guide to project evaluation - update complete · updates for the various rue components, as...

GUIDE TO PROJECT EVALUATION

Part 4: Project Evaluation Data

Guide to Project Evaluation Part 4: Project Evaluation Data

Guide to Project Evaluation Part 4: Project Evaluation Data Summary This Guide contains estimates of road user unit costs for use in Australia, calculated as at 30 June 2010. The unit costs are presented in a format suitable for use with most road project evaluation models, techniques, and software used by Australian road agencies and their consultants. Estimates are not intended for use in New Zealand. Unit values have been calculated in ‘resource price’ terms that is, excluding indirect taxes and government charges, but including subsidies paid to producers. Estimates of road user cost (RUC) inputs are provided at an individual component level for the following cost groupings: vehicle operating costs, travel time costs, crash costs and environmental externalities costs. Average crash costs are now reported for individual jurisdictions and the potential for extending the updating procedure to include crash costs based on road user movement and speed zones is also considered. Finally, updated parameter values for running speed models used to estimate vehicle operating costs and fuel usage for urban operations are supplied, based on a reduced form relationship derived from urban RUC models. Keywords Accident costs, project evaluation, roads, infrastructure, methodology, project assessment, transport economics First published 2005 Second edition May 2007 Third edition November 2008 Fourth edition August 2012 – RUE values are revised, Travel Time Valuation Development Work included, updated conclusion and new references added. © Austroads Ltd. 2012 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads. ISBN 978-1-921991-36-3 Austroads Project No. TP1672 and TP1444 Austroads Publication No. AGPE04-12 Project Manager Ed McGeehan, VicRoads Prepared by Dr Fiona Tan, Bob Lloyd and Caroline Evans, ARRB Group Published by Austroads Ltd Level 9, Robell House 287 Elizabeth Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia Phone: +61 2 9264 7088 Fax: +61 2 9264 1657 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

www.austroads.com.au This Guide is produced by Austroads as a general guide. Its application is discretionary. Road authorities may vary their practice according to local circumstances and policies. Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.


Sydney 2012

About Austroads Austroads’ purpose is to:

promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes

provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport issues

promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.

promote consistency in road and road agency operations.

Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven member organisations:

Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales

Roads Corporation Victoria

Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland

Main Roads Western Australia

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania

Department of Lands and Planning Northern Territory

Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory

Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport

Australian Local Government Association

New Zealand Transport Agency.

The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice and fostering research in the road transport sector.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— i —

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

2 VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS ............................................................................................ 2

2.1 Fuel Prices ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 Concepts and Data Source ...................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 2 2.1.3 Fuel Price Estimates for Capital Cities ..................................................................... 5 2.1.4 Fuel Price Estimates for States and Territories......................................................... 7

2.2 Lubricating Oil ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Passenger Vehicles ............................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Heavy Vehicles ...................................................................................................... 14

2.3 Tyre Prices .......................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Car Tyre Prices ...................................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Heavy Vehicle Tyre Prices ..................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Rethread Tyre Prices ............................................................................................. 15

2.4 Vehicle Prices ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Car Prices .............................................................................................................. 15 2.4.2 Truck and Coach Prices ......................................................................................... 16

2.5 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Costs ............................................................................... 16

3 TRAVEL TIME VALUATION ............................................................................................... 18

3.1 Occupancy Rates ................................................................................................................ 18 3.2 Value per Occupant for Cars ................................................................................................ 18 3.3 Value per Occupant for Heavy Vehicles ............................................................................... 18

3.3.1 Transport Workers Award ...................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Payroll Tax ............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.3 On-cost Items ......................................................................................................... 20 3.3.4 Value per Occupant ............................................................................................... 20

3.4 Value per Occupant for Buses ............................................................................................. 20 3.5 Freight Travel Time .............................................................................................................. 21 3.6 Development Work .............................................................................................................. 22

4 CRASHES AND SAFETY .................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Crash Rates ......................................................................................................................... 23 4.2 Unit Costs ............................................................................................................................ 24

4.2.1 Unit Crash Cost Estimates ..................................................................................... 24 4.2.2 Crash Cost Distribution by Speed Zone and Road User Movement Crash

Costs ...................................................................................................................... 26 4.3 Recent Developments .......................................................................................................... 27

4.3.1 BITRE, RTA and NZ Crash Cost Estimates ............................................................ 27 4.4 Summary of the Estimates and Sources .............................................................................. 28

5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER EXTERNALITIES ........................................................... 29

6 UPDATING URBAN JOURNEY SPEED VOC MODELS..................................................... 36

7 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 41

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 43

FURTHER READING ................................................................................................................... 49


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— ii —

APPENDIX A REVIEW OF THE SOCIAL COSTS OF CRASHES .................................. 50 APPENDIX B ACCESS ECONOMICS LITERATURE SURVEY ..................................... 76 APPENDIX C VICTORIAN CRASH COST DISTRIBUTION BY SPEED ZONE .............. 81 APPENDIX D ROAD USER MOVEMENT (RUM) CRASH COSTS AS AT 30 JUNE

2010 ......................................................................................................... 83 APPENDIX E VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FOR THE ADELAIDE AND

BRISBANE ECONOMIC EVALUATION MODELS .................................. 93 APPENDIX F EXTERNALITY VALUES FOR URBAN RAIL ........................................ 100 APPENDIX G VOC PARAMETER ESTIMATES INCLUDING THE COST OF

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................... 101


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— iii —

TABLES

Table 2.1: Average capital city unleaded petrol prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010 (cents/litre) ..................................................................................... 5

Table 2.2: Average capital city premium unleaded petrol prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010 (cents/litre) ............................................................ 5

Table 2.3: Average capital city automotive diesel prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010 (cents/litre)........................................................................... 6

Table 2.4: Estimated average fuel price by capital city and base price – resource prices at 30 June 2010 ............................................................................................. 6

Table 2.5: Regional variations in petrol and diesel prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010 ............................................................................................. 8

Table 2.6: Resource price estimates of vehicle operating cost components at 30 June 2010 .............................................................................................................. 17

Table 3.1: Transport workers compensation per vehicle category ........................................... 19 Table 3.2: Transport worker grade .......................................................................................... 19 Table 3.3: Payroll tax rates applicable June 2010 ................................................................... 20 Table 3.4: Estimated values of travel time – occupant and freight payload values,

as at June 2010 ...................................................................................................... 21 Table 4.1: Non-urban crash rates for use in HDM-4 (expected crashes per 100

million kilometres of travel) ..................................................................................... 23 Table 4.2: Average casualty costs per person ......................................................................... 24 Table 4.3: Estimated average crash costs by severity category – resource price

value in dollars per crash at June 2010 .................................................................. 25 Table 4.4: Unit crash cost values, 30 June 2010 ($)................................................................ 28 Table 5.1: Externality unit costs for passenger vehicles and buses (cents per

vehicle kilometres travelled (vkt))* .......................................................................... 30 Table 5.2: Externality unit costs for freight vehicles ($ per 1000 tonne-km)* ........................... 33 Table 5.3: Average load carried per trip (kilograms) ................................................................ 34 Table 5.4: Unit values of emissions in $/tonne* ....................................................................... 35 Table 6.1: All-day parameter values for freeway vehicle operating cost models –

cents/km................................................................................................................. 37 Table 6.2: All-day parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle operating cost

models – cents/km ................................................................................................. 37 Table 6.3: Two-hour peak period parameter values for freeway vehicle operating

cost models – cents/km .......................................................................................... 37 Table 6.4: Two-hour peak period parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle

operating cost models – cents/km .......................................................................... 38 Table 6.5: Fifteen-minute peak period parameter values for freeway vehicle

operating cost models – cents/km .......................................................................... 38 Table 6.6: Fifteen-minute peak period parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle

operating cost models – cents/km .......................................................................... 38


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— iv —

FIGURES

Figure 6.1: Passenger vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads ....................................................................................... 39

Figure 6.2: Light commercial vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads .................................................................................. 40

Figure 6.3: Heavy commercial vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads ....................................................................... 40


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— v —

SUMMARY

The purpose of this Guide is to produce a regular update of road user effects (RUE) unit value estimates (e.g. for vehicle operating costs (VOC), travel time, crash costs, and environmental costs) used in project evaluation in Australia.

This Guide contains estimates of the unit values for RUE for use in Australia, calculated as at 30 June 2010. This update is the eighth in the series of Austroads reports that have released the RUE unit value data. Previous updates were estimated as at June 1996, June 1997, June 1998, September 2000, June 2002, June 2005 and June 2007.

The update is based on the methodologies and data sources documented in previous Austroads updates for the various RUE components, as reported in Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation - Part 4: Project Evaluation Data. However, this 2010 update also draws on revised methodologies for the various RUE components as outlined in Austroads project TP1349. The Guide also extends the scope to incorporate a number of tasks that are required to enhance the estimated RUE unit values. These include the following:

for VOC items, regular updates were performed for fuel prices and vehicle prices, with revisions applied in the coverage for tyre prices and lubricating oil and methodological reviews on the repair and maintenance costs data

for travel time valuation, regular updates were performed using similar methodologies as the previous update in 2008

for social costs of crashes, updates were developed using the traditional human capital (HC) approach as well as comparisons with willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimates from Australia and overseas

for environmental externalities, regular updates using just CPI adjustments were undertaken

for urban speed models, reduced form relationships and estimated parameters for urban networks based on the WA TRAMS modelling are provided.

In recent years, road agencies have been pressing for the development of a suite of additional VOC equations, which reflect the varying peak traffic conditions as used by the strategic transport models of different jurisdictions.

The jurisdictions have indicated that in addition to the average 24-hour average speed equations previously provided, it would be beneficial to also provide two additional sets of VOC equations as part of the current update. These include (i) a set of VOC coefficients to cater for those agencies using two-hour peak traffic relationships in their transport models; and (ii) a set of VOC equations which relate to a small selection of peak traffic (e.g. 15 minutes) to assess highly congested road conditions.

This update also considers important new developments for estimating the social costs of crashes. These developments include the updated HC values recently published by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, the WTP estimates of RTA NSW1, and a review and assessment of these in comparison with New Zealand and other countries.

1 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) NSW became Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) NSW during the course of this project.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— vi —

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dr Dimitris Tsolakis, Chief Economist of ARRB Group until June 2011, was significantly involved in the scoping of this project and assisted as quality manager in reviewing this report.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 1 —

1 INTRODUCTION The Austroads road user effects (RUE) unit values are used for developing the economic evaluation of both urban and non-urban road investment projects, and are accepted by the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI) as the appropriate parameter values to be applied for the economic evaluation of road projects in Australia.

The Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation: Part 4 (this document) is a regular publication that provides Australian jurisdictions with an established set of RUE unit values and related input data for their application and use in transport project evaluation. This 2011 issue of Part 4 estimates key road user unit costs updated as at 30 June 2010.

In recent years, road transport agencies across Australia have been advocating for the need to develop enhancements to the existing suite of RUE parameter values. This work is based on the enhancements to the RUE unit values in Austroads project TP1349 (Austroads 2011) and has identified a number of areas across the different RUE components requiring further improvement in the methodologies employed.

The purpose of this Part 4 update is to produce RUE unit value estimates as at 30 June 2010 by drawing on, in some cases, similar methodologies to those used in the previous update (Austroads 2008); while in others, employing improvements for RUE components (e.g. social costs of crashes and urban vehicle operating costs) suggested by Austroads (2011) as follows:

Vehicle operating costs (VOC) components. Regular updates were performed for fuel prices and vehicle prices. There have been revisions in the coverage for tyre prices and lubricating oil and a review of the methodology associated with the repairs and maintenance costs estimates (Section 2).

Travel time valuation. Updates based on similar methodologies as the previous (Austroads 2008) update were carried out (Section 3).

Social costs of crashes. Regular updates using the human capital (HC) approach estimates were carried out (Section 4). In addition, there has been a re-assessment of crash cost estimates in light of recent developments in crash cost estimation by BITRE (2006), RTA (2008a and RTA 2008b) and the Ministry of Transport New Zealand (2010) (Section 4).

Environmental externalities. Regular updates using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments of previous estimates (Austroads 2008) were undertaken (Section 5).

Urban speed models. Reduced form relationships and estimated parameters for urban networks based on the WA TRAMS modelling are provided (Section 6).

The updating of unit values in this (Part 4) series provides an opportunity to address a number of gaps in the coverage and methodologies used, as new research and information is developed and becomes available.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 2 —

2 VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS Road VOC are incurred by road users and road service providers. Austroads provides unit values for the key VOC components for the purpose of project evaluation. These include fuel prices and costs associated with lubricating oil, tyre use, repairs and maintenance, and vehicle depreciation. The update of RUE unit values in this section is largely based on the same methodologies as has been applied in the previous Austroads (2008) update. Each of the VOC components covered is explained below.

2.1 Fuel Prices Fuel consumption constitutes the largest proportion of VOC and is the most observable cost incurred by road users. Fuel prices remain one of the key unit cost parameters used in the preparation of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) estimates.

2.1.1 Concepts and Data Source Fuel prices are expressed in terms of ‘retail (market) prices’ and ‘resource prices’. The resource price is the retail price less tax adjusted for subsidies. For example, it excludes federal government excise, customs duties and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) levied on automotive fuels, but includes subsidies paid to sellers and distributors. The retail price is the final value of fuel traded at the market, inclusive of taxes and excise duties; thus, the retail price is the price paid by consumers of fuel (motorists or road users). At the market price level, retail prices vary in response to a range of factors including transport costs from refineries, volumes sold, variations in subsidies, and sundry other market forces.

The average retail fuel price and average resource fuel price are provided for unleaded petrol (ULP), premium unleaded petrol (PULP) and automotive diesel. In addition, market price estimates for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as at June 2010 are provided. LPG is not subject to any excise taxes and hence is not eligible for fuel tax credit subsidies. Price estimates for leaded and lead replacement petrol are not included in this Guide because their distribution has been phased out.

Data on the average retail price (also termed as the ‘average pump price’) are sourced from Fueltrac2. Retail price estimates have been adjusted for net indirect taxes, rebates and subsidies using information obtained from federal and state government agencies. Data on taxes, namely, the GST, federal excise and state subsidies were obtained from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and state revenue offices across Australia.

Fuel price estimates in this section are presented for each capital city for the month of June 2010. The capital cities include Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Darwin and Canberra.

2.1.2 Methodology As the taxes, rebates, and subsidies applying to automotive fuels are quite complex, their removal to estimate resource prices is not straightforward. For this reason, a methodology was developed to convert the average retail prices sourced from Fueltrac to average resource prices. A description of the conversion methodology and various taxes and rebate schemes and how they impact on fuel prices in Australia is provided below.

2 Fuel price data as at 30 June 2010 have been generated by Fueltrac.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 3 —

Given the average retail (or pump) price, the average resource price (in cents per litre) for each state/capital city is calculated net of all taxes as follows (Equation 1):

Resource price = Retail price – Net taxes 1

where

Net taxes = Federal excise + GST component – State subsidy.

For each state, net taxes consist of the federal excise and GST component less state subsidy. A description on how each scheme impacts on the calculation of resource prices of fuel is included below.

Federal excise

Excise taxation by the Australian Government comprises a fixed value impost per litre on unleaded, premium unleaded and diesel fuels. Prior to March 2001, the imposts for each fuel type were adjusted every six months in line with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). From March 2001, the six-monthly indexation was discontinued. At present, the excise rate for ULP, PULP and diesel is 38.143 cents per litre (c/l). For fuels imported as opposed to those refined in Australia, matching customs imposts apply.

According to the Fuel Standard (Automotive Diesel) Determination 2001, all diesel sold in Australia must contain less than 50 ppm of sulphur by 1 January 2006 (Australian Government Comlaw 2001).

GST component

The GST, introduced by the Australian Government on 1 July 2000, is payable on all components of the cost of fuel sold in Australia including all stages of production and distribution. Therefore the 10% GST component of the fuel price can be calculated as one-eleventh (10/110) of the retail or pump price.

State/Territory subsidies

State subsidies on fuel have been taken into account in deriving resource price estimates as they can significantly affect resource fuel price variations.

In general, amounts and coverage of subsidies vary from state to state, and between regional and urban areas, and are intended to be passed on through lower retail fuel prices. Most Australian state governments have abolished their fuel subsidy schemes to fuel distributors or retailers. New South Wales abolished the Petroleum Products Subsidy Scheme from 1 July 2009. Formerly, NSW paid subsidies in five northern NSW zones which extended south from the Queensland-NSW border (New South Wales Office of State Revenue 2010). Victoria abolished subsidies on ULP, PULP and diesel for both metropolitan and regional areas on 1 July 2007 (State Revenue Office of Victoria 2009). Tasmania abolished its subsidy on diesel fuel as of 1 October 2007 (Tasmania Treasury 2007). The cessation of the on-road diesel subsidy scheme in Western Australia occurred on 17 December 20093. In South Australia, there is no subsidy for the capital city (Adelaide) and a diesel subsidy of 1.94 cents/litre in zone 3 (over 100 km from the Adelaide GPO),

3 It should also be noted that null entries in some tabulations for state subsidies for some capital cities do not indicate that subsidies do not apply in non-metropolitan areas of these states.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 4 —

which is currently factored into the June 2010 calculations, will cease as of 1 January 2011 (Cameron 2010). Although there is no fuel subsidy in the capital city, fuel subsidies vary according to the region, by 0.82 to 3.33 c/l for ULP, PULP and diesel4. Certain regions in South Australia do not have fuel subsidies.

However, the exceptions apply to Queensland and the Northern Territory. In Queensland, the fuel subsidy of 8.354 cents/litre applies to sales for ULP, PULP and diesel (Office of State Revenue 2010). In the Northern Territory, the 1.1 cents/litre fuel subsidy is currently provided to suppliers of petroleum and diesel (Northern Territory Treasury 2010).

Grant schemes

There have been several changes, since Austroads (2008), to the government grant schemes available to eligible entities.

The Fuel Sales Grant Scheme (FSGS) was closed on 1 July 2006. The FSGS was introduced on 1 July 2000 by the Federal Government in conjunction with the reduction in excise and the introduction of the GST, which was intended to ensure that price differentials between metropolitan and regional areas did not widen.

The Energy Grants Credits Scheme (EGCS) was abolished for diesel fuel on 1 July 2006. The Fuel Tax Credit has replaced the EGCS and is applicable to petrol and diesel. By introducing the Fuel Tax Credit, the Government was attempting to modernise and simplify the fuel taxation system with a single fuel tax credit. Fuel tax credits were introduced on 1 July 2006 and the entitlement has expanded from 1 July 2008. The grant effectively reduces the excise on various products (fuels) and can be claimed for fuel used in carrying on business. Fuel tax credits are as follows:

15.543 cents/litre for vehicles (including emergency vehicles) with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) greater than 4.5 tonne travelling on public roads (diesel vehicles acquired before 1 July 2006 can equal 4.5 tonne). This rate effectively reduces the fuel excise paid by operators of heavy vehicles to the road user fuel charge of 18.6 c/l previously set by the National Transport Commission.

38.143 cents/litre for fuels eligible from 1 July 2006 used for specific activities (agriculture, fishing, forestry, mining, marine, rail, nursing and medical), burner applications, non-fuel use (mould release, ingredient to manufacturing product), packaging fuels in containers of 20 litres or less for non-internal combustion engine use, supply of fuel for domestic heating, electricity generation by a commercial generation plant and emergency vessels.

19.0715 cents/litre for fuels acquired from 1 July 2008 to use in all other machinery, plant and equipment. Examples include a wide range of construction, wholesale/retail, property management and landscaping activities.

It should be noted that the Fuel Tax Credits affect the net financial price that most freight vehicle operators pay for diesel fuel. However, they do not directly affect the composition of wholesale or retail pump prices nor do they affect the resource price calculations contained in the Guide.

For further details on the types of vehicles, fuels and vehicle trips that apply, refer to the ATO web site (ATO 2010).

4 It has been announced that the fuel subsidy scheme in South Australia regions more than 100 km from Adelaide will cease as at 1 January 2011 (Oldland 2011).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 5 —

2.1.3 Fuel Price Estimates for Capital Cities Market and resource price estimates for ULP, PULP and automotive diesel for each capital city as at 30 June 2010 are set out in Table 2.1, Table 2.2 and Table 2.3, together with details of relevant tax and subsidy components applicable. It is noted that the confidence associated with the Fueltrac-sourced average retail prices shown in Table 2.1, Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 are to 1 decimal place. Consequently, the prices reported for both the average retail prices and the derived average resource prices should only be reported to 1 decimal place.

Table 2.1: Average capital city unleaded petrol prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010 (cents/litre)

Average retail price (1)

Excise (2) GST State subsidy (3) Net tax Average resource price

(A) (B) (C) (A*10/110)

(D) (E) (B+C–D)

(F) (A–E)

Sydney 127.4 38.1 11.6 0.0 49.7 77.7 Melbourne 128.1 38.1 11.7 0.0 49.8 78.3 Brisbane 128.9 38.1 11.7 8.4 41.5 87.4 Adelaide 124.8 38.1 11.4 0.0 49.5 75.3 Perth 127.6 38.1 11.6 0.0 49.7 77.9 Hobart 135.7 38.1 12.3 0.0 50.5 85.2 Darwin 134.3 38.1 12.2 1.1 49.3 85.0 Canberra 125.9 38.1 11.5 0.0 49.6 76.3

1 Fueltrac (data generated as at 30 June 2010). 2 ATO (2010). 3 State revenue offices of relevant Australian states and territories. Notes: Resource prices shown in the last column in Table 2.1 to Table 2.3 exclude federal government excise, customs duties and GST levied on automotive fuels, but include subsidies paid to sellers and distributors. The excise rate for diesel has been taken as 38.143 c/l which is the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel (sulphur content less than 50 parts per million).

Table 2.2: Average capital city premium unleaded petrol prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010 (cents/litre)



(A) (B) (C) (A*10/110)

(D) (E) (B+C–D)

(F) (A–E)


1 Fueltrac (data generated as at 30 June 2010). 2 ATO (2010). 3 State revenue offices of relevant Australian states and territories.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 6 —

Table 2.3: Average capital city automotive diesel prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010 (cents/litre)



(A) (B) (C) (A*10/110)

(D) (E) (B+C–D)

(F) (A–E)


1 Fueltrac (data generated as at 30 June 2010). 2 ATO (2010). 3 State revenue offices of relevant Australian states and territories. Table 2.4 presents the resource fuel prices shown in Table 2.1 to Table 2.3 for all petrol, diesel and also LPG. The values shown for petrol are a weighted average of ULP and PULP based on the sales volume of each grade (ULP and PULP) in each state for June 2010. This was done using the analysis of information regarding the sale of petroleum products by state sales regions, as published in Australian Petroleum Statistics (Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism 2010). The diesel price remains unchanged from that shown in Table 2.3.

The LPG average price in major capital cities is obtained from data generated by Fueltrac as at June 2010. LPG is not subject to any excise taxes and hence is not eligible for fuel tax credit subsidies. The LPG price per litre excludes GST. It should be noted that plans for an LPG excise were originally announced by the Howard Government in its energy white paper in 2004, and the 2010 Budget has included the intention to impose a 2.5 c/l excise from July 2011, rising to 12.5 c/l over five years. Although this is not incorporated in the current update, it will need to be built into future updates, as the 2.5 c/l may be implemented from July 2011 onwards.

Table 2.4: Estimated average fuel price by capital city and base price – resource prices at 30 June 2010

Capital city Fuel type (cents/litre)

Petrol (weighted average

by volume)

Diesel LPG

Sydney 79.9 81.1 58.2 Melbourne 79.2 78.6 55.3 Brisbane 88.9 88.8 61.1 Adelaide 76.1 78.8 60.3 Perth 79.0 81.0 66.7 Hobart 86.8 86.5 76.8 Darwin 86.8 87.2 87.8 Canberra 78.6 82.7 59.9 Base price (lowest) 76.1 78.6 55.3

Source: Fueltrac (data generated as at 30 June 2010) and Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (2010).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 7 —

2.1.4 Fuel Price Estimates for States and Territories The average retail and resource prices for ULP, PULP and diesel for states and territories (selected towns/regions) in Australia as at 30 June 2010 are presented in Table 2.5.

Data on the average retail price are sourced from Fueltrac as at June 2010. The conversion from the retail to resource price for each state/territory adopts the same formula as per Equation 1. Resource prices have been adjusted net of taxes and subsidies using information from the ATO and state revenue offices in Australia. The GST component of the fuel price is calculated as one eleventh (10/110) of the retail price. The federal excise rate for ULP, PULP and diesel for each state/territory is taken as 38.143 c/l.

State subsidies vary according to the state and territory. The information on state and territory subsidies is as described in Section.

