Economic Pre-Feasibility Study For a: Howse Pass Highway
Final Report October 12, 2005
Prepared by: Dr. Khalid Bekka Vice-President, HDR | HLB Decision Economics Inc. 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 910, Silver Spring, MD, www.hlbde.com
Bruce Schollie, MBA, CMC President, Schollie Research & Consulting 4603 - 50th Street, Red Deer, AB, www.schollie.com
Town of Rocky Mountain House
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an economic pre-feasibility study to determine the costs and benefits associated with constructing a new highway in an area of Alberta and British Columbia known as the Howse Pass. The objective of this study is to perform a high-level assessment that will help determine whether the investment is worthy of advancement to the next stage of study.
The idea of a Howse Pass Highway has been studied and promoted over the past 50 years but a cost-benefit analysis has never been conducted. The highway would link Alberta’s Highway 11 to the Trans-Canada Highway near Donald, British Columbia. This would relieve congestion on, and provide an alternate route to the 2 main existing east-west highways; Highway 1 and 16. The new highway would also reduce the travel distance from Central Alberta to Vancouver by 95 kilometers. Traffic diverted to the Howse Pass Highway would traverse the ecologically-sensitive Banff National Park for a mere 34 kilometers compared to 126 ‘National Park’ kilometers on the Highway 1 route and 76 ‘National Park’ kilometers on the Highway 16 route.
In May 2005, Clearwater County, in partnership with Alberta Economic Development, the Town of Rocky Mountain House, and Lacombe County hired Schollie Research and Consulting and HDR | HLB Decision Economics to conduct an independent analysis of the costs and benefits associated with constructing a highway over the Howse Pass. The methodology for this study is summarized below: 1. Review past research and studies on the pros and cons of the Howse Pass Highway; 2. Research and analyze traffic volumes, patterns and flows, economic, and demographic data for the study area; 3. Develop a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) model in a risk analysis framework, allowing for the estimation of costs and benefits associated with Howse Pass Highway construction. Include the following categories of costs and benefits in the CBA: Ø Direct cost of Howse Pass crossing construction; Ø Cost of roadway maintenance; Ø Cost of road overpass/underpass crossing construction; Ø Travel time cost savings; Ø Accident cost savings; Ø Vehicle operating cost savings; and Ø Vehicle emission cost savings. 4. Conduct a Risk Analysis Process (RAP) workshop session with project stakeholders; 5. As needed, modify model structure and update probability distributions of all assumptions based on expert panelists’ inputs; and 6. Run Monte Carlo simulation, apply appropriate discount rate, and calculate the cost/benefit ratio of the Howse Pass construction. HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY · i SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Results of the cost-benefit analysis demonstrate that the net present value of the Howse Pass Highway project over twenty years, using a 10% discount rate, exceeds $210 million dollars. In terms of benefit cost ratio, the analysis shows that for each dollar spent on this project, there is $2.14 in benefits. These results translate to a rate of return of 21.2%. For a public infrastructure investment, these results are highly significant and highlight the worthiness of the project.
The assessment of uncertainty in the forecasts lends further weight to the Howse Pass Highway as a worthy investment from an economic perspective. Based on the assignment of probabilities to all of the various technical assumptions entailed in the forecasting process, the table below indicates the Howse Pass Highway project offers the public over a 90% assurance of generating more benefits than costs.
Summary of Results Using Risk Analysis Most Likely 90% Probability of 10% Probability of In Millions of 2005 Dollars Outcome Exceeding Exceeding Total Benefits $394.5 $275.5 $522.7 Total Project Costs $184.1 $159.8 $210.4 Net Benefits (NPV) $210.4 $89.2 $339.5 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.14 1.45 2.92 Internal Rate of Return 21.2% 14.8% 27.3%
The economic pre-feasibility study answers the worthiness question but it relies on existing documentations, secondary data, and conservative estimates. Now that the findings of the pre-feasibility show that the project benefits may out weight its costs, it is recommended that a closer look should be given to this project as it may result in substantial economic benefits to the region. The following next steps are recommended:
1. Conduct a survey of key shippers and freight forwarders in the region to assess their likelihood and willingness to use the Howse Pass Highway as a shipping route if it is available. The survey should be based on a scientific sample representing key industries within specific urban areas in both Alberta and British Columbia; 2. Estimate traffic demand based on the survey findings and other potential changes in traffic characteristics in the region; 3. Conduct an economic and financial feasibility study of the Howse Pass Highway based on the newly developed traffic demand forecast to determine the worthiness of the project based on primary data and scrutinized assumptions. This study can also include an assessment of whether the Howse Pass Highway can be financially feasible as a toll road; 4. If successful, the study should lead to meetings with different stakeholders to brief them on the findings and gather their concerns and issues, including the national park officials as well as environmentalist groups. This step will identify the measures to be taken to change the existing policy(ies) on highway in national parks for this specific project (given its economic importance) and identify mitigation measures to address stakeholders concerns.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY · ii SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary...... i
List of Figures...... iv
List of Tables...... iv
1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Study Objective and Methodology Overview...... 1 1.2 History and Description of the Howse Pass area...... 2 1.3 The Case for the Howse Pass Highway...... 3 1.4 Past Efforts to Advance the Howse Pass Highway Concept...... 5 1.5 Plan of the Report...... 5
2. HLB Methodology...... 6
3. Study Findings...... 8 3.1 Benefits Estimates...... 8 3.2 Project Worthiness...... 9 3.3 Risk Analysis...... 10
4. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations ...... 12 4.1 Concluding Remarks...... 12 4.2 Recommendations ...... 12
Appendix A - Cost Benefit Model Inputs...... 14 A.1 Costs of Construction for the Howse Pass Highway...... 14 A.2 Benefits of Howse Pass Highway Construction...... 15 A.2.1 Travel Time Cost Savings ...... 15 A.2.2 Accident Cost Savings...... 15 A.2.3 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings ...... 16 A.2.4 Vehicle Emission Cost Savings...... 17 A.3 Key Assumptions...... 19 A.3.1 Overview ...... 19 A.3.2 Assumption Ranges ...... 20
Appendix B - RAP Primer...... 22
Appendix C – Benefit Categories By Year And Vehicle Type...... 27
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY · iii SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Risk Analysis Process Overview...... 7 Figure 2: Howse Pass Highway AADT Projections ...... 8 Figure 3: Benefits breakdown over the life-cycle of the investment...... 9 Figure 4: Discounted Net Benefits Over Twenty Years...... 9 Figure 5: Risk Analysis Results of the Investment Net Present Value ...... 10 Figure 6: Risk Analysis Results of the Investment Benefit Cost Ratio ...... 11 Figure 7: Structure and Logic Diagram for Estimating Highway User Costs for a Segment of a Route in the Base/Alternate Scenario...... 18 Figure 8: Example of a Structure and Logic Model, an Illustration...... 23 Figure 9: Combining Probability Distributions...... 25 Figure 10: Risk Analysis of the Travel Time Cost Savings, an Illustration...... 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Findings ...... 10 Table 2: Summary of Results Using Risk Analysis ...... 12 Table 3: Data Sheet for the Value of Time, an Illustration ...... 24 Table 4: Risk Analysis of the Travel Time Cost Savings, an Illustration...... 26
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES · IV SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Objective and Methodology Overview Over the past 50 years, the Howse Pass has been studied and promoted as a potential location for a new highway that would link Alberta’s Highway 11 to the Trans-Canada Highway near Donald, British Columbia. This highway would provide an alternate route to the 2 main existing east-west highways; the Trans-Canada (Highway 1) and the Yellowhead (Highway 16). The new highway would also reduce the travel distance from Central Alberta to Vancouver by 95 kilometers and would relieve congestion on other routes.
