Benefit to cost ratios are calculated by CDTC staff whenever possible. They are shown in the box in the upper right-hand corner of the project fact sheet. Consistent units of thousands of current dollars per year are used throughout. Instances where a benefit/cost ratio calculation is inappropriate or unable to be calculated are handled by further elaboration of the "non-quantifiable" or "qualitative" project benefits. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are handled differently, as explained below.

Five measures of project benefit are calculated, including safety, travel time, energy/user, and "other" benefits. Life cycle cost savings are applied primarily to infrastructure improvements. Life cycle cost savings are calculated by using the CDTC STEP Model to estimate the system traffic disbenefits of letting a bridge or pavement section deteriorate to the point of abandonment.

Safety benefits are measured in the dollar value of the projected reduction in accidents per year. They are the product of the average annual accidents, the expected percent reduction in accidents as a result of the improvement, a travel adjustment factor based on changes in traffic expected, and a monetary equivalence factor from a standardized table developed by NYSDOT.

Accident cost savings for grade crossing safety projects are calculated using the RAILDEC software package developed by the Federal Railroad Administration. Accident costs are calculated by first determining the number of property damage only, injury only and fatal accidents for the facility type given current traffic characteristics. Based on the AADT calculation, the number of accidents per million vehicle miles traveled is determined from a look up table. The default national values included in the software package are overridden with the current NYSDOT rates shown below. The rates are multiplied by the observed VMT of the facility under analysis to determine the actual number of accidents for each period. The number of accidents in conjunction with the cost of each type of accident determined annual accident costs. The program thus captured the accident cost savings of the adjacent highway facility and costs savings stemming from reduced vehicle-train accidents. The savings are presented in thousands of dollars. Discount rates are set to be consistent with Table H-7.

Monetary benefits of mobility improvements are measured by calculating user operating cost savings and the monetary value of travel time savings that would result from project implementation. For most projects, these benefits are calculated using the CDTC STEP Model. Year 2005 traffic is assigned to the network with and without the proposed project. User operating costs and travel time costs are calculated as the difference between the costs resulting from these two assignments. The cost impacts resulted from the increased capacity and improved operation that the project is expected to provide, including the impact of traffic diversions that the STEP Model assignment predicts. Safety impacts are calculated if specific improvements included in the project are expected to reduce accidents as described in the previous section.

Travel time savings for mobility projects are measured in the dollar value of the projected time saved by implementation of the project per year. Travel Time Savings are the product of the change in total delay per year (based on delay per vehicle per day, the daily traffic volume and the number of days in a year when the condition exists), and a monetary equivalence factor. The average value of travel time of $8.18 per vehicle hour is used.

This value is derived from the NYSDOT Highway User Cost Accounting Microcomputer Package, August, 1991. Costs are increased to reflect inflation and increased minimum wage, consistent with an updated version of the Highway User Cost Micro-Computer Package to be published in the near future by NYSDOT. After adjusting for vehicle occupancy and other factors, each non-truck vehicle hour is currently valued at $7.20. The average vehicle hour of truck travel time is currently calculated to be $21.14 per hour. The average value of travel time for all vehicles used by CDTC is a weighted average calculated by assuming seven percent truck traffic. The result is $8.18 per vehicle hour of travel.

Energy and user cost savings for pavement improvements are measured in the dollar value of the projected energy and user cost saved per year. Energy cost is the product of the daily change in operating fuel consumption (based on the FHWA-supported microcomputer procedures in most cases), the daily volume, the number of weekdays in a year, and a monetary equivalence factor from a standardized table. The maintenance costs before and after are taken from Table H-3. The savings are calculated from those numbers.

Energy and user cost savings for mobility projects are calculated based on the operating costs shown in Table H-4. These costs are also derived from the NYSDOT Highway User Cost Accounting Microcomputer Package, updated for inflation.

Life cycle cost savings are measured in the dollar value of the projected time saved per year by deferring abandonment of the facility. Life cycle cost savings are a product of the percent-extended life of the facility, and the mobility benefits that result from keeping the facility usable.