The average retail and resource prices for each state/territory indicate the extent to which prices for petrol and diesel vary within the states and territories in both market price and resource price terms. The market price-level variations between states/territories reflect variations in transport costs from refineries, sales volumes, subsidies and sundries, and other market forces. These factors feed into resource prices, and it should be noted that resource prices vary among localities. Thus, the difference between market and resource price is not always uniform across the states.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 8 —

Table 2.5: Regional variations in petrol and diesel prices – market and resource prices at 30 June 2010

State/regional centre Automotive fuel type ULP PULP Diesel

Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) ACT Canberra 125.9 76.3 137.6 87.0 132.9 82.7 New South Wales Sydney Metro 127.4 77.7 138.8 88.0 131.2 81.1 Albury 125.7 76.1 136.3 85.8 130.1 80.1 Armidale 130.9 80.9 141.5 90.5 139.5 88.7 Batemans Bay 132.5 82.3 140.2 89.3 133.9 83.6 Bathurst 127.9 78.1 137.3 86.7 130.9 80.9 Bega 135.3 84.9 145.1 93.8 138.3 87.6 Broken Hill 132.9 82.7 140.3 89.4 136.0 85.5 Canberra 125.9 76.3 137.6 87.0 132.9 82.7 Casino 132.9 82.7 144.6 93.3 132.8 82.6 Coffs Harbour 130.3 80.3 141.7 90.7 133.0 82.8 Cooma 133.9 83.6 144.1 92.9 139.1 88.3 Coonabarabran 129.9 80.0 138.7 88.0 131.9 81.8 Cowra 128.4 78.6 138.4 87.7 131.1 81.0 Dubbo 130.0 80.0 139.9 89.0 133.9 83.6 Forbes 134.0 83.7 143.3 92.1 135.0 84.6 Forster 127.0 77.3 137.6 87.0 132.9 82.7 Glen Innes 127.1 77.4 135.8 85.3 133.8 83.5 Goulburn 128.5 78.7 138.2 87.5 132.5 82.3 Grafton 130.9 80.9 139.4 88.6 133.4 83.1 Griffith 130.4 80.4 141.2 90.2 132.6 82.4 Hay 136.1 85.6 145.9 94.5 136.0 85.5


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 9 —


Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Inverell 134.0 83.7 143.8 92.6 134.3 84.0 Kempsey 129.7 79.8 140.0 89.1 132.7 82.5 Lismore 132.4 82.2 141.3 90.3 132.9 82.7 Maitland 130.3 80.3 140.9 90.0 129.4 79.5 Moree 135.1 84.7 143.8 92.6 135.1 84.7 Narrabri 134.9 84.5 146.2 94.8 135.1 84.7 Newcastle 126.5 76.9 138.1 87.4 130.6 80.6 Oberon 132.8 82.6 140.6 89.7 136.1 85.6 Orange 130.4 80.4 140.4 89.5 133.3 83.0 Parkes 132.8 82.6 142.1 91.0 134.6 84.2 Port Macquarie 130.4 80.4 141.3 90.3 135.0 84.6 Tamworth 133.8 83.5 142.4 91.3 135.8 85.3 Taree 128.9 79.0 139.7 88.9 130.8 80.8 Ulladulla 132.7 82.5 137.3 86.7 136.4 85.9 Wagga Wagga 132.7 82.5 142.6 91.5 135.9 85.4 Wollongong 127.3 77.6 139.6 88.8 133.8 83.5 Yass 129.4 79.5 141.5 90.5 131.9 81.8 Victoria Melbourne Metro 128.1 78.3 138.1 87.4 128.4 78.6 Ararat 125.8 76.2 134.7 84.3 129.1 79.2 Bairnsdale 120.2 71.1 132.0 81.9 127.9 78.1 Ballarat 123.8 74.4 134.2 83.9 127.1 77.4 Benalla 130.0 80.0 142.0 91.0 131.2 81.1 Bendigo 125.5 76.0 137.2 86.6 130.2 80.2 Colac 129.7 79.8 137.9 87.2 131.5 81.4


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 10 —


Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Echuca 129.9 80.0 138.8 88.0 130.0 80.0 Geelong 124.6 75.1 135.7 85.2 128.8 79.0 Horsham 131.8 81.7 141.7 90.7 129.9 80.0 Lakes Entrance 131.0 81.0 141.7 90.7 134.1 83.8 Mansfield 132.8 82.6 146.0 94.6 136.0 85.5 Mildura 133.7 83.4 143.5 92.3 134.8 84.4 Orbost 133.7 83.4 141.7 90.7 136.0 85.5 Portland 131.8 81.7 141.1 90.1 131.5 81.4 Sale 123.3 74.0 136.0 85.5 130.0 80.0 Shepparton 130.8 80.8 140.8 89.9 128.3 78.5 Sunbury 128.4 78.6 138.2 87.5 127.9 78.1 Swan Hill 133.6 83.3 143.2 92.0 134.1 83.8 Traralgon 129.0 79.1 138.4 87.7 132.3 82.1 Wangaratta 128.8 79.0 142.7 91.6 132.5 82.3 Warrnambool 126.6 77.0 139.1 88.3 130.8 80.8 Wodonga 125.6 76.0 137.2 86.6 130.0 80.0 Wonthaggi 133.2 83.0 144.2 93.0 134.9 84.5 Yarrawonga 127.6 77.9 136.7 86.1 130.5 80.5 Queensland Brisbane Metro 128.9 87.4 139.8 97.3 130.4 88.8 Bowen 133.3 91.4 142.7 99.9 133.0 91.1 Bundaberg 129.2 87.7 139.9 97.4 129.9 88.3 Caboolture 129.7 88.1 141.4 98.8 131.0 89.3 Cairns 129.6 88.0 140.8 98.2 130.2 88.6 Caloundra 129.3 87.8 138.7 96.3 129.7 88.1


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 11 —


Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Charleville 142.9 100.1 151.9 108.3 143.9 101.0 Charters Towers 134.6 92.6 144.0 101.1 136.1 93.9 Cloncurry 146.0 103.0 156.4 112.4 148.2 104.9 Cunnamulla 138.1 95.8 147.9 104.7 139.7 97.2 Dalby 127.4 86.0 138.6 96.2 128.8 87.3 Emerald 132.9 91.0 141.9 99.2 132.6 90.8 Gladstone 132.4 90.6 141.2 98.6 133.3 91.4 Gold Coast 129.4 87.9 139.8 97.3 131.1 89.4 Goondiwindi 133.4 91.5 143.8 100.9 132.8 90.9 Gympie 126.9 85.6 140.2 97.7 129.2 87.7 Hervey Bay 129.8 88.2 140.1 97.6 132.4 90.6 Ipswich 129.1 87.6 140.5 97.9 131.2 89.5 Kingaroy 130.8 89.1 141.9 99.2 133.7 91.8 Longreach 138.2 95.9 147.9 104.7 138.9 96.5 Mackay 132.8 91.0 144.4 101.5 132.9 91.0 Maryborough 130.5 88.9 139.1 96.7 130.2 88.6 Mt Isa 137.0 94.8 143.6 100.8 133.9 91.9 Normanton 147.0 103.9 n.a. n.a. 148.5 105.2 North Coast 129.5 87.9 139.6 97.1 131.4 89.7 Rockhampton 133.5 91.6 143.4 100.6 134.3 92.3 Roma 133.9 91.9 143.7 100.9 134.9 92.9 Toowoomba 128.3 86.9 139.5 97.0 130.9 89.2 Townsville 130.5 88.9 141.0 98.4 131.6 89.9 Warwick 132.8 90.9 142.8 100.0 131.9 90.1

South Australia


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 12 —


Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Adelaide Metro 124.8 75.3 135.6 85.1 128.6 78.8 Ceduna 135.9 88.7 146.1 98.0 133.2 84.9 Coober Pedy 146.4 98.3 n.a. n.a. 147.7 98.0 Mt Gambier 129.7 83.1 139.8 92.3 134.4 86.0 Murray Bridge 128.3 79.3 137.4 87.6 131.0 81.0 Port Augusta 128.2 81.7 132.9 86.0 131.5 83.3 Port Lincoln 134.1 87.1 144.9 96.9 134.8 86.3 Port Pirie 127.2 80.8 137.5 90.2 130.3 82.3 Renmark 131.9 85.1 140.6 93.0 133.3 85.0 Victor Harbour 128.8 79.8 141.3 91.1 129.8 79.9 Whyalla 126.0 79.7 134.0 87.0 129.4 81.4 Western Australia Perth Metro 127.6 77.9 137.5 86.9 131.1 81.8 Albany 136.8 86.2 145.4 94.0 138.7 88.7 Bunbury 130.4 80.4 141.1 90.1 134.4 84.8 Carnarvon 145.8 94.4 156.7 104.3 143.9 93.4 Eucla 147.9 96.3 151.3 99.4 149.3 98.3 Kalgoorlie 136.4 85.9 147.7 96.1 135.8 86.0 Mandurah 127.4 77.7 137.8 87.1 133.2 83.7 Tasmania Hobart 135.7 85.2 147.0 95.5 137.1 88.5 Burnie 133.3 83.0 145.5 94.1 133.4 85.1 Campbelltown 135.7 85.2 135.9 85.4 137.2 88.6 Devonport 131.6 81.5 145.2 93.9 135.9 87.4 Launceston 132.8 82.6 145.1 93.8 136.4 87.9


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 13 —


Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) Market price (c/l) Resource price (c/l) New Norfolk 130.8 80.8 140.8 89.9 136.2 87.7 Ulverstone 131.5 81.4 141.9 90.9 135.0 86.6 Wynyard 136.1 85.6 143.4 92.2 136.0 87.5 Northern Territory Darwin 134.3 85.1 146.0 95.7 136.7 87.2 Alice Springs 147.9 97.4 157.7 106.3 148.1 97.6 Katherine 131.4 82.4 138.5 88.9 136.6 87.1 Tennant Creek 149.5 98.9 n.a. n.a. 148.6 98.1

Notes: Fueltrac (data generated as at 30 June 2010). State revenue offices of relevant Australian states and territories.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 14 —

2.2 Lubricating Oil Average automotive lubricating oil prices for each vehicle type as at 30 June 2010 are shown in Table 2.6.

2.2.1 Passenger Vehicles For passenger vehicles, the average retail price was obtained from a retail price survey conducted in September 2010. This price was averaged from a large basket of lubricating oil products (i.e. 75 products) sold at major automotive retailers throughout Australia. The average price excludes products with extremely high prices. The exclusion of these ‘outliers’ is done to avoid distortions in the averaging process.

As each product is sold in different volumes (in terms of litres), the average retail price is converted to a ‘per litre’ basis. The ‘average resource price per litre’ is then estimated by removing the GST component from the retail prices. The GST component constitutes one-eleventh (10/110) of the retail price. For the month of June 2010, the average resource price for cars was calculated at $6.32 per litre, representing a price increase from $5.22 per litre calculated in June 2007 (as published in Austroads 2008).

2.2.2 Heavy Vehicles The average resource price increase for a passenger vehicle is used as a ‘price change indicator’ to update the price for heavy vehicles from their 2007 price base reported in Austroads (2008). This methodology is similar to that adopted in Austroads (2008). As at 30 June 2010, the average resource price for rigid and articulated trucks and combination vehicles ranged from $5.52 per litre to $5.91 per litre. A further check with industry data revealed that the ‘per litre’ price is lower for oil products sold in larger volume bottles (e.g. 10-litre or 20-litre bottles). As the usage of lubricating oil for heavy vehicles is higher than for passenger vehicles, it is expected that heavy vehicle operators will buy/use oil products in larger volume bottles.

2.3 Tyre Prices The average resource prices for new tyres and rethreads as at 30 June 2010 are set out in Table 2.6.

2.3.1 Car Tyre Prices The vehicle categories for cars consist of small, medium and large cars. The prices were obtained from leading tyre retailers throughout Australia5 based on spot price information as at mid-October 2010. To ensure the market price reflected the industry average, the average was calculated from a large sample of about 300 observations. The tyres spanned across budget, value and premium types sold to customers. This is a significant improvement in the coverage compared to the previous update in Austroads (2008), where the average price for cars was estimated from a small number of observations.

5 The June 2007 update sourced information from South Pacific Tyres distributor, which ceased business operations since December 2008 (The Australian 2008).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 15 —

2.3.2 Heavy Vehicle Tyre Prices Heavy vehicle categories comprise rigid trucks, articulated trucks and combination vehicles. As in the case for cars, the prices were sourced from several leading tyre retailers in Australia using spot price information as at mid-October 2010. Tyre sizes and specifications were mapped against specific vehicle types. To ensure the prices were reflective of the industry average, this average was estimated from a relatively large sample of about 160 observations. The tyre data collected spans across budget, value and premium types6. The average market prices were then calculated for each rigid truck, articulated truck and combination vehicle tyre configuration. Compared to the previous update reported in Austroads (2008) where the average price for trucks was estimated from a limited number of observations, this is a vast improvement in the coverage, as the prices are calculated from a much larger sample.

Under each category, the price represents the market average per tyre as at 30 June 2010. The ‘average resource price per tyre’ is then calculated by removing the GST component (one-eleventh i.e. 10/110 of the retail price) from the market prices.

Coach prices were updated from data published in Austroads (2005c).

2.3.3 Rethread Tyre Prices Rethread prices for tyres were not available from industry sources. As prices are required by some evaluation models, estimates have been obtained by multiplying the relative price ratio of new to reread tyres in June 2007, with the price of new tyres in June 2010 (assuming no change to the relative price between 2007 and 2010). This is based on a similar method as in the last update (Austroads 2008).

There is further scope for improvement in the methodology used for compiling reread tyre prices. For example, it has been found that different tyre types for a specific vehicle type (e.g. drive tyres versus front steering tyres for a combination vehicle) have different rates of tread wear. The present set of data does not make any distinction between drive and steer tyres. There are models which can be tailored to modify the price of reread tyres to suit the rate of wear of drive and steer tyres. Further modelling could be considered for future updates.

2.4 Vehicle Prices The details of market and resource prices for new vehicles as at 30 June 2010 are presented in Table 2.6.

2.4.1 Car Prices The list of car prices ($ per vehicle) were taken as the average of the market price of the cars listed on the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria’s (RACV) web site (viewed at www.racv.com.au) in mid-October 2010. For each category of small, medium and large cars, the average market price was obtained for a similar range of car models as in the last update reported in Austroads (2008). In particular, the small car price was derived by averaging results obtained from the small and light car groups. The discounted price for cars was obtained by applying a 5% discount to all car types. The average resource price per vehicle is calculated by removing the GST component from the market prices.

6 It is noted that for B-doubles, double road trains, double B-double and triple road trains, a distinction has been made between super singles and standard dual tyre types. For further updates, both of these tyre types could be considered in calculating tyre prices.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 16 —

2.4.2 Truck and Coach Prices The list prices for heavy vehicles and coaches were updated to June 2010 using the producer price index (PPI) for road freight transport7. Vehicle prices were not updated with the PPI for transport and storage, as the series for the transport (freight) and storage division index has been discontinued (ABS 2010b). The PPI update is a variation from the previous update where a CPI adjustment was carried out. It is considered that the PPI for road freight transport would be more representative of the price increase of trucks/trailers than the overall CPI. The last update was based on a CPI adjustment undertaken since 1997.

To obtain the discounted price for heavy vehicles and coaches, a discount rate of 5% was applied to all vehicle types. The resource price shown is calculated by removing the 10% GST component from the discounted price estimate.

It should be noted that there may be other sources of information which may exist with related or non-compatible data. For example, the Glass’s 2010 Black and White data book presents the 2009 sales volume of trucks by model-type. However, it does not have a breakdown on whether the trucks are rigid or articulated etc. (Glass’s 2010). In addition, trucks are sold differently to cars, as they are more in terms of a ‘price-on-application (POA)’ than a listed retail price. A significant degree of customisation is required for the sale of trucks, which makes it difficult for retailers to list a single price for a given vehicle-type or model. Further work is required in this area to improve the price data obtained for trucks.

2.5 Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Costs Estimated costs for vehicle repair and maintenance for June 2010 are set out in the last column of Table 2.6. Costs are calculated on a per vehicle-kilometre basis for each of the representative vehicles.

Car estimates are based on the survey results presented in the RACV web site (www.racv.com.au) on the Survey of Vehicle Operating Costs for June 2011. The cost estimates for cars have been backdated to June 2010 using the PPI for motor vehicle and part manufacturing. The small car category represents an average of the small and light car categories.

The costs for heavy vehicles have been updated from the June 2007 set using the PPI for road freight transport for the period ending June 2010 (ABS 2010b).

The original set of repairs and maintenance costs data was obtained from a 1997 survey of Australian fleet operators. A study was conducted to ascertain if the New Zealand data could be applied to Australian heavy vehicles. Repairs and maintenance costs data from the New Zealand Transport Agency’s Economic Evaluation Manual (NZTA 2010) were examined and compared with Australian industry data. It was established that the NZ set of data is not suitable for current Australian conditions.

7 The PPI figures for the truck categories were obtained from the ABS publication on Producer Price Index, Catalogue no. 6427.0 – road freight transport (final commodities index). Coach prices were updated by VicRoads from data published in Austroads (2005c).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 17 —

Table 2.6: Resource price estimates of vehicle operating cost components at 30 June 2010

Vehicle stereotypes Lubricant oil prices (Section 2.2)

Tyre prices (Section 2.3) Vehicle prices (Section 2.4) Vehicle repair and maintenance costs

(Section 2.5) New tyre price Rethread tyre price

Listed retail price Less discount Resource price

$ per litre (resource prices)

$ per tyre (resource prices)

$ per tyre (resource prices)

$ per vehicle (market prices)

$ per vehicle (market prices)

$ per vehicle (resource prices)

Cents per km (resource prices)

Cars Small 6.32 91.00 55.00 18 440 17 520 15 930 5.9 Medium 6.32 116.00 64.00 32 320 30 700 27 910 6.8 Large 6.32 168.00 84.00 36 360 34 540 31 400 5.5 Average 6.32 127.00 69.00 29 010 27 560 25 050 6.2 Rigid trucks Light commercial (2 axle, 4 tyre) 5.91 109.00 79.00 52 780 50 140 45 580 5.2 Medium (2 axle, 6 tyre) 5.91 195.00 93.00 130 320 123 800 112 550 11.4 Heavy (3 axle) 5.91 381.00 140.00 210 170 199 660 181 510 12.2 Articulated trucks 4 axle 5.91 274.00 97.00 285 570 271 290 246 630 16.5 5 axle 5.52 274.00 94.00 318 840 302 890 275 350 19.2 6 axle 5.52 274.00 97.00 348 870 331 420 301 290 19.8 Combination vehicles Rigid (3 axle) plus dogtrailer (5 axle) 5.52 274.00 104.00 318 020 302 120 274 650 21.9 B-double 5.52 350.00 132.00 461 430 438 360 398 510 23.0 Twin steer (4 axle) plus dogtrailer (4 axle) 5.52 274.00 97.00 373 030 354 370 322 150 22.5 Twin steer (4 axle) plus dogtrailer (5 axle) 5.52 274.00 99.00 382 900 363 760 330 690 23.5 Double road train 5.52 350.00 137.00 511 330 485 760 441 600 24.6 B-triple combination 5.52 350.00 139.00 652 790 620 150 563 770 30.6 A B combination 5.52 371.00 150.00 608 880 578 440 525 850 30.0 Double B-double combination 5.52 350.00 144.00 684 760 650 530 591 390 33.9 Triple road train 5.52 350.00 143.00 640 840 608 800 553 450 31.5 Bus 3 Large bus (coach) 5.52 274.00 104.00 355 470 337 690 307 300 n.a.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 18 —

3 TRAVEL TIME VALUATION Unit travel time costs for occupants, and freight payload, together with vehicle occupancies are presented in Table 3.4. The unit costs are in the form of occupancy rates, the value per occupant and freight travel time.

3.1 Occupancy Rates Occupancy rates used to expand personal travel costs to a per vehicle level are based on data contained in Austroads-sponsored surveys (Arup 1995). It is assumed that the occupancy rates (persons per vehicle) for the various vehicle types have not altered from Austroads (2008), unless there has been a change in the seating capacity of vehicles or a change in driving patterns of motorists. As such, these rates have remained unchanged from the previous update.

It is noted that additional information on average car occupancies for peak, off peak and all day periods in some capital cities is available from periodic surveys by the relevant jurisdictions and is separately reported in Group 8 (Lane Occupancy Rate) in the Austroads National Performance Indicators section of the Austroads web site (http://www.austroads.com.au).

3.2 Value per Occupant for Cars Personal travel time costs have been updated to 30 June 2010 values using the change in Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) (ABS 2010a) from base values generated by the most recent published values in Austroads (2008). The update is based on the recommendation that unpaid private travel time be valued at 40% of seasonally-adjusted full-time AWE for Australia (Austroads 1997). The AWE for full-time workers in Australia for the quarter ending 31 May 2010 was $1251 per week or $32.93 per hour assuming a 38 hour week. Private travel time is then estimated at $13.17 per person-hr (i.e. 40% of the AWE). Austroads (2008) recommended that this value should be used in the valuation of private car travel to and from work, recreational travel, motorcycle travel, bicycle travel, pedestrian travel, waiting time, public transit passenger travel and tourist/recreational travel.

For ‘Business car’ travel, the change in AWE (latest available data) was applied to estimate the value of travel time. According to Austroads (2008), it was assumed (as specified in Austroads 1997) that paid private time for non-commercial vehicles (cars and vans) be valued at 135% of full-time AWE less 7% assumed for payroll tax, effectively at 128%, assuming a 38 hour week. On this basis, business car travel has been set at $42.15 per person-hr.

3.3 Value per Occupant for Heavy Vehicles Crew costs for commercial freight vehicles were updated to 2010 using hourly wage rates.

Crew costs for commercial freight vehicles have been updated using the latest Transport Workers Award (TWA) in 2010, as recommended in Austroads (1997). Table 3.1 shows the respective compensation formulas for transport workers for each vehicle type.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 19 —

Table 3.1: Transport workers compensation per vehicle category

Transport worker vehicle category Applicable compensation formula Light commercial (2 axle, 4 tyre) TWA Grade 2 + on cost – payroll tax Medium rigid (2 axle, 6 tyre) TWA Grade 4 + on cost – payroll tax Heavy rigid (3 axle) TWA Grade 6 + on cost – payroll tax Articulated trucks (with 1 trailer) TWA Grade 7 + on cost – payroll tax Medium & long combinations (2+ trailers) TWA Grade 8 + on cost – payroll tax

Source: Austroads (2008).

3.3.1 Transport Workers Award The 2010 weekly wage rates for each transport worker grade as published in the Road Transport and Distribution Award for the year 2010 (Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2010), are shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Transport worker grade

Transport worker grade

Minimum weekly rate

Grade 1 $577.60 Grade 2 $592.60 Grade 3 $600.60 Grade 4 $612.10 Grade 5 $619.70 Grade 6 $627.40 Grade 7 $637.10 Grade 8 $656.10 Grade 9 $667.60 Grade 10 $684.70

Source: Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2010).

The transport workers remuneration was estimated for each vehicle type using the remuneration formula in Table 3.1 and the minimum weekly rate in Table 3.2, which were then applied for the differing vehicles classes as shown in Table 3.4. The total annual wage for each vehicle type was first estimated from the weekly rate (assuming 52 weeks per year) thereafter a leave loading of 17.5% of 4 weeks wages was added to the annual wage bill. It is noted that the inclusion of leave loading would be a better reflection of the wage bill incurred by freight industry operators.

3.3.2 Payroll Tax The payroll tax is deducted from the transport workers remuneration for each vehicle type (refer to Table 3.1). For June 2010, the average payroll tax rate is 5.6%, calculated from the rates of the states in Australia as shown in Table 3.3. This average rate of 5.6% was then applied to the total annual compensation to obtain the total payroll tax for each vehicle type.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 20 —

Table 3.3: Payroll tax rates applicable June 2010

State Rate (%) ACT 6.85 New South Wales 5.5 Victoria 4.9 Queensland 4.75 South Australia 4.95 Western Australia 5.5 Tasmania 6.1 Northern Territory 5.9 Average 5.6

Source: State Revenue Offices of relevant Australian states.

3.3.3 On-cost Items The on-cost items cover long service leave, superannuation, work care levy and other costs. The following calculations related to these items have been applied:

Cost of superannuation per year has been estimated at 9% of the annual wage (excluding leave loading.

Work care levy has been estimated at 6.5% of the annual wage (excluding leave loading).

Long service leave has been factored at 2% of the annual wage (excluding leave loading), assuming that leave accrues at the rate of one week for every 60 weeks of employment with one employer (i.e. 1/60 weeks = 2%).

Other costs cover the cost of uniforms, estimated at $374 per year after adjustments for the CPI for clothing and footwear in June 2010.

3.3.4 Value per Occupant Given the TWA, on-cost fees and payroll taxes, the annual compensation as per the formula in Table 3.1 can then be computed. To obtain the value per occupant as shown in Table 3.4 (in ‘$ per person hour’), the annual compensation is converted to an hourly basis assuming 1667.2 hours per annum (which is calculated assuming allowance for 4 weeks annual leave plus provision for public holidays).

3.4 Value per Occupant for Buses Travel time costs for bus drivers have been updated to 30 June 2010 values using the assumption that the wage rate for bus drivers is equal to the wage rate for drivers of lower-end combination values (e.g. rigid plus dog trailer). Therefore, the value per occupant for bus drivers for urban and non-urban areas is $24.67 per person-hr for June 2010.

For bus passengers, the value per occupant is estimated at $13.17 per person-hr (i.e. 40% of AWE). This is based on the similar methodology as the value per occupant for cars given that Austroads (2008) recommended that this value should be extended to public transit passenger travel (as mentioned in Section 3.2).

The occupancy rates are one person/vehicle for a bus driver and 20 persons/vehicle for bus (coach) passengers. These are the same values as for June 2008.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 21 —

It is assumed that similar travel time values for bus drivers and public transit passengers apply for both urban and non-urban areas.

3.5 Freight Travel Time Freight travel time values per vehicle have been obtained by multiplying vehicle payloads by estimates of unit freight travel time values estimated at a per-pallet level (Austroads 2003b), after having converted the latter into a per-payload-tonne format. Freight travel time for June 2010 was updated using the PPI for road transport and the data was sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

For example, freight travel time as originally estimated in 30 June 1998 values had been updated to June 2002 values using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Implicit Price Deflator, and thereafter to June 2005 and June 2007 and now June 2010 values using the PPI for road freight transport (ABS 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010b).

As the original study estimated separate values for urban and non-urban applications, separate payload-level freight travel-time estimates have been constructed for urban and non-urban areas of operation. Blank values for some urban freight payload travel times indicate prohibited usage of corresponding vehicles in urban environments, rather than missing estimates.

Table 3.4: Estimated values of travel time – occupant and freight payload values, as at June 2010

Vehicle type Non-urban Urban Freight travel time Occupancy

rate (persons/veh)

Value per occupant

($/person-hour)

Occupancy rate

(persons/veh)

Value per occupant

($/person-hour)

Non-urban Urban Dollar values per

vehicle-hour Cars Private 1.7 13.17 1.6 13.17 Business 1.3 42.15 1.4 42.15 Rigid trucks Light commercial (2 axle, 4 tyre) 1.3 23.32 1.3 23.32 0.69 1.35 Medium (2 axle, 6 tyre) 1.2 23.62 1.3 23.62 1.86 3.68 Heavy (3 axle) 1.0 24.07 1.0 24.07 6.39 12.58 Articulated trucks 4 axle 1.0 24.37 1.0 24.37 13.76 27.09 5 axle 1.0 24.67 1.0 24.67 17.54 34.55 6 axle 1.0 24.67 1.0 24.67 18.92 37.25 Combination vehicles Rigid (3 axle) plus dog trailer

(5 axle) 1.0 24.67 1.0 24.67 27.04 n.a.

B-double 1.0 24.67 1.0 25.79 27.38 53.93 Twin steer (4 axle) plus dog trailer

(4 axle) 1.0 24.67 1.0 25.79 26.13 n.a.

Twin steer (4 axle) plus dog trailer (5 axle) 1.0 25.05 1.0 26.24 27.86 n.a.

Double road train 1.0 25.79 1.0 26.90 36.59 n.a. B-triple combination 1.0 25.05 1.0 26.24 37.35 n.a. A B combination 1.0 25.05 1.0 26.24 44.98 n.a. Double B-double combination 1.0 25.05 1.0 26.24 54.55 n.a.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 22 —

Vehicle type Non-urban Urban Freight travel time Occupancy

rate (persons/veh)

Value per occupant

($/person-hour)

Occupancy rate

(persons/veh)

Value per occupant

($/person-hour)

Non-urban Urban Dollar values per

vehicle-hour Triple road train 1.0 25.05 1.0 26.24 53.93 n.a. Bus 3 large bus (coach) driver Bus driver 1.0 24.67 1.0 24.67 0.00 n.a. Bus (coach) passenger 20.0 13.17 20.0 13.17 0.00 n.a.

Note: n.a. means data not available. Source: ARRB Group Ltd.

3.6 Development Work It is noted that development work on travel time reliability and small travel time savings for Australia has been undertaken in Austroads Project TP1444. The detailed reports covering a review of the literature internationally as well as in Australia can be found in Austroads (2011b) for travel time reliability and Austroads (2011c) for small travel time savings.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 23 —

4 CRASHES AND SAFETY

4.1 Crash Rates Table 4.1 provides indicative non-urban crash exposure rates which can be applied in non-urban project evaluation within Australia. The data in Table 4.1 is based on a 2003 analysis undertaken using earlier Western Australian data. Analysts should check to see if specific data is available for the jurisdiction they are analysing.