The Howse Pass Highway idea has not progressed beyond study and promotion largely because the continual expansion and improvement of existing routes has been viewed as adequate. However, with traffic growth continuing unabated, and the costs of continued improvement to existing routes grows, a highway over the Howse Pass merits further consideration.
In May 2005, Clearwater County, in partnership with Alberta Economic Development, the Town of Rocky Mountain House, and Lacombe County funded an independent analysis of the costs and benefits related to a highway over the Howse Pass. This approach is used in situations when the proposed highway investment is at a conceptual stage and a high-level assessment will help determine whether the investment is worthy of advancement to the next stage. The next step would likely be a financial feasibility study and an environmental assessment. This report outlines the findings of this cost-benefit analysis.
In particular, the objective of this study is to perform an independent economic pre-feasibility in a risk analysis framework to assess the costs and benefits associated with the construction of mountain road through the Howse Pass. The assessment of the cost and benefits of this investment consists of the following: · Reviewing all Howse Pass Highway studies; · Research traffic, demographic, and socio-economic data from available sources; · Estimate the comprehensive social benefits and costs; · Account for uncertainty in the model parameters and assumptions; and · Engagement of various stakeholders.
In this analysis, routes from Edmonton to Kamloops and from Red Deer to Kamloops are examined. Kamloops is used as a destination point for the analysis since it is a common destination for the Yellowhead route and the Trans-Canada route and the routes west of Kamloops to Vancouver are non-incremental to the analysis. The following existing routes and the routes expected to emerge if the Howse Pass Highway is constructed are included in the analysis:
Existing Current Routes Origin-Destination Highways Distance 1. Red Deer - Kamloops via Rocky Mountain House AB Highway 11, 93, Trans-Canada Highway 760 Km. 2. Red Deer - Kamloops via Olds /Cochrane AB Highway 2, 27, 22, Trans-Canada Highway 747 Km. 3. Red Deer - Kamloops via Calgary AB Highway 2, Trans-Canada Highway 760 Km. 4. Edmonton - Kamloops AB Highway 16; BC Highway 5 808 Km.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 1 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Emergent Routes Origin-Destination Highways Distance 5. Red Deer - Kamloops via Howse Pass AB Highway 11, 93, Howse Pass, Trans-Canada 665 Km. 6. Edmonton - Kamloops via Howse Pass AB Highway 2, 11, 93, Howse Pass, Trans-Canada 813 Km. 7. Edmonton - Kamloops via Howse Pass AB Highway 2, 39, 22, 11, 93, Howse Pass, Trans-Canada 790 Km.
The route analyses model does not consider diversion of traffic from other western Canadian points such as Winnipeg which may now be routed through the United States or Calgary. Although not considered in the model, a Howse Pass Highway will likely divert some traffic from these areas as there would be some distance savings from Winnipeg to Vancouver route using the Howse Pass Highway. The analysis also assumes that there will be no significant traffic diversion originating from Calgary to a Howse Pass Highway.
Each of the existing routes is assessed under the Base and Alternative scenario. The Base scenario assumes that no Howse Pass Highway is built, while the Alternative scenario assumes Howse Pass Highway is in place and traffic diversion from the existing routes to the emergent ones has occurred.
The Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is performed in order to quantify the worthiness of the Howse Pass construction. The cost/benefit ratio is a ratio of the present value of the costs associated with Howse Pass highway construction and operation to the present value of the benefits accruing to highway users from the crossing. The costs of Howse Pass highway construction include the following:
§ Direct cost of Howse Pass highway construction; § Roadway maintenance costs; § Cost of road overpass/underpass crossing construction. The benefits of Howse Pass highway construction (i.e., the denominator of the cost/benefit ratio) include the savings to highway users from using the emergent route instead of the current route to Kamloops, whether from Edmonton or from Red Deer. The following are the highway user cost savings categories estimated in this analysis:
§ Travel time cost savings; § Accident cost savings; § Vehicle operating cost savings; and § Emission cost savings. 1.2 History and Description of the Howse Pass area The Howse Pass is named after Joseph Howse, a Hudson’s Bay Company trader who crossed the Pass in 1809 two years after its discovery by David Thompson. The Pass is located approximately 14 kilometres south west of the Saskatchewan River. A sign and roadside turnout just south of Saskatchewan River Crossing on highway 93 offer a view of the Pass.
In 1871, Walter Moberly, a surveyor for the Canadian Pacific Railway, concluded that the Howse Pass was the best location for a railway line. However, it was later decided to use the Kicking Horse Pass. The 1918 Alberta/British Columbia Inter-provincial Survey concurred with Moberly:
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 2 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The Howse Pass is of lower altitude than Kicking Horse (by 319 ft.) it has no steep approaches and will some day be found suitable for a trunk motor road from the Columbia to the prairies, the feasibility of using the pass for such a road or for a railway having already been established.1
In 1927, The Howse Pass area was established as part of Banff National Park and was designated a national historic site in 1978.
