Part IV B: Case Studies Road Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003

Transcription

1 IV B CASE STUDIES ROAD The calculation procedures required to determine the benefit and cost components in the benefit-cost analysis are demonstrated below using a notional case study. Examples from the current FTIP 2003 are drawn upon to show the results of the environmental risk assessment and the spatial impact assessment. The case studies are intended to illustrate the way the results were determined, and were therefore selected on the basis of methodological criteria. 1 Benefit-cost analysis The determination of the benefit contributions of road projects was mainly done by deriving and then summarising route-related impacts. These come from the projectrelated traffic shifts which lead to route volumes rising (project and access routes) or falling (relieved routes) in comparison to the ''without'' scenario. The traffic shifts are determined using complex model simulations which usually produce changes for a large number of routes. The traffic volumes are firstly determined, within the framework of the network calculations, as daily values in workday traffic (ADV-W) and then converted to the 8,760 hours in a year. The values determined for each hour are then further subdivided by eight vehicle types so that a volume of traffic data is generated for each project which can only be managed using data processing techniques. Due to the issue described above, a fictitious bypass with only a few routes was designed for the road case study. In order to enable the flow of calculations to be more comprehensible, the calculation flows for each benefit contribution are only mapped for a selected sample section. For benefit components that are determined based on all of the impacted routes, the combined impacts of all the impacted routes in the case study are combined together. 276

2 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road 1.1 Initial data Project description (case study) The case study designed to demonstrate the calculation flow when determining the benefits for road projects is a 4 km long, two-lane bypass with at-grade junctions. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the project and Table 1 shows the key figures. Sample route - Overview map - Federal highway Regional highway Other road Project Figure 1: Overview map of the case study Project : Thomasburg bypass Road : Type of construction : Project length : Federal highway 02KK New construction, 2-lane, same-level, outside built-up areas 4.0 km Regional planning region : 21 Location in TK grid 4711 Table 1: General description of the case study 277

3 1.1.2 Initial traffic data The traffic data required to determine the benefits is calculated using network calculations for the ''with'' and ''without'' scenarios. The differences in volume, which are interpreted as original project impacts, are found by comparing the results of the ''with'' and ''without'' scenarios. The road network model and the route-specific traffic volumes in the ''without'' scenario are shown in the form of nationwide illustrations in Figure 54 (network model) and Figure 57 (volumes in the without scenario network). Figures 2 to 4 show the volumes applying in the with and without scenarios for the case study, plus the differences in volume between the with and without scenarios. The flow of calculations described below relate to a sample section of the project for which a traffic volume of 12,000 vehicles/workday, of which 700 HGV/workday, has been determined. Sample route Road network volume Vehicular traffic 2015 Without scenario 100 vehicles/workday Figure 2: Volume in without scenario [100 vehicles / workday] 278

4 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Project route Sample route Road network volume Vehicular traffic 2015 With scenario 100 vehicles/workday Figure 3: Volumes in the with scenario [100 vehicles / workday] Volume Road network differences volume Vehicular traffic 2015 With /without scenario Increase 100 vehicles/workday Decrease Figure 4: Differences in volume between the with and without scenarios [100 vehicles / workday] 279

5 1.1.3 Deriving the traffic s distribution over time As a basis for the route-specific impact calculations, the workday traffic volumes per route from the simulation are converted to daily volumes on workdays (201 case differentiations), on holiday-time workdays (101 case differentiations) and on Sundays and bank holidays (63 case differentiations), so that all 365 days in a year are mapped. Curve types are then used to convert the individual daily values to hourly values. Table 2 shows the calculation flow for deriving the hourly volumes occurring throughout the year and selected conversion factors using an hour s example (workday occurring 24 times per year, to 17.00). Altogether, for each route, 365 x 24 = 8,760 different hourly volumes are provided for car and HGV traffic for the calculation processes used to determine the individual benefit components. The traffic volume (vehicles/km) and traffic activity (vehicles/h) are determined for each of the 8,760 hourly values. The route lengths (km) and the hour-specific speeds (vehicles/km) derived from the Q-V diagrams are drawn upon in the process. Table 3 shows the result of the calculation for determining the traffic volume and the traffic activity for a whole year, differentiated by car and HGV traffic. Again, the calculation relates only to the selected sample route. 280

6 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Description Values Initial data Road B xxx Typing Volumes ADTW [Veh./workday] 12,000 Volumes from traffic simulation FTW [HGV/workday] 700 Location of route TK field 5205 Conversion of ADTW to daily traffic each day of the year Ratios of ADT to ADTH and ADTS for the TK field 5205 (example) ADTH/ ADTW 0.96 ADTS / ADTW 0.91 FTH / FTW 0.93 FTS / FTW 0.10 Annual traffic fluctuations Ratio ADTW / ADTW 0.96 for the TK field 5205 Weekday Number days Traffic volume ratio Holiday weekday Number days Traffic volume ratio Sundays/ bank hols Number days Traffic volume ratio Conversion of daily traffic to hourly traffic Daily curve type Veh. traffic Curve type N 0 to % to % to % Freight traffic Curve type C 0 to % to % to % Curve determined via the traffic combinations Traffic volume on 24 weekdays of the year during holiday times between and (example) Veh. traffic : 12,000 * 0.96 * 1.12 * = 902 Veh. per hour HGV traffic : 700 * 0.93 * 1.12 * = 24 HGV per hour Car traffic : 878 Cars per hour Table 2: Determining hourly traffic volumes from the average weekday traffic volumes in the simulation 281