Table 4.1: Non-urban crash rates for use in HDM-4 (expected crashes per 100 million kilometres of travel)

Road description (model road state) Crash category Fatal Injury PDO Total

Undivided roads (gravel) MRS 1 Natural surface 1.50 28.50 77.00 107.00 MRS 2 Formed roads 1.50 28.50 77.00 107.00 MRS 3 Gravel <= 4.5 m 1.75 33.25 91.00 126.00 MRS 4 Gravel >= 4.5 m 1.75 33.25 91.00 126.00 Undivided roads (sealed) MRS 5 Sealed <= 4.5 m 1.50 28.50 74.00 104.00 MRS 6 Sealed 4.51 – 5.2 m 1.95 37.05 58.00 97.00 MRS 7 Sealed 5.21 – 5.8 m 2.00 38.00 54.00 94.00 MRS 8 Sealed 5.81 – 6.4 m 1.63 30.88 54.50 87.00 MRS 9 Sealed 6.41 – 7.0 m 1.25 23.75 45.00 70.00 MRS 10 Sealed 7.01 – 7.6 m 1.13 21.38 35.50 58.00 MRS 11 Sealed 7.61 – 8.2 m 1.06 20.19 30.75 52.00 MRS 12 Sealed 8.21 – 8.8 m 1.00 19.00 29.00 49.00 MRS 13 Sealed 8.81 – 9.4 m 1.06 20.19 24.75 46.00 MRS 14 Sealed 9.41 – 10.0 m 1.03 19.59 34.38 55.00 MRS 15 Sealed 10.01 – 11.6 m 1.00 19.00 35.00 55.00 MRS 16 Sealed 11.61 – 13.7 m 0.97 18.41 35.63 55.00 MRS 17 Sealed >= 13.7 m 1.06 20.19 33.75 55.00 Divided roads MRS 18 Sealed <= 7.6 m 0.60 19.40 32.00 52.00 MRS 19 Sealed 7.61 – 8.2 m 0.60 19.40 32.00 52.00 MRS 20 Sealed 8.21 – 8.8 m 0.60 19.40 32.00 52.00 MRS 21 Sealed 8.81 – 9.4 m 0.60 19.40 30.00 50.00 MRS 22 Sealed 9.41 – 11.6 m 0.60 19.40 30.00 50.00 MRS 23 Sealed > 11.6 m 0.60 19.40 30.00 50.00 Freeways MRS 24 Sealed (4 lane) <= 9.4 m 0.40 5.35 14.25 20.00 MRS 25 Sealed (6 lane) 9.41 – 11.6 m 0.40 5.35 14.25 20.00 MRS 26 Sealed (8 lane) >= 11.6 m 0.40 5.35 14.25 20.00

Note: PDO represents property damage only.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 24 —

4.2 Unit Costs 4.2.1 Unit Crash Cost Estimates The average person casualty costs have been calculated using the June 1996 values in BTE (2000) as a base. These BTE values employ the HC approach to estimate unit crash cost values. These estimates have been updated to the 2010 values using the June 2010 price indices. The price indices used include the overall CPI, CPI for motor vehicle repair and servicing, CPI for health, and the AWE; these are as released by the ABS (ABS 2010a and 2010c). For the AWE, an updated version for May 2010 is used in the calculations.

Table 4.2 details the components used in calculating the per person casualty costs. These costs cover human costs arising from crashes, vehicle damage costs and general costs such as insurance, police, property and fire.

The June 1996 values represent the base values for average casualty costs per person. Given these base values, the price index ratio shows the relative price of the June 2010 price index to the June 1996 price index. For example, the price index ratio for ambulance costs (i.e. 1.748) is obtained by dividing the CPI for June 2010 with the CPI for June 1996. The June 2010 value ($444 per person) is then obtained by multiplying the June 1996 value ($254 per person) with the price index ratio.

Table 4.2: Average casualty costs per person

Cost component Fatal crash

Serious injury crash

Other injury crash

Price index ratio

Fatal crash


Other injury crash

$ per person – June 1996 values $ per person – June 2010 values Human costs Ambulance costs 254 254 138 1.748 (4) 444 444 241 Hospital in-patient costs 1 373 5 493 28 1.748 (4) 2 401 9 604 49 Other medical costs 1 018 8 246 40 1.748 (4) 1 780 14 417 70 Long-term care 0 62 395 0 1.748 (4) 0 109 089 0 Labour in the workplace 347 208 16 417 0 1.728 (2) 600 030 28 371 0 Labour in the household 288 832 13 689 0 1.728 (2) 499 147 23 657 0 Quality of life 319 030 34 228 1 819 1.728 (2) 551 334 59 151 3 144 Insurance claims 12 000 21 147 1 264 1.437 (1) 17 239 30 379 1 816 Criminal prosecution 1 548 448 55 1.437 (1) 2 224 644 79 Correctional services 8 511 0 0 1.437 (1) 12 227 0 0 Workplace disruptions 8 077 8 301 538 1.437 (1) 11 603 11 925 773 Funeral 1 700 0 0 1.437 (1) 2 442 0 0 Coroner 558 0 0 1.437 (1) 802 0 0 Total human cost 990 109 170 618 3 882 1 701 671 287 681 6 171 Vehicle costs Repairs 8 528 7 126 7 032 1.421 (3) 12 115 10 123 9 990 Unavailability of vehicles 1 082 960 507 1.421 (3) 1 537 1 364 720 Towing 254 226 119 1.421 (3) 361 321 169 Total vehicle costs 9 864 8 312 7 658 14 013 11 808 10 879 General costs Travel delays 47 678 57 704 75 1.437 (1) 68 492 82 895 108 Insurance administration 30 553 36 979 48 1.437 (1) 43 891 53 123 69


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 25 —

Cost component Fatal crash


Other injury crash

Price index ratio

Fatal crash


Other injury crash

$ per person – June 1996 values $ per person – June 2010 values Human costs Police 6 147 2 112 32 1.437 (1) 8 831 3 034 46 Property 990 1 198 2 1.437 (1) 1 422 1 721 3 Fire 323 391 1 1.437 (1) 464 562 1 Total general costs 85 691 98 384 158 123 100 141 335 227 Total combined costs 1 085 664 277 314 11 698 1 838 785 440 823 17 277

1 CPI all groups. 2 Average weekly earnings include all employee’s total earnings (full-time plus part-time) for May 2010 as obtained from the ABS. 3 CPI motor vehicle repair and servicing. 4 CPI health. Source: ARRB Group Ltd.

Table 4.3 shows that average crash costs calculated for individual casualty crash categories can vary across jurisdictions and areas of operation in response to variations in crash outcomes. Severity outcomes tend to increase with vehicle operating speeds. A greater proportion of people are killed or seriously injured in higher speed environments than lower speed environments. As a result, average crash costs in rural areas are higher than for urban areas. Some of the jurisdictional differences reported in Table 4.3 may arise due to differences in urban and non-urban definitions. Further differences in average crash costs by speed zone are reported in Appendix C.

In contrast, crash costs for crashes not involving casualties, represented by the category Property Damage Only (PDO) have been estimated by updating BTE (2000) estimates, using transport elements of the CPI (ABS 2010c). A fuller description of methods used to estimate and update crash costs, as originally applied to material obtained for Victoria and subsequently extended to generate estimates for other jurisdictions, is contained in Austroads Report AP-R238 (Austroads 2003c).

Information computed at a per crash level is suitable for use in the economic evaluation of road projects, where aggregate crash cost reductions or increases comprise one of a range of RUE items affected by project options.

Table 4.3: Estimated average crash costs by severity category – resource price value in dollars per crash at June 2010

Jurisdiction Non-urban Urban Fatal Serious

injury Minor injury

Average casualty

PDO Fatal Serious injury

Minor injury

Average casualty

PDO

New South Wales 2 616 000 221 079 8 681 1 999 000 195 615 8 681 Victoria 2 464 000 567 000 23 844 254 646 8 681 2 233 000 541 000 23 844 173 623 8 681 Queensland 2 433 000 581 000 23 381 299 788 8 681 2 266 000 545 000 23 844 211 820 8 681 South Australia 2 727 000 604 000 23 265 254 646 8 681 2 251 000 565 000 22 224 85 654 8 681 Western Australia 2 320 000 612 000 25 117 368 080 8 681 2 139 000 565 000 24 539 188 670 8 681 Tasmania 2 494 000 527 000 25 117 193 300 8 681 1 996 000 498 000 23 265 108 803 8 681 Northern Territory 2 550 000 680 000 17 478 413 222 8 681 2 239 000 551 000 15 279 281 269 8 681


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 26 —

4.2.2 Crash Cost Distribution by Speed Zone and Road User Movement Crash Costs Average cost information presented in Table 4.3 is suitable for use for general road project evaluation, where precise definition of crash causation is not required. For specific-purpose road safety project evaluation, which lies outside the scope of this Guide, more detailed crash cost data, providing details of crash costs cross-tabulated by number, type of vehicle, and occupants involved, and road user movement (RUM) code associated with a range of detailed crash stereotypes, is the norm. A description of this data, its adequacy and context of use is provided in Mabbott and Swadling (1998). The cost of crashes by RUM code by speed limit was estimated in Australia in 2004 (personal communication with B Lloyd). The work was based on seven years of crash data from Western Australia and RUM codes were grouped using similarities in crash outcomes to provide a minimum of 4000 crashes in each group. Those data files are used with the new unit casualty and PDO costs to estimate the values presented in Appendix D8.

While crash costs are computed specifically for road safety analysis using a series of definitions based on RUM categories, as opposed to the severity categories used in Table 4.3, re-estimation of these values to allow for changing unit input costs and crash composition has not formed part of the updating procedures described in previous reports in this series (Austroads 1999, Austroads 2003a, Austroads 2004a, Austroads 2006 and personal communication with R Roper). However, given that RUM and speed-zone-based costs can make use of the same crash databases and crash outcome costs, there may be a basis for reviewing this exclusion in future updates of RUE unit values. The inclusion of more specific crash cost information would depend on the reconciliation of a number of issues relating to differing coverage of crash outcomes, and different RUM definitions employed by state and territory road agencies.

As was done in the June 2005 and June 2007 updates, average unit crash costs have been estimated for groupings of Victorian DCA (RUM) codes and speed zones. In this update, unit costs have been estimated based on reported casualty crashes that occurred in Victoria during the five years 2006–2010 and using the June 2010 unit cost values. These average unit crash costs are presented in Appendix C. Table C 1 shows average costs by speed zone code for all reported crashes in Victoria in the period 2001 to 2010. Table C 2 shows average costs by groupings of Victorian DCA codes and speed zone and crash severity category for casualty crashes in Victoria in the same time period. However, values are only given for categories where there have been over 100 crashes in a category. Table C 3 provides distributions of persons involved in casualty crashes by severity outcomes.

The Victorian crash cost analysis only includes casualty crashes, i.e., crashes involving injuries to people. Data on PDO crashes are not collated and have been excluded from the analysis.

In addition, and as with previous updates, selected RUM-based crash costs that include PDO crashes have been derived from Western Australian data. These have been reproduced from Austroads (2008) to represent 30 June 2010 costs and are included in Appendix D. Table D 1 shows average costs by RUM code by speed limit for all reported crashes in WA in the period from 1993 to 2000. Table D 2 shows average costs by RUM code by speed limit for all reported casualty crashes in WA in the same period. Further to the data in the previous update, Table D 3 and Table D 4 show the average crash cost by road type and by speed limit for ‘all crashes’ and ‘all casualty crashes’ in WA respectively for the period 1993 to 2000.

Similar Victorian casualty unit crash costs (excluding PDO rates) by more detailed DCA codes similar to the RUM categories reported in Appendix D are available from VicRoads on request.

8 There is almost a one-to-one equivalency between the definition of RUM codes used in Western Australia and the DCA codes used in Victoria.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 27 —

4.3 Recent Developments Historically in Australia, unit values for crash costs have been estimated based on the social cost of crashes produced by BITRE. The lack of current analysis and methodological revision has been highlighted as an area requiring further development. In light of this, unit crash costs have been estimated based on the existing HC approach, supplemented by a review of the new developments in this area.

In more recent years, BITRE estimates have been developed using a ‘hybrid’ approach, where core estimates obtained by employing the HC approach methodology, are supplemented by a ‘pain and suffering’ cost component constructed from available data and other information. There have also been several other developments regarding the measurement of crash cost unit values in Australia and New Zealand. As part of this project, these developments were carefully reviewed and assessed. This section and Appendix A offer an objective description of these estimates.

Recent research developments on the measurement of crash cost unit values in Australia and New Zealand (NZ) include:

BITRE estimates using a hybrid HC approach, where core estimates are obtained by employing the HC approach and supplemented by a pain and suffering cost component constructed from available data and other information (BITRE 2006)

Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) pilot study for the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach (Hensher et al. 2009, RTA 2008a and RTA 2008b)

NZ estimates for crash costs using the WTP approach (Ministry of Transport 2010).

The adoption of the WTP approach to estimate crash costs is considered by many economists to produce more theoretically robust values for the social cost of crashes. Given the growing interest in these estimates by Australian jurisdictions, the BITRE, NSW and NZ estimates are reviewed in Appendix A, followed by an international comparison with other unit crash costs values reported by the International Road Assessment Program (iRAP) estimates in Access Economics (2008) and in Dahdah and McMahon (2007).

4.3.1 BITRE, RTA and NZ Crash Cost Estimates As part of this project, the BITRE (2006), RTA (2008b) and the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (2010) crash cost estimates were examined and are presented for information. Whilst the derivation details are provided in Appendix A, several points are noted below. These include:

Similarities in classification. All three reports adopt a three major injury classification: fatal, hospitalised/serious injury and non-hospitalised/minor injury.

Similarities in coverage of the pain, suffering and grief (PSG) component. Whilst it is generally understood that the PSG is implied in the coverage of the WTP estimates for RTA and NZ, BITRE has attempted to capture PSG in its hybrid HC approach.

Differences in methodology. BITRE adopts a hybrid version of the HC approach, whilst the RTA pilot study and the New Zealand Ministry of Transport have adopted the WTP approach.

Dissimilarities in data collection technique. Whilst RTA engages SC experiments to gather data, BITRE and NZ have obtained the data from a variety of sources.

Dissimilarities in coverage in the crash cost components. BITRE’s hybrid HC approach appears to have covered a different set of cost components when compared to the NZ and RTA approaches.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 28 —

As a result of the above differences, it is not surprising that there is variability in terms of the available unit crash costs values. Table 4.4 represents unit crash costs values according to the three major injury classifications: value of statistical life (VSL), value of serious or permanent injury risk reductions (VSI) and value of minor injury risk reductions (VMI). Figures have been updated and converted to Australian dollars as at June 2010. These figures are reported below for information:

The VSL by RTA ($6.9 million) and NZ ($3.4 million) are higher than the BITRE’s hybrid HC estimate ($2.7 million).

The BITRE hybrid HC estimate ($243 000) is lower than the WTP estimates ($337 000 for RTA and $623 000 for NZ).

The VMI by RTA ($18 000) and NZ ($68 000) are higher than BITRE’s hybrid HC estimate ($2400).

Table 4.4: Unit crash cost values, 30 June 2010 ($)

Source Approach Fatal (or VSL)

Hospitalised injury (or VSI)

Non-hospitalised injury (or VMI)

BITRE (2006) Hybrid HC $2 719 600 $243 000 $2 400

RTA (2008b) urban cars WTP $6 919 993 $337 101 $81 997 (VHI) $17 982

Ministry of Transport NZ (2010) WTP $3 420 988 $622 514 $67 540

Notes: BITRE (2006) and RTA (2008b) values are updated to June 2010 using the CPI. NZ values are assumed to be June 2010. Please note that the updated BTE (2000) crash cost estimates are $1.8 million for VSL, $440 823 for VSI and $17 277 for VMI as per Table 4.2. VHI: Value of hospitalised (non-injury) risk reductions. Source: ARRB Group Ltd.

4.4 Summary of the Estimates and Sources Appendix A presents findings from recent work involving crash costs estimates from BITRE (2006), RTA (2008b) and the Ministry of Transport New Zealand (2010), as well as international estimates compiled by iRAP (Dahdah & McMahon 2007) and Access Economics (2008). Three general observations include:

Crash costs estimates using the HC approach are lower than corresponding WTP estimates.

Australian unit crash costs have been reported to be on the lower bound when compared with other countries’. The Australian values are assumed to be based on the HC approach as the Access Economics (2008) report does not make a distinction in the method of valuation.

Australia’s (NSW) WTP estimates appear to be on the upper bound when compared against international WTP estimates. It should be noted that this is based on a pilot study for one jurisdiction (i.e. NSW) only.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 29 —

5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER EXTERNALITIES In Australia, the process of valuing environmental and other externalities is still developing9. There have been a number of largely fragmented efforts around the country aiming at valuing environmental externalities. Most of these efforts refer to a variety of environmental authority (EPA) investigations, BTRE studies and university studies (e.g. noise valuation and air pollution analyses).

The following tables contain values for key environmental externality categories for both road passenger and freight transport, reported both on a rural and urban roads basis10. A range of values is also provided around each of these key estimates to assist with:

the level of uncertainty inherent in the estimation of these values (e.g. confidence intervals around these estimates)

variations in infrastructure project conditions such as varied congestion levels and inner or outer metropolitan travel.

Values presented in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 have been updated from Austroads (2008) using CPI to June 2010. In Austroads (2008), reconciled estimates were derived from a review of values contained in Austroads (2003d and 2006) and the environmental default externality values contained in ATC (2006a and 2006b). These values superseded those previously separately reported by Austroads (2006) and ATC (2006a). The values in parentheses represent both the Austroads and ATC sources, and the reconciliation of these values to a single value was undertaken with careful consideration of the assumptions and methodologies within both sources. The notes to Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 provide further information on their derivation.

However, it must be emphasised that environmental valuation involves significant uncertainty and the values presented here should be regarded as illustrative of the methodology rather than as definitive unit costs. The values shown in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 do not use the same measures. Table 5.1 is expressed in vehicle kilometres of travel whilst the values in Table 5.2 are expressed as per 1000 tonne kilometres.

[see Commentary 1]

9 This contrasts strongly with the case in New Zealand where Appendix A8 of the Transfund Project Evaluation Manual (Transfund 1997) lists procedures by which values can be derived. Transfund (1997) also describes alternative methods for incorporating externality impacts into the calculation of BCR, where specific quantities and prices cannot be estimated. 10 A set of externality unit costs for urban rail is also presented in Appendix F. This table is added to this Guide as a result of the reconciliation of the ATC (2006a) and Austroads (2003d) values undertaken in Austroads (2008). It has been brought over from ATC (2006a) and updated to 30 June 2010 for completeness.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 30 —

Table 5.1: Externality unit costs for passenger vehicles and buses (cents per vehicle kilometres travelled (vkt))*

Vehicle/units Urban Rural Passenger cars Buses Passenger cars Buses

1 Air pollution 2.78 (2.71–2.84)

31.26 (22.12–34.77)

0.03 (0.02–0.03)

0.00 (0.00–0.35)

2 Greenhouse 2.19 (1.93–2.45)

12.88 (n/a)

2.19 (1.93–2.45)

12.88 (n/a)

3 Noise 0.91 (0.64–1.16)

2.19 (1.2–3.09)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

4 Water 0.42 (0.40–0.43)

4.69 (3.32–5.21)

0.04 (0.04–0.04)

0.05 (0.03–0.05)

5 Nature & landscape 0.05 (0.05–0.19)

0.14 (0.14–0.66)

0.51 (0.51–1.80)

1.42 (1.42–6.57)

6 Urban separation 0.64 (0.38–0.90)

2.07 (1.29–2.84)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

7 Upstream and downstream costs

3.74 (3.22–4.25)

19.32 (15.45–23.18)

3.74 (3.22–4.25)

19.32 (15.45–23.18)

* All values are adjusted from 2007 Australian dollars to 2010 Australian dollars using the change in CPI for all groups’ index numbers – weighted average of eight capital cities. Sources: Values have been updated from Austroads (2008) using CPI. The Austroads (2008) values are based on (1) a review of values contained in Austroads (2003d) and the results reported in Austroads (2006), and (2) environmental default externality values contained in ATC (2006a, 2006b). The values in parentheses therefore represent both the Austroads and ATC sources, and the reconciliation of these values (Austroads 2008) to a single value was undertaken with careful consideration of the assumptions and methodologies within both sources. Notes to Table 5.1 summarising methodological issues, assumptions used and suggested steps for application are presented in a tabular form below:

Economic methodology Assumptions Suggested steps for application

1 Air pollution Values are derived according to consideration of both Infras/IWW and ATC estimates. Infras/IWW values are based on (control/avoidance costs). Infras/IWW values are adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate, population density and purchasing power parity (Austroads 2003d). ATC (2006a, 2006b) estimates apply Watkiss (2002) estimates, which are based on ExternE methodology, as components for these calculations, as well as Cosgrove (2003), and SMVU data. Dollars per tonne health cost estimates (Watkiss 2002) are separately calculated for carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and total hydrocarbons. Watkiss reports $/tonne estimates derived from ExternE (bottom-up approach) and are constrained to health impacts only. Dollars per tonne costs have been transferred to Australian values according to a comparison of population densities in Australia and those reported in ExternE. These $/tonne costs are adjusted according to a population weighted average to obtain national values for urban locations (ATC 2006b).

Air pollution is predominantly an urban issue. The externality value is a function of vkt and population distribution (which is associated with health impacts). As most bus vehicle kilometres are in urban areas, the rural bus value is set at zero. For passenger car rural values, as a rule of thumb, these are set at 1% of the urban value.

Unit values for all externality items reported in Table 5.1 apply to volume changes. Quantifiable impacts Establish the environment (specific air pollutants) and vehicle compositions. Users may apply $/tonne air pollutant values (Table 5.1) to models, in order to supplement a bottom-up analysis often aggregating air pollution estimates and conversion factors. Valuation Apply cents/vkt or cents/tkm values. Multiply vehicle kilometres obtained by cents/vkt or cents/tkm for the base and project cases. Incorporate totals into BCA (ATC 2006b).

2 Greenhouse Austroads (2003d) presents climate change costs based on avoidance cost estimates in selected countries, and the European Union,

As greenhouse is a global impact, the same value applies to all areas. ATC (2006a and 2006b) report a $10/tonne cost. However, recent research and the

Due to uncertainty in valuation, the selected range may be applied with explanatory notes (ATC 2006b).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 31 —

Economic methodology Assumptions Suggested steps for application undertaken by Friedrich and Bickel (2001). Values reflect the ExternE (European Commission 1999) study which uses a damage cost approach. These estimates of impacts were based on a bottom-up methodology. Ranges are based on Austroads (2003d) and a $/tonne CO2-e cost of $52.4 which has been updated from Austroads (2008) using the change in CPI.

emerging national emissions trading scheme developments, indicate a value of between $30 to $60 per tonne. These values are closely studied for their validity and appropriately interpreted in Austroads (2003d).

3 Noise The Infras/IWW study (avoidance costs) uses a combination of WTP and a valuation of health effects of noise exposure. For further information on the ranges and recommended values, see Austroads (2003d). Austroads (2003d) adjusted values for vehicle occupancy rate, population density and purchasing power parity factors.

Noise pollution is mostly an urban issue. The externality value is a function of population distribution and where most travel takes place (mostly in urban areas). As a result, the rural noise unit cost is set to zero for passenger cars and buses. This should not imply that rural noise impacts are always negligible. The particular situation and conditions will need to be considered. For example, the background noise level in rural areas is typically lower than urban areas. A similar noise event may therefore be more significant within a rural area compared to an area with higher background noise levels. For rural towns, assume the urban value.

Quantifiable impacts Establish the environment (urban or rural), proportions of vehicles and vehicle types. Determine the total kilometres of traffic braking noise thresholds by vehicle type. Valuation Apply cents/vkt or cents/tkm values. Multiply vehicle kilometres obtained by cents/vkt or cents/tkm for the base and project cases. Incorporate values into the BCA (ATC 2006b).

4 Water Values are estimated according to consideration of willingness-to-pay (Austroads 2003d) and mitigation cost (ATC 2006b) methodologies. Mitigation costs value transport-related impacts by estimating social costs of installing mitigation devices (i.e. vegetation, sedimentation tanks, combined catchments and treatment of storm water run-off) over entire road networks or on a per vehicle-kilometre basis. Evidence assembled from overseas and New Zealand experience gives an overall cost of installing mitigation devices (similar to Australia) for both urban and rural highways in the range of NZ 0.1 to 0.5 cents/vkm (best estimate 0.3 cents/vkm) (Ministry of Transport, Te Manatu Waka, Land Transport Pricing Study - Environmental Externalities, 1996).

Estimates for water pollution include values for organic waste/persistent toxicants (run-off from roads from vehicles: engine oil leakage and disposal, road surface, particulate matter and other air pollutants from exhaust and tyre degradation). Costs are unlikely to reflect all damage costs from transport alone, and depend on rainfall intensity, drainage path length, type of road, type of system (ATC 2006b). Using WTP methodology, water pollution represents approximately 15% of the air pollution cost (i.e. 15% of 2.78 = 0.42 c/vkt for passenger cars). Concentrations of pollutants in urban waterways are significantly higher (i.e. by a factor of between 10–100) compared to rural areas. A key issue is toxicants on highways with vehicle flow greater than 100 000 vehicles per day. For rural passenger cars, assume 10% of the urban value. Assuming a vkt split of 99% urban and 1% rural, the rural bus value is set at 1% of urban bus value.

Estimate potential environmental impact of run-off from road vehicles. Estimate the degree of rainfall intensity, mitigation devices, type of road, drainage path length. Estimate vehicle kilometres. Multiply with cents/vkt or cents/tkm value for the base and project cases. Quantify on a project-by-project basis, because the project may be site-specific (ATC 2006b).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 32 —

Economic methodology Assumptions Suggested steps for application

5 Nature & landscape Location dependent/site-specific. The Infras/IWW (avoidance costs) is based on repair and compensation/restoration methodology and a unit cost per area of affected land. Values are derived from Infras/IWW and are adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate (Austroads 2003d).

This impact is driven by the infrastructure 'footprint' e.g. habitat loss, loss of natural vegetation or reduction in visual amenity as infrastructure is constructed. Key impacts in rural areas are natural impacts, whilst key impacts in urban areas are mostly amenity/visual as the urban environment is already dominated by infrastructure. The sensitivity of the loss is assumed to be higher for rural areas therefore the urban passenger car and bus values are set at 10% of the rural value.

Determine the area of land impacted (e.g. direct and indirect land). Estimate vehicle kilometres. Multiply with cents/vkt or cents/tkm value for the base and project cases. Quantify on a project-by-project basis, because the project may be site-specific (ATC 2006b).

6 Urban separation Location dependent/site-specific. The Infras/IWW is based (avoidance costs) on three elements including time loss due to separation for pedestrians, lack of non-motorised transport provision and visual intrusion. Values are derived from Infras/IWW and are adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate (Austroads 2003d).

Urban separation is an urban externality only.

Determine the constraints to mobility of pedestrians. Estimate vehicle kilometres. Multiply with cents/vkt or cents/tkm value for the base and project cases. Quantify on a project-by-project basis, because the project may be site-specific (ATC 2006b).

7 Upstream and downstream costs Values are based on Infras/IWW and have been adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate (Austroads 2003d).

These costs refer to the indirect costs of transport including energy generation, vehicle production and maintenance, and infrastructure construction and maintenance. Similar to greenhouse, these estimates are assumed to be non-location-specific. Consideration of the distributional effects of vehicle types per location is important.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 33 —

Table 5.2: Externality unit costs for freight vehicles ($ per 1000 tonne-km)*

Vehicle/units Urban Rural Light vehicles Heavy vehicles Light vehicles Heavy vehicles

1 Air pollution range 173.66 (128.77–285.85)

23.15 (11.23–28.33)

0.00 (0.00)

0.23 (0.12–0.28)

2 Greenhouse range 54.09 (50.22–56.66)

5.15 (2.58–9.01)

54.09 (50.22–56.66))

5.15 (2.58–9.01)

3 Noise ranges 29.61 (20.61–41.21)

3.86 (2.57–5.15)

0.00 (0.00)

0.39 (0.26–0.54)

4 Water 26.05 (19.31–42.83)

3.47 (1.16–4.25)

0.26 (0.20–0.46)

1.39 (0.70–1.70)

5 Nature and landscape 19.31 (19.31–37.35)

0.38 (0.38–0.78)

0.20 (0.20–0.37)

3.87 (3.87–7.73)

6 Urban separation 28.33 (16.74–39.92)

2.58 (1.29–3.87)

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

7 Upstream and downstream costs

180.28 (128.77–231.79)

20.61 (18.03–23.18)

180.28 (128.77–231.79)

20.61 (18.03–23.18)

* All values are adjusted from 2007 Australian dollars to 2010 Australian dollars using the change in CPI for all groups’ index numbers – weighted average of eight capital cities. It is also noted that externality unit costs for freight are calculated by $ per 1000-tonne km, whereas for passenger vehicles, these are calculated as cents per vehicle kilometre travelled. Sources: Values have been updated from Austroads (2008) using CPI. The Austroads (2008) values are based on (1) a review of values contained in Austroads (2003d) and the results reported in Austroads (2006), and (2) environmental default externality values contained in ATC (2006a, 2006b). The values in parentheses therefore represent both the Austroads and ATC sources, and the reconciliation of these values (Austroads 2008) to a single value was undertaken with careful consideration of the assumptions and methodologies within both sources. Notes to Table 5.2 summarising methodological issues and assumptions used are presented in a tabular form below:

Economic methodology Assumptions 1 Air pollution

Values are derived according to consideration of both Infras/IWW (adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate, population density and purchasing power parity, see Austroads (2003d) and ATC (2006a and 2006b), where Watkiss (2002) and ExternE are applied as components for these calculations, as well as Cosgrove (2003), and SMVU data.