The potential start point of the new 66 kilometer highway would be on Alberta Highway 93 approximately 1 mile south of Saskatchewan River Crossing. Once over the Howse Pass, the route follows the Blaeberry River in a south west direction and connects to Highway 1, 13 kilometers south of Donald, British Columbia. The full distance of the Howse Pass highway from the highway 93 start point to Highway 1 is 66 kilometers of which 24 kilometers are in Alberta and 42 are in British Columbia. The 24 kilometer section in Alberta is within Banff National Park. The majority of the proposed route on the British Columbia side is currently a logging road.
1.3 The Case for the Howse Pass Highway Roads connecting British Columbia with the rest of Canada have long been recognized for their strategic importance in connecting Canada. These strategic trade corridors provide access to ports and terminals that allow participation in ever expanding international trade routes as well as enhance inter-provincial trade and commerce.
British Columbia is Canada’s leading gateway for Asia-Pacific trade. Transportation networks that support the flow of goods to Asia-Pacific countries are critical. B.C.’s Ports handle half of Canada’s maritime exports and 85% of the western Canadian provinces’ marine exports ranging from grain and other agricultural products, coal and forest products to petroleum and petro-chemicals - about $35 billion per year. It is expected that by 2020, port traffic will grow significantly: · A 300% increase in container import/ export traffic. · A 55% increase in resource exports.2 In a competitive world marketplace, inadequate transportation infrastructure along this east-west trade corridor results in trade and general economic development to be diverted through US highways and ports. This diversion weakens Canada’s competitive advantage. Banff National Park and the mountainous region are barriers in the east-west trade corridor.
Increasing traffic volume on the Banff to Golden segment of the Trans-Canada Highway has led to congestion and above-average accident and fatality rates. For example, Banff National Park attracts over 5 million visitors per year and traffic volume since 1997 has grown by about 3% per year. On the two-lane section of the Trans Canada Highway south of Lake Louise, the percentage of fatal accidents was 5 times higher than other two-lane highways in Alberta in 2000-2002, and has twice as many collisions. The segment of the Trans Canada Highway east of Golden experiences 2.3 times the accidents rate expected.
1 See http://www.colwest.ca/snowy/snowy-history.html 2 British Columbia Ports Strategy, Final March 2005. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development. HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 3 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
In response to addressing traffic bottlenecks along the Trans-Canada highway between Banff and Golden, several major highway investments are proposed and/ or underway: · By 2009, the British Columbia government will replace bridges and twin a 25 kilometer section of the Trans-Canada Highway from Golden to the Yoho Park west Boundary. The estimated cost of this project is $730 million. · About 33 kilometers of the Trans Canada Highway between Castle Mountain Junction and the Alberta-British Columbia border is scheduled to be twinned over the next 10 years at a cost in excess of $160 million. The first section to be twinned will be the 10-12 kilometers east of Lake Louise. The cost of this is estimated at $50 million of which one-third is for environmental protection measures.
It is likely that the combined final cost of the two highway projects above will be in excess of $1 billion. Once completed, the segment of the Trans-Canada Highway between the Alberta-British Columbia boarder the Yoho National Park West boundary will still be 2-lane and will likely emerge as the next traffic bottle neck requiring upgrading. The current and planned twinning improvements are playing ‘catch-up’ to address long-standing safety and congestion problems. It is likely that by the time the current improvements are complete, the need for triple-laning and further improvements will emerge.
A Howse Pass highway has several advantages that will emerge in the short and long term: · For traffic originating or passing through Central Alberta, the Howse Pass Highway would reduce the distance to Vancouver by 95 kilometers resulting in travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and a reduction in vehicle emissions in the ecologically sensitive Banff National Park. · In the short term, some traffic would be diverted away from current routes through the National Parks. This will alleviate congestion, accidents, and vehicle emission concentration. Traffic diverted to the Howse Pass highway would travel in Banff National Park for a mere 34 kilometers of which 24 kilometers would be new highway. This compares to 126 ‘national park’ kilometers (Yoho and Banff National Parks) on the Banff-Lake Louise-Golden route, and 78 kilometers on the Jasper route. · Over the longer term, as Central Alberta develops as a distribution centre, traffic on the Howse Pass highway will grow rapidly. The development of a new trade corridor will help to mitigate the need for further twinning and eventual three-laning of the existing routes. On a net basis, development of the Howse Pass highway will leave a much smaller ‘footprint’ on Banff National Park than will the perpetual improvements to the existing routes. · The Howse Pass highway provides a safer, more predictable, and easy pass than the current route through the Kicking Horse Pass. The Kicking Horse Pass section of the Trans Canada Highway is prone to road closures due to land slides, avalanches, and traffic accidents. It also has higher grades and elevation than the proposed Howse Pass route.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 4 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
1.4 Past Efforts to Advance the Howse Pass Highway Concept The Howse Pass Highway idea has been examined and promoted at various points over the past 50 years. Despite this promotion and lobbying, the idea has not been advanced beyond the idea phase. Reasons for this failure to advance the concept appear to fall into the following themes:
· Promotion by Central Alberta municipalities has not been successful in obtaining serious and sustained interest at the provincial level. · The Government of British Columbia has shown limited interest and opposition was shown by the Golden and District Chamber of Commerce. · At the federal level, support has not been forthcoming and a National Parks Policy clearly prohibits new highway development in Banff and Jasper National Park. · The Howse Pass Highway idea is not seriously considered in assessments and studies of improvements to east-west highways. Typically, the idea is summarily dismissed as an alternative to improving existing routes such as Trans-Canada Highways 1 and 16. · While a few reports have demonstrated support for the Howse Pass idea, funding has never been obtained to conduct a thorough, substantive research project to objectively assess the idea. · Continuing highway improvements in Banff and Jasper National Parks along with increasing commercial development has sensitized the environmental community to any further developments in the national parks. As such, there has been and will continue to be strong opposition from environmental groups to any new highways in national parks.
The project steering committee convened a meeting with an environmental activist who expressed opposition to development of a highway through the Howse Pass. The activist also stated that further efforts to advance the Howse Pass Highway concept will be met with vigorous opposition and stated that their opposition would be on the following grounds: · The Howse Pass is the last undeveloped east-west valley and should be preserved as such. · The Howse Pass area is important for animal migration, wintering habitat, and breeding for many species including elk, grizzly bears, mountain goats, and wolves. · The Highway will lead to follow-on development in the relatively undeveloped “Bighorn Country” area. This further development will degrade and devalue one of Alberta’s key natural assets.
