applications of simulation travel costs
DESCRIPTION
Applications of Simulation Travel Costs. Scott Matthews Courses: 12-706 / 19-702. Admin Issues. No Friday class this week More on HW 4 – removing Q #17. Grade Range on Next Slide Need to specify take-home final plans Week of Dec 8-12, Two timeslots? #1: Morning of 8 th – 5pm on 10 th - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Applications of SimulationTravel Costs
Scott MatthewsCourses: 12-706 / 19-702
12-706 and 73-359 2
Admin Issues
No Friday class this weekMore on HW 4 – removing Q #17.
Grade Range on Next SlideNeed to specify take-home final plans
Week of Dec 8-12, Two timeslots? #1: Morning of 8th – 5pm on 10th
#2: Morning of 10th – 5pm on 12th
HW 4 Grades
All raw scores above 74 -> 50/50All scores below 74, scaled as % of
74 Minimum score: 15/50
Average: 35/50
12-706 and 73-359 3
@RISK tutorial/simulations
Look how to do overlays (put multiple distributions on one graph).
Incorporating correlations next week.
12-706 and 73-359 4
12-706 and 73-359 5
Travel Costs
Time is a valuable commodity (time is $) Arguably the most valuable All about opportunity cost
Most major transportation/infrastructure projects built to ‘save travel costs’ Need to tradeoff project costs with benefits Ex: new highway that shortens commutes
Differences between ‘travel’ and ‘waiting’ Waiting time disutility might be orders of magnitude
higher than just ‘travel disutility’ Why? Travelling itself might be fun
12-706 and 73-359 6
Valuation: Travel Cost Method
Estimate economic use values associated with ecosystems or sites that are used for recreation changes in access costs for a recreational site elimination of an existing recreational site addition of a new recreational site changes in environmental quality
www.ecosystemvaluation.org/travel_costs.htm
12-706 and 73-359 7
Travel Cost Method
Basic premise - time and travel cost expenses incurred to visit a site represent the “price” of access to the site.
Thus, peoples’ WTP to visit the site can be estimated based on the number of trips that they make at different travel costs. This is analogous to estimating peoples’ WTP
for a marketed good based on the quantity demanded at different prices.
12-706 and 73-359 8
Example Case
A site used mainly for recreational fishing is threatened by development.
Pollution and other impacts from this development could destroy the fish habitat Resulting in a serious decline in, or total loss of, the
site’s ability to provide recreational fishing services.
Resource agency staff want to determine the value of programs or actions to protect fish habitat at the site.
12-706 and 73-359 9
Why Use Travel Cost?
Site is primarily valuable to people as a recreational site. There are no endangered species or other highly unique qualities that would make non-use values for the site significant.
The expenditures for projects to protect the site are relatively low. Thus, using a relatively inexpensive method like travel cost makes the most sense.
Relatively simple compared to other methods
12-706 and 73-359 10
Options for Method
A simple zonal travel cost approach, using mostly secondary data, with some simple data collected from visitors.
An individual travel cost approach, using a more detailed survey of visitors.
A random utility approach using survey and other data, and more complicated statistical techniques.
12-706 and 73-359 11
Zonal Method
Simplest approach, estimates a value for recreational services of the site as a whole. Cannot easily be used to value a change in quality of recreation for a site
Collect info. on number of visits to site from different distances. Calculate number of visits “purchased” at different “prices.”
Used to construct demand function for site, estimate consumer surplus for recreational services of the site.
12-706 and 73-359 12
Zonal Method Steps
1. define set of zones around site. May be defined by concentric circles around the site, or by geographic divisions, such as metropolitan areas or counties surrounding the site
2. collect info. on number of visitors from each zone, and the number of visits made in the last year.
3. calculate the visitation rates per 1000 population in each zone. This is simply the total visits per year from the zone, divided by the zone’s population in thousands.
12-706 and 73-359 13
Sample Data
Zone Total
Visits/YearZone
PopulationVisits/1000
0 400 1000 4001 400 2000 2002 400 4000 1003 400 8000 50
Beyond 3 0Total Visits 1600
12-706 and 73-359 14
Estimating Costs
4. calculate average round-trip travel distance and travel time to site for each zone. Assume Zone 0 has zero travel distance and time. Use average cost per mile and per hour of travel time, to calculate
travel cost per trip. Standard cost per mile is $0.30. The cost of time is from average
hourly wage. Assume that it is $9/hour, or $.15/minute, for all zones, although in
practice it is likely to differ by zone.
12-706 and 73-359 15
Data
Zone RoundTrip Dist .
Rou ndTrip Time
Dist ancetime s
Cost /Mile($.30)
Trave lTimetime s
Cost /Minute($.15)
TotalTrave lCost /Trip
0 0 0 0 0 01 20 30 $6 $4.50 $10.502 40 60 $12 $9.00 $21.003 80 120 $24 $18.00 $42.00
5. Use regression to find relationship between visits and travel costs,e.g. Visits/1000 = 330 – 7.755*(Travel Cost)
“a proxy for demand given the information we have”
12-706 and 73-359 16
Final steps 6. construct estimated demand for visits with regression. First point on demand
curve is total visitors to site at current costs (with no entry fee), which is 1600 visits. Other points by estimating number of visitors with different hypothetical entrance fees (assuming that an entrance fee is valued same as travel costs).