Air pollution is predominantly an urban issue. The externality value is a function of vkt and population distribution (which is associated with health impacts). As most light commercial vehicle kilometres are in urban areas, the rural LCV value is set at zero. For other rural values, as a rule of thumb, these are set at 1% of urban values.

2 Greenhouse Austroads (2003d) presents climate change costs based on recent avoidance cost estimates in selected countries, and the European Union undertaken by Friedrich and Bickel (2001). Values reflect the ExternE study which uses a damage cost approach. The estimates of impacts were based on a bottom-up methodology. Ranges are based on Austroads (2003d) and a $/tonne CO2-e cost of $48.

As greenhouse is a global impact, the same value applies to all areas.

3 Noise The Infras/IWW study (avoidance costs) uses a combination of WTP and a valuation of health effects of noise exposure. For further information on the ranges and recommended values, see Austroads (2003d). Austroads (2003d) adjusted values for vehicle occupancy rate, population density and purchasing power parity.

As noise is largely an urban issue, LCV rural noise values should be set at zero. For heavy vehicles rural noise (as approximately 85% of all articulated vkt occur in rural areas) assume 10% of the urban cost. For rural towns, assume the urban value.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 34 —

Economic methodology Assumptions 4 Water

Values are estimated according to consideration of willingness-to-pay methodologies (Austroads 2006) and mitigation costs (ATC 2006a and 2006b).

For light vehicles assume a vkt split is 99% urban, hence the rural value is set at 1% of the light vehicle urban value. The heavy vehicle vkt split is 15% urban, 85% rural (this is what creates the pollutant load). Pollution impacts occur where most of the vkt are undertaken (i.e. urban areas). Due to impervious urban surfaces, road drainage is collected and concentrated compared to rural areas (so increase urban value 4- fold, e.g. urban 60%, rural 40%). Assume HV water, rural = 40% of (15% of HV air) = 1.39.

5 Nature and landscape Location dependent/site-specific. The Infras/IWW (avoidance cost) is based on repair and compensation/restoration methodology and a unit cost per area of affected land. Values are derived from Infras/IWW and are adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate (Austroads 2003d).

As conditions in Australia are different to Europe, the light vehicle range is assumed to be approximately half the lower estimated light range provided in Austroads (2003d) and adjusted to 2007. For light vehicles assume a rural value at 1% of the urban value. As the vkt split is higher for heavy vehicles in rural areas, and because the sensitivity loss is higher in rural areas, the urban heavy vehicle value is set at 10% of the rural value.

6 Urban separation Location dependent/site-specific. The Infras/IWW (avoidance cost) is based on three elements including time loss due to separation for pedestrians, lack of non-motorised transport provision and visual intrusion. Values are derived from Infras/IWW and are adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate (Austroads 2003d).

Urban separation is an urban externality only.

7 Upstream and downstream costs Values are based on Infras/IWW and have been adjusted for vehicle occupancy rate (Austroads 2003d).

These costs refer to the indirect costs of transport including energy production, vehicle production and maintenance, and infrastructure construction and maintenance. Similar to greenhouse, these estimates are assumed to be non-location-specific. Consideration of the distributional effects of vehicle types per location is important.

Those wishing to calculate the environmental externality values for freight vehicles are advised to either use the average load carried data contained in Table 5.3 or use other specific load data to calculate the thousands of tonne kilometres of travel.

Table 5.3: Average load carried per trip (kilograms)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 Light commercial vehicles (LCV) 362 423 460 357 406

Rigid trucks 6 068 6 415 5 624 6 374 5 390 Articulated trucks 23 921 23 872 24 112 24 746 25 351 Total freight vehicles 3 421 3 543 3 555 3 229 3 416 Source: ABS (2011).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 35 —

Finally, Table 5.4 shows a set of component values for different types of emissions that represent cost per tonne for each of these emission categories, as reflected in selected air pollution unit ranges reported in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2.

Table 5.4: Unit values of emissions in $/tonne*

Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) 52.4

Carbon monoxide (CO) 3.3

Oxides of nitrogen (Nox) 2 089.2

Particulate matter (PM10) 332 505.9 Total hydrocarbons (THC) 1 046.8

*All values are adjusted from 2007 Australian dollars to 2010 Australian dollars using the change in CPI for all groups’ index numbers – weighted average of eight capital cities. The air pollution estimates are updated estimates as reflected in Austroads (2008). Austroads (2008) values are based on the ATC (2006b) values, which are derived from a population average of Watkiss (2002) $/tonne air pollution costs. The greenhouse $/tonne cost is originally sourced from Austroads (2003d). Austroads (2003d) presents climate change costs based on recent avoidance cost estimates in selected countries, and the European Union undertaken by Friedrich and Bickel (2001). Greenhouse costs could be further considered in future when potential work could be undertaken by Austroads to adjust values according to a carbon price.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 36 —

6 UPDATING URBAN JOURNEY SPEED VOC MODELS A revised method for deriving the coefficients used by road and transport agencies in urban vehicle operating cost estimation models has been developed since the June 2002 RUE update (Austroads 2004a). The VOC models have been estimated in later studies (personal communication with B Lloyd). One set of values is reported for grade separated roads (freeways) and a second set is for interrupted flow on other at-grade urban roads. The speed used in previous updates is the all-day average speed on a link including intersection delays.

As an extension to the scope of this June 2010 update, this section provides a more detailed set of results for reduced VOC relationships and estimated parameters for urban networks based on WA TRAMS modelling11. This includes the ability to derive coefficients for a user-nominated peak period based on speeds for the same time period as the costs. In this section, a two-hour peak period has been applied, and an additional set of tables has been calculated for a 15-minute peak period.

The structure of all the models is the same as specified in Equation 2 (reduced form relationship based on WA TRAMS modelling), only the estimated coefficients change.

Urban model 2** VDVCVBAc +++=

2

where

c = vehicle operating cost (cents/km)

A, B, C, D = model coefficients

V = average link speed in km/h.

Coefficients for these models have been estimated by applying 30 June 2010 road user cost unit values to the underlying WA TRAM models and estimation methods (personal communication with B Lloyd). The summary results of this process are presented in this section. Further detail on the calculation of these results is provided in Appendix E.3. Additionally, it should be noted that the vehicle stereotypes for which revised parameter values have been estimated are those specified by a related Austroads project (personal communication with J Cox), the same as used in previous updates.

The parameter values estimated are based on average vehicle speeds on individual links, where a link contains both midblocks and intersections. Link average speeds are different to average journey speeds (which may be the average for travel over a number of different link types). All-day average vehicle speeds include time periods of travel that involve vehicles travelling in stop-start (traffic congestion) conditions.

Table 6.1 and Table 6.2 present estimated parameters for all-day average speed periods for grade separated controlled access roads (freeways) and for all other roads respectively. The values reported are for VOC plus person-time costs (commercial, private and freight time)12. In addition, parameters for VOC plus freight only (used by some jurisdictions’ models) are presented in 11 See Appendix G for VOC parameter estimates including the cost of greenhouse gas emissions. 12 Due to methodology limitations, this Guide does not provide VOC estimates on their own (i.e. without time or other costs added). A number of transport agencies around Australia have expressed a need for VOC only results. Accordingly, the Austroads Economic Evaluation and Planning Task Force are considering reporting them in the next update of this Guide.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 37 —

brackets. It should be noted that the freight time refers to the time value of the freight carried. Table 6.3 and Table 6.4 present parameter estimates for a two-hour peak period traffic, while Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 are for a 15-minute peak period. However, this is a first attempt at deriving equations for such a short peak period and the values should be used with caution.

Table 6.1: All-day parameter values for freeway vehicle operating cost models – cents/km

Freeways Vehicle type A B C D

Cars 19.779 (19.779)

2 942.70 (124.70)

0.0501 (0.0501)

-0.00015 (-0.00015)

LCV 42.830 (42.830)

2 201.67 (266.67)

-0.0031 (-0.0031)

-0.000110 (-0.000110)

HCV + buses 118.542 (118.542)

7 623.83 (3 669.83)

0.1076 (0.1076)

0.000082 (0.000082)

Note: Parameter values are for VOC plus person-time cost (commercial, freight and private time), while values in brackets are estimated parameters for VOC plus freight-time-cost-only specifications. VOC plus freight time excludes all personal time (commercial and private). Freight time refers to the time value of the freight carried.

Table 6.2: All-day parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle operating cost models – cents/km

All at-grade roads Vehicle type A B C D

Cars 59.889 (59.889)

2 790.04 (-27.96)

-0.9768 (-0.9768)

0.005926 (0.005926)

LCV 18.126 (18.126)

3 221.31 (1 286.3)

0.3527 (0.3527)

-0.002123 (-0.002123)

HCV + buses 316.434 (316.434)

6 789.72 (2 835.72)

-4.2828 (-4.2828)

0.025487 (0.025487)


Table 6.3: Two-hour peak period parameter values for freeway vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars -131.372 (-131.372)

7 401.54 (4 583.54)

1.8673 (1.8673)

-0.007058 (-0.007058)

LCV -69.818 (-69.818)

5 859.59 (3 924.59)

1.0690 (1.0690)

-0.00312 (-0.00312))

HCV + buses -274.646 (-274.646)

18 875.43 (14 921.43)

5.1754 (5.1754)

-0.0218 (-0.0218)

Note: Parameter values are for VOCs plus person-time cost (commercial, freight and private time), while values in brackets are estimated parameters for VOC plus freight-time-cost-only specifications. VOC plus freight time excludes all personal time (commercial and private). Freight time refers to the time value of the freight carried.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 38 —

Table 6.4: Two-hour peak period parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars -128.407 (-128.407)

6 404.01 (3 586.01)

2.3407 (2.3407)

-0.011343 (0.011343)

LCV -0.930 (-0.930)

4 431.03 (2 496.03)

0.5280 (0.5280)

-0.001436 (-0.001436)

HCV + buses -165.358 (-165.358)

15 907.05 (11 953.05)

3.8390 (3.8390)

-0.01642 (-0.01642)


Table 6.5: Fifteen-minute peak period parameter values for freeway vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars 260.682 (260.682)

10 475.86 (7 657.86)

-8.1624 (-8.1624)

0.050545 (0.050545)

LCV -27.886 (-27.886)

10 971.40 (9 036.40)

-0.1499 (-0.1499)

0.001247 (0.001247)

HCV + buses 703.902 (703.902)

26 937.61 (22 983.61)

-19.7331 (-19.7331)

0.122896 (0.122896)

Note: Parameter values are for VOC plus person time-cost (commercial, freight and private time), while values in brackets are estimated parameters for VOC plus freight-time-cost-only specifications. VOC plus freight time excludes all personal time (commercial and private). Freight time refers to the time value of the freight carried.

Table 6.6: Fifteen-minute peak period parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars -243.248 (-243.248)

10 608.92 (7 790.92)

3.1608 (3.1608)

-0.012244 (-0.012244)

LCV -115.866 (-115.866)

8 009.07 (6 074.07)

1.7663 (1.7663)

-0.00586 (-0.00586)

HCV + buses -436.946 (-436.946)

26 493.57 (22 539.57)

5.4425 (5.4425)

-0.015226 (-0.015226)

Note: Parameter values are for VOC plus person time-cost (commercial, freight and private time), while values in brackets are estimated parameters for VOC plus freight-time-cost-only specifications. VOC plus freight time excludes all personal time (commercial and private). Freight time refers to the time value of the freight carried.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 39 —

The modelling performance of these estimated relationships is illustrated in Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.3. It is important to note the following regarding these figures:

there is one figure for each vehicle category – i.e. cars (passenger vehicles); LCV; and heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) plus buses

for cars, VOC, commercial time (CT) costs, and private time (PT) costs are included in the data used to produce the relationship between costs and speed

the same also applies to LCV and heavy commercial vehicles (HCV); however, a freight cost (FT) component is also added to the data used to estimate the parameters for these vehicle types.

The only change in the estimated parameters between VOC plus freight-time cost data and the parameters that also include commercial and private time cost is reflected in the estimated B coefficient. Therefore, the parameter estimates obtained using the aggregated data of the two components – VOC, and total time costs – are presented in Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.1: Passenger vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads

CARS - VOC + CT + PT

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cost

c/k

m

Fwy Art


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 40 —

Figure 6.2: Light commercial vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads

Figure 6.3: Heavy commercial vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads

LCV - VOC + FT + CT + PT

0100200300400500600700800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cost

c/km

Fwy Art

HCV - VOC + CT + PT

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cos

t c/k

m

Fwy Art


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 41 —

7 CONCLUSIONS The Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation: Part 4 (this document) contains estimates of unit values for RUE updates as at 30 June 2010. This update is the eighth release of this Austroads series. Previous updates were calculated as at June 1996, June 1997, June 1998, September 2000, June 2002, June 2005 and June 2007. Reports containing these previous updates can be found in Austroads (1999), Austroads (2003a), Austroads (2004a), Austroads (2006) and Austroads (2008).

The update of RUE unit values estimates to June 2010 has benefitted from the findings of the updated methodologies project TP1349 recently completed for Austroads (2011). Whilst RUE unit values for some components (travel time valuation and environmental externalities) have been updated to June 2010 values using similar methodologies and data sources as in the previous Austroads (2008) update, there have been some revisions in the methodologies used to update the other RUE components (i.e. VOC and crash costs). The updates performed are summarised as follows:

Travel time valuation has been updated according to the methodology outlined in Austroads (2008). Development work for travel time reliability and small travel time savings for Australia is currently in progress under Austroads Project TP1444.

There have been some methodological improvements in the updates of several VOC components as follows

— fuel prices were updated based on similar methodology and data sources as in Austroads (2008)

— lubricating oil prices were updated based on similar methodology (i.e. retail price survey) as the previous update, except that the coverage (sample size of 75 observations) is now larger and hence more representative of average prices in the statistical sense

— tyre prices were updated using similar methodology (i.e. retail price survey) as in the previous update. Price data were obtained from leading tyre retailers throughout Australia based on a larger coverage of over 300 observations for car tyres and 160 for heavy vehicles tyres. Statistically, this is an improvement over the previous update in terms of sample representation. In the previous update, the average price for car tyres was estimated from a small number of observations

— vehicle prices for cars were updated according to the methodologies outlined in Austroads (2008). Prices for heavy vehicles were updated using a more appropriate price index (i.e. PPI) to that of CPI which was previously employed

— repair and maintenance cost data have been adjusted using a PPI adjustment. In addition, a review of the New Zealand costs data was conducted and it was established that the New Zealand figures were not appropriate for Australian conditions. The previous update was a CPI adjustment

— VOC urban models included reduced form relationships and parameters for urban networks based on the WA TRAMS modelling system. Estimates of peak traffic conditions were added to all-day estimates previously reported in Austroads (2008).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 42 —

Social costs of crashes. There have been demands by agencies and practitioners recently to provide a 'richer' description of methods and techniques used to derive these unit values. Six sets of crash cost estimates have been compiled for use by practitioners. These include

— the update of unit crash costs based on the traditional HC approach as in the previous Austroads (2008) update

— BITRE’s (2006) hybrid HC approach which incorporates an updated element of PSG

— RTA’s (2008a, 2008b) WTP pilot study undertaken for one jurisdiction only (NSW)

— New Zealand Ministry of Transport (2010) WTP estimates which were developed initially in 1996

— iRAP review estimates by country

— Access Economics (2008) review of estimates by country.

These estimates have been reviewed with the unit values of other countries that have either adopted the WTP or HC approach. To facilitate comparisons by practitioners, estimates have been converted to Australian dollars and updated using the latest available data (i.e. 30 June 2010).

Environmental and other externalities parameters and unit cost updates have been undertaken using CPI adjustments as of 30 June 2010, according to Austroads (2008).

It must be noted that Austroads has completed a review of international literature on speed-flow curves and their implication for project appraisal as part of the Austroads project TP1444: Part 4 on Speed-flow Relationships: Implications for Project Evaluation (Austroads 2011d). A description of speed-flow curves can be found in Part 3 of the Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation. More details on speed-flow curves can be found in Austroads (2011d).

This Guide has provided information on project evaluation data on vehicle operating costs, travel time savings, crash cost savings and environmental externalities. To address the problem of inconsistency in project evaluation analysis, the Austroads project TP1444, Part 1 on Documentation and Quality Control of Benefit-cost Analyses provides transport planners and managers with a BCA checklist of key tasks/areas to be covered. This is necessary to promote consistency in methodology and good quality control and assurance, which are essential in the conduct of any BCA assessment. More information on the BCA checklist can be accessed in Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation: Part 2 as well as in the detailed report (Austroads 2011a).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 43 —

REFERENCES Abelson, P 2003, ‘The value of life and health for public policy’, The Economic Record, vol. 79, special issue,

pp. s2-s13.

Access Economics 2008, The health of nations: the value of a statistical life, Australian Safety and Compensation Council, Canberra, ACT.

Akcelic, R & Besley, M 1996, SIDRA 5 users guide, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.

Arup Transportation Planning 1995, ‘Vehicle occupancy surveys’, final report, project BS3.A.42, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004, Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: summary of findings, 2003, cat. no. 4430, ABS, Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007, Producer price indexes, Australia, June 2007, cat. no. 6427.0, ABS, Canberra, ACT.



Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010a, Average weekly warnings, Australia, May 2010, cat. no. 6302.0, ABS, Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010b, Producer price indexes, Australia, June 2010, cat. no. 6427.0, ABS, Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010c, Consumer price index, Australia, June 2010, cat. no. 6401.0, ABS, Canberra, ACT.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011, Survey of motor vehicle use, Australia 12 months ended 31 October 2010, cat no. 9208.0, ABS, Canberra, ACT.

Australian Greenhouse Office 2006, Australian methodology for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks 2004, Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, ACT.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2010, Road transport and distribution award 2010, AIRC, Canberra, ACT, viewed 1 October 2010, <http://www.airc.gov.au/awardmod/awards/road_distribution_t.pdf>.

Australian Taxation Office 2010, Fuel tax credits and eligible fuels: from January 2009, ATO, Canberra, ACT, viewed 1 October 2010, <http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/00174722.htm>.

Australian Transport Council 2006a, National guidelines for transport system management in Australia: part 3: appraisal of initiatives, ATC, Canberra, ACT, viewed 15 October 2008 <http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/files/National_Guidelines_Volume_3.pdf>.

Australian Transport Council 2006b, National guidelines for transport system management in Australia, part 5: background material, ATC, Canberra, ACT, viewed 15 October 2008 <http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/files/National_Guidelines_Volume_5.pdf>.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 44 —

Australian Transport Safety Bureau 2004, Road safety statistics report: serious injury due to road crashes, ATSB, Canberra, ACT, viewed 30 July 2009, <http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2004/pdf/injury_Crash.pdf>.

Austroads 1997, Value of travel time savings, by D Rainey (ed), AP-119/97, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 1999, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: unit values for road user costs as at June 1997 and June 1998, AP-142/99, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2003a, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: unit values for road user costs as at September 2000, AP-R218/03, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2003b, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: valuing travel time savings for freight, AP-R230/03, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2003c, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: improved methods for estimating Australian unit crash costs, AP-R238/03, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2003d, Valuing environmental and other externalities, AP-R229/03, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2004a, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: unit values for road user costs as at June 2002, AP-R241/04, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2005c, Economic evaluation of road investment proposals: harmonisation of non-urban road user cost models, AR-R264/05, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2006, Update of RUC unit values to June 2005, AP-T70/06, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2008, Guide to project evaluation: part 4: project evaluation data, 3rd edn, AGPE04/08, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2009, Component costs in transport projects to ensure the appropriate valuing of safety effects, AP-T125/09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads 2011, Updating Austroads RUE unit values and related methodologies, AP-R373/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads (2011a), Documentation and Quality Control of Benefit-cost Analyses, AP-R390/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads (2011b), Valuation of Travel Time Reliability: A Review of Current Practice, AP-R391/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads (2011c), Small Travel Time Savings: Treatment in Project Evaluation, AP-392/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Austroads (2011d), Speed-flow Relationships: Implications for Project Appraisal, AP-R393/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Bellavance, F, Dionne, G & Lebeau, M 2007, The value of a statistical life: a meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model, working paper 06-12, HEC Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Berry, J, Nearmy, D & Harrison, J 2007, Injury of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people due to transport 1990-00 to 2003-04, AIHW Injury Research and Statistics, series no. 34, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, ACT.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 45 —

BITRE 2006, Road crash costs in Australia 2006, research report 118, Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, ACT.

Bowyer, D, Akcelik, R & Biggs, D 1986, Guide to fuel consumption analyses for urban traffic management, SR32, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.

Boyd, T 2010, ‘Unit injury costs, risk & uncertainty’, presentation slides for Project Appraisal Workshop, ARRB conference, 24th, Melbourne, Victoria, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.

Bryant, E, Lewis, D, Calvert, D, Ewan, C & Wilson, M 1992, Estimation of the health costs, to 2030 AD, of enhanced ultraviolet radiation due to climatic change, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW.

BTCE1996a, Valuing transport safety in Australia, working paper 26, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, Canberra, ACT.

BTCE 1996b, Costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Australian cars: an application of the BTCE CARMOD model, working paper 24, Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics, Canberra, ACT.

BTE 1999, Competitive neutrality between road and rail, working paper 40, Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra, ACT.

BTE 2000, Road crash costs in Australia, report 102, Bureau of Transport Economics,, Canberra, ACT.

BTE 2001, The black spot program 1996-2002: an evaluation of the first three years, Bureau of Transport Economics,, Canberra, ACT.

Cameron, E 2010, ‘Country drivers to pay more for fuel in SA state budget 2010’, AdelaideNow, 16 September 2010, viewed 23 February 2011, <http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-depth/country-drivers-to-pay-more-for-fuel-in-sa-state-budget-2010/story-fn6ilssb-1225924930765>.

Cosgrove, D 2003, Urban pollutant emissions from motor vehicles: Australian trends to 2020, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, ACT.

Dahdah, S & McMahon, K 2007, The true cost of road crashes: valuing life and the cost of a serious injury, iRAP, Basingstoke, UK.

Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism 2010, Australian petroleum statistics:2010, June, issue no. 167, DRET, Canberra, ACT.

European Commission 1999, ExternE: externalities of energy, vols 7 to 10, EC, Brussels, Belgium

Friedrich, R & Bickel, P (eds) 2001, Environmental external costs of transport, Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Giles, M 2003, ‘The cost of road crashes: a comparison of methods and recent Australian estimates’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 95-110.

Glass’s 2010, Black & white data book, Glass’s, Melbourne, Vic.

Guria, J 1993, Social costs of traffic accidents, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ.

Guria, J 1995, Estimates of vehicle damage costs, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 46 —

Guria, J, Jones, W, Jones-Lee, M, Keall, M, Leung, J & Loomes, G 2003, ‘The value of statistical life and prevention of injuries in New Zealand’, draft report, Land Transport Safety Authority, Wellington, NZ.

Hensher, D, Rose, J , Ortúzar J & Rizzi, L 2009, ‘Estimating the willingness to pay and value of risk reduction for car occupants in the road environment’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 43a, no. 7, pp. 692-707.

INFRAS/IWW 2000, External costs of transport: accidents, environmental and congestion costs in Western Europe, INFRAS, Zurich & Institut für Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftsforschung, Karlsruhe, Germany.

ISOHDM 1998, HDM-4 technical users guide: part D: models: D-5 social and environmental effects: section A: vehicle emissions, International Study of Highway Development and Management, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

ISOHDM 2000, HDM-4 highway development and management model (version 1.0): software and documentation, International Study of Highway Development and Management, PIARC, Paris, France.

Kneisner, T & Leeth, J 1991, ‘Compensating wage differentials for fatal injury risk in Australia, Japan and the United States’, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 75-90.

Laird, P 2005, ‘Revised land freight external costs in Australia’, Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 28th, 2005, Sydney, New South Wales, Planning and Transport Research Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Bentley, WA, vol. 28, 18 pp.

Latham, C & Playford, M 2002, Report to the Insurance Issues Working Group of Heads of Treasuries: actuarial assessment of the recommendations of the Ipp report, Department of Treasury, Canberra, ACT, viewed 23 February 2011, <http://assistant.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?pageID=&doc=publications/2002/20021115.htm&min=hlc>.

Law Reform Commission of Victoria 1990, Homicide, report no. 40, LRCV, Melbourne, Vic.

Mabbott, N & Swadling, D 1998, The use of accident costs for countermeasure evaluation in Australia: a state of the art review, review report 1, ARRB Transport Research, Vermont South, Vic.

Mayhew, P 2003, Counting the costs of crime in Australia: technical report, technical and background paper series no. 4, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, ACT.

Miller, P, Mulvey, C & Norris, K 1997, ‘Compensating differentials for risk of death in Australia’, Economic Record, vol. 73, no. 223, pp. 363-72.

Miller, T 2000, ‘Variations between countries in values of statistical life’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 169-88.

Ministry of Transport 1996, Land transport pricing study: environmental externalities: discussion paper and summary, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ.

Ministry of Transport 2010, The social cost of road crashes and injuries, June 2010 update, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ.

Mishan, E 1976, Cost benefit analysis, Praeger, New York, USA.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 47 —

Motha, J 1990, ‘The valuation of human life: approaches and issues with special reference to accident costing’, Conference of Economists, 19th, 1990, Sydney, New South Wales, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.

National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee 2006, Australian methodology for the estimation of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: workbook 6.1 for livestock, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, ACT.

National Occupational Health and Safety Commission 2004, The costs of work related injury and illness for Australian employees, workers and the community, NOHSC, Canberra, ACT.

New South Wales Office of State Revenue 2010, Petroleum products subsidy, Office of State Revenue, Sydney, NSW, viewed October 2010, <http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/benefits/petrol/>.

Northern Territory Treasury 2010, Claim for fuel subsidy by fuel suppliers and end-users, Treasury, Darwin, NT, viewed October 2010, <http://www.revenue.nt.gov.au/pdf/F-FS-001.pdf>.

NZTA 2010, Economic evaluation manual: volume 1, New Zealand Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ, viewed December 2010, <http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/economic-evaluation-manual/volume-1/index.html>.

Office of State Revenue 2010, Fuel subsidy scheme, Office of State Revenue, Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, viewed October 2010, <http://www.osr.qld.gov.au/historical-information/fuel-subsidy/history.shtml>.

Oldland, J 2011, ‘Fuel subsidy cut tip of iceberg’, Yorke Peninsula Country Times 18 January 2011, Ellis, WA, viewed 23 February 2011, < http://www.ypct.com.au/news/8516-fuel-subsidy-cut-tip-of-iceberg.html>.

Parish, R 1991, The valuation of human life, occasional paper, Department of Economics, Monash University, Clayton, Vic.

Richardson, J 1999, The role of willingness-to-pay in resource allocation in a national health scheme, working paper 80, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, Clayton, Vic.

