 0.8 MPD
Road surface texture
The additional VOC due to road surface texture is added to the VOC in tables A5.2 to A5.11 and is applied to the total traffic volume using the road.
Page A56
A5.1
Base VOC and VOC by speed and gradient continued

Most road pavements in New Zealand are of a bituminous flexible construction. Pavement elastic deformation under heavy wheel loads depends on the type and strength of the pavement layers and sub-grade. It influences rolling resistance and therefore fuel and tyre consumption. The pavement elastic deformation costs from table A5.0(b) are added to the VOC in tables A5.3 to A5.11 for MCV, HCVI, HCVII and buses and the four road categories. Use of these costs should be accompanied by an adequate statistical sample of Benkelman beam test results for existing pavements, or Benkelman beam equivalent values from another recognised nondestructive test method.
Pavement elastic deflection
Table A5.0(b): Increase in vehicle operating costs per vehicle kilometre per one millimetre increase in Benkelman beam deflection (July 2008)
Vehicle class MCV HCVI HCVII Bus Road category Urban arterial Urban other Rural strategic Rural other
Cents/veh/km 2.9 4.5 6.0 4.5
0.23 0.24 0.53 0.44
Page A57
A5.4 Additional VOC due to congestion

Congestion costs The congestion costs are the additional VOC due to vehicle accelerations and decelerations arising from traffic congestion. At low volume to capacity ratios (VC ratio) there are few accelerations or decelerations so the congestion values are relatively low, but they increase with increasing VC ratio, eventually becoming asymptotic as traffic flows approach capacity (VC ratio = 1.0). The congestion costs by vehicle class are supplied in tables A5.16 to A5.18 for three different types of operating conditions:

urban arterial and urban other roads rural strategic and rural other roads motorways.
Motorway costs are based on the rural strategic traffic composition. Road category costs (all vehicle classes combined) are also provided in table A5.19, while table A5.20 provides regression coefficients for predicting the congestion costs by vehicle class and table A5.21 by road category. When considering congestion costs, the amount of time over the year when traffic is at different levels of congestion (ie different VC ratio) must be accounted for. A minimum of five different one-hourly flow periods should be adopted, reflecting low to high flows, and the number of hours per year the traffic is at each flow level calculated (summing to 8760h/year). The procedure for using the costs is as follows:

Determine the capacity of the road (see appendix A3.8). For each of the hourly flow periods, determine the traffic flow in pcu/hr and the corresponding VC ratio (see appendix A3.17). From appendix A3, determine the speed for each of the hourly flow periods. Using the VOC tables, determine the unadjusted VOC (including roughness, texture and deflection) for each of the hourly flow period speeds. For each of the hourly flow periods, determine the congestion cost corresponding to the VC ratio from tables A5.16 to A5.19. Determine the total VOC for each flow period as the sum of the unadjusted VOC and the congestion costs. Determine the total annual VOC by weighting the costs for each flow period by the percentage of the year that flow is experienced.
Page A58
A5.5
Additional
Additional VOC due to bottleneck delay

Tables A5.22 and A5.23 show the additional VOC by vehicle class and road category for a vehicle while experiencing bottleneck delay (ie VC ratio 1.0). They are calculated from the fuel consumption while idling and are in cents/minute.
Page A59
A5.6 Additional VOC due to speed change cycles

When a vehicle travelling at its cruise speed has this speed interrupted due to road geometry or other road features (eg one-lane bridges or intersections), it decelerates to a minimum speed (which may be a complete stop) before accelerating back to its original cruise speed. The speed change cycle values are the difference in travel time and VOC for travelling the distance of the speed cycle at the original cruise speed versus through the speed cycle. Additional VOC due to speed change cycles are only to be used for specific situations where traffic follows a speed cycle comprised of a single deceleration from an initial cruise speed to a minimum speed before returning to the original cruise speed. These situations typically consist of:

curves traffic signals one-lane bridges intersections work zones.
Tables A5.24 to A5.43 provide additional travel time (in seconds per speed cycle) and additional VOC (in cents per speed cycle) due to a speed change cycle for (1) the individual vehicle classes and (2) the standard traffic compositions in the four road categories. Since the speed change cycle costs are additional VOC, care must be taken to ensure that there is no double counting of travel time benefits. For example, when considering traffic signals, the average speed excluding delays at traffic signals would be used to calculate the travel time and VOC. For those vehicles delayed by traffic signals, the additional time and additional VOC associated with the speed change would then be added. In the case of one-lane bridges, the average speed excluding the delay at the bridge would be used to calculate the travel time and VOC. The additional time and additional VOC due to the bridge would then be added.
Page A510
A5.7
Vehicle operating cost tables
Table A5.1: Passenger car VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
Speed (km/h) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 Gradient in percent (both directions) 0 43.9 38.2 34.0 31.0 28.8 27.1 26.0 25.1 24.6 24.3 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.5 24.9 25.3 25.7 26.3 26.8 27.5 28.1 28.8 29.5 1 44.0 38.3 34.2 31.1 28.9 27.3 26.1 25.3 24.7 24.4 24.3 24.3 24.4 24.6 24.9 25.3 25.8 26.3 26.9 27.5 28.1 28.8 29.5 2 44.1 38.5 34.3 31.3 29.1 27.4 26.3 25.4 24.9 24.5 24.4 24.4 24.5 24.7 25.1 25.4 25.9 26.4 27.0 27.6 28.2 28.9 29.6 3 44.2 38.6 34.5 31.5 29.2 27.6 26.4 25.6 25.1 24.7 24.6 24.6 24.7 24.9 25.2 25.6 26.0 26.5 27.1 27.7 28.3 29.0 29.7 4 44.2 38.7 34.6 31.7 29.5 27.8 26.7 25.8 25.3 24.9 24.8 24.8 24.9 25.1 25.4 25.8 26.2 26.7 27.3 27.9 28.5 29.1 29.8 5 44.3 38.9 34.9 31.9 29.7 28.1 26.9 26.1 25.5 25.2 25.1 25.0 25.2 25.4 25.7 26.0 26.5 27.0 27.5 28.1 28.7 29.4 30.1 6 44.4 39.1 35.1 32.2 30.0 28.4 27.2 26.4 25.9 25.5 25.4 25.4 25.5 25.7 26.0 26.4 26.8 27.3 27.9 28.4 29.1 29.7 30.4 7 44.5 39.3 35.4 32.5 30.3 28.8 27.6 26.8 26.3 26.0 25.8 25.8 25.9 26.1 26.4 26.8 27.2 27.7 28.3 28.9 29.5 30.1 30.8 8 44.7 39.6 35.7 32.9 30.8 29.2 28.1 27.3 26.8 26.5 26.3 26.3 26.4 26.6 26.9 27.3 27.8 28.3 28.8 29.4 30.0 30.7 31.3 9 45.0 39.9 36.1 33.3 31.3 29.7 28.6 27.9 27.4 27.0 26.9 26.9 27.0 27.3 27.6 28.0 28.4 28.9 29.4 30.0 30.6 31.3 32.0 10 45.2 40.4 36.6 33.9 31.9 30.4 29.3 28.5 28.0 27.7 27.6 27.6 27.8 28.0 28.3 28.7 29.1 29.6 30.2 30.8 31.4 32.1 32.7 11 45.6 40.9 37.2 34.5 32.6 31.1 30.1 29.3 28.8 28.6 28.4 28.5 28.6 28.9 29.2 29.6 30.0 30.5 31.1 31.7 32.3 33.0 33.6 12 46.1 41.5 37.9 35.3 33.4 31.9 30.9 30.2 29.8 29.5 29.4 29.4 29.6 29.8 30.2 30.6 31.0 31.6 32.1 32.7 33.3 34.0 34.7
46 44 42 Running costs in cents/km 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h 80 100 120 0% 12%
Page A511
A5.7
Vehicle operating cost tables continued
Table A5.2: LCV VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
56 53 50 Running costs in cents/km 47 44 41 38 0% 35 32 29 26 0 20 40 60 Speed km/h

12%
80
100
120
Page A512
A5.7
Table A5.3: MCV VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
102 96 90 Running costs in cents/km 84 78 72
12%
0% 66 60 54 48 0 20 40 60 Speed km/h 80 100 120
Page A513
A5.7
Table A5.4: HCVI VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
250 230 210 Running costs in cents/km 190 170 150 130 110 90 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h
12%
0%
80
100
120
Page A514
A5.7
Table A5.5: HCVII VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
550 12% 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h
Running costs in cents/km
0%
80
100
120
Page A515
A5.7
Table A5.6: Bus VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
215 12% 195 Running costs in cents/km 175 155 135 0% 115 95 75 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h
80
100
120
Page A516
A5.7
Table A5.7: Urban arterial VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
64 59 Running costs in cents/km 12% 54 49 44 39 0% 34 29 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h

80
100
120
Page A517
A5.7
Table A5.8: Urban other VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
55
50 Running costs in cents/km
45 12% 40
35 0% 30
25 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h
80
100
120
Page A518
A5.7
Table A5.9: Rural strategic VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
75 12% 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h

0%
80
100
120
Page A519
A5.7
Table A5.10: Rural other VOC by speed and gradient (cents/km July 2008)
65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 0 20 40 60 Speed in km/h
12%
0%
80
100
120
Page A520
A5.7
Table A5.11: Running cost by speed and gradient regression coefficients (cents/km July 2008)
VOCB = a + b x GR + c x ln(S) + d x GR2 + e x [ln(S)]2 + f x GR x ln(S) + g x GR3 + h x [ln(S)]3 + i x GR x[ln(S)]2 + j x GR2 x ln(S)
Regression coefficient
Vehicle class PC LCV 15.852 -109.65 64.641 -118.58 -30.064 68.678 12.105 3.6463 -99.936 15.750 MCV 20.230 -70.181 87.808 2731.4 -39.668 55.741 -165.84 4.8935 -147.07 58.615 HCVI -75.602 82.435 263.07 9566.1 -101.34 -65.136 -608.65 11.615 -48.388 171.01 HCVII -263.90 2722.4 469.66 15069 -159.79 -1446.2 -1306.0 17.174 1796.9 488.06 Bus -125.50 -21.363 272.77 5637.9 -102.10 81.726 -413.78 11.711 -318.64 157.89
Road category Urban arterial 15.837 5.8087 59.846 193.04 -26.979 10.316 -4.2281 3.2172 -30.26 26.908 Urban other 19.898 -21.958 52.292 -129.24 -24.332 25.549 -27.46 2.9233 -46.859 19.615 Rural strategic 5.1705 91.522 77.703 918.9 -33.024 -36.259 -83.300 3.8723 24.414 45.233 Rural other 12.034 35.415 66.095 444.87 -29.079 -5.8716 -46.897 3.4431 -11.163 33.217
a b (x 10 ) c d (x 10-4) E f (x 10 ) g (x 10-4) h i (x 10 ) j (x 10 ) Notes: VOCB GR S ln

-3 -3 -2 -2
24.616 -44.832 43.489 -445.63 -21.157 38.558 17.595 2.5663 -61.237 12.523
= base vehicle operating costs in cents/km = absolute value of average gradient (ie >0) over range of 0 12 percent = speed in km/h over range of 10 120km/h = natural logarithm.
Sample equation for passenger cars (PC): VOCB = 24.616 44.832 x 102 GR + 43.489 ln(S) 445.63 104 GR2 21.157 [ln(S)]2 + 38.558 102 GR ln(S) + 17.595 104 GR3 + 2.5663 [ln(S)]3 61.237 103 GR [ln(S)]2 + 12.523 103 GR2 ln(S)
Page A521
A5.7
Table A5.12: Urban additional VOC due to roughness by vehicle class (cents/km July 2008)
Roughness IRI (m/km) 0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0
120 HCVII 100 Roughness cost in cents/km HCVI Bus 60 MCV
Additional VOC in cents/km by vehicle class NAASRA (count/km) 0 66 79 92 106 119 132 145 158 172 185 198 211 224 238 251 264 277 290 304 317 330 343 356 370 383 396 PC 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.4 3.7 5.1 6.7 8.3 10.1 11.8 13.5 15.3 16.9 18.6 20.2 21.7 22.6 23.3 24.0 24.8 25.5 26.3 27.0 27.7 28.5 LCV 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.3 3.7 5.4 7.3 9.3 11.4 13.6 15.7 17.9 19.9 22.0 23.9 25.7 26.6 27.3 28.0 28.7 29.4 30.1 30.7 31.4 32.1 MCV 0.0 0.5 1.7 3.5 5.8 8.5 11.5 14.7 18.0 21.4 24.8 28.2 31.6 34.9 38.1 41.2 44.3 46.0 47.5 49.0 50.5 52.0 53.5 55.0 56.5 58.0 HCVI 0.0 0.9 2.5 5.1 8.4 12.3 16.6 21.2 25.9 30.8 35.7 40.6 45.4 50.2 54.9 59.4 63.9 66.3 68.4 70.5 72.7 74.8 76.9 79.0 81.2 83.3 HCVII 0.0 1.5 4.1 7.8 12.3 17.4 22.9 28.7 34.7 40.8 46.9 53.0 59.0 65.0 70.9 76.6 82.3 85.8 89.1 92.3 95.6 98.9 102.2 105.5 108.7 112.0 Bus 0.0 0.8 2.5 5.0 8.0 11.4 15.1 19.0 23.0 27.0 31.1 35.1 39.1 43.0 46.9 50.7 54.3 56.7 58.8 60.9 63.0 65.1 67.2 69.3 71.5 73.6
80
40 LCV PC 20
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Roughness in IRI m/km

Page A522
A5.7
Table A5.13: Rural additional VOC due to roughness by vehicle class (cents/km July 2008)
120 HCVII 100 Roughness cost in cents/km HCVI Bus 60 MCV
Additional VOC in cents/km by vehicle class NAASRA (count/km) 0 66 79 92 106 119 132 145 158 172 185 198 211 224 238 251 264 277 290 304 317 330 343 356 370 383 396 PC 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.2 4.1 6.2 8.4 10.5 12.6 14.7 16.9 17.9 18.7 19.5 20.2 21.0 21.7 22.5 23.2 24.0 24.8 25.5 26.3 27.0 27.8 28.5 LCV 0.0 0.3 0.8 2.5 5.0 7.8 10.6 13.3 16.0 18.7 21.6 22.3 23.0 23.7 24.4 25.1 25.8 26.6 27.3 28.0 28.7 29.4 30.1 30.8 31.5 32.2 MCV 0.0 0.4 2.0 5.2 9.4 13.9 18.4 22.7 26.9 31.1 35.4 36.9 38.4 39.9 41.4 42.9 44.4 45.9 47.5 49.0 50.5 52.0 53.5 55.0 56.5 58.0 HCVI 0.0 0.6 2.9 7.5 13.6 20.1 26.6 32.8 38.9 44.9 51.2 53.6 55.7 57.8 60.0 62.1 64.2 66.3 68.4 70.6 72.7 74.8 76.9 79.0 81.2 83.3 HCVII 0.0 1.1 4.4 10.2 17.4 25.1 32.8 40.2 47.4 54.6 62.1 66.0 69.3 72.6 75.9 79.2 82.4 85.7 89.0 92.3 95.6 98.9 102.2 105.5 108.8 112.1 Bus 0.0 0.5 2.7 6.6 11.5 16.6 21.8 26.8 31.6 36.4 41.4 43.8 45.9 48.1 50.2 52.3 54.5 56.6 58.7 60.9 63.0 65.1 67.2 69.4 71.5 73.6
80
40 LCV PC 20
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Page A523
A5.7
Table A5.14: Additional VOC due to roughness by road category (cents/km July 2008)
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Rural strategic Rural other Urban
Additional VOC in cents/km by vehicle class Urban 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.8 4.2 5.8 7.6 9.4 11.3 13.3 15.2 17.1 19.0 20.9 22.6 24.3 25.3 26.1 27.0 27.8 28.6 29.4 30.2 31.1 31.9 Rural strategic 0.0 0.2 1.0 2.8 5.2 7.9 10.6 13.2 15.8 18.4 21.1 22.5 23.4 24.4 25.3 26.2 27.2 28.1 29.1 30.0 30.9 31.9 32.8 33.7 34.7 35.6 Rural other 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.9 5.3 7.9 10.6 13.2 15.8 18.3 20.9 21.8 22.7 23.6 24.5 25.4 26.3 27.2 28.1 29.0 29.9 30.8 31.7 32.6 33.5 34.4 0 66 79 92 106 119 132 145 158 172 185 198 211 224 238 251 264 277 290 304 317 330 343 356 370 383 396
NAASRA (count/km)
Roughness cost in cents/km

Page A524
A5.7
Table A5.15: Additional VOC due to roughness regression coefficients (cents/km July 2008)
VOCRI = min ( {a + b x ln(RI) + c x [ln(RI)]2 + d x [ln(RI)]3 + e x [ln(RI)]4 + f x [ln(RI)]5}, {g x RI + h} )
Road category
Vehicle class a b 77.057 129.35 71.074 112.15 77.632 33.037 846.70 1370.8 1640.9 2530.7 2335.4 1502.1 80.862 1056.6 1029.2 c 86.517 141.25 91.411 139.97 108.24 56.239 224.6 1968.1 2414.8 3713.6 3461.4 2242.3 91.461 1533.9 1493.1 d 40.422 64.156 47.557 71.388 60.487 34.664 854.94 1366.6 1712.2 2628.4 2469.7 1607.8 43.021 1074.7 1045.6
Regression coefficient e 5.9464 9.4511 7.0566 10.510 8.7532 5.1337 287.91 459.01 584.01 895.94 845.66 552.26 6.3290 363.08 353.07 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.983 60.422 77.823 119.35 113.09 74.008 0 48.024 46.681 g 1.4693 1.3664 3.0007 4.2510 6.5590 4.2313 1.5141 1.4080 3.0157 4.2419 6.5815 4.2594 1.6381 1.8754 1.8108 h 6.4171 11.607 12.965 19.534 13.630 10.108 5.8313 11.062 12.770 19.655 13.338 9.7426 7.2991 7.4853 7.2878
Urban
PC LCV MCV HCVI HCVII Bus
24.870 42.613 19.987 32.755 20.627 6.1144 226.98 370.44 431.90 668.55 610.68 389.20 25.935 282.21 275.08
Rural
PC LCV MCV HCVI HCVII Bus
Urban Rural strategic Rural other Notes: VOCRI RI ln
All All All
= additional vehicle operating costs due to roughness in cents/km = max (2.5, roughness in IRI m/km) = natural logarithm.
Page A525
A5.7
Table A5.16: Urban arterial and urban other additional VOC due to congestion by vehicle class (cents/km July 2008)
VC ratio 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
70 60 Additional cost in cents/km 50 40 30 HCVI 20 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 VC ratio
Additional cost in cents/km PC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.9 2.7 3.4 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 LCV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.4 2.2 3.1 4.0 4.9 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 MCV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.9 1.9 3.5 5.6 8.1 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 HCVI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 1.7 3.6 7.5 13.1 19.8 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 27.1 HCVII 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4 1.4 2.3 5.4 11.8 22.2 37.2 57.2 69.2 69.2 69.2 69.2 69.2 69.2 69.2 69.2 69.2
HCVII
Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.9 2.2 4.3 7.3 11.1 15.8 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5
Bus MCV LCV PC 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Page A526
A5.7
Table A5.17: Rural strategic and rural other additional VOC due to congestion by vehicle class (cents/km July 2008)
VC ratio 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
70 60 Additional cost in cents/km 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 VC ratio
Additional cost in cents/km PC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 LCV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.5 2.9 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 MCV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 2.0 3.2 4.2 5.1 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 HCVI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 6.5 10.4 13.8 16.4 18.4 19.8 20.8 21.4 21.8 22.1 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 HCVII 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.8 3.3 6.4 11.5 18.9 28.3 39.7 52.8 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4 67.4
HCVII
Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 4.0 6.5 8.4 9.9 10.9 11.5 11.9 12.2 12.5 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9
HCVI Bus MCV LCV PC 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Page A527
A5.7
Table A5.18: Motorway additional VOC due to congestion by vehicle class (cents/km July 2008)
VC ratio 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 Additional cost in cents/km PC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 LCV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.8 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 MCV 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.9 2.2 4.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 HCVI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.1 2.9 6.4 12.5 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 HCVII 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 6.2 14.8 29.5 52.2 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 Bus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.9 4.0 7.3 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4
70 60 Additional cost in cents/km 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 VC ratio

HCVII
HCVI Bus MCV LCV PC 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Page A528
A5.7
Table A5.19: Additional VOC due to congestion by road category (cents/km July 2008)
VC ratio 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
10 9 8 Additional cost in cents/km 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 VC ratio
Additional cost in cents/km Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 1.9 3.0 4.3 5.6 6.9 8.0 8.8 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 Rural strategic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.9 3.6 4.2 4.7 5.2 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Rural other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.2 2.0 2.9 3.7 4.5 5.2 5.8 6.3 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 Motorway 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 3.0 4.7 5.9 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4
Urban
Rural other Motorway Rural strategic
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Page A529
A5.7
Table A5.20: Additional VOC due to congestion regression coefficient by vehicle class (cents/km July 2008) For equation All A B Notes: Use the expression VOCCONG VOCCONG VOCCONG =0 = a + b ln(VC) + c ln(VC) + d ln(VC) + e ln(VC) + f ln(VC) = a VC +b VC +c VC +d VC + e
4 3 2 2 3 4 5
For VC ratio
<VC min >VC min >VC min
VOCCONG = Additional vehicle operating costs due to congestion in cents/km. VC = volume to capacity ratio. Regression coefficient by vehicle class
Road type Urban
Parameter PC Equation a b c d e f VC max VC min A 4.114 4.255 76.636 146.319 -81.584 1.000 0.500 A 3.276 50.311 339.139 1021.535 1382.192 690.034 1.000 0.600 B 273.8835 35.809 737.0591 326.238 53.83505 1 0.8 LCV A 7.071 11.447 19.967 45.604 21.028 1.000 0.53 A 5.527 67.048 352.392 786.600 612.745 1.000 0.600 B 853.6372 2467.21 2665.344 1275.54 228.1607 1 0.825 MCV A 21.331 76.389 77.207 0.689 22.212 0.825 0.450 A 7.032397 5.143223 17.39425 71.2 54.920 1.000 0.450 B 788.7859 1810.37 1557.907 595.179 85.11867 0.875 0.5 HCVI A 48.345 41.938 413.803 893.843 506.405 0.800 0.450 A 22.493 7.959 26.291 134.008 93.231 1.000 0.425 B 1098.495 2279.79 1764.498 602.645 76.55681 0.9 0.475 HCVII A 236.393 979.206 1512.028 1022.674 254.673 0.775 0.350 A 198.191 420.886 297.280 48.984 25.657 8.019 0.650 0.155 B 2057.76 3543.77 2221.85 599.524 58.63954 0.875 0.6 Bus A 43.163 169.890 243.809 150.698 33.863 0.825 0.28 A 12.907 10.232 46.922 157.182 109.993 1.000 0.475 B 334.8539 585.505 369.3951 99.1556 9.519197 0.9 0.625
Two-lane highway
Equation a b c d e f VC max VC min
Motorway
Equation a b c d e VC max VC min
Page A530
A5.7
Table A5.21: Additional VOC due to congestion regression coefficients by road category (cents/km July 2008)
VOCCONG = a + b x ln(VC) + c x ln(VC)2 + d x ln(VC)3 + e x ln(VC)4 + f x ln(VC)5
Rural two-lane Regression coefficient a b c d e f VC min VC max Notes: Urban Strategic 9.216 3.159 -101.456 -237.202 -202.631 -60.838 0.450 1.000 6.025 3.070 -13.277 -1.806 18.506 9.948 0.375 1.000 Other 6.948 1.908 -13.172 13.970 42.589 20.230 0.350 1.000 6.392 -0.081 -219.002 -619.356 -300.941 327.808 0.725 1.000 Motorway
VOCCONG = Additional vehicle operating costs due to congestion in cents/km. VC ratio = Volume to capacity ratio
Table A5.22: Additional VOC due to bottleneck delay by vehicle class (cents/minute July 2008) PC 2.892 LCV 3.73 MCV 4.484 HCVI 6.678 HCVII 6.678 Bus 5.247
Table A5.23: Additional VOC due to bottleneck delay by road category (cents/minute July 2008) Rural other 3.281 Rural strategic 3.343 Urban arterial 3.175 Urban other 3.121
Page A531
A5.7
Table A5.24: Passenger car additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h) 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 2.2 4.1 5.8 7.4 8.9 10.4 11.8 13.1 13.7 14.3 14.9 15.4 15.9 16.4 16.9 17.4 17.8 18.3 18.8 19.2 19.6 20.1 20.5 20.9 1.1 2.8 4.4 6.0 7.5 9.0 10.4 11.4 12.1 12.8 13.4 14.0 14.6 15.2 15.7 16.2 16.7 17.2 17.7 18.2 18.7 19.1 19.6 0.8 2.1 3.6 5.1 6.5 8.0 9.2 10.0 10.8 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.5 14.1 14.7 15.2 15.8 16.3 16.8 17.3 17.8 18.3 0.6 1.7 3.0 4.4 5.8 7.2 8.1 8.9 9.7 10.5 11.2 11.9 12.5 13.2 13.8 14.4 14.9 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 0.5 1.5 2.6 3.9 5.2 6.3 7.2 8.1 8.9 9.6 10.4 11.1 11.7 12.4 13.0 13.6 14.2 14.7 15.3 15.8 0.4 1.3 2.3 3.5 4.7 5.6 6.5 7.4 8.2 8.9 9.6 10.3 11.0 11.7 12.3 12.9 13.5 14.0 14.6 0.4 1.1 2.1 3.2 4.2 5.1 5.9 6.8 7.5 8.3 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.0 11.7 12.3 12.9 13.4 0.3 1.0 1.9 2.9 3.8 4.6 5.5 6.2 7.0 7.7 8.5 9.1 9.8 10.5 11.1 11.7 12.3 0.3 0.9 1.8 2.6 3.5 4.3 5.0 5.8 6.6 7.3 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.0 10.6 11.2 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.4 3.2 3.9 4.7 5.4 6.2 6.9 7.5 8.2 8.9 9.5 10.1 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.4 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.2 7.8 8.5 9.1 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.5 6.2 6.8 7.5 8.1 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.9 4.6 5.2 5.9 6.5 7.1 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.7 4.3 5.0 5.6 6.2 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.4 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.5 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.8 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1
Additional travel time in seconds/speed cycle by final speed 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
Page A532
A5.7
Table A5.25: Passenger car additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Additional VOC (in cents/speed cycle) by final speed 0

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.7 6.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.6 5.9 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A533
A5.7
Table A5.26: LCV additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120
Additional travel time in seconds/speed cycle by final speed 0

2.4 4.4 6.2 8.0 9.6 11.1 12.6 14.1 14.8 15.4 16.0 16.6 17.2 17.8 18.4 18.9 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 1.2 3.0 4.8 6.5 8.1 9.7 11.2 12.2 13.0 13.8 14.5 15.2 15.9 16.5 17.1 17.7 18.3 18.9 19.4 20.0 20.5 21.0 21.5 0.8 2.3 3.9 5.4 7.0 8.6 9.9 10.8 11.6 12.5 13.2 14.0 14.7 15.4 16.0 16.7 17.3 17.9 18.4 19.0 19.6 20.1 0.6 1.8 3.3 4.7 6.2 7.7 8.7 9.6 10.5 11.4 12.2 12.9 13.7 14.4 15.1 15.7 16.3 17.0 17.6 18.2 18.7 0.5 1.6 2.8 4.2 5.6 6.8 7.8 8.7 9.6 10.5 11.3 12.0 12.8 13.5 14.2 14.9 15.5 16.2 16.8 17.4 0.4 1.4 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.1 7.0 8.0 8.8 9.7 10.5 11.3 12.0 12.7 13.4 14.1 14.8 15.4 16.1 0.4 1.2 2.3 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.0 9.8 10.6 11.3 12.1 12.8 13.5 14.1 14.8 0.3 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.0 5.9 6.8 7.6 8.4 9.2 10.0 10.7 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.5 0.3 1.0 1.9 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.5 6.3 7.1 7.9 8.7 9.5 10.2 10.9 11.6 12.3 0.3 0.9 1.8 2.6 3.4 4.3 5.1 5.9 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.1 0.3 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.1 7.8 8.6 9.3 10.0 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.2 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.2 6.0 6.7 7.5 8.2 8.9 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.2 5.0 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.9 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.1 6.8 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.5 3.1 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.9 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.6 4.3 5.0 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A534
A5.7
Table A5.27: LCV additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 8.9 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.8 5.3 5.8 6.3 6.8 7.2 7.7 8.2 8.6 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.1 5.6 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.4 7.9 8.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.5 3.9 4.4 4.8 5.3 5.8 6.2 6.7 7.1 7.6 8.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.5 5.0 5.5 5.9 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.6 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.1 5.5 5.9 6.4 6.7 7.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.4 3.8 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.9 6.3 6.7 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.9 6.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.5 5.8 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.9 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.5 3.9 4.2 4.5 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.5 3.8 4.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.4 3.7 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.9 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A535
A5.7
Table A5.28: MCV additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2.5 4.6 6.5 8.3 10.0 11.6 13.2 14.7 15.4 16.1 16.8 17.4 18.0 18.6 19.2 19.8 20.4 20.9 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 1.3 3.1 5.0 6.8 8.5 10.1 11.7 12.8 13.6 14.4 15.2 15.9 16.6 17.3 17.9 18.5 19.1 19.7 20.3 20.9 21.4 22.0 22.5 0.9 2.4 4.0 5.7 7.3 9.0 10.3 11.3 12.2 13.0 13.8 14.6 15.4 16.1 16.7 17.4 18.1 18.7 19.3 19.9 20.5 21.0 0.7 1.9 3.4 5.0 6.5 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.0 11.9 12.7 13.5 14.3 15.0 15.7 16.4 17.1 17.7 18.4 19.0 19.6 0.5 1.6 3.0 4.4 5.9 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 10.9 11.8 12.6 13.4 14.1 14.9 15.6 16.2 16.9 17.5 18.2 0.5 1.4 2.6 4.0 5.3 6.4 7.4 8.3 9.2 10.1 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.3 14.1 14.8 15.5 16.1 16.8 0.4 1.3 2.4 3.6 4.7 5.7 6.7 7.7 8.6 9.4 10.3 11.1 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.1 14.8 15.4 0.4 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.3 5.2 6.2 7.1 8.0 8.8 9.7 10.5 11.2 12.0 12.7 13.4 14.1 0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.8 5.7 6.6 7.5 8.3 9.1 9.9 10.7 11.4 12.2 12.9 0.3 1.0 1.9 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.3 6.2 7.0 7.8 8.6 9.4 10.2 10.9 11.6 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 5.8 6.6 7.4 8.2 9.0 9.7 10.5 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.3 3.1 3.9 4.7 5.5 6.3 7.1 7.8 8.6 9.3 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.9 3.7 4.4 5.2 6.0 6.7 7.5 8.2 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.5 4.2 4.9 5.7 6.4 7.2 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.2 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.8 4.5 5.2 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.6 4.3 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.5 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A536
A5.7
Table A5.29: MCV additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.9 6.0 7.1 8.4 9.7 11.2 12.8 14.4 16.2 18.1 20.0 22.0 24.2 26.4 28.7 31.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.1 2.9 3.7 4.6 5.7 6.8 8.1 9.4 10.9 12.4 14.1 15.8 17.7 19.6 21.6 23.7 25.8 28.1 30.4 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.3 6.4 7.7 9.0 10.5 12.0 13.6 15.4 17.2 19.0 21.0 23.1 25.2 27.4 29.7 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.9 3.7 4.8 5.9 7.2 8.5 10.0 11.5 13.1 14.8 16.6 18.4 20.4 22.4 24.5 26.6 28.8 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.2 5.4 6.6 7.9 9.3 10.9 12.4 14.1 15.9 17.7 19.6 21.6 23.7 25.8 27.9 0.5 1.1 1.8 2.6 3.5 4.7 5.9 7.2 8.6 10.1 11.7 13.3 15.1 16.9 18.8 20.7 22.7 24.8 26.9 0.5 1.2 2.0 2.8 3.9 5.1 6.4 7.8 9.3 10.8 12.5 14.2 16.0 17.9 19.8 21.8 23.8 25.9 0.6 1.3 2.1 3.1 4.3 5.6 6.9 8.4 9.9 11.6 13.3 15.0 16.9 18.8 20.7 22.7 24.8 0.6 1.4 2.3 3.4 4.6 6.0 7.4 9.0 10.6 12.3 14.0 15.8 17.7 19.7 21.6 23.7 0.7 1.5 2.4 3.7 5.0 6.4 7.9 9.5 11.2 12.9 14.7 16.6 18.5 20.5 22.5 0.7 1.6 2.6 3.9 5.3 6.8 8.4 10.1 11.8 13.6 15.4 17.3 19.3 21.2 0.8 1.7 2.8 4.2 5.7 7.2 8.9 10.6 12.4 14.2 16.1 18.0 19.9 0.8 1.7 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.6 9.3 11.1 12.9 14.8 16.7 18.6 0.8 1.8 3.2 4.7 6.3 8.0 9.8 11.6 13.4 15.3 17.2 0.8 1.9 3.4 5.0 6.6 8.4 10.2 12.0 13.9 15.8 0.8 2.0 3.5 5.2 6.9 8.7 10.5 12.4 14.3 0.8 2.1 3.7 5.4 7.2 9.0 10.9 12.8 0.8 2.2 3.8 5.6 7.4 9.3 11.2 0.8 2.3 4.0 5.8 7.6 9.5 0.8 2.3 4.1 5.9 7.8 0.8 2.4 4.2 6.1 0.8 2.5 4.3 0.8 2.5 0.9
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A537
A5.7
Table A5.30: HCVI additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2.9 5.3 7.6 9.6 11.6 13.5 15.3 17.0 17.8 18.6 19.4 20.1 20.9 21.6 22.3 22.9 23.6 24.2 24.9 25.5 26.1 26.7 27.3 27.8 1.5 3.6 5.7 7.8 9.8 11.7 13.5 14.8 15.8 16.7 17.5 18.4 19.2 20.0 20.7 21.5 22.2 22.9 23.5 24.2 24.8 25.5 26.1 1.0 2.8 4.7 6.6 8.5 10.3 11.9 13.0 14.1 15.1 16.0 16.9 17.8 18.6 19.4 20.2 20.9 21.6 22.4 23.0 23.7 24.4 0.8 2.2 3.9 5.7 7.5 9.3 10.5 11.7 12.7 13.8 14.7 15.7 16.5 17.4 18.2 19.0 19.8 20.6 21.3 22.0 22.7 0.6 1.9 3.4 5.1 6.8 8.2 9.4 10.6 11.6 12.7 13.6 14.6 15.5 16.4 17.2 18.0 18.8 19.6 20.3 21.1 0.5 1.6 3.0 4.6 6.1 7.3 8.5 9.6 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.6 14.6 15.4 16.3 17.1 17.9 18.7 19.5 0.5 1.5 2.7 4.2 5.5 6.6 7.8 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.8 13.7 14.6 15.5 16.3 17.1 17.9 0.4 1.3 2.5 3.8 4.9 6.1 7.1 8.2 9.2 10.2 11.2 12.1 13.0 13.9 14.7 15.6 16.4 0.4 1.2 2.3 3.4 4.5 5.6 6.6 7.6 8.6 9.6 10.6 11.5 12.4 13.2 14.1 14.9 0.3 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.1 9.1 10.0 10.9 11.8 12.7 13.5 0.3 1.0 2.0 2.9 3.8 4.8 5.8 6.7 7.7 8.6 9.5 10.4 11.3 12.1 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.4 6.4 7.3 8.2 9.1 9.9 10.8 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.1 6.0 6.9 7.8 8.7 9.5 0.3 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.9 5.7 6.6 7.4 8.3 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.2 3.0 3.8 4.6 5.5 6.3 7.1 0.2 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.6 4.4 5.2 6.0 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.2 5.0 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.0 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.2 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A538
A5.7
Table A5.31: HCVI additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.4 1.0 1.8 2.7 4.2 5.9 7.9 10.2 12.9 15.9 19.3 22.9 26.9 31.2 35.8 40.8 46.0 51.6 57.5 63.6 70.2 77.0 84.1 91.5 0.5 1.2 2.2 3.6 5.4 7.4 9.6 12.3 15.3 18.7 22.3 26.3 30.5 35.1 40.0 45.2 50.7 56.5 62.6 69.0 75.7 82.7 90.0 0.6 1.5 2.9 4.6 6.6 8.8 11.4 14.4 17.7 21.4 25.3 29.6 34.1 38.9 44.1 49.5 55.2 61.2 67.5 74.1 81.0 88.2 0.7 2.0 3.7 5.6 7.8 10.2 13.2 16.6 20.2 24.1 28.3 32.8 37.6 42.6 48.0 53.7 59.6 65.8 72.3 79.1 86.2 1.0 2.5 4.4 6.5 8.9 11.8 15.0 18.6 22.5 26.7 31.1 35.9 40.9 46.2 51.8 57.6 63.8 70.2 76.9 83.8 1.2 2.9 5.0 7.3 9.9 13.2 16.7 20.5 24.7 29.1 33.8 38.7 44.0 49.5 55.3 61.4 67.7 74.3 81.1 1.5 3.3 5.6 8.0 11.1 14.6 18.4 22.4 26.8 31.5 36.4 41.6 47.1 52.8 58.8 65.0 71.5 78.2 1.7 3.7 6.1 8.8 12.3 16.0 20.0 24.4 29.0 33.8 39.0 44.4 50.1 56.0 62.2 68.6 75.2 1.8 4.1 6.6 9.8 13.4 17.4 21.7 26.2 31.1 36.2 41.5 47.2 53.0 59.1 65.4 72.0 2.0 4.4 7.1 10.7 14.6 18.8 23.3 28.1 33.2 38.5 44.0 49.8 55.9 62.1 68.6 2.2 4.7 7.8 11.6 15.7 20.2 24.9 29.9 35.2 40.7 46.5 52.5 58.7 65.1 2.3 4.9 8.4 12.5 16.9 21.6 26.5 31.7 37.2 42.9 48.9 55.0 61.3 2.4 5.1 9.1 13.3 18.0 22.9 28.1 33.5 39.2 45.1 51.2 57.4 2.5 5.5 9.7 14.2 19.0 24.2 29.6 35.2 41.1 47.1 53.4 2.5 5.9 10.3 15.0 20.1 25.5 31.1 36.9 42.9 49.1 2.5 6.2 10.8 15.8 21.1 26.7 32.5 38.5 44.7 2.5 6.6 11.4 16.6 22.1 27.9 33.9 40.0 2.5 6.9 11.9 17.4 23.1 29.0 35.2 2.6 7.2 12.4 18.1 24.0 30.1 2.6 7.5 12.9 18.8 24.9 2.7 7.7 13.4 19.4 2.8 8.0 13.8 2.8 8.2 2.9
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A539
A5.7
Table A5.32: HCVII additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