7 Without scenario With scenario Route length [ km ] 0.9 Route description Federal highway Route type [ - ] Simulation volumes Car [ Cars/workday ] 11,300 1,900 HGV [ HGV/workday ] Vehicles [ Vehicles/workday ] 12,000 2,000 Average car volume per day type Per workday [ Cars/day ] 11,300 1,900 Per holiday-time workday [ Cars/day ] 10,847 1,824 Per Sunday and bank holiday [ Cars/day ] 10,499 1,765 All days [ Cars/day ] 11,036 1,856 Average HGV volume per day type Per workday [ HGV/day ] Per holiday-time workday [ HGV/day ] Per Sunday and bank holiday [ HGV/day ] All days [ HGV/day ] Average vehicular volume per day type Per workday [ vehicles/day ] 12,000 2,000 Per holiday-time workday [ vehicles/day ] 11,483 1,915 Per Sunday and bank holiday [ vehicles/day ] 10,569 1,775 All days [ vehicles/day ] 11,610 1,938 Car traffic mileage On workdays [ Pkwkm/year ] ([ car km/year ]) 2,044, ,710 On holiday-time workdays [ Pkwkm/year ] 985, ,780 On Sundays and bank holidays [ Pkwkm/year ] 595, ,098 All days [ Pkwkm/year ] 3,625, ,587 HGV traffic mileage On workdays [ Lkwkm/year ] ([ HGV km/year ]) 126,630 18,090 On holiday-time workdays [ Lkwkm/year ] 57,898 8,271 On Sundays and bank holidays [ Lkwkm/year ] 3, All days [ Lkwkm/year ] 188,495 26,928 Vehicular traffic mileage On workdays [ Kfzkm/year ] ([ vehicle km/year ] 2,170, ,800 On holiday-time workdays [ Kfzkm/year ] 1,043, ,051 On Sundays and bank holidays [ Kfzkm/year ] 599, ,664 All days [ Kfzkm/year ] 3,813, ,515 Traffic activity in car traffic On workdays [ car h/year ] 26,540 3,978 On holiday-time workdays [ car h/year ] 12,730 1,918 On Sundays and bank holidays [ car h/year ] 7,664 1,158 All days [ car h/year ] 46,934 7,054 Traffic activity in HGV traffic On workdays [ HGV h/year ] 1, On holiday-time workdays [ HGV h/year ] On Sundays and bank holidays [ HGV h/year ] 53 8 All days [ HGV h/year ] 2, Traffic activity in vehicular traffic On workdays [ vehicles h/year ] 28,245 4,218 On holiday-time workdays [ vehicles h/year ] 13,509 2,028 On Sundays and bank holidays [ vehicles h/year ] 7,717 1,165 All days [ vehicles h/year ] 49,471 7,411 Table 3: Traffic data on the sample route under consideration 282

8 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road 1.2 Reduction of transportation cost (NB) Decreased vehicle standby costs (NB1) The standby costs are calculated by multiplying the journey time difference in commercial traffic between the ''with'' and ''without'' scenarios by vehicle-specific standby costs ( per vehicle hour), in line with this formula: = NB FT VHK 1 gew ( SK, FG ) ( SK, FG ) S FG SK Where: S f Index road segment SK Index road category FG Index vehicle group FT gew Journey time difference "with" scenario to "without" scenario in commercial traffic [h/year] VHK Standby costs [ /vehicle hour] The calculation for the standby costs NB1 is shown in Table 4, by way of an example, for the volume on the sample route in the "without" scenario. 283

9 Vehicle type Proportion Traffic activity [ vehicles h/year ] Proportion (business/ private) Standby costs Total standby costs [ /veh. h ] [ /year] Petrol engine (PP) 82.8% 38, % , % , Diesel engine (PD) 17.2% 8, % , % , Total cars 100% 46,934 60, Light commercial vehicles (HT) Heavy commercial vehicles (HS) 29.9% , % , Road trains (TH) 16.2% , Articulated vehicles (TA) 13.1% , Coaches (BC) 5.1% Buses (BS) 2.6% HGV 100.0% 2,537 7, Vehicles 49,471 67, Table 4: Transportation and movement costs Standby costs NB1 using the example of the sample route in the "without" scenario 284

10 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Decreased vehicle operation costs (NB2) Person-related operating costs NB2a The person-related operating costs (NB2a) are calculated by multiplying the journey time differences between the "with" and "without" scenarios by vehicle-specific wage costs ( /h), with a differentiation by two car types and six HGV types. The calculation employs the formula: NB 2a FTgew ( FG) LK ( FG) S FG = Where: S Index road segment SK Index road category FG Index vehicle group FT gew Journey time difference "with" scenario to "without" scenario in commercial traffic [h/year] LK Wage costs [ /vehicle hour] The calculation for the person-related operating costs (NB2a) is shown in Table 5, by way of an example, for the volume on the sample route in the "without" scenario. 285