RCG/Hagler Bailly Inc 1994, ‘The health effects and health costs in Melbourne due to motor vehicle-sourced ozone and air toxics’, in Victorian transport externalities study: part 2, publication no. 415, Environment Protection Authority, Melbourne, Vic.

Risbey, T, de Silva, H & Tong, A 2007, Road crash cost estimation: a proposal incorporating a decade of conceptual and empirical developments, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, ACT.

Roads and Traffic Authority 2008a, ‘Economic valuation of safety benefits: serious injuries: final summary report’, RTA, Sydney, NSW.

Roads and Traffic Authority 2008b, ‘Economic valuation of safety benefits: serious injuries: final report’ RTA, Sydney, NSW.

Roads and Traffic Authority 2008c, ‘Schedule of heavy tow truck and associated work and equipment charges for accident towing’, 1 September, RTA, Sydney, NSW.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 48 —

Robinson, JC 1986, ‘Philosophical origins of economic evaluation of life’, The Milbank Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 133-55.

State Revenue Office of Victoria 2009, Petroleum subsidies, SRO, Melbourne, Vic, viewed October 2010, <http://www.sro.vic.gov.au/sro/SROnav.nsf/childdocs/-03309F7BF538BD5ECA2575A100442054-C0FCD1EF08BBA2D3CA2575A1004420B6?open>.

Tasmania Treasury 2007, ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol, Australian Consumer and Competition Council, Melbourne, Vic, viewed 23 February 2011, <http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=794023&nodeId=931b2d29005bb2ad3a4401150f412feb&fn=29%20%20-%20Tasmanian%20Government.pdf>.

Taylor, MAP & Young, TM 1996, ‘Developing a set of fuel consumption and emissions models for use in traffic network modelling’, International symposium on transportation and traffic theory 13th, Lyon, France, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 289-314.

The Australian 2008, ‘South Pacific Tyres to close at end of the year’, The Australian 26 June 2008, News Ltd, Surrey Hills, NSW, viewed 23 March 2011, <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/jobs-to-go-as-tyre-factory-closes/story-e6frg6of-1111116741043>.

Transfund 1997, Project evaluation manual: appendix A8, Transfund New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

Viscusi, W 2005, The value of life, discussion paper 517, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, USA, viewed 23 February 2011, <http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Viscusi_517.pdf>.

Watkiss, P 2002, Fuel taxation inquiry: the air pollution costs of transport in Australia, report ED44525, AEA Technology Environment, London, UK.

Zerbe, R 1998, ‘Is cost-benefit analysis legal? three rules’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 17, no.3, pp. 419-56.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 49 —

FURTHER READING Australian Automobile Association 2010, Petrol prices, AAA, Canberra, ACT, viewed September 2010,

<http://www.aaa.asn.au/issues/petrol.htm>.

Australian Institute of Petroleum 2002, Oil and Australia, forecasts 1998–2007, AIP, Melbourne, Vic.

Australian Transport Council 2000, The national road safety strategy 2001-2010, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra, ACT, viewed 23 February 2011, <http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/files/strategy.pdf>.

Austroads 2005, Road Facts 2005: an overview of the Australian and the New Zealand road systems, AP-G18/05, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.

Bickel, P & Friedrich R (eds) 2005, ExternE: externalities of energy methodology 2005 update, European Commission, Luxembourg.

Botterill, R & Taylor, S 1992, Australian arterial road use, ARR 231, Australian Road Research Board, Vermont South, Vic.

Department of Treasury and Finance 2010, Cessation of the on-road diesel subsidy scheme, DTF, Perth, WA, viewed October 2010, <http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/content.aspx?id=4088&terms=Diesel+subsidy>.

Henning, T, Costello, S & Watson, T 2006, A review of the HDM/dTIMS pavement models based on calibration site data, research report 303, Land Transport New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.

INFRAS/IWW 2004, External costs of transport: updated study, final report, INFRAS, Zurich & Institut für Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftsforschung, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Northern Territory Treasury 2004, Fuel subsidies: general fuel subsidies from July 2000, Treasury, Darwin, NT, viewed October 2010, <http://www.revenue.nt.gov.au/pdf/fs002.pdf>.

Opus International Consultants 1999, Review of VOC-pavement roughness relationships contained in Transfunds ‘Project evaluation manual’, Central Laboratories report no. 529277.00, OIC, Lower Hutt, NZ.

Pratt, C 2002, ‘Estimation and valuation of environmental and social externalities for the transport sector’, Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF) 25th, 2002, Canberra, Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra, ACT, 28 pp.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 50 —

APPENDIX A REVIEW OF THE SOCIAL COSTS OF CRASHES

A.1 Background The 2010 unit crash costs values, as shown in Section 4.2, are based on a human capital (HC) approach. Data underpinning the Austroads values are collated from the BTE Report 102 (BTE 2000) based on original data as at 1996, and are updated with current unit values using indexation with the 2010 CPI and the AWE (ABS 2010a & 2010c).

Austroads commissioned ARRB Group to review current crash cost practices used in determining the relative cost share of safety in project evaluation (Austroads 2009). In December 2008, a workshop was convened in Adelaide to discuss current crash costs methodologies used in Australia in the context of a transport project evaluation framework. Austroads (2011) indicated the need to improve future unit crash costs values and consider if the WTP approach to valuing the social costs of crashes could be deemed more appropriate for Australia.

There are two established methods of evaluating crash costs – the WTP (ex ante) approach and the HC (ex post) approach:

The WTP approach values society’s willingness to pay for avoiding death, injury and damage outcomes from road crashes.

The HC approach measures an individual’s value to society in terms of their production potential, reflected in earnings. Accordingly, the value of a lost life is the discounted stream of future earnings of that individual (Risbey, de Silva & Tong 2007).

A.1.1 Critique of HC Approach The HC approach takes into account socio-economic factors in the estimation function and in some instances, the element of PSG arising from a crash is arbitrarily determined. The merit of the HC approach lies in its simplicity in calculations (BTCE 1996a) and provision of reliable and consistent numbers which are useful for public-sector decision makers (Robinson 1986).

There are a number of conceptual and empirical limitations in the HC approach, including:

failure to reflect society’s views about the importance of safety. The BTCE (1996a) identified from several studies that most people value safety due to their aversion to the prospect (minimise risk) of serious injury or death for themselves and others, rather than as a means of preserving current and future earnings

ignores the loss of ‘joy of life’, while values assigned for pain, grief and suffering are often arbitrary

under-valuation of life for those not in the labour force (i.e. children, elderly and home-makers), omission of externalities (e.g. pain and suffering) and exclusion of socio-economic characteristics (e.g. occupation, education and indigenous groups). For the latter, whilst Giles (2003) suggested that the estimates based solely on age and gender, as in BTE (2000), produce biased estimates, a recent study reported that crash costs are influenced by whether a person is indigenous or not (Berry, Nearmy & Harrison 2007)

overestimates cost in an economy with less than full employment.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 51 —

A.1.2 Critique of WTP Approach The WTP approach is regarded as the theoretically sound method for valuing life and aversion to death and injury for conventional cost-benefit analysis (Mishan 1976). The approach values small changes in the probability of injury or death that an individual could gain from a road safety program.

The WTP approach has the advantage of reflecting the way people value lives, thereby enabling the efficient allocation of scare capital whilst contributing to the maximisation of social welfare. From the project evaluation standpoint, the WTP approach affects the emphasis placed on road safety programs. A change in the methodology could alter the allocation of funds resulting in the reconsideration of projects that were previously rejected as marginal. Its implementation enables public investment decisions to recognise the social value to the wider community: outcome (reducing risk of death and threats to quality of life), process (achieving equity and social justice) and context (e.g. air traveller versus road user) (Richardson 1999).

This approach has been criticised from a conceptual standpoint. It is based on the assumption that people always correctly perceive the risks associated with a given behaviour (Zerbe 1998) but people often ignore external social costs in decision-making and some actually gain utility from risk-taking. Furthermore, there is difficulty in terms of designing and implementing the approach. Eliciting preferences of individuals is difficult (Motha 1990 & Parish 1991) and people are not always fully informed of the risks of death and injury. For cost-benefit analyses, equity is not adequately captured, as the assumption of equal marginal utility of money for the rich and poor yields economically efficient results that do not meet social objectives.

There was general consensus at the Adelaide workshop on the adoption of the WTP as the theoretically superior approach, and is more widely applied in other developed countries compared to Australia, which predominantly adopts the HC approach. This contributes to the lower levels of valuation of lives and safety benefits in Australia.

This Appendix presents the crash-cost estimates undertaken by BITRE, RTA and the New Zealand Ministry of Transport. In addition, international estimates from the iRAP and Access Economics are presented.

A.2 BITRE’s ‘Hybrid’ HC Approach In 2006, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE 2006) revised its estimation of the social cost of crashes. BITRE’s last estimate of the costs of road crashes to society and the economy was estimated close to $15 billion a year in 1996 prices (BTE 2000). This section presents a review and summary of BITRE’s revised estimates.

A.2.1 Definition of a Road Crash BITRE’s definition of a road crash adopted the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) guidelines. The ATSB (2004) defines a road crash as a crash involving a vehicle on a public road. Vehicles cover motor vehicles, pedal cycles, towed devices, machines and ridden animals but exclude skateboards, carts, prams and non-motorised wheelchairs. A road crash can be defined as road vehicles sliding into the road reserve and hitting an object, pedal cyclists injuring themselves or pedestrians on a roadway, a runaway driverless vehicle colliding with an object or pedestrian, and a load falling from a moving vehicle and causing injury.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 52 —

A.2.2 Classification of Injury BITRE’s classification of injury is as follows:

fatal injury defined as a death occurring within 30 days resulting from a road crash occurring on a public road

hospitalised injury covering hospitalised casualties from a road crash who were admitted regardless of the length of stay

non-hospitalised injury covering persons who attended hospital as a result of a road crash but were not admitted, and those who received treatment from a general practitioner. It excludes persons who did not seek medical treatment.

A.2.3 Coverage and Methodology Given that the HC approach is recognised as understating the human costs of road crashes and the WTP approach, though theoretically superior, has difficulties in empirical application, BITRE has adopted a hybrid HC approach to provide consistency with previous estimates.

The hybrid HC approach values household losses, adjusts the losses due to premature death of young and old people, and adds a proxy for an individual’s quality-of-life losses. The valuation of road crash costs involves: (i) estimating the total number of crashes and injuries and (ii) quantifying the cost of specific components (loss of life, treatment of injuries and ongoing care of persons with disabilities, property costs and general costs).

There are a number of significant changes in the methodology of the hybrid HC approach:

the methodology for estimating injury costs has been extended to include

— a notional value for the quality of life that would be lost by the unknown individual in the event of their premature death

— the losses due to a premature death of a child and elderly person to ensure negligible values are not assigned to this loss

— the costs to an employer due to the premature death of an employee which include costs arising from disruption at the workplace as well as the recruitment and training of a replacement

— medical and hospital costs for fatally injured persons, emergency services costs and coroner investigation costs

— the cost of a premature funeral; this is the additional cost to society of bringing forward the costs that would have otherwise been incurred at the end of a person’s natural life

— the costs of prosecuting people for culpable driving offences, the cost of imprisoning those convicted, and workplace and household losses of those serving a custodial sentence

— an allowance for the family and relatives of the deceased for the pain, grief and suffering endured

the methodology for estimating travel delays has been extended to a wider selection of crashes and to model uncertainty of key parameters

health costs of additional local pollution and the additional VOC resulting from the delays caused by road crashes have been included.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 53 —

A.2.4 Fatality Costs Table A 1 shows various direct and indirect costs used by BITRE to estimate the costs to society due to a premature death in a road crash, of which the largest costs are workplace and household losses and quality-of-life losses. A risk-free real discount rate of 3% and an expected real income growth per capita of 1.6% per annum to estimate future losses due to forgone income has been applied.

Taking into account all the cost components, the total costs to society due to crash fatalities was estimated at $3.8 billion (in 2006 dollars) based on the hybrid HC approach. In June 2010 dollars, this value is estimated at $4.3 billion.

Table A 1: BITRE HC approach to valuing human losses

Cost component Cost type Method of assessment

Total costs for fatalities in 2006

(in 2006 $ m)

Per fatality (in 2006 $000)

Per fatality (in June 2010 $000)

Workplace and household losses Economic cost

HC-based. Includes workplace and

household losses for individuals who serve a custodial sentence.

3007 1877.2 2128.7

Non-pecuniary costs: quality of life Non-economic cost

Proxy equivalent to statutory limits on

damages paid to an injured person for 100% disability.

728 454.6 515.5

Pain, grief and suffering Non-economic cost

Proxy equivalent to statutory limits

awarded to families of affected people.

Ambulance Economic cost Other. 4 2.2 2.5 Police 3 1.9 2.2

Fire services 5 2.9 3.3 Hospital and medical Economic cost 3 2.1 2.4

Coronial costs Economic cost 3 2.0 2.3 Premature funeral Economic cost 7 4.5 5.1

Workplace disruption and replacement Economic cost 17 10.6 13.0

Insurance administration Economic cost 13 8.1 9.2

Correctional services Economic cost 15 9.4 10.7

Legal costs Economic cost

Includes the costs of prosecuting

individuals charged with criminal offences

following road crashes and civil

(compensation) legal costs.

37 22.8 28.1

Total 3842 2.4 2.7 Source: BITRE (2006). The ‘per fatality’ figures have been updated to June 2010 using the CPI.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 54 —

Value of statistical life (VSL)

BITRE’s estimated average cost to society due to a road fatality in 2006 was $2.4 million, or $2.7 million in June 2010 dollars. A risk-free discount rate of 3% has been applied, and variability in gender fatalities in the 15–24 years age group has been stabilised13.

A.2.5 Injury Costs Costing of road crash injuries in BITRE (2006) is based on a bottom-up approach. There are 10 components for this bottom-up approach, which are:

workplace and household output losses

medical and other related costs

ambulance costs

emergency service costs

long-term care cost

insurance administration cost

legal cost

workplace disruption costs

recruitment and training costs

non-pecuniary costs.

It should be noted that these cost components are not applicable to all types of road crash injuries as these depend on factors such as injury severity, age and gender of the victim, length of hospitalisation etc. Each of these components is summarised below. Further details on the methodology can be obtained from BITRE (2006).

Workplace and household output losses

The workplace and household output losses to the economy (including delay in returning to work) and reduced productive life are estimated by adding:

a reduction in annual earnings and household contributions for persons with moderate, severe and profound limitations

a reduction in the duration of output contribution for those suffering profound limitations.

This amounted to $2682.7 million in 2006.

Workplace disruption costs

Workplace disruption costs, estimated at $77.7 million in 2006, comprise the duration of earnings foregone for persons with a:

permanent incapacity who do not return to work

severe disability who return to work on a reduced scale

moderate disability who return to work

with a mild disability who return to work. 13 The empirical analysis estimated fatality costs for multiple years (not only for 2006) and traced inherent probabilities of occurrence for observed gender split and age-specific distribution of fatalities. Further details are available from BITRE (2006).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 55 —

Medical and other related costs

Medical and other related costs comprise three elements: medical costs, hospital costs and paramedic costs. They are estimated as shown in Equation A1.

Medical and other related

costs

= (Number affected by degree of

impairment

X Medical cost by degree of impairment)

+ (Total days spent in public

and private hospitals –

excluding same day separations

X Average cost per day of

hospital stay)

+ (Number of affected by degree of

impairment

X Paramedical costs by degree of

impairment)

A1

Medical costs encompass all costs associated with a crash injury including general practitioners and specialists, surgery, hospital outpatient and paramedical costs, and medical excess payments. Hospital costs cover the cost of hospital stays for both public and private hospitals. Paramedical costs cover public and private allied health costs. In 2006, medical and related costs were estimated at $860.9 million.

Ambulance costs for injury crashes

Ambulance costs for injury crashes include:

transporting the casualties from the crash site to a hospital

providing medical and respite care to injured persons at the crash site until being taken to a hospital

transferring injured people between hospitals where required.

It is estimated by BITRE that the cost of ambulances attending at 21 670 hospitalised injury crashes and providing patient transfers between hospitals was $59.9 million in 2006, an average of $1921 per hospitalised injury.

Emergency services costs for injury crashes

Emergency services encompass police services as well as fire and rescue services. Police service costs are calculated as shown in Equation A2.

Police service costs

= (Number of crashes attended by police

x Number of officers attending a crash

x Number of hours spent per crash

x Value of police services per hour)

+ (Number of crashes attended by police

x Number of hours spent per crash

x Equipment cost per crash)

A2

The cost of police services to attend hospitalised injury crashes in 2006 was $35.3 million, averaging at $1348 per hospitalised injury crash.

Fire and rescue services are estimated using the average number of road rescue extrications and the average unit of cost of providing such services, as shown in Equation A3.

Fire and rescue services costs

= Number of crashes requiring fire and rescue services

x Unit cost of fire and rescue services A3

The estimated costs of fire and rescue services at injury crashes in 2006 were $27.3 million, an average estimate of $1070 per crash for all 25 498 injury crashes.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 56 —

Long-term care costs

Long-term care costs cover disability-related costs and the cost of carers.

Disability-related costs include the estimated cost of providing care for people who suffer a disability and the cost of disability services (workplace and household losses). In addition, there are other disability-related costs such as specialist accommodation, therapy and specialist services, day programs, specialist equipment, and alterations to houses. The total costs of disability-related services in 2006 were estimated at $210 million.

The cost of care which was estimated at $1.65 billion is calculated as follows:

Cost of care = (Number of persons with disability

x Average years for which care is received

x Hours of care needed per year

x Average hourly wage rate) A4

In total, long-term care costs were estimated to be $1864 million in 2006.

Recruitment and retraining costs

Recruitment cost has been based on ABS (2004) survey data and data from the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) of Victoria. The total cost of replacing and training injured people who could not return to work was estimated at $2.13 million in 2006. Retraining costs were estimated at $0.40 million. Thus, the total recruitment and retraining cost was $2.5 million in 2006.

Non-pecuniary costs of injury

Non-pecuniary costs of an injury are the costs of pain and suffering of people injured in road crashes. Estimates are based on court or jury awards, values specified by jurisdictions and WTP values using data from the TAC. As at 2006, the non-pecuniary costs were estimated at $1040 million.

Insurance administration costs

Insurance administration costs related to injuries are costs associated with administering compulsory third party (CTP) systems. Using data from the TAC, the cost of administering injury claims was estimated at $256.5 million or $8219 per hospitalised injury.

Legal costs

Legal costs were estimated using claims data from the TAC and the proportion of claimants’ legal costs data from Latham and Playford (2002). The total legal cost in 2006 amounted to $231.3 million or $7413 per hospitalised injury.

Total injury costs

Equation A2 shows the road crash cost components for injuries as discussed above. The total road crash cost for injuries as at 2006 was estimated to be $7137.7 million, and is also expressed in June 2010 dollars, equating to $8094 million.

Table A 2: Road crash cost components for injuries, 2006

Cost component Estimates for 2006 (2006 $ million)

Estimates for 2006 (June 2010 $ million)

Workplace and household losses 2682.7 3042.2 Disability-related costs (long-term care and cost of carers) 1863.9 2113.7

Non-pecuniary costs 1039.7 1179.0


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 57 —

Cost component Estimates for 2006 (2006 $ million)

Estimates for 2006 (June 2010 $ million)

Medical and related costs (hospitalised and non-hospitalised injuries) 860.9 976.3

Insurance administration cost 256.5 290.9 Legal costs 231.3 262.3 Work place disruption 77.7 88.1 Ambulance 59.9 67.9 Police 35.3 40.0 Fire and rescue services 27.3 34.0 Recruitment and re-training cost 2.5 2.8 Total 7137.7 8094.2

Source: BITRE (2006). Figures have been updated to June 2010 dollars using the CPI.

Unit costs for hospitalised and non-hospitalised injury

BITRE (2006) estimates that the losses for a hospitalised-type injury were about $214 000 per injury, which is inclusive of disability-related costs. The losses for non-hospitalised injury were approximately $2100 per injury. It is noted that these unit values are not comparable to the 1996 estimates of serious and minor injuries (BTE 2000), owing to the change in injury definitions (BITRE 2006).

A.2.6 Property Damage and General Costs Property damage and general costs, which amounted to $6.8 billion in 2006, comprised the following:

Costs of repairing vehicles involved in road crashes. BITRE estimates the repair cost of vehicles to be $4227.5 million in 2006, which consists of various vehicle types (cars, motorcycles, buses, rigid trucks and articulated trucks) and crash severity types (fatal crash, injury crash and PDO crashes).

Towing vehicles involved in road crashes. The costs of towing vehicles (buses, rigid trucks and articulated trucks) involved in a crash were $2.1 million in 2006 dollars14.

Cost of vehicle unavailability. When a road crash occurs, the vehicle may be unavailable to the owner. For a commercial vehicle, the period of unavailability means lost business. For a private vehicle, there is the cost of borrowing a vehicle and time incurred in public transport. Using data from surveyed vehicle hire services, BITRE estimated that the vehicle unavailability cost was $214.1 million in 2006.

Travel time losses. Total travel time delay was estimated at $792 million in 2006 for the 122 000 reported crashes regarded to have caused considerable delays. This estimate was based on the BITRE queuing model, which took into account the value of time of people/traffic, the vehicle mix, and the values of the flow of traffic in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.

Additional VOC. A road crash results in additional VOC owing to the extra time spent in congested traffic. This was estimated at $48 million in 2006.

14 This estimate was based on the assumption that the crash in the first-hour applicable fee for an 18–25 tonne tow of $202 was the total cost of a tow for all heavy vehicles (RTA 2008c).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 58 —

Health costs of crash-induced local air pollution. A road crash results in traffic queuing with engines running which adds to additional exhaust emissions to the atmosphere. The estimated health costs were $53.3 million in 2006.

Costs of vehicle insurance administration. Motor vehicle insurance administration costs arise from vehicle damage incurred from a road crash, theft of vehicles or specific cases of damage (hail, windscreen replacement, etc.). These costs have been estimated at $1421.3 million in 2006.

Street furniture damage costs. A road crash could lead to damage of non-vehicle road furniture e.g. light or telephone poles, sign or signal poles, buildings or structures, kerbs or guardrails, signs, guide posts and other items. These have been estimated at $40.2 million in 2006.

Cost of emergency services response. In the event of a road crash, police, ambulance and fire services are required. As at 2006, these were estimated at $72.9 million.

A.2.7 Summary of the BITRE (2006) Figures Table A 3 presents a summary of BITRE’s figures. In 2006, the total cost of road crashes was estimated at $17.85 billion, of which fatalities amounted to $3.8 billion, hospitalised injuries totalled $6.7 billion, non-hospitalised injuries were estimated at $0.4 billion and property damage and general costs were estimated at $6.9 billion.

Table A 3: Estimated social costs of road crashes in Australia by cost element, 2006

Cost element Human related costs Property damage and

general costs ($ m)

Total crash costs ($ m)

Proportion (per cent) Fatalities

($ m) Hospitalised

injuries ($ m)

Non-hospitalised injuries ($ m)

in 2006 $ Workplace and household losses 3007.2 2573.9 108.9 n.a. 5690.0 31.9 Repair costs n.a. n.a. n.a. 4227.5 4227.5 23.7 Disability-related costs n.a. 1863.9 n.a. n.a. 1863.9 10.4 Non-economic or non-pecuniary costs 728.3 1039.7 n.a. n.a. 1768.0 9.9 Insurance administration 13.2 256.5 n.a. 1421.3 1691.0 9.5 Medical and related costs 3.4 511.4 349.5 n.a. 864.2 4.8 Travel delay and VOC n.a. n.a. n.a. 839.7 839.7 4.7 Legal costs 36.5 231.3 n.a. n.a. 267.9 1.5 Vehicle unavailability cost n.a. n.a. n.a. 214.1 214.1 1.2 Emergency and police services cost 7.6 62.6 n.a. 72.9 143.1 0.8 Work place disruption 10.3 77.7 n.a. n.a. 88.0 0.5 Ambulance 3.6 59.9 n.a. n.a. 63.5 0.4 Health cost of crash-induced pollution n.a. n.a. n.a. 53.4 53.4 0.3 Street furniture damage cost n.a. n.a. n.a. 40.2 40.2 0.2 Correctional services 15.3 n.a. n.a. n.a. 15.3 0.1 Recruitment and re-training 6.6 2.5 n.a. n.a. 9.2 0.1 Premature funeral cost 7.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.2 0.0 Coronial costs 3.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.1 0.0 Total 3824.4 6679.5 458.3 6869.1 17849.3 100.0 In June 2010 $ Total 4336.8 7574.6 519.7 7789.6 20241.1


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 59 —

Note: Cost components may not add up to totals due to rounding. Source: BITRE (2006). Figures have been updated to June 2010 using the CPI.

In terms of June 2010 dollars, the total cost of road crashes is estimated to be $20.2 billion, of which fatalities make up $4.3 billion, hospitalised injuries $7.6 billion, non-hospitalised injuries $0.5 billion and property damage and general costs $7.7 billion.

The unit crash costs of human and related losses of a road fatality using BITRE’s hybrid HC method are estimated to be $2.4 million in 2006 dollars. Hospitalised injury losses are estimated at $214 000 and non-hospitalised injury costs are $2100.

In terms of June 2010 dollars, the unit crash costs were $2.7 million for fatalities, $243 000 for hospitalised injuries and $2400 for non-hospitalised injuries.

It is reported in BITRE (2006) that if a WTP approach had been used to measure fatality, injury and disability costs, the estimated cost of road crashes would have been 52% higher than these reported estimates.

A.3 RTA Pilot Study – WTP Approach In 2007, the RTA NSW commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Hensher Group to conduct a stated preference survey to provide road user WTP-based valuations for unit crash costing (Hensher et al. 2009). This was regarded as a trial of the WTP methodology.

A.3.1 Coverage and Methodology The study adopts the stated choice (SC) method for estimating the value of road safety improvements. The methodology involves the following steps (Figure A 1):

survey design – designing the SC questionnaire to capture people’s trade-offs between risk and wealth in a road safety context using the computer-assisted personal interview method

data collection – sampling individuals who have experienced using roads in road networks of interest (i.e. urban and non-urban NSW roads) to answer the SC survey questions

estimation of the WTP – using econometric methods to estimate WTP per person for fatality and injury risk reductions

estimation of the value of risk reduction in terms of the value of fatality risk reductions (or VSL), the value of serious (permanent) injury risk reductions (VSI), the value of hospitalised (non-injury) risk reductions (VHI), and the VMI, thereby transforming the individual WTP values from the survey into values for a reduction in fatality and injury risks in both an urban and a non-urban road context.

This section describes the estimation of WTP, VSL, VSI, VHI and VMI. Further details on the survey design, data collection process and sample are found in RTA (2008a, 2008b). It should be noted that the effective sample is 312, comprising 142 Sydney-based car trips (i.e. urban), 71 Bathurst-based car trips (i.e. representing non-urban) and 99 pedestrian trips.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 60 —

Source: RTA (2008a).

Figure A 1: Summary of the RTA NSW approach

This project focuses on car drivers and excludes other non-users of roads, motorcyclists, pedestrians, etc.15. The survey measures car drivers’ WTP to avoid a fatal crash or end up with a permanent, major or minor injury. From the survey, the specific values are derived for WTP, VSL, VSI, VHI and VMI.

A.3.2 Classification of Injury The large sample enables the distinction of the severity type as follows: death, permanent injuries (injuries requiring hospitalisation for a long period and resulting in some permanent disability), major injuries (injuries requiring hospitalisation but with full recovery) and minor injuries (injuries requiring some medical treatment but with no hospitalisation).

