Economic Benefits Assessment of Accelerated Pavement Testing Research in California

Abstract

A cost–benefit analysis method for determining the economic benefits of heavy vehicle simulator testing was evaluated. The University of California and its research partners began conducting accelerated pavement testing in 1994 on behalf of the California Department of Transportation. The authors present the findings of a pilot project intended to define a method suitable for measuring the direct economic benefits of heavy vehicle simulator testing in California. The chosen method was based on a cost–benefit analysis initially developed in Australia and later enhanced and applied in South Africa to determine economic benefits of their respective accelerated pavement testing programs. Results of a case study applying the Australian–South African method to heavy vehicle simulator tests conducted in California are presented. The case study evaluated benefits (in cost savings) from heavy vehicle simulator tests performed to validate innovative pavement mixes and designs proposed for the rehabilitation of a high-traffic urban Interstate route in the Los Angeles, California, area. Although local conditions in these countries differed significantly, the method was successfully applied and consistently showed positive results, presented as discounted net present value and benefit–cost ratio. Sensitivity analysis is recommended to determine a range of savings instead of a single benefit–cost ratio.

Case Study for Evaluating Benefits of Pavement Research

“…[More information and background details are available elsewhere (7)(8)(9).] The cost-benefit method used in this study is consistent with Caltrans practices for evaluating economic benefits and life-cycle analysis (12) of transportation projects and procedures in the FHWA economic analysis primer (13).…”

“…Detailed descriptions of the methodology for calculating the benefits of HVS research have been published elsewhere (6)(7)(8). This paper presents the latest results from use of the method (June 2012).…”

“…Zero salvage value was assumed at Year 60, and any maintenance treatment costs at Year 60 were excluded from the life-cycle cost analysis. The assumptions and inputs including agency and road user costs are detailed elsewhere (8,9,17). The base year for all cost comparisons is 2000, and the standard Caltrans 4% discount rate is used.…”

“…Table 8 gives results for Benefits 1 and 2 for the 4% discounted and undiscounted cases (with and without road user costs), presenting total benefit (2000 base year) and BCRs. As suggested by du Plessis et al (8), research (in this case HVS testing and related activities) was not solely responsible for cost-saving innovations, so benefits attributed to research should be adjusted by means such as a "contribution ratio." The amount of cost savings attributed to HVS tests and research is calculated by multiplying the contribution ratio with the total cost savings.…”

“…The purpose of the pilot project is to determine the potential for adaption of the method to California conditions. The original and interim work has been published elsewhere (7)(8)(9). This paper presents the final results from June 2012.…”