11 Vehicle type Proportion Traffic activity Proportion (business) Wage costs Operating costs NB2a [ vehicles h/year ] [ /h ] [ ] Petrol engine (PP) 82.8% 38, % , Diesel engine (PD) 17.2% 8, % , Total cars 100% 46, , Light commercial vehicles (HT) Heavy commercial vehicles (HS) 29.9% , % , Road trains (TH) 16.2% , Articulated vehicles (TA) 13.1% , Coaches (BC) 5.1% , Buses (BS) 2.6% , Total HGV 100.0% 2,537 58, Total vehicles 49, , Table 5: Transportation and movement costs time-dependent personnel costs in the operating costs NB2 using the example of the sample route in the "without" scenario Mileage-related operating costs NB2b The mileage-related operating costs (NB2b) are determined by multiplying the journey time differences between the "with" and "without" scenarios by vehiclespecific basic operating costs. There are also fuel costs, which are determined using speed-related fuel costs. The calculation employs the formula: NB2 b = ) S FG FL( s ) BGW( FG) + KV( s KT 286

12 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road where KV = KV KV ( s) vg ( s, FG) pl ( s, FG) FG and KV (, ) = FL(, ) TV(, ) s FG FG VZ GFG VZ FG VZ Where: FG Index vehicle group S Index road segment FL Mileage [ Kfzkm/year ] FL Vehicle mileage difference in "with" scenario to "without" scenario [Kfzkm/year] BGW Operating costs base value [ /km] KV Fuel consumption [l/km] KT Fuel costs in the year 2015 [ /l] TV Specific fuel consumption [l/km] VZ Traffic situation index vg Without Scenario pl With scenario The calculation for the mileage-related operating costs (NB2b) is shown in Table 6, by way of an example, for the volume on the sample route in the "without" scenario. 287

13 Vehicle type Proportion Basic operating costs Fuel consumption (speed-dependent) Fuel costs Fuel consumption costs Operating costs NB2b [%] [ /km ] [ /year] [ l/year ] [ l/100 km ] [ /l ] [ /year] [ /year] Petrol engine (PP) , , , , , , Diesel engine (PD) , ,056 21, , ,443 48, Total cars 367, , , Light commercial vehicles (HT) Heavy commercial vehicles (HS) Road trains (TH) Articulated vehicles (TA) , ,177 7, , ,617 15, , ,924 9, , ,556 7, Coaches (BC) 5.1% , , Buses (BS) , , Total HGV 20, ,222 24, Total vehicles 387, , , Table 6: Transportation and movement costs mileage-dependent operating costs in the operating costs NB2 using the example of the sample route in the "without" scenario 288

14 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Changes in transport costs due to modal shifts (NB3) The calculation for the costs resulting from shifts between transport modes (from public transport to road) is done by multiplying accounted, shifted mileages by mean transport mode-related transportation and movement costs ( /person km). The calculation employs the formula: NB3 = VVLÖV IV ( KÖV ( VA) KIV ( VA) ) VA Where: VA VVL K IV ÖV Index of transport type (long-distance passenger, local passenger and longdistance freight) Shifted vehicle mileage Total transportation and movement costs Motorised private transport Public transport Table 7 shows the calculation of the costs through shifts between transport modes (NB3) for the case study. The shifted mileages upon which the calculations are based originate from a complex, modelled simulation which cannot be shown here for reasons of space and proportionality. Please refer to Part III B: Chapter for more details. 289

15 Passenger transport Freight transport Shifted mileage from private to public transport [thou. person km/year ] 10.0 [thou. HGV km/year ] 0.1 Local traffic [thou. person km/year ] 8.4 Long-distance traffic [thou. person km/year ] 1.6 [thou. HGV km/year ] 0.1 Convert HGV => t 3.7 Transportation costs Local transport (public) [ /person km ] 0.33 [ /year] 2, Long-distance transport (public) [ /person km ] 0.19 [ /t km ] 0.04 [ /year] Total public transport [ /year] 3, Local transport (private) [ /person km ] 0.35 [ /year] 2, Long-distance transport (private) [ /person km ] 0.22 [ /t km ] 0.14 [ /year] Total private transport [ /year] 3, Cost difference [ /year] Table 7: Costs from shifts between the private and public transport modes NB3 (projectrelated example) 1.3 Transport infrastructure preservation (NW) Transport infrastructure renewal (NW1) Costs for renewing roads are taken into account in the FTIP evaluation methodology to the extent that renewal costs that would otherwise have been incurred are no longer incurred due to implementing a new road construction project. This issue is not given in the current case study, so that no specific calculation can be done. The possible savings are otherwise calculated using this formula: 290

16 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road NW 1 = KE( SK ) l( SK ) SK a n Where: KE SK l a n Costs of preservation [ /km per year] Index road category Length of the road segment with renewal becoming superfluous [km] Project's annuity factor Transport infrastructure maintenance (NW2) The maintenance costs NW2 are calculated by multiplying road type-related cost values ( /km per year) by the project length (km). In the present case, this is a two-lane, at-grade route outside a built-up area, of type (see Part III B Figure 52). The maintenance costs calculation is done using this formula: Maintenance costs: NW 2 = KI ( ) l( ) Typ Typ Typ Where: KI Typ l Costs of maintenance [ /km per year] Index of the project s road section type group Length of the project route [km] NW2 (case study) = 10, /km per year 4.0 km = 42, /year. 291