3.2 6.0 8.4 10.7 12.9 15.0 17.0 18.9 19.9 20.8 21.7 22.5 23.4 24.2 24.9 25.7 26.5 27.2 27.9 28.6 29.3 30.0 30.7 31.3 1.6 4.0 6.4 8.7 10.9 13.0 15.0 16.5 17.6 18.6 19.6 20.6 21.5 22.4 23.2 24.1 24.9 25.7 26.4 27.2 27.9 28.7 29.4 1.1 3.1 5.2 7.3 9.4 11.5 13.3 14.6 15.7 16.9 17.9 18.9 19.9 20.8 21.8 22.6 23.5 24.3 25.1 25.9 26.7 27.4 0.9 2.5 4.4 6.4 8.4 10.4 11.7 13.0 14.2 15.4 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5 21.4 22.2 23.1 23.9 24.7 25.5 0.7 2.1 3.8 5.7 7.5 9.2 10.5 11.8 13.0 14.2 15.3 16.3 17.4 18.4 19.3 20.2 21.1 22.0 22.9 23.7 0.6 1.8 3.4 5.1 6.8 8.2 9.5 10.8 12.0 13.1 14.2 15.3 16.3 17.3 18.3 19.2 20.1 21.0 21.9 0.5 1.6 3.1 4.6 6.1 7.4 8.7 9.9 11.1 12.2 13.3 14.4 15.4 16.4 17.4 18.3 19.2 20.1 0.5 1.5 2.8 4.2 5.5 6.8 8.0 9.2 10.3 11.5 12.5 13.6 14.6 15.6 16.6 17.5 18.4 0.4 1.3 2.6 3.8 5.0 6.2 7.4 8.6 9.7 10.8 11.8 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.8 16.8 0.4 1.2 2.4 3.5 4.6 5.8 6.9 8.0 9.1 10.2 11.2 12.2 13.2 14.2 15.2 0.3 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.3 5.4 6.5 7.5 8.6 9.6 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.6 0.3 1.1 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.1 7.1 8.2 9.2 10.2 11.2 12.1 0.3 1.0 1.9 2.8 3.7 4.7 5.7 6.8 7.8 8.8 9.7 10.7 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.6 3.5 4.5 5.4 6.4 7.4 8.4 9.3 0.3 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.3 4.2 5.2 6.1 7.1 8.0 0.3 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.2 4.0 4.9 5.9 6.8 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.2 3.0 3.9 4.7 5.6 0.2 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.9 3.7 4.5 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.5 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.9 2.6 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 0.2 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A540
A5.7
Table A5.33: HCVII additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.6 1.6 3.2 5.2 8.2 11.8 16.0 20.9 27.0 33.9 41.8 50.5 60.1 70.6 82.2 94.7 108.3 123.0 138.8 155.7 173.8 193.1 213.6 235.5 0.9 2.4 4.4 7.4 11.0 15.2 20.1 26.0 32.9 40.7 49.3 58.9 69.4 80.8 93.3 106.7 121.3 136.9 153.6 171.5 190.6 211.0 232.5 1.3 3.2 6.1 9.7 13.8 18.7 24.4 31.2 39.0 47.6 57.1 67.5 78.8 91.2 104.5 118.9 134.4 150.9 168.7 187.5 207.6 229.0 1.7 4.4 7.9 12.0 16.7 22.1 29.0 36.6 45.2 54.6 64.9 76.2 88.4 101.6 115.9 131.2 147.6 165.2 183.8 203.7 224.8 2.3 5.6 9.6 14.2 19.6 26.0 33.6 42.1 51.4 61.7 72.8 85.0 98.1 112.2 127.4 143.6 161.0 179.4 199.1 219.9 2.9 6.6 11.2 16.4 22.4 29.9 38.3 47.5 57.6 68.7 80.7 93.7 107.7 122.7 138.8 156.0 174.3 193.7 214.3 3.4 7.7 12.8 18.5 25.6 33.9 43.0 53.0 64.0 75.9 88.8 102.6 117.5 133.4 150.4 168.5 187.8 208.2 3.9 8.7 14.3 20.8 28.9 37.9 47.8 58.7 70.5 83.2 96.9 111.7 127.5 144.3 162.2 181.3 201.4 4.4 9.8 15.9 23.4 32.3 42.0 52.8 64.4 77.1 90.7 105.3 120.9 137.6 155.3 174.2 194.1 4.9 10.8 17.4 26.1 35.7 46.3 57.8 70.3 83.7 98.2 113.7 130.2 147.8 166.5 186.2 5.4 11.7 19.4 28.8 39.2 50.5 62.9 76.2 90.5 105.9 122.2 139.7 158.1 177.7 5.8 12.6 21.3 31.5 42.7 54.9 68.1 82.2 97.4 113.6 130.9 149.2 168.6 6.2 13.5 23.3 34.3 46.3 59.3 73.3 88.3 104.4 121.5 139.6 158.9 6.6 14.8 25.3 37.1 49.9 63.7 78.6 94.5 111.4 129.4 148.5 6.9 16.0 27.3 39.9 53.5 68.2 84.0 100.8 118.6 137.5 7.2 17.3 29.4 42.8 57.2 72.8 89.4 107.1 125.8 7.5 18.5 31.4 45.6 61.0 77.4 94.9 113.5 7.7 19.8 33.5 48.6 64.8 82.1 100.5 8.2 21.0 51.5 8.7 9.2 23.6 57.5 9.7 42.0 26.2 10.7 37.7 35.6 22.3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100 105 110
115
68.6 54.5 39.9 24.9 10.2 86.8 72.5
Page A541
A5.7
Table A5.34: Bus additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2.5 4.6 6.5 8.3 10.0 11.6 13.2 14.7 15.4 16.1 16.8 17.4 18.0 18.6 19.2 19.8 20.4 20.9 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 1.3 3.1 5.0 6.8 8.5 10.1 11.7 12.8 13.6 14.4 15.2 15.9 16.6 17.3 17.9 18.5 19.1 19.7 20.3 20.9 21.4 22.0 22.5 0.9 2.4 4.0 5.7 7.3 9.0 10.3 11.3 12.2 13.0 13.8 14.6 15.4 16.1 16.7 17.4 18.1 18.7 19.3 19.9 20.5 21.0 0.7 1.9 3.4 5.0 6.5 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.0 11.9 12.7 13.5 14.3 15.0 15.7 16.4 17.1 17.7 18.4 19.0 19.6 0.5 1.6 3.0 4.4 5.9 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 10.9 11.8 12.6 13.4 14.1 14.9 15.6 16.2 16.9 17.5 18.2 0.5 1.4 2.6 4.0 5.3 6.4 7.4 8.3 9.2 10.1 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.3 14.1 14.8 15.5 16.1 16.8 0.4 1.3 2.4 3.6 4.7 5.7 6.7 7.7 8.6 9.4 10.3 11.1 11.9 12.6 13.4 14.1 14.8 15.4 0.4 1.1 2.2 3.3 4.3 5.2 6.2 7.1 8.0 8.8 9.7 10.5 11.2 12.0 12.7 13.4 14.1 0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.8 5.7 6.6 7.5 8.3 9.1 9.9 10.7 11.4 12.2 12.9 0.3 1.0 1.9 2.7 3.6 4.5 5.3 6.2 7.0 7.8 8.6 9.4 10.2 10.9 11.6 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.2 5.0 5.8 6.6 7.4 8.2 9.0 9.7 10.5 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.3 3.1 3.9 4.7 5.5 6.3 7.1 7.8 8.6 9.3 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.9 3.7 4.4 5.2 6.0 6.7 7.5 8.2 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.5 4.2 4.9 5.7 6.4 7.2 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.2 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.8 4.5 5.2 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.6 4.3 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.5 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A542
A5.7
Table A5.35: Bus additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.3 0.7 1.4 2.1 3.3 4.6 6.1 7.8 9.9 12.2 14.7 17.5 20.5 23.8 27.2 30.9 34.8 39.0 43.3 47.9 52.7 57.6 62.8 68.2 0.4 1.0 1.7 2.9 4.2 5.7 7.4 9.4 11.7 14.2 17.0 20.0 23.2 26.6 30.3 34.1 38.2 42.5 47.0 51.7 56.5 61.6 66.8 0.5 1.2 2.3 3.6 5.1 6.8 8.7 11.0 13.5 16.3 19.2 22.4 25.8 29.4 33.2 37.2 41.4 45.9 50.5 55.2 60.2 65.3 0.6 1.6 2.9 4.4 6.0 7.8 10.1 12.6 15.3 18.3 21.4 24.8 28.3 32.1 36.0 40.2 44.5 49.1 53.7 58.6 63.6 0.8 2.0 3.4 5.1 6.9 9.0 11.5 14.2 17.1 20.2 23.5 27.0 30.7 34.6 38.7 43.0 47.4 52.0 56.8 61.7 1.0 2.3 3.9 5.7 7.6 10.1 12.7 15.6 18.7 22.0 25.4 29.1 33.0 37.0 41.2 45.6 50.1 54.8 59.6 1.2 2.6 4.3 6.2 8.5 11.1 14.0 17.0 20.3 23.7 27.3 31.2 35.1 39.3 43.6 48.1 52.7 57.4 1.3 2.9 4.8 6.8 9.4 12.2 15.2 18.4 21.8 25.4 29.2 33.1 37.2 41.5 45.9 50.4 55.0 1.5 3.2 5.1 7.5 10.2 13.2 16.4 19.8 23.3 27.1 31.0 35.0 39.2 43.6 48.0 52.6 1.6 3.4 5.5 8.1 11.1 14.2 17.6 21.1 24.8 28.7 32.7 36.8 41.1 45.5 50.0 1.7 3.6 5.9 8.8 11.9 15.2 18.7 22.4 26.2 30.2 34.3 38.6 42.9 47.4 1.8 3.8 6.4 9.4 12.7 16.2 19.8 23.6 27.6 31.7 35.9 40.2 44.6 1.8 3.9 6.8 10.0 13.5 17.1 20.9 24.8 28.9 33.0 37.3 41.7 1.9 4.2 7.3 10.6 14.2 18.0 21.9 25.9 30.1 34.3 38.7 1.9 4.4 7.7 11.2 14.9 18.8 22.8 27.0 31.2 35.5 1.9 4.6 8.0 11.7 15.6 19.6 23.7 28.0 32.3 1.8 4.8 8.4 12.2 16.2 20.3 24.6 28.9 1.8 5.0 8.7 12.7 16.8 21.0 25.3 1.8 5.2 9.0 13.1 17.3 21.6 1.8 5.4 9.3 13.5 17.8 1.9 5.5 9.6 13.9 1.9 5.6 9.8 1.9 5.7 1.9
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A543
A5.7
Table A5.36: Urban arterial additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2.3 4.2 6.0 7.6 9.1 10.6 12.0 13.4 14.0 14.6 15.2 15.7 16.3 16.8 17.3 17.8 18.3 18.8 19.2 19.7 20.1 20.6 21.0 21.4 1.2 2.8 4.5 6.1 7.7 9.2 10.7 11.6 12.4 13.1 13.7 14.3 14.9 15.5 16.1 16.6 17.2 17.7 18.2 18.7 19.2 19.6 20.1 0.8 2.2 3.7 5.2 6.7 8.2 9.4 10.2 11.0 11.8 12.5 13.2 13.8 14.4 15.0 15.6 16.2 16.7 17.3 17.8 18.3 18.8 0.6 1.8 3.1 4.5 5.9 7.3 8.3 9.2 10.0 10.7 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.5 14.1 14.7 15.3 15.9 16.4 17.0 17.5 0.5 1.5 2.7 4.0 5.3 6.5 7.4 8.3 9.1 9.9 10.6 11.3 12.0 12.7 13.3 13.9 14.5 15.1 15.7 16.2 0.4 1.3 2.4 3.6 4.8 5.8 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.1 9.9 10.6 11.3 12.0 12.6 13.2 13.8 14.4 15.0 0.4 1.2 2.2 3.3 4.3 5.2 6.1 6.9 7.7 8.5 9.2 9.9 10.6 11.3 12.0 12.6 13.2 13.8 0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.7 5.6 6.4 7.2 7.9 8.7 9.4 10.1 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.6 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.5 4.4 5.2 5.9 6.7 7.5 8.2 8.9 9.6 10.2 10.9 11.5 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.0 7.7 8.4 9.1 9.8 10.4 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.7 7.3 8.0 8.7 9.3 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.9 5.6 6.3 7.0 7.7 8.3 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.3 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.8 4.4 5.1 5.7 6.4 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.5 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.7 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 3.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A544
A5.7
Table A5.37: Urban arterial additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.0 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.9 8.8 9.6 10.5 11.5 12.4 13.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.5 6.2 7.0 7.8 8.6 9.4 10.3 11.2 12.2 13.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.8 7.5 8.3 9.2 10.0 10.9 11.9 12.8 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.3 8.1 8.9 9.7 10.6 11.5 12.5 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.8 5.5 6.2 6.9 7.7 8.5 9.4 10.2 11.1 12.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.1 3.7 4.4 5.1 5.8 6.5 7.3 8.1 8.9 9.8 10.6 11.5 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.1 6.8 7.6 8.4 9.3 10.1 11.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.6 6.4 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.5 0.2 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.8 4.4 5.2 5.9 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.1 10.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.2 6.9 7.7 8.6 9.4 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.9 5.6 6.4 7.2 8.0 8.8 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.3 5.1 5.9 6.6 7.4 8.3 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.1 6.9 7.7 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.9 4.7 5.5 6.3 7.0 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.1 4.9 5.6 6.4 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.7 3.5 4.2 5.0 5.8 0.3 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.6 4.3 5.1 0.3 0.8 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.5 0.3 0.8 1.5 2.2 3.0 3.8 0.3 0.9 1.6 2.3 3.1 0.3 0.9 1.6 2.3 0.3 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.9 0.4
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A545
A5.7
Table A5.38: Urban other additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2.3 4.2 5.9 7.6 9.1 10.6 12.0 13.4 14.0 14.6 15.2 15.7 16.2 16.8 17.3 17.8 18.3 18.7 19.2 19.6 20.1 20.5 21.0 21.4 1.2 2.8 4.5 6.1 7.7 9.2 10.6 11.6 12.3 13.0 13.7 14.3 14.9 15.5 16.1 16.6 17.1 17.6 18.1 18.6 19.1 19.6 20.0 0.8 2.2 3.7 5.2 6.7 8.1 9.4 10.2 11.0 11.8 12.5 13.2 13.8 14.4 15.0 15.6 16.1 16.7 17.2 17.7 18.2 18.7 0.6 1.8 3.1 4.5 5.9 7.3 8.3 9.1 10.0 10.7 11.5 12.2 12.8 13.5 14.1 14.7 15.3 15.8 16.4 16.9 17.4 0.5 1.5 2.7 4.0 5.3 6.5 7.4 8.2 9.1 9.9 10.6 11.3 12.0 12.7 13.3 13.9 14.5 15.1 15.6 16.2 0.4 1.3 2.4 3.6 4.8 5.8 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.1 9.9 10.6 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.2 13.8 14.4 15.0 0.4 1.2 2.2 3.3 4.3 5.2 6.1 6.9 7.7 8.5 9.2 9.9 10.6 11.3 11.9 12.6 13.2 13.8 0.3 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.7 5.6 6.4 7.2 7.9 8.7 9.4 10.0 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.6 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.5 4.3 5.2 5.9 6.7 7.4 8.2 8.9 9.5 10.2 10.8 11.5 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.5 6.3 7.0 7.7 8.4 9.1 9.7 10.4 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.6 7.3 8.0 8.7 9.3 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.9 5.6 6.3 7.0 7.6 8.3 0.2 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.3 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.8 4.4 5.1 5.7 6.4 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.6 4.2 4.9 5.5 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.6 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.0 2.5 3.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A546
A5.7
Table A5.39: Urban other additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.3 4.9 5.4 6.1 6.7 7.4 8.1 8.8 9.5 10.3 11.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.6 4.2 4.7 5.3 5.9 6.5 7.2 7.9 8.6 9.3 10.1 10.8 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.7 6.3 7.0 7.7 8.4 9.1 9.8 10.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.3 4.9 5.5 6.1 6.8 7.4 8.1 8.8 9.5 10.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.6 5.2 5.8 6.4 7.1 7.8 8.4 9.1 9.8 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.3 4.8 5.4 6.1 6.7 7.4 8.0 8.7 9.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.9 4.5 5.1 5.7 6.3 6.9 7.6 8.3 8.9 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3 5.9 6.5 7.2 7.8 8.5 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.1 3.7 4.3 4.8 5.5 6.1 6.7 7.4 8.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.3 3.8 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.3 6.9 7.5 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.6 5.2 5.8 6.4 7.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3 6.0 6.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.5 6.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.4 5.0 5.6 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.8 4.4 5.1 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.5 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.4 4.0 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.5 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.9 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.3 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.8 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.7 0.3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A547
A5.7
Table A5.40: Rural strategic additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2.3 4.3 6.1 7.7 9.3 10.8 12.3 13.7 14.3 14.9 15.5 16.1 16.6 17.2 17.7 18.2 18.7 19.2 19.7 20.1 20.6 21.0 21.5 21.9 1.2 2.9 4.6 6.3 7.9 9.4 10.9 11.9 12.6 13.3 14.0 14.6 15.3 15.9 16.4 17.0 17.5 18.1 18.6 19.1 19.6 20.1 20.5 0.8 2.2 3.7 5.3 6.8 8.3 9.6 10.5 11.3 12.0 12.8 13.5 14.1 14.8 15.4 16.0 16.5 17.1 17.6 18.2 18.7 19.2 0.6 1.8 3.2 4.6 6.0 7.5 8.4 9.3 10.2 11.0 11.7 12.4 13.1 13.8 14.4 15.0 15.6 16.2 16.8 17.3 17.9 0.5 1.5 2.8 4.1 5.4 6.6 7.5 8.4 9.3 10.1 10.8 11.6 12.3 13.0 13.6 14.2 14.8 15.4 16.0 16.6 0.4 1.3 2.4 3.7 4.9 5.9 6.8 7.7 8.5 9.3 10.1 10.8 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.5 14.1 14.7 15.3 0.4 1.2 2.2 3.4 4.4 5.3 6.2 7.1 7.9 8.7 9.4 10.2 10.9 11.6 12.2 12.9 13.5 14.1 0.3 1.1 2.0 3.1 4.0 4.8 5.7 6.5 7.3 8.1 8.9 9.6 10.3 11.0 11.6 12.3 12.9 0.3 1.0 1.9 2.8 3.6 4.4 5.3 6.1 6.9 7.6 8.4 9.1 9.8 10.4 11.1 11.7 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.9 5.7 6.4 7.2 7.9 8.6 9.3 10.0 10.6 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.3 3.1 3.8 4.6 5.3 6.1 6.8 7.5 8.2 8.9 9.5 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.6 4.3 5.0 5.8 6.5 7.2 7.8 8.5 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.5 6.2 6.8 7.5 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.9 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.5 0.2 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.4 3.0 3.7 4.3 5.0 5.6 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.9 3.5 4.1 4.8 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A548
A5.7
Table A5.41: Rural strategic additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.2 6.1 7.0 8.0 9.1 10.2 11.4 12.7 14.0 15.4 16.9 18.4 20.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.3 5.1 5.9 6.8 7.8 8.9 10.0 11.2 12.4 13.7 15.1 16.5 18.0 19.6 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.8 5.7 6.6 7.6 8.6 9.7 10.9 12.1 13.4 14.8 16.2 17.6 19.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.8 2.3 3.0 3.7 4.5 5.4 6.3 7.3 8.3 9.4 10.5 11.7 13.0 14.4 15.7 17.2 18.7 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.4 4.1 5.0 5.9 6.9 7.9 9.0 10.1 11.3 12.6 13.9 15.2 16.7 18.1 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.5 5.4 6.3 7.4 8.4 9.6 10.7 12.0 13.3 14.6 16.0 17.5 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.7 2.4 3.1 4.0 4.9 5.8 6.8 7.9 9.0 10.1 11.4 12.6 14.0 15.3 16.8 0.3 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.4 4.3 5.2 6.2 7.3 8.4 9.5 10.7 12.0 13.3 14.7 16.1 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.8 3.7 4.6 5.6 6.6 7.7 8.8 10.0 11.3 12.6 13.9 15.3 0.4 0.9 1.5 2.2 3.0 3.9 4.9 5.9 7.0 8.2 9.3 10.6 11.8 13.2 14.5 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.3 4.2 5.2 6.3 7.4 8.6 9.8 11.1 12.4 13.7 0.4 1.0 1.7 2.6 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.6 7.8 9.0 10.3 11.6 12.9 0.5 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.7 4.7 5.8 7.0 8.2 9.4 10.7 12.0 0.5 1.1 1.9 2.9 3.9 5.0 6.1 7.3 8.6 9.8 11.1 0.5 1.2 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.2 6.4 7.6 8.9 10.2 0.5 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.3 5.5 6.7 7.9 9.2 0.5 1.3 2.3 3.4 4.5 5.7 7.0 8.2 0.5 1.4 2.4 3.5 4.7 5.9 7.2 0.5 1.4 2.5 3.7 4.9 6.1 0.5 1.5 2.6 3.8 5.0 0.6 1.5 2.7 3.9 0.6 1.6 2.8 0.6 1.6 0.6
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A549
A5.7
Table A5.42: Rural other additional travel time due to speed change cycles (seconds/speed cycle) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

2.3 4.3 6.0 7.7 9.2 10.7 12.2 13.6 14.2 14.8 15.4 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.6 18.1 18.6 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.4 20.9 21.3 21.8 1.2 2.9 4.6 6.2 7.8 9.3 10.8 11.8 12.5 13.2 13.9 14.5 15.2 15.8 16.3 16.9 17.4 17.9 18.5 19.0 19.4 19.9 20.4 0.8 2.2 3.7 5.3 6.8 8.3 9.5 10.4 11.2 12.0 12.7 13.4 14.0 14.7 15.3 15.8 16.4 17.0 17.5 18.0 18.6 19.1 0.6 1.8 3.1 4.6 6.0 7.4 8.4 9.3 10.1 10.9 11.6 12.4 13.0 13.7 14.3 14.9 15.5 16.1 16.7 17.2 17.7 0.5 1.5 2.7 4.1 5.4 6.6 7.5 8.4 9.2 10.0 10.8 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.5 14.1 14.7 15.3 15.9 16.5 0.4 1.3 2.4 3.7 4.9 5.8 6.8 7.6 8.5 9.3 10.0 10.7 11.4 12.1 12.8 13.4 14.0 14.6 15.2 0.4 1.2 2.2 3.3 4.4 5.3 6.2 7.0 7.8 8.6 9.4 10.1 10.8 11.5 12.1 12.8 13.4 14.0 0.3 1.1 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.8 5.7 6.5 7.3 8.1 8.8 9.5 10.2 10.9 11.6 12.2 12.8 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.7 3.6 4.4 5.2 6.0 6.8 7.6 8.3 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.0 11.7 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.9 5.6 6.4 7.1 7.9 8.6 9.2 9.9 10.6 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.8 4.6 5.3 6.0 6.8 7.5 8.1 8.8 9.5 0.2 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.6 4.3 5.0 5.7 6.4 7.1 7.8 8.4 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.6 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.1 6.8 7.4 0.2 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.5 3.1 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.8 6.5 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.6 4.3 4.9 5.6 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.2 2.8 3.5 4.1 4.7 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A550
A5.7
Table A5.43: Rural other additional VOC due to speed change cycles (cents/speed cycle July 2008) Initial speed (km/h)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.2 7.1 8.0 9.0 10.1 11.1 12.3 13.5 14.7 16.0 17.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.5 5.3 6.1 6.9 7.9 8.8 9.8 10.9 12.1 13.2 14.5 15.7 17.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.3 5.1 5.9 6.7 7.6 8.6 9.6 10.6 11.8 12.9 14.1 15.4 16.7 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.3 8.3 9.3 10.3 11.4 12.5 13.7 15.0 16.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.7 4.4 5.2 6.1 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 11.0 12.1 13.3 14.5 15.7 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.6 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.5 7.4 8.4 9.4 10.5 11.6 12.7 13.9 15.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.3 5.1 6.0 6.9 7.8 8.9 9.9 11.0 12.1 13.3 14.5 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.8 4.6 5.4 6.3 7.3 8.3 9.3 10.4 11.5 12.7 13.9 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.5 3.2 4.0 4.9 5.8 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.8 10.9 12.0 13.2 0.3 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.7 3.4 4.3 5.2 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.2 11.4 12.5 0.4 0.8 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.7 4.5 5.5 6.4 7.4 8.5 9.5 10.7 11.8 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.2 3.0 3.9 4.8 5.7 6.7 7.8 8.8 9.9 11.1 0.4 0.9 1.6 2.3 3.2 4.1 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.1 9.2 10.3 0.4 0.9 1.7 2.5 3.4 4.3 5.3 6.3 7.3 8.4 9.5 0.4 1.0 1.8 2.6 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.6 8.7 0.4 1.0 1.9 2.7 3.7 4.7 5.7 6.8 7.9 0.4 1.1 1.9 2.9 3.8 4.9 5.9 7.0 0.4 1.1 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.1 0.4 1.2 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.2 0.5 1.2 2.2 3.2 4.3 0.5 1.3 2.2 3.3 0.5 1.3 2.3 0.5 1.4 0.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
Page A61
A6
A6.1
Accident costs
Introduction
This appendix gives guidance on calculating accident cost savings for the dominimum and the options. For the purposes of this manual, an accident is an event involving one or more road vehicles that results in personal physical injury and/or damage to property.
Introduction
In this appendix
Topic
Page
A6.1 A6.2 A6.3 A6.4 A6.5 A6.6 A6.7 A6.8 A6.9 A6.10 A6.11
Introduction Choosing to undertake an accident analysis Choosing the type of analysis Applying the analysis methods Accident trends Typical injury accident rates and prediction models Typical accident reduction factors Adjusting accident costs to reflect mean speeds Worked example of accident procedures Tables References
A61 A62 A66 A610 A616 A618 A641 A645 A646 A649 A656
Page A62
A6.2 Choosing to undertake an accident analysis

Introduction Not all evaluations require an accident analysis. Several factors affect the decision of whether or not to undertake an accident analysis and the choice of method used for that analysis including:

the nature of the site (eg average annual daily traffic (AADT), length) the availability of a reliable accident history for at least five years the availability of suitable accident prediction models or exposure-based accident prediction equations; and if the option will result in a fundamental change in the site.
When to do an accident analysis
An accident analysis may be appropriate where one or more of the following is true: a) At intersections or sites less than one kilometre in length, within the last five years there have been: five or more injury accidents, and/or two or more serious or fatal accidents. b) At sites longer than one kilometre in length, within the last five years there have been: three or more injury accidents per kilometre, and/or one or more serious or fatal accident per kilometre. For sites with low volume roads, with an AADT less than 1500 vehicles per day (vpd) that do not meet requirement (a) or (b) above, the last 10-year history can be used. The 10-year history must be divided by two to obtain an equivalent five year history for analysis. c) d) e) f) There is some commonality amongst the accidents that have occurred. A recognised accident investigation specialist considers that the site has significant safety deficiencies (eg high accident risk sites). There is a high level of public concern. There will be a fundamental change in the site where the types of accidents or level of accident severity will change significantly. Fundamental change is defined in A6.3.
Accident analysis methods
There are three accident analysis methods available:

method A: Accident by accident analysis method B: Accident rate analysis, and method C: Weighted accident procedure.
Application of the methods
Despite being based on historical accidents method A still involves the prediction of future accidents. The five-year observed accident history may or may not be a good indication of the likely accident occurrence over the next 30 years if the site is not upgraded. For any sites/routes method B or C, particularly the latter, may provide a better prediction of future accident occurrence.
Page A63
A6.2 Choosing to undertake an accident analysis continued

General process The general process for an accident analysis is as follows: a) Select the appropriate analysis procedure(s) using appendix A6.2 and depending on the method(s) selected: determine the historic accident performance by analysis of accident records, typically over the last five years, and select the accident prediction models or exposurebased accident prediction equations for the do-minimum and the options from appendix A6.6. b) Assess the annual accident performance and corresponding accident costs for the do minimum and the options. Adjust for general trends in accident occurrence. Calculate the annual accident cost savings. These are the future annual accident costs of the do-minimum less the future annual accident costs of the options.
c)
Guidance
The procedure below gives step by step guidance as to when an accident analysis may be required and what method(s) should be applied. Follow the steps below to determine the need for an accident analysis and the appropriate accident analysis method(s). Step 1 Action Choose the appropriate length of accident history period for the site as follows: If the section has an AADT of
<1500 vehicles per day
Selecting the accident analysis method
Then the accident history period should be at least ten years. (If the last five year history has insufficient accidents, use 10-year history divided by two.) five years.
>1500 vehicles per day
Accident history should in the first instance be obtained from the Crash Analysis System (CAS). Where necessary, verified local contact accident information can be used to supplement and update CAS. Refer to preceding sections for further description. Determine whether or not the accident history is adequate as follows: If the available accident history for the site is too short/insufficient long enough/sufficient Then go to step 3. go to step 4.
Where there was a significant change at the site at least three years earlier, a shorter period of accident history may be acceptable if factored up to a five year period as follows: If there is Then at least three years of available accident data factor the information to cover a five-year period. Go to step 4. less than three years of available accident data go to step 8. Where a shorter time period has been factored for use in the accident analysis, a peer review of the analysis will be required before it is submitted with the evaluation.
Page A64

Selecting the accident analysis method continued Step 4 Action Determine whether or not there are the minimum number of accidents at the site as follows: If the site is and the minimum number of accidents in an equivalent five-year history is Then go to step 7.
an intersection or road 5 injury accidents, or section <1 kilometre 2 serious and fatal accidents (km) long an intersection or road <5 injury accidents, or section <1km long <2 serious and fatal accidents a road section >1km a road section >1km 5
3 injury accidents/km, or 1 serious and fatal accidents/km <3 injury accidents/km, or <1 serious and fatal accidents/km
go to step 5. go to step 7. go to step 5.
Consider whether or not an accident analysis is feasible using accident prediction models or exposure-based accident prediction equations (as given in appendix A6.5) as follows: Is there an accident prediction model or exposure-based accident Then prediction equation available for the do-minimum and option(s)? yes no go to step 6. go to step 9.
Where there are sufficient accidents and models or exposure equations are available, choose the accident analysis method as follows: Fundamental change is defined earlier in appendix A6.3. Will there be a fundamental change at the Where there is insufficient accident history, site? conduct an accident analysis using yes no stop method C for the do-minimum. method B for the option. method C for the do-minimum and the option.
Where there is a well established accident history, choose the accident analysis method as follows: Fundamental change is defined in appendix A6.3. Will there be a fundamental change at the Where there is good accident history site? information, conduct an accident analysis using yes no stop method A for the do-minimum. method B for the option. method C for the do-minimum and the option.
Where there is no or unreliable accident, use method B for the do-minimum and the option where accident prediction models or exposure-based accident prediction equations are available.
Page A65

Selecting the accident analysis method continued 9 Where a site fails to meet any of the preceding criteria for undertaking an accident analysis, it may be possible to undertake an accident analysis if the following criterion is met: Is the site a rural realignment and does a recognised accident investigation specialist consider the site to have significant safety deficiencies? Yes No 10 Conduct a peer reviewed accident by accident analysis (method A). Go to step 10.
Where there is insufficient accident history and no accident prediction models or exposurebased accident prediction equations available, contact the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA).
Page A66
A6.3 Choosing the type of analysis

Introduction This section of the manual provides further guidance on the definitions used within the accident analysis procedures and which analysis method to use if there are complications with the particular site. A site is the specific road infrastructure for which an evaluation is carried out. A site can be a route, bridge, intersection, midblock, curve, S-bend, etc or any combination of these, eg a midblock and an intersection. In the case of combinations, a site may have to be broken into parts for the purpose of evaluation. Remote rural roads are sites carrying less than 1000 vpd and are more than 20 kilometres away from a town with a population of 3000 or more. Other rural sites are near rural. For the purpose of accident analysis, generally a minimum of the past five years (sixty months) of reported accident history is used. This reduces the error caused by regression to the mean. The principle of regression to the mean states that when an earlier measurement is either extremely high or extremely low, then the expected value of later measurements will be closer to the true mean than the observed value of the first. The effect of regression to the mean can be reduced by using a longer accident history when investigating accidents at a site, and by ensuring that there is a commonality amongst accidents at the site. Completeness of accident history data The latest data available in the CAS should be used for accident analysis. As there is typically a lag between the time when an accident occurs and when it is entered into CAS, care should be taken to ensure that the data being used is complete. When establishing the accident history, it is considered good practice to check all the Traffic Crash Reports (TCR) along the length of the site and up to one kilometre either side. Where possible, the location of serious and fatal accidents should be discussed with the local police to confirm the location, particularly along roads where it is suspected that accidents may have incorrect locations noted in the TCR. At sites with low accident occurrence, the impact of an incorrectly coded accident in the TCR, particularly a serious or fatal accident, can have a major impact on accident benefits (both positive and negative). Local accident data The NZTA and local authorities have set up systems that involve the collection of local contact accident data (also called contractor reported or unreported to police accidents) from contractors, local residents and network management personnel. The quality of this data varies and caution should be taken when using it in accident analysis. Local contact accident data can be used in an accident by accident analysis (method A) where the data is supported by sufficient evidence to be audited and a reasoned justification provided as to why it should be used to supplement information from CAS. Evidence might include a second independent report of the accident, confirmation of accidents by the local police or by local network contractors or consultants. If local contact accident information is used for an analysis then under-reporting factors must not be included in the calculations of injury or non-injury accident costs.
Site
Remote and near rural roads
Accident history
Page A67
A6.3 Choosing the type of analysis continued

Site characteristics There are four site characteristics which have an impact on the time-span of accident history required and the method used for analysis:

the traffic volume through the site whether or not there has been a major change at the site whether or not it is a new site (eg new road or intersection), and when there is no accident history.
The table below illustrates the adjustment to the accident history requirements or the choice of accident analysis methods resulting from these characteristics. If the site has an AADT less than 1500 vpd. the site has an AADT less than 1500 vpd. Then use the latest five-year accident history for the site being investigated. use the latest ten-year accident history in addition to the latest five years to ascertain whether the site under consideration has an accident problem not revealed by the latest five years of data. If an accident problem is revealed in the five-year range, divide the 10-year accident numbers by two to obtain an equivalent five year accident history*.
*At low volume sites, anomalies can be created where a five-year crash history does not reflect the overall patterns; In some cases it may be appropriate to use a longer accident history. Advice should be requested from the NZTA. a fundamental change has occurred at the site (prior to project implementation) that could be expected to have changed the incidence of accidents. the site is new (eg a new road or intersection). there is no obvious accident history at the site. use the accident history for the period since the change (minimum of three years), or adjust the record for the period prior to the change by removing those accidents remedied by the change. use method B. depending on the reasons for this, accident analysis may not be required. Contact the NZTA for further clarification.
Minimum number of accidents required for method A
The use of method A for accident analysis requires that a minimum number of accidents have occurred at the site, depending on the length of the site as follows: a) At intersections or sites less than one kilometre in length, within the last five years there have been: five or more injury accidents, and/or two or more serious or fatal accidents. At sites longer than one kilometre in length, within the last five years there have been: three or more injury accidents per kilometre, and/or one or more serious or fatal accident per kilometre.
b)
Generally, there should be some commonality amongst the accidents that have occurred. Where a site does not meet these minimal requirements, then method C (weighted accident procedure) should be used. The exception being where no accident prediction models or exposure base accident equations are available to use in method C. It should be endeavoured to obtain models for an analysis.
Page A68

Fundamental change in a site An option results in a fundamental change in a site when the types of accident or the level of accident severity is expected to change significantly. The following list gives examples of site changes that would result in a fundamental change:

a completely new site is being provided (such as a new road or intersection) realignment of a road (other than an isolated curve) removal or significant modification of road elements (eg grade separation of a railway crossing and conversion of a single lane bridge to a two-lane bridge) change in intersection form of control flush median installed on urban road with multiple accesses. adding lanes, including passing lanes.
Options that are not normally regarded as resulting in fundamental changes include:

upgrade of a single or S-bend to a higher design speed curve or S-bend shoulder widening on rural roads (in the absence of road realignment) signage and delineation improvements, including lighting traffic volume changes (in the absence of other improvements) road resurfacing and shape corrections, and minor improvement works.
When there is a fundamental change, method B is generally used for analysis of the option, while method A or C can be used for the do-minimum depending on the number of accidents that occur at the site. Where there is a fundamental change in a site but no accident prediction models or exposure-based accident prediction equations are available for the dominimum, method A can be used for the do-minimum and as highlighted in the decision table method B can be used for the options, providing that models are available for the options. Area-wide changes in traffic networks When considering activities of an area-wide nature, such as the evaluation of an urban traffic network, eg for transport planning or traffic management studies, it is insufficient to calculate accident costs from changes in global totals of vehiclekilometres of travel. Where a new road link is being added to a network, or a network change will result in major redistributions of traffic, analysis is required of the incidence of accidents on the links to which the traffic is being diverted and on the links for which traffic volumes reduce. For a new link, use method B accident prediction models or exposure-based accident prediction equations appropriate to its intended design, speed limit and intersections along it. On major links that experience significant changes in traffic volumes, accident prediction models are preferred (where available) over exposure-based accident prediction equations. In some situations the use of the site (or route) specific crash rates can be appropriate.
Page A69

Availability of models and equations In the absence of an adequate accident history for the site, method B or C may be used for both the do-minimum and option, provided there is a suitable accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation available. A summary of the available models and equations is found in appendix A6.3 while appendix A6.5 provides the details about them. Accident prediction models or exposure-based accident prediction equations other than those specified may be used if the robustness of these models or equations can be demonstrated to the NZTA and a peer reviewer.
Page A610
A6.4 Applying the analysis methods

Introduction This section describes the general process for how to determine future annual accident numbers and costs for the do-minimum and options using the three analysis methods:

method A: Accident by accident analysis method B: Accident rate analysis, and method C: Weighted accident procedure.
Worked examples of the methods B and C are provided in A6.8. Intersection accidents Accidents occurring within the area of priority controlled intersections, roundabouts and traffic signals on the primary road network, and up to 50 metres from the influence of the intersection in a 50km/h speed limit area and up to 200 metres in a 80km/h and above area. Accidents occurring on a road section excluding accidents at major intersections, or 50 metres from the influence of the intersection in a 50km/h area or up to 200 metres in a 80km/h and above area. Accidents at minor intersection are sometimes included. Accidents are categorised according to the speed limit areas in which they occur:

Mid-block accidents
Categorisation by speed limit
50km/h speed limit areas (including 30km/h and 60km/h areas) 70km/h speed limit areas (including limited speed zones) 100km/h speed limit areas (including 80km/h and above areas).
Types of accident rate
An accident rate is the average number of injury accidents per year, measured over a period of time (normally five calendar years). Caution is required when using the latest three to six months CAS data as the data set may not be complete. Site specific accident rate (AS) is the annual accident rate for a specific site based on reported injury accidents on the record of TCRs prepared by the police and compiled by the NZTA (normally five years of data). These are available from CAS. Typical accident rate (AT) is the annual accident rate for a typical or generic site, eg a bridge, with characteristics similar to the site being evaluated. Typical accident rates are determined using either an accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation, depending on the type of site or part of a site, being evaluated. Weighted accident rate (AW) is the accident rate produced when using the weighted accident procedure.
Method A: Accident by accident analysis
Accident by accident analysis is based on the accident history of the site and is dependent on the number of reported accidents, as set out in appendices A6.1 and A6.2. The analysis uses the individual accident severity categories (fatal, serious, minor, non-injury) and these can be further disaggregated by movement category and/or type of vehicle involved.
Page A611
A6.4 Applying the analysis methods continued

Method A: Accident by accident analysis continued In the first stage of the analysis, using the worksheets in chapter 5, the dominimum total estimated number of accidents per annum is calculated. Costs are assigned using the accident costs from tables A6.21(a) to (d) for 50km/h speed limit areas and from tables A6.21(e) to (h) for 100km/h speed limit areas. The number of accidents predicted for an option is determined from an expected reduction in the do minimum accident numbers, based on the guidance provided in appendix A6.7 or other reputable research sources. The forecast percentage accident reductions for the option can be applied either globally or varied for each accident type and severity (eg for fatal, serious, minor and noninjury accidents). Costs are taken from tables A6.21(a) to (h) as appropriate to the site. Where the mean speed of traffic for the do-minimum and/or options differs from that provided in table A6.21, an adjustment should be made to the costs using the formula found in appendix A6.8. Severity In method A, accidents are categorised by the most severe injury sustained. The four severity categories are:

Fatal: When death ensues within 30 days of the accident. Serious: Injuries requiring medical attention or admission to hospital, including fractures, concussion and severe cuts. Minor: Injuries other than serious, which require first aid or cause discomfort or pain, including bruising and sprains. Non-injury: When no injuries occur, sometimes referred to as property damage only (PDO) accidents.
The accident reports from police officers recorded in CAS are to be used to classify accident severity in preference to hospital records. Changes in accident severity Options, such as crash barriers, can in some cases reduce the accident severity at a site. Use method A, rather than method B or C, when the majority of accident benefits are obtained from a reduction in accident severity. The difference between occurrences of a fatal or serious accident at a site is influenced by random chance. The severity of an accident can be influenced by various factors, including the roadside environment, and the location of major hazards like large trees and power poles. Given fatal accidents are rare events that have a high cost, fatal and serious accident costs are redistributed in accordance with the fatal to serious ratios in tables A6.19(a) to (c) for each accident type. This method applies for up to two fatal accidents and unlimited serious accidents at each site (up to one kilometre length). The exception is when three or more fatal accidents occur at a site where the accident costs do not need to be redistributed at the site.
Redistribution of fatal and serious accident costs
Page A612

Vehicle involvement In assigning costs to accidents using method A, accidents are classified by vehicle involvement according to the highest ranked vehicle involved in an accident. The ranking from highest vehicle to lowest vehicle is:

pedestrian push cycle (bicycle) motorcycle including moped bus truck cars, light commercial vehicles and any other.
For example, an accident involving a truck and a push cycle is categorised as a push cycle accident. Adjustment for under-reporting Only a proportion of nonfatal accidents that occur are recorded on TCR and in CAS. This is referred to as underreporting. It is generally assumed that all fatal accidents are reported. To counteract the effect of underreporting when using method A, factors are applied to reported accident numbers (TCR numbers) to estimate the total number of accidents that actually occur. Table A6.20(a) provides factors for converting from reported injury accidents to total injury accidents, while table A6.20(b) provides factors for converting from reported noninjury accidents to total noninjury accidents. If local contact accident information has been used, then underreporting factors must not be included in the calculations of injury or noninjury accident costs. Changes in traffic volume Method B: Accident rate analysis If there is a change in traffic volume for the option compared with the dominimum, then the accident numbers must be scaled in proportion to this change. Accident rate analysis involves determining a typical reported injury accident rate per annum as the basis for calculating the accident cost savings for a project. Typical reported injury accident rates have been calculated using either an accident prediction model or an exposurebased accident prediction equation from appendix A6.6, which have been derived using information from similar types of site elsewhere. In some cases, the models used for the do-minimum and the option already account for the proposed improvement/treatment of the site (eg an intersection treatment to change from priority or a roundabout to signalised; the construction of a twolane rural bridge to replace a single lane bridge). In others, it may be necessary to apply an accident reduction factor from appendix A6.7 to the option model or equation to take account of the site treatment/improvement (eg various midblock pedestrian treatments; construction of a cycle lane). In accident rate analysis, it is not possible to differentiate accidents other than by speed limit category, therefore the accident costs are taken from table A6.22, and are for all vehicles and all movements combined. Where the mean speed of traffic for the do-minimum and/or options differs from that provided in table A6.22, an adjustment should be made to the costs using the formula found in appendix A6.8.
Page A613

Method B: Accident rate analysis continued Only predictions of reported injury accidents are considered when using accident rate analysis because of the inconsistency in noninjury reporting rates from district to district. The accident costs in table A6.22 take into account the typical number of unreported injury accidents, the number of non-injury accidents and proportion of accidents of each severity per reported injury accident. Refer to the calculation of future accident benefits section below for details on how to calculate future safety benefits when using accident prediction models. Use either worksheet A6.4(a), A6.4(b) or A6.4(c). Method C: Weighted accident procedure The weighted accident procedure uses both historical accident data relating to a particular site and the typical accident rate for the site, as calculated from the appropriate accident prediction model or exposurebased accident prediction equation (from appendix A6.6). The historical data is converted into a site specific annual accident rate by dividing the reported accidents by the number of years of data. The site specific accident rate is then combined with the typical annual accident rate, resulting in a weighted accident rate for the do-minimum and the option(s). Accident cost savings for the do-minimum and option(s) are calculated using the costs provided in table A6.22. Where the mean speed of traffic for the dominimum and options differs from that provided in table A6.22, an adjustment should be made to the costs using the formula found in appendix A6.8. The weighted accident procedure also allows analysis of sites with no accident history, provided that the site has been in existence for more than three years with no major changes and the site assessment is assessed to have a high accident risk. Calculation of future accident benefits In most accident prediction models the relationship between the traffic volume and accidents is non-linear. When using accident prediction models a prediction should be produced every five years through to the end of the analysis period. Intermediate accident prediction costs can be interpolated. If traffic volumes fall above or below the traffic volume ranges specified by the model the predictions must be capped at the lowest or highest flow allowed for analysis purposes. Worksheets A6.5(b) and (c) and A6.6(b) and (c) should be used. When using the exposure-based accident model, future predictions are not required as the relationship between accident and traffic volumes is linear. In such circumstances, only future traffic volumes need to be checked that they are within any ranges specified for the equations, otherwise the benefits need to be capped. Worksheets A6.5(a) and A6.6(a) should be used. Use of site specific accident rates For existing links, use site specific accident rates calculated from the accidents that have occurred on the links. Where there is low accident occurrence due to short link lengths or low traffic volumes, site specific accident rates can be unrealistic. In this case, accident prediction models, exposurebased accident prediction equations or site specific accident rates from adjoining links should be used to determine future accident numbers. Intersections and other sites can be similarly analysed if necessary.
Page A614

Weighted accident rate for the dominimum The do-minimum weighted annual accident rate is calculated using the following equation:
AW,dm = w AT + (1 w) AS Where: AW,dm is the do-minimum weighted accident rate. AT is the typical accident rates calculated from the appropriate accident prediction model or exposure-based accident prediction equation (from appendix A6.5) for the dominimum. AS is the site specific accident rate (from historical accident data). w is the weighting factor.
Weighting factor
When w = 1, the method simplifies to an accident prediction model or equation (method B). When w = 0, the method simplifies to an accidentbyaccident analysis (method A). w is calculated using the following equation if k is specified:
k w= k + AT(km) x Y
Where: k is a dispersion parameter (defined below), and AT (km) is typical annual accident rate per site or kilometre (for mid-blocks). Y is the number of years of accident records.
Dispersion parameter (k)
k is a dispersion parameter of the negative binomial distribution, which is the probability distribution assumed for the accident data. k values for different sites are in appendix A6.6. Generally the higher the value of k the higher the accuracy of an accident prediction model (and vice versa). The accuracy is, however, also relative to the typical accident rate at a site, ie a low k value may be acceptable at a site with a low typical accident rate but unacceptable at a site with a high typical accident rate. For a midblock, the typical accident rate (AT) used in the weighting (w) equation must be divided by the length of the mid-block because the mid-block k values provided in appendix A6.6 are on a per kilometre basis. In all other situations AT is for the full length of the mid-block section.
Page A615

Reliability of accident history Accident data from CAS can contain errors. Not only are accident types and severities sometimes miscoded or unclear, the location of accidents is often in correct due to police not specifying locations accurately. This can often lead to accidents that are not in the study sectors being considered in the analysis and vice versa. A specific case is where a curve improvement is being undertaken along an alignment with several low radius curves and it is unclear which curve(s) accidents occurred on. In such circumstances and in most cases, the accident history should be checked by reviewing police reports. In unclear situations, attempt to discuss the details of the accident locations with police officers. In situations where there is considerable doubt in accident locality, method B should be used or the weighting (w) should be increased to favour the typical accident rate (AT). Any changes to the weighting must be agreed with the NZTA. Reliability of accident prediction models Whilst there is a considerable amount of research on accident prediction models and exposure-based accident equations in New Zealand, there are a number of situations that are not well covered by available models and equations. This is particularly the case with rural roads, where full accident prediction models are not readily available. Where there are no suitable models analysts should use method A. However, where there are models that are similar to the site/mid-block being assessed, then the use of accident adjusted (reduction) factors from appendix A6.7 or other reputable sources may be applied to the crash prediction. Where a suitable adjustment factor is not available then an option is to alter the weighting (w) to favour the site specific accident rate (AS). Any changes to the weighting must be agreed with the NZTA. Weighted accident rate for the option Method C can only be used for the option when it does not bring about a fundamental change in a site. In this case, the site specific historic accident data is still relevant for the option. The option weighted accident rate is calculated by increasing or decreasing the typical accident rate of the option by the same proportion used to adjust the do-minimum typical accident rate to the dominimum weighted accident rate.
AW,opt = AT,opt AW,dm / AT,dm Where: AW,opt is the weighted accident rate for the option. AW,dm is the weighted accident rate for the do-minimum. AT,opt is the typical accident rate calculated from accident prediction models or exposurebased accident prediction equations for the option. Note that it may be necessary to apply a reduction factor from appendix A6.6 if the prediction model or equation does not already take the treatment/improvement into account. AT,dm is the typical accident rate calculated from accident prediction models or exposurebased accident prediction equations for the do-minimum.
Page A616
A6.5 Accident trends

Introduction This section provides guidance on the adjustment of accident numbers for general accident trends. Since 1985, there has been a downward trend in reported traffic accidents. At the same time that accident numbers have decreased, traffic volumes have increased, indicating that accidents rates have decreased more than accident numbers. The combination of these two factors means that typical accident rates established from past research and site specific accident numbers need to be adjusted in order to give a realistic estimate of the likely accident situation at the project site in the future. The adjustment to accident numbers is a two stage procedure, with the first adjustment being to modify the accident numbers at time zero and the second adjustment being to modify the growth rate used for discounting accident benefits to take account of the forecast continued trend after time zero. There have been marked differences between the accident trends in 50km/h areas compared with 70km/h and above areas, and different factors are used to modify the accident numbers for the different posted speed limit areas. Table A6.1(a) provides factors to convert historic average accident numbers to time zero for method A. For method B, an equation is provided to adjust the rate to time zero. Table A6.1(b) provides factors to modify the predicted future traffic growth rate when discounting the accident cost savings. Adjustment to time zero Accident numbers and rates for the evaluation are to be determined for time zero. This requires adjusting the observed or predicted number of accidents assessed at the midpoint of the analysis period to time zero. The procedure differs if using accident history (accident by accident analysis) or accident prediction models or rates (accident rate analysis). This procedure should be followed if using accident by accident analysis. From table A6.1(a), select the appropriate adjustment factor for the site based on its traffic growth rate and posted speed limit. For example, for a proposal where the posted speed limit is 50km/h and the traffic growth rate is two percent at time zero, the accident numbers will be factored by 0.90 to adjust the accident numbers to time zero. Table A6.1(a): Accident trend adjustment factors Speed limit 0% 50 and 60km/h 70km/h and above 0.83 0.95 1% 0.86 0.98 2% 0.90 1.02 Traffic growth rate 3% 0.93 1.06 4% 0.96 1.10 5% 0.99 1.14 6% 1.03 1.17 7% 1.06 1.21
General accident trends
Method A adjustment
Page A617
A6.5 Accident trends continued

