May 10, 2011

1. Life-cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis of Alternatives for Accommodating Heavy Truck Traffic in the Las Vegas Roadway Network Dr. Alexander Paz, P.E. Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Nevada, Las Vegas Naveen Kumar Veeramisti, E.I. Pankaj Maheshwari, P.E. Graduate Student Department of Civil Engineering University of Nevada, Las Vegas Presentation TRB 13th Planning Applications Conference, Reno, NV May 10, 2011

2. Introduction • Increase in truck traffic volume • - Increased congestion • Reduced safety • American trucking agency-ATA,2008 • - Year 1998 : 5,000 to 10,000 trucks on I-15 • - Year 2017 : 10,000 to 20,000 trucks on I-15 • Mixed traffic – increased congestion • - Perceived safety of passenger cars • - Truck travel productivity less in mixed traffic (trucking agencies) 1998 2017

3. Freeway Truck Crashes in LV Freeway Truck Crashes density NDOT Crash Data – 2002-2006 -Less safe

4. Systems Approach Traditional Approach Systems Approach Traditional approach

5. Why Macro-Meso-Micro Modeling Micro Model Describes Finer Dynamic Details Volume Static Model Describes Overall Average Actual System Dynamics DTA Model Describes System Structural Pattern Time Period of Interest

6. Why not TDM? • The static characteristic of the TDM precludes capture key dynamic phenomena . . . • TDM uses 4-step model to forecast travel demand • TDM aggregates all modes of origin destination matrices before traffic assignment step • There is no difference in a passenger car and a truck after assignment as it assigns the aggregate demand

7. Scenarios 1. Base Case – Do Nothing 2. Truck Alternatives • Truck Restricted Lane • Truck Only Lane • Truck Only Toll Lane • Bypass (Corridor of Future) • Bypass A – both PCs and trucks • Bypass A1 – only trucks • Bypass B

8. Base Case – Do Nothing Scenario

9. Network • Input • Network • Origin • Destination • Control • Demand – 7 to 9 AM, 547,000 vehicles • System Components • Freeways, arterials, collectors, interchanges • 215 Beltway - 53 mi • I-15 - 42 mi • US-95 - 42 mi • TAZ’s - 696 (initially 1,646) • Nodes - 9129 • Links - 16582 • Control - 791

10. Need for Calibration?

11. 87 % of link counts are within the 15% Error range. Acc. To FHWA Primer Vol. III, 85%

12. Alternatives • Truck Restriction (TR) – Trucks forced to travel in one lane and passenger cars allowed in all lanes • Truck Only lane (TOL) – Trucks allowed in all lanes and passenger cars not allowed in one lane (i.e)truck lane • Truck Only Toll (TOT) – Trucks allowed in all lanes and have to pay toll to travel in truck lane. Passenger cars not allowed in truck lane • Bypass – New route bypassing Las Vegas metropolitan area to avoid I-15 congestion. Passenger cars and trucks allowed to travel in all lanes • Truck Bypass – New route bypassing Las Vegas metropolitan area to avoid I-15 congestion. Only trucks allowed to travel in all lanes

13. Truck Restriction, Truck Only Lane & Truck Only Toll Toll I-15 Corridor considered for Analysis of Alternatives

14. Bypass A (all vehicles) and • Bypass A1(only trucks) • Bypass B (all vehicles)

15. Travel Time Costs • Annual network travel time • Hourly travel time costs by vehicle class – Sinha and Labi, 2007 • Travel time costs for 2007 is converted through inflation rate

16. Travel Time Cost • Annual network travel time cost – trucks • Annual network travel time cost – autos • Weekday travel time cost • Weekend travel time cost

17. Travel Time Cost

18. Crash Costs • Crash Evaluation using IDAS methodology • Crash rates (R) from v/c ratio • Link length (L) in miles (from network) • Daily Volume (V) computed from peak hour volume (peak hourly volume = 8% of ADT) • Crash Costs = Fatal * 4,107,200 + Injury * 107,910 + PDO * 9,062 in 2007 dollars

19. Crash Cost

20. Emissions Cost • Emission Rates – California Air Resources Board (CARB) and EMFAC 2007 Model • Emissions Pollutants • Emission Factors - based on vehicle speed • Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), • Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), • Sulfur Oxides (SOx), • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and • Particulate Matter (PM10)

21. Emissions Costs

22. Fuel Consumption Costs • Fuel consumption – IDAS Methodology • Fuel Consumption rates (FC) based on link speed • Link length (L) in miles (from network) • Daily Volume (V) computed from peak hour volume (peak hourly volume = 8% of ADT) • Annual fuel consumption cost

23. Fuel Consumption Costs

24. Vehicle Operating Costs • VOC estimates • medium auto and truck cost values in cents/vehicle mile. • components used included fuel and oil costs, maintenance and repair costs, tire costs and depreciation/mile

25. Construction Costs • Construction cost factors – NDOT report • Construction cost of alternatives

26. Salvage Value • The service life of a new freeway facility is assumed to be 40 years • Salvage value at the end of analysis period is taken as 0.58*Initial construction cost • Recommended remaining capital value factors – MDOT B/C Program, 2010 • Salvage value

27. Depreciation • The annual depreciation(Straight Line) is given as D = (P-S)/23 where: P = Initial cost S = Salvage value • The annual depreciation cost is converted to present value in year 2007

28. Life-Cycle Economic Analysis • Costs linearly interpolated for years 2008-2013, 2013-2020 and 2020-2030 • Costs converted to Net Present Value (NPV)

29. Life-Cycle Economic Analysis: Net Benefits

30. Life-Cycle Economic Analysis: Benefits - Costs

31. Conclusions • DTA methodology was effective for analysis of truck alternative • Reducing the capacity of PCs by one lane cause significant congestion and increase in travel time for TOL and TOT alternatives • Bypass A (all vehicles) and Bypass A1 (trucks only) alternatives provide benefits in travel time • Cost of constructing new facility might be high

32. Conclusion • Ranking of Alternatives: • Truck Restriction (TR) • Truck Only Lane (TOL) • Bypass A1 • Truck Only Toll (TOT) • Bypass A • Base Case • Bypass B

33. Acknowledgements • NDOT • RTC Southern Nevada • University Transportation Center, UNLV • Mr. Brian Hoeft and Mr. Gang, RTC-FAST • Ms. Beth Xie, RTC • Mr. Bardia, CH2MHILL • Dr. Yi-Chang Chui, University of Arizona

34. Thank You!