17 1.4 Increased traffic safety (NS) The road safety (NS) benefit component is used to quantify the change in accident frequencies and the accident costs arising from these. The calculations differentiate between accidents involving personal injury and those involving damage to property. The accident costs saved are calculated by deriving accident risk potentials for each route and multiplying these by accident cost unit rates. The accident risk potentials are the product of the traffic mileage and the specific accident rate. The calculation employs the formula: FL ( s, Typ ) UR ( UT ) NS = UKR( UT ) s Typ UT Where: s Typ UT FL UR UKR Index for road segment / route Index of the road section type group Accident type index Vehicle mileage difference in with scenario to without scenario [Kfzkm/year] Accident rate [accidents per 10 6 Kfzkm/year] Accident cost unit rate [ /accident] Accident rate: Personal injuries accidents/10 6 Kfzkm per year Major material damage accidents/10 6 Kfzkm per year Accident cost Personal injuries 99, /accident unit rate: Major material damage 5, /accident When the specific mileage values, accident rates and accident cost rates are applied to the sample routes, we obtain the following route-specific result: NS (Sample route) = (636,515 Kfzkm/year (with) 3,813,935 Kfzkm/year (without)) (0.22 acc./106 Kfzkm/year 99, /acc acc./106 Kfzkm/year 5, /acc.) = 99, /year 292

18 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road 1.5 Improved accessibility of destinations (NE) The project-related improvements in accessibility are quantified by multiplying the time benefits in passenger traffic (the difference in journey time between the "with" and "without" scenarios) by person time costs in private transport ( /h). The calculation employs the formula: NE = t Pr ( ) s iv s ZKS Where: s t Priv ZKS Index for road segment / route Difference in journey time in passenger transport, "with" scenario to "without" scenario [Pers.h/year] Person time costs in private transport [ /h] By applying the project-specific traffic activity values and vehicle occupancy rates, we obtain the following savings for the sample route: NE (Sample route) = ((3, ,918) veh. h/year (with) ((26, ,730) veh. h/year (without)) 69 % (private travel) 1.6 pers./car on weekdays + (1,158 veh. h/year (with) 7,664 veh. h/year (without) ) 100 % (private travel) 2.1 pers./car on Sundays and bank holidays + (358 HGV h/year (with) 2,537 HGV h/year (without) ) (5.1% 31.1 pers./coach + 2.6% 17.5 pers./bus) 3.83 /pers-h = 210, /year 1.6 Spatial advantages (NR) Employment impacts from building transport infrastructure (NR1) The contributions that the investment activity makes towards overcoming structural underemployment are quantified by multiplying the investment costs by a mean 'per job' factor (man-years/ ) and other regional and project-specific parameters. 293

19 The calculation employs the formula: 8 NR 1 = K A 10 r pa WAP a n Where: K : Investment costs of the project at 1998 prices ( ) A : Man-years per 100 million investment costs r : Proportion of regionally imputable employed persons (here: 0.4) p a : Regional differentiation factor (here: Region 21) W AP : Alternative cost unit rate per job per year (13, /year) a n : The project's average annuity factor The specific calculation is done for the whole case study as follows: NR1 (case study) = m. 2, % , /year = 14, /year Employment impacts from operating transport infrastructure (NR2) The calculation for the benefit arising from a project-related increase in employment is done using region-specific unemployment rates and project-related changes in link indicators. It is translated into monetary terms using a given valuation per long-term job created. The calculation employs the formula: A( r) A pl ( r) vg NR 2 = pb ( r) A r ( r) vg W AP Where: r : Index for the region p b(r) : Regional differentiation factor vg : Without Scenario pl : With scenario A : Link indicator W AP : Alternative cost unit rate per job per year (13, /year) 294

20 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road The application of the specific project and region parameters for the case study produces the following result: NR2 (case study) = 151 (100 % %) / 100 % 13, /year = 2, /year Contributions to promoting international relationships (NR3) The promotion of international traffic is converted to benefits by partially applying the benefits calculated for the NB1, NB2, NB3 and NE components to international traffic. The calculation employs the formula: NR 3 = c ( NB1 + NB2 + NB3 + NE ) p i Where: c : Maximum benefit proportion (10 %) p i : Project-specific proportion of traffic volume from international traffic in the overall traffic volume. The proportion of benefit assigned to international traffic is limited to a maximum of 10 %. In this case, the proportion of international traffic to all traffic was set at 1.1%. The benefit NR3 for the case study is thus obtained as follows: NR3 (case study) = 10 % (111, ,188, ,670 2, ,207,980) 1.10 % int. traffic = 3, /year 295

21 1.7 Environmental relief (NU) Reduction in noise exposure (NU1) Noise exposure in built-up areas (NU1a) The calculation of the benefit obtained from reducing noise exposure on roads in built-up areas is done using average noise levels and assumed levels of willingness to pay for the avoidance of nighttime noise ( /resident equivalent). To illustrate how benefit NU1 is calculated, a built-up area is assumed for the sample route below. The route data required to calculate the benefit is shown in Table 8. Description of the development structure using the urban model component: Route length Route width 2.03 km 10 m Type of use (proportion) Residential area 68 % Mixed area 32 % Height category Number of storeys 1 Development type Open Residents Residential area 48 Number Mixed area 12 Number Employed persons Residential area 0 Number Mixed area 2 Number Affected residents Residential area 90 Number Mixed area 38 Number Table 8: Route description using urban model component (sample route) The average level and level reductions for rear rows of buildings is calculated using the formulae below: 296