"Life cycle cost savings" could also be described as "extended facility value". Intuitively, repairing or replacing a facility or service integral to the regional system is important because of the value of that facility or service to the transportation system. Bridges are not replaced because they are in poor condition; they are replaced because it is important to keep those links open. Buses are not replaced because they are twelve years old; they are replaced because it is important to continue to operate a vital transit service. As a result, the life cycle costs savings of an infrastructure project are defined as:

Life Cycle Cost Savings = (Total Facility Value) x (Pct. Extended Life)

where:

Total Facility Value = Travel Time Savings + Energy and User Cost Savings

and

% Extended Life = Years of Facility Life Added by Project ÷ Normal Facility Life

Travel time savings and regional user cost savings attributable to the facility are calculated using the CDTC STEP Model. The model is run once with the facility or service in place, then a second time with the facility or service removed. The difference in regional system measures between the two runs is assumed to represent the total value of the facility or service.

For bridges, the facility is removed for modeling purposes by eliminating the bridge link entirely from the highway network. For highways, the facility is considered removed by reducing the travel speed to five miles per hour. Transit service is eliminated by adding passenger travel as vehicular travel on the highways that transit effectively serves.

Percent extended facility life is determined using the data in Table H-5, Table H-6, Table H-7, and Table H-8.

"Other" benefits of candidate projects capture the monetary transportation system impacts not included elsewhere in the calculations, but contained in the New Visions Core Performance Measures.

Supplemental monetary impacts beyond those identified elsewhere in the benefit to cost calculation are documented in the "Estimated Marginal Monetary Costs of Travel in the Capital District", April 1995. These supplemental monetary benefits (or disbenefits) of candidate projects included changes to the following system-level measures of transportation system cost which are not captured elsewhere in the list of project benefits:

• Private vehicle ownership
• Parking provision and use -- work trip
• Parking provision and use -- other commercial
• Parking provision and use -- residential
• Transportation related fire/police/justice expense
• Regional air pollution
• Global air pollution (climate change)
• Vibration damage
• Water quality damage
• Waste disposal
• Energy use impacts on costs of national security and impact on international trade

The New Visions plan relies heavily on these extensions to the traditional system costs and benefits. It should be recognized, however, that these are factors that are influenced primarily by system-level rather than project-level changes. That is, system-level success over the 20 years in increasing the amount of mixed use development, sidewalk connections and quality of transit service may influence total vehicle ownership in the region (and thus reduce the cost of providing residential garages), for example. However, it would be difficult to assign part of that cumulative benefit to a single TIP candidate project that, for example, building bus shelters.

As a result, monetary measures for "other benefits" are identified only for projects significant enough to affect system-level measures. Such projects are generally ones that affect the number of vehicle trips or the aggregate level of vehicle miles of travel in the Capital District.

Non-monetary benefits include increased access to transit service, greater flexibility or reliability and other measures from the New Visions Core Performance Measures list. To the extent that a TIP candidate project could be expected to change the values for these regional measures, the change is identified on the fact sheet.

A total benefit/cost ratio is the sum of these five categories of quantifiable project benefits divided by the annualized cost of the project. Annualized costs are a product of the assumed service life of the facility (Table H-9) and the 6% Capital Recovery Factors (Table H-8).

Projects are evaluated against their "functional peers" for the purpose of assigning classifications corresponding to low, medium or high potential benefit. For example, projects having particular potential to encourage bike trips (e.g., longer-distance trails) are evaluated against other bike projects, while sidewalks are evaluated against other pedestrian projects. This segregation is intended to ensure fair comparisons. This approach avoided a result of most of the "overall" top-rated projects being bicycle accommodations, which tended to have larger potential markets (as defined by number of nearby short trips) and potentials for conversion from driving.

CDTC staff developed and applied over 30 possible performance measures in an effort to determine what the most critical variables to measure for bicycle and pedestrian projects are and which measures or techniques tracked changes in these variables adequately and fairly. Examples of possible measures which are discarded by virtue of not meeting either or both of these tests are "number of potential bike/pedestrian trips made which would be made faster by a candidate" and "total number of zone-to-zone pairs which would be made faster by a candidate." Ultimately, potential market for bicycle/pedestrian travel, cost-effectiveness and potential safety benefits (e.g., accident reduction or avoidance) are used. In addition, potential emissions reductions are calculated and reported on the fact sheets (but not subjected to classification) to give a sense of another important benefit of bicycle and pedestrian accommodation. These measures are briefly defined below.