1.5 Plan of the Report This introduction is followed by Chapter 2 which provides an overview of the methodology used in estimating the costs and benefits associated with a Howse Pass Highway. Chapter 3 outlines the study findings and Chapter 4 provides concluding remarks and recommendations for the next steps. Appendices at the end of the report provide supporting information.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 5 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
2. HLB METHODOLOGY
HLB’s methodology relies on reviewing previous Howse Pass studies, traffic, demographic, and economic data from available sources, and on previous HLB research and analysis. The methodology employs a comprehensive benefits and costs estimating model, in a risk analysis framework.
In summary, HLB’s approach comprises the following steps:
1. Research and analyze available project documentation and previous studies on pros and cons of Howse Pass Highway construction; 2. Research and analyze traffic volumes, patterns and flows, economic, and demographic data for the study area from available data sources (British Columbia and Alberta Ministries of Transportation; House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario; The Red Deer Chamber of Commerce; British Columbia Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development; Western Provincial Transportation Ministers Council; Government of Alberta, The Ministry of Finance; etc.); 3. Develop a Cost-Benefit Analysis model in a risk analysis framework, allowing for the estimation of costs and benefits associated with Howse Pass construction. Include the following categories of costs and benefits in the CBA: Ø Direct cost of Howse Pass crossing construction; Ø Cost of roadway maintenance; Ø Cost of road overpass/underpass crossing construction;
Ø Travel time cost savings; Ø Accident cost savings; Ø Vehicle operating cost savings; and Ø Emission cost savings.
4. Conduct a Risk Analysis Process (RAP) workshop session with project stakeholders. This workshop reviews inputs and assumptions for the Cost-Benefit model and discusses assumptions based on the panel members’ experience; 5. As needed, modify model structure and update probability distributions of all assumptions based on expert panelists’ inputs; 6. Run Monte Carlo simulation, apply appropriate discount rate, and calculate the cost/benefit ratio of the Howse Pass construction; and 7. Report and document the analysis results.
An overview of HLB’s methodological approach is provided in the figure below. Appendix A contains a detailed methodology summary and an outline of the cost and benefit model inputs, assumptions, and formulae.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 6 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure 1: Risk Analysis Process Overview
(FRQRPLFDQG 'DWDFRO HFWLRQ $OEHUWD %ULWLVK HQYLURQPHQWDO &ROXPELD0LQLVWU\RI OLWHUDWXUHRQ+ RZVH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ /RFDO 3DVVFRQVWUXFWLRQ PXQLFLSDOLWLHV HWF
+/%EHQHILWV +/%FRVWV HVWLPDWLQJPRGHO HVWLPDWLQJPRGHO
7UDYHOWL PHFRVW $FFLGHQFW RVW 'LUHFWF RVWR I +RZVH3DVV VDYLQJV VDYLQJV FRQVWUXFWLRQ
&RVRW IRYHUSDVV 9HKLFOHRSHUDWLQJ (QYLURQPHQWDO 5RDGZD\ XQGHUSDVV FRVVW DYLQJV FRVVW DYLQJV PDLQWHQDQFHFRVW FURVVLQJ FRQVWUXFWLRQ
5$3VHVVLRQ
8SGDWHRI+/% IRUHFDVWLQJPRGHO DQGPRGHLOQ SXWV
&RVW%HQHILW $QDO\VLV
&RVW%HQHILW 5DWLR
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 7 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
3. STUDY FINDINGS
3.1 Benefits Estimates As described in the methodology chapter, the study estimates key benefits categories (in terms of travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings, safety savings, and emission savings) and key cost categories over the life cycle of the investments. In this analysis, twenty years was used as the life cycle for the investment. The benefits were estimated for autos, buses, and trucks, separately.
Given the convenience that the Howse Pass Highway will provide in terms of travel time and safety, the analysis predicts that the traffic will grow significantly on the Howse Pass Highway over the next twenty years, from about 1,600 vehicles (average annual daily traffic) to over 3,500 vehicles. Figure 2 provides an illustration of the expected traffic growth if the Howse Pass Highway is built.
Figure 2: Howse Pass Highway AADT Projections
Automobiles Trucks Buses Series1 3,000 4,500 4,000 2,500 3,500 2,000 3,000 2,500 1,500 2,000 1,000 1,500 1,000 500 500 0 0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
The traffic growth on Howse Pass Highway will lead to savings for both the Howse Pass Highway users as well as for the users of existing roadways as some traffic shifts to the Howse Pass Highway. The benefits breakdown is illustrated on Figure 3 while Figure 4 shows the net benefits estimates per year over the twenty- year life cycle.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 8 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure 3: Benefits breakdown over the life-cycle of the investment
Travel Time Savings Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Accident Cost Savings Emission Cost Savings
$65.2
$244.4 $6.1
$78.9
The largest benefit category is vehicle operating cost savings and as such the economic benefit of this investment increases as fuel prices increase.
Figure 4: Discounted Net Benefits Over Twenty Years
Net Benefits, Millions of 2005 Dollars, Discounted
$40.0
$20.0
$0.0
-$20.0
-$40.0
-$60.0
-$80.0
-$100.0
-$120.0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
3.2 Project Worthiness Using a 10% discount rate, Table 1 below shows that the net present value of the Howse Pass Highway project over twenty years exceeds $210 million dollars. In terms of benefit cost ratio, the analysis shows that for each dollar spent on this project, there is over $2.14 in benefits. These results translate to a rate of return of 21.2%. For a public infrastructure investment, these results are highly significant and highlight the worthiness of the project. HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 9 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Table 1: Summary of Findings In Millions of 2005 Dollars, 10% Real Discount Autos Trucks Buses Total Project Benefits Travel Time Savings $43.1 $31.0 $4.8 $78.9 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings $120.2 $115.1 $9.1 $244.4 Accident Cost Savings $52.6 $11.8 $0.7 $65.2 Emission Cost Savings $2.6 $2.2 $1.3 $6.1 Total Benefits $218.5 $160.1 $16.0 $394.5 Project Costs Construction Costs -$179.2 Incremental Maintenance & Repair Costs -$4.9 Total Project Costs -$184.1 Net Benefits (NPV) $210.4 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.14 Internal Rate of Return 21.2%
3.3 Risk Analysis To account for the uncertainty surrounding the key assumptions used in the model, risk analysis was conducted. The risk analysis reveals the spectrum of potential outcomes given its probability of occurrence. In other words, it reveals the magnitude of both the downside and the upside of the project given the possible fluctuations in the assumptions.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 below show risk analysis results for both the net present value (NPV) and the benefit cost ratio. Figure 5 shows that while the most likely NPV for this project (50% probability) is $210 million, there is a 10% probability the NPV will exceed $340. The risk analysis also shows that there is not a significant downside to this investment as the analysis shows that the probability of having a negative NPV is less than 1%.