22 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Average level: L = Q + b eq 10 lg ( s ) N ( s ) ( SM ) Where: s L eq Q N b (SM) SM Index for road sections Equivalent long-term noise level Nighttime traffic volumes ADTtotal for at-grade urban motorways ADTtotal for other roads Coefficient to take into account the form of settlement (urban model component), see Figure 83 Urban model component Level reductions for rear rows of buildings L = L dl n ( s) eq ( s) n ( SM ) Where: L eq L n Equivalent long-term noise level Reduced level for the n-th row dl n(sm) Reduced level, differentiated by urban model component, see Figure 84 SM Urban model component 297

23 "Without" scenario Volume of ADT 13,500 vehicles/day Proportion nighttime traffic 1.10 % vehicles/hour (night) Coefficient b Average level 42.9 db (A) 64.6 db (A) "With" scenario Volume of ADT 2,900 vehicles/day Proportion nighttime traffic 1.10 % 31.9 vehicles/hour (night) Coefficient b Average level Reduced noise level (1st row of buildings) 42.9 db (A) 58.0 db (A) 6.7 db (A) Table 9: Calculation for reduction in noise level using the example of the sample route To translate the willingness to pay into monetary terms, resident equivalents are determined, calculated using this formula: Resident equivalents ( Ln Lz) g n Es SM n ( s),, EG ( s) = l( ) SM n SM Where: EG SM Lz L n g n E l N Resident equivalent values Urban model component Target nighttime level = 37 db(a) Noise level (0.1 Ln) Noise level weighting = 2 Number of residents per km Length of urban model section Index for the developed row 298

24 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Table 10 shows the number of residents affected by traffic noise, as calculated with the formula above, on the sample route for the "with" and "without" scenarios. Building row Total Noise level weighting Without With Affected in Type of use: Residential area [resident equivalent values] Without With Type of use: Mixed area [resident equivalent values] Without With Total Without With Difference Table 10: People affected by traffic noise using the example of the sample route The costs savings made by avoiding noise exposure on roads in built-up areas, as obtained from the calculations above, are calculated as follows for the sample route: NU 1 a = EG( s ) W L s Where: EG W L Resident equivalent values Willingness to pay "nighttime noise" (54.71 / resident equivalent value) NU1a (sample route) = EG /EG per year = 19, /year 299

25 Noise exposure outside built-up areas (NU1b) The costs associated with changes in noise exposure outside built-up areas are calculated by linking the fictious costs needed to reduce noise. The calculation employs the formula: NU b = with Leq s ( Leq Lz AO ) WL an l( ) 1 s s ( s ) AO ( Q ( GV / )) = g ADT ( ) Where: L eq Lz AO Equivalent long-term noise level Target level outside built-up areas = 62 db(a) W L AO Soundproofing costs, depending on the noise difference L eq Lz [ /km] (see Part III B, Figure 87) l Length of road segment a n Annuity factor for soundproofing barriers (= ) Q Hourly traffic volume during daytime GV/ADT Share of HGV in total traffic Table 11 (traffic and noise values) shows the calculation used for cost savings made by reducing the noise level outside built-up areas. The subsequent calculation shows how these values are linked to predetermined cost unit rates. Without With ADT traffic volume [ vehicles/day ] 11,610 1,938 Reference traffic volume [ vehicles/h ] Noise level 100m away db (A) Target noise level db (A) 62.0 Noise reduction db (A) Table 11: Measurements on the sample route (outside built-up areas) 300

26 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road NU1b (sample route) = m /m soundproofing barrier = -48, /year Reduction in exhaust emissions (NU2) Evaluating global emissions (NU2a) In order to calculate the benefits accruing from reducing pollution, first of all complex operating simulations are used to determine the differentiated pollutant emissions in the "with" and "without" scenarios. The accounted pollutant emissions and immissions are then converted to benefits by multiplying them by specified cost unit rates. The flow of calculations used to determine the benefit from reduced global emissions follows this formula: E = ( Q f, k, ty, vs Tl, vs la, ty e jkl, ) f, j, ty vs NO x E = ( E f, j, ty toxi, ) f, i, ty j S f = ( NOx E f, j, ty Ws ) i, ty NU 2 a = S vg S pl Where: E Emission [t/year] Q Traffic volume [veh/h] T Time with traffic flow remaining the same [h/year] e Emission factor [g/km] f "With" or "without" scenario j Pollutant type l Length [km] NO x E NOx equivalence quantity [t NO x -E] tox Toxicity factor W s Valuation: /t NO x -E 301

27 a S f i j k vs ty Road section over which all the parameters remain unchanged Damage value [ /year] With scenario (pl) / Without scenario (vg) Damage type Pollutant Polluter type Traffic situation (free-flowing, partially synchronised, synchronised) Route type Table 12 summarises the annual pollutant emissions determined through applying the formula plus the specific parameters for the sample route. Vehicle type CO CH NO x SO 2 CO 2 Benzene Carbonparticulate matter B(a)P [ g / a ] [ g / a ] [ g / a ] [ g / a ] [ g / a ] [ g / a ] [ g / a ] [ g / a ] [ g / a ] "Without" scenario Cars (petrol) , Cars (diesel) Light HGVs Heavy HGVs HGVs with trailer Articulated lorries Coaches Buses Total , "With" scenario Cars (petrol) Cars (diesel) Light HGVs Heavy HGVs HGVs with trailer Articulated lorries Coaches Buses Total Difference , Dust Table 12: Pollutant emissions per year using the example of the sample route The monetary benefit resulting from the change in global emissions on the sample route is obtained as follows: 302