Start with $10 entrance fee. Plugging this into the estimated regression equation, V = 330 – 7.755C:
Zone Travel Costplus $10
Visits/1000 Population Total Visits
0 $10 252 1000 2521 $20.50 171 2000 3422 $31.00 90 4000 3603 $52.00 0 8000 0
Total Visits 954
12-706 and 73-359 17
Demand curve
This gives the second point on the demand curve—954 visits at an entry fee of $10. In the same way, the number of visits for increasing entry fees can be calculated:
Entry Fee Total Visits$20 409$30 129$40 20$50 0
12-706 and 73-359 18
Graph
Consumer surplus = area under demand curve = benefits from recreational uses of site around $23,000 per year, or around $14.38 per visit ($23,000/1,600).
Agency’s objective was to decide feasibility to spend money to protect this site. If actions cost less than $23,000 per year, the cost will be less than the benefits provided by the site.
12-706 and 73-359 19
Recreation Benefits
Value of recreation studies‘Values per trip’ -> ‘value per activity day’Activity day results (Sorg and Loomis 84)
Sport fishing: $25-$100, hunting $20-$130 Camping $5-$25, Skiing $25, Boating $6-$40 Wilderness recreation $13-$75
Are there issues behind these results?
12-706 and 73-359 20
Value of travel time savings
Many studies seek to estimate VTTS Can then be used easily in CBAs
Waters, 1993 (56 studies) Many different methods used in studies Route, speed, mode, location choices Results as % of hourly wages not a $ amount Mean value of 48% of wage rate (median 40) North America: 59%/42%
Good resource for studies like this: www.vtpi.org
12-706 and 73-359 21
Government Analyses
DOT (1997): Use % of wage rates for local/intercity and personal/business travel These are the values we will use in class
Office of Secretary of Transportation, “Guidance for the Valuation ofTravel Time in Economic Analysis”, US DOT, April 1997.
12-706 and 73-359 22
In-and-out of vehicle time
12-706 and 73-359 23
Income and VTTS
Income levels are important themselves VTTS not purely proportional to income Waters suggests ‘square root’ relation E.g. if income increases factor 4, VTTS
by 2
12-706 and 73-359 24
Introduction - Congestion
Congestion (i.e. highway traffic) has impacts on movement of people & goods Leads to increased travel time and fuel costs Long commutes -> stress -> quality of life Impacts freight costs (higher labor costs) and
thus increases costs of goods & services http://mobility.tamu.edu/
12-706 and 73-359 25
Literature Review Texas Transportation Institute’s 2005 Annual
Mobility Report http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2005.pdf 20-year study to assess costs of congestion Average daily traffic volumes Binary congestion values
‘Congested’ roads assumed both ways Assumed 5% trucks all times/all roads Assumed 1.25 persons/vehicle, $12/hour Assumed roadway sizes for 3 classes of roads Four different peak hour speeds (both ways)
12-706 and 73-359 26
Results
An admirable study at the national level
In 2003, congestion cost U.S. 3.7 billion hours of delay, 2.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel, thus $63 billion of total cost
12-706 and 73-359 27
Long-term effects (Tufte?)
Uncongested33%
Severe20%
Heavy14%
12-706 and 73-359 28
Old / Previous Results
Method changed over time..In 1997, congestion cost U.S. 4.3
billion hours of delay, 6.6 billion gallons of wasted fuel, thus $72 billion of total cost
New Jersey wanted to validate results with its own data
12-706 and 73-359 29
New Jersey Method
Used New Jersey Congestion Management System (NJCMS) - 21 counties total
Hourly data! Much more info. than TTI report For 4,000 two-direction links
Freeways principal arteries, other arteries Detailed data on truck volumes Average vehicle occupancy data per county,
per roadway type Detailed data on individual road sizes, etc.
12-706 and 73-359 30
Level of Service
Description of traffic flow (A-F) A is best, F is worst (A-C ‘ok’, D-F not)
Peak hour travel speeds calculated Compared to ‘free flow’ speeds A-C classes not considered as congested D-F congestion estimated by free-peak speed
All attempts to make specific findings on New Jersey compared to national
http://www.njit.edu/Home/congestion/
12-706 and 73-359 31
Definitions
Roadway Congestion Index - cars per road space, measures vehicle density Found per urban area (compared to avgs) > 1.0 undesirable
Travel Rate Index Amount of extra time needed on a road
peak vs. off-peak (e.g. 1.20 = 20% more)
12-706 and 73-359 32
Definitions (cont.)