Figure 5: Risk Analysis Results of the Investment Net Present Value
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
Probability of Exceeding 20% 10% 0% -$200 -$100 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 Net Present Value, Millions of 2005 Dollars
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 10 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Similarly, Figure 6 shows that the investment’s potential benefit cost ratio is significantly above 1. The results show that, with an 80% confidence interval, the benefit cost ratio lies between 1.45 and 2.92. When assessing the downside potential, the results show that there is less that 1% probability that the benefit cost ratio falls below 1.0.
Figure 6: Risk Analysis Results of the Investment Benefit Cost Ratio
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Probability of Exceeding 10% 0% 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 Benefit-Cost Ratio
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 11 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Concluding Remarks This study was commissioned to assess the worthiness of the Howse Pass Highway project given existing data on the project by assessing the economic benefits, costs and net benefits (benefits minus costs) over the coming 20-years. The benefits, costs and net benefits are compared against a common baseline called the “base case.” The base case constitutes the use of existing roadways series while the alternative is the shift of some traffic to use the Howse Pass Highway if built. The simulation results in the study are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Results Using Risk Analysis Most Likely 90% Probability of 10% Probability of In Millions of 2005 Dollars Outcome Exceeding Exceeding Total Benefits $394.5 $275.5 $522.7 Total Project Costs $184.1 $159.8 $210.4 Net Benefits (NPV) $210.4 $89.2 $339.5 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.14 1.45 2.92 Internal Rate of Return 21.2% 14.8% 27.3%
As shown in Table 2, construction of the Howse Pass Highway emerges as a worthy alternative in terms of net contribution to the economic welfare of the region. With economic benefits that exceed the costs of constructing and operating the system (over 20 years) by more $210 million, the Howse Pass Highway creates an estimated $2.14 of economic value for each dollar of incurred cost.
The assessment of uncertainty in the forecasts presented above lends further weight to the Howse Pass Highway as a worthy investment from an economic perspective. Based on the assignment of probabilities to all of the various technical assumptions entailed in the forecasting process, Table 2 indicates the Howse Pass Highway project offers the public over a 90 percent assurance of generating more benefits than costs.
The results of this analysis are based on quantitative inputs of known costs and benefits. Other benefits will likely also accrue as a result of constructing the Howse Pass Highway such as increased tourism, general economic growth, and development in the region.
4.2 Recommendations The economic feasibility study, in general, answers the question of whether the project is worth the investment (regardless of who is paying for it), given the comprehensive assessment of the benefits and costs. Once the worthiness condition is met, the financial feasibility study assesses the affordability condition, including the involvement of the private sector.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 12 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The economic pre-feasibility study answers the worthiness question but it relies on existing documentations, secondary data, and conservative estimates. Now that the findings of the pre-feasibility show that the project benefits may outweigh the costs, it is recommended that a closer look should be given to this project as it may result in substantial economic benefits to the region. It is therefore the recommendations of this study to pursue the following steps:
1. Conduct a survey of key shippers and freight forwarders in the region to assess their likelihood and willingness to use the Howse Pass Highway as a shipping route if it is available. The survey should be based on a scientific sample representing key industries within specific urban areas in both Alberta and British Columbia; 2. Estimate traffic demand based on the survey findings and other potential changes in traffic characteristics in the region; 3. Conduct an economic and financial feasibility study of the Howse Pass Highway based on the newly developed traffic demand forecast to determine the worthiness of the project based on primary data and scrutinized assumptions. This study can also include an assessment of whether the Howse Pass Highway can be financially feasible as a toll road; and 4. If successful, the study should lead to meetings with different stakeholders to brief them on the findings and gather their concerns and issues, including the national park officials as well as environmentalist groups. This step will identify the measures to be taken to change the existing policy(ies) on highway in national parks for this specific project (given its economic importance) and identify mitigation measures to address stakeholders concerns.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 13 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
APPENDIX A - COST BENEFIT MODEL INPUTS
A.1 Costs of Construction for the Howse Pass Highway The costs considered in the estimation of the cost/benefit ratio of Howse Pass construction are the following:
§ Direct costs of Howse Pass construction; § Cost of constructing overpass/underpass crossings for animals; and § Roadway maintenance costs.
The estimate of direct Howse Pass crossing construction cost, outlined in Section A.3.2, includes the following items:
§ 15 large culverts; § 5 large bridges; § 2 interchanges; § 66 km of roadways; and § Environmental studies.
The cost estimate of a square meter of animal migration structure such as an overpass/underpass crossing is outlined in Section A.3.2.
Construction cost estimates were provided by EXH Engineering and are based on their initial review of the Howse Pass area. Construction cost estimates were also discussed and revised by project stakeholders.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 14 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
A.2 Benefits of Howse Pass Highway Construction This section describes the methodology used in the estimation of benefits associated with Howse Pass Highway construction.
A.2.1 Travel Time Cost Savings
Travel time cost is a function of delays and the value of time of highway users. The values of travel time for passenger cars, trucks, and buses assumed in HLB’s model are outlined in Section A.3.2. The value of time is further combined with daily traffic volume on the road segment, length of the segment, and average travel speed to estimate daily travel time costs, as follows: æ (Traff * Length) ö Travel Time Costs = (VOT *(1+CP))*ç ÷ è Speed ø Where, Travel Time Costs total daily travel time costs by period of day and vehicle class; VOT value of time, cost per hour of vehicle travel time by vehicle class; CP congestion premium, additional cost travelers are willing to pay to avoid congestion Traff traffic volume, vehicles by period of day and vehicle class; Length length of the road segment in kilometers; and Speed calculated average travel speed on the road segment by period of day.