28 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road NU2a (sample route) = ( 12.3 t CO/year t NO x -E t CH/year t NO x -E t NO x /year t NO x -E t SO 2 /year t NO x -E t dust/year t NO x -E ) /t = 1, /year Evaluating NO X immissions in built-up areas (NU2b) The benefit (NU2b) resulting from reducing NO x immissions in built-up areas is, again, determined on the basis of pollution calculations for the "with" and "without" scenarios and linking to cost unit rates while taking into account pollutant-resident equivalents. The existing environmental pressure from emissions, which will again be the same in both scenarios, is also incorporated into the calculation. The calculation employs the formulae: ( Q T e ) ED f, j f, k, vs vs j, k, = vs cges f, j, SM = cvorf, j, SM + czus f, j, SM czus f, j, SM = ĉ SM ED u SEG = ( cges f, j, SM B f, SM LA ) f, j l S f = Wi SEG f, j NU 2 b = S vg S pl Where: ED Emission density per section in a built-up area [mg/m s] Q Traffic volume [veh/h] T Time with traffic flow remaining the same [h/year] e Emission factor [g/km] l Length [km] cges Total immission volume [µg/m³] 303

29 cvor Existing immission volume [µg/m³] czus Additional immission volume [µg/m³] SEG Pollutant-resident equivalent ĉ SM Standardised concentration for the urban model components u Average wind speeds in each federal state B Length-related resident population per urban model component [R/km] SM Urban model component LA Urban model component length proportion S Damage value [ /year] W i Valuation = 3.37 /(SEG a) i Damage type S f Damage value with scenario / without scenario [ /a] f With scenario / Without scenario j Pollutant k Polluter type vs Traffic situation (free-flowing, partially synchronised, synchronised) vg "Without" scenario pl "With" scenario Table 13 shows the immission values resulting from the calculations for the sample route, the number of affected persons (resident equivalents) and the value of the damage thus incurred. Without With Additional immission volume [µg/m³] Affected population [residents] 123 Pollutant-resident equivalents [SEG] Cost unit rate [ /SEG] 3.37 Value of damage [ /year] 3, Table 13: NO x immissions in built-up areas using the example of the sample route The benefit resulting from reducing NO x immissions in built-up areas for the sample route is obtained as follows: NU2b (sample route) = ( SEG 1, SEG) 3.37 /SEG per year = 3, /year 304

30 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Evaluating carcinogenic pollutants (NU2c) In principle, the determination of cost savings via reduced carcinogenic pollutants (NU2c) follows the same flow of calculations as described for the benefit component NU2b. The calculation employs the formulae: ( Q T e ) ED f, j f, k, vs vs j, k, = vs cges f, j, SM = cvorf, j, SM + czus f, j, SM czus f, j, SM = ĉ S SM ED u ( cges ur B LA ) = Wi f, j, SM j f SM l f, NU 2 c = S vg S pl Where: ED Emission density per section in a built-up area [mg/m s] Q Traffic volume [veh/h] T Time with traffic flow remaining the same [h/year] e Emission factor per emission type and traffic situation l Length [km] cges Total immission volume [µg/m³] cvor Existing immission volume [µg/m³] czus Additional immission volume [µg /m³] ĉ SM u ur B SM LA S Standardised concentration for the urban model components Average wind speeds in each federal state 'unit risk' estimate factor for risk of cancer Diesel particulates [1/(µg/m³)] B(a)P [1/(µg/m³)] Benzene [1/(µg/m³)] Length-related resident population per urban model component [E/km] Urban model component Urban model component length proportion Damage value [ /year] 305

31 W i i S f f j k vs vg pl Valuation = 0.79 million /death Damage type Damage value with scenario / without scenario [ /a] With scenario / Without scenario Pollutant Polluter type Traffic situation (free-flowing, partially synchronised, synchronised) "Without" scenario "With" scenario Table 14 shows the factors, values and costs that were calculated for the sample route. The cost savings arising from the calculations are obtained from the difference in death risk between the "with" and "without" scenarios, which is multiplied by a mean cost unit rate of 0.79 million per death. Without With Affected population [residents] 123 "unit risk - estimation factors Diesel particulates [1/(µg/m³)] B(a)P [1/(µg/m³)] 0.07 Benzene [1/(µg/m³)] Additional immission volume [µg/m³] Deaths [Deaths / a] Cost unit rate [ million/death] 0.79 Value of damage [ /year] Table 14: NO x immissions in built-up areas in the example of the sample route NU2c (sample route) = ( deaths/year deaths/year) 0.79 million /death per year = /year 306

32 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Evaluating greenhouse gases (NU2d) The project-related changes in the emission of greenhouse gases (CO 2 ) are calculated by linking the CO 2 emissions to a cost unit rate of 205 per tonne of CO 2. The CO 2 emissions are taken from the results that were obtained while calculating global emissions. The formal flow of the calculation and the result calculated for the sample route are shown below: E = ( Q f, k, vs Tvs l e j, k, ) f, j vs s f = Wi E f, j NU 2 d = S vg S pl Where: E Q T e l Emission per segment [t/year] Traffic volume [veh/h] Time with traffic flow remaining the same [h/year] Emission factor per emission type and traffic situation Length [km] W i Valuation = /t CO 2 i Damage type S f f j k vs vg pl Damage value with scenario / without scenario [ /a] With scenario / Without scenario Pollutant Polluter type Traffic situation (free-flowing, partially synchronised, synchronised) "Without" scenario "With" scenario NU2d (sample route) = t CO 2 /year t CO 2 /year) /t CO 2 = /year 307