Method B adjustment This procedure should be followed if using accident rate analysis. As the prediction models and equations in appendix A6.5 use historical accident data, the predicted number of accidents needs to be adjusted for accident trends.
A = AT (1 + ft (yz 2006)) Where: A is the accident rate adjusted for accident trends. AT is the typical rate found from models or rates. ft is the factor for adjusting the typical rate: -0.03 for sites with speed limits 60km/h and below -0.01 for sites with speed limits 70km/h and above. yz is year zero of the analysis period.
Adjusting traffic growth rate for discounting
When discounting the accident cost savings from time zero forwards, the predicted growth rate is adjusted to reflect the predicted continued trend in accidents. Table A6.1(b) provides the adjustments to use for the different speed limit areas. Using the factors in table A6.1(b) it is possible for the accident growth rate used for discounting to be negative if the predicted traffic growth rate at the site is less than three percent in 50km/h areas or one percent in 70km/h and above areas. For example, if the site is in a 50km/h posted speed area and the traffic growth rate for the site is 1.5 percent then the growth rate to use for discounting accident costs is 1.5 3 = 1.5, ie 1.5 percent is entered in the discounting equation. Table A6.1(b): Growth rate adjustment factors Modification to traffic growth rate Posted speed limit 50 and 60km/h -3% 70km/h and above -1%
Page A618
A6.6 Typical injury accident rates and prediction models

Introduction The typical accident rates and prediction models of reported injury accidents presented in this section are the result of studies carried out for the NZTA and predecessor organisations. Accident prediction models and exposure-based accident prediction equations differ in how they relate accidents to traffic volumes. The exposure-based accident prediction equations in this section assume that the number of accidents at a site is directly proportional to traffic volume. That is, if the traffic volume doubles then the number of accidents will also double (if everything else remains the same). However, for the accident prediction models the number of accidents per vehicle varies depending on the traffic volume. Therefore a doubling in traffic volume will not result in an accident rate that is double in such cases the predicted accident rate can be significantly different from double the number of accidents. Definition of exposure Exposure to the risk of having an accident is defined as follows: a) For mid-blocks, exposure is the number of vehicle kilometres of travel on the mid-block, measured in 100 million vehicle kilometres per year, ie:
L x AADT x 365 Exposure = 108 Where: L is the section length in kilometres. AADT is the annual average daily traffic.
b)
For sites, or parts of sites, other than mid-blocks, exposure is the number of vehicles travelling through, measured in 100 million vehicles per year, ie:
AADT x 365 Exposure = 108
Types of terrain
In rural areas, the values for model coefficients are based on different terrain types, defined as follows: Terrain type Level Rolling Mountainous Definition Level or gently rolling country, with gradients generally from flat up to three percent, which offers few obstacles to an unrestricted horizontal and vertical alignment. Rolling, hilly, or foothill country with moderate grades generally from three percent to six percent in the main, but where occasional steep slopes may be encountered. Rugged, hilly, and mountainous country (and river gorges) often involving long, steep grades over six percent, and considerable proportions of the road with limited sight distance.
Page A619
A6.6 Typical injury accident rates and prediction models continued

Definition of movement category There are movement categories which are groupings of the two letter movement codes used in CAS to categorise accidents. Figure A6.1 shows the CAS movement codes.
Figure A6.1: CAS movement codes (version 2.6, May 2008)

Type
G
Other
Weaving in heavy traffic
Overtaking and lane change Head on
Pulling out of changing lane to right
Head on
Loss of control Cutting in or changing lane to left (overtaking vehicle)
Side road
Loss of control (overtaking vehicle)
Other
On straight Cutting corner Swinging wide Both or unknown Loss of control on straight Loss of control on curve
Loss of control or off road (straight roads) Cornering
Other
Out of control on roadway Off roadway to left Off road to right
Other
Loss of control turning right Loss of control turning left Missed intersection or end of road
Collision with obstruction Rear end
Other
Parked vehicle Crash or broken down Non-vehicular obstructions (including animals) Workmans vehicle) Opening door
Other
Slow vehicle Cross traffic Pedestrian Queue Signals Other)
Turning versus same direction Crossing (no turning) Crossing (vehicle turning)
Other
Rear or left turning vehicle Left turn side swipe Stopped or turning from left side Near centre line Overtaking vehicle Two turning
Other
Right angle (70 to 1100)
0
Other
Right turn right side Obsolete Two turning
Merging
Left turn in Right turn in Two turning
Other
Right turn against

Stopped waiting to turn Making turn
Other
Manoeuvring
Parking or leaving U-turn U-turn Driveway manoeuvre) Parking opposite Entering or leaving Reversing along road
Other
Pedestrian crossing road

Left side Right side Left turn left side Right turn right side) Left turn right side Right turn left side Manoeuvring vehicle
Other
Pedestrian other
Walking with traffic Walking facing traffic Walking on footpath Child playing (tricycle) Attending to vehicle Entering or leaving vehicle
Other
Miscellaneous
Fell while boarding or aligning \ Fell from moving vehicle Train Parked vehicle ran away Equestrian Fell inside vehicle Trailer or load
Other
Page A620

General and conflicting flow models General models are suitable for most mid-block or intersection types indicated. Where a breakdown of accidents by accident type or road user type is required, or in the case of intersections, where the proportion of turning vehicles is high compared to through vehicles, then conflicting flow models should be used. This section contains general and conflicting flow accident prediction models and exposure-based accident prediction equations for: General models Intersections 70km/h (1) Urban cross and T-intersections (50 70km/h) Uncontrolled, priority, traffic signals (2) Urban roundabouts (50 70km/h) Mid-blocks (5) Urban mid-blocks (50 70km/h) High speed intersections (7) High speed cross and T-intersections (80km/h) priority and traffic signals (8) High speed roundabout (9) High speed priority crossroads (10) High speed priority T-junctions (6) Urban mid-block pedestrians and cyclist facilities (3) Urban roundabouts (50 70km/h) (4) Urban signalised cross roads Conflict models
Available models and equations
Rural roads (11) Rural two-lane roads (80km/h) (12) Rural twolane roads (heavy vehicles) (13) Motorways and fourlane divided rural roads (15) Rural passing lanes accident reduction factor Rural bridges (16) Single lane rural bridges (80km/h) (17) Two-lane rural bridges (80km/h) Railway crossings (18) Urban and rural railway crossings half arm barriers; flashing lamps and bells, no control Application of models and equations All accident prediction models and exposure-based accident prediction equations calculate total reported injury and fatal accidents per year. The models and equations are valid within the flow ranges provided. Exercise caution when using the models and equations outside these ranges. The accident prediction models and exposure-based accident prediction equations in this section have been developed for the most common types of site in each category. For example, traffic signal models were developed for two and three phase signals, and are therefore not as accurate for signals with four or more phases, or where there are a lot of phase changes during set periods of the day. (14) Rural isolated curves (80km/h)
Page A621

Application of models and equations continued The more unusual a site is from the typical site type, the less appropriate the general models and equations will be for predicting the typical accident rate. In most cases where there is a feature of a site, such as the sites layout, that has a significant effect on the accident rate, the raw models and equations in this section are not always appropriate. In such circumstances it is likely that an accident reduction (adjustment) factor needs to be applied to take into account the sites layout or other feature. Some of these factors are included in the models, some can be selected from appendix A6.5 and further information from other research literature. Models and equations from other sources Accident prediction models and exposure-based accident prediction equations from other sources are permitted to be used, as long as the robustness of these other sources can be demonstrated. These sources need to be referenced (eg papers, research reports or unpublished material), ideally along with information on sample size, modelling technique and goodness of fit statistics. For intersection and mid-block accident prediction models, refer to the appropriate New Zealand research reports on accident prediction models (reference list at the end of the appendix). The accident prediction models in these reports are useful for determining the effects of varying traffic demands on particular movements at intersections, mode split and site specific features. The Highway safety manual (United States of America (USA)) is generally considered the most reliable source of accident prediction models (called SPFs in the USA) and accident reduction factors (called AMFs in the USA) as the research has been reviewed by expert panels and the results of deficient studies excluded. Care, however, needs to be taken in applying overseas findings to New Zealand conditions and good quality New Zealand studies should also be given preference if available. (1) General cross and urban T-intersection 50 70km/h The general model is suitable for most urban cross and T-intersection types and uses two-way link volumes where the posted speed limit is 50 70km/h. Where a breakdown by accident type and road user type is required, or where the proportion of turning vehicles is high compared to through vehicles, the appropriate conflicting flow models should be used. For urban intersections on the primary road network (excluding roundabouts), the typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year) is calculated using:
AT = b0 Qmajorb1 Qminor/sideb2 Where: Qmajor = the highest two-way link volume (AADT) for crossroads and the primary road volume for T-junctions. Qminor/side = the lowest of the daily twoway link volumes (AADT) for crossroads and the side road flow for T-junctions. b0, b1 and b2 are given in table A6.2(a).
Table A6.2(b) shows the range of flows over which the accident prediction models should be applied. The k values are for use in the weighted accident procedure.
Page A622

Caution Caution should be exercised when using the prediction models for intersections where opposing approach flows (on Qmajor or Qminor) differ by more than 25 percent. In such cases, conflicting flow models should be used. Table A6.2(a): Urban intersection injury accident prediction model parameters (2006) Intersection type Uncontrolled (T) Priority (Cross) Priority (T) Traffic signals (Cross) Traffic signals (T) b0 2.53 103 1.25 10
3
b1 0.36 0.21 0.76 0.46 0.04
b2 0.19 0.51 0.20 0.14 0.12
5.65 105 3.25 103 1.52 10

1
Table A6.2(b): Urban intersection injury accident flow ranges and k values Intersection type Uncontrolled (T) Priority (Cross) Priority (T) Traffic signals (Cross) Traffic signals (T) (2) General urban roundabouts (50 70km/h) Range Qmajor AADT 3000 30,000 5000 22,000 5000 26,000 10,000 32,000 11,000 34,000 Range Qminor AADT 500 4000 1500 7000 1000 5000 5000 16,000 2000 9000 k value 2.6 2.3 3.8 4.8 4.6
Often roundabouts do not have the roads with the highest or lowest volumes on opposing arms, or if they have three arms these are seldom in a T. Therefore, accidents are calculated for each arm of the roundabout, and the total obtained by adding these together. The typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per approach per year) is calculated using the model:
AT = b0 Qapproachb1 Where: Qapproach = the twoway link volume (AADT) on the approach being examined. b0, and b1 are given in table A6.3(a).
This model can be applied for roundabouts with three, four or five approaches. Table A6.3(b) shows the range of flows over which the accident prediction model should be applied. The k values are for use in the weighted accident procedure.
Page A623

(2) General urban roundabouts (50 70km/h) continued Table A6.3(a): Urban roundabout injury accident prediction model parameters (per approach 2006) Number of entry lanes per approach b0 Roundabout 5.56 104 Single b1 0.58 b0 9.19 104 Multiple b1 0.58
Table A6.3(b): Urban roundabout injury accident prediction model flow ranges (per approach) and k values Number of entry lanes per approach Roundabout (3) Conflict urban signalised crossroads (<80km/h) 170 25,000 Single Flow range AADT k value 2.2 Multiple Flow range AADT 800 42,000 k value 2.2
The conflicting flow models for signalised crossroads are suitable for situations where a breakdown of accidents by accident and road user type is required, or where the proportion of turning vehicles is high compared to through vehicles. For urban (speed limit <80km/h) signalised crossroads on the primary road network the typical accident rates can be calculated for the six accident types (13, 19) in table A6.4(a). Table A6.4(a): Urban signalised crossroad accident prediction models types Accident types Variables CAS movement categories q2/11 = Through vehicle flows in veh/day HA
Crossing (no turns, motor vehicle only) Right turn against (motor vehicle only) Others (motor vehicle only) Pedestrian versus motor vehicle Right turn against (cyclist travelling through) Others (cyclist versus motor vehicle)
q2 = Through vehicle flow in veh/day q7 = Right-turning vehicle flow in veh/day Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day
LA, LB
Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day P = Pedestrian crossing volume in ped/day q7 = Right-turning vehicle flow in veh/day c2 = Through cycle flow in cyc/day Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day Ce = Entering cycle flow in cyc/day
NA NO, PA PO
LA, LB
Page A624

(3) Conflict urban signalised crossroads (<80km/h) continued The number of reported injury accidents per year for each accident type on each approach can be calculated using the models in table A6.4(b). These models calculate the number of accidents per approach and therefore must be used for each approach to the intersection. Accident types Crossing (no turns, motor vehicle only) Right turn against (motor vehicle only) Others (motor vehicle only) Pedestrian versus motor vehicle Right turn against (cyclist travelling through) Others (cyclist versus motor vehicle) (4) Conflict urban roundabouts (<80km/h) Model AT = 1.06 104 q20.36 q110.38 AT = 6.48 105 q20.49 q70.42 AT = 2.45 104 Qe0.59 AT = 3.22 102 Qe0.05 P0.03 AT = 3.48 10
4
k value 1.1 1.9 5.9 1.4 1.3 1.1
q70.34 c20.20
AT = 1.42 103 Qe0.28 Ce0.03
The conflicting flow models for roundabouts are suitable for situations where a breakdown of accidents by accident and road user type is required, such as roundabouts with high proportions of cyclists. For urban (speed limit <80km/h) roundabouts on the primary road network the typical accident rates can be calculated for the seven accident types (15) in table A6.5(a). Table A6.5(a): Urban roundabout accident prediction models types Accident types Variables CAS movement categories Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day Qc = Circulating vehicle flow in cyc/day Sc = Mean free speed of circulating vehicles Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day HA, JAJO KA KO, LALO
Entering versus circulating (motor vehicle only)
Rear end (motor vehicle only)
FAFO, GA, GD
Loss of control (motor vehicle only)
Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day CACO, DADO, V10 = Visibility 10 metres back from the AD, AF limit line to vehicles on the approach to the right
Page A625

(4) Conflict urban roundabouts (<80km/h) continued Table A6.5(a): Urban roundabout accident prediction models types continued Accident types Variables CAS movement categories Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day
Other (motor vehicle only)
Pedestrian
Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day P = Pedestrian crossing volume in ped/day Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day Cc = Circulating cycle flow in cyc/day Se = Mean free speed of entering vehicles Qe = Entering vehicle flow in veh/day Ce = Entering cycle flow in cyc/day
NANO, PAPO
Entering versus circulating (cyclist circulating)
HA, JAJO KA KO, LALO
Other (cyclist)
The number of reported injury accidents per year for each accident type on each approach can be calculated using the models in table A6.5(b). These models calculate the number of accidents per approach and therefore must be applied at all approaches to the roundabout. Table A6.5(b): Urban roundabout accident prediction models (per approach 2006) Accident types Model k value 1.3 0.7 3.9
Entering versus circulating (motor AT = 5.57 108 Qe0.47 Qc0.26 Sc2.13 vehicle only) Rear end (motor vehicle only) Loss of control (motor vehicle only) Other (motor vehicle only) AT= 8.76 102 Qe-0.38 e0.00024 Qe AT = 8.71 10 Qe
6 0.59
V10
0.68
AT = 1.99 105 Qe0.71 MEL MEL = 2.66 (if multiple entry lanes) MEL = 1.00 (if single entry lane)
Pedestrian Entering versus circulating (cyclist circulating) Other (cyclist)
AT= 2.93 104 P 0.60 e0.00013 Qe AT= 3.30 10 Qe

5 0.43
1.0 1.2
Cc0.38 Se0.49
AT = 4.24 107 Qe1.04 Ce0.23
Page A626

(5) General urban mid-blocks (50 70km/h) The general models are suitable for most urban mid-blocks (two to four lane roads) types in posted speed limit areas of 50 70km/h. The mid-block begins 50 meters away from the intersection. The typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year) is dependent on roadside development, and for arterials, the presence of a median. Separate pedestrian and cyclist models are available. All reported injury accidents are calculated using the model:
AT = b0 QTb1 L Where: QT is the daily two-way traffic volume (AADT). L is the length of the mid-block site. b0 and b1 are given in table A6.6(a). Use the commercial classification when the majority of roadside development is either commercial or industrial, while other is for residential and all other types.
Table A6.6(b) shows the range of flows and speed limits over which the accident prediction models should be applied. The arterial models can be used for 50 and 60km/h speed limit areas. The collector and local street models are applicable for 50km/h speed limit areas only. The k values are for the weighted accident procedure. Arterials with six or more lanes There is currently no information available for six or more lane arterials. Sixlane roads are likely to have a greater proportion of weaving related accidents, particularly where intersections are closely spaced. A reduction of 15 percent in the accident prediction for arterial and collector mid blocks should be applied for flush medians. A reduction of 25 percent in the accident prediction for arterial midblocks should be applied for raised medians. Note that raised medians can migrate accidents to adjacent intersections. Table A6.6(a): Urban mid-block injury accident prediction model parameters (2006) Land use Mid-block road type Local street Collector Arterial (two and four lane) b0 2.53 104 2.24 105 7.66 10
6
Effect of medians
Commercial b1 0.98 1.08 1.20 b0 2.53 104 3.46 105 1.34 10

4
Other b1 0.98 1.08 0.88
Page A627

Effect of medians continued Table A6.6(b): Urban mid-block injury accident prediction model flow ranges and k values Mid-block road type Speed limit Flow range AADT
<3000
k value Commercial Other 0.6 10.0 10.8
Local street Collector Arterial (two and four lane) (6) Conflict urban mid-block pedestrian and cyclist facilities
50km/h 50km/h 50 or 60km/h
0.6 10.0 8.5
2000 8000 3000 24,000
The pedestrian or cyclist models are required when using accident rate analysis to assess a new or improved pedestrian or cyclist facility. These rates are for urban (speed limit <80km/h) areas and do not include any pedestrian or cyclist accidents that occur at side roads. However, driveway accidents are included. The typical accident rates can be calculated for the accident types in table A6.7(a). Different crossing types can be modelled using the pedestrian crossing and cycle facilities reduction factors in table A5.18. The number of reported injury accidents per year for each accident type is calculated using the models in table A6.7(b). Table A6.7(a): Urban mid-block pedestrian and cycle accident prediction model types Accident types Variables CAS movement categories Q = Two-way vehicle flow in veh/day P = Pedestrian crossing volume per 100 metres in ped/100m/day L = Segment length in km Q = Two-way vehicle flow in veh/day C = Two-way cycle flow in veh/day L = Segment length in km NA NO, PA PO
All mid-block pedestrian accidents
All mid-block cyclist accidents
All
Table A6.7(b): Urban mid-block pedestrian and cycle accident prediction models (2006) Accident types All mid-block pedestrian accidents All mid-block cyclist accidents Model AT = 1.47 104 Q0.69 P0.26 L AT= 1.37 107 Q1.38 C0.23 L k value (midpoint) -
Page A628

(7) General high speed cross and Tintersections (80km/h) The general model is suitable for most high speed cross and T-intersections and use two-way link volumes. Where a breakdown of accidents by accident and road user type is required, or where the proportion of turning vehicles is high compared to through vehicles then conflicting flow models should be used. For high speed cross and T-intersections, the typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year) is calculated using the model:
AT = b0 Qmajorb1 Qminor/sideb2 Where: Qmajor = the highest two-way link volume (AADT) for crossroads and the primary road volume for T-junctions. Qminor/side = the lowest of the daily two-way link volumes (AADT) for crossroads and the side road flow for T-junctions. b0, b1 and b2 are given in table A6.8(a).
Table A6.8(b) shows the range of flows over which the accident prediction models should be applied. The k values are for use in the weighted accident procedure. Caution Caution should be exercised when using the prediction models for intersections where opposing approach flows (on Qmajor or Qminor) differ by more than 25 percent. In such cases, conflicting flow models should be used. Table A6.8(a): High speed intersection injury accident prediction model parameters (2006) Intersection type Priority (Cross) Priority (T) Traffic signals (Cross) Traffic signals (T) b0 4.32 104 4.07 104 3.64 104 5.10 10
2
b1 0.39 0.18 0.52 0.37
b2 0.50 0.57 0.19 -0.10
Table A6.8(b): High speed intersection injury accident flow ranges and k values Intersection type Priority (Cross) Priority (T) Traffic signals (Cross) Traffic signals (T) Range Qmajor AADT 50 24,000 50 26,000 19,000 46,000 10,000 54,000 Range Qminor AADT 50 3500 50 9000 11,000 20,000 1700 17,000 k value 2.6 4.7 4.7 2.0
Page A629

(8) Conflict high speed roundabout Often roundabouts do not have the roads with the highest or lowest volumes on opposing arms, or if they have three arms these are seldom in a T. Therefore, accidents are calculated for each arm of the roundabout, and the total obtained by adding these together. The typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per approach per year) is calculated using the model:
AT = b0 Qapproachb1 Where: Qapproach = the two-way link volume (AADT) on the approach being examined. b0 and b1 are given in table A6.9(a).
This model can be applied for roundabouts with three or four approaches. Table A6.9(b) shows the range of flows over which the accident prediction model should be applied. The k values are for use in the weighted accident procedure. Table A6.9(a): High speed roundabout injury accident prediction model parameters (per approach 2006) b0 Roundabout 1.50 x 10-3 b1 0.53
Table A6.9(b): High speed roundabout injury accident prediction model flow ranges (per approach) b0 Roundabout (9) Conflict high speed priority crossroads (70km/h) 800 29,000 b1 2.1
The conflicting flow models for priority crossroads in high speed areas are suitable for situations where a breakdown of accidents by accident type is required, or where the proportion of turning vehicles is high compared to through vehicles. For high speed (speed limit >70km/h) priority crossroads on two-lane, two-way roads the typical accident rates can be calculated for the five accident types in table A6.10(a).
Page A630

(9) Conflict high speed priority crossroads (70km/h) continued T able A6.10(a): High speed priority crossroad accident prediction models types Accident types Variables CAS movement categories q2/5 = Through vehicle flows in veh/day HA
Crossing hit from right (major road approaches only) Crossing hit from right (minor road approaches only)* Turning right and following vehicle (major road approaches only) Other (major road approaches only) Other (minor road approaches only)
q2/11 = Through vehicle flows in veh/day
HA
q5 = Through vehicle flow along major GC, GD, GE road in veh/day q4 = Right-turning flow from major road in veh/day Qe(Major) = Entering vehicle flow on major road in veh/day Qe (Minor) = Entering vehicle flow on minor road in veh/day -
*Refer to table A6.18 for accident reduction data for right turn bays.
The number of reported injury accidents per year for each accident type is calculated table A6.10(b). These models calculate the number of accidents per approach. However, unlike urban roundabout and signalised crossroad models, each model is only applied to two approaches only (not all four). These approaches are specified as either major road or minor road with the minor road being the road with stop or give way control. Table A6.10(b): High speed priority crossroad accident prediction models (per approach 2006) Accident types Crossing hit from right (major road approaches only) Model AT = 1.15 104 q20.60 q50.40 k value 0.9 2.0 2.6
Crossing hit from right (minor road AT= 1.97 104 q20.40 q110.44 approaches only)* Turning right and following vehicle (major road approaches only) AT = 1.04 106 q40.36 q51.08 RTB RTB = 0.22 (if right-turn bay is present) RTB = 1.00 (if right-turn bay is absent) Other (major road approaches only) Other (minor road approaches only) AT= 1.09 104 Qe(Major).0.76 AT= 3.30 10 Qe(Minor)
3 .0.27
1.1 0.2
Page A631

(10) Conflict high speed priority Tjunctions (>70km/h) The conflicting flow models for priority T-junctions in high speed areas are suitable for situations where a breakdown of accidents by accident type is required, where one turning movement from the side road is greater than the other, or where the intersection has a visibility deficiency. For high speed (speed limit >70km/h) priority T-junctions on two lane, two-way roads the typical accident rates can be calculated for the five accident types in table A6.11(a). Table A6.11(a): High speed priority T-junctions accident prediction models types Accident types Variables CAS movement categories q5 = Through vehicle flow along major JA road to right of minor road vehicles in veh/day q1 = Right-turning flow from minor road in veh/day VD = Sum of visibility deficiency in both directions when compared with Austroads SISD (3) q4 = Through vehicle flow along major GC, GD, GE road to right of minor road vehicles in veh/day q3 = Right-turning flow from minor road in veh/day SL = Mean free speed of vehicles approaching from the left of vehicles minor road q4 = Through vehicle flow along major road to right of minor road vehicles in veh/day q3 = Right-turning flow from major road in veh/day q5 = Through vehicle flow along major road to right of minor road vehicles in veh/day q3 = Left-turning flow from major road in veh/day q1 = Right-turning flow from minor major road in veh/day q2 = Left-turning flow from minor road in veh/day -
Crossing vehicle turning (major road approach to right of side road)
Turning right and following vehicle (major road approach to left of side road)
Other (major road approach to left of side road)
Other (major road approach to right of side road)
Other (side road approach
The typical accident rate (number of reported injury accidents) per year for each accident type is calculated using table A6.11(b). Unlike models for other intersections, these models are each for a specific approach. )
Page A632

(10) Conflict high speed priority Tjunctions (>70km/h) continued Table A6.11(b): High speed priority T-junction accident prediction models (2006) Accident types Crossing vehicle turning (major road approach to right of side road) Turning right and following vehicle (major road approach to left of side road) Model AT = 5.08 106 q11.33 q50.15 VD0.33 AT= 5.08 1027 q30.46 q40.67 SL11 k value 8.1 0.2
Other (major road approach to left of AT = 2.87 104 (q3 + q4)0.51 side road) Other (major road approach to right of side road) Other (side road approach) (11) Rural two-lane roads (80km/h) AT = 1.53 105 (q5 + q6)0.91 AT = 1.41 102 (q1 + q2)-0.02
3.0 1.0 0.6
For twolane rural roads in 80 and 100km/h speed limit areas, the typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year) is calculated using the exposure-based equation:
AT = (b0 x Sadj) x X Where: Sadj is the cross section adjustment factor for seal widths. X is the exposure in 100 million vehicle kilometres per year.
Coefficient b0 is provided in table A6.12(a). The coefficient b0 is applicable to a given mean seal width. Sadj is found in table A6.13, and varies according to traffic flow, seal shoulder width and lane width. In most cases an adjustment will be required. The terrain type for b0 can be selected by analysing the route gradient data. The gradient ranges should generally be maintained throughout the road section. Portions of road that are less steep can occur in mountainous sections for short lengths. Provided that the lower gradient length is followed by another mountainous gradient, then the entire section can be classified as mountainous. Table A6.12(b) shows the k values per kilometre that should be used in the weighted accident procedure.) Table A6.12(a): Rural mid-block equation coefficients (b0) (2006) AADT Mean seal width (m) 6.7 8.2 9.5 Coefficients b0 by terrain type Level (0 to 3%) 16 16 11 Rolling (>3 to 6%) 21 18 16 Mountainous (>6%) 30 26 22
<1000
1000 4000 >4000
Page A633

(11) Rural two-lane roads (80km/h) continued Table A6.12(b): Rural mid-block k values per kilometre AADT Level (0 to 3%)
<1000
Coefficients b0 by terrain type Rolling (>3 to 6%) 0.2 0.2 0.7 Mountainous (>6%) 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.8 0.7
1000 4000 >4000 Applying the cross section adjustment factors
Table A6.13 provides adjustment factors for two-lane rural accident rates for various combinations of seal widths that differ from the mean seal widths in table A6.12(a). First, the overall seal width, shoulder width and lane width is determined. Then, look up Sadj that corresponds to the traffic volume, shoulder width and lane width in table A6.13. Adjust b0 by multiplying with the adjustment factor and use this value to calculate the typical accident rate. In the case of shoulder widening, different adjustment factors must be used for the do-minimum and option.
Worked example
An example of the use of the cross section adjustment factors in table A6.13 is provided in appendix A6.9. In mountainous and rolling terrain the typical accident rates can be reduced by 25 percent when crash barriers are installed to protect errant vehicles from dropoff areas and other obstacles in the roadside clear zone. For three and four lane rural roads refer to appendix A6.6 on passing lanes.
Effect of crash barriers
Three four lane rural roads Sealing unsealed roads
Only an accident by accident analysis can be conducted when estimating benefits for sealing unsealed roads. Analysis of accident rates before and after sealing (21) shows that there is no statistically significant accident benefit or disbenefit associated with sealing unsealed roads.
Page A634

Table A6.13: Cross section adjustment factors (Sadj) Sadj for traffic flows <1000 vpd Seal shoulder width (m) 2.75m 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.17 1.10 1.03 0.89 0.75 0.61 0.48 3.00m 1.10 1.03 0.96 0.82 0.68 0.55 0.41 Lane width 3.25m 1.03 0.96 0.89 0.75 0.61 0.48 0.41 3.50m 0.96 0.89 0.82 0.68 0.55 0.41 0.41 3.60m 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.66 0.52 0.41 0.41
Sadj for traffic flows 1000 to 4000 vpd Seal shoulder width (m) 2.75m 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.47 1.38 1.30 1.12 0.95 0.77 0.60 3.00m 1.38 1.30 1.21 1.03 0.86 0.69 0.51 Lane width 3.25m 1.30 1.21 1.12 0.95 0.77 0.60 0.51 3.50m 1.21 1.12 1.03 0.86 0.69 0.51 0.51 3.60m 1.17 1.09 1.00 0.83 0.65 0.51 0.51
Sadj for traffic flows >4000 vpd Seal shoulder width (m) 2.75m 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.11 2.01 1.90 1.79 1.67 1.22 1.00 3.00m 2.01 1.90 1.79 1.67 1.45 1.11 0.89 Lane width 3.25m 1.90 1.79 1.67 1.45 1.22 1.00 0.78 3.50m 1.79 1.67 1.45 1.22 1.11 0.89 0.66 3.60m 1.74 1.58 1.36 1.18 1.07 0.85 0.66
Page A635

(12) Rural two-lane roads heavy vehicles ( 80km/h) For freight transport service proposals, where the road network affected by the proposal are primarily two-lane rural roads in 80 and 100km/h rural areas, accident rate equations for accidents involving heavy vehicles can be used to estimate the change in freight related accidents. The typical heavy vehicle accident rate (reported injury accidents involving heavy vehicles per year) is calculated using the exposure-based equation:
AH = b0 X Where: X is the exposure in 100 million heavy vehicle kilometres per year. Coefficient b0 is provided in table A6.14. Table A6.14: Rural mid-block equation coefficients (b0) for heavy vehicles (2006)
AADT Level (0 to 3%)

4000 >4000
Coefficients b0 by terrain type Rolling (>3 to 6%) 40 19 Mountainous (>6%) 50 41
19 19
(13) Motorways and four-lane divided rural roads Motorway
The typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year) for motorways and four-lane divided rural roads is for a one directional link only and is dependent on the one way traffic volume. The typical accident rate is calculated using the model:
AT = b0 Q0b1 L Where: Q0 is the daily one way traffic volume (AADT) on the link. L is the length of the motorway link. b0 and b1 are given in table A6.15(a).
Table A6.15(b) shows the range of one way flows over which the accident prediction models should be applied. The k values are for use in the weighted accident procedure.
Page A636

Four-lane divided rural roads For four-lane divided rural roads, the same motorway accident prediction model is used. The b0 coefficient from this model has been increased by 20 percent to take into account the presence of pedestrians, cyclists and limited access provisions of rural roads compared to motorways. Table A6.15(a): Motorways and four-lane divided rural roads mid-block injury accident prediction model parameters b0 Motorway Four-lane divided rural road 2.96 x 10-7 3.55 x 10
-7
b1 1.45 1.45
Table A6.15(b): Motorways and four-lane divided rural roads mid-block injury accident prediction model flow ranges and k values Flow range AADT Motorway Four-lane divided rural road (14) Conflict rural isolated curves (80km/h) 15,000 68,000 15,000 68,000 k value 10.2 10.2
Figure A6.2 and the equation below provide typical accident rates for reported injury loss of control and head-on accidents on rural curves, adjusted for the general trends in accidents. They should be used only for an isolated curve that is replaced with a single curve of a higher design speed. The data for typical injury accident rates has been based on sealed rural state highways. An underlying assumption is that the road section under consideration is not affected by ice or other adverse factors such as poor visual conditions. The typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year, by CAS movement categories B, C and D) for an isolated rural curve is calculated using the equation:
AT = b0 X e(b1 S) Where: b0 = 4.1 b1 = 2.0 X is the exposure in 100 million vehicles (in one direction) passing through the curve, and S=1 design speed of curve approach speed to curve AT must be calculated for both directions, and S is likely to vary between the two directions. If the design speed is approximately equal to the approach speed then the equation reduces to: AT = b0 X k = 1.1 when used in the weighted accident procedure.
Page A637

Assumptions The following assumptions apply when using the equation or figure A6.2: a) for figure A6.2 the rate is in terms of injury accidents per 100 million vehicles, and for the equation the rate is in injury accidents per year through the curve the design speed of the curve should be determined from a standard design reference the approach speed to the curve is the estimated 85th percentile speed at a point prior to slowing for the curve (for longer tangents this would approximate to the speed environment).
b) c)
Figure A6.2: Injury accidents per 100 million vehicles for rural curves in 100km/h speed limit areas for type B, C and D accidents (2006)
20 18 16 Accidents/100 million vehicles 14 12 10 8 6 4 70 2 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 80 90 100 110
Approach speed (km/h)
Curve design speed (km/h)
(15) Rural passing lanes accident adjustment factor
The construction of passing lanes on rural roads (posted speed limit 80km/h) has the effect of reducing the typical accident rate calculated using the rural two lane roads model for both the road section and for the road downstream of the passing lane. There are currently no conclusive research findings available on the upstream benefits of installing passing lanes. At this stage, no reduction in the b0 coefficient is permitted for benefits upstream.
Page A638

Applying the accident reduction factor Where a passing lane is constructed on a new or existing alignment, in one direction only, the accident prediction rate for the road section should be reduced by 25 percent. Where passing lanes are constructed in both directions (on an existing or new alignment) at the same location, no further accident reduction along the length of the passing lane is permitted. Where passing lanes are included within realignment the accident prediction for the rural alignment should be reduced by 25 percent through the passing lane. Calculating the downstream effect In all instances, the downstream of the passing lane the accident rate should decrease linearly to zero from the end of the passing lane to either the location where vehicle platooning returns to normal (generally five to 10 kilometres downstream), or where another passing lane begins. If the location where vehicle platoons returns to normal is unknown then benefits should finish five kilometres downstream of the passing lane. Where passing lanes are constructed in both directions the downstream benefits can be calculated for either side of the section of passing lanes. Rural passing lanes to address specific problems (16) Single lane rural bridges (80km/h) If a passing lane is being constructed to address a specific accident type, an appropriate accident reduction factor may be found in appendix A6.7.
The typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year) of a single lane bridge on a rural road (80km/h) is determined by the equation:
AT = b0 X Where: X is the exposure in 100 million vehicles crossing the bridge per year. b0 = 10.1 x QT0.3 (2006 base year). QT = the two-way daily traffic volume (AADT).
This equation does not take into account low design speed approach curves (65km/h advisory speed or less), traffic signal control or adjoining intersections within 200 metres of the bridge. (17) Two lane rural bridges ( 80km/h) The typical accident rate (reported injury accidents per year) of a twolane bridge on a rural road (80km/h) is determined by the equation:
AT = b0 X Where: X is the exposure in 100 million vehicles crossing the bridge per year. b0 = 0.96 c (0.5 0.25 RW + 0.025 RW2) (2006 base year). RW is the difference between the seal width across the bridge and the total sealed lane width in metres (both directions) on the bridge approaches (normally seven metres on state highways). A narrow bridge seal width leads to a negative value for RW. The limits of RW are governed by the limiting width for single lane operation (for the maximum negative value of RW) and 2.5 metres (maximum positive value of RW).
Page A639

(17) Two lane rural bridges (80km/h) continued The value of c is given by the formula:
c = e(3.5 QT / 7500) Where: QT is the two-way daily traffic volume (AADT).
This model does not take into account low design speed approach curves (65km/h advisory speed or less) or adjacent intersections within 200 metres of the bridge. In the weighted accident procedure, use the k values provided in table A6.16. Table A6.16: Rural bridge k values Rural bridge type Single lane bridge Two-lane bridge (18) Urban and rural railway crossings k value 0.3 0.2
For urban and rural railway crossings, the typical accident rate (reported injury hit train and rear end accidents per year) is calculated using the model:
AT = b0 Tb1 QTb2 Where: T is the number of trains per day. QT is the daily twoway traffic volume (AADT). b0, b1 and b2 are given in table A6.17(a).
Table A6.17(b) shows the range of traffic volumes and trains over which the accident prediction models should be applied. The k values are for use in the weighted accident procedure. A large number of railway crossings are located in close proximity to low design speed curves. Low design speed approach curves are often caused by the route having to deviate sharply when crossing the railway line. In such circumstances separate predictions of the typical accident rates on these approach curves need to be made using the model for rural isolated curves (80km/h). Table A6.17(a): Railway crossing accident prediction model parameters (2006) Control type Half arm barriers b0 4.83 104
4 3
b1 0.27 0.61 0.31
b2 0.33 0.32 0.36
Flashing lamps and bells 7.19 10 No control 1.67 10
Page A640

(18) Urban and rural railway crossings continued Table A6.17(b): Railway crossing accident prediction model traffic volumes ranges and k values Control type QT AADT Half arm barriers Flashing lamps and bells No control Traffic volumes Trains AADT
<40 <30 <20
k value
<3000
<6000 <1000
1.8 0.7 2.7
Page A641
A6.7 Typical accident reduction factors

Introduction The following section provides average accident reduction factors for treatments or improvements in urban and rural areas. These reductions can be applied to the accident rate calculated using any of the three accident analysis methods. In rural areas, accident migration should also be considered. The reduction factors are only a guide to possible reduction rates and the evaluation documentation will need to substantiate all claimed accident reductions, particularly if they are expected to be greater than indicated here. Typical accident reductions The following five tables provide a typical range of injury accident reductions for mid-block and intersection treatments: a) b) c) in urban (speed limits of 70km/h or less); in high speed areas (speed limits of 80km/h or more), and for cyclist and pedestrian treatments in urban areas.
When determining the accident reduction for implementing more than one measure, it is not appropriate to add all of the reduction factors together, particularly if the measures are treating similar accident types. In these cases judgement should be exercised in determining the likely overall effectiveness. Sealing unsealed roads Only an accident by accident analysis can be conducted when estimating benefits for sealing unsealed roads. Analysis of accident rates before and after sealing (21) shows that there is no statistically significant accident benefit or disbenefit associated with sealing unsealed roads. Table A6.18(a): Typical accident reductions for mid-block treatments in urban areas Measure Flush medians 50km/h Raised medians 50/60km/h Lighting installation or upgrade Ban on street parking on both sides of the street Implementation of area wide traffic calming on local streets Bus lanes (taxis permitted) High occupancy vehicle lanes Road diet: Four lanes to two lanes plus flush median Typical effectiveness of measure (% reduction) 10 to 25% of all accidents 20 to 30% of all accidents. The benefits are greater on roads with less through lanes. 35% of night time accidents that are due to poor lighting 20% of mid-block accidents. There is little research on banning parking on only one side of a street only, but some research indicates that accidents may increase. 25% of all accidents within the traffic calmed area. No reduction. Research indicates that there may be an increase in accidents for permanent bus lanes and peak period bus lanes. No reduction, but research indicates that there could be a 60% increase of all accidents for peak period lanes. 30 to 40% reduction of all accidents.
Typical accident reduction for midblock treatments in urban areas
Increase from four to six traffic No reduction but research indicates that there could be an increase in lanes all accidents.
Page A642
A6.7 Typical accident reduction factors continued

Typical accident reduction for midblock treatments in urban areas continued Table A6.18(b): Typical accident reductions for intersection treatments in urban areas Measure Lighting installation or upgrade Installation of throat or fishtail islands at priority intersections Establishing a right turn phase at traffic signals Signalisation of Roundabout Typical effectiveness of measure (% reduction) 35% of night time accidents that are due to poor lighting. 20 to 40% of all accidents. 10% of accidents involving right turn against accidents. 25% reduction of all accidents
Table A6.18(c): Typical accident reductions for pedestrian and cyclist treatments in urban areas Pedestrian measure Kerb extensions to assist pedestrians to cross Pedestrian refuges to assist pedestrians to cross Pedestrian refuges and kerb extensions Zebra crossings Typical effectiveness of measure (% reduction) 35% of pedestrian (type N) accidents. 15% of pedestrian (type N) accidents. 30% of pedestrian (type N) accidents. No reduction in general and if located on a multi lane road or at a site with a speed limit of greater than 50km/h an increase in accidents is possible.
Elevated pedestrian platforms 80% of pedestrian (type N) accidents. constructed in conjunction with local traffic management or calming schemes Mid-block traffic signals 45% of pedestrian (type N) accidents, however an increase in motor vehicle only accidents is possible if no crossing facility was previously installed. 52% reduction in pedestrian injuries. 30% of all accidents or up to 80% of pedestrian accidents depending on the extent to which pedestrians are prevented from crossing at grade. 10% of cycle accidents. International research shows that the installation of cycle lanes cycle accidents can decrease by 35 to 50%.
Countdown pedestrian signals Grade separated crossing facilities Cycle lanes
Advanced stop lines for cyclists 10% of cycle accidents at signalised intersections. at signalised intersections
Page A643

Typical accident reduction for midblock treatments in urban areas continued Table A6.18(d): Typical accident reductions for mid-block treatments in high speed areas Measure Route lighting installation Passing lanes or crawler lanes (ie passing lanes on an uphill gradient) Typical effectiveness of measure (% reduction) 30% of night-time accidents are due to poor lighting.