A.3.3 Estimation of WTP To determine the WTP for avoiding death and injuries, the survey data are modelled and statistically estimated using the mixed logit models (ML). Table A 4 presents the results from the ML models for the urban and non-urban car segments. The model fit is good based on the ρ2 (rho values) of 0.369 for urban and 0.335 for non-urban travel. All parameters exhibit the expected sign. The variables, death and trip cost, are significant for both urban and non-urban travel. Permanent injuries, major injuries, minor injuries and free-flow travel are significant for urban but insignificant for non-urban travel. Total travel time is significant for non-urban travel only.

15 The survey, as presented in Hensher et al. (2009), did not cover drivers’ WTP for not harming pedestrians or other motorised or non-motorised users since fatalities and injuries are related to individuals travelling in cars. The RTA project covered both motorists and pedestrians. For further information about pedestrians, refer to the RTA (2008c) report.

Design SC experiment

SC experiment on

drivers and passengers

sample

Model estimation for

individual WTP per trip

Convert individual WTP per trip to WTP per kilometre

travelled

Convert WTP per kilometre travelled to a societal value

for risk reductions


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 61 —

Table A 4: Final car models

Attributes Urban Non-urban Parameter t-ratio Parameter t-ratio

Random parameters Constrained triangular distributions Deaths Mean -0.273 -9.46 -0.352 -7.27 Permanent severe injuries Mean -0.052 -3.67 -0.037 -1.82 Major injuries (hospital) non-permanent Mean -0.039 -4.26 -0.025 -1.97 Minor injuries Mean -0.038 -3.92 -0.022 -1.61 Total travel time Mean - - -0.033 -3.65 Free flow Mean -0.066 -5.24 - - Slowed-down time Mean -0.099 -8.01 - - Cost Mean -0.322 -9.83 -0.090 -2.95 Normal distribution Cameras Mean -0.028 -0.72 0.003 0.05 Std. dev. 0.151 1.84 0.191 1.74 Average speed limit Mean 0.007 0.90 -0.005 -0.46 Std. dev. 0.042 8.35 0.042 4.91 Fixed parameters Constant 1 Mean 11.314 13.61 9.772 8.15 Constant 2 Mean 11.238 13.52 9.785 8.14 Model fits LL(0) -1560.029 -780.0147 LL(β) -984.676 -518.749 ρ2 (rho values) 0.369 0.335 N (number of observations) 1420 710 Trip distance Average 38.134 76.437 Std. deviation 14.491 76.437 Minimum 10 10 Maximum 60 180

Source: Hensher et al. (2009).

Table A 5 reports the empirical findings of the WTP to avoid a fatality and a class of injury in a road environment in 2007 prices. These figures are derived from the mean of the distributions of the WTP within the sample data for each severity type. The average WTP (in 2007 prices) for avoiding a death in the urban area is $0.92 per car trip compared to $3.99 in the non-urban area. For permanent injuries, the unit injury cost estimate is $0.18 per trip for urban and $0.42 per trip for non-urban travel. Major injuries were valued at $0.13 per trip for urban and $0.29 per trip for non-urban. Minor injuries were valued at $0.12 per trip and $0.25 per trip for urban and non-urban respectively.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 62 —

Table A 5: NSW unit injury cost estimates ($/car trip), 2007 prices

Injury severity Sydney (Urban) Other areas (Non-urban) 2007 prices

Average ($/trip) Standard deviation ($/trip)

Average ($/trip) Standard deviation ($/trip)

Death 0.92 0.31 3.99 1.12 Permanent injury 0.18 0.05 0.42 0.06 Major injury 0.13 0.04 0.29 0.04 Minor injury 0.12 0.05 0.25 0.03

Source: Hensher et al. (2009).

Figure A 2 illustrates the standard deviations (at 2007 prices) for death, permanent injury, major injury and minor injury. It can be seen that the deviations are particularly large for death (non-urban) and minor injuries (urban). This suggests that the estimates for these severity types in these categories may not be as reliable.

Source: Boyd (2010).

Figure A 2: NSW willingness-to-pay ($/trip) – 2007 prices

The unit values presented in Table A5 are a WTP per person per trip valuation. To obtain the VSL, VSI, VHI and VMI, a conversion to a WTP per person per fatality or injury is needed. The steps are:

converting the WTP per trip measure to a WTP per vehicle kilometre travelled (VKT)


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 63 —

estimating the chance that an individual would be involved in a fatal or injury crash

dividing the individual WTP per VKT by the chance of being involved in a crash.

Essentially, the above steps are needed in order to arrive at the underlying estimating equations as follows (Equation A5 and Equation A6):

Community VSL = WTP per trip Trip kilometres

x AVKT X 365 No. of fatalities

A5

where AVKT = Annual VKT

Community VSI, VHI, VMI

= WTP per trip Trip kilometres

x AVKT X 365 No. of injuries

A6

where AVKT = Annual VKT

A.3.4 Converting WTP per Trip to WTP per VKT For each respondent, the actual WTP per trip is calculated for every respondent in the survey. The WTP per trip is converted to a WTP per VKT using the actual number of kilometres in the trip distance nominated by the respondent.

Table A 6: WTP to avoid a fatality and injury per VKT

Urban car trip ($ per VKT) Non-urban car trip ($ per VKT) Fatalities 0.037 0.061 Serious injury 0.007 0.007 Hospitalised injury 0.005 0.005 Minor injury 0.005 0.004

Source: RTA (2008a).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 64 —

A.3.5 Estimating the Chance of Fatality and Injury The estimation of a chance that a fatality or serious injury will occur is measured as the ratio of the risk of a crash and exposure. The equation is simply expressed as (Equation A7):

chance = risk / exposure A7

where the exposure is measured as the annual VKT by cars and risk is measured in terms of the number of fatalities or number of injuries per annum. The annual VKT is obtained from the RTA (for urban data)16 and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (for non-urban data). Data to derive the chance of death or injury class are presented in Table A 7.

Table A 7: Casualty rates, exposure and chance of fatality and injury class

Casualty type (2007 estimate)

Degree of casualty Exposure Chance of

Fatality Fatal Serious injury

Hospitalised injury

Minor injury

Total AVKT* Fatal Serious injury

Hospitalised injury

Minor injury

Urban driver and passenger

133 551 1 652 6 975 9 311 2.309 X 1010 5.78 X 10 -9 2.38 X 10 -8 7.15 X 10 -8 3.02081 X 10 -7

Non-urban driver & passenger

220 761 1 799 4 360 7 140 2.257 X 1010 9.79 X 10-9 3.37 X 10-8 7.97 X 10-8 1.93145 X 10 -7

Ratio of non-urban to urban driver & passenger

1.65 1.38 1.09 0.63 0.77 - - - - -

* AVKT – annual vehicle kilometres travelled. Source: Hensher et al. (2009).

A.3.6 Deriving the VSL, VSI, VHI and VMI Table A 8 shows the final values for risk reduction in urban and non-urban areas as published in Hensher et al. (2009). In terms of 2007 prices, the VSL per car is $6.4 million in urban areas and $6.3 million in non-urban areas. The VSI and VHI are higher in urban ($310 292 for VSI and $75 476 for VHI) than in non-urban areas ($193 883 for VSI and $56 937 for VHI). However, the VMI is lower in urban areas ($16 552) than in non-urban areas ($20 312).

The RTA NSW value of risk reductions was given in 2007 prices. Updating these to June 2010 prices using the CPI for Sydney, the value of risk reductions will increase accordingly. The VSL per car is estimated at $6.9 million in urban areas and $6.8 million in non-urban areas. Whilst the VSI and VHI are higher in urban areas ($337 000 for VSI and $82 000 for VHI) than in non-urban areas ($211 000 for VSI and $61 000 for VHI), the VMI is lower in urban areas ($18 000) than in non-urban areas ($22 000).

16 To ensure that the exposure data are comparable to the risk data, which were calculated as an average over the 2001-2005 period, annual VKT has been adjusted back to represent the equivalent period.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 65 —

Table A 8: Value of risk reductions – $ per crash intensity

VSL (Fatality) VSI (Serious injury) VHI (Hospitalised injury) VMI (Minor injury) 2007 prices Car urban 6 369 655 310 292 75 476 16 552 Car urban all injuries 44 783 Car non-urban 6 298 062 193 883 56 937 20 312 Car non-urban all injuries 48 927 June 2010 prices Car urban 6 919 993 337 101 81 997 17 982 Car urban all injuries 48 652 Car non-urban 6 842 215 210 634 60 770 22 066 Car non-urban all injuries 53 154 Source: Hensher et al. (2009). Figures have been updated to 2010 prices using the CPI for Sydney.

A.4 New Zealand Ministry of Transport – WTP Approach In June 2010, New Zealand released numbers for the social costs of road crashes and injuries17. This is the annual update published by the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (Ministry of Transport 2010).

A.4.1 Concept New Zealand has adopted the WTP approach in the estimation of crash cost figures since 1991. The WTP valuation reflects the pain and suffering costs from the loss of an unidentified life from a road crash, estimated by the amount the New Zealand population would be willing to pay for a safety improvement resulting in the expected avoidance of premature death.

The New Zealand social cost of road crashes and injuries is a measure of the total cost of road crashes to the nation. The Ministry of Transport (2010) report provides estimates as at June 2010 of the following:

average social costs per injury and per crash

total social cost of road crashes and injuries in 2009

annual total social cost of road crashes and injuries from 2000 to 2009.

In the report, data on the average social costs are represented as the unit crash cost values (in NZ dollars). The social costs of crashes account for inflationary effects and any changes in the level of reporting. These crash cost figures also account for any changes in the mix of crashes by area and severity, and the average number of injuries involved in a crash.

A.4.2 Coverage and Methodology A two-stage estimation process has been undertaken in the crash costs methodology. This involves:

stage 1 – estimation of the total number of crashes and injuries using several data sources, and estimation of conversion factors to account for non-reporting

stage 2 – estimation of injury and crash costs i.e. expressing these in monetary terms.

17 It is assumed to be as at June 2010, as the publication was released in 2010.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 66 —

A.4.3 Stage 1: Estimation of Total Number of Crashes and Injuries Data

To work out the estimates of the total number of road crashes and injuries, annual crash and injury data, hospitalisation data and Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) new motor vehicle claims data were used. Data are from 2007 to 2009 for the reference period June 2010. The New Zealand Ministry of Transport data-matching exercises found that about 90% of the reported serious injuries and 70% of the reported minor injuries were matched with ACC claims data. As such, unmatched records are excluded in the estimation of the average (and total) social costs of road crashes and injuries, together with injuries that are not hospitalised or reported.

Conversion factors

To account for the level of non-reporting, injury and crash conversion factors (defined as the ratio of estimated to reported numbers of injuries or crashes) were developed for estimating the total number of incidents (refer to Table A 9 for numbers of reported and non-reported injuries).

The conversion factors are based on data for a three-year period centred at the crash year in order to minimise the random effect associated with year-to-year variations. For example, data for 2007 to 2009 were used for 2008. For the most recent provisional 2009 estimates, 2007 to 2009 data were also used18.

Table A 9: Annual number of reported and non-reported injuries

Year Road deaths Reported serious injuries

Reported minor injuries

Estimated non-reported

serious injuries

Estimated non-reported minor

injuries

2000 462 2 243 8 719 2 312 25 972

2001 455 2 435 9 933 1 660 21 405

2002 404 2 600 11 318 1 813 24 513

2003 461 2 578 11 794 1 462 26 420

2004 436 2 469 11 351 1 633 26 369

2005 405 2 519 11 906 1 691 28 280

2006 391 2 627 12 526 1 738 29 056

2007 422 2 664 13 389 1 818 29 829

2008 366 2 531 12 643 1 720 27 104

2009 384 2 425 12 116 1 631 25 843 Source: ACC, New Zealand Health Information Services (NZHIS) and Traffic Crash Reports (TCRs), as stated in Ministry of Transport (2010).

Table A 10 shows the reported and estimated total number of crashes and injuries for 2007 to 2009. It is noted that from 2007 to 2009, 58% of all serious injury crashes and 30% of all minor injury crashes are recorded in crash statistics, meaning that these are the reported incidents.

18 Regional conversion factors were also developed to cater for regional variations. These estimates are then used to derive the conversion factors for rural and urban areas at the national level. It is assumed that the conversion factors for minor and property damage-only injuries and crashes are the same for all regions and areas owing to lack of data availability.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 67 —

Table A 10: Reported and estimated number of crashes and injuries from 2007 to 2009

Reported crashes Reported injuries Estimated crashes

Estimated injuries Fatal Serious Minor Fatal Serious Minor

All areas Fatal 1 044 1 172 470 523 1 044 1 172 470 523 Serious 6 182 0 7 150 2 695 10 609 0 12 272 4 599 Minor 27 611 0 0 34 930 90 409 0 0 114 377 Total 34 837 1 172 7 620 38 148 102 062 1 172 12 742 119 499 Rural areas Fatal 760 872 372 410 760 872 372 410 Serious 2 964 0 3 598 1 633 5 234 0 6 341 2 859 Minor 10 113 0 0 13 449 33 113 0 0 44 038 Total 13 837 872 3 970 15 492 39 107 872 6 713 47 307 Urban areas Fatal 284 300 98 113 284 300 98 113 Serious 3 218 0 3 552 1 062 5 375 0 5 931 1 740 Minor 17 498 0 0 21 481 57 296 0 0 70 339 Total 21 000 300 3 650 22 656 62 955 300 6 029 72 192 Source: Ministry of Transport (2010).

A.4.4 Stage 2: Estimation of Injury and Crash Costs Total social cost

The total social cost of road crashes and injuries comprises the loss of life and life quality, loss of output due to temporary incapacitation, medical costs, legal and court costs and property damage costs. Each of the social cost components constitutes a part of the total social cost of crashes and injuries, and has been updated using the price indices shown in Table A 11. The cost components are as follows:

Loss of life – the WTP-based VSL was developed in 1991 in New Zealand, as mentioned. The VSL was established at NZ$2 million in 1991, and has been indexed using the average hourly earnings (ordinary time) for the regular updates. As at June 2010, the updated VSL is NZ$3.56 million.

Loss of life quality – the updated average loss of life quality due to permanent impairments (including the associated loss of productivity due to long-term impairments) from a serious injury has been estimated at 10% of the VSL (or NZ$355 600), and 0.4% (or NZ$14 200) for a minor injury. This follows from the findings of the 1997–98 Value of Safety survey (Guria et al. 2003).

Loss of output due to temporary incapacitation – the loss of output due to temporary incapacitation is estimated by multiplying the average daily earnings per person19 (NZ$107.60 as at June 2010) and the average time loss per injury (12.5 days for serious injury and 2.5 days for minor injuries)20. Thereafter, this is calculated on a per-injury basis.

19 This is calculated using the average daily earnings distributions by age group and gender, and weighting the earnings for the road crash injury population for 2007 to 2009. 20 These days are based on the mean length of hospital stay obtained by matching the traffic crash report injury data with hospitalisation data for 2007 to 2009.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 68 —

Medical costs – medical costs comprise hospital in-patient medical, emergency treatment and follow-on treatment costs. In-patient hospitalisation costs were estimated at 40.5% for fatal injuries and 1.4% for minor injuries (Guria 1993). Emergency treatment costs for a serious injury were estimated at 12% of its in-patient hospitalisation costs. Emergency treatment costs for fatal and minor injury were estimated at 270% and 60% of the emergency treatment cost for a serious injury respectively. Follow-on costs for a serious and minor injury were each estimated at 49% and 2.4% of the in-patient hospitalisation costs. No follow-on costs for a fatal injury were incurred.

Legal and court costs – legal and court costs include the justice system costs of dealing with traffic offences, the cost of police crash attendance and investigation, and the cost of imprisonment. Fatal crash costs were estimated at 6.92 times the cost for a serious crash. Minor crashes and property and damage-only crashes were estimated at 46% and 5% of the cost for a serious crash respectively (Guria 1993). The costs of police crash attendance and investigation were based on annual budgeted police resources for crash attendance and investigation from the New Zealand Police’s Road Policing Programme. Annual convictions and sentencing data were sourced from the Ministry of Justice. The cost of imprisonment for driving causing death and injury were attributed to fatal and serious crashes only.

Property damage cost – average property damage costs by crash type and area were adopted from the estimates in Guria (1995) and updated subsequently using the CPI for vehicle servicing and repairs.

Table A 11: Price indices for updating unit costs

Cost component Indices/measures Period Indices/values % change over the 12 months to June 2010

Loss of life and life quality Average hourly earnings (ordinary time)

June 2009 June 2010

NZ$24.50 (revised) NZ$25.45 2.2%

Loss of output Average hourly earnings (ordinary time)

June 2009 June 2010

NZ$24.50 (revised) NZ$25.45 2.2%

Medical cost Producers price index – Health and community

services

June 2009 June 2010

1319 1318 -0.1%

Legal and court cost Producers price index – Legal services: personal and

corporate

June 2009 June 2010

1617 1649 2.0%

Property damage cost Consumers price index – Vehicle servicing & repairs

June 2009 June 2010

1150 1175 2.2%

Source: Ministry of Transport (2010).

As at June 2009, the total social cost of motor vehicle injury crashes was NZ$4.3 billion with NZ$1.38 billion for fatalities, NZ$1.53 billion for serious injuries, NZ$0.76 billion for minor injuries and NZ$0.6 billion for PDO. The ten-year series to 2009 of the total social cost of crashes and injuries is shown in Table A 12.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 69 —

Table A 12: Total social cost of road crashes and injuries, June 2010 prices

Year Injuries (NZ$b June 2010 prices) Crashes (NZ$b June 2010 prices) Fatal Serious Minor Fatal Serious Minor PDO

2000 1.66 1.72 0.69 1.61 1.67 0.61 0.54 2001 1.63 1.55 0.63 1.66 1.49 0.56 0.49 2002 1.45 1.67 0.72 1.53 1.64 0.65 0.57 2003 1.65 1.53 0.76 1.70 1.48 0.71 0.62 2004 1.56 1.55 0.75 1.58 1.52 0.71 0.62 2005 1.45 1.59 0.80 1.43 1.58 0.76 0.66 2006 1.40 1.65 0.83 1.46 1.65 0.76 0.68 2007 1.51 1.69 0.86 1.58 1.64 0.82 0.72 2008 1.31 1.61 0.80 1.39 1.61 0.79 0.67 2009 1.38 1.53 0.76 1.42 1.50 0.73 0.64

Note: This table includes non-reporting cases. Source: Ministry of Transport (2010).

Average social cost

The average social cost per reported crash is calculated by dividing the estimated total social cost by the number of reported incidents. It would be expected that an increase in the number of reported incidents will decrease the average social cost per reported incident.

For each social cost component, the average cost per injury is computed differently as follows:

Loss of life and life quality – the values are calculated on a per injury basis. These values are incorporated into the average cost per crash, considering the average number of injuries (by severity type) involved in a crash during 2007 to 2009.

Loss of output due to temporary incapacitation – the cost estimate is included in the average cost per crash by considering the average number of injuries involved in a crash by severity type from 2007 to 2009.

Medical costs – medical costs are calculated for each injury severity type and incorporated into the average cost per crash, considering the average number of injuries (by severity type) involved in a crash. Updates using the producers input price index for health and community services were undertaken.

Legal and court costs – the average legal costs per injury were estimated by equating the total legal cost of each injury crash type to that for all injuries caused by those crashes. Updates using the producers input price index for legal services were undertaken.

Property damage cost – the average property damage cost per injury was obtained by equating the total property damage cost of each injury crash type to that for all injuries caused by those crashes.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 70 —

Table A 13 summarises the average social cost per crash and per injury by cost component at June 2010 prices, while Table A 14 presents the average social cost per crash causing PDO. These estimates have not been adjusted for non-reporting of crashes.

Table A 13: Average social cost per crash and per injury by cost component

Per crash June 2010 prices (NZ$) Fatal Serious Minor

Loss of life/permanent disability 4 163 200 417 900 18 000 Loss of output (temporary disability) 700 1 700 300 Medical 13 600 16 300 1 100 Legal and court 16 400 3 800 600 Property damage 10 300 6 500 5 200 Total 4 204 200 446 100 25 200 Per injury Fatal Serious Minor Loss of life/permanent disability 3 559 400 355 900 14 200 Loss of output (temporary disability) 0 1 300 300 Medical 6 200 13 700 800 Legal and court 13 100 3 100 500 Property damage 5 600 4 000 4 100 Total 3 584 400 378 100 20 000

Notes: Figures may not add up due to rounding. These estimates have not been adjusted for the level of non-reporting. New Zealand values are assumed to be as at June 2010. Source: Ministry of Transport (2010).

Table A 14: Average social cost per crash causing PDO

Per PDO crash June 2010 prices (NZ$) All areas Rural Urban

PDO 2600 2800 2500 Notes: These estimates have not been adjusted for the level of non-reporting. New Zealand values are assumed to be as at June 2010. Source: Ministry of Transport (2010).

Table A 15 summarises the average social cost per crash and per reported injury at June 2010 prices by severity-type and for urban and rural areas. These estimates are obtained using the WTP approach and they represent the unit crash cost values for New Zealand. These estimates have also been adjusted for non-reporting gaps.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 71 —

Table A 15: Average social cost per crash and per injury

Per reported crash June 2010 prices (NZ$) All areas Rural Urban

Fatal 4 204 000 4 308 000 3 925 000 Serious 765 000 829 000 708 000 Minor 83 000 88 000 80 000 Per reported injury All areas Rural Urban Fatal 3 584 000 3 584 000 3 584 000 Serious 632 000 640 000 625 000 Minor 63 000 62 000 63 000

Notes: These estimates have been adjusted for the level of non-reporting. New Zealand values are assumed to be as at June 2010. Source: Ministry of Transport (2010).

A.5 VSL: International Estimates A.5.1 VSL: International Comparison with iRAP Results Table A 16 shows the VSL estimates produced by a number of studies across developed and developing countries. Figures for most countries have been updated to June 2010 using the respective countries’ CPI and converted to Australian dollars.

The key observations are:

Hybrid HC VSL. Australia’s VSL using the BITRE (2006) estimate ($2.8 million) is closer to the Netherlands’ VSL estimate of $2.4 million, and smaller than Iceland’s VSL of $5.7 million. These three countries have adopted the hybrid HC approach where the PSG component has been factored into the HC calculations.

WTP VSL. Australia’s (NSW) WTP estimates of $6.9 million for urban and $6.8 million for non-urban areas are higher than the VSL estimates of both developed and developing countries which are using the WTP approach. For example, the VSL estimates of other countries (i.e. U.S., U.K., Sweden, New Zealand, Austria, India and Malaysia) are all under $4 million.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 72 —

Table A 16: International VSL estimates

Country VSL 2004 International $

VSL 2010 International $

VSL 2010 A$

Method

Australia BITRE (2006) 2 033 407 2 719 600 Hybrid HC RTA NSW (2008b) urban cars 6 283 783 6 919 993 WTP RTA NSW (2008b) non-urban cars 6 213 155 6 842 215 WTP New Zealand iRAP 2 033 333 2 353 995 2 776 212 WTP Ministry of Transport (2010) 3 420 988 WTP Other countries (iRAP) Austria 3 094 074 3 460 440 3 854 930 WTP Bangladesh 71 066 103 782 115 613 HC Canada 1 427 413 1 584 802 1 765 470 HC France 1 252 083 1 376 611 1 533 544 HC Germany 1 257 451 1 380 005 1 537 325 HC Iceland 3 303 555 5 127 129 5 711 621 HC + PGS* India 147 403 213 916 238 303 WTP Indonesia 92 433 133 630 148 864 HC Latvia 1 042 743 1 598 538 1 780 771 HC Lithuania 746 531 753 060 838 909 HC Malaysia 722 022 840 252 936 041 WTP Myanmar 51 254 136 193 151 719 HC Netherlands 1 944 026 2 134 389 2 377 710 HC + PGS* Poland 573 806 671 104 747 610 HC Singapore 924 240 1 045 418 1 164 596 HC Sweden 2 015 680 2 187 690 2 437 087 WTP Thailand 222 056 288 235 321 093 HC UK 2 292 157 2 680 967 2 986 598 WTP USA 3 000 000 3 461 593 3 856 215 WTP Vietnam 53 063 95 930 106 866 HC

* PGS indicates some provision for pain, grief and suffering, intended to represent the human cost. Notes: Figures have been updated to June 2010 dollars for most countries using the latest available CPI or inflation rate data from national statistical agencies, the International Labor Organisation (ILO), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The exceptions are figures for Bangladesh (July 2010), Latvia (year-end of 2010), Lithuania (year-end of 2010), Myanmar (year-end of 2010) and Thailand (year-end of 2010). ‘International $’ are assumed to be US $ (refer to Austroads 2009). Source: Dahdah & McMahon (2007) for all countries’ VSL data except for Australia for 2010 [BITRE (2006) and RTA (2008b)] and New Zealand for 2010 (Ministry of Transport 2010).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 73 —

A.5.2 VSL: International Comparison with ACCESS Economics Results Table A 17 summarises the study undertaken by Access Economics (2008)21, which collates the VSL estimates from 244 studies (17 Australian and 227 international) between 1973 and 2007 (see Appendix B for a list of these studies). Estimates were converted to 2010 Australian dollars and analysed by sector (health, occupational safety, transport, environment and other sectors), country, methodology and age of study. A discount rate of 3% was applied. It should be noted that the Access Economics (2008) report does not distinguish whether the estimates are based on a HC or WTP approach.

Key observations for all countries, as noted in the report, are as follows:

for all the countries (compiled from 244 studies), the mean VSL was $9.4 million and the median was $6.6 million (in 2006 dollars22)

there are significant differences by sector in the 2006 mean/median values: health ($4.0 million/$3.7 million), transport ($7.9 million/$5.4 million), other sectors (consumer choice, crime and fire safety – $8.5 million/$6.0 million), environment ($11.2 million/$8.1 million) and occupational safety ($11.1 million/$7.4 million)

for Australia (compiled from 17 studies), the mean VSL was $5.7 million and the median was $2.9 million in 2006 dollars.

In terms of Australia’s international standing (in June 2010 dollars):

Australia’s mean VSL ($6.3 million) appears to be on the lower bound out of the 14 countries reviewed (refer to Table A 18 for the list of Australian 2010 estimates)

Australia’s median value ($3.3 million) appears to be in the lower bound of the 14 countries reviewed.

It should be noted that the 2010 estimates include the BITRE (2006) and RTA (2008b) VSL estimates of $2.7 million and $6.9 million for urban areas respectively. Furthermore, it should be noted that these VSL estimates are not just for road transport crashes but include the crashes for all vehicle types.

