Keith Vodden Dr. Douglas Smith - Transports Canada

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A—Detail on Calculations of the Ontario Model It seems clear that different types of drivers will place different values on time spent in congested traffic. However, it appears highly unlikely that data would be available to support a more detailed analysis of how willingness to pay to avoid delays might vary across different types of drivers. As a result, our approach draws on the mainstream literature. In this literature, the lower bound would be a value of 50% of the 2004 market wage ($9). The upper bound from Transport <strong>Canada</strong>’s Urban Congestion in <strong>Canada</strong> (2006-Table 1) gives a value of $32.25 per hour for Ontario in 2004. In our calculations below, we use $20.60 per hour, the average of these two values as an average value for all road users. c) Additional fuel use Incremental fuel costs result from delays (slower speeds), stopping (frequent with lane closures) and detour distances. The COMPASS data provide the duration of lane and road closures and the traffic volumes at the time of the incident. From this, we have estimated idle times and detour/slower driving. The current congestion cost model uses a stop time of two hours (or the duration of closure whichever is smaller) and a slow driving/detour time of one hour (or the duration of closure whichever is smaller). From the U.S. Department of Transportation, we used an estimate of 2.25 litres of gasoline for each hour spent idling. For detours and delays, we used an average fuel efficiency amount of 11.25 litres per 100 km. Based on this fuel efficiency, each hour of detour and delay, in addition to time stopped, consumes 5.5 litres of fuel. Fuel costs of 76.6 cents per litre (from Ontario Ministry of Energy historical price data) are used in the model for 2004. d) Additional Pollution A further social cost of traffic delays caused by collisions is the pollution associated with extra burning of fossil fuels during the delay. It is widely recognized that traffic congestion generally, and specifically from collision, contributes to increased levels of exposure to vehicle emission-related pollutants. Vehicle drivers and passengers will feel the negative impacts during traffic delays. The non-driving public may also experience a degradation in the air quality in the area of the collision. Generally, the costs will be larger in urban areas where roadways are contiguous to large numbers of residences and persons. There is evidence in the literature that for passengers, pollution levels inside stopped and idling vehicles, in a group of stopped vehicles, may be from two to eight times higher than when moving at the speed limit. Any policy-related measures to reduce collision-related congestion will reduce the health risks to vehicle occupants and will also reduce general population risk in urban areas. The extensive literature on air pollution shows that the benefits of risk reduction related to reduced air quality are substantial. These benefits relate primarily to emissions of air pollutants such as hydrocarbons (HC), CO, NO x , as well as emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). In this project, we have estimated incremental emissions related to motor vehicle collisions in TNS Canadian Facts, Social and Policy Research 151
Analysis and Estimation of the Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Collisions in Ontario Ontario and then valued these additional emissions using widely cited estimates from the environmental policy literature. The most widely cited report on air quality and valuing benefits is provided by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1999) estimating the benefits of the U.S. Clean Air Act in preventing premature deaths and illness due to reduced air quality. For greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Pearce (2005) and Tol (2005) provide estimates of the benefits of emission reductions designed to be used in a cost-benefit context (that is, as we are using the estimates). Their estimates are in the range of C$2.70 to C$17.50 per tonne of CO 2 emitted. In this project, we have used an average of these numbers of C$10 per tonne of CO 2 as the value for this parameter. This literature and the environmental economics literature more generally indicate that these values are likely to be higher in the future. The air pollution literature contains many benefit estimates associated with reductions in Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs). In the case of GHG emissions including automobiles, this literature suggests that damages related to health effects account for a large fraction of the total value of what are referred to as ancillary benefits (that is benefits associated with GHG reductions that go beyond climate change). In this project, we have used a value of just over C$8 per tonne of CO 2 as the value for the ancillary benefits (air quality) parameter. The source for this estimate is a study for Resources for the Future, a leading environmental research institution, by Burtraw and Toman (1998). This means that the benefits of reducing incremental motor vehicle emissions associated with traffic incidents consist of C$10 per tonne of CO 2 plus an additional $8 per tonne of CO 2 to reflect air quality (CAC) benefits (as opposed to CO 2 climate change benefits). This latter value reflects the damage costs related to CAC emissions per tonne of CO 2 . Note that the CAC damage estimate of $8 per tonne, from the work of Resources for the Future, is $8 per tonne of CO 2 , not $8 per tonne of the major (non-diesel) motor vehicle pollutants (HC, CO and NO x ). Average emissions (pounds per mile), according to EPA data are as follows: • CO 2 -- 0.916 pounds. • HC -- 0.0033 pounds. • CO -- 0.033 pounds. • NO x -- 0.005 pounds. As these numbers clearly indicate, emissions of the CAC pollutants are much smaller per mile than for CO2. Put somewhat differently, one tonne of CO2 emissions will be accompanied by approximately eight pounds of HC emissions (0.0033/0.916*2205). Alternatively 2407 vehicle miles implies one tonne of CO2 and eight pounds of HC. 152 TNS Canadian Facts, Social and Policy Research
Page 1 and 2:
TP 14800F Analysis and Estimation o
Page 3 and 4:
APPENDIX A: DETAIL ON CALCULATIONS
Page 5 and 6:
• Large truck. Collisions involvi
Page 8:
ABBREVIATIONS CAC Criteria Air Cont
Page 11 and 12:
Analysis and Estimation of the Soci
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 22 and 23:
III ONTARIO MODEL This chapter desc
Page 24 and 25:
Ontario Model redistribution. Simil
Page 26 and 27:
Ontario Model • Pedestrian Injure
Page 28 and 29:
Ontario Model Based on this analysi
Page 30 and 31:
Ontario Model Step 3 Allocate addit
Page 32 and 33:
Ontario Model damaged based on this
Page 34 and 35:
Ontario Model 1. Number of total an
Page 36 and 37:
Ontario Model 2.99; specialist—1.
Page 38 and 39:
Ontario Model 5. Tow trucks Tow tru
Page 40 and 41:
Ontario Model Exhibit III-5 Core WT
Page 42 and 43:
Ontario Model We combine this value
Page 44 and 45:
Ontario Model 6. Ambulance The Onta
Page 46 and 47:
Ontario Model individuals who self-
Page 48 and 49:
Ontario Model threatening injury, p
Page 50 and 51:
Ontario Model d) Additional Polluti
Page 52 and 53:
Ontario Model VARIABLE DATA LOST TI
Page 54:
Ontario Model We have no data to gu
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 64 and 65:
V ONTARIO SUB-MODELS AND THEIR SOCI
Page 66 and 67:
Ontario Sub-Models and Their Social
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110: Analysis and Estimation of the Soci
Page 120: Appendix A Detail on Calculations o
Page 159: Analysis and Estimation of the Soci
Page 168 and 169: APPENDIX B: MAKING CHANGES TO THE M
Page 170 and 171: Appendix B—Making Changes to the
Page 172 and 173: Appendix B—Making Changes to the
Page 174: Appendix C The Value of Human Conse
Page 184 and 185: APPENDIX D: VALUE OF HUMAN CONSEQUE
Page 186 and 187: Appendix D—Value of Human Consequ
Page 196: Appendix D—Value of Human Consequ
Page 200 and 201: APPENDIX E: REFERENCES Audrey, J. a
show all

Keith Vodden Dr. Douglas Smith - Transports Canada

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?