This measure is based on the better of a candidate’s two classifications on (1) number of short trips originating or ending near the improvement and (2) modeled short trip response on the bike/pedestrian version of CDTC’s Systematic Traffic Evaluation and Planning (STEP) model.

"Short trips originating or ending near the improvement" are defined as trips to or from the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) in which the project is located or, if the project is on the border of more than one TAZ (as most candidates are), trips to or from ALL adjacent TAZ's. The aim of this measure is to get an indication of how many trips might be realistic candidates for conversion to cycling or walking. "Modeled short trip response" is arguably a more stringent standard, for it requires that a project show an ability to "capture" bicycle and pedestrian trips from other possible bike/pedestrian travel routes. Candidates are modeled using the same conventions applied in preparation of the Bike/Pedestrian Task Force’s technical analyses. Routes are either "opened up for the first time" or made slightly faster by an improvement, starting from a "preference-based" network. This network shut down illegal facilities (e.g., the Northway has no bike or pedestrian access), discouraged the use of very undesirable facilities (e.g., Central Avenue in Colonie, or Wolf Road) via a 1 MPH speed, and made the lowest-order roads (e.g., local streets and bike/hike paths) the most attractive (at 10 MPH bike, 3 MPH walk). Roads in between are coded based on functional class, existing accommodation, traffic volume and any other known influences on bikeability or walkability.

Given the narrower range of possible speeds on the pedestrian network, some additional points on preference-based coding protocol for pedestrians may be helpful.

Cost-effectiveness is calculated as the modeled level of response to an improvement (in person-miles of travel, as calculated using the "short trip response" basis above) per $1,000 of annualized project cost. By definition, this measure is partially driven by the findings for the more stringent of the two "market" measures mentioned above. However, it did present a genuine "second perspective" on the merits of the project, as evidenced by a low correlation coefficient between the two measures (R² = .09).

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues Task Force suggested this measure as a way of illustrating the safety enhancement which comes in providing cyclists and pedestrians with some "separate space of their own" on the highway network. Potential safety benefit is defined as the potential for an action to prevent future car-bike or car-pedestrian accidents. Candidate projects are determined to have "low," "medium" or "high" potentials for accident prevention based on motor vehicle traffic volumes, available pavement or other bicycle/pedestrian accommodations, levels of cyclist/pedestrian use of facilities, and (where available) known car-bike or car-pedestrian accident histories.

Estimates of the potential annual reductions in hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions that would result from candidate implementation are presented in the fact sheet entries for "Air Quality Benefit." These estimates are calculated from model outputs, based on the premise that the maximum potential air quality benefit a project could provide in inducing conversions of motor vehicle travel to cycling or walking is a function of what its maximum potential to divert cyclists or walkers from other routes would be if all trips are made by bike or on foot. The bike/pedestrian model and the "short trips" trip set are used to calculate this maximum diversion potential.

Technical evaluations conducted in support of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Issues Task Force’s work included STEP model-based estimation of the public benefits of existing levels of PM peak hour cycling and walking. These estimates are generated using a logic similar to that employed in CDTC’s evaluation of the benefits of Upstate Transit commuter service and of park and ride lots in Albany and Bethlehem: motor vehicle trips not made because of existing cycling and walking are put back onto the network, and per-trip savings of delay, vehicle miles of travel and emissions are derived from the results of rerunning CDTC’s version of NYSDOT’s Year User Cost Accounting Program.

The typical per-trip emissions reductions values generated in the Task Force exercise (as listed in Table 3, Page 17 of the Task Force report) are converted to a per-mile basis and multiplied by the modeled person miles of travel responding to each candidate, doubled to reflect AM plus PM peak hour benefit, and then factored to annual values using 100 days/year for cycling and 200/year for walking. (As in the Task Force report, the 100/200 basis is used because of the likelihood that weather and other considerations would make conversions from driving to walking more likely (that is, frequent) over the course of the year than conversions to cycling would be.)

Calculated benefit/cost ratios capture transportation benefits well. However, transportation benefits alone are not sufficient to highlight project contributions to meeting the goals and implementing the strategies in New Visions. Therefore, considerable space on the project fact sheets is devoted to narrative descriptions of project benefits. The source of most of this information is the project justifications provided by the project sponsor.