Travel Delay - time difference between actual time and ‘zero volume’ travel time
Congestion Cost - delay and fuel costs Fuel assumed at $1.28 per gallon VTTS - used wage by county (100%) Also, truck delays $2.65/mile (same as TTI)
Congestion cost per licensed driver Took results divided by licenses Assumed 69.2% of all residents each county
12-706 and 73-359 33
Details
County wages $10.83-$23.20 per hour
Found RCI for each roadway link in NJ Aggregated by class for each county
12-706 and 73-359 34
RCI result:
Northern counties generally higherthan southerncounties
New YorkCity
12-706 and 73-359 35
TRI result:
Northern counties generally higherthan southerncounties
12-706 and 73-359 36
12-706 and 73-359 37
Avg annualDelay = 34 hours!
Almost a workWeek!
12-706 and 73-359 38
12-706 and 73-359 39
Effects
Could find annual hours of delay per driver by aggregating roadway delays Then dividing by number of drivers
Total annual congestion cost $4.9 B Over 5% of total of TTI study 75% for autos (190 M hours, $0.5 B fuel
cost) 25% for trucks (inc. labor/operating cost) Avg annual delay per driver = 34 hours
12-706 and 73-359 40
12-706 and 73-359 41
Future
Predicted to only get worse Congestion costs will double by 2015 Why? We spend money on construction
42
Utility
Recall: eliciting and using individual utility functions to make decisions
Is there a similar concept to help us make decisions at the social level?
43
Specifics on Saving Lives
Cost-Utility Analysis Quantity and quality of lives important
Just like discounting, lives are not equal Back to the developing/developed example
But also: YEARS are not equal Young lives “more important” than old Cutting short a year of life for us vs Cutting short a year of life for 85-year-old Often look at ‘life years’ rather than ‘lives’
saved.. These values also get discounted
44
Measuring Lives Saved
Life years (prevented fatalities) not equal Qualitative and quantitative issue Need to consider tradeoffs
Simple example Status quo: no newborns survive a condition Alt. A: 5 live, but with permanent disability Alt. B: 2 live, but with low levels of disability
Which option (SQ, A, B) is preferable?Assume Y increasing, H increasing
Equal costs, no relevant uncertainty
45
Simple Example
Measure of TotalAdditional Years
HealthStatus
Y1 Y2 Y3
H1 Y1H1SQ Y2H1 Y3H1
H2 Y1H2 Y2H2 Y3H2B
H3 Y1H3 Y2H3A Y3H3
46
The Quality/Quantity Game
Assume “preference” for Increased number of years lived Increased level of health Would your preferences be the same?
If so, SQ “dominated” by both A and B Note different horizontal/vertical preference But which of A or B is better? We all understand difference in years Need an index of health status
47
Health Status Index
Death
0
SeverelyDisabled
MinimallyDisabled
HealthModeratelyDisabled
0.15 0.47 0.92 1
Measures utility, derived from expertsBut this says nothing about tradeoff!
Can perform tradeoff survey Value of “shorter Y, higher H” vs. opposite
48
Methods
Health Rating method (see above)Time tradeoff methodStandard gamble methodDiscounting life years
Can/should we discount them? Unlike cash values, we can’t make a
decision to trade 1 year today for 10 yrs from now
49
Cost-Effectiveness TestingGenerally, use when:
Considering externality effects or damagesCould be environmental, safety, etc.
Benefits able to be reduced to one dimension Alternatives give same result - e.g. ‘reduced x’ Benefit-Cost Analysis otherwise
difficult/impossible
Instead of finding NB, find “cheapest” Want greatest bang for the buck
Find cost “per unit benefit” (e.g. lives saved) Allows us to NOT include ‘social costs’
50
Why CEA instead of CBA?
Similar to comments on MCDM Constraints may limit ability to performMonetizing maybe difficult or
controversial Easy to find lives saved, hard to judge
valueMonetizing can’t capture total social value or
distorts its value
51
The CEA ratiosCE = C/E
Equals cost “per unit of effectiveness” e.g. $ per lives saved, tons CO2 reduced Want to minimize CE (cheapest is best)
EC = E/C Effectiveness per unit cost e.g. Lives saved per dollar Want to maximize EC
No practical difference between 2 ratios
52
An Obvious Example
AlternativesValuesA B C
Cost $10 M $10 M $10 M# LivesSaved
5 10 15
CEratio
$2 M $1 M $0.67M
ECratio
0.5life
1 life 1.5lives
53
Another Obvious One
AlternativesValuesA B C
Cost $5 M $10 M $15 M# Lives Saved 10 10 10CE ratio($M/life)
$0.5 $1 $1.5
EC ratio(life/$M)
2 1 0.66
54
Comments on Obvious Examples
Each had 2 dominated alternativesCould easily identify best CE/EC
optionAlso had fixed scale
Fixed cost scale in first Fixed effectiveness in second
55
Interesting Example
AlternativesA B
Cost $1 M $100 M# LivesSaved
4 200
CE ratio $250k $500kEC ratio 4 lives 2 lives
56
Lessons Learned
Ratios still tend to hide results Do not take into account scale issues CBA might have shown Option B to be better (more lives
saved) Tend to only consider budgetary costs CEA used with constraints? Minimize C s.t. E > E*
Min. effectiveness level (prev slide) Find least costly way to achieve it
Minimize CE s.t. E > E* Generally -> higher levels of C and E!
Can have similar rules to constrain cost