Daily travel time costs are further annualized. The difference between the aggregate travel time costs in the Base and Alternate case represents the travel time cost savings attributable to Howse Pass construction.
A.2.2 Accident Cost Savings
Accident costs are based on accident rates and cost-per-accident estimates. Accident rates depend on the facility type and traffic volume. The average cost by accident type is outlined in Section A.3.2. Combining the accident rates with daily vehicle kilometers of travel and costs per accident in the Base and Alternate cases gives daily accident costs. Daily accident costs are estimated as follows: Accident Costs = AccRate*(Traff *Length)* AccCost
Where, Accident Costs total daily accident costs by period of day and accident type; AccRate accident rate by period of day and accident type; Traff traffic volume, vehicles by period of day; Length length of the road segment in kilometers; and AccCost cost per fatal, property damage only, and injury accident.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 15 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Multiplying the estimated daily accident costs by the annualization factor of 365 gives total annual accident costs. The difference between the aggregate accident costs in the Base and Alternate case is the accident cost savings due to Howse Pass construction.
A.2.3 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings
Vehicle operating costs (VOC) are the costs associated with owning, operating, and maintaining a vehicle. HLB’s model distinguishes between two types of VOC:
1) Constant speed vehicle operating costs; and 2) Excess vehicle operating costs.
Constant speed vehicle operating costs include fuel consumption, oil consumption, maintenance and repair, tire wear, and roadway related vehicle depreciation. Each component is a function of vehicle class, travel speed, and roadway geometry. Cost-per-unit estimates for each component are included in Section A.3.2.
The excess vehicle operating costs estimation module combines the results of the demand, pavement profile, traffic, and speed/flow components to compute excess consumption rates.
The excess consumption rates are added to constant speed consumption and multiplied by the pavement adjustment factors and component prices to develop total vehicle operating costs. Total daily vehicle operating costs are calculated as follows:
Vehicle Operating Costs = ((VOCConsRate*(Traff * Length)+ XSVOCCons)*Cost)* PAF
Where, Vehicle operating costs total daily vehicle operating costs by period of day and vehicle class; VOCConsRate VOC consumption rate by period of day, vehicle class, and component type; Traff traffic volume, vehicles by period of day and vehicle class; Length length of the road segment in kilometers; XSVOCCons excess VOC component consumption by period of day, vehicle class, and component type; Cost component cost per liter of fuel, per liter of oil, per tire, average maintenance and repair costs, and vehicle depreciation; and PAF pavement adjustment factor based on pavement condition.
Estimated daily vehicle operating costs in the Base and Alternate cases are further annualized. The difference between aggregate vehicle operating costs in the Base and Alternate case represent the savings in vehicle operating costs due to Howse Pass construction.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 16 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
A.2.4 Vehicle Emission Cost Savings
Emission costs are based on emission rates for autos, trucks, and buses and unit emission costs. Emission rates vary with average travel speed and vehicle type on particular road segment. Cost estimates of one ton of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compound (VOC), nitrous oxide (NOx), and carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as noise cost estimates are outlined in Section A.3.2. Combining traffic volumes, length of the road segment, and average travel speeds, HLB estimates daily costs of CO, VOC, NOx, and CO2 emissions for the Base and Alternate cases as follows:
Emission Costs = (ER*(Traff * Length))*Cost
Where, Emission Costs total daily emission costs by period of day, vehicle class and emission type; ER emission rate by period of day, vehicle type, and emission type; Traff traffic volume, vehicles by period of day and vehicle class; Length length of the road segment in kilometers; and Cost emission cost per ton of volatile organic compound, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide emissions.
The daily emission costs are further annualized. The difference between the aggregate emission costs in the Base and Alternate cases gives the emission cost savings due to Howse Pass construction.
The graphical overview of highway user cost estimation for a segment of a route is illustrated in the following figure. The same cost estimation methodology is applied for all segments of all routes (current and emergent), and under both scenarios (base and alternate).
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 17 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure 7: Structure and Logic Diagram for Estimating Highway User Costs for a Segment of a Route in the Base/Alternate Scenario
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 18 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
A.3 Key Assumptions A.3.1 Overview To preserve transparency and credibility, the assumptions used in this analysis were subject to scrutiny and revision by a panel of stakeholders during a Risk Analysis Process (RAP) session in Rocky Mountain House on June 27, 2005. This chapter provides the key assumptions that are fed to the components of the model while accounting for uncertainty surrounding them (expressed in probability distribution).
The key assumptions driving the results consist of the following:
§ General traffic characteristics:
Ø AADT average annual growth rate;
Ø Traffic distribution by vehicle type;
Ø Traffic distribution by period of day; and
Ø Length of the peak period.
§ Costs associated with Howse Pass construction:
Ø Howse Pass construction cost;
Ø Average roadway maintenance cost; and
Ø Cost of constructing road overpass/underpass crossing.
§ Benefits associated with Howse Pass construction:
Ø Value of time by vehicle type;
Ø Cost per accident by accident type;
Ø Vehicle operating cost by vehicle type and VOC component;
Ø Emission cost by emission type; and
Ø Noise cost.