Congestion relief can be measured as the daily excess person hours of delay saved due to the implementation of projects. It is shown where it could be calculated, divided by both the annualized cost and the total cost to provide a measure of comparability between projects. The calculation of this measure is fully elaborated in CDTC's Congestion Management System report.

Narrative discussion is included under the first heading in the second box on the project fact sheet if number could not be calculated or to elaborate upon the congestion relief aspects of the project.

The hydrocarbon emissions reductions for each project considered for CMAQ funding is calculated using NYSDOT methodology. Because the primary air pollution concern in the Capital District is with ozone precursors, this is the focus of the analysis. The cost effectiveness of the hydrocarbon emissions benefit is also calculated. If applicable, a similar analysis is performed for non-CMAQ mobility projects and the results recorded under this heading. Candidate projects that are eligible for the CMAQ program ONLY are noted here. A narrative discussion is provided if numbers could not be calculated or to elaborate upon the project's expected air quality benefits.

Regional system linkage addresses the project's geographic and intermodal aspects. The emphasis of the discussion is on whether or not the project addressed a critical link in the transportation system (e.g., a major river crossing) or would provide a new linkage not previously provided (e.g. an intermodal transfer or new suburban transit service). The purpose of including this criterion is to focus on the transportation system impacts of the project. Boundary issues are also appropriately mentioned here.

Linking transportation investments to land use is an important aspect of New Visions. The fact sheet provided the opportunity to cite local and regional plans that recommend or support the project, the existing adjacent land uses, or potential future developments. Specific consistency with New Visions arterial management principles and strategies are elaborated here.

Using transportation investments as a tool to make our communities better places to live and to improve regional economic health is another important aspect of New Visions. The fact sheets provided an opportunity to highlight the community-building or economic development benefits of a project. Potential negative impacts on the community or economy associated with the project are noted here as well. This part of the fact sheet provided space to note the dependence of economic development plans on the implementation of the project, including quantification of measures such as job creation/retention, increases in taxes collected, expansion in secondary services, and the enticement for additional enterprise. The degree of public support for a project could also be noted.

Known environmental issues, such as intrusion on sensitive lands (wetlands, woodlands, parklands, aquifers, and historical property) are chronicled on the project fact sheet. Other potential issues highlighted here included such things as the removal of billboards, inclusion of scenic easements, and archaeological considerations, where applicable.

The need for right-of-way acquisition that would dislocate existing businesses or housing is noted on the project fact sheet. Historic preservation concerns are also noted here.

To supplement priority network information, the degree to which the project addressed bicycling needs is noted. The provision of bicycle features within the project (e.g. bike path, improved bus facilities, bike lockers at a park and ride lot) could be noted, if known.

To supplement priority network information, the degree to which the project addressed the needs of walkers is noted. The provision of pedestrian features within the project (e.g. sidewalks, pedestrian actuation of signals, crosswalks) is specifically noted, if known.

To supplement priority network information, the degree to which the project addressed goods movement needs is noted. The provision of freight-friendly features within the project (e.g. improved geometry, rail safety, rest stops, and bridge height or weight restrictions) is noted here.

To supplement priority network information, the degree to which the project addressed transit needs is noted in the fourth heading in the fourth box on the project fact sheet. The existence (or lack) of fixed route transit within the project limits is noted here. The provision of transit features within the project (e.g. improved bus stops, shelters, and pedestrian access to a major bus route) is noted, if known. Projects that could decrease the current level of transit access, such as intersection improvements that eliminate a bus stop, are noted, as well as projects that decrease future access opportunities. The relationship of the project to the implementation of the ADA is highlighted, if applicable.

Intermodal transfer opportunities make the transportation system work better as a whole, particularly the transfer across modes. Intersection projects that take into account bus routing and pedestrian/bicycle actuation, for example, are highlighted under this criterion. To supplement priority network information, the degree to which the project facilitated intermodal transfers is noted.

The project fact sheet provided a space to mention any outstanding screening issues. Things like outstanding data needs, concerns with ability to implement within five years, project justifications, or eligibility concerns are noted here. Any issues with the cost estimate or its components are noted here.

The second heading in the bottom box on the project fact sheet provided a space to note what agency will provide the non-federal share of project costs and who maintain the project once built. This is also the proper place to note any ownership issues, overmatch, or ongoing operating budget concerns.

A category for other project considerations is included in the last box in order to be able to mention any significant factors not covered above.