30% of overtaking accidents within passing lane 40 to 60% of head on accidents within passing lane 15% of rear end/obstruction accidents within passing lane reduce these percentages linearly to zero for accidents following the passing lane up to 5km away ensure loss of control accidents do not increase due to design 0 to 20% of loss of control and overtaking accidents on straights from shoulder widening alone 0 to 20% of loss of control, overtaking and head-on accidents on bends from shoulder widening alone 0 to 40% of loss of control, overtaking and head-on accidents on bends if sight-rails and traffic signs are installed at the same time as shoulder widening.
Shoulder widening
Guardrailing
Accident reduction in terms of changed severity: 40% reduction in fatal accidents 30% reduction in serious accident 10% reduction in minor accidents. Compare injury accident rate at site with typical injury accident rate and injury accident rates at other local sites that are considered satisfactory. 6% of all accidents.
Resurfacing of curves Installation of reflective raised pavement markers Edge lines where none previously existed Marking no-overtaking lines missing from a section of road where they are deemed necessary
Installation of edge marker posts 30 to 40% of off-road on curve and loss of control on curve accidents. 8% of all accidents. 50 to 60% reduction in head-on accidents.
Marking centrelines where none 13% of all accidents providing that seal width is sufficient. previously existed Installation of audible edge lines (rumble strip/vibraline) Implementation of clear zones where there were previously hazards within 6 metres of the roadway 11% of all accidents. 35% of loss of control and off the road accidents.
Page A644

Typical accident reduction for midblock treatments in urban areas continued Table A6.18(e): Typical accident reductions for intersection treatments in high speed areas Measure Intersection lighting installation or upgrade Right turn bays and associated seal widening at priority intersections Installation of throat or fishtail islands at intersections Installing advance warning of intersections where it is deemed necessary Typical effectiveness of measure (% reduction) 30 to 50% of night-time accidents at intersections that are due to poor lighting. 75% of accidents involving vehicles turning right from the main road and those travelling in the same direction. 35% of intersection accidents. 7% of all intersection accidents.
Conversion of rural crossroad to Reduction (or increase) depends on traffic flows. Use accident two rural T-junctions (100m prediction models for two T-junctions to determine the benefits. plus stagger) Improving sight distance at junctions Accident migration For priority junctions use accident prediction models in table A6.11.
Accident migration downstream of the treated site is normally not an issue in the urban road environment (50km/h to 70km/h). Accident migration is more prevalent on rural roads and in close proximity to the site being treated. The migration of accidents from the improved site down to the next curve or substandard road element (eg narrow bridge) is more likely than migration to a similar element 20 kilometres downstream. To assess the possibility of accident migration, one to two kilometres either side of the study area should be considered. If road elements, such as low design speed curves (75km/h or less), narrow bridges and railway crossings occur within this one to two kilometres, the analysis should assess whether an increase in travel speeds through the area will increase accidents at the adjoining road elements. If there is an expected increase in the accident occurrence then either: 1. 2. 3. the negative benefits need to be included in the economic evaluation improvements need to be made to downstream road elements to eliminate or reduce the accident migration a reduced estimate of accident savings should be used in the analysis.
A similar exercise should be undertaken for a longer length, up to five kilometres either side of the study area, if the speed change from the site improvements is expected to influence speeds and driver perception over a wider area. This may be the case for major realignments.
Page A645
A6.8 Adjusting accident costs to reflect mean speeds

Effect of speed on accident costs Evidence indicates that injuries per accident and injury severity increase linearly with speed. To account for this in an accident analysis, the accident costs for the do-minimum and the option(s) are calculated using mean traffic speeds. Accident costs by movement and vehicle involvement for use in method A are provided for 50km/h speed limits and 100km/h speed limits in table A6.21(a) to (h). Where the mean speed of the do-minimum and/or the options differ from these speeds, the accident costs are adjusted using the following formula:
CV = C50 + (C100 C50)(V 50)/50 Where: CV is the cost of accidents for the mean speed V. C50 is the cost of accidents in 50km/h speed limit areas. C100 is the cost of accidents in 100km/h speed limit area. V is the mean speed of traffic in km/h.
Adjusting accident costs by movement and vehicle involvement
Adjusting reported injury accident costs
Costs per reported injury accident for use in method B or C are provided for 50, 70 and 100km/h speed limits in table A6.22. Where the mean speed of the do-minimum and/or the options differ from these speeds, the accident costs are adjusted using the one of the following formulae:
for 50 < V < 70km/h: CV = C50 + (C70 C50)(V 50)/20 for 70 < V < 100km/h: CV = C70 + (C100 C70)(V 70)/30 Where: CV is the cost of accidents for the mean speed V. C50 is the cost of accidents in 50km/h speed limit areas. C70 is the cost of accidents in 70km/h speed limit areas. C100 is the cost of accidents in 100km/h speed limit area. V is the mean speed of traffic in km/h.
Calculation of mean speed
If the road section has a design speed based on the 85th percentile speed then to convert the design speed to the mean speed use the approximation of dividing the 85th percentile speed by 1.13 (or multiplying by 0.885) and round the result to the nearest whole kilometre per hour. Mean speed should be established over a section length of at least one kilometre.
Page A646
A6.9 Worked example of accident procedures

Introduction Do-minimum accident costs This section provides a worked example using methods B and C. A straight and flat 3.3 kilometres section of near rural road in a 100km/h area is identified as having a high incident of loss of control accidents. This section of road has two 3.5 metres lanes and no sealed shoulder. The AADT is 2800 with a traffic growth rate of four percent. Nine injury accidents were recorded in CAS for the previous five years. Two of these were serious injury accidents. The option is to widen the seal to nine metres in total: two 3.5 metres lanes and one metre wide sealed shoulders. Time zero is 2006. The weighted accident procedure is used as there are less than three injury accidents or one serious or fatal accident, per kilometre in the previous five years. Exposure-based accident prediction equations are available for the do-minimum and option (appendix A6.6). The proposed improvement (seal widening) is not considered a fundamental change, and hence the accident history is still relevant in calculating the site specific accident rate and costs.
Do minimum Site specific accident rate AS: AS = nine injury accidents/five years for the site history 1.10 Where: 1.10 is the accident trend adjustment factor from table A6.1(a). AS= 9 / 5 1.10 = 1.98 accidents per year. Typical accident rate AT AT = (b0 x Sadj) x X (from appendix A6.6, rural two-lane roads) Where: Coefficient b0 = 16 from table A6.12(a), for a mean seal width of 8.2 metres for 1000 to 4000 AADT on level terrain. Exposure (X) = 3.3km 2800 AADT 365 / 108 = 0.034. Sadj = 1.21 from table A6.13. This adjusts b0 upward, because the current seal width of 7 metres is narrower than the mean seal width of 8.2 metres for a road that carries 1000 to 4000 vehicles per day. AT,dm = 16 0.034 1.21 = 0.66 accidents per year. No adjustment is required for time zero as year zero is 2006.
Page A647
A6.9 Worked example of accident procedures continued

Do-minimum accident costs continued
Weighted accident rate AW for the do-minimum The weighted accident rate equation from appendix A6.4 is: AW,dm = w AT + (1 w) AS k w= k + AT Y Where: k = 0.8 (from table A6.12(b)) and Y = 5 (years). Because k is per kilometre, AT needs to be divided by the site length (3.3km), therefore AT = 0.66 / 3.3 = 0.2. 0.8 w= 0.2 5 + 0.8 Therefore the weighted accident rate is: AW,dm = = 0.44 0.66 + (1 0.44) 1.98. 1.40 accidents per year. = 0.44
Do-minimum accident costs = = 1.40 $555,000 (from table A6.22). $777,000 per year.
Option (a) accident costs (no significant changes at site)
Typical accident rate AT AT,opt = b0 exposure cross section adjustment factor = 16 0.034 0.69 = 0.38 accidents per year Where: The cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 adjusts b0 downwards as the proposed seal width of nine metres is wider than the mean seal width of 8.2 metres (for a road with 1000 to 4000 vehicles per day). Weighted accident rate AW for the option AW,opt = AT,opt AW,dm / AT,dm (from appendix A6.4) = 0.38 1.40 / 0.66 = 0.81 accidents per year Option (a) accident costs = 0.81 $555,000 = $449,550 per year. Option (a) accident benefits = $777,000 $449,550 = $327,450 per year.
Page A648
A6.9 Worked example of accident procedures continued

Option (b) accident costs (site significantly changed) If the proposed improvement is considered a fundamental change, in this case due to other works such as the protection of steep drop-offs or removal of obstacles in the roadside clear zone, then the site specific accident history used in the weighted accident procedure (method C) is not relevant in the calculation of the option accident rate and costs. When there is a fundamental change the accident costs for the option are calculated using method B.
Typical accident rate AT for option AT,opt = = b0 exposure cross section adjustment factor 16 0.034 0.69 = 0.38 accidents per year
Option (b) accident costs = 0.38 $555,000 = $210,900 per year. Option (b) accident benefits = $777,000 $210,900 = $566,100 per year.
Page A649
A6.10 Tables
Introduction Tables A6.19 to A6.22 are for use in the worksheets provided chapter 5 of this manual. These tables are used for calculating annual accident costs, depending on which of the accident analysis procedures is used. Tables A6.19 through to A6.21 are for use with method A, accident by accident analysis, while table A6.22 is for use with methods B and C, accident rate analysis and the weighted accident procedure. Table A6.19(a), (b) and (c) Ratio of fatal to serious accident severities by movement for different speed limits. For use when there are less than three fatal accidents at a site. Table A6.20(a) Factors for converting from reported injury accidents to total injury accidents. Table A6.20(b) Factors for converting from reported minor injury accidents to total noninjury accidents. Table A6.21(a), (b), (c) and (d) Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents in 50km/h speed limit areas. Table A6.21(e), (f), (g) and (h) Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for fatal, serious, minor and non-injury accidents in 100km/h speed limit areas for use with method A, accident by accident analysis. Table A6.22 Cost per reported injury accident. Table A6.19(a): Ratio of fatal to serious accident severities by movement for 50km/h speed limit areas Movement category CAS movement codes Fatal/ (fatal + serious) AB,B E AD,CB,CC,CO,D CA Q 0.13 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.17 Serious/ (fatal + serious) 0.87 0.96 0.89 0.92 0.83 0.95 0.90 0.97 0.93 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.97 0.92
Head-on Hit object Loss of control (off-road ) Loss of control (on-road) Miscellaneous Overtaking Pedestrian Cyclist Rear end (crossing) Rear end (queuing) Rear end (slow vehicle) Crossing (direct) Crossing (turning) All movements
AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF 0.05 N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.08
Page A650
A6.10 Tables continued

Table A6.19(b): Ratio of fatal to serious accident severities by movement for 70km/h speed limit areas Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E AD,CB,CC,CO,D CA Q Fatal/ (fatal + serious) 0.24 0.10 0.20 0.14 0.30 Serious/ (fatal + serious) 0.76 0.90 0.80 0.86 0.70 0.88 0.70 0.86 0.84 0.86 0.85 0.79 0.91 0.82 Serious/ (fatal + serious) 0.67 0.89 0.83 0.84 0.66 0.86 0.55 0.75 0.81 0.84 0.83 0.75 0.85 0.79
AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF 0.12 N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M 0.30 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.09 0.18 CAS movement codes AB,B E AD,CB,CC,CO,D CA Q Fatal/ (fatal + serious) 0.33 0.11 0.17 0.16 0.34
Table A6.19(c): Ratio of fatal to serious accident severities by movement for 100km/h speed limit areas
Movement category
AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF 0.14 N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M 0.45 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.25 0.15 0.21
Page A651

Table A6.20(a): Factors for converting from reported injury accidents to total injury accident Fatal 50, 60 and 70km/h speed limit Pedestrian Push cyclist Other 80 and 100km/h speed limit (excluding motorways) Pedestrian Push cyclist Other 100km/h speed limit remote rural area Pedestrian Push cyclist Other Motorway All Table A6.20(b): Factor for converting from reported noninjury accidents to total non-injury accidents Table A6.21(a): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for fatal injury accidents in 50km/h speed limit areas
Speed limit area
Serious 1.5 3.3 1.5
Minor 4.5 5.5 2.8 7.5 9.5 4.5 13.0 15.9 7.5 1.9 3.6
1.0
1.0
1.9 4.2 1.9
1.0
2.3 5.0 2.3
All All
50, 60 or 70km/h
1.0 1.0
80 or 100km/h
1.9 1.7
Motorway
All movements
18.5
50km/h speed limit fatal injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E
Total cost per accident ($m July 2006) Push cycle 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Motor cycle 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 4.1 3.4 3.6 3.45 3.05 3.45 3.05 3.4 3.45 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.75 3.05 3.55 3.15 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.35 3.35 3.05 3.30 3.15 3.35
Head-on Hit object
3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
3.2 3.1 3.15 3.15 3.1 3.15 3.1 3.1 3.15 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.15
Loss of control (off-road ) AD,CB,CC,CO,D Loss of control (on-road) Miscellaneous Overtaking Pedestrian Rear end (crossing) Rear end (queuing) Rear end (slow vehicle) Crossing (direct) Crossing (turning) All movements CA Q AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M
Page A652

Table A6.21(b): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for serious injury accidents in 50km/h speed limit areas 50km/h speed limit serious injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E Total cost per accident ($000 July 2006) Push cycle 325 320 340 320 325 325 330 325 325 325 325 325 325 Motor cycle 340 335 335 345 335 320 335 335 325 330 335 335 335 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 480 360 385 380 360 410 330 355 350 450 395 370 370 450 345 380 355 360 345 330 350 350 360 375 345 360
Head-on Hit object
370 325 330 325 335 325 365 350 325 340 370 330 335
410 360 415 375 370 330 335 340 385 370 375 360 370
Loss of control (off-road ) AD,CB,CC,CO,D Loss of control (on-road) Miscellaneous Overtaking Pedestrian Rear end (crossing) Rear end (queuing) Rear end (slow vehicle) Crossing (direct) Crossing (turning) All movements Table A6.21(c): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for minor injury accidents in 50km/h speed limit areas 50km/h speed limit minor injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E CA Q AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M
Total cost per accident ($000 July 2006) Push cycle 17 16 18 15 15 17 22 15 16 16 17 16 17 Motor cycle 16 17 15 15 17 17 18 18 17 16 18 17 18 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 25 19 21 21 18 22 18 21 22 21 24 23 21 25 19 21 20 19 20 18 21 23 20 23 21 21
Head-on Hit object
24 20 16 16 15 18 19 16 18 18 21 17 18
31 25 34 41 25 26 30 30 30 27 31 30 30
Page A653

Table A6.21(d): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for non-injury accidents in 50km/h speed limit areas 50km/h speed limit non-injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E Total cost per accident ($000 July 2006) Push cycle 1 1 0.9 0.7 1 1.5 0.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1 1 1 Motor cycle 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 1.1 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 2 2 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.1 2 2 2 1.9 2 1.8 2.4 2.5 1.3 1.7 2.5 2.8 1.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.1
Head-on Hit object
4.2 4.9 2 1.1 5.5 3.1 0.2 2.5 3.4 3 3.4 2.4 2.8
5.9 5.8 5.2 5.4 5.3 5.9 4.9 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8
Loss of control (off-road ) AD,CB,CC,CO,D Loss of control (on-road) Miscellaneous Overtaking Pedestrian Rear end (crossing) Rear end (queuing) Rear end (slow vehicle) Crossing (direct) Crossing (turning) All movements Table A6.21(e): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for fatal injury accidents in 100km/h speed limit areas 100km/h speed limit fatal injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E CA Q AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M
Total cost per accident ($m July 2006) Push cycle 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.05 3.1 3.1 3.1 Motor cycle 3.65 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 4.5 3.7 3.6 3.85 3.25 3.8 3.1 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.65 3.75 3.85 4.3 3.55 3.55 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.7 3.8 3.25 3.9 3.75 3.8
Head-on Hit object
3.95 3.4 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.4
4 3.85 3.35 3.85 3.75 3.1 3.1 3.85 3.8 3.15 4.4 4 3.8
Page A654

Table A6.21(f): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for serious injury accidents in 100km/h speed limit areas 100km/h speed limit serious injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E Total cost per accident ($000 July 2006) Push cycle 325 330 320 330 325 325 330 330 330 335 330 325 330 Motor cycle 405 370 375 375 370 325 370 370 370 370 370 330 370 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 535 370 385 445 345 395 350 435 385 420 460 420 415 495 360 375 415 355 390 350 415 375 380 435 405 405
Head-on Hit object
360 320 335 345 345 370 345 365 395 350 330 370 345
435 380 375 390 375 425 335 400 355 385 390 400 400
Loss of control (off-road ) AD,CB,CC,CO,D Loss of control (on-road) Miscellaneous Overtaking Pedestrian Rear end (crossing) Rear end (queuing) Rear end (slow vehicle) Crossing (direct) Crossing (turning) All movements Table A6.21(g): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for minor injury accidents in 100km/h speed limit areas 100km/h speed limit minor injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E CA Q AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M
Total cost per accident ($000 July 2006) Push cycle 19 18 18 18 18 17 18 17 20 16 18 17 18 Motor cycle 20 19 19 19 18 16 19 18 16 15 18 17 19 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 28 20 22 25 20 21 18 27 23 23 29 27 23 28 21 22 24 21 22 19 27 23 24 29 27 24
Head-on Hit object
21 15 16 18 16 19 18 20 18 22 20 19 18
31 30 34 32 22 27 30 31 31 28 31 31 32
Page A655

Table A6.21(h): Cost per accident by movement and vehicle involvement for non-injury accidents in 100km/h speed limit areas 100km/h speed limit non-injury accidents Movement category CAS movement codes AB,B E Total cost per accident (000$ July 2006) Push cycle 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Motor cycle 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 Bus Truck Car/ All van/ vehicles other 2.5 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7 2.5 1.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 1.8 3.5 2.4 1.6 2.6 3.7 3.9 2.7 3 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.4
Head-on Hit object
4.3 3.2 1.1 0.8 6.7 4.1 2.9 5.1 4.4 5.2 4.9 3.2 2.9
7.7 6.8 6.3 6.7 6.5 7.4 6.7 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.1
Loss of control (off-road ) AD,CB,CC,CO,D Loss of control (on-road) Miscellaneous Overtaking Pedestrian Rear end (crossing) Rear end (queuing) Rear end (slow vehicle) Crossing (direct) Crossing (turning) All movements Table A6.22: Cost per reported injury accident ($000 July 2006) Accident site/type 50km/h All other sites Mid-block accidents Intersection accidents: Uncontrolled (T) Roundabout Priority (T, Y) Priority (X) Signalised (T, Y) Signalised (X) Motorway accidents Railway crossing accidents Bridge accidents Heavy vehicle accidents Cycle accidents Pedestrian accidents N/A 565 N/A 260 160 195 140 170 170 150 170 200 225 CA Q AA,AC,AE AO,GE, GF N,P FB,FC,GD FD,FE,FF,FO FA,GA GC,GO H J,K,L,M
Speed limit area 70km/h 365 425 100km/h near rural 520 555 100km/h remote rural 795 840
375 180 290 295 N/A N/A
500 455 465 585 N/A N/A 270
765 685 715 880 N/A N/A N/A 1,625 905 1,030 830 1,420
N/A 870 N/A 475 270
1,235 610 700 565 1,080
Page A656
A6.11 References
Introduction This section provides details of useful references which can be used to clarify these procedures or to gain further detail on typical accident reduction factors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Anderson D, Muirson M, Sizemore T, Tate F and Wanty D (2005) Review of state highway shoulders. Transit New Zealand. Austroads (2003) Rural road design: A guide to the geometric design of rural roads. Sydney, Australia. Austroads (2005) Guide to traffic engineering practice. Part 5: Intersections at grade. Sydney, Australia. Bradshaw P and Minchington J(2007) Accident benefits of sealing unsealed roads. Land Transport New Zealand research report 314. Elvik R and Vaa T(2004) The handbook of road safety measures. Elsevier, Norway. Garder P (1994) Safety Implications of bicycle paths at signalised intersections. Gonzalez O and Monzon A (1997) Evaluation of a high occupancy vehicle lane and other infrastructure measures in the Madrid transport system. Francis T, Turner SA and Roozenburg AP (2006) Predicting accident rates for cyclists and pedestrians. Land Transport New Zealand research report 289. Hauer E, Lovell J and Ng JCN (1989) Estimation of safety at signalised intersections. Transportation Research Record 1185: pp 4861. Haugen T (2004) Evaluation of HOV Lanes in Norway. European Transport Conference 2004. Jensen S (2007) Bicycle tracks and lanes: a before after study. Koorey GF and F N Tate (1997) Review of accident analysis procedures for activity evaluation manual. Transfund New Zealand research report 85. Land Transport New Zealand (2005) A New Zealand guide to the treatment of crash locations. Land Transport New Zealand (2004) Cycle network and route planning guide. Land Transport New Zealand (2004) Crash reduction study monitoring reports. (www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/crashreduction). Lanli N and ITE Pedestriand Taskforce (1998) Alternative treatments for atgrade pedestrian crossings. Washington DC: ITE. McLarin MW (1997) Typical accident rates for rural passing lanes and unsealed roads. Transfund New Zealand research report 89. National Road Safety Committee (2003) Road Safety to 2010. Ministry of Transport.
References
Page A657
A6.11 References continued

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Tate FN (2004) Guidelines for the selection of pedestrian facilities. Land Transport New Zealand (unpublished). Tate FN and Wilkie S (2003) Safety audit of existing roads developing a less subjective database. Transfund New Zealand (unpublished). Turner SA (2000) Accident prediction models. Transfund New Zealand research report 192. Turner SA and Roozenburg AP (2006) Cycle safety: reducing the crash risk. Land Transport New Zealand research report (draft). Turner SA and Roozenburg AP (2006) Roundabout crash prediction models. Land Transport New Zealand research report (draft). Turner SA and Roozenburg AP (2205) Crash rates at high speed, high volume junctions. Road Safety Trust (unpublished). Turner SA and Roozenburg AP (2006) Crash rates at rural junctions influence of speed and visibility. Land Transport New Zealand (unpublished). Turner SA and Roozenburg AP (2005) Crash rates at rural junctions priority junctions. Road Safety Trust (unpublished).
Page A71
A7
A7.1
Passing lanes
Introduction
This appendix contains procedures to evaluate the benefits of providing passing lanes, typically through the provision of passing lanes, climbing lanes, slow vehicle bays, and increases in the natural passing opportunities from improved alignments. A wide range of vehicle types travel on New Zealand highways each day and inevitably some slower vehicles impede other faster vehicles. In order to overtake these slower vehicles on two-lane highways, drivers must use the opposing traffic lane. However this is not always possible or safe. Suitable gaps in the opposing traffic may be limited and the road alignment may restrict the forward sight distance. The result is increased travel times as well as increases in driver frustration. Research suggests that the latter may lead to an increase in unsafe passing manoeuvres and accidents (Thrush, 1996). Topic Page
Introduction
Benefits of providing increased passing lanes
In this appendix
A7.1 A7.2 A7.3 A7.4 A7.5 A7.6 A7.7
Introduction Background Passing lane strategies Assessment of individual passing lanes Rural simulation for assessing passing lanes Definitions References
A71 A74 A79 A717 A726 A728 A729
Page A72
A7.1
Passing lanes (and climbing lanes) provide a relatively safe environment for vehicles to overtake other vehicles, allowing them to travel at their desired speed until such time as the platoons reform. As a consequence the benefits of passing lanes generally extend much farther than the physical length of the passing lane section itself, as shown in figure A7.1 below. Figure A7.1: Benefit length of installing passing lanes
Passing lanes
Physical extent of passing lane
Level of platooning
Extent of passing lane benefits Running distance
Passing lanes free impeded vehicles from slow moving platoons and in doing so they improve levels of service, reduce travel times and driver frustration. These benefits will be greatest at locations where road and traffic conditions result in significant passing demand. Other improvement options In hilly and mountainous terrain, passing lanes (and climbing lanes) may not be viable, particularly on lower volume roads. In such cases other improvement options such as slow vehicle bays and shoulder widening should be considered. The benefit of full length passing lanes in less severe terrain can also be low, when traffic volumes are low. In such cases improving sight lines through clearance of vegetation and vertical or horizontal realignment may increase the available passing opportunities and generate other safety benefits. There are three procedures in this appendix:

Passing lane evaluation procedures
Passing lane strategy for determining the location of individual passing lanes (appendix A7.3). Assessment of individual passing lanes identified as feasible from a passing lane strategy (appendix A7.4). Detailed analysis of passing lane activities using rural traffic simulation software, such as TRARR (appendix A7.5).
Figure A7.2 should be used to determine the appropriate procedure.
Page A73
A7.1
Figure A7.2: Selection of passing lane analysis procedure
Page A74
A7.2
Background
Travel time and driver frustration benefits are generated when passing lanes reduce the amount of time drivers spend travelling in platoons. The demand for passing and consequently the benefits, are a function of a number of parameters including: Traffic variables:

Travel time and driver frustration savings
traffic volume percentage of HCVs initial platooning directional split of traffic vehicle speed distributions.
Road variables:

terrain/alignment grades available passing lanes (sight distance) passing lane lengths and frequency.
The downstream distance over which road user benefits accrue reduces as traffic volumes, the proportion of slower vehicles (HCVs), and the speed differential between fast and slow vehicles increases. Features that re-platoon the traffic stream, such as urban areas and major intersections, may limit the available benefits. While passing lanes also have an impact on the passing opportunities available to traffic travelling in the opposite direction (where passing is not prohibited), these impacts are typically quite small and are ignored. These procedures provide graphs of travel time and driver frustration benefits, which are used or incorporated into graphs of BCR for different input parameters. These graphs were developed from a simulation model, which simulates two traffic streams (fast and slow vehicles) travelling along sections of highway. The simulations are used to determine the demand for passing lanes. The travel time benefits of passing lanes are then assessed using the Unified Passing Model developed by Werner and Morrall (1984). The changes observed in the level of platooning determine the driver frustration benefits, while the reduction in travel time is a benefit in its own right, it is also used to determine the change in mean travel speed and the subsequent change in vehicle operating costs. Accident rates An accident rate analysis has been undertaken to produce the accident reduction benefit graphs shown in figures A7.9 to A7.12. The typical accident rate by terrain type is taken from table A6.12(a). The accident rate at the passing lane and downstream of the passing lane is less than the typical rate and varies depending on proximity to the passing lane. The maximum reduction is along the passing lane where the reduction in the typical rate is 25 percent. The reduction in the accident rate reduces linearly to zero from the end of the passing lane to either the location where vehicle platooning returns to normal (generally 5 to 10 kilometres downstream), or where another passing lane begins. Table A7.1 shows the accident rate before the installation of a passing site. The typical accident rates for hilly terrain have been interpolated as midway between the accident rates for rolling and mountainous terrain.
Page A75
A7.2
Background continued
If the passing lane forms part of a rural realignment or there are five or more injury accidents or two or more serious and fatal accidents in any one kilometre section (up to 10 kilometres downstream of the passing lane) then accident by accident analysis may be suitable. To determine if such an analysis is appropriate refer to section A6.2. For accident by accident analysis, table A6.18(d) provides accident reductions for up to 10 kilometres downstream of the passing lane. In the majority of cases however accident benefits should only be claimed up to five kilometres downstream of a passing lane unless a rural simulation analysis indicates that vehicle platooning will not return to normal until more than five kilometres downstream. No upstream accident benefits can be included unless international or local research is produced to justify such benefits.
Accident rates continued
Passing lane length
A standard passing lane length of one kilometre is assumed in these procedures. When evaluating passing lanes with a length greater or shorter than one kilometre, the appropriate factors in table A7.8 should be applied to the road user benefits. Terrain type Flat Rolling Hilly Mountainous Typical accident rate no-passing lane 16 20 24 (interpolated from rolling and mountainous accident rates) 28
Table A7.1: Accident rates for rural midblock locations (/108 veh-km)
Proportion of heavy traffic
Two traffic streams, cars (passenger cars and light commercial vehicles) and trucks (medium/heavy commercial vehicles and buses) are assumed. The relative proportions are based on all the periods composition for a rural strategic road, which is 88 percent light vehicles and 12 percent heavy vehicles (refer to table A2.1). This assumption impacts on both the level of travel time benefits and on the value of these benefits. The adjustment in equation 1 (appendix A7.4) can be applied when the percentage of heavy vehicles is above or below 12 percent. The benefits of passing lanes are a function of the traffic using the road during a particular period (vehicles/hour). To express the benefits of passing lanes as a function of average annual daily traffic (AADT), it is necessary to assume a traffic flow profile and the number of hours per year that this particular level of traffic flow (percentage of AADT) occurs. The traffic flow profile assumed for these procedures is based on that recorded for rural state highways that do not carry high volumes of seasonal holiday or recreational traffic. Although it may be expected that additional benefits will accrue to passing lanes on roads that do carry high volumes of recreational traffic, the differences have been found to be insignificant. The exceptional peaks of the roads with high volumes of recreational traffic are offset by a reduction in the proportion of time the road operates at around seven percent of AADT (refer table A7.2 below). The relationship between the benefits and the flow profile is relatively robust. In situations where the traffic flow profile differs significantly from the above, the simplified procedure may not be applicable, and more detailed analysis using rural simulation (eg TRARR) may be required.
Traffic flow profile
Page A76
A7.2
Hourly flow of AADT (%) 0.9 3.5 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 25.0 Total Roads with low volumes of recreational Roads with high volumes of recreational traffic traffic Hours/year 3979 933 3210 541 97 10 8760 Hours (%) 45.42 10.65 36.64 6.18 1.11 0.11 100% AADT (%) 9.7% 8.9% 61.6% 15.6% 3.7% 0.5% 100% Hours/year 3797 2062 1819 822 96 120 6 38 8760 Hours (%) 43.35 23.54 20.76 9.38 1.10 1.37 0.07 0.43 100% AADT (%) 9.3% 19.8% 34.9% 23.6% 3.7% 5.8% 0.4% 2.6% 100%
Table A7.2: Traffic flow profiles
Traffic growth
The procedures have been developed using a traffic growth of two percent. Adjustment factors are produced to modify benefit graphs when the traffic growth is one percent, three percent and four percent. Where the traffic growth does not correspond to these values an appropriate adjustment factor can be calculated using interpolation or extrapolation. The variation in traffic speed of individual vehicles within each traffic stream is expressed in terms of the coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) of all vehicle speeds. The procedure assumes the coefficient of variation (COV) to be 13.5 percent for both traffic streams. In situations where road geometry or terrain type has a significant impact on the speeds of particular vehicle types, it is likely that the coefficient of variation will increase. In such cases the simplified model will under predict the benefits of releasing faster vehicles from platoons. Similarly on long flat straights where there is likely to be less variation in speed the model can be expected to over predict the travel time benefits. The adjustment in equation 2 (appendix A7.4) can be applied when the COV is above or below 13.5 percent.
Speed
Construction costs
The construction costs presented here, and used in the analysis for determining the appropriate passing lane strategy, are based on the average costs of constructing a one kilometre passing lane in each of the terrain categories. These average costs are generally weighted to the lower end of the reported range, as in most instances passing lanes are located to avoid costly items, such as bridges.
Page A77
A7.2
Table A7.3: Classification of passing lane costs Category Cost/m 2005 ($) $120 to $250 Typically had some or all of the following features

Construction costs continued
Assumed cost/ m 2005 ($) $170
Easy
flat, straight road and terrain very good ground conditions two or three passing lanes activities in one contract existing road 10 metres seal width, new passing lanes on both sides of road, and no expensive special features. flat or gently rolling terrain straight or curved alignment good or average ground conditions (soft material encountered on some activities) typically one passing lane per contract, and some special features on some activities. poor ground requiring removal and replacement curved or straight alignment awkward or hilly terrain short length of passing lane in one contract high traffic count and control costs, and often expensive special features such as rehabilitation and intersection improvements.
Average
$250 to $500
$320
Difficult
$500
$800 (Estimates in this category were as high as $1700 per linear metre.)
Average construction and maintenance costs have been calculated for each of the terrain types, using real costs from a number of activities and from data collected for passing lane research. The construction costs per linear metre from these activities determined the cost categories shown in table 10.3. Table A7.4 relates each of the four terrain types to the cost categories, together with the unit and total construction costs used in the analysis. Where the estimated cost of construction differs significantly from that assumed in table A7.4, an adjustment to the benefit cost ratio (BCR) could be made using equation 3 (appendix A7.4): Be aware that analysis of data from selected passing lane sites indicated that:
passing lanes generally cost between $120 and $800 per linear metre, but can cost up to $1700 in some cases. Specific cost estimates should be prepared for each site under consideration significant savings in both design and construction costs are possible if two or three activities are combined into one contract.
Page A78
A7.2
Special features can be very expensive and should be avoided where possible, and local knowledge is important to achieving accurate estimates. Special features include:

Construction costs continued
swamps/soft ground significant earthworks quantities large culvert and/or drain extensions intersection improvements expensive service relocations.
Construction period
The procedures outlined in this appendix assume that the construction of the passing lane is completed within the first year. Update factors for user benefits and constructions costs must be used with these procedures. These can be found in table A12.1 and A12.2. When applying an update factor to the combined travel time and vehicle operating costs, the adjustment factor for travel time costs should be used. Terrain type Flat Rolling Hilly Mountainous Cost category Easy/average Average Average/difficult Difficult Unit cost (per m) $250 $320 $500 $800 Total cost (for 1km) $250,000 $320,000 $500,000 $800,000
Update factors
Table A7.4: Passing lane average costs 2005 ($)
Note: Construction cost estimates vary widely depending on site specific factors. Use caution with these costs for other applications. All costs include the end tapers.
Page A79
A7.3
Passing lane strategies

This section provides a procedure for assessing passing lane strategies and is divided into two sections. First, a coarse analysis to identify passing lane spacing strategies and when increased passing lane frequency may become economic. The second section is used for determining actual locations for passing lanes and approximate BCRs of individual activities. More detailed guidance on individual passing lanes can be found in appendix A7.4. The assumptions made in this procedure are affected by local conditions (refer appendix A7.2).
Introduction
Strategy identification procedure
This procedure is required as an initial step to evaluate strategies. It can also be used in isolation as a coarse analysis to identify the approximate BCR for each passing lane within a particular strategy. This procedure can be used to determine the most appropriate passing lane spacing strategy for sections of strategic rural roads and by doing so identify when increased passing lane frequency may be required. Step 1 Action Break the network into sections, as specified in Transit New Zealands state highway performance indicators and targets guidelines (or similar for local authority roads). Further classify these traffic sections into subsections with consistent traffic volume and terrain type. Subsections should start or finish at main urban centres (large towns and cities). Subsections should not be shorter than: 10 kilometres for passing lanes at five kilometre spacing 20 kilometres for passing lanes at 10 kilometre spacing. When terrain and traffic volumes change frequently, then smaller sections should be combined and the average traffic volume used in the analysis. The predominant terrain type should also be used in the analysis. Where this procedure does not seem appropriate, such as where there is a steep grade on a route that has typically a rolling or flat alignment, analysts should use a simulation model such as TRARR to calculate the benefits. Classify the terrain, terrain can be classified vertically by generalised gradient (sum of the absolute value of rises and falls expressed as m/km) and horizontally by generalised curvature (degrees/km). Combined terrain classifications of vertical and horizontal terrain are shown in table A7.5, and are a result of analysis of 500 metre lengths using a 1500 metre moving average of these parameters. The curvature, or degrees per kilometre specified in table A7.5, is estimated by summing the deviation angles of the horizontal curves from plans or aerial photography, and dividing by the road length. Rise and fall can be obtained from profile drawings or highway information sheets. Alternatively, this profile and curve data can be obtained from surveyed road geometry data. Determine percentage of road with passing sight distance (% PSD) for each subsection. The % PSD is the proportion of the section that has visibility greater than 450 metres. This can be calculated using surveyed gradient and horizontal curvature data. In the absence of survey data, each subsection can be classified according to terrain type, based on average gradient and curvature. Terrain type sectioning can then be converted to percentage passing sight distance using table A7.6. Note that this method is not as accurate and may not be sufficient in situations where the benefits are sensitive to % PSD, especially where traffic volumes are higher. In table A7.6 PSD has been calculated as a moving average over 15 kilometres, with the PSD ascribed to the centre five kilometres. This is the basis of the BCR graphs and should be observed when applying the method. The curvature can be estimated as in step 2.
Page A710
A7.3
Passing lane strategies continued

Table A7.5: Combined terrain classification Horizontal terrain (degrees/km) Vertical terrain (rise and fall, m/km) Flat (0 20) Rolling (20 45) Hilly (45 60) Mountainous (>60) Table A7.6: Terrain relationship to passing sight distance Measure Straight Curvature, degrees per (km) Number of curves per (km) Percentage of road length with: less than 25% sight distance 25 to 50% sight distance 50 to 75% sight distance over 75% sight distance Step 4 Action Use the analysis year AADT, and % PSD, to calculate a BCR, using the figures A7.3 to A7.6. If traffic growth is not two percent per year, multiply the BCR by the correction factors in table A7.7. If the traffic growth is not in table A7.7, extrapolate or interpolate to obtain a correction factor. The analysis is carried out in both directions, generally with a stagger between opposing passing lanes where the terrain and available width allows. Repeat step 4 using the predicted AADT for future years in increments of five years from the analysis year, to identify when it may be worthwhile to adopt a strategy that involves more frequent passing lanes. 45 30 15 85 15 95 5 98 2 0 50
<1.0
Strategy identification procedure continued
Straight (0 50) Flat Rolling
Curved (50 150) Rolling Hilly
Winding (150 300) Hilly
Tortuous (>300) Mountainous
Mountainous
Vertical terrain Curved 50 150 1.0 3.0 15 Windy 150 300 3.0 6.0 10 Tortuous
>300 >6.0
Average passing sight distance (%) 35
Table A7.7: Traffic growth correction factors for BCR graphs AADT Traffic growth 1% 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 2% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3% 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.07 4% 1.21 1.18 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.15
Page A711
A7.3

The following steps determine the location of passing lanes before evaluating individual passing lanes (appendix A7.4). Step 6 Action Identify existing and planned passing lanes for each section where passing lanes can be justified. If existing passing lanes spacing calculated, then no new passing lanes required If existing passing lanes spacing > calculated, then identify potential new sites at the calculated interval Older sites are unlikely to be at set intervals (as part of a strategy) and judgement is required in determining whether new sites are justified. Where relevant, identify possible sites for future years. 7 Identify suitable sites. Sites should be within one kilometre of either side of the calculated spacing. Construction cost, land availability and forward visibility at the exit merge are important factors for site selection. Site spacing or length may be adjusted to balance passing demand and opportunities. For wider spacing it will be necessary to combine each of the subsections identified in step 1. Where the strategy results in similar site spacing for each subsection, this spacing must be maintained over subsection boundaries. If the optimal spacing for each subsection results in different desired site spacing for each subsection, the overall strategy should be based on the largest spacing, ie where the spacing changes from five kilometres in subsection one to 10 kilometres in subsection two, then the spacing should be increased to the higher values (10 kilometres) over the boundary. Any inbound sites in the vicinity of towns should commence at least five kilometres from the urban speed limit, unless reasons for a closer facility can be justified. This normally requires modelling using TRARR. Use the following guidance to maximise passing lane benefits: select locations where large numbers of vehicles are observed travelling in slow moving platoons select locations where there is the greatest speed differential between slow and fast vehicles (for example, on steep grades) locate sites leading away from congestion (such as urban areas) where possible locate sites on sections with existing noovertaking lines to maximise the increase in net passing opportunities avoid significant intersections (particularly rightturn bays) consider site lengths of between 800 metres and 1500 metres in most rural areas shorter lengths are unlikely to release all platooned vehicles and little benefit is gained from excessively long lengths do not locate the merge area at the end of the sites where there is limited forward sight distance or where there is a sudden reduction in the desired speed, eg at a tight horizontal curve the termination of sites in opposing directions should not be adjacent to each other ensure that sufficient shoulder width and merge space are provided, otherwise an increase in loss of control and merging accidents could occur avoid costly physical restraints such as narrow bridges and culverts that require widening. Refer to Austroads (2003) Rural road design for further information.
Refinement of strategy
Page A712
A7.3

Step 8 Action Sections of prolonged gradient should be identified, as possible opportunities for climbing lanes (or slow vehicle bays) using table A7.8 below, which is adapted from Austroads (2003) Rural road design and considers the length of sustained gradient necessary to reduce the speed of a heavy commercial vehicle to 40km/h. To assess the benefits of such sites a more detailed analysis is required using rural simulation software (see section A7.5).
Refinement of strategy continued
Table A7.8: Limiting lengths (m) for consideration of climbing lanes Gradient (%) 60 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 100 100 100 150 150 200 300 Approach speed (km/h) 80 200 250 300 300 350 450 650 100 450 550 650 800 1000
Page A713
A7.3

Flat terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
40 35 30 BCR (July 2005) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure A7.3: Graphs of strategy BCR for flat terrain
Percentage passing sight distance

2000 AADT 3000 AADT 4000 AADT 6000 AADT 8000 AADT 10000 AADT

40 35 30 BCR (July 2005) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


40 35 30 25 BCR (July 2005) 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A714
A7.3

Rolling terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
35 30 25 BCR (July 2005) 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure A7.4: Graphs of strategy BCR for rolling terrain


35 30 25 BCR (July 2005) 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


35 30 25 BCR (July 2005) 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A715
A7.3

Hilly terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
25
Figure A7.5: Graphs of strategy BCR for hilly terrain
20
BCR (July 2005)
15
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


25
20
BCR (July 2005)
15
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


25
20
BCR (July 2005)
15
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A716
A7.3

Mountainous terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
25
Figure A7.6: Graphs of strategy BCR for mountainous terrain
20
BCR (July 2005)
15
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


25
20
BCR (July 2005)
15
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


25
20
BCR (July 2005)
15
10
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A717
A7.4 Assessment of individual passing lanes

Introduction This procedure this section is suitable for establishing the benefits of individual passing lane activities. This method is not suitable for:

slow vehicle bays and crawling lanes at the scheme assessment stage locations where there are a large proportion of slow vehicles such as campervans, coaches, or slow heavily loaded commercial vehicles passing lanes with significant construction costs or significant construction and preconstruction periods.
For locations where one or more of the above factors apply, a rural traffic simulation model is required to assess the benefits (see appendix A7.5). It is assumed that before using this procedure that an appropriate passing lane strategy has been developed using the method in appendix A7.3 and individual passing lanes are being investigated. This procedure is used to calculate the benefits of passing lanes in one direction only. For dual passing lanes (passing lanes in both directions), the procedure needs to be undertaken for both directions separately. To use the procedure in this section, the BCR graphs in figures A7.3 to A7.6 are not to be used. Instead, separate graphs for each category of road user benefits are used (figures A7.7 to A7.12), and these can be adjusted where necessary to account for local conditions. Procedure for individual passing lanes Step 1 Action Calculate the travel time and vehicle operating savings, using graphs in figure A7.7. If necessary multiply by the traffic growth correction factor in table A7.9 and the travel time update factor in table A12.2. The inputs to the graphs are: passing lane spacing (either 5, 10 or 20 km for isolated passing lanes use 20 km spacing) analysis year AADT % PSD (to calculate see appendix A7.3).
Table A7.9: Traffic growth correction factors for travel time and VOC graphs AADT 1% 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.90 0.91 0.91 2% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Traffic growth 3% 1.18 1.17 1.14 1.10 1.09 1.09 4% 1.39 1.34 1.27 1.20 1.18 1.17
Page A718
A7.4 Assessment of individual passing lanes continued

Procedure for individual passing lanes continued Step 2 Action Calculate the driver frustration savings, using graphs in figure A7.8. If necessary multiply by the traffic growth correction factor in table A7.10 and the driver frustration update factor in table A12.2. Sum the road user benefits from steps 1 and 2. These are the road user benefits that need to be adjusted to account for the site specific characteristics such as passing lane length, speed distribution and proportion of heavy traffic. Adjustment for the passing lane length. The benefits calculated in the previous steps are based on passing lanes of 1 km in length. Where individual passing lanes are less than one kilometre in length, the benefits are reduced because a lesser number of platooned vehicles will be released. Where the proposed passing lane is longer than one kilometre, additional benefits may result. The formation of platoons depends on the spacing between passing lanes, therefore an adjustment to the benefits is calculated based on the combined effect of passing lane length and spacing, as provided in table A7.11 below (intermediate values may be interpolated).
Table A7.10: Traffic growth correction factors for driver frustration graphs AADT 1% 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 0.82 0.85 0.88 0.92 0.93 0.93 2% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Traffic growth 3% 1.19 1.15 1.11 1.08 1.07 1.07 4% 1.40 1.30 1.22 1.15 1.15 1.15
Table A7.11: Factors for passing lane length Spacing 5km 10km 20km Step 5 750m 0.76 0.74 0.81 Action Adjustment for the proportion of heavy traffic, by comparing the medium plus heavy vehicle component of the traffic flow at the site with the component for rural strategic roads identified in appendix A2. For every percentage above the assumed 12 percent proportion of heavy vehicles (rural strategic), increase the road user benefits by one percent. Similarly for every percentage point below the assumed 12 percent of heavy vehicles decrease the road user benefits by one percent.
Equation 1 Road user benefits (adjusted) = Road user benefits (unadjusted) (1 + [prop heavy vehicles 0.12])
1000m 1.00 1.00 1.00
1250m 1.15 1.10 1.14
1500m 1.25 1.24 1.23
2000m 1.40 1.46 1.47
Page A719

Procedure for individual passing lanes continued Step 6 Action Adjustment for differences in the speed distribution. This adjustment of road user benefits (from step 5) is performed if the speed distribution at the site varies from the assumed 13.5 percent. A current sample of vehicle speeds over the road sections being analysed is required. The adjustment is to increase the road user benefits by 2.5 percent for each percentage point above the assumed coefficient of variation (COV) of speed of 13.5 percent. Similarly reduce the road user benefits for a lower COV.
Equation 2 Road user benefits (adjusted) = Road user benefits (unadjusted) (1 + [COV 0.135] 2.5)
Calculate accident costs savings, using graphs in figures A7.9 to A7.12 (interpolate or extrapolate if necessary) and multiply with the appropriate traffic growth correction factors in table A7.12. If the passing lane forms part of a rural realignment, or there are either five or more injury accidents, or two or more serious and fatal accidents in any 1 kilometre section (up to 10 kilometres downstream of the passing lane) then accidentby accident analysis can be used. To determine if such an analysis is appropriate, refer to figure A6.1
Table A7.12: Traffic growth correction factors for accident savings graphs AADT 1% 2000 3000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 Step 8 Action Calculate the BCR, for the individual passing lanes using the cost estimates for the site and the benefits calculated in the preceding steps. The BCR can be recalculated using the following formula (if the unit costs are taken from table A7.4).
Equation 3 BCR (calculated above) x table A7.4 unit cost BCR (adjusted) = Local unit cost (per m)
Traffic growth 2% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3% 1.08 1.04 1.02 1.06 1.06 1.06 4% 1.15 1.07 1.05 1.12 1.12 1.12
0.92 0.94 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.94
Page A720

Figure A7.7: Graphs of vehicle operating cost and delay savings for all terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
.
NPV time and VOC savings/passing lane ($ millions - July 2002)
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth

7
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


7
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A721

Figure A7.8: Graphs of driver frustration benefits for all terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
NPV driver frustration benefits/passing lane ($ thousands - July 2002) 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


100 NPV driver frustration benefits/passing lane ($ thousands -July 2002) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


80 NPV driver frustration benefits/passing lane ($ thousands - July 2002) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2000 AADT
3000 AADT
4000 AADT
6000 AADT
8000 AADT
10000 AADT
Page A722

Figure A7.9: Graphs of accident savings for flat terrain Flat terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NPV accident benefits/passing lane ($ millions - July 2006)


1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


2.5 NPV accident benefits/passing lane ($ millions - July 2006)
1.5
0.5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A723

Figure A7.10: Graphs of accident savings for rolling terrain Rolling terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
1.2 NPV accident benefits/passing lane ($ millions - July 2006) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


2 1.8 NPV accident benefits/passing lane ($ millions - July 2006) 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


4 3.5 NPV accident benefits/passing lane ($ millions - July 2006) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A724

Figure A7.11: Graphs of accident savings for hilly terrain Hilly terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


2.5
1.5
0.5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage passing sight distance
2000 AADT
3000 AADT
4000 AADT
6000 AADT
8000 AADT
10000 AADT

4.5 4 NPV accident benefits/passing lane ($ millions - July 2006) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A725

Figure A7.12: Graphs of accident savings for mountainous terrain Mountainous terrain 5 kilometres spacing two percent traffic growth
1.4 NPV accident benefits/passing lane ($ millions - July 2006) 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


2.5
1.5
0.5
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


5
4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Page A726
A7.5
Rural simulation for assessing passing lanes

Due to the complex nature of vehicle interactions on two-lane rural roads, traffic simulation programmes such as TRARR (or TWOPASS) should be used where a more detailed analysis is required or the costs of a passing lane are very high. Rural road simulation should be used for:

Introduction
slow vehicle bays and climbing lanes at the scheme assessment stage locations where there are a large proportion of slow vehicles such as campervans, coaches or slow moving heavy vehicles.
Rural simulation can be used to obtain a more precise calculation of travel time and vehicle operating cost benefits resulting from passing lanes, particularly when the sites are constructed as part of road realignments. For strategic assessment of road links, rural simulation can also be used to evaluate the relative benefits of passing lanes at various spacing or where local circumstances suggest that these procedures may not be appropriate or the assumptions have been violated. TRARR has traditionally been the rural simulation package used for evaluating passing lanes, however, other packages are also available and can be used. Koorey, (2003) discusses some of the advantages and disadvantages of TRARR and other packages. The following subsections describe analysis by TRARR as well as model calibration and validation. Analysis using TRARR TRARR requires particular care to accurately model traffic flows for both existing and proposed layouts. The following notes are provided as a guide. Refer to Hoban et al (1991) for further details about the TRARR model.
The modelled road section should include two kilometres of road upstream of the actual passing site(s). The modelled road section shall, where appropriate, start and end at points where significant changes in the nature of the traffic stream occur, such as restricted speed zones (as in urban areas) and major intersections. The length of the road modelled downstream of thepassign lane end point shall be sufficient to ensure that traffic platooning differences between the do-minimum and the passing lane option will have tapered out over this length. Depending upon the traffic volume, terrain and passing lanes downstream of the activity section, this may be up to 10 kilometres. A sufficient range of traffic volumes should be modelled to adequately represent all existing and predicted traffic flows. The proportion of trucks to be modelled should be checked from traffic data, as it may vary with time of day or volume. For traffic flows of less than 50veh/hr the benefits can be assumed to be negligible and not included if desired. Select a sufficient settling-down period to enable traffic (including the slowest vehicles) to fully traverse the modelled section. A New Zealand-based set of vehicle classes and parameters (as specified in VEHS & TRAF files) should be used for accurate representation of the traffic stream. Refer to Tate (1995) for examples. Suitable intermediate observation points should be specified to enable an accurate assessment of vehicle operating costs. The same points should be used for all options (except where realignments preclude this).
Page A727
A7.5
Rural simulation for assessing passing lanes continued
Analysis using TRARR continued
Driver frustration benefits are derived from the Time spent following information (given in the TRARR OUT file). Research by Koorey et al (1999) established a willingness to pay value for the provision of passing lanes of 3.5 cents per vehicle per kilometre of constructed passing lane (this is in addition to other benefits such as travel time savings). This benefit is applied to all vehicles that are freed from a platoon at the passing lane over the length they remain free from a platoon. The value of 3.5cents/veh/km shall only apply to vehicles travelling in the direction of the passing site. The vehicle-km to apply the willingness to pay factor to shall be determined by multiplying the traffic volume by the analysis length and the change in time spent following. Example: TRARR is used to analyse 12 kilometres of highway. For a traffic volume of 200veh/hr, the do-minimum option gives 50 percent of time spent following. A passing lane option gives 35 percent of time spent following. The resulting veh-km to apply the willingness to pay value to, is: 200 x 12 x (50% 35%) = 360veh/km/hr
Accident benefits should be considered up to 10 kilometres downstream of the passing lane depending on where the traffic platooning differences between the do-minimum and the option have tapered out.
Calibration/validation of TRARR
TRARR modelling requires care to ensure that it accurately models the actual highway flows. Although Tate (1995) found that the relative changes were typically not as sensitive as the absolute values, it is desirable to match the two where possible. To this end, sufficient field data must be obtained to verify the models.
The same random traffic generation shall be used for both the dominimum and activity options. Likewise, for each traffic volume, an equal number of vehicles (at least 1000) shall be simulated for each option. Field data must be collected on typical travel times along the modelled section, including intermediate points, for both cars and trucks in each direction. These should be used to calibrate the do-minimum model, adjusting the TRARR desired vehicle speeds to replicate the observed travel time under the given volume. Overall modelled travel times should match to within five percent, while intermediate times should be within 10 percent. The proportion of bunching at the start and end of the modelled section should be collected, along with any desired intermediate points. This data should be calibrated against the do-minimum model for the particular traffic volume by adjusting the TRARR initial bunching parameters and intermediate passing lanes. Modelled bunching values should be within five percent (absolute value) of the field data. Once calibrated the models may then be validated by assessing their performance against outputs measured under different traffic conditions. So if for example, calibration data was collected when the average traffic flow was 100 vehicles per hour, the models may be validated by comparing the model outputs against field measurements taken when traffic volumes were 200 vehicles per hour.
Refer to chapter 3 for further information on checking traffic models.
Page A728
A7.6 Definitions
Term Bunching Climbing lane Desired speed Following vehicles Free vehicles Headway Leading vehicles Merge area Overtaking Passing lane Definition The proportion of vehicles travelling behind others in platoons. Calculated as the ratio of following vehicles over total vehicles. An additional lane provided on steep grades where large and heavy vehicles travel at reduced speeds. The speed that drivers would like to travel when not constrained by other traffic. This is largely dependent on the road alignment. Also known as free speed or unimpeded speed. Vehicles that are sufficiently close to the vehicle in front to be affected by the speed of the front vehicle. Vehicles with headways of less than six seconds are usually considered to be following. Vehicles able to travel at their desired speed. This includes vehicles on their own, ie not part of a multivehicle platoon, and leading vehicles. Vehicles with headways of more than six seconds are usually considered to be free. The amount of space between successive vehicles. Can be measured either by distance or time. Usually measured from the front of one vehicle to the front of the next. The vehicle at the head of a multivehicle platoon. Leading vehicles are able to travel at their desired speed. The zone at the end of the passing lane where the two lanes taper into one. An equivalent term for passing. An additional lane, providing two lanes in one direction. A common form of passing lane. Typically 400m to two kilometres in length. Also known as auxiliary lanes or climbing lanes (on grades). For the purposes of analysis, the length of the passing lane does not include the end tapers. Any measure designed to improve the likelihood of vehicles passing safely. These include passing lanes, slow vehicle bays, shoulder widening, and improved passing sight distance (eg realignments). A group of vehicles clustered together (ie small headways) and all travelling at approximately the same speed as the leading vehicle. Also known as queues or bunches. The size of the platoon is defined by the number of vehicles. A vehicle on its own is considered a platoon of size one. The road distance ahead of the driver that is visible. This enables the driver to assess whether it is safe to pass. Refer to Austroads (2003) Rural road design for further information, especially with regard to object and eye heights. A short section of shoulder marked as a lane for slow vehicles to move over and let other vehicles pass. Typically up to 400m in length. Slow vehicles have to give way to the main traffic flow at the end of the bay. A rural road simulation package from ARRB transport research in Australia the latest version is TRARR 4 (Shepherd, 1994). The name TRARR is a contraction of TRAffic on Rural Roads. TRARR uses various vehicle performance models together with highway terrain data to establish, in detail, the speeds of vehicles at each location along the road. This establishes the demand for passing and determines whether or not passing manoeuvres may be executed. The outputs, mean travel times and journey speeds are used to calculate the benefits of various activity options.
Passing opportunity Platoon
Sight distance
Slow vehicle bay TRARR
Page A729
A7.7
References
1. 2. Austroads (2003) Rural road design guide to the geometric design of rural roads. Sydney. Bone I and Turner S (2001) Simplified procedures for passing lanes. Transit New Zealand report and supplementary report simplified procedures for passing lanes further analysis (draft). Farrelly PM, Koorey GF, Mitchell TJ and Nicholson CS (1999) Assessing passing lanes stage 2. Transfund New Zealand research report 146. Hoban CJ et al (1991) A model for simulating traffic on two-lane roads: user guide and manual for TRARR version 3.2. Technical manual ATM 10B. Australian Road Research Board, Victoria. Koorey GF (2003) Assessment of rural road simulation modelling tools. Transfund New Zealand research report 245. Morrall JF and Werner A (1984) Unified traffic flow theory model for two-lane rural highways. Transportation forum, 1(3), pages 79 87. Shepherd R (1994) TRARR 4 User manual. Australian Road Research Board, Victoria. Tate FN (1995) Assessing passing lanes stage 1. Transit New Zealand research activity PR30097. Thrush MJ (1996) Assessing passing lanes. Transit New Zealand research report 60.
3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Page A81
A8
A8.1
External impacts
Introduction
This appendix deals with externalities (both monetised and non-monetised), and guidance is given on how these effects may be assessed, quantified and reported. For some of the external effects, eg noise, a standard monetary value is provided. These monetary values can be included in the benefit cost ratio as a useful way of comparing activities and activity options. The inclusion of any other monetary values for external effects must be clearly set out in the activity summary sheet and in any funding application to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), and double counting of any benefits must be avoided. Vehicle emissions impacts including CO2 are contained in appendix A9.
In this appendix
Topic
Page
A8.1 A8.2 A8.3 A8.4 A8.5 A8.6 A8.7 A8.8 A8.9 A8.10 A8.11
Introduction Road traffic noise Vibration Water quality Special areas Ecological impact Visual impacts Community severance Overshadowing Isolation References
A81 A84 A88 A811 A813 A815 A818 A820 A821 A822 A823
Page A82
A8.1
There are requirements under both the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003 to consider effects beyond those to the immediate users of transport facilities. The Resource Management Act 1991 requires a statement of effects of an activity on the environment. All effects shall be fully described, including the scale and extent of the effects. In respect to the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the NZTA must be satisfied, when preparing its National Land Transport Programme, that it (and the activities within) contribute in an efficient and effective manner to:

Requirement to consider effects
assisting economic development assisting safety and personal security improving access and mobility protecting and promoting public health ensuring environmental sustainability.
In order to assess the degree to which each activity contributes to the above requirements, there are a number of evaluation factors against which activity performance can be assessed. With respect to environmental sustainability, the evaluation factors can include the impact of an activity on:

air quality greenhouse gasses noise and vibration water environment (quality) landscape impacts, etc.
If there are significant effects that need to be taken into account in an activity evaluation it is more appropriate to use the full procedures rather than the simplified procedures. The monetised and non-monetised impact summary sheet (worksheet A8.1) shall include all significant impacts identified in this statement of effects. Where there are no significant impacts this should be stated in the activity summary sheet.
Page A83
A8.1
The work required to describe and quantify monetised and non-monetised impacts will depend both on the likely severity of the effects and the difference between the effects of the existing situation and the effects of the various activity options. It is possible that in some cases there will be no significant change to impacts resulting from an activity. If this occurs, all that is required is a note to this effect. If there is a significant difference between the monetised and nonmonetised impacts of the activity options, either in terms of their total effects or in the distribution of these effects, then these differences shall be described and where practicable quantified. Where an activity generates traffic the environmental effect of such induced traffic shall be assessed. An example may be an activity to provide a shorter route. The fuel savings to existing traffic will provide environmental benefits (less emissions), but the shorter route may generate additional traffic, which in turn may have a negative environmental effect. Wherever practicable, the scale of impact shall be measured in natural units, and the extent of the effects shall be quantified, eg the number of persons affected. In many cases, monetised and non-monetised impacts are not amenable to quantitative description. Accordingly, verbal qualitative descriptions shall also be presented, covering such issues as:

Extent of investigations required
historical background community attitudes characteristics of the area affected effects of the activity.
Specialists in the appropriate disciplines may be required for the evaluation of significant monetised and non-monetised impacts. Public consultation and opinion surveys shall be undertaken for major activities. Analysis of additional activity costs Analysis shall be undertaken to determine if the additional costs of higher cost options are justified by the additional benefits gained (refer to chapters 2 and 3). This approach shall be used to assess the cost effectiveness of any features of activities included to mitigate monetised and non-monetised impacts. It is not appropriate to arbitrarily include a range of mitigation features as part of the basic activity if these features are not essential to the activity.
Page A84
A8.2 Road traffic noise

Road traffic noise Noise is a disturbing or otherwise unwelcome sound, which is transmitted as a longitudinal pressure wave through the air or other medium as the result of the physical vibration of a source. Noise propagation is affected by wind and intervening absorbing and reflecting surfaces, and is attenuated with distance. Road traffic noise sources include:

engine and transmission vibration exhaust systems bodywork and load rattle air brake and friction brakes tyre/road surface contact horns, doors slamming, car audio systems aerodynamic noise.
Impacts of road traffic noise
Road traffic noise is generally continuous, and long term exposure can have significant adverse effects. These can be categorised as disruptive impacts, such as sleep disturbance and speech interference, and psychological impacts such as annoyance reaction and other behavioural impacts. While there is no evidence of permanent hearing loss from road traffic noise, there is a great deal of evidence to show that noise can cause adverse health effects in people due mainly to stressrelated factors. While the untrained ear will generally only detect noise level differences of 3 decibels (dB) or more, smaller increases will still affect peoples well being. To increase the noise level by 3dB requires a doubling of traffic volume.
Design guidelines for road traffic noise on state highways
Design guidelines for the management of road traffic noise on state highways are given in Transit New Zealand's Guidelines for the management of road traffic noise state highway improvements. These guidelines apply to noise-sensitive facilities adjacent to either new state highway alignments or to any other state highway improvements, which require a new designation. The assessment point at which the design criteria apply is one metre in front of the most exposed point on the faades of existing residential buildings or educational facilities. An exception is in the case of noise buffer strips where the assessment point is the outer limit of the buffer strip. The two criteria in the guidelines, both of which apply, are: a) average noise design criteria The average noise design levels for residential buildings and educational facilities at the assessment point are set out in table A8.1. If it is not practicable or cost effective to meet the average design noise criterion at the assessment point given in table A8.1, then the guidelines specify internal noise design criteria. These criteria apply to all living rooms (including kitchens) and bedrooms in residential buildings, or teaching areas in educational facilities, with windows closed on the exposed walls.
Page A85
A8.2 Road traffic noise continued

Design guidelines for road traffic noise on state highways continued The internal noise level criterion for residential buildings is either the level given in table A8.1 minus 20dB(A), or 40dB(A) Leq (24 hours), and for educational facilities the internal noise level criterion is either the level given in table A8.1 minus 20dB(A), or 42dB(A) Leq (24 hours), in each case whichever is the higher. Noise area Low Areas with ambient noise levels of less than 50dB(A) Leq (24 hours) Medium Areas with ambient noise levels of 50 to 59dB(A) Leq (24 hours) High Areas with ambient noise levels of more than 59dB(A) Leq (24 hours) b) Ambient noise level (dB(A)) less than 43 43 50 50 59 59 67 67 70 more than 70 Average noise design level (dB(A)) 55 ambient + 12 62 ambient + 3 70 ambient
single noise event design criterion. A single noise event is the maximum noise level emitted by a single vehicle passing the assessment point. Where the assessment point for residential buildings and educational facilities is less than 12 metres from the nearside edge of the traffic lane, the Transit New Zealands Guidelines for the measurement of road traffic noise state highway improvements require noise reduction measures to reduce noise by at least 3dB(A). This is designed to provide a level of protection to properties from the noise effects of single vehicles.
Mitigation of road traffic noise impacts
There are various options for reducing the effects of road traffic noise. These include realignment to increase the distance between the roadway and the assessment points, noise buffer strips, barriers, alternative road surfaces (Dravitzki et al 2002 and 2004) and building insulation. Where activity optimisation requires noise mitigation measures, the cost of such measures will be identified and included in the activity cost as discussed in chapter 3.
Measurement and prediction of road traffic noise impacts
Traffic volumes used for noise predictions shall be based on forecasts of traffic flow 10 years after the completion of the activity. Equipment and methods for the measurement of noise shall comply with New Zealand Standards 6801: 1991 Measurement of sound. Prediction of road traffic noise shall be carried out using the United Kingdom calculation of road traffic noise (1988) method, calibrated to New Zealand conditions (refer to Transit New Zealand research report 28 Traffic noise from uninterrupted traffic flow (1994)) and converted to the appropriate Leq index. The conversion formulae to calculated Leq values from the L10 values derived from the United Kingdom calculation of road traffic noise (1988) method are: Leq (24 hour) = L10 (18 hour) 3 dB(A) Leq (1 hour) = L10 (1 hour) 3 dB(A)
Page A86

Validation of road traffic noise impacts There have been no specific studies carried out in New Zealand to determine the cost of road traffic noise however there is evidence to suggest that road traffic noise levels of 53 to 62dBA do encourage people to move out of an area more quickly (Dravitzki et al, 2001). A British survey (1995) of international (predominantly hedonic price) valuations suggests that the costs of noise are approximately 0.7 percent of affected property values per dB. A Canadian survey (Bein 1996) found that hedonic pricing revealed typical costs of 0.6 percent of affected property prices per dB, and the OECD recommends noise valuation based on 0.5 percent per dB. Bein argues that the total costs of noise are much higher than the change in property values because:
consumers may not consider the full effects at time of purchase (supported by a German study which showed increased willingness to pay with increased understanding of noise) effects on other travellers and on occupants of commercial or institutional buildings are not captured hedonic studies typically consider values of homes which experience noise above and below certain levels (a German study shows increasing willingness to pay as base noise rises).
A reasonable figure for New Zealand is suggested as being 1.2 percent of value of properties affected per dB of noise increase, (0.6 percent multiplied by a factor of two to take into account the factors mentioned by Bein). Using the median house price of $327,000 (Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, 12 months to June 2007) and occupancy of 2.6 persons, this suggests a NPV cost of $3924 per dB per property and $1500 per dB per resident affected ($410 per household or $160 per person per year). This figure should be applied in all areas, since there is no reason to suppose that noise is less annoying to those in areas with low house prices. It is arguable as to what range of noise increase the cost should be applied to, but a conservative approach would be to apply it to any increase above existing ambient noise. This reflects a belief that most people dislike noise increases, even if the resulting noise is less than 50dB. Costs of road noise shall be incorporated into the external impact valuation (worksheet A8.1) and valued at:
$410 per year x dB change x number of households affected
Where noise affects schools, hospitals, high concentrations of pedestrians and other sensitive situations an analysis may be required to determine the cost of noise that is site specific. The methodology for undertaking a valuation of noise at sensitive sites should be appropriate to the site (ie willingness to pay surveys may be appropriate for sites with high concentrations of pedestrians and inappropriate for hospital sites).
Page A87

Reporting of road traffic noise impacts The number of residential dwellings and the educational facilities affected by a change in road traffic noise exposure shall be reported in terms of: a) b) the predicted change from the ambient noise level the difference between the predicted noise level and average noise design levels given in table A8.1.
Predicted noise levels, which exceed the design guidelines given in Transit New Zealand's Guidelines for the management of road traffic noise state highway improvements, shall be reported on the worksheet A8.3. Where noise is a significant issue, plans shall be prepared distinguishing each type of land use. These plans shall show: a) contours of noise exposure in the do-minimum and for each activity option, and changes in noise exposure in bands of 3dB(A), ie 0 to 3dB(A), >3 to 6dB(A), >6 to 9dB(A) the number of residents in each band where the predicted noise level is above the average noise design levels given in table A8.1 or where the single event criterion should apply.
b) c)
Where activities incorporate measures to mitigate noise, the incremental costs and benefits of these measures shall be reported. If appropriate these costs and benefits shall be reported for various levels of noise mitigation.
Page A88
A8.3 Vibration
Vibration Two types of vibration are evident alongside traffic routes; ground-borne vibrations and low frequency sound which can result in building vibrations. The primary cause of ground-borne vibrations is the variation in contact forces between vehicle wheels and the road surface. The interaction between vehicle tyres and road surface irregularity can result in the release of significant energy. Therefore, roads with surface irregularities generate more vibrations than new, smooth roads. Once produced, ground conditions markedly affect the way in which ground-borne pressure waves are propagated. Also, distances between the road and dwelling locations will determine how much vibration energy actually reaches nearby properties. Airborne low frequency sound below 100Hz can also induce building vibration. The primary cause of these vibrations is low frequency vehicle produced sound, which enters the building and can excite the building structure and/or the contents. This excitation at the natural frequency of the structure being excited is highly dependent upon the type of building structure, and its proximity to the road. In general, airborne vibration is taken into account in the assessment of noise effects, ie locations likely to experience significant airborne traffic induced vibrations are likely to have been assessed as high noise areas and the impact determined according to appendix A8.2. Traffic induced vibrations are evident in many parts of New Zealand and variations occur because of subsoil geological factors such as high water tables, light volcanic subsoil, or peaty soils. Generally the levels of vibration perceived will be a function of vehicle size, speed, proximity to the road, subsoil geology, building characteristics, and sensitivity at the receiver location. Impacts of vibration The mechanism of vibration disturbance for persons inside a building is a complex combination involving structural vibration and low frequency sound which may be either heard or felt as a body vibration. Both forms of traffic induced vibration may produce resonance, which is perceived as sound (eg rattling of windows) or perceived as a body vibration. Such factors as the direction of the vibration, the frequency distribution of the vibrations, and the time history of the vibrations should be taken into account for a comprehensive assessment. Two main attributes are used to assess vibration, these are peak particle velocity and acceleration. For particle velocity it is generally sufficient to assess the impact of traffic induced vibrations. This is based on the premise that traffic induced vibrations are event based and not generally continuous in nature. Where traffic induced vibrations are of a continuous nature detailed procedures for measurement and assessment are contained in such documents as BS 6472:1992 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings.
Page A89
A8.3 Vibration continued

Assessment criteria The following two criteria are designed for the assessment of traffic induced vibration for sporadic traffic events such as the passing of heavy vehicles in proximity to vibration sensitive locations (eg residential housing, schools, hospitals, etc). If the criteria for level one are met, then this shall be reported and no further assessment is required. If the criteria for level one are not met, a level two assessment is required which will involve a more detailed investigation: a) Level one criteria: Traffic induced vibration is assessed as not likely to cause adverse reaction if all the following criteria are met:
i.
The minimum site-back distance between the building location and the nearside edge of the traffic lane conforms to the minimum distance of 12 metres specified in appendix A8.2. The road surface is reasonably smooth and meets a set minimum NAASRA count level. In 100km/h posted speed limit areas a minimum roughness guide is 100 NAASRA counts (3.8 IRI) and in lower than 100km/h posted speed limit areas a minimum roughness guide is 120 NAASRA counts (4.5 IRI). A check should be made of local road surface conditions in the vicinity of residential areas (or other land uses likely to be sensitive to vibration, eg hospitals). Features such as poorly fitted manhole covers, slumped bridge abutments, or road surface repairs not vertically aligned with the true road surface level (eg by more than 20 millimetres or more) shall be noted, and a level two assessment carried out. The site is in an area not commonly known to experience traffic induced vibrations. This will require a subjective judgement based on local knowledge. For example, it is known that the light volcanic soils of the central North Island volcanic plateau and the peaty soils (with a high water table) in low lying areas of Christchurch city cause vibration impacts.
ii.
iii.
a)
Level two criteria For sites that do not meet the level one criteria a more detailed assessment is required as follows:
i.
Vibration levels shall be measured to determine the level of effect. Vibration measurement equipment usually consists of a transducer or pick-up, an amplifying device, and an amplitude or level indicator or recorder. Vibration levels shall be measured at a representative position on the floor level of interest in a room that is normally occupied in a dwelling, or other building in which an assessment is required (eg hospital). The peak particle velocity shall be measured during normal traffic conditions, especially during the passage of heavy vehicles past the site. Several recordings shall be made, and the highest particle velocities recorded.
ii.
iii.
Page A810
A8.3 Vibration continued

Assessment criteria continued The following guideline levels shall be used in the assessment of vibration effects:

minor impact two to five millimetres/sec major impact five millimetres/sec or greater.
During measurements an inspection of the building for cracks and other damage likely to have been caused by traffic induced vibrations shall be noted and reported. Mitigation of vibration impacts There are a limited number of options for reducing the effects of vibration. These include:

structural isolating houses from concrete driveways the use of effective noise reducing fence designs smoothing the road surface to mitigate wheel bounce and body pitch road realignment to increase the distance between the roadway and the building, and rerouting heavy vehicles to less sensitive roads or reducing the speed of heavy vehicles.
Reporting of vibration
In New Zealand it is anticipated that the quantifiable disbenefits of vibration will be very much site specific and apply in situations such as roads near historic buildings and to road construction in densely populated urban areas. In general, the number of buildings exposed to significant vibration (and an estimate of the numbers of people affected) shall be identified and recorded on maps. For a level one assessment the report should include the locations assessed and an explanation of the reasons why the level one criteria has been met. For a level two assessment the report shall contain a summary of the method, locations, and measurement results together with an assessment of whether either of the minor or major impact levels have been exceeded. Measurement results for one or two locations can be used to interpret the likely impact for other buildings of similar construction, and at similar distances from the nearside edge of the traffic lane.
Page A811
A8.4 Water quality

Water quality Water quality is affected by:
short-term impacts during construction such as modifications of river channels, and lake or sea beds causing interruption or change to natural flows and the release of sediment downstream caused by disturbances from engineering works permanent modifications of river channels, and lake or sea beds, caused by engineering works, and modifications in ground water levels caused by aquifer penetration and changes in permeability or the shape of the ground surface increased discharges resulting from modifications of natural flows caused by faster rates of run-off from paved surfaces and the use of storm water drains and channels pollution of surface water and ground water.
Impacts on water quality
Potential impacts include the following:
surface water pollution from surface run-off or spray. Potential pollutants include suspended solids, lead and other heavy metals, organic materials (such as rubber, bitumen and oil), salt and herbicides or pesticides (from roadside maintenance) surface water pollution from accidental spillage which is potentially very damaging ground water pollution from either soakaways which discharge directly into ground water or surface waters which find their way into aquifers. Pollution of ground water can also occur when road construction disturbs contaminated ground changes to water flows or levels which can increase the risk of flooding, interfere with aquifers, and affect the ecology of surrounding areas.
Mitigation of impacts on water quality
Avoidance and mitigation of some effects is possible through a wide variety of measures including bunding, vacuuming and filtering during construction; stormwater run-off management using marginal strips along roads that provide for infiltration; and emergency management such as sealing of drains and collection of clean-up materials. For more detailed guidance on erosion and sediment control of earthworks refer to the Auckland Regional Council publication Erosion and sediment control guidelines for earthworks (1992). The assistance of regional councils shall be sought where appropriate on the water quality and the hydrological regime within the road corridor, and to obtain further advice on the mitigation of impacts.
Measurement of impacts on water quality
All water effects are directly measurable through clarity and volume measurements (sediment), chemical analysis (water pollution), flow measurements (change in run-off rates), physical observation (some surface pollutants) and ground water level measurements. Appropriate measurement techniques are well established, and should be applied to determine the effects of road activities (Kingett, Mitchell and Associates 1992).
Page A812
A8.4 Water quality continued

Prediction of impacts on water quality If the impacts on water quality are significant reference shall be made to an appropriate design manual, eg the United Kingdom Manual design manual for roads and bridges, volume 11 Environmental assessment, part 10 Water quality and drainage or an equivalent. The expected short term construction effects and permanent effects of activities on water quality shall be reported. This reporting shall include effects on ground water and natural water courses and levels, and the pollution effects of surface water runoff and potential accidental spillage. Where activities incorporate measures to mitigate the effects on water quality, the incremental costs and benefits of these measures shall be reported.
Reporting of impacts on water quality
Page A813
A8.5 Special areas

Special areas Activities may affect special areas either physically or by their proximity to such areas. These areas include:
sites of cultural, spiritual, historic, aesthetic and amenity value including sites with historically, culturally or architecturally significant buildings, or sites of former buildings, and their environs archaeological sites, waahi tapu (sacred sites) and other sites of special importance to tngata whenua (people who hold customary authority over a particular area), including places at which significant events took place or are commemorated sites of special ecological, botanical, geological, geomorphological, or other scientific values, including rare landforms, either natural or modified, of special scientific or archaeological interest or cultural association (For special ecological areas refer to appendix A8.6.) important recreational areas including wilderness areas which derive special value through being little modified by human intervention.
Activities that affect these features either physically or by their proximity shall include consideration of such effects in the evaluation. These considerations will often involve Mori values, which have a special place in New Zealand law and custom. Sources of information The principal sources of information on special areas are:
Regional and district planning schemes, which identify areas with special community values under such headings as listed buildings, identified sites, protected trees, and protected ecological areas the Department of Conservation, which maintains a database of sites of archaeological and cultural significance the Historic Places Trust, which keeps a record of historic sites, including sites with and without legal protection.
There are sites and areas which can only be recognised through local knowledge. Examples are locally important recreational areas. Waahi tapu are a special group. It may not be possible to readily identify the exact site or locality affected but consultation with those who hold mana whenua (customary authority) in the area will advise on the presence of waahi tapu. For guidance on consultation with tngata whenua refer to the Ministry for the Environment booklet, Consultation with tngata whenua (1991). Impacts of land transport activities on special areas The impact of road activities on special areas can be direct, completely or partially destroying the site; or indirect, detracting from the values for which the site is considered special. Examples would include removal of a historic building from its original location and disturbance of waahi tapu.
Page A814
A8.5 Special areas continued

Assessment of impacts on special areas The value that a community places on a particular site will be specific to the site. This value can only be determined by experts who have knowledge of the site features. The value may be reflected by legal protection or planning classification, or through writings and traditions of the community and its institutions, but these sources cannot be relied upon alone. Assessments of the value of special areas shall also include a process of public consultation. It is important to establish the relative importance that people place on different aspects of the activitys impact on special sites and features. Reporting of special areas Any special areas affected shall be identified, described and, if appropriate, mapped. The expected impacts shall be described and community attitudes to these impacts on special areas shall be reported. The sources of information on special areas shall be indicated. Where activities have been modified to protect or enhance special areas, the incremental benefits and costs of these measures shall be reported.
Page A815
A8.6 Ecological impact

Ecological impact The direct effects of roads on the human ecosystem are dealt with under noise, air pollution, visual impact and other sections of this appendix. This section is to give additional guidance on handling wider ecological impacts. Ecology is the scientific study of interactions between and connections between organisms and their environment. Ecological studies are concerned with processes in ecosystems and with the interactions that determine the distribution and abundance of organisms. In ecology, many levels of organization are recognized and these include: ecosystems, biological communities, habitats, species and populations. A population is a group of organisms of the same kind (species) living in the same location (the habitat); for example, beech tree populations and earthworm populations. A habitat is the locality or site occupied by organisms and the term is sometimes used in connection with populations. A biological community is a group of populations of various species living and interacting together in a given place. Communities may be classified according to the dominant plant groups or most noticeable features: thus wetland communities, forest communities, pond communities, and rotting wood communities. An ecosystem is the combination of biological communities, the physical environment (soil, water, air) and the processes contained therein. They consist of biological entities (animals, plant and other organisms) and most importantly the processes (energy flow, water, CO2, mineral cycles). At a Department of Conservation workshop (27 28 April 1995) it was generally agreed that ecosystems could not be mapped because they have no boundaries. The use of ecosystem is sometimes confused or equated with biological community (which can be mapped). Ecological impacts of land transport systems Different ecological impacts may occur during the construction phase and the operational phase. The impacts will not be constrained within the boundaries of the operations or the finished product. The following is not comprehensive but could be used as a guide to identifying the types of ecological impacts: a) Effects within the operation and use area:
i.
Direct habitat loss Populations, habitats and biological communities may be damaged, reduced in extent and completely lost. Organisms will be lost and some entire populations or even species may become extinct.
ii.
Fragmentation and isolation Equally important is fragmentation and isolation. That is, a transport system may divide and separate a population or a biological community. Populations and communities may also be wholly or partially isolated. Direct physical and chemical effects caused by the transport system.
iii.
Change in microclimate (light, moisture wind) Will cause extinction of some populations. New organisms will colonise the new conditions.
Page A816
A8.6 Ecological impact continued

Ecological impacts of land transport systems continued b) Effects beyond the operation and use area Facilitation of dispersal (along the transport route), of organisms which do not naturally occur in the area of the activity. A road provides new conduits for dispersal of organisms not normally found in the area; these may include invasive, exotic species, which may impact on the local biological community. Similarly, vehicles and people travelling along transport systems may inadvertently help to disperse organisms (including invasive and pest species) along new activities. Any alterations to the land will affect the soil, local climate and local physical and chemical conditions. Pollution from land transport systems may include sediments, hydrocarbons, metals, salt and nutrients and microbial organisms. Noise, dust, heavy metals and organic material may penetrate nearby biological communities and may also be transported along water systems. This in turn will affect individual organisms and biological communities beyond the transport system. c) Increased accessibility to regions resulting in impacts from humans and activities
Process for identifying impacts
The geographical extent of the impacts Impacts may have direct and indirect ecological effects beyond the transport system. It is advised therefore that the geographical boundary for identifying ecological impacts be stated. It may also be important to state the time scale over which ecological effects are to be considered and how significant the effects are likely to be. Designated, protected areas and protected species These should be identified. Similarly, any indigenous species, biological community or any other aspects of an ecosystem of 'significance' (locally, regionally, internationally) should be identified. 'Significance' could be interpreted as being defined in law or it could be defined in terms of local community perceptions of what is significant. Determining what is present in the area of the activity Information on what is present has to be obtained before the nature of ecological impacts can be considered. Information about what is present (species, communities etc) may come from direct surveys or existing information. It is not practical to obtain information about all organisms and all aspects of the ecology of the area (because of the limited time scales and because of the range and variety of different levels of biological diversity within an ecosystem or biological community). Therefore expert advice should be obtained about which organisms (groups or taxa) or aspects of ecology should be noted. This information might relate to a specific indigenous species or to a particular ecological process such as nutrient cycling within forest communities. Quantifying and qualifying the impacts It is not practical to assess all impacts within the stated geographical boundaries and time scales. It is also not possible to fully quantify all impacts because of lack of knowledge of how impacts affect species, habitats, communities or ecosystems. Therefore, the record of impacts will include general as well as specific information.
Page A817
A8.6 Ecological impact continued

Process for identifying impacts continued Mitigation and ecological restoration Measures that can be introduced to limit the effects or restore components of ecosystems once the activity is in place and the cost of such measures are to be calculated. Potential sources of information should be identified. These may include government departments, regional and territorial authorities, environmental agencies, centres of education and local groups and experts. The following should be reported: a) designated areas, protected areas and protected species should be identified. Similarly, any species, biological community or any other aspects of an ecosystem of significance (locally, regionally, internationally) should be identified geographical boundary, time scale and how significant the impacts are should be stated biological communities should be identified (using agreed ecological classification methods) and mapped any statutory requirements to liaise with certain groups or agencies.
Reporting ecological impacts
b) c) d)
Ecological surveys should be based on standard ecological field methods. The results should include an assessment of the limitations of the methods. It is impractical to survey all organisms and all components of ecosystems, therefore a selection has to be made and the rationale for that selection should be stated. It is also not practical to assess all impacts on all components of all ecosystems, therefore a selection has to be made and the rational for that selection should be made clear. Estimates should be made of the likelihood of components of ecosystems recovering (following construction of roads and other infrastructure) and the time scale for recovery. Where activities have been modified to protect or enhance components of ecosystems, the incremental costs and benefits shall be reported.
Page A818
A8.7 Visual impacts

Visual impacts Landscape values are very subjective and the appearance of man-made structures in a natural setting may be pleasing to some and displeasing to others. Roads that conform to the contours of the land are generally less intrusive than those through cuttings or on embankments. In the urban landscape, the roadway is more than just a route for road vehicles; it is a public area for pedestrian movement and social intercourse, it allows light and air between buildings, and permits a view of the surroundings. Landscape elements such as proportion, exposure and enclosure, contrasts, long and short views, colour and lighting, hardness and softness of line, and architectural style all mix together to create the overall visual impact. The negative visual amenity from living close to a traffic stream includes loss of privacy, night time glare from streetlights and passing vehicle headlights. Visual impacts of roads Visual impacts may be conceptually divided into:

visual obstruction visual intrusion view from the road.
The visual impacts of roads and structures can be described as obstructive, in so far as they block the view, or intrusive when their appearance jars with the surroundings. Obstruction is more likely to be encountered in an urban setting. In some cases a route may pass through an intrinsically attractive area and here the view from the road would be a consideration. The aesthetic appearance of urban and rural roads to road users should also be considered. Mitigation of unattractive visual impacts For activities which will significantly change the landscape, any aesthetic treatments based on impact assessments should be incorporated within the planning and design stages. Direct input of community values should be sought, given that visual impacts have a significant cultural component. Visual impacts shall be assessed as follows: a) Visual obstruction The magnitude of the visual impact caused by an obstruction depends on:

Assessment of visual impacts
size of the obstruction in relation to the viewing point quality of the view being obstructed visual quality of the obstruction numbers of people or properties affected by the obstruction.
The size of an obstruction can be dealt with by physical measurement. This requires the identification of viewpoints and a measure of the degree of obstruction received.
Page A819
A8.7 Visual impacts continued

Assessment of visual impacts continued b) Visual intrusion This relates to the appearance of the landscape and is a broader concept than visual obstruction. Numerical predictive methods of measuring visual intrusion have so far not achieved general acceptance. Therefore, the appraisal of visual intrusion shall be based on subjective assessments of the appearance of the different options. The existing scene can be observed but the proposed scene can only be imagined or represented either as artist's impressions, photomontage or physical modelling. Photomontage can now be generated quite realistically by computer image processing. Perceived loss of amenity by persons located close to a road and its traffic, and loss of privacy, night-time glare from streetlights and vehicle headlights also constitute visual intrusion. c) View from the road The types of scenery and the extent to which travellers are able to view the scenery need to be considered. Many New Zealand roads pass through scenic areas but, having numerous sharp curves, create a conflict for the driver between viewing the landscape and concentrating on safe driving. Changes resulting from the activity can be presented either as artist's impressions or photomontage. Reporting of visual impact The visual obstruction and intrusion of activities shall be reported including, where appropriate, artist's impressions of the activity and the numbers of people affected. The view from the road shall be reported in terms of the quality of scenery visible from the road and the types of people expected to benefit. Where artist's impressions or photomontage are used to assist description, care shall be exercised to give a realistic impression of the activity. Where activities have been modified to protect or enhance their visual impact, the incremental costs and benefits of these measures shall be reported.
Page A820
A8.8 Community severance

Community severance Community severance is the dislocation and alienation a community feels as a result of roads which sever communities or hinder access. It includes the effect of traffic on security and mobility of people, particularly pedestrians and cyclists and the consequential effects on their movement patterns and interaction. The effects of severance are initially experienced as increased travel times, and difficulty and anxiety in crossing or travelling alongside the road. The results of severance in the longer term are diversion of movements to other, possibly longer routes, and to alternative and possibly less favoured destinations, and the suppression of trips altogether. The degree of effect varies with a person's age, being more severe for children and the elderly. Also the effects of severance can become worse over time as a result of traffic growth on a route. The effects that need to be identified are the suppression of trips, the choice of less favoured destinations, the general feeling of dissatisfaction as a result of severance including the effects on pedestrians and cyclists by proximity to traffic, and changes to neighbourhood and community structures. To quantify these effects requires information on existing patterns of land use and community structures and interactions, particularly in relation to community facilities such as school, neighbourhood shops, outdoor recreation areas, public transport stops and places of work. Some changes in severance effect can be evaluated in a similar way to road traffic by calculating changes in travel times for pedestrians and cyclists and applying the travel time values given in this manual. For existing traffic routes, severance impacts can be considered on the basis of increased or reduced costs to existing pedestrians crossing the road. The analysis should take account of any additional distance required to walk to a controlled intersection, the time spent waiting to cross and the crossing time. The extreme case of severance is a motorway with fenced reserves, which poses considerable barriers to vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian and cycle traffic. The degree of severance experienced will depend on the number and location of vehicular and pedestrian crossing points. Reporting of severance effects Any areas affected by severance shall be identified, described and, if appropriate, mapped. The location of community facilities and the effects of the activity on the accessibility of these facilities, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists shall be reported. Travel time changes for cyclists and pedestrians should be included with other road user costs in the economic evaluation. Main crossing points shall be marked and the numbers of crossing movements indicated. In the case of activities, such as motorways, which create major barriers, their effects on overall community structures shall be reported. Where activities have incorporated features to reduce community severance, the incremental costs and benefits of these measures shall be reported. The benefits of reduced travel times, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, and accident savings, shall be quantified to determine incremental BCRs of these factors.
Impacts of severance
Assessment of severance impacts
Page A821
A8.9 Overshadowing
Overshadowing Overshadowing refers to the shadows cast onto adjoining properties. It is analogous to the overshadowing effects of buildings, which are covered by the rules in district plans through daylight admission controls restricting the height and location of building development on individual sites. The overshadowing effect is also analogous to the overshadowing effects of trees on neighbours, where enjoyment of property and personal health is protected by the provisions of the Property Law Amendment Act (1984). Where a structure, such as an embankment or overhead bridge, reduces the amount of direct sunlight on an occupied property, overshadowing has a negative impact. Positive benefits due to an increase in direct sunlight on occupied properties may accrue from the removal of buildings or structures. The changes in shadows cast by a structure shall be calculated from azimuth and altitude data for the sun during the year at the site's particular location. This shall be expressed in contours of sunshine hours lost or gained per year. An adjustment would be necessary to compensate for the average amount of cloud cover in a year, which will reduce the hours of direct sunlight. The properties affected by overshadowing shall be identified, with a description of these properties and the predicted extent and effects of overshadowing. Where activities have been modified to mitigate the effects of overshadowing, the incremental benefits and costs of these measures shall be reported.
Impacts of overshadowing
Measurement of overshadowing
Reporting of overshadowing
Page A822
A8.10 Isolation
Isolation Isolation occurs when people are unable to access normal community facilities or where there are long distances to travel to these facilities. Isolation may arise because:

roads are unreliable. people live in remote areas.
Impacts of isolation
The impacts of the above two aspects of isolation are as follows: a) Areas may be isolated by road closures caused by flooding, slips, collapses of bridge structures, etc. Areas served by only one road are particularly vulnerable to road closures but potentially access to and from major towns and cities can also be disrupted by events such as flooding and major earthquakes. The impacts of these road closures are firstly that people and businesses are unable to undertake normal activities and secondly there is the potential of being unable to deal with emergencies. In situations where road closures occur frequently, the threat of road closures may also create a sense of insecurity. In the case of remote areas, people generally live there by preference. Thus the only case where a valid benefit for isolation shall be claimed is where an existing link has been cut, eg where an existing bridge gets washed away. In this case the activity to replace the bridge would produce benefits in terms of reducing unwanted isolation.
b)
Reporting of isolation
In the case of unreliable roads, isolation shall be reported in terms of:

the number of residents affected by road closures frequency and duration of road closures availability of alternative routes, particularly for emergencies degree of disruption caused by road closures, eg to commerce, to commuters and school children.
In the case of remote areas threatened with isolation, isolation shall be reported in terms of:

number of residents in the remote area additional distance to community facilities by alternative routes visitor and tourist potential of the area.
Where activities reduce isolation or the threat of isolation, the benefits shall be quantified, where possible.
Page A823
A8.11 References
1. 2. 3. Auckland Regional Council (1992) Erosion and sediment control guidelines for earthworks. Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (1991) Traffic noise from interrupted traffic flows. Report to Transit New Zealand. Bein P, Johnson CJ and Litman T (1995) Monetization of environmental impacts on roads. Planning services branch, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Victoria, British Columbia. British Standards (1992) Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. BS 6472:1992. Butcher Partners Ltd (1996) A review of valuation of intangibles for roading activity analysis. Report to Transit New Zealand. Collins S, Dravitzki VK, Hyndman A, Kerslake P, Mitchell J and Wood CWB (2001) Traffic noise guidelines for low noise areas in New Zealand. Transfund New Zealand research report 190. Copeland M (1993) The economic contribution of rural roads. Report to Transit New Zealand. Dravitzki VK and Wood CWB (2002) Effects of road texture on traffic noise and community annoyance at urban driving speeds. Transit New Zealand research report. Dravitzki VK, Walton D and Wood CWB (2004) Road traffic noise: determining the influence of New Zealand road surfaces on noise levels and community annoyance. Transfund New Zealand research report 612. Great Britain Department of Transport (1998) Design manual for roads and bridges. Volume 11, Environmental assessment, part 10 Water quality and drainage. Highways Agency UK (2003) Design manual for roads and bridges. Volume 11, Environmental assessment, section 3 Environmental assessment techniques, part 1 Air quality, annex 4 Potential mitigation measures, Highways Agency UK. Hunt, M and S Samuels (1990) Prediction of interrupted traffic flow noise; A review of methods and selection of a model for use in New Zealand. Report to Transit New Zealand. Kingett Mitchell and Associates Ltd (1992) An assessment of stormwater quality and the implications for treatment of stormwater in the Auckland Region. Report to Auckland Regional Council. Ministry for the Environment (1991) Consultation with tngata whenua. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington. (www.mfe.govt.nz/publications). Spellerberg IF (1992) Evaluation and assessment for conservation. University of Southampton, UK.
4. 5. 6.
7. 8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. 15.
Page A824
A8.11 References continued