33 1.7.3 Reduction of community severance (NU3) The project-related reduction in community severance on roads in built-up areas is converted to monetary values by determining pedestrians' waiting times in the "with" and "without" scenarios and linking them to costs for waiting times. The formulae drawn up to determine the severance effects NU3 and the result for the sample route are shown below: Waiting times Ü (, ht ) WT = tw s A( ) s ht Waiting time costs K = WT W K T s Community severance benefit NU3 = K W K vg W pl Where: Ü Number of crossings per affected resident per day (= 3.0) s Index for road section ht Index for traffic hours when the severance is calculated [07:00 to 19:00] tw Pedestrian waiting time to cross the road [h] WT Total waiting time on affected routes in built-up areas [h/year] A Affected residents K W Costs of waiting time [ /year] K T Cost per person hour (5.47 /h) vg "Without" scenario pl "With" scenario NU3 (sample route) = (0 sec/year / 3,600 sec/h 3, sec/year / 3,600 sec/h ) affected residents 5.47 /h = /year 308

34 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road 1.8 Impacts from induced traffic (NI) The costs resulting from the project-related traffic induction are calculated by multiplying the journey time difference between the "with" and "without" scenarios by average cost unit rates per vehicle hour. The formal calculation procedure and the result are shown below: NI FT FG ) KI = ( ( FG) Where: FG Index vehicle group FT Journey time difference between "with" and "without" scenarios KI Costs of the induced traffic per vehicle hour (see Part III B, Figure 98) NI (sample route) = (46,934 7,054) veh. h/year ( 1.749) /veh. h/year + (2, ) HGV h/year ( 1.596) /HGV h/year = 73, /year 1.9 Calculating the benefit-cost ratio (NKV) The benefit components described in detail in the previous chapters lead, when the results for all the impacted routes are combined, to an annual benefit total. The annual benefits calculated per programme in the case study are shown in Table 15. According to this, our notional project produces a total benefit of around 3.1 million per annum. To be able also to calculate the benefit-cost ratio (NKV) for the case study, the costs associated with implementing the project also have to be determined. Table 16 lists the estimated construction costs, differentiated by AKS (road construction project costing instructions) main groups. By linking these to specific annuity factors, one obtains an annual total cost of around 0.56 million. Comparing benefits and costs gives a benefit-cost ratio of around 5.5, which would indicate that the project was cost-effective. 309

35 Annual benefit per component [thou. / a ] NR1 Employment effects during construction period NR2a Employment effects from operating transport infrastructure NR2b Hinterland link NR4 Promotion of international relations NB1 Vehicle standby costs NB2a Operating costs (personnel) 2, NB2b Operating costs (running costs) NB3 Shifts between transport modes NW1 Renewal costs NW2 Maintenance costs NS Traffic safety NE Improved accessibility 1, NU1a Reduced noise exposure (built-up areas) NU1b Reduced noise exposure (outside built-up areas) NU2a Global emissions NU2b NO x immissions in built-up areas NU2c Carcinogenic pollutants NU2d Greenhouse gases NU3 Community severance effects NI Induced traffic NR Regional effects NB Transport costs 1, NW Preservation costs NS Traffic safety NE Improved accessibility 1, NU Environmental effects NI Induced traffic Total annual benefits 3, Table 15: Summary of individual benefits in the case study 310

36 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road Works group as per AKS instructions Cost excl. Vat Depreciation period Annuity factor Cost per annum [ million ] [ a ] [ - ] [ /year] Land acquisition , Earth-moving and foundation work , Superstructure , Civil eng. construction , Miscellaneous , Total cost , Table 16: Summary of AKS costs (notional assumptions) in the case study 311

37 2 Environmental risk assessment (ERA) The example below, of the new B 1 Manschnow and Kietz/Küstrin bypass construction, serves to illustrate, for the road traffic sector, the results and explanations contained in the environmental risk assessments and Habitats Directive assessments carried out as part of the project evaluations for the FTIP B 1 OU Manschnow und Kietz/Küstrin bypass Environmental risk assessment (ERA) Project no.: BB8502 Brandenburg Early identification results (reference number and transcription) X A large part (> 2 hectares) of the Priority I protected areas 2,3 are skirted by the new construction project 4,5 Environmental risk assessment 6 yes no Detailed early identification information Project features of relevance for the evaluation Construction type: New construction Upgrade Project length: 10 km < 10 km Site category: Severed 4 (ha): Skirted 5 (ha): Habitats Directive site (psci) 8.9 EC bird protection area (SPA) 31.1 Important bird area (IBA) 31.1 Wetland of international importance (Ramsar) National park Nature protection site (NSG) Large federal nature protection project Biosphere reserve Natural park Protected landscape site (LSG) Unsevered low-traffic area (UZV-R) Explanations 1 The numbers are only in an ordinal series which is numerical for IT reasons. The lower the reference number, the greater the accumulation of conflicts. 2 Priority I protected areas include national parks, Habitats Directive sites, EC bird protection areas, nature protection sites, large federal nature protection projects, important bird areas and wetlands of international importance. 3 Priority II protected areas include unsevered low-traffic areas, biosphere reserves, natural parks and protected landscape sites. 4 Severed means that a site is directly affected by the planned route, so that an area within the site is effectively being used. A generalised alignment width of 50 m has been adopted as a basis here. 5 Skirted means that a site at a distance of < 500 m from the planned route is passed by the planned route and thus would be adversely affected by indirect impacts. The affected area of the site category in question was determined within a 1000 m wide corridor. 6 In agreement with the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, an environmental risk assessment (ERA) was carried out on all projects with a reference number < 2.0 in order to examine them in more detail. In certain cases, projects with a higher reference number were also subjected to an ERA due to their interdependence, in terms of space and nature protection, with other critical projects. With some projects that were submitted late in the FTIP revision, there was only time to do the early identification, not the ERA that would correspond with the project's reference numbers. 312