21 The Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (the ‘Office’) commissioned Access Economics on 30 May 2007 to conduct a comprehensive review of the available Australian and international literature on the value of a statistical life (VSL) and the value of a statistical life year (VSLY) for use as inputs in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). 22 It is not possible to convert to 2010 dollars for ‘all countries’ as there is no appropriate price deflator.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 74 —

Table A 17: Ranges of VSL estimates by country

Country No. of studies

Health Occupational safety

Transport Environment Other Total Mean Median Mean Median

2006 $ million 2010 $ million Australia 19 1.2–2.9 2.8–28.4 1.3–5.4 0.9 – 7.2 1.5–17.7 0.9–28.4 5.7 2.9 6.3 3.3 Austria 5 - 2.6–13.2 - - 5.4–13.2 2.6–13.2 9.0 8.2 9.7 8.9 Canada 17 2.7–9.0 0.8–7.8 0.7–41.1 - 3.7–14.5 0.7–41.1 7.3 5.0 7.8 5.3 Denmark 2 - - 1.3–1.9 - 6.6–8.7 1.3–8.7 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.7 Europe 1 - - 5.4 - - 54 5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 France 2 - - 1.5–35.8 - 5.1–7.3 1.5–35.8 11.9 11.9 12.6 12.6 Hong Kong 1 - 2.7 - - - 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 Japan 4 - 15.3–20.2 - - 8.2–12.2 8.2–20.2 16.0 17.8 15.9 17.7 New Zealand 10 - - 1.1–21.4 - 2.8–4.2 1.1–21.4 7.0 5.3 7.5 5.6 South Korea 6 - 1.3–2.5 - - 0.7–1.3 0.7–2.5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.7 Sweden 7 - - 2.1–44.1 - 2.1–6.8 2.1–4.1 7.9 5.6 8.4 6.0 Switzerland 5 - 10.0–13.6 - - 7.3–12.9 1.4–13.6 6.8 7.7 7.1 8.0 Taiwan 7 - 0.3–2.9 1.4–1.7 - 1.4–1.9 0.3–2.9 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 UK 26 - 2.1–117.0 1.0 – 34.0 31.4 1.4–41.3 1.0–117.0 17.5 8.8 19.6 9.9 US 117 0.2–8.7 0.5–32.9 0.2–50.8 1.1–13.6 1.0–42.3 0.2–50.8 9.0 7.1 9.7 7.7 Multiple 17 - 0.5–30.0 0.2–50.8 0.1–132.9 0.7–84.7 0.2–132.9 13.3 7.5 - - All 244 0.2–9.0 0.3–117.0 0.2–50.8 0.1–132.9 0.7–84.7 0.1–132.9 9.4 6.6 - - Mean - 4.0 11.1 7.9 11.2 8.5 9.4 - - - - Median - 3.7 7.4 5.4 8.1 6.0 6.6 - - - -

Notes: Figures were updated using each country’s CPI, with the latest available data from the respective national statistical offices. Europe’s index is the harmonised CPI, obtained from the European Central Bank. Australia’s 2010 VSL includes the BITRE (2006) VSL and RTA (2008b) VSL estimates for urban cars. Source: Access Economics (2008).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 75 —

Table A 18: Range of Australian VSL estimates by study

Study 2010 A$ million Abelson (2003) 1.30 Abelson (2003) 3.27 Australian Transport Council (2000) 2.26 Bellavance et al. (2007) 20.02 Bryant et al. (1992) 1.30 BITRE (2006) 2.72 BTE (2000) 1.75 BTE (2001) 6.14 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) (2006) 3.40 Kneiser and Leeth (1991) 7.83 Law Reform Commission of Victoria (1990) 1.70 Mayhew (2003) 2.47 Mayhew (2003) 1.97 Miller (2000) 5.30 Miller et al. (1997) 32.22 NOHSC (2004) 3.26 RCG/Hagler Bailly (1994) 8.18 RTA (2008b) for urban cars 6.92 Viscusi (2005) 7.52

Source: Access Economics (2008), BITRE (2006) and RTA (2008b).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 76 —

APPENDIX B ACCESS ECONOMICS LITERATURE SURVEY

Table B 1: Range of statistical life values by study and country – health and occupational safety (2006 A$ million)


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 77 —


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 78 —


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 79 —


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 80 —

Notes: ‘Other’ in column 3 (study area) includes Consumption, Crime, Fire Safety and Mixed Studies. ‘Other’ in column 4 (study type) signifies implicit valuation, based on other studies or unknown. CPLS = cost per life saved. Source: Access Economics (2008).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 81 —

APPENDIX C VICTORIAN CRASH COST DISTRIBUTION BY SPEED ZONE

A summary of crash costs by speed zone and their distributions for Victoria is presented in this Appendix. The Victorian crash data covers casualty crashes only; PDO crashes are not accounted for in these estimates.

The Victorian average crash costs data in Table C 1 and Table C 2 have been updated based on reported casualty crashes in the four calendar years 2006–2009. The unit costs have been expressed in June 2010 prices based on the reported data and updated unit costs per person killed and injured as shown in Table 4.2.

In Table C 2, the update shows the unit costs by DCA23 categories. It should be noted that there are some instances where a DCA code has not been recorded against a casualty crash. As a result, there are marginal differences in the average casualty costs by speed zone between Table C 1 and Table C 2.

Similarly, the distribution of persons involved in Victorian casualty crashes by speed limit (Table C 3) has been updated based on reported casualty crashes during the period 2006 to 2010.

It should be noted that these tables for Victoria are included as an example of this type of information. In future, similar tables may be useful for other jurisdictions, in which case additional work would be required.

Table C 1: Average Victorian crash costs by speed zone ($), June 2010 prices

Speed limit (km/h) Fatal Serious injury Other injury All casualty < 50 1 916 000 473 000 19 800 189 000 50 2 066 000 497 000 20 600 229 000 60 2 098 000 514 000 21 400 238 000 70 2 115 000 540 000 22 200 282 000 80 2 271 000 560 000 22 900 306 000 90 2 168 000 606 000 23 000 398 000 100 2 393 000 553 000 22 400 429 000 110 2 304 000 594 000 23 200 460 000

All roads 2 262 000 526 000 21 500 278 000 Source: VicRoads.

23 DCA (Definitions for Classifying Accidents) is the code used in Victoria and is the equivalent of the Road User Movements (RUM) code used in other jurisdictions.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 82 —

Table C 2: Average Victorian casualty crash costs ($/crash) by DCA grouping and speed zone, 2006–2010 crashes in June 2010 prices

DCA definition group

Speed zone 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h Total

Pedestrian on foot, in toy/pram

202 000 254 000 299 000 389 000 462 000 874 000 292 000

Vehicles from adjacent directions (intersections only)

179 000 202 000 223 000 275 000 340 000 543 000 263 000

Vehicles from opposing directions

215 000 257 000 289 000 345 000 415 000 814 000 368 000

Vehicles from same direction 116 000 135 000 157 000 184 000 192 000 281 000 272 000 349 000 176 000

Manoeuvring 182 000 155 000 200 000 240 000 300 000 400 000 203 000 Overtaking 284 000 648 000 427 000 On path 147 000 224 000 236 000 331 000 305 000 269 000 241 000 Off path on straight 254 000 291 000 292 000 364 000 337 000 361 000 395 000 451 000 332 000

Off path on curve 296 000 307 000 325 000 307 000 376 000 340 000

Passenger and miscellaneous 275 000 203 000 575 000 317 000

All categories 206 000 229 000 238 000 282 000 305 000 396 000 421 000 452 000 278 000 Source: VicRoads.

Table C 3: Distribution of persons involved in Victorian casualty crashes, 2006 to 2010

Speed limit (km/h)

Killed Hospitalised Other injury Total casualties Not injured Total involved

< 50 0.2% 16.1% 32.2% 48.5% 51.5% 100.0% 50 0.4% 19.5% 33.5% 53.4% 46.6% 100.0% 60 0.5% 17.9% 32.0% 50.3% 49.7% 100.0% 70 0.7% 19.2% 30.0% 49.9% 50.1% 100.0% 80 1.0% 20.0% 31.0% 52.0% 48.0% 100.0% 90 1.7% 26.9% 30.4% 59.0% 41.0% 100.0% 100 3.2% 30.1% 33.0% 66.3% 33.7% 100.0% 110 3.5% 28.0% 33.5% 64.9% 35.1% 100.0%

Average 1.0% 20.4% 32.4% 53.7% 46.3% 100.0% Source: VicRoads.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 83 —

APPENDIX D ROAD USER MOVEMENT (RUM) CRASH COSTS AS AT 30 JUNE 2010

This Appendix presents detailed information related to Western Australian road user movement (RUM) crash costs. Using this approach, crashes are classified by the road user movement considered to most contribute to the crash, not by the severity of the outcome as used for reporting crash costs in the main body of the Guide. At the time of writing, average crash-cost estimates for individual RUM codes were not generally available in a regularly updated format. Table D 1 shows average crash costs by individual RUM code for all reported crashes, while Table D 2 contains similar unit values for all crashes but expressed per casualty crash. These costs are updates to 30 June 2010 of the unit values also presented in the previous update (Austroads 2006). Summaries of these unit values representing costs by speed zone for all RUM categories in aggregate levels for urban freeways, total urban, total rural and total state categories are shown in Table D 3 and Table D 4 respectively.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 84 —

Table D 1: Average crash cost by RUM code (all reported crashes) – Western Australia data 1993–2000 – values at June 2010

Crash description by road user movement Speed limit Code Description 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h Pedestrian on foot, in toy/pram

0 Pedestrian: other $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 1 Pedestrian: near side $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 2 Pedestrian: emerging from near side $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 3 Pedestrian: far side $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 4 Pedestrian: play/work/stand on carriageway $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 5 Pedestrian: walking with traffic $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 6 Pedestrian: walking against traffic $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 7 Pedestrian: in driveway $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 8 Pedestrian: on footway $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 9 Pedestrian: struck boarding/alighting $101 600 $162 700 $249 600 $369 800 $532 200 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100

Intersection – vehicles from adjacent approaches 10 Intersection (adjacent approaches): other $36 400 $45 800 $57 800 $72 900 $91 500 $114 300 $141 800 $174 800 11 Intersection (adjacent approaches): through-through $45 500 $60 400 $79 800 $104 300 $135 100 $173 100 $219 800 $276 400 12 Intersection (adjacent approaches): right-through $27 300 $31 700 $37 400 $44 500 $53 500 $64 600 $78 100 $94 600 13 Intersection (adjacent approaches): left-through $25 600 $28 600 $32 200 $36 300 $41 000 $46 300 $52 100 $58 400 14 Intersection (adjacent approaches): through-right $36 400 $45 800 $57 800 $72 900 $91 500 $114 300 $141 800 $174 800 15 Intersection (adjacent approaches): right-right $25 600 $28 600 $32 200 $36 300 $41 000 $46 300 $52 100 $58 400 16 Intersection (adjacent approaches): left-right $25 600 $28 600 $32 200 $36 300 $41 000 $46 300 $52 100 $58 400 17 Intersection (adjacent approaches): through-left $27 900 $32 400 $38 000 $44 800 $53 000 $62 700 $74 100 $87 500 18 Intersection (adjacent approaches): right-left $27 900 $32 400 $38 000 $44 800 $53 000 $62 700 $74 100 $87 500 19 Intersection (adjacent approaches): left-left $27 900 $32 400 $38 000 $44 800 $53 000 $62 700 $74 100 $87 500


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 85 —

Crash description by road user movement Speed limit Code Description 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h Vehicles from opposing directions

20 Opposite direction: other $28 100 $32 700 $38 800 $46 600 $56 300 $68 300 $83 100 $101 000 21 Opposite direction: head on $72 300 $106 900 $155 600 $222 300 $311 800 $429 600 $581 700 $775 000 22 Opposite direction: through-right $42 000 $54 200 $69 500 $88 300 $111 000 $138 300 $170 700 $209 000 23 Opposite direction: right-left $28 100 $32 700 $38 800 $46 600 $56 300 $68 300 $83 100 $101 000 24 Opposite direction: right-right $28 100 $32 700 $38 800 $46 600 $56 300 $68 300 $83 100 $101 000 25 Opposite direction: through-left $28 100 $32 700 $38 800 $46 600 $56 300 $68 300 $83 100 $101 000 26 Opposite direction: left-left $28 100 $32 700 $38 800 $46 600 $56 300 $68 300 $83 100 $101 000 27 Opposite direction: U-turn $28 100 $32 700 $38 800 $46 600 $56 300 $68 300 $83 100 $101 000

Vehicles from one direction 30 Same direction: other $24 500 $27 300 $31 100 $36 000 $42 200 $50 200 $60 200 $72 400 31 Same direction: same lane, rear end $25 900 $27 900 $30 400 $33 300 $36 700 $40 700 $45 300 $50 600 32 Same direction: same lane, left rear $21 200 $21 900 $22 700 $23 700 $24 700 $25 900 $27 200 $28 600 33 Same direction: same lane, right rear $25 800 $28 700 $32 300 $36 600 $41 700 $47 600 $54 500 $62 500 34 Same direction: same lane, U-turn $32 200 $39 100 $47 900 $58 800 $72 100 $88 300 $107 600 $130 600 35 Same direction: parallel lanes, sideswipe $26 200 $29 400 $33 400 $38 400 $44 500 $52 000 $61 000 $71 700 36 Same direction: change lanes-right $22 800 $24 300 $26 000 $28 000 $30 300 $32 800 $35 600 $38 600 37 Same direction: change lanes-left $23 500 $25 700 $28 700 $32 500 $37 400 $43 700 $51 600 $61 400 38 Same direction: parallel lanes-turn right sideswipe $24 500 $27 300 $31 100 $36 000 $42 200 $50 200 $60 200 $72 400 39 Same direction: parallel lanes-turn left sideswipe $23 900 $26 700 $30 800 $36 300 $43 700 $53 500 $66 200 $82 300

Manoeuvring 40 Manoeuvring: other $24 600 $27 400 $30 900 $35 200 $40 400 $46 500 $53 800 $62 300 42 Manoeuvring: leaving parking $21 900 $22 900 $24 200 $25 700 $27 400 $29 300 $31 400 $33 600 43 Manoeuvring: parking $21 900 $22 900 $24 200 $25 700 $27 400 $29 300 $31 400 $33 600 44 Manoeuvring: parking vehicle only $20 000 $20 200 $20 400 $20 700 $20 900 $21 200 $21 500 $21 900 45 Manoeuvring: reversing in traffic $20 500 $21 300 $22 500 $24 100 $26 400 $29 400 $33 200 $38 200


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 86 —

Crash description by road user movement Speed limit Code Description 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h

46 Manoeuvring: reverse into fixed object $20 500 $21 300 $22 500 $24 100 $26 400 $29 400 $33 200 $38 200 47 Manoeuvring: leaving driveway $24 600 $27 400 $30 900 $35 200 $40 400 $46 500 $53 800 $62 300 48 Manoeuvring: loading bay $24 600 $27 400 $30 900 $35 200 $40 400 $46 500 $53 800 $62 300 49 Manoeuvring: from footway $48 700 $69 800 $100 100 $142 500 $200 400 $277 500 $378 200 $507 300

Overtaking 50 Overtaking: other $27 600 $31 900 $37 300 $44 000 $52 300 $62 200 $74 100 $88 300 51 Overtaking: head on $101 100 $159 300 $244 100 $364 100 $529 200 $750 700 $1 041 500 $1 415 900 52 Overtaking: out of control $30 700 $41 200 $55 700 $75 100 $100 700 $133 900 $176 300 $229 700 53 Overtaking: pulling out $27 600 $31 900 $37 300 $44 000 $52 300 $62 200 $74 100 $88 300 54 Overtaking: cutting in $27 600 $31 900 $37 300 $44 000 $52 300 $62 200 $74 100 $88 300 55 Overtaking: pull out-rear end $27 600 $31 900 $37 300 $44 000 $52 300 $62 200 $74 100 $88 300 56 Overtaking into right turn $27 600 $31 900 $37 300 $44 000 $52 300 $62 200 $74 100 $88 300

On path 60 On path: other $27 600 $32 000 $37 700 $44 900 $53 900 $65 100 $78 800 $95 300 61 On path: parked $27 600 $32 000 $37 700 $44 900 $53 900 $65 100 $78 800 $95 300 62 On path: double parked $27 600 $32 000 $37 700 $44 900 $53 900 $65 100 $78 800 $95 300 63 On path: accident or breakdown $32 400 $42 200 $54 900 $71 100 $91 400 $116 600 $147 600 $185 300 64 On path: open car door $27 600 $32 000 $37 700 $44 900 $53 900 $65 100 $78 800 $95 300 65 On path: permanent obstruction $32 400 $42 200 $54 900 $71 100 $91 400 $116 600 $147 600 $185 300 66 On path: temporary roadworks $27 600 $32 000 $37 700 $44 900 $53 900 $65 100 $78 800 $95 300 67 On path: temporary object on carriageway $15 500 $17 800 $20 700 $24 100 $28 100 $32 800 $38 200 $44 400 69 On path: hit animal $15 500 $17 800 $20 700 $24 100 $28 100 $32 800 $38 200 $44 400


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 87 —

Crash description by road user movement Speed limit Code Description 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h Off path on straight

70 Off path on straight: other $33 800 $46 600 $63 000 $83 600 $109 200 $140 700 $178 900 $225 100 71 Off path on straight: off carriageway – left $33 800 $46 600 $63 000 $83 600 $109 200 $140 700 $178 900 $225 100 72 Off path on straight: off carriageway – left-object $33 800 $46 600 $63 000 $83 600 $109 200 $140 700 $178 900 $225 100 73 Off path on straight: off carriageway – right $33 800 $46 600 $63 000 $83 600 $109 200 $140 700 $178 900 $225 100 74 Off path on straight: off carriageway – right-object $33 800 $46 600 $63 000 $83 600 $109 200 $140 700 $178 900 $225 100 75 Off path on straight: lost control on carriageway $33 800 $46 600 $63 000 $83 600 $109 200 $140 700 $178 900 $225 100 76 Off path on straight: left turn-out of control $24 900 $32 100 $40 700 $50 900 $62 800 $76 400 $91 800 $109 200 77 Off path on straight: right turn-out of control $24 900 $32 100 $40 700 $50 900 $62 800 $76 400 $91 800 $109 200

Off path on curve 80 Off path on curve: other $39 000 $55 800 $78 000 $106 700 $143 200 $189 300 $246 600 $317 300 81 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend right $39 000 $55 800 $78 000 $106 700 $143 200 $189 300 $246 600 $317 300 82 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend right-object $39 000 $55 800 $78 000 $106 700 $143 200 $189 300 $246 600 $317 300 83 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend left $39 000 $55 800 $78 000 $106 700 $143 200 $189 300 $246 600 $317 300 84 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend left-object $39 000 $55 800 $78 000 $106 700 $143 200 $189 300 $246 600 $317 300 85 Off path on curve: lost control on carriageway $39 000 $55 800 $78 000 $106 700 $143 200 $189 300 $246 600 $317 300

Passengers and miscellaneous 90 Miscellaneous: passengers other $23 000 $26 200 $30 000 $34 500 $39 700 $45 600 $52 400 $59 900 91 Miscellaneous: passenger fell in/from vehicle $89 900 $135 500 $194 500 $269 500 $363 400 $480 300 $623 900 $797 900 92 Miscellaneous: load struck vehicle $23 000 $26 200 $30 000 $34 500 $39 700 $45 600 $52 400 $59 900 93 Miscellaneous: struck train $55 200 $89 100 $143 800 $227 400 $348 800 $518 900 $749 300 $1 053 400 94 Miscellaneous: struck rail crossing furniture $23 000 $26 200 $30 000 $34 500 $39 700 $45 600 $52 400 $59 900 95 Miscellaneous: hit animal on/off carriageway $14 600 $16 900 $19 800 $23 200 $27 200 $31 800 $37 100 $43 100 96 Miscellaneous: parked car ran away $23 000 $26 200 $30 000 $34 500 $39 700 $45 600 $52 400 $59 900 97 Miscellaneous: vehicle movement not known $23 000 $26 200 $30 000 $34 500 $39 700 $45 600 $52 400 $59 900


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 88 —

Table D 2: Average casualty crash cost by RUM code – Western Australia data 1993–2000 – values at June 2010


Pedestrian on foot, in toy/pram 0 Pedestrian: other $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 1 Pedestrian: near side $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 2 Pedestrian: emerging from near side $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 3 Pedestrian: far side $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 4 Pedestrian: play/work/stand on carriageway $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 5 Pedestrian: walking with traffic $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 6 Pedestrian: walking against traffic $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 7 Pedestrian: in driveway $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 8 Pedestrian: on footway $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100 9 Pedestrian: struck boarding/alighting $204 500 $267 700 $348 100 $448 600 $572 300 $747 800 $1 028 400 $1 386 100

Intersection – vehicles from adjacent approaches 10 Intersection (adjacent approaches): other $179 100 $184 400 $197 500 $216 600 $240 900 $270 400 $305 000 $345 000 11 Intersection (adjacent approaches): through-through $192 200 $208 500 $233 400 $265 500 $304 600 $351 000 $405 100 $467 400 12 Intersection (adjacent approaches): right-through $265 900 $252 100 $252 000 $261 400 $278 300 $301 900 $332 100 $368 600 13 Intersection (adjacent approaches): left-through $259 800 $237 300 $226 400 $222 400 $222 600 $225 700 $230 800 $237 400 14 Intersection (adjacent approaches): through-right $179 100 $184 400 $197 500 $216 600 $240 900 $270 400 $305 000 $345 000 15 Intersection (adjacent approaches): right-right $259 800 $237 300 $226 400 $222 400 $222 600 $225 700 $230 800 $237 400 16 Intersection (adjacent approaches): left-right $259 800 $237 300 $226 400 $222 400 $222 600 $225 700 $230 800 $237 400 17 Intersection (adjacent approaches): through-left $244 400 $231 800 $230 400 $236 300 $247 600 $263 300 $283 000 $306 500 18 Intersection (adjacent approaches): right-left $244 400 $231 800 $230 400 $236 300 $247 600 $263 300 $283 000 $306 500 19 Intersection (adjacent approaches): left-left $244 400 $231 800 $230 400 $236 300 $247 600 $263 300 $283 000 $306 500


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 89 —


Vehicles from opposing directions 20 Opposite direction: other $260 600 $248 600 $250 000 $260 900 $279 400 $304 800 $336 900 $375 800 21 Opposite direction: head on $307 400 $371 600 $458 600 $570 000 $708 600 $877 500 $1 080 200 $1 320 300 22 Opposite direction: through-right $185 400 $195 400 $212 400 $234 700 $261 600 $292 900 $328 700 $369 100 23 Opposite direction: right-left $260 600 $248 600 $250 000 $260 900 $279 400 $304 800 $336 900 $375 800 24 Opposite direction: right-right $260 600 $248 600 $250 000 $260 900 $279 400 $304 800 $336 900 $375 800 25 Opposite direction: through-left $260 600 $248 600 $250 000 $260 900 $279 400 $304 800 $336 900 $375 800 26 Opposite direction: left-left $260 600 $248 600 $250 000 $260 900 $279 400 $304 800 $336 900 $375 800 27 Opposite direction: U-turn $260 600 $248 600 $250 000 $260 900 $279 400 $304 800 $336 900 $375 800

Vehicles from one direction 30 Same direction: other $289 400 $263 800 $254 600 $256 400 $267 000 $285 200 $310 700 $343 200 31 Same direction: same lane, rear end $163 300 $143 800 $132 600 $126 500 $123 700 $123 300 $124 800 $127 800 32 Same direction: same lane, left rear $173 900 $146 700 $129 000 $116 900 $108 200 $101 900 $97 200 $93 800 33 Same direction: same lane, right rear $151 500 $137 900 $131 500 $129 700 $130 900 $134 500 $140 000 $147 300 34 Same direction: same lane, U-turn $241 000 $239 400 $248 600 $265 400 $288 500 $317 300 $351 600 $391 600 35 Same direction: parallel lanes, sideswipe $429 100 $393 000 $379 000 $379 100 $389 700 $408 900 $435 800 $470 000 36 Same direction: change lanes-right $388 600 $337 700 $306 700 $287 300 $275 300 $268 200 $264 600 $263 500 37 Same direction: change lanes-left $389 300 $347 700 $328 400 $323 900 $330 700 $347 200 $372 500 $406 400 38 Same direction: parallel lanes-turn right sideswipe $289 400 $263 800 $254 600 $256 400 $267 000 $285 200 $310 700 $343 200 39 Same direction: parallel lanes-turn left sideswipe $348 300 $318 400 $310 500 $318 600 $340 200 $374 400 $421 000 $480 300

Manoeuvring 40 Manoeuvring: other $302 000 $275 100 $263 200 $260 800 $265 100 $274 700 $288 700 $306 900 42 Manoeuvring: leaving parking $458 000 $392 600 $351 500 $324 500 $306 400 $294 400 $286 500 $281 800 43 Manoeuvring: parking $458 000 $392 600 $351 500 $324 500 $306 400 $294 400 $286 500 $281 800 44 Manoeuvring: parking vehicle only $2 203 800 $1 816 300 $1 555 500 $1 368 600 $1 228 600 $1 120 100 $1 034 000 $964 400 45 Manoeuvring: reversing in traffic $745 900 $633 900 $567 300 $529 600 $512 900 $513 200 $528 400 $557 400


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 90 —


46 Manoeuvring: reverse into fixed object $745 900 $633 900 $567 300 $529 600 $512 900 $513 200 $528 400 $557 400 47 Manoeuvring: leaving driveway $302 000 $275 100 $263 200 $260 800 $265 100 $274 700 $288 700 $306 900 48 Manoeuvring: loading bay $302 000 $275 100 $263 200 $260 800 $265 100 $274 700 $288 700 $306 900 49 Manoeuvring: from footway $174 600 $204 200 $248 400 $307 700 $383 500 $477 400 $591 500 $727 800

Overtaking 50 Overtaking: other $261 800 $247 100 $245 200 $251 800 $264 800 $283 300 $307 000 $335 600 51 Overtaking: head on $321 700 $414 200 $538 300 $698 400 $899 500 $1 147 100 $1 446 700 $1 804 300 52 Overtaking: out of control $159 700 $175 200 $200 700 $235 400 $279 800 $334 600 $400 500 $478 700 53 Overtaking: pulling out $261 800 $247 100 $245 200 $251 800 $264 800 $283 300 $307 000 $335 600 54 Overtaking: cutting in $261 800 $247 100 $245 200 $251 800 $264 800 $283 300 $307 000 $335 600 55 Overtaking: pull out-rear end $261 800 $247 100 $245 200 $251 800 $264 800 $283 300 $307 000 $335 600 56 Overtaking: into right turn $261 800 $247 100 $245 200 $251 800 $264 800 $283 300 $307 000 $335 600

On path 60 On path: other $341 100 $323 000 $322 500 $334 300 $355 900 $386 100 $424 700 $471 600 61 On path: parked $341 100 $323 000 $322 500 $334 300 $355 900 $386 100 $424 700 $471 600 62 On path: double parked $341 100 $323 000 $322 500 $334 300 $355 900 $386 100 $424 700 $471 600 63 On path: accident or breakdown $245 000 $260 900 $288 100 $324 500 $369 800 $424 100 $487 800 $561 800 64 On path: open car door $341 100 $323 000 $322 500 $334 300 $355 900 $386 100 $424 700 $471 600 65 On path: permanent obstruction $245 000 $260 900 $288 100 $324 500 $369 800 $424 100 $487 800 $561 800 66 On path: temporary roadworks $341 100 $323 000 $322 500 $334 300 $355 900 $386 100 $424 700 $471 600 67 On path: temporary object on carriageway $286 700 $269 400 $264 900 $268 400 $277 500 $291 000 $308 200 $328 800 69 On path: hit animal $286 700 $269 400 $264 900 $268 400 $277 500 $291 000 $308 200 $328 800

Off path on straight 70 Off path on straight: other $196 600 $221 300 $253 600 $292 800 $339 000 $392 400 $453 800 $523 700 71 Off path on straight: off carriageway – left $196 600 $221 300 $253 600 $292 800 $339 000 $392 400 $453 800 $523 700 72 Off path on straight: off carriageway – left-object $196 600 $221 300 $253 600 $292 800 $339 000 $392 400 $453 800 $523 700


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 91 —


73 Off path on straight: off carriageway – right $196 600 $221 300 $253 600 $292 800 $339 000 $392 400 $453 800 $523 700 74 Off path on straight: off carriageway – right-object $196 600 $221 300 $253 600 $292 800 $339 000 $392 400 $453 800 $523 700 75 Off path on straight: lost control on carriageway $196 600 $221 300 $253 600 $292 800 $339 000 $392 400 $453 800 $523 700 76 Off path on straight: left turn-out of control $209 400 $220 400 $237 400 $258 300 $282 200 $308 500 $337 200 $368 000 77 Off path on straight: right turn-out of control $209 400 $220 400 $237 400 $258 300 $282 200 $308 500 $337 200 $368 000

Off path on curve 80 Off path on curve: other $193 100 $225 800 $267 500 $318 300 $378 900 $450 100 $533 200 $629 200 81 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend right $193 100 $225 800 $267 500 $318 300 $378 900 $450 100 $533 200 $629 200 82 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend right-object $193 100 $225 800 $267 500 $318 300 $378 900 $450 100 $533 200 $629 200 83 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend left $193 100 $225 800 $267 500 $318 300 $378 900 $450 100 $533 200 $629 200 84 Off path on curve: off carriageway on bend left-object $193 100 $225 800 $267 500 $318 300 $378 900 $450 100 $533 200 $629 200 85 Off path on curve: lost control on carriageway $193 100 $225 800 $267 500 $318 300 $378 900 $450 100 $533 200 $629 200

Passengers and miscellaneous 90 Miscellaneous: passengers: other $375 300 $348 800 $339 000 $339 100 $345 900 $357 500 $372 900 $391 300 91 Miscellaneous: passenger fell in/from vehicle $177 000 $218 000 $265 500 $320 000 $382 300 $480 300 $623 900 $797 900 92 Miscellaneous: load struck vehicle $375 300 $348 800 $339 000 $339 100 $345 900 $357 500 $372 900 $391 300 93 Miscellaneous: struck train $188 000 $247 900 $339 500 $466 800 $634 700 $848 700 $1 114 200 $1 437 000 94 Miscellaneous: struck rail crossing furniture $375 300 $348 800 $339 000 $339 100 $345 900 $357 500 $372 900 $391 300 95 Miscellaneous: hit animal on/off carriageway $273 000 $259 100 $256 800 $261 800 $271 800 $285 700 $302 900 $323 100 96 Miscellaneous: parked car ran away $375 300 $348 800 $339 000 $339 100 $345 900 $357 500 $372 900 $391 300 97 Miscellaneous: vehicle movement not known $375 300 $348 800 $339 000 $339 100 $345 900 $357 500 $372 900 $391 300


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 92 —

Table D 3: Average crash cost by road type (all reported crashes) – Western Australia data 1993-2000 – values at June 2010

Area Speed limit 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h

Urban Freeway $26 300 $29 700 $33 900 $41 200 $44 000 $65 200 $78 000 $80 700 Urban $31 300 $38 200 $47 300 $53 800 $69 900 $115 100 $102 600 $206 400 Rural $33 600 $42 800 $55 000 $74 200 $88 500 $122 000 $150 500 $212 400 State $31 600 $38 800 $48 300 $55 000 $68 800 $118 300 $90 600 $211 800

Table D 4: Average casualty crash cost by road type – Western Australia 1993-2000 – values at June 2010

Area Speed limit 40 km/h 50 km/h 60 km/h 70 km/h 80 km/h 90 km/h 100 km/h 110 km/h

Urban Freeway $168 300 $157 300 $154 000 $133 300 $159 200 $119 300 $234 400 $160 500 Urban $202 800 $202 700 $212 700 $203 500 $234 300 $343 600 $312 100 $511 300 Rural $212 300 $221 300 $241 100 $251 800 $289 900 $360 700 $431 800 $558 400 State $204 100 $205 200 $216 500 $207 000 $233 200 $353 400 $273 300 $554 300


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 93 —

APPENDIX E VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FOR THE ADELAIDE AND BRISBANE ECONOMIC EVALUATION MODELS

Economic evaluation models employed by the Adelaide and Brisbane jurisdictions use VOC that include person-time costs for all commercial vehicles but exclude person-time costs for cars. The person-time costs for cars are calculated from the travel time and trip matrices to allow for shifts in the number of persons per vehicle that may occur between traffic scenarios.