16. 17. 18. 19. Tinch R (1995) The valuation of environmental externalities. Report for the Department of Transport, London. Transit New Zealand (1994) Guidelines for the management of road traffic noise state highway improvements. Transplan Consulting (1993) Quantification of intangibles. Transit New Zealand research report 12, Wellington. Works Consultancy Services Ltd (1993) Land transport externalities. Transit New Zealand research report 19.
Page A91
A9
A9.1
Vehicle emissions
Introduction
This appendix gives guidance on calculating vehicle emissions such as carbon dioxide and small particulates and the impacts for the do-minimum and activity options. Carbon dioxide emissions are linked to fuel consumption through vehicle operating costs, while other emissions can be calculated using the procedure provided in this appendix.
Introduction
In this appendix
Topic
Page
A9.1 A9.2 A9.3 A9.4 A9.5 A9.6 A9.7 A9.8
Introduction Vehicle emissions Vehicle emissions procedure Valuation of emissions Emissions reporting Carbon dioxide emissions Assessment of carbon dioxide emissions References
A91 A92 A94 A96 A97 A98 A99 A910
Page A92
A9.2 Vehicle emissions

Vehicle emissions Vehicles with internal combustion motors emit gases and particles into the environment. These pollutants include:

carbon dioxide (CO2) carbon monoxide (CO) oxides of nitrogen (NOx) unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) lead compounds particles such as smoke, tyre and brake wear products.
Air pollution from vehicle emissions may be significant if one or more of the following conditions apply:

still weather conditions, in which pollutants do not readily disperse bright sunlight and temperature inversion which lead to photochemical smog high traffic densities and stop/start operations confined urban streets with activities such as retail developments in close proximity.
New Zealand cities do not suffer from air pollution to the extent of some overseas cities but temperature inversion and still weather conditions can combine to cause noticeable pollution. Impacts of air pollution The effects of air pollutants vary. Some are toxic in high concentration, some aesthetically disagreeable and the persistent gaseous products gradually change atmospheric composition. Carbon monoxide is dangerous in high doses and can be responsible for chronic effects such as loss of concentration, impairment, tiredness and headaches. However, small doses are removed from the bloodstream when the person affected moves to a cleaner environment. Photochemical oxidants, including nitrogen dioxide can be irritating to the eyes and respiratory system. Unburnt hydrocarbons, particularly benzene ring aromatic compounds that occur in diesel engine emissions, are believed to be carcinogenic. Smoke particles and odours can be offensive but of lesser health significance. Some pollutants such as lead persist in the environment whereas others like carbon monoxide disperse and undergo chemical change. Small particles (those less than 10 microns in diameter) from fuel, tyres, exhaust gases, dust, etc remain airborne for up to 10 days and even in relatively calm conditions will disperse widely through a city. These particles are strongly implicated in respiratory and other infections and as a result there have been suggestions that the public health costs of this pollution are higher than most other traffic related environmental costs in urban areas. Design guidelines The Ministry for the Environment (MoE) in 2002 published Ambient air quality guidelines which are consistent with World Health Organisation goals. A summary of the guideline values relevant to motor vehicle emissions is shown in table A9.1. The guidelines can be seen as levels, which are consistent with an acceptable public health cost, but simply to meet these guidelines does not imply zero public health cost. Also regional councils may set secondary guidelines to deal with other air quality effects, such as visibility. Note: The guidelines also consider higher concentrations for shorter periods.
Page A93
A9.2 Vehicle emissions continued

Design guidelines continued Table A9.1: Guidelines for motor vehicle emissions Pollutant Carbon monoxide (CO) Period of exposure 8 hours 1 hour Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 24 hours 1 hour Lead Particulates (PM10) 90 days 1 year 24 hours Sulphur dioxide 1 year 24 hours Ozone 8 hours 1 hour Mitigation of air pollution Mean concentration g/m3 10,000 30,000 300 100 0.2 20 50 350 120 100 150
Pollution control is best tackled by reducing vehicle exhaust emissions. Elimination of leaded petrol in New Zealand has been completed. Therefore, long-term exposure to lead will diminish. The focus is now turning towards improved vehicle emissions standards for new vehicles and vehicle screening. Potential mitigation measures available to highway designers include increased separation distances between road and receptors, land use controls, careful placement of intersections, and traffic management techniques aimed at maintaining free flow speeds (Highways Agency 2003). If the concentration of toxic pollutants resulting mainly from motor vehicles exceeds the levels shown in the table A9.1, then there is a strong prima facie case for remedial action. Even where concentrations are lower than in table A9.1, there are likely to be benefits of pollution reduction. The practical application of this may mean reducing traffic volumes and stop/start conditions, or improving the ventilation of affected areas.
Assessment of air pollution
An indication of pollution levels can be obtained from one of several pollution prediction methods. These allow the concentration of pollutants to be estimated from traffic volume and speed, and the distance from the roadway to the point of measurement based on the characteristics of the New Zealand vehicle fleet (Ministry of Transport, 1998). Recommendations on the most appropriate form of assessment in particular circumstances are currently being prepared (SKM, 2003) and recently good practice guidelines have been issued by the Ministry for Environment covering, the preparation of emissions inventories (MoE, 2001), atmospheric dispersion modelling (MoE 2004) and air quality monitoring (MoE, 2000). Contacting the appropriate regional council may be useful as they sometimes carry out air pollution analysis, eg using emission inventory techniques.
Page A94
A9.3 Vehicle emissions procedure

Calculating ambient air emission loads This procedure has been developed from the Ministry of Transport vehicle fleet emission model and can be used when ambient air quality emission calculations are required. It provides emission estimates for CO, NOx, particulate matter (PM10) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Procedures for CO2 emissions are provided in appendix A9.7. Follow the emission procedure below to calculate the emission loads for each road link and time period. Step 1 Action Determine the: traffic composition (appendix A2.2) time period total average travel time per vehicle (appendix A3.26). Convert the traffic composition vehicle classes into emission classes: Emission class Light (vehicles less than 3.5 tonnes) Heavy (vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes) Vehicle classes (appendix A2.2) Passenger cars Light commercial vehicles Medium commercial vehicle (MCV) Heavy commercial vehicle I (HCVI) Heavy commercial vehicle II (HCVII) Buses
Emission procedure
Calculate average speed on link road: Speed (km/h) = 60 x length / TT Where: Length = road link length (km) TT = time period total average travel time per vehicle (appendix A3.26) Calculate the emission rates for light and heavy vehicle types: Emission (g/vkt) = A x Speed2 + B x Speed + C Where: Speed = average speed on link road from step 3 A, B, C = coefficients from table below Emission CO Vehicle Light Heavy NOx Light Heavy PO10 Light Heavy VOC Light Heavy A 3.6 x 103 6.47 x 10
4 4
B 0.545 0.11 0.0287 0.275 0.00342 0.0455 0.081 0.0584
C 25.5 7.31 1.67 17.4 0.153 2.65 3.55 3.30
2.46 x 10
2.04 x 103 2.45 x 105 3.82 x 10

4
5.53 x 104 3.07 x 104
Page A95
A9.3 Vehicle emissions procedure continued

Emission procedure continued Step 5 Action Weight the calculated emission rates by vehicle flow composition (g/vkt): = percentage light vehicles x light emission rate + percentage heavy vehicles x heavy emission rate Multiply the weighted emission rates by the time periods total vehicle volume and the roads length to give the emission load (g).
Example: For a one kilometre road with 1000 vehicles travelling along it with a calculated travel time of 2.371min/veh and a vehicle flow composition of 95 percent light and five percent heavy. Speed Light CO = 1 x 60 / 2.371 = 25.3km/hr = 3.6 x 103 x (25.3)2 0.545 x (25.3) + 25.5 = 14.0g/vkt Heavy CO = 6.47 x 104 x (25.3)2 0.11 x (25.3) + 7.3 = 4.9g/vkt Weighted CO emission rate = 95% x 14.0 + 5% x 4.9 = 13.5g/vkt CO emission load = weighted CO emission rate x vkt = 13.5 x (1km x 1000 vehicles) = 13,500g
Page A96
A9.4 Valuation of emissions

Valuation of emissions Mortality costs have been estimated as a 0.101 percent increase in daily death rates for a one microgram per m3 increase in PM10. Based on UK costs (assuming similar death rates and adjusting for New Zealand costs of life), the annual mortality costs in New Zealand are $30 per person exposed per year per microgram/m3 increase in PM10. This figure can be increased by 30 percent (based on the United States and French contingent valuation studies) to take account of poorer health amongst those who do not die, to give a total annual cost of $40 per person per year per microgram/m3. By contrast, health costs of ground level ozone are believed to be an order of magnitude less. There are major problems in assessing the meaning and usefulness of these values in the New Zealand environment. First, the death rates to not increase linearly with pollution, and most parts of New Zealand are likely to have far lower rates of pollution than Europe. Secondly, the impacts will be highly site specific. Figures for New Zealand need to be based on specific locations. The cost shall be calculated as:
0.001 x PM10 concentration x population exposed x normal death rate x value of life. Where: PM10 concentration is the change in average concentration for the period analysed.
Other research (Bein) suggests that a light vehicle travelling at 40km/h has particulate costs of approximately NZ1.0 cents per km (C$0.006 mortality + morbidity costs). A heavy vehicle has costs of approximately NZ20 cents per kilometre (C$0.14 + morbidity). Note that the high heavy vehicles cost is for diesel engines and petrol engines impose only 20 percent of the cost. These per kilometre costs should be used in assessing the negative effects of generated traffic in urban areas. In particular they should be used for studies of major changes to urban traffic networks which increase traffic into urban areas or which reduce traffic by increasing public transport. Particulate effects are likely to be of most significance in comparing alternative urban transport proposals, and in modelling the effects of motorways where these increase traffic (and hence fuel use) in urban areas.
Page A97
A9.5 Emissions reporting

Reporting of emissions Expected effects of activities on air pollution shall be reported. These effects may take the form of reductions in air pollution on confined urban streets or major urban arterial as a result, for example, of a new bypass, or increases in air pollution in the vicinity, for example, of a new arterial route. If the effects of the activity on air pollution are significant, predictions of air pollution shall be reported against the design guidelines in table A9.1 and where the activity includes measures to mitigate air pollution, the incremental costs and benefits of these measures shall also be reported. In evaluating and reporting expected effects of air pollution, it is important to refer to regional and local authority planning documents. These may provide guidance to the assessment methodology appropriate to the area in question. Also, the Resource Management Act 1991 does allow regional and territorial authorities to set regionally specific air quality guidelines and standards. Where these exist, predictions should be reported against those criteria rather than the design guidelines in table A9.1. It is also important to recognise other potential sources of air pollution in the vicinity of any proposed development and incorporate these effects into the overall assessment (eg domestic fires in high density urban areas). The design guidelines in table A9.1 are intended to be applied to the cumulative effects of all activities.
Page A98
A9.6 Carbon dioxide emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions The greenhouse effect is the trapping of heat in the lower atmosphere by greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide and water vapour. These gases let energy from the sun travel down to the earth relatively freely, but then trap some of the heat radiated by the earth. While carbon dioxide occurs naturally, in the last 200 years the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has increased by 25 percent. As these extra amounts of carbon dioxide are added to the atmosphere they trap more heat causing the earth to warm. This extra warming is called the enhanced greenhouse effect and is predicted to significantly change the earth's climate. Carbon dioxide makes up about half of the extra greenhouse gases and a significant proportion of this extra carbon dioxide is emitted by motor vehicles. Valuation of carbon dioxide emissions There has been considerable debate as to the cost of carbon dioxide emissions and proposed values cover a wide range. The variation reflects uncertainty about the levels and timing of damage as well as an appropriate discount rate. The Land Transport Pricing Study (1996) determined an average cost of carbon dioxide emissions of $30 per tonne, which is updated to $40 per tonne (2004 values) and which equates to 12 cents per litre of fuel. This valuation is fixed at 2004 proces and does not require any update factors. Carbon emissions are approximately valued at four percent of total vehicle operating costs (2008 base date) for default traffic composition. These values shall be used in activity evaluations. Light and heavy vehicle carbon emissions can be individually determined in A9.7. The monetary value adopted to reflect the damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions in activity evaluations has no relationship to the level of carbon tax that the government might consider as a policy instrument to restrain carbon dioxide emissions.
Impacts of carbon dioxide
Page A99
A9.7 Assessment of carbon dioxide emissions

Assessment of carbon dioxide emissions Emission classes There is a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and fuel consumption and emissions can be calculated using different procedures for road inks and for intersections.
The emissions classes defined in step 2 of section 9.3 are applicable to the assessment of carbon dioxide emissions. For road links vehicle operating costs (2008 base date VOC) are calculated by summing running costs and roughness costs. The fuel cost component of vehicle operating costs is approximately 50 percent, while for roughness costs the fuel cost component is negligible. The following formulas can be used to determine carbon dioxide emissions:
Light CO2 (in tonnes) = VOC($) x 0.0009 Heavy CO2 (in tonnes) = VOC($) x 0.0016 Where VOC includes values due to speed and gradient (tables A5.1 A5.11) and congestion (tables A5.16 A5.23), ie VOC due to roughness is excluded (tables A 5.12 A5.15)
Road links
For shape correction activities the VOC benefits are due mainly to reduced roughness costs and no change in carbon dioxide emissions shall be reported. Intersections Where computer-based models, such as SIDRA, INTANAL and SCATES, are used to analyse intersection improvements, then fuel consumption, which is an output of these models, can be used to determine carbon dioxide emissions by applying the following formulas:
Light CO2 (in tonnes) = Fuel consumption (in litres) x 0.0022 Heavy CO2 (in tonnes) = Fuel consumption (in litres) x 0.0025
These formulas can also be used for activities evaluated using computer models. Generated traffic For generated traffic, the total VOC or carbon dioxide generated by the additional trips shall be estimated, and the resulting values calculated. The predicted value change in carbon dioxide emissions shall be calculated as $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide or four percent of the VOC changes, and shall be included in the BCR. Carbon dioxide impacts shall also be quantified in tonnes and reported in the activity summary sheet.
Reporting of carbon dioxide emissions
Page A910
A9.8 References
1. Ministry for the Environment (2000) Good practice guide for air quality monitoring and data management. Wellington. (www.mfe.govt.nz/publications). Ministry for the Environment (2001) Good practice guide for preparing emission inventories. Wellington. (www.mfe.govt.nz/publications). Ministry for the Environment (2002) Ambient air quality guidelines. Wellington. (www.mfe.govt.nz/publications). Ministry for the Environment (2004) Good practice guide for atmospheric dispersion modelling. Wellington. (www.mfe.govt.nz/publications). Ministry of Transport (1998) Vehicle fleet emissions model: New Zealand vehicle fleet database and model development. Wellington. Sinclair Knight Merz (2003) Guidelines for assessing the effects of discharges to air from Land Transport (draft). Report for Auckland Regional Council.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Page A101
A10 National strategic factors

A10.1 Introduction
Introduction This appendix details the procedures to use when considering national strategic factors. The appendix:

sets out criteria that must be met for the inclusion of national strategic factors in the economic evaluation of activities describes national strategic factors that may be included in an economic evaluation. Page
In this appendix
Topic
A10.1 A10.2 A10.3 A10.4 A10.5 A10.6 A10.7 A10.8 A10.9
Introduction Agglomeration economies and transport investment
A101 A102
Measurement and estimation of agglomeration in New Zealand A103 Agglomeration benefits Defining national strategic factors Security of access Investment option values Procedures for national strategic factors References A104 A1010 A1011 A1012 A1013 A1014
Page A102
A10.2 Agglomeration economies and transport investment

The concept of agglomeration Agglomeration economies describe the productive advantages that arise from the close spatial concentration of economic activity. Urban economic theory maintains that the existence of such benefits can explain the formation and growth of cities and dense industrial areas. Typically, a distinction is made between intra-industry localisation economies and extra-industry urbanisation economies. Localisation economies describe the efficiency gains that arise from the increased scale of a particular industry operating in close proximity. These economies are external to firms but internal to the industry. There are three main sources of benefits:

Localisation economies
Proximity increases the ease of communication, facilitating technological spillovers between firms within the same industry. The formation of industrial agglomerations can induce the efficient provision of intermediate inputs to firms in greater variety and at a lower cost due to the growth of subsidiary trades. Firms can share larger markets for inputs and outputs and in particular they can share a local skilled labour pool.
Urbanisation economies
Urbanization economies is a term coined to describe the productive advantages that accrue to firms through location in large population centres such as cities. These economies are external to the firm and the industry but internal to cities. Firms derive benefits from the scale of markets, from the proximity of market areas for inputs and outputs and from good infrastructure and public service provision. There is a link between transport provision and the benefits that arise from the spatial concentration of economic activity. Transportation costs are crucial in determining the mass of economic activity (including population) that firms can access. Transport investment can render a larger scale of activity more accessible by reducing travel time or the costs of travel, giving rise to positive agglomeration benefits. Conversely, where the transport systems work inefficiently, or where there are constraints on accessibility, these may inhibit the development and distribution of agglomeration benefits. The economic evaluation framework for transport activities in New Zealand has historically been based on evaluating the direct benefits to transport users and private transport operators (transport user surplus). Reorganisation of industry and households to take advantage of changes in accessibility created by improved transport infrastructure and services and the benefits thereof have been regarded as a lagged effect of secondary importance and difficult to quantify. Agglomeration benefits are part of these reorganisation effects.
Agglomeration and transport investment
Page A103
A10.3 Measurement and estimation of agglomeration in New Zealand

Criteria for considering agglomeration The required spatial concentration of economic activity for realising agglomeration benefits is only likely to occur in the major industrial and urban centres of New Zealand. It is only the large and complex urban transport activities that will provide the relevant conditions that justify an analysis of agglomeration benefits. Table A10.1 presents weighted average agglomeration elasticities from New Zealand based empirical research. Table A10.1: Weighted average agglomeration elasticities for New Zealand by industry ANZSIC 2006 A B D C E F G H I J K M N O L P Q R Industry Industry New Zealand specific agglomeration elasticise () 0.032 0.035
Agglomeration elasticities
Agriculture, forestry and fishing Mining Electricity, gas, water and waste services Manufacturing Construction Wholesale trade Retail trade Accommodation and food services Transport, postal and warehousing Information media and telecommunications Finance and insurance services Professional, scientific and technical services Administrative and support services Public administration and safety Rental, hiring and real estate services Education and training Health care and social assistance Arts and recreation services All industries
0.061 0.056 0.086 0.086 0.056 0.057 0.068 0.087
0.079 0.076 0.083 0.053 0.065
Page A104
A10.4 Agglomeration benefits

Introduction This section sets out a step by step process for estimating agglomeration benefits of transport investment. The method requires transport modelling data for the urban area of influence. Generally this will be extracted to a spreadsheet from a regional or subregional strategic transport network model, using the model zoning system or an aggregation of zones appropriate to the activity (more detailed zoning in the urban centre and around the locality of the activity, and coarser zoning for peripheral areas). The selected zones should give a reasonable compromise between detail and practicality. Step A: Define spatial zoning system Capturing this requires a spatial zoning system to be defined for the purpose of assessing agglomeration economies. The main criteria for a spatial zoning system are:

full coverage of the study area and as large a geographic area as possible a reasonable level of detail (for instance by area units) ability to be tied to a set of boundaries for which one can extract detailed statistical information on employment and output.
Since much of the data needed for the assessment will come from one or more transport models, the model zoning system(s) should be the starting point. Transport models tend to have a high degree of geographical detail in the study area and much less detail for external zones. It is usually not possible or desirable to disaggregate model zones in a sensible way so in practice a zoning system needs to use the transport model zones as building blocks. Step B: Gather economic data Step B sets out in detail the economic data that is required for the analysis. B1: Employment data Zonal employment data (full time equivalent employees) is required for the year or years for which the assessment is being made. Ideally separate employment projections for the do-minimum and option scenarios would be used, but it is most likely only that a fixed land use and employment projections will be available and will be acceptable. B2: Economic output data An estimate of gross domestic product (GDP) per zone is obtained by distributing the regional GDP for the assessment year in proportion to zonal employment. Regional GDP estimates are available from Statistics New Zealand.
Page A105
A10.4 Agglomeration benefits continued

Step B: Gather economic data continued Table A10.2: Data requirements Data Demand Generalised cost Base year employment Variable D GC Disaggregation Source
Origin destination (OD) pair, doTransport model minimum, option, mode, purpose, year OD pair, do-minimum, option mode, purpose, year Zone, full time equivalents ANZSIC Zone (option) ANZSIC Zone/ANZSIC Transport model Statistics New Zealand Transport model/other Table A10.1 Statistics New Zealand
Future year employment E Agglomeration elasticities Output GDP
B3: Agglomeration elasticities by zone Current estimates for the relationship between density and productivity are shown in table A10.1 which lists elasticities by sector. An intermediate step in the analysis is to calculate the agglomeration elasticities for each study zone using evidence of each zones sector composition of employment by calculating the weighted average of the elasticities using employment proportion of each sector for each zone as weights.
i =
(
s
s i
x
s
i
s i
Where: = agglomeration elasticity E = employment
E
s
This operation requires data on base year workplace based employment by study zone (i) for each of the nine sectors for which agglomeration elasticities are provided, as well as total employment (for the remainder of the economic sectors a zero elasticity is assumed). The sector disaggregation by Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) should be used for the analysis and be undertaken individually for each industrial sector. However, for a sectoral analysis to be meaningful, employment growth forecasts and output forecasts would be needed by sector for the assessment year. B4: Transport model outputs The transport model data required is OD matrices of demand and generalised cost for:

each modelled transport mode the following journey purposes/user segments: work travel purpose (including freight) commuting to and from work non-work travel purposes
the do-minimum or option scenarios one or more future assessment years.
Page A106

Step B: Gather economic data continued A typical scenario could include two variables for passenger transport and car modes, three purposes, two scenarios and one future year produces 24 OD matrices. When gathering and preparing the transport data, there are a number of things to bear in mind: a) Coverage of all major modes Although the transport activity under consideration may only affect one mode, all travel modes need to be included in the analysis, as it is the relative change in travel costs that drives agglomeration benefits. If the transport model only represents a single mode, it will be necessary to make assumptions on journey costs for other modes and the proportion of demand by mode. b) Separately identified user groups If the demand and cost data is not available separately for the required journey purposes/user segments, they will need to be estimated. This could be done by adjusting the time-cost element of generalised cost for differences in values of time between user groups. c) Complete cost matrices For the analysis the cost matrices need to contain cost information for all OD movements where there is travel demand. This is to avoid weight being given to OD pairs where the costs are set arbitrarily high or low (transport model matrices frequently contain zeros or very high cost on pairs where there is no cost information). This includes intra-zonal movements. There should be no zeros or empty cells. Where the available data does not cover all modes or there are missing cells, the matrices should be complemented with evidence from other sources. Possible sources include:

time, cost or demand data from other transport models distance and/or journey time data from geographical information system or journey planning tools assumptions on average time/cost per km census travel to work data travel surveys.
Page A107

Step C: Calculate weighted average costs for in-work and travel to work across all modes The relevant measure of journey costs for the purpose of assessing agglomeration impacts is the weighted average generalised cost for work travel purposes (including freight where relevant) and commuting to and from work, across all modes. Demand should be used as weights. So for a given OD pair, the relevant generalised cost for the do-minimum or option S:
AGC ij
D
=
m,p
*,m,p
i,j
GCS,m,p
D
m,p
*,m,p
i,j
Where: AGC = D GC S m p i j = = = = = = = average generalised cost demand generalised cost do-minimum or option mode purpose origin destination
The superscript * on demand reflects that these weights need to be identical for both the do-minimum and option, eg the sum of the do-minimum and option demands.
Step D: Calculate effective density by zones for each scenario
The effective density of employment is calculated for each scenario and assessment year using the AGC from step C and the total employment by zone gathered in step B, using the following relationship:
s j
ED =
s j s
AGC ij
Where: ED = effective density and E is employment by scenario.
Step E: Calculate productivity gains by zone
The productivity gains from agglomeration are calculated for each zone by applying the agglomeration elasticities to the change in density in each zone:
PRi =
EDOPT i EDiDM
-1
Where:
PR
the relative increase in productivity. the option. do-minimum. the agglomeration elasticity. zone.
OPT = DM i = = =
Page A108

Step E: Calculate productivity gains by zone continued The absolute increase in productivity by zone is then obtained by multiplying the percentage increase with the output by zones:
dPRi = PRi x GDPi Where dPRi is the absolute increase in productivity in dollars and GDPi is total output for each zone.
If the agglomeration analysis is undertaken by industrial sectors, this step will have to be repeated for each of the sectors where there is agglomeration evidence (in other words there will be another subscript for all variables in the two equations, except for the effective densities since these are always calculated based on total employment by sector). Step F: Sum output increases across all zones in the study area The final step is to sum the agglomeration gains across the study zones:
Aggl =
dPR
j
Where Aggl is total agglomeration benefits from the interventions.
Step G: Profiling and calculation of net present values
Standard guidance on profiling impacts over the analysis period is to interpolate between the base year and the analysis years and to extrapolate from the last year of the analysis period. Whilst the interpolation can be done by linear annual increments, the extrapolation is done by assuming all variables remain constant from the last analysis year, ie demand and employment, but allowing productivity to grow annually. Benefits must be based on constant dollars. The extrapolation of agglomeration gains is straightforward. The benefits for the last modelled year are assumed to grow by the rate of productivity growth until the last year of the evaluation period. The full stream of agglomeration benefits is then discounted to the base year and summed to derive the net present value.
Step H: Interpretation and presentation
The main output of the assessment is total productivity gains from agglomeration as the total net present value of benefits. The results can also be presented in several other ways: as a proportion of conventionally measured evaluation benefits, productivity gains per worker, or productivity gains for a future year. It can also be instructive to demonstrate how the agglomeration benefits are distributed across the study area. This is an indication only, as it will only ever represent the location of the first round of impacts and not their final incidence. There is therefore a clear trade-off between the level of spatial disaggregation and robustness. For New Zealand an appropriate balance between the two may be to present findings at the level of territorial units. Finally, if the analysis has been undertaken at an industry sector level, the impact on different parts of the economy could be illustrated.
Page A109

Figure A10.1: Step by step guidance for agglomeration benefits
Page A1010
A10.5 Defining national strategic factors

National strategic factors National strategic factors are defined as national benefits that are valued by road users or communities, but which are not captured elsewhere in the activity evaluation. When considering large infrastructure investments, particularly land transport investments, it is often difficult to capture in an evaluation process all the benefits (positive or negative). Road investments have impacts over long timeframes, and over large areas. These wider impacts are taken into account in robust strategic planning processes, but it can be difficult to include such considerations in activity evaluation procedures. It is important that rigorous analysis be applied to national strategic factors that are to be included in an evaluation. Roading activities, particularly large ones, are sometimes inappropriately described as strategic if they cannot be justified by the road user benefits and intangible effects described elsewhere in this manual. National strategic factors should only be included in the evaluation of an activity where it can be shown that they are national benefits and not transfers and that the factors have not already been counted in the economic analysis. To be included in the analysis, national strategic factors will need to meet the criteria set out below. National strategic factors may be incorporated as benefits in the evaluation of an activity where they:
have a material impact on an activitys importance (given the time and costs associated with identifying, quantifying and where appropriate valuing national strategic factors, they should only be considered where they are likely to have a significant impact on the benefits of an activity) comprise national economic benefits (not transfers of benefits between different localities) have not been counted in the core analysis (many benefits called strategic can be shown to be included in the NZ Transport Agencys (NZTA) current procedures, and are already taken into account through growth in traffic volumes, etc) would be valued by land transport users and the wider community (that is, road users and the community would be willing to pay for them, were they able to do so, for example, insure against earthquake damage).
Two categories of national strategic factors that meet these criteria have been identified:

providing for security of access providing for investment option values including building in extra capacity or flexibility today to enable easier expansion in the future.
Additional national strategic factors
National strategic factors other than security of access and investment option values may be accepted, provided the activity promoters can clearly show that the national strategic factors claimed meet the criteria set out above.
Page A1011
A10.6 Security of access

Security of access Security of access is an important consideration where there are few (or no) reasonable alternatives to a particular route. There are benefits in providing a greater assurance to road users and communities that they will be able to depend on a particular route (such benefits can be expressed in a survey of road users willingness to pay). In other sectors, through insurance markets, people are willing to pay to insure against loss and/or disruption (eg holiday insurance). Incorporating security of access as a national strategic factor enables the willingness of road users to pay to avoid disruption to be incorporated, where appropriate, for road investments. Examples of this factor include:

earthquake strengthening of a vulnerable bridge on an important route slip prevention work on a busy inter-regional highway improvement of alternatives to a busy route that is prone to closure.
Appendix A13.10 outlines a procedure for calculating the benefits associated with reducing risk of loss of access by, for instance, replacing a bridge that would be destroyed by an earthquake. That procedure takes account of the probable road user costs if the bridge was to be destroyed, but not the willingness of road users to pay to avoid the disruption. In assessing the value of the national strategic factor benefit associated with providing greater security of access, the value ascribed to road users willingness to pay to retain access should be compared to the analysis of the disruption costs, as a benchmark. Care will need to be taken to avoid any double counting. A unit cost (eg dollars per vehicle trip) should be calculated.
Page A1012
A10.7 Investment option values

Land transport investments are often characterised by a difficulty (and usually inability) to easily increase capacity or change routes if circumstances (such as general traffic demand or the location of a traffic generator) change. They are also characterised by uncertainty in estimating capacity requirements for the long term (10 years or more). For these reasons, in certain situations there may be benefits in spending more on an activity now, to provide the option, ability and/or flexibility to easily increase capacity in the future. This becomes particularly important where there may be additional constraints on adding capacity in the future (eg because of planning constraints or significant increases in the cost of land). Examples of providing for the future in this way include:
new road construction in an important corridor could include allowance for wide medians this would potentially facilitate the widening of the road at a later date to accommodate traffic growth, or the introduction of demand management options in the corridor (eg bus priority lanes) bridge design enabling the easy addition of extra lanes in the future (eg the Auckland Harbour Bridge) when undertaking major earthworks for a two-lane highway (eg when cutting through a steep hillside) providing for a wider corridor (for four lanes) if there is sufficient uncertainty surrounding traffic forecasts or the future availability of land to warrant hedging against having to undertake expensive retroconstruction costs.
In cases where activity promoters have reasonable confidence in their traffic growth forecasts (and are certain about land use and other relevant trends) it will be relatively straightforward to assess the value of providing for greater capacity or flexibility now, rather than in the future. In many instances traffic growth, land use and other trends are likely to be uncertain. In these cases, assessment of investment option values will be more subjective, and the assessment of unit cost (eg dollars per vehicle) of the additional expenditure will assume greater importance as a benchmark of the appropriateness of the value ascribed to the national strategic factors. Also, valuation of the benefits of providing flexibility for future investments should be predicated on robust strategic planning processes. Clearly, the greater the quality of strategic planning processes, the greater the confidence in the value ascribed to providing for ease of expansion in the future.
Page A1013
A10.8 Procedures for national strategic factors

Procedures The analysis of national strategic factors involves, where practical, estimating monetary values for each national strategic factor and including these as benefits (or in unusual circumstances disbenefits) in the benefit cost ratio. The monetary values of national strategic factors are often estimates of societys willingness to pay for these factors (such as, certainty of access). Given the uncertain nature of national strategic factors, it is likely there may be a number of different valuation procedures that are appropriate. It is recommended that advice be sought from the NZTA before embarking on any significant exercise to value these factors. Additional information on the strategic context of activities is provided in chapter 3. If information on strategic context for the activity in question is not robust, do not include national strategic factors in the evaluation of the activity.
Page A1014
A10.9 References
1. Graham DJ and Mare DC (2009) Agglomeration elasticities in New Zealand. NZ Transport Agency research report 376.
Page A111
A11 Congested networks and induced traffic

A11.1 Introduction
Introduction This appendix provides guidance on the evaluation of congested networks and induced traffic effects Topic Page
In this appendix
A11.1 A11.2 A11.3 A11.4 A11.5 A11.6 A11.7 A11.8 A11.9 A11.10 A11.11 A11.12 A11.13
Introduction Applying growth constraint techniques Applying peak spreading Applying the matrix scaling method Applying the incremental matrix capping method Applying the shadow network method Applying elasticity methods (FTM) Applying demand models (FTM) Applying variable trip matrix techniques Applying elasticity methods (VTM) Applying activity demand models (VTM)
A111 A112 A113 A114 A115 A116 A117 A1110 A1111 A1113 A1115
Conducting cost benefit analyses using variable matrix methods A1116 Checking growth constraint or variable matrix methods A1121
Page A112
A11.2 Applying growth constraint techniques

When to use Growth constraint techniques are to be considered where high levels of congestion apply in the do-minimum network and/or where a stable network representation in which supply and demand are in broad equilibrium cannot be achieved. Growth constraint techniques constrain traffic growth in peak period matrices in highly congested conditions. With fixed trip matrix methods, the adjusted matrix is used for both the do-minimum and activity option. General guidance Any one of the procedures listed below are available for traffic growth constraint, however it is advised that the shadow network technique be used with caution. Peak spreading may be used on its own, or with any of the other procedures detailed here. Procedure Having decided that there is insufficient capacity in the do-minimum to carry the forecast travel demands, and that a realistic forecast of the future scenario requires the use of a matrix growth constraint technique, follow the steps below to apply growth constraint to the trip matrix. Step 1 Action Determine whether to consider peak spreading (appendix A3.20). If so, apply peak spreading to modify the matrix and peak period (appendix A11.3). If the matrix results in a realistic assignment to the do-minimum network, no further capping need be considered. Otherwise go to step 2. Select the appropriate method to cap the matrix Selected method Matrix scaling Incremental matrix capping Shadow network Elasticity methods (FTM) Demand models (FTM) Go to Appendix A11.4 Appendix A11.5 Appendix A11.6 Appendix A11.7 Appendix A11.8
Automated growth constraint methods, such as the ME2 matrix capping technique contained in the SATURN modelling package, may also be used.
Page A113
A11.3 Applying peak spreading

When to use Peak spreading procedures may be used to spread traffic from the busiest part of the peak period to the peak shoulders. At present, there are no universally established procedures for peak spreading. Discretion is recommended in developing a peak spreading method, but ensure that the resulting retiming of trips is reasonable. As a general guide, the following points should be kept in mind:
General guidance
Decide whether to apply peak spreading uniformly or only to specific parts of the trip matrix. This decision will largely depend on the extent of congestion in the network. Unless evidence suggests otherwise, it is recommended that the transfer of trips from the peak to inter-peak or off-peak periods be not more than five percent of the total peak period traffic. If appropriate, the traffic profile during the peak period may be adjusted, but it is advisable that the reduction of the peak traffic intensity be no more than 10 percent. It is recommended that information on local traffic profiles and trends in traffic growth for different time periods, such as peak shoulder and business periods, be sought to support assumptions.
Checking reasonableness
Checks for the reasonableness of peak spreading outcomes are given in appendix A11.13.
Page A114
A11.4 Applying the matrix scaling method

When to use Matrix scaling procedures may be used to constrain growth in the trip matrix. If congestion is widespread, the entire matrix may be scaled or, if congestion is confined to a particular area, only the corresponding sections of the matrix need be scaled. The final levels of congestion in the network due to the capped matrix should be sensible. When capping the matrix with this procedure only cap the matrix as much as needed. Excess capping will reduce computed activity benefits unnecessarily. Follow the steps below to apply matrix scaling. Step 1 Action Choose a scaling factor to reduce congestion to acceptable levels in affected parts of the dominimum network. As a general guide, link saturation ratios should be less than 1.1 after the new matrix is assigned. Unless evidence suggests otherwise, the scaling factor would typically be between 0.95 and 1.0 for scaling of the entire matrix, or between 0.9 and 1.0 for scaling of selected sections of the matrix. See also: Computing the volume to capacity ratio in appendix A3.17. Multiply the chosen elements of the matrix by the scaling factor. This matrix will be used with the do-minimum and activity options. Assign the matrix to the network.
General guidance
Procedure
2 3
Page A115
A11.5 Applying the incremental matrix capping method

When to use The incremental matrix capping method may be used to constrain growth in selected cells of the matrix. This method is also known as the incremental loading method, but should not be confused with incremental assignment techniques. In the incremental matrix capping method, choose a series of forecast year matrices and assign these to the do-minimum network in chronological order. Once an assignment results in average journey speeds dropping below acceptable limits for a matrix cell (or group of cells), further traffic growth is prevented in the affected cells as later matrices are applied. This process effectively restricts the growth rate in selected matrix cells to levels corresponding to some earlier year (at which an acceptably realistic traffic assignment could be obtained). Procedure Follow the steps below to apply incremental matrix capping. Step 1 Action Choose a series of forecast years (say, at five-year intervals) and generate initial forecast matrices for each of these years. Select minimum allowable overall journey speeds for each origin destination pair. As a guide, minimum speeds will be in the range 15 25km/h, depending on the quality of the route and the trip length. Assign the first forecast-year matrix to the do-minimum network. Update each matrix cell for the next future year, except those where the speed for the origin destination pair (obtained from the assignment run) has fallen below the minimum allowable speed. Assign the new matrix to the do-minimum network. Repeat step 4 until all future years have been assigned.
General guidance
3 4
Page A116
A11.6 Applying the shadow network method

When to use The shadow network method may be used to provide location-specific capping for a trip matrix. The shadow network technique should be used with care. It may take more effort to implement and may risk counter-intuitive results (eg negative growth in some parts of the matrix). Follow the steps below to apply the shadow network technique. Step 1 Action Construct a duplicate shadow network and connect it to the real network at the zone centroids. Select minimum allowable speeds for the links of the shadow network. The choice of this speed will affect the number of trips that are suppressed. As a general guide, minimum speeds will be in the vicinity of 15km/h for links of average length (On very short road links, junction delays may realistically lead to very low overall link speeds.), but this limit may be varied to suit the particular network context. Assign the matrix to the dual network. Check the results and readjust the shadow network speeds if the results are unreasonable. If the speeds are changed, repeat steps 3 and 4. The real network will now contain normal trips and the shadow network trips considered to be suppressed. To obtain a matrix for economic evaluation, cordon off the matrix assigned to the real network.
General guidance
Procedure
3 4 5
Page A117
A11.7 Applying elasticity methods (FTM)

When to use Fixed trip matrix (FTM) elasticity methods may be used to constrain growth in the trip matrix. As with other fixed trip methods, the matrix produced by an FTM elasticity approach will be used for the do-minimum and activity options. Elasticity methods are based on the principle that the demand for travel between two zones varies according to the cost of travel between the zones. An elasticity method iteratively adjusts the trip matrix by assigning it to the network, measuring the change in costs between the assignment and a reference case, then adjusting the demand according to the cost change. The inputs to an elasticity approach are:

Description
A pivot travel cost matrix from which changes in cost are measured. This is derived by assigning the appropriate trip matrix to the network. An initial estimate of the do-minimum matrix for the forecast year. This will usually be derived either using a growth factor applied to a base matrix or from an external strategic model. An elasticity parameter that specifies the sensitivity of travel demand with respect to travel cost. An elasticity formulation that expresses the necessary adjustment to the trip matrix as a result of cost changes.
The pivot matrix and network will commonly be those for the base year. But it would be equally appropriate to use the activity opening year (if the network was expected to be relatively uncongested at that time) as a pivot for forecasting trip matrices for later years in the activitys economic life. Procedure Follow the steps below to apply elasticity methods: Step 1 Action Assign the trip matrix from the base year to the base network. Obtain a pivot travel cost matrix from the assignment results (cijP ). Take an initial estimate (using suitable prediction methods) of the forecast year matrix TijF and assign it to the appropriate do-minimum network. Obtain an initial cost matrix cij1 from the assignment results.
Page A118
A11.7 Applying elasticity methods (FTM) continued

Procedure continued Step 3 Action Derive a new matrix Tij1 by adjusting each cell in the matrix Tij F according to an elasticity formulation. The power formula is advised for this purpose as follows:
1 ij F ij
T =T
1 ij P
c ij
Where: T ij1 = adjusted number of trips between origin i and destination j
T ijF = initial estimate of the number of trips between i and j c ij1 = forecast journey cost (or time) between i and j
P c ij = pivot journey cost (or time) between i and j
E = elasticity of demand with respect to journey cost (or time).

Note that the elasticity, E, will be negative. Convergence may be assisted by using a damping process and taking the average of the matrices produced by the two previous iterations, ie replace T ij1 by 1 T F + T 1 ij ij 2 4 Assign the new matrix T ij1 to the network, producing a new cost c ij2 matrix. Ensure that the assignment converges satisfactorily. Using the power formula, compute a new trip matrix
E 2 F
T ij2
equal to:
T ij = T ij
c c
2 ij P ij
Damp as required, by replacing 6
T ij2
by
2 1 1 T ij + T ij 2
Repeat steps 4 and 5 until the process converges, that is, trip and cost matrices produced on successive iterations are sufficiently similar.
The final matrix produced by the elasticity formulation must reasonably represent the demand. It may be appropriate to exclude some matrix cells from the elasticity adjustments for example, those that exhibit negative growth (generally it is undesirable to have cases where traffic volumes between an origin and destination pair decrease between successive forecast years), unreasonably high growth or those that represent external trips.
Page A119
A11.7 Applying elasticity methods (FTM) continued

Elasticities Elasticities used with an elasticity method should reflect the sensitivity of demand to the users perceived costs of travel, ie as used in the demand modelling process (not the resource costs, which typically will be different refer to appendix A11.12). The elasticities should also be consistent with the basis on which the user costs are expressed. It is preferable that user costs and elasticities are expressed in terms of generalised costs (a combination of time costs and money costs), rather than in terms of either time or money alone (but see below). The generalised cost approach allows demand to respond to both time and money changes and is found to give more consistent results over a range of situations. The application of elasticity methods depends on the transport model being able to model travel costs realistically, and elasticities consistent with these travel costs being able to be estimated. In general, elasticities specific to a study area will not be available and default values need to be used. The table following provides a set of default long run generalised cost elasticity values for use in New Zealand (principally urban) situations. Model competition Low High It should be noted that:

Peak period 0.4 0.6
Off-peak period 0.7 1.0
these elasticity values are constant, for use with a power function formula (as outlined earlier) these values essentially represent long run responses, which may take some time (5+ years) to materialise (Short run values would be significantly lower than these values, but are not usually appropriate for activity evaluation purposes.) the low modal competition values should generally be used. However, in corridors to/from major city central business districts where public transport has a substantial modal share, the high modal competition values may be more appropriate the values given do not allow for any significant time period switching effects, such as might occur with a road pricing scheme involving differential prices by time of day. For such situations, advice should be sought from the NZTA and/or the specific research undertaken.
If for any reason the model costs are expressed in terms of journey times rather than generalised costs, then equivalent journey time elasticities may be calculated and applied. If the true generalised cost function is t+k.d, but the model assigns on the basis of travel time t, then the equivalent travel time elasticity is obtained by dividing the generalised cost elasticity by the factor (1+k.v), where v is the average study area journey speed (in units of kilometres per minute).
Page A1110
A11.8 Applying demand models (FTM)

When to use Demand models are commonly used to derive matrices or matrix growth factors that are sensitive to road network journey times. Demand models refer to one or more of the standard generation, distribution and mode split models handled by most proprietary transport modelling packages or custom-built spreadsheet models. In Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, demand models are commonly used to generate matrices within more general strategic models. Some activity models are also capable of modelling variable travel demands (for example by using trip distribution models). The forecast matrices derived from city strategic models are modified appropriately for the local activity model and used in standard FTM activity evaluation procedures. Activity demand models can be applied in a similar way to elasticity methods (see appendix A11.7) using the demand model to adjust the trip matrix, rather than an elasticity formulation. In both options, the resulting matrix should be a reasonable representation of demand, and the demand models should be properly validated (see worksheet 8.5).
Description
Procedure
Page A1111
A11.9 Applying variable trip matrix techniques

When to use Variable matrix methods differ from conventional fixed trip matrix techniques in that demand in the option matrix is generally higher than that in the do-minimum matrix for a given forecast year. Variable trip matrix methods are to be used for all complex improvements, unless: a) it can be demonstrated that
the congestion level expected throughout the analysis period in the do-minimum or option will not be substantial, and the peak period passenger transport mode share is less than 15 percent, or
b)
preliminary evaluation shows that the fixed trip matrix benefits are unlikely to differ by more than 10 percent from those from a variable trip matrix approach; or the NZTA approves the use of a fixed trip matrix approach for other reasons.
c)
A substantial congestion level is such that the congestion (relative to a non congested/free flow situation) would add at least 10 percent to the typical peak period trips (of typical trip length) travel times. A 10 percent travel time change equates to typical elasticities from a five percent traffic volume change. The evidence from various evaluations indicates that such a traffic volume change between the do-minimum and option that has a substantial effect (at least 25 percent) on the benefits. General guidance Variable matrix methods provide estimates of the effects of an activity on travel patterns (that is, the difference between the do-minimum and option matrices) and on the benefits of the activity. Because these effects may be small and the estimates should be unbiased, methods relying heavily on professional judgement (such as many of the growth constraint techniques) are inappropriate. Two variable matrix methods based on analytical techniques are recommended: elasticity methods and demand models. The options are: a) b) using these methods consistently for both the do-minimum and option matrices, or using growth constraint methods to establish the do-minimum matrix and variable matrix methods for estimating the effect of the option on the trip matrix (as an adjustment to the do-minimum).
For demand modelling approaches, where the source of data is a strategic urban model, it may be considered unlikely that the strategic model will have sufficient sensitivity to measure the impact on the trip matrix of a single scheme, and the use of such models will therefore generally not be feasible. Elasticity methods are therefore likely to be needed to supplement the strategic model. For demand models, it is likely that these would generally be applied consistently for the do-minimum and option matrices. Whatever method is applied, its results should be verified by comparison with an FTM evaluation based on the do-minimum trip matrix.
Page A1112
A11.9 Applying variable trip matrix techniques continued

Procedure Having decided that congestion will be significant in both the do-minimum and activity option for a forecast year, follow the steps below to apply variable matrix methods. If a variable trip matrix model is available it should be used. Step 1 Action Select an appropriate method to adjust the do-minimum and activity option matrices: Method A Description Use elasticity methods for both the do-minimum and activity option matrices. Use other growth constraint techniques (appendix A11.2) for the do-minimum matrix and elasticity techniques to estimate the effects of the activity option on the trip matrix. Use the activity demand model for both the do-minimum and activity option matrices. Go to Appendix A11.10
Appendix A11.10
Appendix A11.11
Alternatively, use a fixed matrix approach, then apply a predetermined correction factor to adjust benefits for variable matrix effects. Note that activity benefits will need to be calculated using a consumer surplus evaluation and reported in worksheet 3. 2 Conduct a fixed matrix analysis (see appendix A11.2) and compare the results with those obtained from the variable matrix analysis.
Page A1113
A11.10 Applying elasticity methods (VTM)

When to use Variable trip matrix (VTM) elasticity methods are referenced in appendix A11.9 (methods A and B). The two recommended applications are: a) b) where the do-minimum and activity option matrices are both estimated using elasticity methods, or where the do-minimum matrix is first established using growth constraint techniques and elasticity methods are used to estimate the effect on this matrix of the activity option.
Description
Elasticity methods are based on the principle that the demand for travel between two zones varies according to the cost of travel between the zones. An elasticity method iteratively adjusts a trip matrix by assigning it to the network, measuring the change in costs between the assignment and a reference case, then adjusting the demand according to the cost change. The inputs to an elasticity approach are:

a pivot travel cost matrix from which changes in cost are measured. This is generally derived by assigning the appropriate matrix to the network an initial estimate of the trip matrix for the forecast year an elasticity parameter that specifies the sensitivity of travel demand with respect to travel cost an elasticity formulation that expresses the necessary adjustment to the trip matrix as a result of cost changes.
In appendix A11.7 there is a full description of elasticity methods, emphasising the estimation of the do-minimum matrix. The process is illustrated using the base matrix and network as the pivot point, and the unconstrained forecast matrix (produced by growth factor techniques or an external model) as the initial matrix estimate. Method A procedure For method A, the processes described in appendix A11.7 are applied separately but consistently for the do-minimum and activity option matrices. For example, if the method is pivoted on the base year matrices, then steps 1 6 in procedure 1 A11.7 are applied first using the do-minimum network (in step 2 for c ij and subsequent steps) and then repeated using the activity option network (in step 2 1 for c ij and subsequent steps).
Page A1114
A11.10 Applying elasticity methods (VTM) continued

Method B procedure Step 1 2 3 Action Assign the do-minimum matrix to the do-minimum network for the relevant forecast year. Obtain a pivot travel cost matrix from the assignment results (cijP ). Use the do-minimum matrix as the initial estimate of the forecast year matrix TijF and assign it to the activity option network. Obtain an initial cost matrix cij 1 from the assignment results. Derive a new matrix T ij1 by adjusting each cell in the matrix TijF according to an elasticity formulation. The power formula is advised for this purpose as follows:
T =T
1 ij F ij
1 ij P
c ij
Where: T ij1 = adjusted number of trips between origin i and destination j
T ijF = initial estimate of the number of trips between i and j c ij1 = forecast journey cost (or time) between i and j
P c ij = pivot journey cost (or time) between i and j
E = elasticity of demand with respect to journey cost (or time).