§ Other inputs:
Ø Average annual inflation rate;
Ø Discount rate;
Ø Elasticity of travel demand with respect to travel cost; and
Ø Average annual population growth in the study area.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 19 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
A.3.2 Assumption Ranges Lower 10% Upper 10% ASSUMPTIONS MEDIAN Limit (note a) Limit (note a) Confidence Interval 10% 90%
Annualization factor 300
Discount rate, % 10.0%
Average annual inflation rate, % 2.50% 1.50% 3.50%
Peak period traffic, % 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Value of time, 2004$/hour inflated into 2005$/hour Automobile $11.0 $7.0 $13.0 Trucks $30.0 $25.0 $35.0 Buses $75.0 $65.0 $90.0
Construction costs, $ Direct Howse Pass construction, 2000$ $146,500,000 $131,850,000 $175,800,000 Animal migration structures, $/overpass $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $10,000,000 Number of overpasses needed 5 Average maintenance and repair cost, 2005$/lane-km/year $4,297 $3,867 $4,727 Lane-kilometers of Howse Pass Highway (note b) 162
Global Origin-Destination Adjustment Factor 75.0% 65.0% 85.0% Origin-Destination Adjustment Factor by Vehicle Type by Route (note c) AUTOMOBILES 1. Red Deer - Kamloops via Rocky Mountain House 33.3% 2. Red Deer - Kamloops via Olds /Cochrane 33.3% 3. Red Deer - Kamloops via Calgary 33.3% 4. Edmonton - Kamloops 100.0% TRUCKS 1. Red Deer - Kamloops via Rocky Mountain House 0.0% 2. Red Deer - Kamloops via Olds /Cochrane 50.0% 3. Red Deer - Kamloops via Calgary 50.0% 4. Edmonton - Kamloops 100.0% BUSES 1. Red Deer - Kamloops via Rocky Mountain House 0.0% 2. Red Deer - Kamloops via Olds /Cochrane 50.0% 3. Red Deer - Kamloops via Calgary 50.0% 4. Edmonton - Kamloops 100.0% Percent of Current Traffic That Will Divert to The Howse Pass Highway (note d) AUTOMOBILES 1. Red Deer - Kamloops via Rocky Mountain House 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% 2. Red Deer - Kamloops via Olds /Cochrane 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% 3. Red Deer - Kamloops via Calgary 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% 4. Edmonton - Kamloops 5.0% 2.5% 10.0% TRUCKS 1. Red Deer - Kamloops via Rocky Mountain House 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% 2. Red Deer - Kamloops via Olds /Cochrane 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% 3. Red Deer - Kamloops via Calgary 20.0% 5.0% 25.0% 4. Edmonton - Kamloops 5.0% 2.5% 10.0%
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 20 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Lower 10% Upper 10% ASSUMPTIONS MEDIAN Limit (a) Limit (a)
BUSES 1. Red Deer - Kamloops via Rocky Mountain House 20.0% 5.0% 30.0% 2. Red Deer - Kamloops via Olds /Cochrane 20.0% 5.0% 30.0% 3. Red Deer - Kamloops via Calgary 20.0% 5.0% 30.0% 4. Edmonton - Kamloops 5.0% 2.5% 10.0%
Route 6 vs. Route 7 Adjustment Factor (note e) 55.0%
Accident costs, 2004$/accident inflated into 2005$/accident Property damage only accident $5,084 $2,700 $6,700 Injury accident $49,340 $13,400 $175,000 Fatal accident $3,590,000 $1,500,000 $6,300,000
Emission costs, 2004$/ton inflated into 2005$/ton CO, $/ton $1,000 $500 $5,000 NOx, $/ton $1,000 $500 $2,000 VOC, $/ton $500 $250 $2,000 CO2, $/ton $25 $10 $100
Vehicle operating costs, 2004$/unit of consumption inflated into 2005$/unit of consumption Auto Fuel, $/liter $0.95 $0.67 $1.00 Oil, $/liter $3.12 $2.65 $3.74 Tire, $/tire $113.43 $96.42 $136.12 Maintenance and repair, average M&R cost $69.55 $59.12 $83.47 Depreciation, depreciable value $18,470 $15,700 $22,160
Truck Fuel, $/liter $0.83 $0.79 $0.88 Oil, $/liter $3.12 $2.65 $3.74 Tire, $/tire $723.89 $610.22 $873.66 Maintenance and repair, average M&R cost $201.88 $172.27 $241.55 Depreciation, depreciable value $128,600 $115,380 $155,320
Bus Fuel, $/liter $0.83 $0.79 $0.88 Oil, $/liter $3.12 $2.65 $3.74 Tire, $/tire $723.89 $610.22 $873.66 Maintenance and repair, average M&R cost $194.86 $166.28 $233.16 Depreciation, depreciable value $295,570 $265,200 $356,980 Note a: Indicates the upper and lower limits of an 80% confidence interval Note b: Lane-kilometers includes highway, passing lanes and interchanges. Note c: Percent of traffic volume distributed on routes with the same origin-destination. For example, it is assumed that one-third of all Red Deer to Kamloops traffic will be distributed in each of routes 1, 2, 3. Note d: For example, it is assumed that between 2.5% and 10% of current automobile traffic between Edmonton and Kamloops will divert to The Howse Pass Highway. Note e: Routes 6 and 7 are alternate routes between Edmonton and Kamloops via the Howse Pass Highway. It is assumed that 55% of Edmonton-Kamloops traffic that is diverted to The Howse Pass Highway will use route 6 and 45% will use route 7 (see route definitions in Section 1.1).
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 21 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
APPENDIX B - RAP PRIMER
Economic forecasts traditionally take the form of a single “expected outcome” supplemented with alternative scenarios. The limitation of a forecast with a single expected outcome is clear -- while it may provide the single best statistical estimate, it offers no information about the range of other possible outcomes and their associated probabilities. The problem becomes acute when uncertainty surrounding the forecast’s underlying assumptions is material.
A common approach is to create “high case” and “low case” scenarios to bracket the central estimate. This scenario approach can exacerbate the problem of dealing with risk because it gives no indication of likelihood associated with the alternative outcomes. The commonly reported “high case” may assume that most underlying assumptions deviate in the same direction from their expected value, and likewise for the “low case.” In reality, the likelihood that all underlying factors shift in the same direction simultaneously is just as remote as that of everything turning out as expected.
Another common approach to providing added perspective on reality is “sensitivity analysis.” Key forecast assumptions are varied one at a time in order to assess their relative impact on the expected outcome. A problem here is that the assumptions are often varied by arbitrary amounts. A more serious concern with this approach is that, in the real world, assumptions do not veer from actual outcomes one at a time. It is the impact of simultaneous differences between assumptions and actual outcomes that is needed to provide a realistic perspective on the riskiness of a forecast.
Risk Analysis provides a way around the problems outlined above. It helps avoid the lack of perspective in “high” and “low” cases by measuring the probability or “odds” that an outcome will actually materialize. This is accomplished by attaching ranges (probability distributions) to the forecasts of each input variable. The approach allows all inputs to be varied simultaneously within their distributions, thus avoiding the problems inherent in conventional sensitivity analysis. The approach also recognizes interrelationships between variables and their associated probability distributions.