For the purposes of this Guide, the form of the estimated relationship for Adelaide and Brisbane is shown in Equation A8. Coefficients have been calculated for two cases, urban freeways and other at-grade roads. The values listed in Table E 1, Table E 2, and depicted in Figure E 1 are estimated for Adelaide for operating costs including the cost of emissions. Parameter estimates for operating costs excluding greenhouse gas emission costs are listed in Table E 3 and Table E 4 and illustrated in Figure E 2.

Finally, corresponding parameter estimates for Brisbane (including and excluding emission costs) are presented in Table E 5 to Table E 8 and illustrated in Figure E 3.

Urban model 2** VDVC

VBAc +++=

A8

where

A, B, C, D = model coefficients

c = vehicle operating cost (cents/km)

V = average link speed in km/h.

E.1 Adelaide Table E 1: Vehicle operating cost parameters using all-day average speeds including emission costs – c/km

Road type A B C D Freeway 33.192 646.74 0.0298 0.0000414 Other roads 87.002 467.08 -1.2158 0.007318

Table E 2: Vehicle operating cost parameters using 2-hour peak average speeds including emission costs – c/km

Road type A B C D Freeway 5.542 1563.1 0.3023 -0.0008373 Other roads 23.09 1483.7 0.03869 0.000167


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 94 —

Figure E 1: VOC plus freight time plus commercial time for commercial vehicles including emissions in Adelaide – c/km

Table E 3: VOC parameters using all-day average speeds excluding emission costs – c/km

Road type A B C D Freeway 30.516 612.903 0.0243 0.000032 Other roads 78.288 658.963 -1.0781 0.006452

Table E 4: VOC parameters using 2-hour peak average speeds excluding emission costs – c/km

Road type A B C D Freeway 5.154 1479.306 0.2556 -0.000587 Other roads 15.78 1436.996 0.1603 0.00064

ADE VOC + emissions for all vehicles + FT + CT for commercial vehicles

020406080

100120140160180200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cost

c/k

m

Fwy Art


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 95 —

Figure E 2: VOC plus freight time plus commercial time for commercial vehicles excluding emissions in Adelaide – c/km

E.2 Brisbane Table E 5: VOC for all vehicles plus commercial time and freight costs for

commercial vehicles including emission costs – c/km


Cars 18.07 117.275 0.061088 -0.00029 Rigid trucks 90.793 4545.33 0.266015 -0.0012285 Articulated vehicles 125.204 7761.31 0.732704 -0.0046578 Buses 228.152 5451.2 0.13218 0.0002687

Table E 6: VOC for all vehicles plus commercial time and freight costs for commercial vehicles including emission costs – c/km


Cars 44.721 208.46 -0.50553 0.002665 Rigid trucks 164.646 4706.06 -1.22219 0.006076 Articulated vehicles 221.931 9983.37 -1.87322 0.009369 Buses 297.632 5674.92 -1.36854 0.008001

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Cos

t c/k

m

Speed

ADE VOC for all vehicles + FT + CT for commercial vehicles

Fwy Art


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 96 —

Table E 7: VOC for all vehicles plus commercial time and freight costs for commercial vehicles, excluding emission costs – c/km


Cars 16.749 105.64 0.0624 -0.00026 Rigid trucks 79.204 4367.23 0.2293 -0.001157 Articulated vehicles 109.591 7419.59 0.5783 -0.003758 Buses 212.484 5283.47 0.1356 -0.000163

Table E 8: VOC for all vehicles plus commercial time and freight costs for commercial vehicles, excluding emission costs – c/km


Cars 41.403 203.23 -0.4546 0.002324 Rigid trucks 122.989 4632.53 -0.5638 0.002105 Articulated vehicles 145.44 9865.94 -0.6523 0.002368 Buses 250.34 5607.41 -0.6197 0.003041


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 97 —

Figure E 3: Vehicle operating plus freight time plus commercial time costs for commercial vehicles in Brisbane – c/km

E.3 Urban Journey Speed VOC Models Travel time and VOC within an urban network comprise two components; the travel between controlled intersections (mid-block) and delays (and costs) occurring at the road intersections. The WA urban model estimates each component separately. Travel between the intersections is a function of a road speed limit and the volume to capacity ratio of the particular road link where the mid-block capacity (and cost) is based on uninterrupted flow.

QLD - CARS - VOC Costs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cos

t c/k

m

Fw y Art

QLD Rigid - VOC + FT + CT

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cos

t c/k

m

Fwy Art

QLD - Articulated vehicles - VOC + FT + CT

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cos

t c/k

m

Fwy Art

QLD - BUS - VOC + CT

0200400600800

1000120014001600

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cos

t c/k

m

Fwy Art


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 98 —

Traffic delays at an intersection are a function of the intersection layout and the traffic control procedures, the number (if any) of separate turning lanes and the traffic volume on the cross street as well as the volume on the approach under consideration. This delay also has two components, the stationary time spent waiting for the green cycle (or a gap in the traffic), plus the additional time to decelerate to a stop and accelerate back to cruise speed in excess of the time required to travel that same distance at a cruise speed. The probability of having to stop at signals is a function of the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) of the intersection, i.e. not all vehicles are assumed to have to stop at V/C ratios under the range of 0.9-0.95.

The WA urban assignment and VOC estimates are based on the all-day average speed values. The process used is as follows. The 15 minute hourly flow rates are expressed as a percentage of the daily flow, and from this the number of hours in the day at each small increment of daily flow is derived. To compute the all-day average speed-flow curve, a daily flow equal to a small increment of daily capacity is calculated. For each hourly flow increment, the hourly flow rate is calculated, hence hourly V/C and thus speed from a standard hourly rate speed-flow curve can be calculated. The total number of vehicle hours and total vehicles is added into accumulators of the estimating process. The process is repeated until all hourly flow rates have been processed. The average hours per vehicle, and average speed is then calculated by dividing the number of vehicle hours by the number of vehicles. This process is repeated for increasing increments of daily V/C up to a user-nominated value of the number of hours in the day when demand exceeds capacity. A formula to estimate speed as a function of volume to capacity is then fitted to this data to be used up to a maximum V/C of 3.0. This gives the speed- flow curves that are used in the traffic assignment step of the process. The same process is used to calculate VOC as a function of a daily V/C. In this case, the actual data points are used up to the transition point and a formula used to extend the costs up to a V/C of 3.0.

The final program in the WA urban evaluation system uses a VOC cost file as a function of the daily volume to capacity ratio to estimate the RUCs for a base network and a project network for each year of the analysis. This is achieved by using two assignments for each network, the first assignment is preferably somewhere about the time of opening the project to traffic (the exact year is not important as this is part of the input to the program) and one for a future year. The program does a linear interpolation/extrapolation between the two assigned volumes to estimate the volume for each forecast year.

A modified version of this program (SBC) was written some years ago to process a loaded network to tabulate the total vehicle hours and total VOC by small increments of speed for freeways and for other roads, and the VOC by speed. The equation coefficients derived by fitting curves to these data points are for all-day VOC as a function of the average all-day speed. For daily V/C in excess of approximately 1.1 to 1.2, the speeds derived from the formulae do not necessarily match the speeds used to calculate the costs. As part of the modification process to also produce peak-period costs as a function of peak-period speeds, the input file for speeds was changed to use the actual data points. Also, the number of hours in the day, when demand exceeded capacity, was increased to 16 before reverting to formulae. This was found to correspond to a daily V/C of approximately 1.9 to 2.1.

A network loaded with two assignments about 20 years apart is used to estimate total vehicle hours and total user costs by speed intervals of 2 km/h. Each link in turn is processed through a 30-year period. If the V/C on either the link or intersection approach exceeds 1.9, it is bypassed for further processing for that year. The result is that at lower speeds, the vehicle costs per km for this set of coefficients are not comparable with previous results. For the same reason as discussed in the previous paragraph, the coefficients for fuel consumption reported in previous updates are not directly comparable to the method used in this update.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 99 —

Equations for total traffic are produced from VOC, and the traffic composition for Perth. To produce equations for particular vehicle types, only those vehicles that have non-zero costs when producing the RUE versus volume to capacity ratio curves are inputted to the program. This is then followed by SBC and fitting equations to the output data.

Peak-period coefficients have been derived from the all-day speeds and costs by taking the area under the curves between the actual volume to capacity ratio and 84% of the actual volume to capacity ratio (assumes the amount of one-way traffic in a two-hour peak is 16% of the one-way all-day volume). Additionally, for an estimate of a 15 minute peak period, a 2% volume was assumed.

It is noted that during the process of fitting the curves to the output data, the estimated cost of stopping at intersections provided results which were too high when the approach speed was low during congested conditions. This is not expected to affect the higher speeds; however, it has the greatest effect on the estimates for the 15 minute peak periods. For this reason, the 15 minute peak-period coefficients provided in Section 6 should be used with caution.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 100 —

APPENDIX F EXTERNALITY VALUES FOR URBAN RAIL Appendix F presents a June 2010 set of unit values for selected environmental externalities for urban rail. These estimates have been updated from Austroads (2008), which are based on the estimates presented in ATC (2006a).

Table F 1: Externality unit costs for urban rail – cents/ntkm*

Rail values Urban** Methodology

1. Air pollution 0.38 The calculation methodology adopted in BTE (1999) for heavy trucks only is applied to rail (the value is based on the lower range heavy vehicle air pollution values presented in Table 5.2 and obtained from ATC 2006b).

2. Greenhouse 0.03 The calculation methodology adopted in BTE (1999) for heavy trucks only is applied to rail (the value is based on the lower range heavy vehicle air pollution values presented in Table 5.2 and obtained from ATC 2006b).

3. Noise 0.16 Laird (2005).

4. Water 0.01 Estimated by scaling the Infras/IWW (2000) nature value for heavy vehicles and rail freight (ATC 2006b).

5. Nature and landscape 0.09 Estimated by scaling the Infras/IWW (2000) nature value for heavy vehicles and rail freight (ATC 2006b).

6. Urban separation 0.09 Rail parameters are estimated by scaling the Infras/IWW (2000) urban value for heavy vehicles and rail freight (ATC 2006b).

* All values are adjusted from 2007 Australian dollars to 2010 Australian dollars using the change in CPI for all group index numbers – weighted average of eight capital cities. ** These values are updates of the estimates presented in ATC (2006a).


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 101 —

APPENDIX G VOC PARAMETER ESTIMATES INCLUDING THE COST OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

As an input into these results, greenhouse gases emitted by burning fuel are directly related to the amount of fuel used, the type of fuel and the engine technology of the vehicle. Oxides of nitrogen also depend on the intensity at which the engine is operating. Emission figures in g/km have been converted to g/l (Australian Greenhouse Office 2006), and the cost of greenhouse gas emissions has been added to the fuel price for each vehicle type. These emission costs have been included in the parameter estimates provided for completeness in Table G 1 to Table G 6. Additionally, at lower speeds, in all tables the vehicle costs per km are not comparable with previous results presented in Austroads (2008); hence coefficients for fuel consumption have not been included in this 2010 update (see also clarification provided in Appendix E.3).

Table G 1: All-day parameter values for freeway vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars 21.105 (21.105)

2 954.33 (136.33)

0.0514 (0.0514)

-0.00018 (-0.00018)

LCV 46.608 (46.608)

2 242.3 (307.30)

0.0 (0.0)

-0.000054 (-0.000054)

HCV + buses 132.886 (132.886)

7 886.3 (3 932.30)

0.2 (0.2)

-0.000348 (-0.000348)

Note: Parameter values are for VOC plus person-time cost (commercial, freight and private time), while values in brackets are estimated parameters for VOC plus freight-time-costs-only specifications.

Table G 2: All-day parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars 63.207 (63.207)

2995.27 (-22.73)

-0.9259 (-0.9259)

0.005585 (0.005585)

LCV 29.587 (29.587)

3236.14 (1301.14)

0.1694 (0.1694)

-0.00093 (-0.00093)

HCV + buses 377.294 (377.294)

6885.35 (2931.34)

-5.2539 (-5.2539)

0.031207 (0.031207)



A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 102 —

Table G 3: Two-hour peak-period parameter values for freeway vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars -131.782 (-131.782)

7432.74 (4614.74)

1.8543 (1.8543)

-0.00701 (-0.00701)

LCV -70.566 (-70.566)

5962.67 (4027.67)

1.126 (1.126)

-0.0034 (-0.0034))

HCV + buses -275.749 (-275.749)

19493.34 (15539.34)

5.57159 (5.57159)

-0.02424 (-0.02424)


Table G 4: Two-hour peak-period parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars -131.101 (-131.101)

6422.435 (3604.43)

2.3837 (2.3837)

-0.01165 (0.01165)

LCV -10.668 (-10.668)

4486.65 (2551.65)

0.3631 (0.3631)

-0.000307 (-0.000307)

HCV + buses -113.750 (-113.750)

16245.35 (12291.35)

2.96943 (2.96943)

-0.01103 (-0.01103)


Table G 5: Fifteen minute peak-period parameter values for freeway vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars 262.374 (262.374)

10524.59 (7706.59)

-8.1394 (-8.1394)

0.05038 (0.05038)

LCV -32.314 (-32.314

11137.01 (9202.01)

-0.2 (-0.2)

0.001604 (0.001604)

HCV + buses 723.718 (723.718)

27928.89 (23974.89)

-19.9333 (-19.9333)

0.123944 (0.123944)


Table G 6: Fifteen minute peak-period parameter values for at-grade roads vehicle operating cost models – cents/km


Cars -245.939 (-245.939)

10642.48 (7824.48)

3.2131 (3.2131)

-0.01263 (-0.01263)

LCV -125.865 (-125.865)

8112.19 (6177.19)

1.5645 (1.5645)

-0.00443 (-0.00443)

HCV + buses -384.296 (-384.296)

27111.99 (23157.99)

4.3760 (4.3760)

-0.0082 (-0.0082)



A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 103 —

The statistical performance of these relationships is illustrated in Table G 1 to Table G 3. It is important to note the following regarding these figures:

There is one figure for each vehicle category – i.e. cars (passenger vehicles); LCV; and heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) plus buses.

For cars, VOC, commercial time (CT) costs, and private time (PT) costs are included in the data used to produce the relationship between costs and speed.

The same also applies to LCV and heavy commercial vehicles (HCV); however, a freight costs (FT) component is also added to the data used to estimate the parameters for these vehicle types.

The only change in the estimated parameters between VOC plus freight-time costs and the parameters that also include commercial and private-time costs is reflected in the estimated B coefficient. Therefore, the parameter estimates obtained using the aggregated data of the two components – VOC and all time-delay costs – are those presented in Table G 1 to Table G 3.

Figure G 1: Passenger vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads

CARS - VOC + CT + PT

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cost

c/k

m

Fwy Art


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 104 —

Figure G 2: Light commercial vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads

Figure G 3: Heavy commercial vehicle operating and time costs as a function of speed for freeways and other roads

LCV - VOC + FT + CT + PT

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cost

c/k

m

Fwy Art

HCV - VOC + CT + PT

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Speed

Cos

t c/k

m

Fwy Art


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 105 —

COMMENTARY 1

C1.1 Environmental and Other Externalities C1.1.1 Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution Table C1 1 sets out factors to convert fuel consumption into estimates for common air pollution gas emissions obtained from findings of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee (NGGIC 2006). All units are measured in grams per litre. These estimates differ marginally from those which can be derived from other sources (BTCE 1996b) due to differing assumptions made with respect to completeness of oxidisation of fuel in the combustion process. Potentially, the CARMOD and TRUCKMOD models developed by BTCE could provide a source of information on changing vehicle numbers by fuel type (BTCE 1996b).

Full details of transport emissions factors are published in the Australian Methodology for the Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.24

While the use of fixed fuel-to-emissions conversion factors is appropriate for lead and CO2 emissions in most contexts, it is less appropriate in interrupted flow or congested urban contexts for other pollutants. Currently, a facility exists within SIDRA (Akcelik & Besley 1996) to estimate drive-cycle effects for cars using leaded petrol, in terms of a four-component elemental model (Bowyer et al. 1986). This model can be expanded to include cars using non-leaded fuels following the publication of suitable parameter values. Published along with these parameters was the description of a specific-purpose emissions modelling approach, the IMPAECT model, which may also have potential for employment in a project evaluation context (Taylor & Young 1996). It should also be noted that emissions estimation has been incorporated into the HDM-4 evaluation package (ISOHDM 1998 and 2000).25

For macro-type studies (particularly where the amount of fuel used is being estimated based on speed of travel and separately estimated for vehicles having to stop), a realistic total estimate of greenhouse gas emissions can be made by using average conversion ratios of fuel to emissions in g/l. This is the approach applied in this section and used to calculate the VOC in Appendix F.

It is noted that Table C1 1 reflects the estimates in Austroads (2008), as the engine technology has not changed in recent years.

24 See <http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/methodology/pubs/2006method-transport.pdf>. 25 These values are European which differ from Australian values due to differences in engine design and fuel specifications.


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 106 —

Table C1 1: Conversion ratios fuel (l) to emissions (g/l)

Vehicle type CO2 Carbon dioxide

CH4 Methane

N20 Nitrous oxide

NOX Nitrogen

oxide

CO Carbon

monoxide

NMVOC Non–methane

volatile organic

compounds

SOX Sulphur

oxide

Passenger cars

Petrol

2006– 2305.08 0.030 0.030 2.250 8.690 0.770 0.000 2004–2005 2305.08 0.162 0.105 2.143 8.276 0.733 0.000 1998–2003 2305.08 0.062 0.255 1.991 7.690 0.681 0.000 1985–1997 3 WAY 2305.08 0.339 0.250 3.913 33.478 2.557 0.000 1985–1997 2 WAY 2305.08 0.896 0.090 7.440 43.680 2.080 0.000 1976–1985 2305.08 0.984 0.033 11.024 117.323 11.173 0.000 PRE 76 2305.08 1.047 0.021 19.370 188.976 17.913 0.000

LPG

2006– 1577.24 0.615 0.038 3.631 17.900 1.531 0.000 2004–2005 1577.24 0.615 0.100 3.631 17.900 1.531 0.000 1998–2003 1577.24 0.185 0.123 3.631 17.900 1.531 0.000 1985–1997 3 WAY 1577.24 0.185 0.042 7.246 79.269 5.808 0.000 1985–1997 2 WAY 1577.24 0.252 0.022 14.977 112.415 5.146 0.000 1976–1985 1577.24 0.241 0.020 22.546 306.777 28.054 0.000 PRE 76 1577.24 0.243 0.013 39.615 494.138 44.969 0.000

Diesel

2006– 2698.14 0.033 0.099 2.747 1.275 0.681 0.040 2004–2005 2698.14 0.077 0.044 2.747 1.275 0.681 0.040 1998–2003 2698.14 0.011 0.035 2.747 1.275 0.681 0.040 1985–1997 3 WAY 2698.14 0.011 0.012 5.495 5.659 2.604 0.040 1985–1997 2 WAY 2698.14 0.015 0.007 11.363 8.033 2.308 0.040 1976–1985 2698.14 0.014 0.005 17.099 21.912 12.571 0.040 PRE 76 2698.14 0.001 0.000 2.972 3.491 1.971 0.040

Light commercial vehicles

Petrol

2006– 2305.08 0.018 0.029 2.700 8.918 1.388 0.000 2004–2005 2305.08 0.100 0.129 2.700 8.918 1.388 0.000 1998–2003 2305.08 0.059 0.471 2.700 8.918 1.388 0.000 1985–1997 3 WAY 2305.08 0.235 0.282 5.394 39.482 5.259 0.000 1985–1997 2 WAY 2305.08 0.647 0.088 11.147 55.994 4.653 0.000 1976–1985 2305.08 0.824 0.029 16.782 152.806 25.376 0.000 PRE 76 2305.08 0.882 0.018 29.494 246.129 40.671 0.000

LPG

2006– 1577.24 0.408 0.041 2.408 11.872 1.015 0.000 2004–2005 1577.24 0.408 0.133 2.408 11.872 1.015 0.000 1998–2003 1577.24 0.122 0.082 2.408 11.872 1.015 0.000 1985–1997 3 WAY 1577.24 0.122 0.028 4.806 52.577 3.852 0.000 1985–1997 2 WAY 1577.24 0.168 0.014 9.934 74.561 3.413 0.000 1976–1985 1577.24 0.158 0.013 14.954 116.709 18.607 0.000 PRE 76 1577.24 0.163 0.009 26.276 187.990 29.827 0.000


A u s t r o a d s 2 0 1 2

— 107 —

Vehicle type CO2 Carbon dioxide

CH4 Methane

N20 Nitrous oxide

NOX Nitrogen

oxide

CO Carbon

monoxide

NMVOC Non–methane

volatile organic

compounds

SOX Sulphur

oxide

Diesel

2006– 2698.14 0.024 0.072 2.000 0.928 0.496 0.040 2004–2005 2698.14 0.056 0.032 2.000 0.928 0.496 0.040 1998–2003 2698.14 0.008 0.026 2.000 0.928 0.496 0.040 1985–1997 3 WAY 2698.14 0.008 0.009 4.000 4.120 1.896 0.040 1985–1997 2 WAY 2698.14 0.011 0.005 8.272 5.848 1.680 0.040 1976–1985 2698.14 0.010 0.004 12.448 15.952 9.152 0.040 PRE 76 2698.14 0.010 0.002 21.872 25.696 14.664 0.040

Medium trucks

Petrol 2003– 2305.08 0.269 0.021 8.703 37.486 3.597 0.000 PRE 2003 2305.08 0.483 0.021 8.703 37.486 3.597 0.000

Diesel 2003– 2698.14 0.225 0.141 24.413 30.225 5.408 0.040 PRE 2003 2698.14 0.737 0.117 24.413 30.225 5.408 0.040

LPG 2003– 1577.24 0.397 0.065 15.581 77.419 13.581 0.000 PRE 2003 1577.24 0.710 0.065 15.581 77.419 13.581 0.000

Heavy trucks

Petrol 2003– 2305.08 0.111 0.009 3.606 15.530 1.490 0.000 PRE 2003 2305.08 0.200 0.009 3.606 15.530 1.490 0.000

Diesel 2003– 2698.14 0.174 0.053 9.236 11.435 2.046 0.040 PRE 2003 2698.14 0.279 0.044 9.236 11.435 2.046 0.040

LPG 2003– 1577.24 0.153 0.025 6.000 29.814 5.230 0.000 PRE 2003 1577.24 0.273 0.025 6.000 29.814 5.230 0.000

Buses

Petrol 2003– 2305.08 0.211 0.016 10.568 131.378 9.378 0.000 PRE 2003 2305.08 0.378 0.016 10.568 131.378 9.378 0.000

Diesel 2003– 2698.14 0.052 0.092 15.077 8.862 4.800 0.040 PRE 2003 2698.14 0.092 0.077 15.077 8.862 4.800 0.040

LPG 2003– 1577.24 0.172 0.028 7.077 61.538 6.179 0.000 PRE 2003 1577.24 0.308 0.028 7.077 61.538 6.179 0.000

Note: 2006– represents, year 2006 until such time there is a change in the engine technology. Source: NGGIC (2006).

[Back to body text]

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

Austroads, 2012, Guide to Project Evaluation Part 4: Project Evaluation Data, AGPE04/12, Sydney, A4, pp. 113.

Keywords:

Travel time valuation, vehicle operating costs, crash costs, environmental externalities, project evaluation, transport economics

Abstract:

This project represents an update of the Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation: Part 4. It contains estimates of road user unit costs for use in Australia, calculated as at 30 June 2010. Estimates of the unit values for road user effects (RUE) are provided for vehicle operating costs (fuel prices, lubricating oil, tyre prices, vehicle prices and repairs and maintenance costs), travel time valuation, crash costs and environmental externalities costs. A number of enhancements in the methodologies have been undertaken in this project. This includes improvements in the coverage for lubricating oil and tyre prices, methodological reviews on the repairs and maintenance costs and review of the social costs of crashes in the light of recent developments by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, the Roads and Traffic Authority, and the Ministry of Transport New Zealand. The update of the unit values in this project provides an opportunity to remediate a number of gaps in the coverage and methodologies surrounding these unit values, which are intended to meet the needs of data users and transport analysts.

guide to project evaluation - update complete · updates for the various rue components, as...

Documents