Note that the elasticity, E, will be negative. Convergence may be assisted by using a damping process and taking the average of the matrices produced by the two previous iterations, ie replace T ij1 by 1 T F + T 1 ij ij 2 4 Assign the new matrix T ij1 to the activity option network, producing a new cost matrix cij2. Ensure that the assignment converges satisfactorily. Using the power formula, compute a new trip matrix:
E 2 F
T ij = T ij
c c
2 ij P ij
Damp as required, by replacing
ij
by 1 2
ij
2 + T ij
Automated application of elasticity methods (for example SATURNs elastic assignment) may be used as an alternative to the manual method given above. For method B, the do-minimum matrix may be determined using any of the growth constraint techniques in appendix A11.2. As for FTM elasticity methods, the final matrix produced by the elasticity formulation (in either methods A or B) should be a reasonable representation of demand. It may be appropriate to exclude some matrix cells from the elasticity adjustments for example, those that exhibit negative growth, unreasonably high growth or those that represent external trips. The convergence requirements for VTM methods are, however, significantly more onerous: the stability and convergence requirements of the combined VTM/assignment procedures are the same as for the simpler FTM assignmentonly procedures (see worksheet 8.4, part D). Elasticities Refer to appendix A11.7 for a discussion of suggested elasticities.
Page A1115
A11.11 Applying activity demand models (VTM)

When to use Variable trip matrix (VTM) activity demand models may be used to estimate trip matrices differentiated between the do-minimum and activity option. As with other VTM approaches, these guidelines should be used only when high levels of congestion exist in both the do-minimum and activity options. Activity demand models would usually be limited to trip distribution methods. Where considered appropriate, these models may be used to forecast schemeinduced traffic by estimating separate the do-minimum and activity option matrices. In determining appropriateness, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the model could be reliably applied to the appraisal of individual schemes In such cases VTM evaluation procedures would be used. The stability and convergence requirements are the same as for VTM elasticity methods (appendix A11.10). The validation of such models is discussed in worksheet 8.5 part C.
General guidance
Page A1116
A11.12 Conducting cost benefit analyses using variable matrix methods

When to use Where significant amounts of induced traffic are expected as the result of an activity, VTM methods (refer appendix A11.9) may need to be applied. Variable travel demand may result due to suppression of some demand in the do-minimum case (due to insufficient transport capacity) as well the level of accessibility offered in the activity option. The presence of diverted demand, caused by a change in the estimation methods where demand is estimated using a computerised network travel demand model. It will generally not be necessary to use VTM benefit estimation techniques where demand analysis is undertaken more simply and it is possible to more readily indicate the change in travel circumstances for each diverted trip (or groups of trips). Variable matrix methods require more complex economic calculations than fixed trip matrix (FTM) methods in order to determine activity benefits. This appendix gives advice on the calculations required, and shall be used as a guide to summarising the net benefits and costs of the activity options in worksheet A11.3. Background For fixed matrix evaluations (where only the route of travel, at most, will change), the benefits are the change in resource costs between the do-minimum network and the option. Where variable matrices are involved, this cannot be done because there is a change in both the number of trips as well as the cost of undertaking them. Since the decision to make more fundamental changes in travel behaviour than simply to gain a benefit by at most changing the route of travel is based on the costs perceived by car users, the measure of the benefits is also based on perceived user costs, and is usually computed as the change in road user surplus. It is also necessary to include a correction term to compute the total social benefits, since road users do not take full account of the effects of their decisions on resource consumption. This additional term is often referred to as the resource cost correction. The resulting formula for the net activity benefit is computed for each cell of the matrix individually (ie for travel between each ij zone pair by a given mode during a given time period) and is:
Benefit = (TOPT + TDM) x (UDM UOPT) + TOPT (UOPT ROPT) TDM (UDM RDM)
change in road user surplus resource cost correction
or, rearrange terms:

Benefit = (RDMTDM ROPTTOPT) + (UDM + UOPT) x (TOPT TDM)
change in resource costs adjustment for variable trip matrix
Where: TDM = number of trips in the do-minimum. TOPT = number of trips in the option. UDM = perceived user cost of travel in the do-minimum. UOPT = perceived user cost of travel in the option. RDM = resource cost of travel in the do-minimum. ROPT = resource cost of travel in the option.
Page A1117
A11.12 Conducting cost benefit analyses using variable matrix methods continued
Background continued The implied subscripts i and j have been omitted for clarity. For a fixed matrix evaluation when TDM equals TOPT, the second term is zero and this formula becomes the simple difference in resource costs (the first term in the formula) between the do-minimum and the activity option. While this first term can be computed using matrix manipulations, it is possible and simpler, to use network statistics and accumulate the resource costs for all network links to estimate total network-wide resource costs in both the do-minimum (the term RDM TDM) and option (the term ROPT TOPT). This is termed a link-based evaluation. The values of time and vehicle costs given in the appendices are resource costs (which are the actual costs of travel excluding taxation and other non-resource costs). Estimate user costs directly from resource costs according to the table A11.1. Table A11.1: Guidelines for estimating user time and vehicle operating costs Cost component Value of time (working) Value of time (non-working) Obtain resource costs from Tables A4.1 A4.4 Tables A4.1 A4.4 To derive the user cost User cost = resource cost User cost = resource cost x 1.15
Vehicle operating cost (in urban networks) Tables and graphs of cost by average speed and gradient Tables and graphs of additional costs for roughness Tables of fuel costs due to bottleneck delay Graphs of additional costs for speed change cycles Approaches to user benefits with VTM Tables and figures A5.1 A5.11 Tables and figures A5.12 A5.15 Tables A5.16 A5.23 Figures A5.24 A5.43 User cost = resource cost x 1.2 User cost = resource cost x 1.125 User cost = resource cost x 2.0 User cost = resource cost x 1.9
For a variable matrix evaluation, adopt either of the following two methods to estimate the net user benefits of the option compared with the do-minimum: a) b) a matrix-based analysis, where the cost is computed for each origin destination pair, or a link-based analysis, where costs are computed separately for each link (or groups of links).
The first of these approaches enables benefits to be identified for particular travel movements, which may be useful in identifying gainers and losers. The second approach has the advantage that it allows benefits to be estimated for a region in the network that is relatively self-contained, which can be useful for planning purposes. Most computerized network demand modelling software will allow benefits to be derived on a matrix (origindestination) basis without the need for the additional model runs needed for the second approach. Create the matrices of the trips and costs required to compute the benefits using items indicated in table A11.2.
Page A1118
Matrix-based computation Using matrix manipulations, compute the benefit matrix (for a single time period). For a road activity with no tolls or a passenger transport activity with no fares, the formula for estimating net benefits for any individual origin destination (ij) pair will be:
DM DM OPT OPT DM OPT OPT DM
B ij = R ij T ij
- R ij T ij
+ U
ij
+ U
ij
x T ij
T ij
The total activity benefit B is then given by the matrix total summed over all matrix cells. Table A11.2: Required cost and trip matrices Data Trip matrices
T
Symbol
DM ij OPT
Comment Available form the model. The constituent times and distances by link type are skimmed from the networks and the costs subsequently computed. The same paths (and link speeds) should be used for both resource and user costs. If in this process the precision of the representation of vehicle operating costs is much reduced, the link based method may be preferred.
T ij
OPT
Resource and user cost matrices
DM
R ij
R ij
DM ij
OPT ij
In the case of public transport where a fare is paid by users, the net benefit for each ij pair will be:
Bij = [ (TDM + TOPT) (UDM UOPT)] (perceived user benefits)
+ [(TDM PTRDM TOPT PTROPT) (change in public transport supply resource cost) + [TOPT (OUOPT OROPT) TDM (OUDM ORDM)] (change in other resource costs) + [TOPT FOPT TDM FDM] (fare resource correction) Where, for each ij pair:
T = number of trips. U = perceived cost/trip. F = fare/trip (as included in the perceived cost of travel). OU = other perceived user cost/trip (eg generalised cost of travel time). PTR = resource cost of providing public transport/trip. OR = other resource travel costs (eg travel time and environment)/trip.
Subscripts:
DM = do-minimum, OPT = option, U = = F + OU and R = PTR + OR.
Page A1119
Matrix-based computation continued Perceived user benefits are calculated on an origin destination basis (ie for each ij pair in the transport matrix), with the total perceived user benefit being the sum of perceived user benefits for all ij pairs. Other benefit components can be calculated on a network basis. Calculation of the change in public transport supply resource costs will generally be based on changes in the service quantity provided across a network between the do-minimum and option rather than on a cost per passenger trip. Usually the change in public transport supply resource costs will be treated as a cost, in which case the item should be removed from the formula above. The equivalent formula applies in road tolling activity where tolls are part of the perceived cost of travel, with the value of F being the toll rather than the public transport fare. In addition to tolls, the value of U includes the perceived value of travel time and the motorists perceived vehicle operating costs when making travel decisions. The equivalent to PTR will be the direct resource cost of vehicle use, and OR counterpart will be the resource value of travel time, environmental and social externalities of vehicle use. Again, the total change in perceived user benefits will be the sum of the benefit for each ij pair. Other impacts can be estimated drawing on aggregate resources used in the network (eg total vehicle km and person hours of travel) and total toll revenue. Unlike changes in public transport supply resource cost, changes in the resource cost of vehicle use are treated as a benefit and so should be included as part of the benefit formula. Link-based computation Link-based computation of activity benefits is appropriate for estimating changes in currently standard practice with the change in resource costs determined by summing link benefits over the network but, as may be seen from the benefit formula, to the standard calculation of the change in resource costs should be added a variable matrix term. This can be calculated from overall network statistics, but requires some additional network processing, as follows. First, the extra term can be expanded to four terms to read:
- U T + U T - U T 1/2 UOPT T OPT DM OPT DM DM OPT DM
I II III IV
This is the total user cost for the option network, and may be calculated in the same manner as the resource costs but using the cost weights in table A11.1. This is the total user cost for the do-minimum network, and may be calculated in the same manner as the resource costs but using the cost weights in table A11.1.
II
Page A1120
Link-based computation continued Terms III and IV are unusual and require a particular network/assignment procedure called a crossload: III This term uses the do-minimum network, but the user costs must be weighted by the trips in the activity option matrix. This is achieved by loading the activity option matrix on the do-minimum network keeping the paths and link speeds unchanged. (That is, there are no speed or path building iterations and the paths and speeds are those determined from assigning the do-minimum matrix.) Network statistics are then extracted and processed using standard techniques. This term uses the activity option network, but the user costs must be weighted by the trips in the do-minimum matrix. This is achieved by loading the do-minimum matrix on the activity option network keeping the paths and speeds unchanged. Network statistics are then extracted and processed using standard techniques.
IV
For the computation of variable matrix benefits using link-based evaluation, assignment software must be able to handle crossloads. Having summed items I IV and halved the result to obtain the adjustment for variable trip matrix, then add the change in resource costs, (RDMTDM ROPTTOPT) as described in the above. The result should be entered into item 5 on the worksheet. Note that for use with this worksheet, the road user surplus and resource cost formulas should be applied to travel time and vehicle operating costs only (other benefits are assumed to be unaffected by road user surplus issues). The remaining resource costs associated with accidents and vehicle emissions will be entered separately in items 6 and 7 on worksheet 3.
Page A1121
A11.13 Checking growth constraint or variable matrix methods

When to use These checks are related to the procedures in appendix A3.3 and may be used to check the appropriateness of growth constraint or variable matrix methods for dealing with suppressed and induced traffic. The checks supplement the general model validation guidelines given in worksheet 8. Method used The capacity of the dominimum network was upgraded Suggested information
Suggested checks
demonstration that the capital cost the of do-minimum improvements is less than 10 15 percent of the activity option cost indication of adequate capacity (see below). indication of adequate capacity (see below) details on the size and location of the suppressed travel evidence, where feasible, of network performance before and after growth suppression details of the methodology applied. evidence of current variations in peak proportions: a. within the study area, in the base year and historically b. between cities or across New Zealand based on this evidence, an indication that current traffic profiles in the study area are relatively peaked forecasts of a decline in peak period speeds relative to the interpeak (because peak spreading is more likely to occur when peak speeds deteriorate faster than inter-peak speeds). indication of adequate capacity differences between the do-minimum and activity option matrices evidence of the convergence of the method (ie stable estimates of costs and matrices), or other evidence to justify reliance on forecasts (see worksheet 8.4, part D) details of the methodology applied.
A growth suppression technique was used (eg matrix scaling, incremental matrix capping, shadow network, elasticity method on the dominimum) Peak spreading was used
A variable matrix technique was used (eg elasticity method on both the do-minimum and activity option)
Checking capacity in the do-minimum and activity option
To check the do-minimum and activity option capacity, the following performance indices may be used. If the indices suggest congestion over large or significant parts of the network, judged on the basis of at least one hour of flow, then the network should be considered as congested. If, however, the congestion occurs only in the later years of the economic life of the scheme (which contribute very little to the benefits), these effects may be ignored where reasonable.
Page A1122
A11.13 Checking growth constraint or variable matrix methods continued

Checking capacity in the do-minimum and activity option continued Performance indices Level of service. Matrix feasibility. Plots of link volume to capacity ratios or manual calculation of the ratio (see appendix A3.17). Link speed plots. Junction delay statistics. Indicator of significant congestion Level of service E or F*. Network model is unable to achieve a stable realistic assignment. Ratios consistently higher than 1.0. Speeds consistently below realistic values (15 25km/h) for links of average length. Delays consistently longer than five minutes per junction or queues blocking back to upstream links.
* Level of service E occurs when traffic volumes are at or close to capacity and there is virtually no freedom to select desired speeds or to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. Level of service F is in the zone of forced flow where the amount of traffic passing a point exceeds that which can pass it. Queuing, delays and flow breakdown occur at these flow levels. (Source: Austroads).
Page A121
A12 Update factors and incremental BCR

A12.1 Introduction
Introduction This appendix contains update factors for benefits and costs. Target incremental benefit cost ratios (BCR) are also contained in this appendix. Topic Page
In this appendix
A12.1 A12.2 A12.2 A12.4
Introduction Update factors for construction and maintenance costs Update factors for benefits Target incremental benefit cost ratio
A121 A122 A123 A124
Page A122
A12.2 Update factors for construction and maintenance costs

Cost update factors The factors for updating construction and maintenance cost estimates prepared in earlier years are: Table A12.1: Cost update factors Calendar year in which estimate prepared 2007 2008 2009 Factor to adjust to July 2009 1.10 1.04 1.00
Page A123
A12.3 Update factors for benefits

Benefit update factors The factors for updating the benefit values in this manual are: Table A12.2: Benefit update factors Variable Travel time cost savings TT Vehicle operating cost savings
VOC
Base date
Factor to adjust to July 2009 1.22 1.00 1.76
July 2002 July 2008 July 2002
Vehicle operating cost savings VOC Only to be used to update economic evaluations completed before 1 September 2008 Accident cost savings AC Comfort benefits CB Driver frustration DF Passenger transport user benefits Walking and cycling benefits WCB Travel behaviour change benefits TBhC
PT
July 2006 July 2002 July 2002 July 2008 July 2008 July 2008
1.14 1.22 1.22 1.03 1.03 1.03
Page A124
A12.4 Target incremental benefit cost ratio

Target incremental benefit cost ratio The target incremental benefit cost ratio (BCR) used when undertaking incremental analysis of activity options shall be chosen and reported. Where the selected target incremental ratio differs to the guidance below, a detailed explanation supporting the chosen value must be provided. The following guidance is provided: 1. 2. 3. The minimum incremental BCR shall be 1.0, in order to ensure that a higher cost activity option is more efficient than a lower cost option. Where the BCR of the preferred option is greater than 2.0 but less than 4.0, the target incremental BCR shall be 2.0. Where the BCR of the preferred option is greater than or equal to 4.0, the target incremental BCR shall be 4.0.
Page A131
A13 Risk analysis

A13.1 Introduction
Introduction This appendix follows the principles set out in the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360 on risk management. These principles are set out below and the analysis covers all these principles with the exception of treatment: 1. 2. 3. Establish the strategic, organisational and risk management context in which the process will take place. Identify what, why and how risks can arise as the basis for analysis. Assess risks in terms of their consequences and likelihood within the context of any existing controls. Consequence and likelihood can be combined to produce an estimate of risk. Evaluate risks by comparing estimated levels of risk against pre-established criteria. This enables the identification of management priorities. Treat risks. This should involve the acceptance and monitoring of lowpriority risks and the development and implementation of risk management plans for higher priority risks. Communicate and consult with all stakeholders at each stage of the risk management process. The process is often iterative. Monitor and review the performance of the risk management system (plan) and any changes that may affect it. Page
4. 5.
6. 7.
In this appendix
Topic
A13.1 A13.2 A13.3 A13.4 A13.5 A13.6 A13.7 A13.8 A13.9 A13.10
Introduction Risk Risk management Risk analysis Benefit risks Costs risks High risks Relative risk Contingencies Example of risk analysis
A131 A132 A133 A134 A137 A1310 A1312 A1313 A1316 A1317
Page A132
A13.2 Risk
Overview The purpose of considering risk is to develop ways of minimising, mitigating and managing it. Risk assessment and risk management are continuous processes that start at the activity inception stage and proceed through to activity completion and ideally should involve all the relevant parties. The extent of risk assessment needs to be appropriate to the stages of activity development. The critical activity stages are from the rough order cost (ROC) stage through to preliminary assessed cost (PAC) stage and then to final estimate of cost (FEC) stage. It is intended that the scope and extent of analysis will progress according to the stage of activity development and be most comprehensive at the FEC stage. The risk identified and evaluated in these various stages needs to be monitored and managed, particularly in the final construction stage. Detailed risk analysis such as Monte Carlo simulation may be a further action following an initial risk assessment. The requirements as to whether risk analysis is necessary are specified in Part C of the NZ Transport Agencys (NZTA) Planning, programming and funding manual. Risk management process
Risk definition and planning
Implementation and monitoring
Review and recommendations
Start of project stage: Identify risks. Assess risk management strategies (reduction, mitigation, avoidance, quantification through date collection etc). Choose preferred strategy.*
During the project stage: Implement preferred strategy.
At end of project stage: Report on outcomes of strategy (one aspect of the reporting would be that contained in worksheets A13.1 A13.3). Assess implications for next stage of project.*
* The types of choices which may be addressed at these decision points are illustrated in appendix A13.4.
Page A133
A13.3 Risk management

Risk management options example Risk Examples of alternative actions No action, Do more work on issue Purpose of investment accept in: is to: risk this phase later quantify reduce phase risk risk X X X X Defer
Base matrix
Short term emphasis on matrix estimation, validation and additional validation data collection Medium term model improvement/ updating Longer term data collection
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X
Growth forecasts
Ensure that planning estimates are reliably based on best practice procedures Collect more validation data Improve model
Assignment
Accidents
Collect more accident data Defer activity until accident rates can be determined with greater confidence
Services
Surveys Relocation of services Alternative road design
Geotechnical Environment and planning
Surveys; increase sampling density Scheme selection Redesign/extend consultation procedure Natural hazard
Base engineering
Alternative design Can more be done to reduce complexity risks?
Land and property
Scheme selection Early acquisition
Page A134
A13.4 Risk analysis

Risk assessment steps
Establish the context
Identify risks
Assess risks
Evaluate risks
Treat risks
Risk analysis structure
The analysis contain three separate worksheets A13.1 to A13.3: Worksheet A13.1 Used for both an abbreviated summary of risks for activities that are at the preliminary ROC stage of evaluation and for detailed reporting of risks for activities that are past the ROC stage. Worksheet A13.2 Provides additional detailed information on the high risks identified in worksheet A13.1 plus an indication of the activities relative risk to a typical activity. Worksheet A13.3 Provides a summary of the activity cost contingencies. The risk analysis is not intended to be limiting and organisations are welcome to use more advanced techniques such as Monte Carlo analysis if they consider this appropriate. These guidelines do not cover every eventuality.
Page A135
A13.4 Risk analysis continued

Use of worksheets A13.1 to A13.3 in risk management Some of the key features of a risk management process are illustrated in appendix A13.2, the risk management process where risks are identified at the start of an activity stage and risk management strategies (or treatments) developed and implemented through the activity. On completion, the outcomes are reviewed and their implications for the next stage established. At the end of an activity stage, depending on the nature of the risks, there are a number of strategic decisions available: accept the risk or, otherwise, reduce its likelihood or its consequences, or transfer or avoid the risk. These decision may in turn lead to the following actions:

abandon the activity (this should normally be limited to the feasibility report stage) reformulate the activity to capture the majority of the benefits at reduced cost conduct further investigation to reduce one or more of the identified uncertainties (either physical investigations of more detailed assessment of risks) defer further processing of the activity until information comes available that assists in reducing the uncertainties defer further processing of the activity until the first year rate of return (FYRR) increases to the required cut-off level proceed to the next stage of processing, or to tender.
In most cases, there are likely to be investigations or other actions which would enable the risks, once identified, to be quantified or reduced. Examples of such actions are illustrated in appendix A13.3 risk management options. Worksheets A13.1 to A13.3 shall be used to indicate areas of especially high or low risk in the activity evaluation. Risks which are common to most activities (for example, the effects of national economic growth on traffic levels or inflation in the unit costs of construction) should not be included in the assessment. The worksheet instructions give guidance on how high and low risks may be distinguished from such common (medium) risks. Only risks which are expected to have such significant effects on activity benefits or costs that they will be material to decisions on the development of the activity should be reported. The procedures described in this worksheet are not reliant on quantitative methods of risk analysis such as Monte Carlo but, where these detailed and comprehensive methods have been applied, in discussion with the NZTA those results may be used in place of or as a supplement to these worksheets. The activities for which risk analysis is required are specified in part C of the NZTAs Planning, programming and funding manual.
Page A136
A13.4 Risk analysis continued

Worksheet A13.1 shall be used to indicate areas of high or low risk in activities. In this worksheet nine overall categories of risk are defined, within each of which a number of risk subcategories have been identified as being potentially material. For each item in the worksheet, the analyst should assess the risk according to the suggested criteria (discussed below) and indicate whether any risks fall into the low or high categories. In some cases, additional sensitivity tests may be required to determine the level of risk, and these are included in the instructions below. The list may not be exhaustive and space is allowed for identifying other material risks in the worksheet. Although it will generally be appropriate to report on the risks for the detailed subcategories, in those circumstances where only broad risk information is available, such as in early activity stages, it would be acceptable to be report on the risks for each category as a whole, and the worksheet is structured to permit this. The criteria which are used to distinguish high and low risks in the guidance which follows are based on professional experience of the key factors which affect level of risk. Where there is any doubt as to the appropriate classification, the general rule is that the risk should be classified as high if there is a five percent chance that the effect on overall benefits or costs could be outside the range 5 percent for costs and 7.5 percent for benefits (that is that the 95 percent confidence limits are in the region of 5 percent for costs and 7.5 percent for benefits). In cases of doubt, specific sensitivity tests are proposed, but these may be amended if there are more appropriate tests.
Page A137
A13.5 Benefit risks

Benefit risks As a general principle, if there is at least a five percent risk that any of the following categories could account for a variation in TOTAL activity benefits of more than 7.5 percent then it should be classified as high risk. Benefit risks base travel demand 1 Base travel demand Base demand data sources may be counts, intercept surveys or a strategic model usually based on household surveys. References to counts below are concerned with models derived solely from this source. Low risk Intercept survey or traffic counts less than one year old. Strategic model: household travel survey less than five years old. High risk Intercept survey or traffic counts greater than three years old. Strategic model: Household travel survey greater than 10 years old. Low risk Count and intercept sites in activity corridor. Strategic model has been reviewed and approved. High risk Count and intercept sites not in close vicinity of activity and thus not encompassing most (>80 percent) of the relevant traffic. No independent review of strategic model. Low risk Five or more years continuous count data. Intercept data. Strategic model: one day household travel diary with either a sampling rate greater than three percent of population or a sample of at least 5000 households. High risk Counts: a few weeks count data in context of seasonal traffic patterns, such that the 95 percent confidence level for annual traffic exceeds 10 percent. Strategic model: one day household travel diary with either a sampling rate less than 1.5 percent of population or a sample of less than 2500 households. Low risk Very comprehensive count programme with close fit of demand matrix to counts. High risk Just adequate fit of the demand matrix to limited set of count screenlines. Low risk Derived from classified vehicle counts for an adequate sample of annual traffic. High risk EEM standard values used without local validation, such that the HCV proportion of traffic flow could vary by more than 50 percent.
1.1
Age of data source
1.2
Data scope
1.3
Data quantity and statistical reliability
1.4
Travel demand validation to counts
1.5
Traffic composition (model based on counts alone)
Page A138
A13.5 Benefit risks continued

Benefit risks continued Benefit risks growth forecast 2 2.1 Growth forecasts The sensitivity tests proposed below may be varied if alternative ranges can be justified. High city population Low risk: Projected growth less than 0.5 percent per annum growth. High risk: Projected growth greater than 1.5 percent per annum. In this case, conduct sensitivity tests allowing for the growth rate to vary by 50 percent. If activity benefits are affected by more than 10 percent, classify as high risk, otherwise classify as medium risk. Development related Low risk: Development related traffic is less than five percent of traffic using the activity. traffic as proportion of scheme traffic High risk: Development related traffic is greater than 15 percent of traffic using the activity. In this case, conduct sensitivity tests allowing for the development size to vary by 50 percent. If activity benefits affected by more than 10 percent, classify as high risk, otherwise classify as medium risk. Time series projection Low risk: Analysis based on more than 10 years count data. (for a model based on High risk: Analysis based on less than five years of data or on less counts alone) than 10 years of data where the historic trend is irregular, such that the annual average growth rate cannot be established within a 95 percent confidence limit of 1 percent per annum. Assignment The sensitivity tests proposed below may be varied if alternative ranges can be justified. Other future activities Low risk: No planned or potential future activities will affect the activity. High risk: Future activities will significantly affect the activitys traffic flows (greater than 10 percent). In this case, conduct sensitivity tests to determine possible future activity effects. If activity benefits are likely to be affected by more than 10 percent (allowing for the likelihood of the activity proceeding), classify as high risk, otherwise classify as medium risk. Path derivation method The path derivation method will include the assignment procedures used to load trips onto the network and select vehicle routes. Low risk: High risk: Assignment procedure not used or the activity is a simple improvement in a single corridor with no competing routes. There are a number of closely competing alternative routes. In this case, conduct an appropriate sensitivity test. Typical tests would include varying the parameters of the path derivation process, for example by changing the number of iterations used in assignment. Ensure the model specification is peer reviewed. If activity benefits are affected by more than 10 percent, classify as high risk, otherwise classify as medium risk.
2.2
2.3
Benefit risks assignment 3 3.1
3.2
Page A139
A13.5 Benefit risks continued

Benefit risks continued 3.3 Routeing parameters The routeing parameters control the relative effects of time and distance (and any other factors) on the choice of route. Low risk: Assignment procedure not used or the activity is of a similar standard and length to existing routes. High risk: The improvement is longer and of a much higher standard than existing routes. In this case, conduct sensitivity tests allowing the nominal parameter value to vary by 50 percent or some equivalent increment. If activity benefits are affected by more than 10 percent, classify as high risk, otherwise classify as medium risk. Supply relationships will generally include link capacities, free flow speeds and speed flow relationships (in the context of a traffic assignment). Low risk: Assignment procedure not used or the network is uncongested. High risk: Parts of the network are very congested. In this case the analyst should conduct sensitivity tests allowing for a uniform matrix change of 5 percent or a uniform change in all saturated junction and link capacities of 5 percent. If activity benefits are affected by more than 10 percent, classify as high risk, otherwise classify as medium risk. Low risk: Assignment procedure not used or assignment convergence is substantially better than validation requirement (refer worksheet 8.4). High risk: Assignment does not meet validation requirement.
3.4
Supply relationships
3.5
Convergence
Benefit risks accidents 4 4.1 Accidents Proportion of benefits accounted for by accidents Observed accident sample size Judgemental accident reduction risk Only consider 4.2 and 4.3 if 4.1 is judged to be high risk. Low risk: Less than 10 percent of benefits accounted for by accidents (or accident analysis not used). High risk: More than 20 percent of benefits accounted for by accidents. Low risk: Historical accident record includes at least 100 accidents. High risk: Historical accident record contains less than 40 accidents. Low risk: Accident analysis not used. High risk: Accident by accident analysis used for the activity options.
4.2
4.3
Page A1310
A13.6 Costs risks

Costs risks As a general principle if, there is at least a five percent risk that any of the following categories could account for a variation in TOTAL activity cost of more than 5 percent then it should be classified as high risk Cost risks environmental and planning 5 Environmental and planning Concerning each of the issues, the tests of risks are the same, and concern issue identification, tractability and sensitivity, and consultation. Identification: all issues well defined and understood. Tractability: all issues have obvious solutions; few conflicts; low cost impacts. Sensitivity of activity to issues: more than one affordable solution to issues. Consultation: is expected to proceed smoothly and effectively. Parties involved: previous consultative relationship, parties experienced in consultation process. Within designation and/or all resource consents have been obtained. Identification: no environmental surveys or little consultation. Tractability: contentious issues with conflicting requirements. Sensitivity of activity to issues: issues have very costly impacts on the activity and are likely to affect its viability. Consultation: significant consultation is required, but its extent cannot be predicted. Parties involved: no prior contact and parties have no prior experience in consultation process. New or changed designation and/or resource consents to be applied for.
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8
Tngata whenua issues Low risk Emissions Landscape and visual Ecological effects Archaeological and historic sites Social networks and severance Economic/amenity impacts on land users Natural hazards
High risk:
Cost risks land and property 6.1 Property acquisition Low risk: High risk: 6.2 Property economic value Low risk: High risk: All property is owned by road controlling authority. Property still to be acquired from several owners with opposition expected. Recent market valuations on a block by block basis, land use unlikely to change in future. No recent market valuation, approximate valuation established on an area basis by zoning, land where change of use is possible in short to medium term (such as rural land on urban periphery)
Page A1311
A13.6 Cost risks continued

Costs risks continued Cost risks earthworks 7.1 Knowledge of ground conditions Low risk: High density of sampling; variety of techniques and data available; good exposure of conditions; data interpreted by two parties (peer review). No or very little subsurface investigation or site exposure. Previously engineered ground, non-plastic materials easy to excavate and not moisture sensitive; low water table. Swamps, marine sediments, rock masses with steeply dipping clayfilled seams, or moisture sensitive clays; high water table or pressurised aquifers. Low earthwork heights, no bridges or low bearing pressure structures. High cuts/fills, tunnels, bridges or viaducts. Flat terrain and comprehensive mapping. Hilly, mountainous terrain, heavily vegetated and little topographical data. Requirements can conveniently be satisfied locally. High volume requirements, uncertain sourcing and resource consent ramifications.
7.2
High risk: Complex/unpredictable Low risk: conditions High risk:
7.3
Road design form
Low risk:
7.4
High risk: Extent of topographical Low risk: data High risk: Source and disposal of Low risk: material High risk:
7.5
Cost risks other engineering costs 8.1 Engineering complexity Low risk: High risk: Cost risks services 9 Services Underground and overhead services may include (but not be limited to) telecommunications cables, electricity cables, gas mains, water mains and sewers. Existence, location and Low risk: Complete certainty of the services that are present in the condition area, and a high degree of confidence in their location, construction details and condition. High risk: Service authorities not contacted, or services data unreliable, engineering details and condition unknown or poorly defined. Site flexibility Low risk: Wide reservation with few constraints to accommodate last minute service changes. High risk: Constrained (normally urban) corridor with few options to accommodate changes. Cooperation of utilities Low risk: Single authority with an excellent track record of prompt attention to relocations. High risk: Several authorities to be coordinated in the same work area and/or poorly resourced and organised authority, or an authority in a state of major organisational change. Simple engineering using long established principles and approaches. Complex solutions to difficult engineering issues.
9.1
9.2
9.3
Page A1312
A13.7 High risks

Identified high risks There are two parts to treatment of identified high risks in worksheet A13.2(a) and (b). In worksheet A13.2(a), additional information should be supplied on the nature of the high risks identified in each of the main risk categories, and their implications for activity decisions. Where possible and appropriate, courses of action for treating the risks should also be proposed and the costs of these actions estimated; a brief discussion of courses of action is given at the end of this section. In respect of high risk categories identified in worksheet A13.1, additional information should be supplied under the following five headings: 1. Risk category (base travel demand, growth forecasts etc): Only those categories where high risks have been identified need be covered. If it is judged that the identified low and high risks in any particular category are such that, overall, the category risk is not material. This should be stated and justified, and no further information is required. Description: The risks should be described. Estimated impacts on benefits/cost (as appropriate): Provide judgement as to the potential size of the risks, in terms of the percentage impact on either benefits or costs where feasible5. It is however accepted that it is the nature of some risks that reliable estimation of their potential impacts is impossible. Description of implications for option selection and/or activity timing: Risks may impact on decisions on either option selection (where the risks are not common to all options) or activity timing (where, for example, the risks of a non-qualifying BCR may be so high as to suggest a delay in activity implementation). Recommended actions and estimated costs of those actions (where relevant): The NZTA will wish to consider the appropriate treatment for each risk (the generic options are: accept, avoid or transfer risks, reduce likelihood or reduce consequences of risks) and recommendations are sought on specific actions and their potential costs.
2. 3.
4.
5.
This estimate should broadly correspond to a 95 percent confidence limit.
Page A1313
A13.8 Relative risk

Relative risk indicators The risk summary table in worksheet A13.2(b) should be completed for the identified high risks. The risk categories are labelled R1 to R17. Leave a risk category blank if it is not high risk. If it is high risk, but the impact cannot be quantified, simply tick the relevant box. Where the risk impact6 can be broadly quantified, insert the expected percentage impact on benefits, costs or the anticipated programme delay in the relevant box7. Worksheet A13.2 also provides a means of combining the identified and quantified high benefit and cost risks to give an indication of the impact of these high risks on the overall level of activity risk relative to what might normally be expected for a typical activity at a late stage in activity development. In order to compute the overall activity risk, it is necessary to account for the typical risks to be expected in the other risk categories (the medium or baseline risks). Therefore, for the purpose of this worksheet, a broad judgement has been made on the expected levels of benefit, cost and BCR risks associated with a typical medium risk activity in the later stages of development. These measures of risk have been called relative risk indicators; there are three, RB, RC and RBCR, for benefit, cost and BCR risks respectively. They combine the particularly high risks identified in the table with the expected medium risk levels in other categories to give an overall indication of the impact on activity risk. The relative risk indicators measure the activity risk relative to the baseline overall risk of a typical activity. The figure below illustrates the concept. If, for example, we estimate the baseline cost risk of a typical activity to be $1 million 12 percent (95 percent confidence limits) and the risk for a specific activity is higher at 18 percent, then the relative risk indicator is 1.5, the ratio of the two values. Thus the high risks identified for this activity increase the overall risk by 50 percent over what would normally be expected.
Typical risk
Activity k Expected cost
0.82 m
0.88 m 95% CL 95% CL = = 12% 18%
1.12 m
1.18 m
Relative risk indicator = 18 / 12 = 1.5 and the ratio of the confidence intervals
For very asymmetric risk distributions, base the quantified risk on that part of the distribution corresponding to a decrease in benefits or an This estimate should broadly correspond to a 95 percent confidence limit.
increase in costs.
7
Page A1314
A13.8 Relative risk continued

Relative risk indicators continued Because the calculation takes no account of identified low risk categories, the risk indicator is not a comprehensive measure of the overall activity risk - it is partly for this reason that it is termed an indicator. Until knowledge is gained of the performance of this indicator as a measure of risk and the degree to which it varies from activity to activity, it will not be a factor in funding decisions. The relative risk indicators labelled RC and RB should be computed using the formulae:
RB = [1 + (1/0.03) i (Vi 0.0056)] 0.5; where Vi = (Ri/100)2 and the summation is only for Ri values in the table. RC = [1 + (1/0.015) i (Vi 0.0025)]0.5; where Vi = (Ri/100)2 and the summation is only for Ri values in the table [That is, the benefit risk is computed from values R1 to R4 and R11 provided in the table and the cost risk from R5 to R10, where the risks are converted from percentage, eg 30%, to a fraction, eg 0.3.] The relative risk indicators RB and RC thus calculated are combined to give the overall BCR relative risk indicator RBCR as follows. RBCR = [0.35 RC2 + 0.65 RB2]0.5
Example of relative risk indicator calculation
The notes below illustrate the calculation of the relative risk indicators, using the example above.
Relative cost risk indicator: RC = {1 + (1/0.015) x [(R52 0.0025) + (R82 0.0025)]}0.5 = 2.52 That is, the estimated cost confidence limit (95%) risk is 152% larger than the nominal value. Relative benefit risk indicator: RB = [1 + (1/0.03) x (R22 0.0056)]0.5 = 1.07 That is, the estimated benefit confidence limit (95%) risk is 7% larger than the nominal value. Relative BCR risk indicator: RBCR = [0.35 x RC2 + 0.65 x RB2 ]0.5 = 1.72 That is, the estimated BCR confidence limit (95%) risk is 72% larger than the nominal value.
Page A1315
A13.8 Relative risk continued

Example of relative risk indicator table Estimated 95 percent confidence limits on quantifiable risk category (expressed as a percentage of the impact on TOTAL costs or TOTAL benefits). Risk category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Overall relative risk indicators (RB =) 1.07 (R10 =) (RC =) 2.52 (RBCR=) 1.72 (R8 =) 25% (R14=) 6 months (R5 =) 15% (R2 =) 10% Benefit risk Cost risk Programming risk
Page A1316
A13.9 Contingencies
Significant cost risks which cannot be realistically reduced by other means are covered by contingencies in the cost estimate. These contingencies reduce the likelihood of a cost overrun. Worksheet A13.3 should be used to specify identifiable specific contingencies against the high risks identified in worksheet A13.1(a) (and if appropriate, any other smaller risks). The overall contingency allocated should be specified and an indication given of the confidence attached to the contingency, in terms of the likelihood of a cost overrun greater than the contingency. Concerning the relevant contingencies, if the following six types are distinguished: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. changes in scope definition arising from omissions changes in scope definition arising from client instruction estimating inaccuracy identified risks which are not managed known but undefined risks unknown risks.
Then generally we can expect the contingency table to focus on items 4 6, while for most activities items 1 and 3 would be allowed for in uniform factors on costs; item 2 is excluded.
Page A1317
A13.10 Example of risk analysis

Introduction The following example illustrates the application of these risk analysis. In this example, a minor bridge structure has been assessed to have a limited residual life and has been tentatively programmed for replacement after five years. However, the design of the bridge predates modern earthquake design codes and the bridge would be damaged to an extent requiring replacement in an earthquake of return period of 200 years or more. Calculating probability of risk The annual probability of the bridge being destroyed by earthquake in any one year, denoted as p, is 1/200 = 0.005. The probability of the bridge surviving for five years and then being replaced as programmed, is calculated as follows: a) b) c) The probability of an earthquake in the first year = p = 1/200 = 0.005. The probability of the bridge surviving for one year is therefore (1 p) = 0.995. The probability of the bridge being destroyed in year 2 is the probability of it surviving through year 1 multiplied by the probability of an earthquake in year 2 = p(1 p) = 0.005 0.995 = 0.004975 and so on for five years.
In the general case, the probabilities of the bridge being destroyed in each year are:

year 1: p year 2: p(1 p) year 3: p(1 p)2 year n: p(1 p) n 1.
and the probability of the bridge surviving to n years and then being replaced is therefore:
1 p p(1 p) p(1 p)2 p(1 p)(n 1) = (1 p)n
The probability of survival to the end of year 5 is therefore: (1 0.005)5 = 0.97525 In the event of earthquake damage, a temporary Bailey Bridge would have to be erected while a new permanent structure was being built. This would impose an additional cost on the road controlling authority which would not occur in the case of a planned replacement. There would also be disruption to traffic at the time of the earthquake.
Page A1318
A13.10 Example of risk analysis continued

Calculating costs if risk occurs Assume that the bridge replacement cost is $2.5 million over two years. Making the assumption that an earthquake, if it occurred, would on average occur midyear, it is then assumed that these costs are distributed $1.5 million in the first year, and $1.0 million in the next year. Assume that the cost of erecting a temporary Bailey Bridge is $0.2 million spread over six months, the disruption cost during planned replacement of the bridge is zero (the old bridge remains open), and the disruption cost of unplanned delays while the Bailey is being constructed is $0.5 million and disruption during Bailey use (during the two years it takes to construct the new bridge) is $0.2 million per year. If the bridge is destroyed before planned replacement, then the costs at the start of the year in which the earthquake occurs are: Roading costs: Bailey bridge Permanent replacement bridge total Road user costs: Initial disruption costs Ongoing disruption costs total $0.5 0.9623 $0.2 0.5 0.9259 $0.2 0.8910 $0.2 0.5 0.8573 $0.838 million Where SPPWF is the single payment present worth factor. Calculating expected values The probability of the bridge being destroyed by an earthquake in each of years 1, 2, 3 and 4 are then multiplied by the above costs and benefits to give expected values in each year. The same is done in year 5 for the costs of planned replacement of the bridge. The expected values of costs and benefits in each year are then as follows: Year Probability Costs Benefits Expected value (costs) 11,880 11,821 11,761 11,702 11,645 2,136,000 Expected value (benefits) 4150 4129 4109 4088 4068 (SPPWF yr 0.5) (SPPWF yr 1.0) (SPPWF yr 1.5) (SPPWF yr 2.0) $million $0.1 0.9623 $0.1 0.9259 $1.5 0.9259 $1.0 0.8573 $2.435 million (SPPWF yr 0.5) (SPPWF yr 1.0) (SPPWF yr 1.0) (SPPWF yr 2.0)
1 2 3 4 5 Year 5 replacement
0.005000 0.004975 0.004950 0.004925 0.004901 0.975250
2,376,000 2,376,000 2,376,000 2,376,000 2,376,000 2,190,000
830,000 830,000 830,000 830,000 830,000
Page A1319
A13.10 Example of risk analysis continued