The Risk Analysis Process involves four steps:
Step 1. Define the structure and logic of the forecasting problem;
Step 2. Assign estimates and ranges (probability distributions) to each variable and forecasting coefficient in the forecasting structure and logic;
Step 3. Engage experts and stakeholders in assessment of model and assumption risks (the “RAP Session”); and
Step 4. Issue forecast risk analysis.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 22 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Step 1. Define Structure and Logic of the Forecasting Problem
A “structure and logic model” depicts the variables and cause and effect relationships that underpin the forecasting problem at-hand (Figure 8). Although the structure and logic model is written down mathematically to facilitate analysis, it is also depicted diagrammatically in order to permit stakeholder scrutiny and modification in Step 3 of the process (see below).
Figure 8: Example of a Structure and Logic Model, an Illustration
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 23 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Step 2. Assign Central Estimates and Conduct Probability Analysis
Each variable is assigned a central estimate and a range (probability distribution). Special data sheets are used to record the estimates. As can be seen in Table 3, the first column gives the median value while the second and third columns represent the lower and upper limits of an 80 percent confidence interval. In other words, there is an 80 percent probability of finding the actual value of the variable within this range. The greater the uncertainty associated with a forecast variable the wider the range of possible values the variable can take on.
Table 3: Data Sheet for the Value of Time, an Illustration Lower 10% Upper 10% Value of Time Median Limit (a) Limit (a) Car, 2004$/hour 10.5 9.0 12.8
Truck, 2004$/hour 28.8 24.7 35.1
Bus, 2004$/hour 73.9 63.4 90.1 Note: (a) Indicates the upper and lower limits of an 80% confidence interval
Probability ranges are established on the basis of both statistical analysis and subjective probability. Probability ranges need not be normal or symmetrical; that is, there is no need to assume the bell shaped normal probability curve. The bell curve assumes an equal likelihood of being too low and being too high in forecasting a particular value. It might well be, for example, that if a projected growth rate deviates from expectations, circumstances are such that it is more likely to be higher than the median expected outcome than lower.
The RAP computer program transforms the ranges as depicted above into formal probability distributions (or “probability density functions”). This liberates the non-statistician from the need to appreciate the abstract statistical depiction of probability and thus enables stakeholders to understand and participate in the process whether or not they possess statistical training.
From where do the central estimates and probability ranges for each assumption in the forecasting structure and logic framework come? There are two sources. The first is a historical analysis of statistical uncertainty in all variables and an error analysis of the forecasting “coefficients.” “Coefficients” are numbers that represent the measured impact of one variable (say, income) on another (such as retail sales). While these coefficients can only be known with uncertainty, statistical methods help uncover the magnitude of such error (using diagnostic statistics such as “standard deviation,” “standard error,” “confidence intervals” and so on).
The uncertainty analysis outlined above is known in the textbooks as “frequentist” probability. The second line of uncertainty analysis employed in risk analysis is called “subjective probability” (also called “Bayesian” statistics, for the mathematician Bayes who developed it). While a frequentist probability represents the measured frequency with which different outcomes occur (i.e., the number of heads and tails after thousands of tosses), the Bayesian probability of an event occurring is the degree of belief held by an informed person or group that it will occur. Obtaining subjective probabilities is the subject of Step 3.
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 24 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Step 3. Conduct Expert Evaluation: The RAP Session Step 3 involves the formation of an expert panel and the use of facilitation techniques to elicit, from the panel, risk and probability beliefs about: 1. The structure of the forecasting framework; and 2. Uncertainty attached to each variable and forecasting coefficient within the framework.
In (1), experts are invited to add variables and hypothesized causal relationships that may be material, yet missing from the model. In (2), panelists are engaged in a discursive protocol during which the frequentist- based central estimates and ranges, provided to panelists in advance of the session, are modified according to subjective expert beliefs. This process is aided with an interactive “groupware” computer tool that permits the visualization of probability ranges under alternative belief systems.
Step 4. Issue Risk Analysis The final probability distributions are formulated by the risk analyst (HLB) and represent a combination of “frequentist” and subjective probability information drawn from Step 3. These are combined using a simulation technique (Monte Carlo analysis) that allows each variable and forecasting coefficient to vary simultaneously according to its associated probability distribution (see Figure 9, below).
Figure 9: Combining Probability Distributions
% of Daily Traffic in Traffic Peak Period Distribution by Vehicle Type
Jointly Determined Probabilities Value of Time Speed-Flow by Vehicle Function Type Coefficients
F = f (A, B, C, D, ..)
Travel Time Costs ($)
The end result is a central forecast, together with estimates of the probability of achieving alternative outcomes given uncertainties in underlying variables and coefficients (see Figure 10 and Table 4 below).
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 25 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure 10: Risk Analysis of the Travel Time Cost Savings, an Illustration
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
Probability of Exceeding 20% 10% 0% 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Travel Time Cost Savings ($ million)
Table 4: Risk Analysis of the Travel Time Cost Savings, an Illustration Probability of Exceeding Estimated Travel Time Cost Savings, $M Value Shown at Left 2.15 99% 2.31 95% 2.36 90% 2.39 85% 2.41 80% 2.43 75% 2.45 70% 2.46 65% 2.48 60% 2.50 55% 2.52 50% 2.53 45% 2.55 40% 2.57 35% 2.58 30% 2.61 25% 2.63 20% 2.65 15% 2.69 10% 2.74 5% 2.97 1% 2.52 Mean Expected Outcome
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 26 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
APPENDIX C – BENEFIT CATEGORIES BY YEAR AND VEHICLE TYPE
This appendix shows the various benefit categories by year and by vehicle type.
Travel Time Savings, Millions of 2005 Dollars, 2005 - 2027
Autos Trucks Buses
$18.0
$16.0
$14.0
$12.0
$10.0 $8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
VOC Savings, Millions of 2005 Dollars, 2005 - 2027
Autos Trucks Buses
$60.0
$50.0
$40.0
$30.0
$20.0
$10.0
$0.0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 27 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Safety Savings, Millions of 2005 Dollars, 2005 - 2027
Autos Trucks Buses
$14.0
$12.0
$10.0
$8.0
$6.0
$4.0
$2.0
$0.0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
Emission Cost Savings, Millions of 2005 Dollars, 2005 - 2027
Autos Trucks Buses
$1.4
$1.2
$1.0
$0.8
$0.6
$0.4
$0.2
$0.0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027
HDR |HLB DECISION ECONOMICS INC. Economic Pre-feasibility of The Howse Pass Project · 28 SCHOLLIE RESEARCH & CONSULTING