38 Evaluation procedure FTIP 2003 Part IV B: Case Studies Road B 1 OU Manschnow und Kietz/Küstrin bypass Environmental risk assessment (ERA) Project no.: BB8502 Brandenburg Overview of results ERA classification Very low Low Intermed. High Very high Reasons Risks in the study area: (1) Environmental risk The study area exhibits a very high environmental risk on 6.0 % of the area; a high environmental risk on 9.0 % of the surface area. (2) Significant impacts on an unsevered area with low traffic density (3) 17.0 % of settlement are affected relevant to evaluation not relevant to evaluation Environmental risk BB % 23.2 % 17.2 % 6.1 % 9.1 % 44.4 % Very low Low Intermediate High Very high Settlement Habitats Directive assessment / Natura 2000: 1 Habitats Directive site ("The Kietz Oder island "), 1 EC bird protection area ("Oderbruch dyke foreland"), 1 IBA Significant adverse impacts unavoidable Significant adverse impacts cannot be ruled out Significant adverse impacts can be ruled out Additional aspects relevant to evaluation: (1) Barrier effect (very high / high spatial resistance, also combined with settlement) (2) Interregional impact (large protected areas) (3) Low-conflict corridor present (4) Existing environmental pressure / possibility of combination Upgrade measure in area under existing environmental pressure (5) Interaction between FTIP projects: (6) Miscellaneous Pressure and relief impacts balance each other out in this project so that there is no up- or downgrading. The additional aspects have been used here to downgrade the environmental risk upgrade the environmental risk Proposals for action as a result of the ERA (in the consultant's view): Proposals for action as a result of the Habitats Directive assessment (in the consultant's view): Inclusion in the requirements plan only after checking and specifying the urgent reasons of mainly public interest Habitats Directive assessment (detailed design compatible with the Habitats Directive is realistic) Recommendations for future planning (in the consultant's view): Where possible, try to combine the project with the Berlin Kostrzyn railway line Crossing of the Old Oder: Examine the opportunities of minimising risk by corresponding crossing design. Detailed results of the environmental risk assessment Description of the study area Results of the examination of individual cases 313

39 Explanations Project description for specifying the study area Near Gorgast, Manschnow and Küstrin-Kietz at the southern end of the Oderbruch very near to the Polish border, two bypasses with a total length of 8.4 km are planned. They are to be in the form of two-lane newly constructed federal highways. Due to the short lengths of the sections and the settlement-related restricted variation width, the environmental risk assessment is based on a 2 km wide corridor. Description of the area (outline) Geographical location Spatial structure Infrastructure Natural area On the Oder facing Kostrzyn (Poland), approx. 25 km north-east of Frankfurt on the Oder Märkisch-Oderland district: a rural district in an agglomeration area B 1, B 112, Berlin Kostrzyn railway line Oder valley (on the southern fringe of the Oderbruch) Spatial resistance (description related to the study area/corridor)) Unsevered area with low traffic density NATURA 2000 Human settlements Nature and landscape Water Existing environmental pressure The unsevered area with low traffic density in the study area is only affected at the edge and is therefore irrelevant to the evaluation. 1 Habitats Directive site ("Kietz Oder island"): This island lies at the eastern end of the corridor and protrudes into it in places. 1 EC bird protection area ("Oderbruch dyke foreland"): In a similar location to the Habitats Directive site, but discontinued in the Oder crossing area and with a spur-like westwards protrusion near Kietz. 1 IBA: In the corridor area, the same area as the bird protection area. Settlements at Gorgast, Manschnow and Küstrin-Kietz Priority sites for nature and landscape: Along the Old Oder near Gorgast and Manschnow, crossing the corridor, in the lowland around the arm of the Oder near Küstrin-Kietz. Valuable biotopes: Large area in the Oder lowland at the eastern edge of the corridor, in lines in the lowlands of the Old Oder, some other, small areas scattered throughout the corridor. Landscape reserves: In the Oder lowlands, in the area of the corridor roughly corresponding to the IBA and the EC bird protection area, but continuing on in the Oder crossing area. Nature and landscape reservation area: In the area of the corridor roughly corresponding to the landscape reserve. Very high x x x x High Recreational reservation area: Large area in the whole Oderbruch, covering the whole corridor except for the eastern end. Ecological reservation area: East of Manschnow, a network in the flowing lowland waters of the Oder, Old Oder and two Oder tributaries. Flood protection priority area (LEP): In the Oder lowlands x fringing on the eastern edge of the corridor. Flood-endangered reservation area (regional): Throughout the Oderbruch, covering the whole corridor. - Along the current route of the B 112, along the Berlin Kostrzyn railway line x x x Interm x x x x 314