Remaining calculations The expected value example costs and benefits are effectively discounted to the start of each year and each must be further discounted by the SPPWF factor for (year 1). The example does not take account of any benefits that may arise from bridge replacement such as a reduction in annual maintenance costs, road user benefits from improved alignment or reduction in bridge loading restrictions. These should be dealt with in a similar way, by discounting future costs and benefits to the start of each year 1 to 5 and then multiplying by the probability of loss of earthquake occurrence to give expected values, which should then be further discounted to time zero.
Page A141
A14 Blank worksheets

In this chapter Worksheet Page
Feasibility report Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary Worksheet 2 Summary of benefits and costs Worksheet 3 Benefit cost analysis Worksheet 4 Incremental analysis Worksheet 5 First year rate of return Worksheet 6 Sensitivity analysis Worksheet 7 Checklist for activity evaluation Worksheet 8 Transporting modelling checks Worksheet A1 Discounting and present worth factors Worksheet A2 Traffic data Worksheet A3 Travel time estimation Worksheet A4 Travel time cost savings Worksheet A5 Vehicle operating cost savings Worksheet A6 Accident cost savings Worksheet A7 Vehicle passing options Worksheet A8 External impacts Worksheet A9 Vehicle emissions Worksheet A10 National strategic factors Worksheet A13 Risk analysis
A142 A144 A145 A146 A147 A148 A149 A1410 A1411 A1421 A1423 A1433 A1443 A1444 A1446 A1459 A1462 A1465 A1467 A1468
Page A142
Feasibility report
Preliminary evaluation 1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the problem to be addressed Brief description of location Describe the do-minimum Summarise the options assessed 2 Time zero (assumed construction start date) Expected duration of construction (months) Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Base date for costs and benefits Road type (tick one) TTC from table 1 AADT at time zero Variable PV cost Length Average vehicle speed (VS) Base cost (CB) from table 2 Average roughness (IRI or NAASRA counts) Roughness cost (CR) from table 3 Annual maintenance costs(MC) 3 Calculations VOC savings = {[LM (CBM + CRM)] [LP (CBP + CRP)]} AADT 3.6 Travel time savings = (LM / VSM LP / VSP) AADT TTC 365 Comfort benefits from sealing = LM 0.10 AADT 365 PV accident cost savings (from feasibility report accident cost savings worksheet) Maintenance cost savings = (MCM MCP) 10.7 4 Benefits = (C + D + E) 11.4 + F Costs = B A G Provisional BCR = Y / Z =$ =$ =$ =$ =$ = = = C D E F G Y Z A LM VSM CBM CRM MCM Urban arterial 1 July 1 July
Urban other
$/h
Rural strategic
Rural other
km/h
Posted speed limit
vehicles/day Do-minimum (M) B LP VSP CBR CVR MCP Option (P) km km/h /km /km $/yr
Page A143

Accident analysis Do-minimum Fatal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of years of typical accident rate records Number of reported accidents over period Fatal/serious severity adjustments Number of reported accidents adjusted by severity (2) x (3) Accidents per year = (4)/(1) Under-reporting factors Total estimated accidents per year = (5) x (6) Accident cost (table 4) Accident cost per year = (7) x (8) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (9) fatal + serious + minor + non-injury) Option 11 12 13 14 15 16 Percentage accident reduction Percentage of accidents remaining [ 100 (11) ] Predicted accidents per year (7) x (12) Accident cost (tables 4) Accident cost per year = (13) x (14) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (15) fatal +serious + minor + non-injury) Annual accident cost savings = (10) (16) PV accident cost savings = (17) x DF (table 5) $ $ 1.0 2.0 3.0 10 fatal + serious 0.15 0.85 1.0 1.0 Severity Serious Minor Non-injury
$ $ F
Transfer the PV of accident cost savings, F to F on preliminary evaluation worksheet.
Page A144
Worksheet 1 Evaluation summary

1 Evaluator(s) Reviewer(s) 2 Activity/package details Approved organisation name Activity/package name Your reference Activity description Describe the predominant type of problem 3 Location Brief description of location 4 Alternatives and options Describe the do-minimum Summarise the alternatives considered Summarise the options assessed 5 Timing Earliest construction start date (mm/yyyy) Expected construction start date (mm/yyyy) Expected duration of construction (months) 6 Economic efficiency Date economic evaluation completed (mm/yyyy) Time zero Base date for costs and benefits PV cost of the do-minimum PV net cost of preferred option PV net benefits of preferred option 7 8 9 10 BCR FYRR Non-monetised impacts National strategic factors % $ $ $ 1 July 1 July
Page A145
Worksheet 2 Summary of benefits and costs

1 Activity (do-minimum or option) (2) Benefit or cost component From Benefits TTC savings VOC savings Accident cost savings Vehicle emission reduction Reduced driver frustration Monetised external impacts (list) WS A2, A3, and A4 WS A3 and A5 WS A6 WS A9 Appendix A7 WS A8 (3) Time To Reference (4) Estimate (5) (6)
Year of Growth rate estimate
Costs Investigation Design Property Construction/implementation Maintenance Renewal Operating External impact mitigation Risk management Activity contingency costs WS A8.2 WS A13 Explanation sheet
Page A146
Worksheet 3 Benefit cost analysis

Benefits Do-minimum 1 2 3 TTC VOC savings Accident cost savings PV of benefits as calculated Option A Option B Option C PV of net benefits (PV option PV do-minimum benefits) Option A Option B Option C
4 Vehicle emission reduction 5 Reduced driver frustration
6 Monetised external impacts (list)
PV total net benefits Costs PV of costs as calculated PV of net costs (PV option PV do-minimum costs)
8 Investigation 9 Design 10 Property 11 Construction/implementation 12 Maintenance 13 Renewal 14 Operating 15 External impact mitigation 16 Activity contingency 17 Risk management 18 PV total net costs 19 BCR = (7) / (18)
Page A147
Worksheet 4 Incremental analysis

1 Target incremental BCR (from appendix A12.4) Step Option (2) Base option for comparison Costs (3) Benefits (4) Option (5) Costs (6) Next higher cost option Benefits (7) Incremental costs (8) = (7) (4) Incremental benefits (9) = (7) (8) Incremental analysis Incremental BCR (10) = (9) (8) Base option for next step (11)
12 13 14
Preferred activity option Rationale for selection Results of sensitivity testing of target incremental BCR
Page A148
Worksheet 5 First year rate of return

1 2 3 4 Preferred activity option PV of total net cost Midpoint of first year benefits SPPWF of first year of benefits Benefit Annual benefits of preferred option (5) Annual benefits of do-minimum (6) Net annual benefit (at time zero) (7) Growth rate (decimal) (8) PV of benefits in first year (9) = [ 1.0 + (3) x (8)]x (4) x (7) $
10 11
Sum of PV of benefits in first year FYRR [ (10) / (2) x 100 ]
$ %
Page A149
Worksheet 6 Sensitivity analysis

1 2 Preferred activity option BCR Variable (3) Discount rate Maintenance costs Traffic volumes Travel times or roughness Accident reduction External impacts Other (list) Basic assumptions (4)
Variable (3) Discount rate Maintenance costs Traffic volumes Travel times or speeds Road roughness Accident reduction External impacts Other (list)
Base case Value (5) 8% Value (6) 4%
Lower bound BCR (7) Value (8) 6%
Upper bound BCR (9)
Page A1410
Worksheet 7 Checklist for activity evaluation

Activity name Preferred option Component of the evaluation Has this component been checked for? Accuracy of Completeness Validity of calculations of assumption information (1) (2) (3) Activity capital costs Do-minimum Option Maintenance costs Do-minimum Option Travel time savings Do-minimum Option VOC savings Do-minimum Option Accident cost savings Do-minimum Option Monetised external impacts Time stream of costs and benefits Discounting Benefits Costs BCR Incremental analysis FYRR Transport model validation Sensitivity analysis General comments Comments
Page A1411
Worksheet 8 Transporting modelling checks

Worksheet 8.1 Coarse check on transportation model outputs 1 Activity name
Do-minimum First year 2 Road section travel time (minutes) 3 Intersection delay (minutes) 4 Total time (minutes) Future years
Activity option First year Future years
Savings First year Future years
First year 5 Daily travel time benefit ($) 6 Daily traffic (vehicles) 7 Travel time savings (minutes/vehicle) 8 Travel time benefits ($/vehicle) 9 Comment
Future year
Page A1412
Worksheet 8 Transporting modelling checks continued

Worksheet 8.2(a) Typical road section speeds
1 Activity name 2 Analysis year 3 Analysis time period (AM peak, inter-peak, PM peak) Road name (4) Length (metres) Volumes (vehicles/hour) Do-minimum Option Speed (km/h) Do-minimum Option Time (seconds) Do-minimum Option
Page A1413

Worksheet 8.2(b) Critical intersections
Intersection (5)
Volume (vehicles/hour) (6) Do-minimum Option
Delay (seconds/vehicle (7) Do-minimum Option
Page A1414

Worksheet 8.2(c) Journey components
Journey/component (8)
Travel time (seconds/vehicle) (9) Do-minimum Option
Page A1415

Worksheet 8.2(d) Journey
Journey (10)
Travel time (seconds/vehicle) (11) Do-minimum Option Savings
Trips (12)
Travel time savings (seconds) (13)
14 Total travel time savings 15 Unit cost 16 Total benefit
Page A1416

Worksheet 8.2(e) Summary of detailed checks and comparison with evaluation values
Time period (17)
Total benefit in time period (18)
Total benefits per year (20)
21 Total annual travel time benefits for option Annual travel time benefits in economic evaluation Percentage of travel time benefits explained by check
Page A1417

Worksheet 8.3 Activity model specification checklist A General information
Tick if a specification statement has been provided for the following: 1. Type of model used, together with reasons for selecting that model. 2. Geographic area covered by the model study area and density of zones. 3. Network detail (eg motorways/arterials/minor streets, number of links). 4. Time periods modelled (eg AM peak 7:30am 9:00am, inter-peak 9:00am 4:30pm). 5. Vehicle types included (eg car, light, heavy commercial vehicles). 6. How external trips are handled (eg external or cordon zone system). 7. Other (please specify).
B Data sources
Tick if a description of the data source and the sources reliability (eg errors, biases, consistency) have been provided for the following: 1. Network data (eg link lengths, free flow speeds, capacities, posted speed limits, number of lanes, intersection types). 2. Travel data and collection methods (eg traffic counts, speeds, origin/destination surveys). 3. Interface with external demand modelling (eg outputs from a subregional model). 4. Other (please specify).
C Matrices
Tick if a statement of the following has been provided: 1. Description of each step in the assembly of the base year trip matrices, including methods, assumptions and factors applied
(eg derivation from external demand model, ME2 matrix estimation procedures).
2.
Matrix fit to observed data (eg screenlines, comparison with independent origin and destination flows). Note: If the ME2 estimation procedure is used to estimate matrices from traffic counts, an independent validation will only be obtained if different counts are used to validate the model. If variable matrix methods or growth constraint techniques have been used, a statement of the method and parameters adopted, and justification of the approach.
3.
Assignments
Tick if a specification statement has been provided for the following: 1. Description of how the network was constructed. 2. Assignment method (eg incremental, equilibrium). 3. Generalised cost function used for routing. 4. Volume delay functions (eg equations, coefficients, calibration). 5. Basis of intersection delay modelling (lane by lane, approachbased, SIDRA computations). 6. Other (please specify).
Page A1418

Worksheet 8.3 Activity model specification checklist continued E Forecasting
Tick if a specification statement has been provided for the following: 1. Comparison of forecast year growth rates with historical trends (may include land use, household size, car ownership, traffic volumes,
and commercial vehicle volumes).
2. 3.
Checks of average growth across selected screenlines to ensure local growth is reasonable. Comparisons with other forecasts.
Activity models that include strategic demand elements If travel demand (including mode choice) is modelled within the activity model, rather than in an external demand model, the demand elements of the activity model should be validated in accordance with part C of worksheet 8.5.
Page A1419

Worksheet 8.4 Base year assignment validation A Link and screenline flows
1. 2. 3.
Link volume plots (mandatory). Scatter plots of observed and modelled flows (mandatory). GEH statistic for critical screenline flows and individual link flows (recommended).
4. Percentage RMSE (recommended). 5.
Comparison of modelled vehicle kilometres travelled with observed values (optional).
Intersection flows and delays

1. 2. 3. 4.
Intersection turning flow plots (mandatory). Intersection approach delays (optional). Intersection queue lengths (optional). Other (please specify). Corridor travel time plots (mandatory). Cumulative travel time plots (recommended). Link speed plots (optional). Other (please specify).
5.
Journey times and speeds

1. 2. 3. 4.

D 1 2 3
Assignment convergence and stability Activity name Assignment software and version Type of assignment Do-minimum Run year Base Year 1 Forecast Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
4 5 6 7 8
Convergence achieved at iteration number Percentage change in total generalised user cost (mandatory) Proportion of links with flows changing <5% (recommended) Normalised gap (recommended) Other convergence measure (optional) Option Run year Base Year 1 Year 2 Forecast Year 3 Year 4
4 5 6 7 8
Convergence achieved at iteration number Percentage change in total generalised user cost (mandatory) Proportion of links with flows changing <5% (recommended) Normalised gap (recommended) Other convergence measure (optional)
Page A1420

Worksheet 8.5 Strategic demand model checks A Is there a precedent of approval (review or audits) for the demand or subregional model used to generate matrices?
Yes (no further documentation needs to be supplied).
No (proceed to part B below). Does the NZTA agree that a full model review is not feasible for the activity? Yes (provide evidence of a check that the incoming data from the strategic demand model is reasonable. No further review is required). No (proceed to part C below). Full model review A description of the model, including: the model type and reasons for choosing the model the zoning system and geographic coverage of the study area time periods used in the model.

C
1.

2.
A specification of data sources, including: travel surveys: sample sizes, biases and validation transport network data: digital maps, inventory surveys, timetables, etc. demographic and employment data.

3.
A report of the model specification and estimation, including: variables, equations and coefficients outputs of statistical estimation procedures.

5.
4. Evidence of validation, including:
fit to independent data comparison with other models sensitivity tests/elasticities.
Record of model applications ideally includes evidence of a successful history of model application
6. Other (please specify)
Page A1421
Worksheet A1 Discounting and present worth factors

Worksheet A1.1 Benefits and costs time streams Option (1) Time (years from time zero) Benefits (4) Travel time savings VOC savings Accident cost savings Vehicle emissions reductions Reduced driver frustration Monetised external impacts (list) 0 1 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Base date (2) 1 July Time zero (3) 1 July
Costs (5) Land Investigation Design Construction Annual maintenance Periodic maintenance Operating Environmental mitigation Contingency Risk mitigation
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Page A1422
Worksheet A1 Discounting and present worth factors continued

Worksheet A1.2 Discounting and update factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 Activity option Base date Time zero Type of benefit or cost Year of estimate (1 July) Single payment (a) Amount (b) Time (n) (c) SPPWF for time (n) (d) PV time zero (a) x (c) 6 Single payment (a) Amount (b) Time (n) (c) SPPWF for time (n) (d) PV time zero (a) x (c) 7 Uniform series (a) Annual amount (b) Start time (s) (c) End time (e) (d) USPWF for (s) years (e) USPWF for (e) years (f) PV time zero (a) x [(e) (d)] 8 Arithmetic series (a) Initial amount (time zero) (b) Arithmetic growth rate (c) Start time (s) (d) End time (e) (e) USPWF for (s) years (f) USPWF for (e) years (g) AGPWF for (s) years (h) AGPWF for (e) years (i) PV time zero (a) x [(f) (e) + (b) x {(h) (g)}] 9 10 11 Total PV time zero Update factor for year of estimate Total PV time zero at base date (9) x (10)
Page A1423
Worksheet A2 Traffic data

Worksheet A2.1 Route data
Activity option (1)
Length
Description
Traffic direction (5)
Gradient
Road surface
Road roughness (8)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(7)
Page A1424
Worksheet A2 Traffic data continued

Worksheet A2.2 Summary of surveys on traffic data
1 Road section/movement Start date of survey (2) Location of survey station (3) Type of survey (4) Method of survey (5) Survey time period (6) Survey duration (7)
Page A1425

Worksheet A2.3 Surveyed average annual daily traffic
Road section/movement
A Calculating AADT from individual surveys Date of survey (2) Week (3) Week factor (4) ADT (5) AADT (6) = (4) x (5)
B Averaging AADT from all surveys in each year combined 7 Year 8 AADT
9 Average
Page A1426

Worksheet A2.4 Time zero traffic volume and growth rates 1 Activity option
2 Road/section/movement 3 Time period Year (4) AADT or average volume (5) 6 Constant 7 X coefficient 8 R square Regression output
Average volume Traffic volume
Time zero volume
1980
1985
1990
1995 Year
2000
2005
9 Time zero 10 Time zero traffic volume 11 Growth rate at time zero
Page A1427

Road section/movement (1)
AADT (2)
Traffic count control group (3)
Day (4)
Day factor (5)
Traffic volume (6) = (2) / (5)
Page A1428

Worksheet A2.6 Part day traffic volumes
Day
Time interval
Traffic volume
Day factor
Week factor
Part day traffic volume (7) = (4) x (5) x (6)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Page A1429

Worksheet A2.7 Traffic volume forecasts 1 Activity option Road section/ movement Time period Growth period Number of years Vehicle class Start traffic volume Diverted, generated or intermittent traffic volume ) (7) (veh/ (8) ) Adjusted start traffic volume Growth rate (%) Finish traffic volume
(veh/ (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(veh/ (9)
) (10)
(veh/
(11) = (8) x [(1.0 + (9) x (5)
12 Assumptions
Page A1430

Worksheet A2.7 Traffic volume by vehicle class
AADT
Time period Traffic volume Car (veh/ ) (5) (6) LCV
Vehicle classes MCV HCV I HCV II Bus
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Page A1431

Worksheet A2.8 Speed cycles and delay traffic data
Time period
Vehicle class
FSTT High min/km km/h
SCC Low (km/h)
Stops (number)
(km/h)
Queuing or bottleneck delay (min)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Page A1432

Worksheet A2.9 Occupancy and travel purpose traffic data
Time period (2)
Occupancy (persons/vehicle) (3)
Percent working (4)
Percent commuting (5)
Percent other non-working (6)
Page A1433
Worksheet A3 Travel time estimation

Worksheet A3.1 Peak interval traffic for a given time period 1 Activity option
2 Road section movement 3 Time period 4 Length of time interval (min) 5 Number of intervals in time period 6 Traffic volumes by interval Interval time Traffic volume
Total traffic volume in all intervals 7 Average time period traffic intensity 8 Peak interval start time 9 Peak interval end time 10 Length of peak interval (minutes) = (9) (8) 11 Peak interval traffic volume (vehicles) 12 Peak interval traffic intensity (vehicles/hour)
Page A1434
Worksheet A3 Travel time estimation continued

Worksheet A3.2 Motorway travel time
Activity option
2 Road section movement 3 Time period 4 Section length Characteristic of motorway section 5 Design speed 6 Number of through lanes 7 Proportion of trucks 8 Terrain type 9 Free speed 10 FSTT (9) / 60 11 Basic capacity 12 PCU equivalent for trucks 13 Truck adjustment factor 14 Capacity (11) x (13) 15 VC ratio 16 Peak interval additional travel time 17 TPATT 18 Bottleneck delay 19 SCC travel time 20 Time period total average travel time (4) x [(10) + (16) + (17)] + (18) + (19) Appendix A3.17 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.5 Appendix A3.6 Appendix A3.22 min/km min/km min min min Appendix A3.9 Appendix A3.9 Appendix A3.9 min/km veh/h Appendix A3.4 km/h min/km pcu/h Worksheet A2.1 Reference km/h km
Page A1435

Worksheet A3.3 Multilane roads travel time 1 Activity option
2 Road section movement 3 Time period 4 Section length 5 Posted speed limit Characteristic of motorway section 6 Basic free speed Reduction 7 Dividing median present 8 Lane width 9 Lateral clearance 10 Number of access points per km 11 Sum of basic free speed reduction (7) + (8) + (9) + (10) 12 Adjusted free speed (6) (11) 13 FSTT 60/(12) 14 Capacity 15 VC ratio 16 Peak interval additional travel time 17 TPATT 18 Bottleneck delay 19 SCC travel time 20 Time period total average travel time (4) x [(13) + (16) + (17)] + (18) + (19) Appendix A3.10 Appendix A3.17 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.5 Appendix A3.6 Appendix A3.22 min/km min/km min min min Appendix A3.5 km/h m km/h
Yes
No
km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h min/km veh/hour/lane
metres metres per kilometre
Page A1436

Worksheet A3.4(a) Two-lane rural road free speed 1 Activity option Road section/ movement (2) Description of road section (3) Section length Design speed Travel time at design speed (min) (6) = 60 x (4) / (5)
(4)
(5)
7 Total length sum of (4) 8 Total travel time - column (6) 9 Average design speed (7) / (8) x 60 10 Free speed (Appendix A3.6) 11 FSTT 60 / (10)
km min km/h km/h min/km
Page A1437

Worksheet A3.4(b) Two-lane rural road travel time 1 Activity option
2 Road section 3 Time period 4 Section length 5 Total traffic volume in time period 6 Proportion of traffic in peak direction 7 Free speed travel time Characteristic of rural road (Appendix A3.11) 8 Directional distribution ratio 9 Total roadway width 10 PCU equivalent for trucks (based on terrain) level metres Worksheet A3.4(a) Adjustment Worksheet A3.4(a) % min/km km
rolling
mountainous
pcu %
11 Proportion of trucks 12 Truck adjustment factor 1 / [1 + (4) x {(10) 1}] 13 Capacity 2800 (8) (9) (11) 14 Capacity of traffic in peak direction (13) x (6) 15 VC ratio 16 Percentage of no passing 17 Peak interval additional travel time factor 18 TPATT 19 Bottleneck delay 20 SCC travel time 21 Time period total average travel time Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.18 Appendix A3.5 Appendix A3.6 Appendix A3.22 Appendix A3.17
veh/h veh/h
% min/km min/km seconds min min
Page A1438

Worksheet A3.5 Calculating the bottleneck delay 1 Activity option
2 Road section/movement 3 Time period 4 Length of time interval (min) 5 Capacity (vehicles/interval) Interval start time Demand (vehicles) Cumulative demand (vehicles) (8) Vehicles discharged (vehicles) (9) Cumulative discharge (vehicles) (10) Queue at end Queue at start Average delay of interval of interval (veh/min)
(6)
(7)
(11)
(12) = (8) (10)
(13) = [(11) + (12)] / 2 x (4)
14 Time period total delay = sum of average delay per interval (13) 15 Time period average delay per vehicle (vehicle/ minutes) = (14) / final cumulative total volume of vehicles discharged (10)
Page A1439

Worksheet A3.6 Speed change cycle additional travel time
Activity option
2 Road section/movement 3 Length of the SCC section 4 Free speed 5 Curve radius 6 FSTT for the SCC section = FSTT for whole section (from earlier worksheets) x (3) 7 TPATT for the SCC section = TPATT for whole section (from earlier worksheets) x (3) Vehicle f1 x a 1 type a0 a2 Operating speed for speed change cycle (km/h) (f1 x a1) x (4) + a0 + a2 / (6) 60 / [(6) + (7)] (8) Car LCV MCV HCV I HCV II Bus 0.5833 0.4395 0.4222 0.3702 45.21 54.51 51.77 59.16 -3892 -3337 -3245 -3506 -3768 -3506 (9) Ideal travel speed (km/h) Speed change cycle travel time by vehicle type (appendix A5) (10) m km/h m min/km min/km
0.2807 69.57 0.3702 59.16
14 SCC travel time for speed SCC section = sum of SCC travel time by vehicle type (10)
Page A1440

Worksheet A3.7 Other urban road travel time 1 Activity option
2 Time period Road section/ movement (3) Section length (4) Design category (5) Function category (6) Road classification (7) Free speed (km/h) (8) FSTT (min) (8) / (60 x (4) (9)
Page A1441

Worksheet A3.8 Traffic signal delay 1 Activity option
2 Road section 3 Time period 4 Approach 5 Lane width 6 Number of lanes 7 Approach grade 8 Parking manoeuvres 9 Locality type 10 Signal type 11 Lane with factor 12 Approach grade factor 13 Parking factor 14 Locality factor 15 Saturation flow rate 2000 x (11) x (12) x (13) x (14) 16 Arrival type 17 Delay adjustment factor 18 Time period average delay 19 Total time period delay (sum (18) for all approaches) 20 Traffic volume for the intersection 21 Average delay per vehicle (19) / (20) minutes vehicles per time period minutes per vehicle
Page A1442

Worksheet A3.9 Priority intersection and roundabout delay
Activity option
2 Road section/movement 3 Time period 4 Approach 5 Priority 6 Movement and control 7 Average speed <60 or 60km/h 8 Conflicting traffic volume during peak interval 9 Critical gap 10 Minimum headway in conflicting flow (either 2.0 seconds or 0.5 seconds) 11 Follow up headway 0.2 x (9) + 2.0 12 Capacity (veh/h) [3600 / (11)] x exp [- (8) x (9) / 3600] 13 Volume to capacity ratio (8) / (12) 14 Peak interval average travel time 15 Total time period average travel time for the section (sum of (14) for all approaches) 16 Traffic volume for the intersection 17 Average delay per vehicle (15) / (16) minutes vehicles per time period minutes per vehicle
Page A1443
Worksheet A4 Travel time cost savings

Option Road section/ movement Time period Time periods per year Road category Vehicles per time period Total travel time (min) Travel time cost Congestion cost Trip time ($/hour) ($/hour) reliability cost ($/period) (8) (9) (10) Total cost/year ($)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(11)
Page A1444
Worksheet A5 Vehicle operating cost savings

Worksheet A5.1 Unit vehicle operating costs Time period Option Section/ Section movement length (m) Average gradient (%) Surface roughness (IRI) Vehicle type Section speed VC ratio Base cost Pavement Congestion Speed changes and (cents/km) related related stops cost cost (cents/km) (cents/km) Minimum Additional speed cost (km/h) (cents) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Queuing delay Section cost (cents)
Time (min)
Fuel (cents)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Page A1445
Worksheet A5 Vehicle operating cost savings continued

Worksheet A5.2 Vehicle operating cost savings Time period Option Section/ movement Time units Period Time units per year Vehicle type Vehicles per time unit (7) Section cost (cents) Total cost per year ($) (8) (9)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Page A1446
Worksheet A6 Accident cost savings

Worksheet A6.2 Accident by accident analysis do-minimum Option Movement category 1 Do-minimum mean speed Posted speed limit Do-minimum Fatal 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Number of years of typical accident rate records Number of reported accidents over period Fatal/serious severity ratio (tables A6.19(a) to (c)) Number of reported accidents adjusted by severity (4) (5) Accidents per year = (6)/(3) Adjustment factor for accident trend (table A6.1(a)) Adjusted accidents per year = (7) x (8) Underreporting factors (tables A6.20(a) and (b)) Total estimated accidents per year = (9) x (10) Accident cost, 100km/h limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((1) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (13) + (14) x [ (12) (13) ] Accident cost per year = (11) x (15) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (16) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) $ Vehicle involvement Road category Traffic growth rate Severity Serious Minor Non-injury
Page A1447
Worksheet A6 Accident cost savings continued

Worksheet A6.3 Accident by accident analysis option Option Movement category 2 Option mean speed Posted speed limit Option Fatal 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Percentage accident reduction Percentage of accidents remaining [100 (18)] Predicted accidents per year (11) x (19) Accident cost, 100km/h limit (tables A6.21(e) to (h)) Accident cost, 50km/h limit (tables A6.21(a) to (d)) Mean speed adjustment = ((2) 50)/50 Cost per accident = (22) + (23) x [(21) (22)] Accident cost per year = (20) x (24) Total cost of accidents per year (sum of columns in row (25) fatal + serious + minor + noninjury) $ Severity Serious Minor Non-injury Vehicle involvement Road category
Page A1448

Worksheet A6.4(a) Accident rate analysis (PV based on the first year accident prediction) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (appendix A6.6) Go to step 8. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 7 8 9 10 11 12 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (4a) x (5a) Accident trends factor for adjusting typical accident rate (appendix A6.5 method B) Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (8) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B) Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT (7) x (9) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Total accident cost per year (10) x (11) Traffic growth rate Time zero
Page A1449

Worksheet A6.4(b) Accident rate analysis (using accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate in time zero (accidents per year), AT (appendix A6.6) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years QMinor (9) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 13 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 QMajor (10) AT (appendix A6.6) Accident cost per year (11) (12) = (8) x (11) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
Page A1450

Worksheet A6.4(c) Accident rate analysis (using exposure-based accident prediction equation) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate in time zero (accidents per year), AT (4a) x (5a) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 11 Period years 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 Exposure (8) AT ( 9) Accident cost per year (10) = (7) x (9) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
PV accident cost savings [(c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12)] = $
Page A1451

Worksheet A6.5(a) Weighted accident procedure do-minimum (PV based on the first year accident prediction) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of years of accident records Number of reported injury accidents over period Number of accidents per year (2)/(1) Trend adjustment factor (table A6.1(a)) Site-specific accident rate (accidents per year), AS (3) x (4) Accident prediction model Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (formula from appendix A6.6) Go to step 13. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 12 13 14 15 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (7a) x (8a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,dm (9a) x (10a) Accident trend factor for adjusting typical accident rate, ft (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (13) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT,dm (12) x (14)*
Weighting factor 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 k value (appendix A6.6) Reliability of accident history, X (default is 1.0) Reliability of accident prediction model or equation, M (default is 1.0) Weighting factor, w, (17)2 x (16) / ((17)2 x (16) + (18)2 x (15)) Do-minimum weighted accident rate, AW,dm [(19) x (15)] + [1 (19)] x (5) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Total do-minimum accident cost per year (20) x (21)
Page A1452

Worksheet A6.5(b) Weighted accident procedure do-minimum (using accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Number of years of accident records Number of reported injury accidents over period Number of accidents per year (2)/(1) Trend adjustment factor (table A6.1(a)) Site-specific accident rate (accidents per year), AS (3) x (4) Accident prediction model Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,dm (formula from appendix A6.6) Weighting factor k value (appendix A6.6) Weighting factor, w, (13) / [(13) + ((12) x (1))] years of accident records*
* For all mid-block analyses, the typical accident rate (12) must be divided by the mid-block length (in km) for calculation of the weighting factor only.
15 16
Do-minimum weighted accident rate at time zero, AW,dm [(14) x (12)] + [1 (14)] x (5) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22)
Analysis years
Period years
Qminor (17)
Qmajor (18)
AT,dm (19)
AW,dm (20)
Accident cost per year (21) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits
2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30
22 22 PV accident cost savings [(c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12)] = $
Page A1453

Worksheet A6.5(c) Weighted accident procedure do-minimum (using exposure-based accident prediction equation) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 Number of years of accident records Number of reported injury accidents over period Number of accidents per year (2)/(1) Trend adjustment factor (table A6.1(a)) Site-specific accident rate (accidents per year), AS (3) x (4) Go to step 13. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (7a) x (8a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (9a) x (10a) Accident trend factor for adjusting typical accident rate, ft (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (12) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT,dm (11) x (13)*
Weighting factor 15 16 17 18 k value (appendix A6.6) Weighting factor, w, (15) / [(15) + (14) x (1)] years of accident records Do-minimum weighted accident rate at time zero, AW,dm [(16) x (14)] + [1 (16)] x (5) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years Exposure (19) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 AT ,dm (20) AW,dm (21) Accident cost per year (22) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5
23 PV accident cost savings [(c1 x 6 x 0.74) + (c2 x 6 x 0.46) + (c3 x 6 x 0.29) + (c4 x 6 x 0.18) + (c5 x 6 x 0.12)] = $
Page A1454

Worksheet A6.6(a) Weighted accident procedure option (PV based on the first year accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Site-specific accident rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT (formula from appendix A6.6) Go to step 8. Exposure-based accident prediction equation 1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,opt (4a) x (5a) Accident trend factor for adjusting typical accident rate, ft (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (8) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT,opt (7) x (9) Weighting factor Do-minimum weighted accident rate, AT,dm (from worksheet A6.5) Do-minimum weighted accident rate, AW,dm (from worksheet A6.5) Option weighted accident rate, AW, opt (10) x (12) / (11) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Total option accident cost per year (13) x (14) Traffic growth rate Time zero
Page A1455

Worksheet A6.6(b) Weighted accident procedure option (using accident prediction models) Option Posted speed limit Road category Accident prediction model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Table used Parameter b0 Parameter b1 Parameter b2 Lowest or side road AADT (Qminor) Highest or primary AADT (Qmajor) Typical accident rate in timer zero (accidents per year), AT (appendix A6.6) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years Qminor Qmajor AT,opt AW,dm AW,dm from from A6.5(b)(20) A6.5(b)(19) (12) (13) AW,opt Accident cost per year (15) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
(9) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 16 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30
(10)
(11)
(14)
Page A1456

Worksheet A6.6(c) Weighted accident procedure option (using exposure-based accident prediction equations) Option Posted speed limit Road category Exposure-based accident prediction equation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Table used Coefficient b0 (/108 vehkm or /108 vehicles) Cross section adjustment factor from table A6.13 (1.0 for no adjustment) Adjusted coefficient (2a) x (3a) Exposure at time zero (108 vehkm or 108 vehicles) Typical accident rate (accidents per year), AT,opt (4a) x (5a) Accident trends factor for adjusting typical accident rate (appendix A6.5 method B). Adjustment factor for accident trend (1 + (8) x (time zero year 2006) (appendix A6.5 method B). Typical accident rate per year adjusted for accident trends, AT (6) x (8) Cost per reported injury accident (table A6.22) Analysis years Period years Exposure * (11) Year 4 benefits Year 10 benefits Year 16 benefits Year 22 benefits Year 28 benefits 17 2 to 7 8 to 13 14 to 19 20 to 25 26 to 30 AT,opt (12) AW,dm from A6.5(c)(21) (13) AT,dm from A6.5(c)(20) (14) AW,opt* (15) Accident cost per year (16) c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 Traffic growth rate Time zero
* Cap traffic volume if above or below traffic volume bans specified for each model.
Page A1457

Worksheet A6.7 Accident rate analysis (urban routes) Option Posted speed limit Road category Midblock road type AADT range Length in Current km AADT L (1) Local street commercial land use Collector commercial land use Collector other land use Two and four lane arterial commercial land use Two and four lane arterial other land use Motorway (each direction) Four-lane divided rural road (each direction) (2) (3) Qc (4) AADT after Qd (5) Parameter Do-minimum accident rate b1 (7) Option accident rate Change in link accident rate AL = A c Ad Intersection adjustment factor AT = AL x 2 (11) = (10) x 2 Cost per reported injury accident Az (table A6.22) (12) Accident cost per link type C = AT x Az (13) = (11) x (12)
b0 (6)
Ac = b0 x Qcb1 x L Ad = b0 x Qdb1 x L
(8) = (6) x (4)(7) (9) = (6) x (5)(7) (10) = (8) (9) x (3) x (3)
<3000
2.53 x 104 2.24 x 105 3.46 x 105 7.66 x 106 1.34 x 104 2.96 x 107 3.55 x 107
0.98 1.08 1.08 1.20 0.88 1.45 1.45
AT = AL
2000 to 8000 2000 to 8000 3000 to 24,000 3000 to 24,000 15,000 to 68,000 15,000 to 68,000
AT = AL AT = AL
Page A1458

Worksheet A6.8 Accident rate analysis (rural two-lane HCV) Option Posted speed limit Road category Road section AADT Terrain Length in km Current HCV HCV AADT Do-minimum Option HCV (table A6.14) AADT after HCV exposure exposure L Tc Td Xc = Tc x L x Xd = Td x L x 365/108 365/108 (7) = (5) x (4) (8) = (6) x (4) x 365 / 108 x 365 / 108 Parameter Do-minimum Option Change in accident rate accident rate link accident rate b0 (table A6.14) (9) Ac = b0 x Xc Ad = b0 x Xd AL = A c Ad Cost per reported injury accident Az (table A6.22) (13) Accident cost per link type C = AL x Az
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(10) = (9) x (7)
(11) = (9) x (8)
(12) = (10) (11)
(14) = (12) x (13)
Page A1459
Worksheet A7 Vehicle passing options

Worksheet A7.1 Passing lane strategy analysis Activity option Initial analysis year Road section Subsection number Subsection name Start Finish Length Growth rate Analysis year + 5 years + 10 years AADT + 15 years + 20 years + 25 years
Page A1460
Worksheet A7 Vehicle passing options continued

Worksheet A7.2 Passing lane strategy analysis summary Activity option Initial analysis year Road section Subsection Generalised Generalised Terrain type number gradient curvature (4) (5) (6) PSD % (7) Method (8) Analysis year BCR Spacing + 5 years 2.0 Spacing + 10 years BCR Spacing Passing lane spacing strategy and BCR (9) + 15 years BCR Spacing + 20 years BCR Spacing + 25 years BCR Spacing
Page A1461
Worksheet A7 Vehicle passing options continued

Worksheet A7.3 Individual passing lane analysis Activity option 1 Costs Do-minimum Activity option 2 Data Passing lane spacing (5, 10 or 20km) Terrain type (see table A7.5) Analysis year AADT (vehicles/day) Traffic growth (per year) Percentage PSD (proportion) Passing lane length Heavy vehicles (proportion) COV of speed (proportion) 3 Calculations Travel time, VOC savings (figure A7.7, adjusted using table A7.9 and table A12.2) Driver frustration benefits (figure A7.8, adjusted using table A7.10 and table A12.2) Base road used benefits (E + F) Passing lane length factor (table A7.11) Passing lane length adjustment (G x H) Heavy traffic adjustment I x [1 + (C 0.12)] Adjust for COV of speed J x [1 + (D 0.135) x 2.5] Accident cost savings (figures A7.9 to A7.12, adjusted using table A7.12 and table A12.2 or by accident by accident analysis) Benefit (K + L) Costs (B A) 4 BCR (Y/Z) C ( 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ E F G H I J K L Y Z km C D % km $ $ A B
Page A1462
Worksheet A8 External impacts

Worksheet A8.1 External impacts summary 1 Activity option Nature of impact (2) Description of impacts (3) Basis for valuing impacts (4) Value of impacts (5)
6 7
Annual value of monetised impacts (undiscounted) Present value of monetised impacts (annual value x 11.70)
$ $
Page A1463
Worksheet A8 External impacts continued

Worksheet A8.2 Analysis of environmental mitigation measures
Activity option Description of mitigating measure (2) Effect being mitigated (3) Costs of measure (4) Benefit of measure (5) BCR (6) = (5) / (4)
Page A1464
Worksheet A8 External impacts continued

Worksheet A8.3 Road traffic noise Activity option Facility affected Number of households/ frontage length (m) (3) Ambient noise level (db(a)) Predicted noise level (db(a)) Predicted change (db(a)) Noise design level (from table A8.1, db(a)) Variance from design guideline (db(a))
(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6) = (5) (4)
(7)
(8) = (5) (7)
Page A1465
Worksheet A9 Vehicle emissions

Worksheet A9.1 Component vehicle emissions
Activity option (do-minimum or option) Road section Time period
2 Road section length (km) 3 Travel time (min/vehicle) 4 Average road section speed (km/h) 5 AADT 6 Percentage light (Passenger + LCV) 7 Percentage heavy (MCV + HCVI + HCVII + Bus) Emission (8) CO CO CO CO NOX NOX NOX NOX PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 VOC VOC VOC VOC Light Heavy 5.53 x 10-4 3.07 x 10-4 Emission component total Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) Light Heavy 2.45 x 10
-5
Vehicle (9) Light Heavy
A (10) 3.6 x 10-3 6.47 x 10

-4
B (11) -0.545 -0.11
C (12) 25.5 7.31
Rate (13)
Weighted (14)
Emission component total Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) Light Heavy 2.46 x 10
-4 -3
Add light and heavy (14)
-0.0287 -0.275
2.04 x 10
Emission component total Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) -0.00342 -0.0455
3.82 x 10-4 Emission component total
Emission rate: (15) x (2) x (5) -0.081 -0.0584 3.55 3.30 Add light and heavy (14)
Page A1466
Worksheet A9 Vehicle emissions continued

Worksheet A9.2 Vehicle emissions summary
Option (1)
Time period (3)
Vehicle emission (5)
Emission rate (6)
Emission load (7)
Monetised impact (8)
Page A1467
Worksheet A10 National strategic factors

1 Activity option
Nature of factor (2)
Description of factor (3)
Basis for valuing factor (4)
Value of factors (5)
6 PV of national strategic factors
Page A1468
Worksheet A13 Risk analysis

Worksheet A13.1 Summary of benefit risks A tick () should be placed alongside any risk which is judged to be either low or high. Where detailed information on risks is unavailable for the subcategories, an overall assessment should be given in the shaded row for the risk category as a whole. Low rating Benefit risks 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Base travel demand Age of data source Data scope Data quantity and statistical reliability Data validation Travel composition Other Growth forecasts High city population growth Development-related traffic as proportion of scheme traffic Time series projection Other Assignment Other future activities Path derivation method Routeing parameters Supply relationships Convergence Other Accidents Proportion of benefits accounted for by accidents Observed accident sample size Judgemental accident reduction risk Other High rating
Page A1469
Worksheet A13 Risk analysis continued

Worksheet A13.1 Summary of cost risks A tick () should be placed alongside any risk which is judged to be either low or high. Where detailed information on risks is unavailable for the subcategories, an overall assessment should be given in the shaded row for the risk category as a whole. Low rating Cost risks 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8 8.1 8.2 9 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Environmental and planning Tngata whenua issues Emissions Landscape and visual Ecological effects Archaeological and historic sites Social networks and severance Economic/amenity impacts on land users Natural hazards Other Land and property Property acquisition Property economic value Other Earthworks Knowledge of ground conditions Complex/unpredictable conditions Road design form Extent of topographical data Source and disposal of material Other Other engineering costs Engineering complexity Other Services Existence, location and condition Site flexibility Cooperation of utilities Other High rating
Page A1470

Worksheet A13.1 Summary of other risks A tick () should be placed alongside any risk which is judged to be either low or high. Where detailed information on risks is unavailable for the subcategories, an overall assessment should be given in the shaded row for the risk category as a whole. Low rating Cost risks 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 High rating
Page A1471

Worksheet A13.2(a) Identified high risks
Road category (a)
Description (b)
Estimated impacts on benefits and costs (c)
Implications (d)
Recommended actions (e)
Page A1472

Worksheet A13.2(b) Relative risk indicators
Risk category
Cost risk
Benefit risk
Programming risk
Other relative risk indicators
(RC =)
(RB =)
(RBCR =)
Page A1473

Worksheet A13.3 Project cost contingencies
Cost item
Expected cost ( $)
Contingency ($)
Total expected cost and overall contingency Confidence attributable to contingency

This should be expressed as the likelihood that the outturn costs would exceed the total estimated cost including the contingency.

Eem1 Jan2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eem1 Jan2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economic evaluation manual (volume 1)

Document management plan

Amendments (minor revisions) Review (major revisions) Notification

Geoff Dangerfield Chief Executive

3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 4.0

Checking growth constraint or variable matrix methods A1121 A121 A121

A1459 A1462 A1465 A1467 A1468

1.1 1.2 1.3

Description Purpose Contents

Economic evaluation as a input into the funding assessment

Evaluation procedures in two volumes

Evaluation of road activities Simplified procedures for road activities

Guidance on input values

2.0 Basic concepts

Social cost benefit analysis and financial analysis

Social cost benefit analysis and financial analysis

Economic costs and shadow pricing

Parking and land use

Primary benefit Road

Combined benefit values National strategic factors

Double counting of benefits

Disbenefits during implementation/ construction

Methods to disaggregate impacts among socio-economic groups or geographical areas include:

Quantifying and valuing external impacts

Mitigation of external impacts

Present value and discounting

Treatment in cost benefit analysis

Lower discount rate sensitivity test

Present value and discounting continued

Use of discount factors

Base date for costs and benefits

Do-minimum and benefit and cost differentials

Future costs in the do-minimum

Benefit and cost differentials

Benefit cost ratios

National benefit cost ratio

Benefit cost ratios continued

Government benefit cost ratio

Incremental cost benefit analysis

Costs = (option B) (do-minimum)

Option A 3000 PV benefits

Costs= (option A) (do-minimum)

Incremental cost benefit analysis continued

Procedure for calculating the incremental benefit cost ratio

Target incremental benefit cost ratio Sensitivity testing of incremental analysis

Incremental cost benefit analysis continued

(140110) / (3015) (260110) / (4515) (345260) / (6545) (420345) / (10065)

2.0 5.0 4.3 2.1

First year rate of return

Uncertainty and risk

Uncertainty and risk continued

Methods for sensitivity and risk analyses

Alternatives and options

Need to consider alternatives and options

Features to mitigate external impacts

Land Transport Management Act 2003, sections 20(2)(e) and 76(e).

Validation of transport models

Transport models continued

Evaluating congested networks and induced traffic effects

Other inputs to funding assessment

Other inputs to funding assessment continued

Accessibility and mobility

Various measures of accessibility are: