X hits on this document





29 / 81

Quantitative Evaluation

(a) Project Costs – All the available project costs like participant incentives, contractors, employer and participant costs, including estimated costs such as vehicle congestion, roadway costs, parking costs, safety, security and health based on national research, have been included in the study. The direct project expenses and other ones which had a direct impact on government agencies can be mainly divided into:

    • 1.

      Administrative costs (e.g., project staff and other overhead expenses);

    • 2.

      Grants and financial incentives (e.g., funds distributed under the program); and,

    • 3.

      Costs to other agencies (e.g., matching funds by other agencies).

  • (b)

    Roadway Costs – Reduced roadway traffic and travel shifts to different modes help in

saving roadways costs largely due to reduced road maintenance and traffic services including emergency services and street lighting for motor vehicles. According to the Puget South Regional Council, expenditures on traffic services were estimated to be $98 per capita on average for that region[24]. Also savings on roadway costs and traffic services were estimated to average 2¢ per automobile-mile and 6¢ per bus-mile reduced.

(c) Parking Costs – The parking costs can be mitigated by reducing the vehicle ownership and their use in households. The report states that these benefit the companies and government by reducing the on-street parking demand of other motorists by reducing congestion and benefits the participants as they do not have to pay for parking. Studies have shown that reductions in vehicle use are estimated to provide a parking cost alleviation averaging 10¢ per vehicle-mile reduced.

(d) Transportation Impacts – The direct impacts such as reduction in automobile trips and mileage, shifts to alternative modes, and indirect impacts including congestion reduction, facility cost savings, safety and emission reductions are measured. For example, the One-Less-Car program reportedly has reduced 15,700 vehicle-miles traveled, and indirectly 340,000 participants have also reduced their driving. Similarly switching to alternative modes of travel could lead to improved facilities and services which encourage further vehicle reductions.

(e) Participant incentives and

Financial Costs provide transport

and Benefits – These include financial






rewards or already use

alternate modes and receive financial rewards, behavior are provided with financial rewards. The rule of half of consumer surplus analysis. 6

and net

others benefit

who change their travel is calculated following the

(f) Participant Mobility Impacts – These are impacts resulting from changes in travel pattern, including improved transportation options, reduced need for drivers to chauffer non-drivers, health benefits from active transportation and increased time spent in travel.

6 The rule of half derives from the theory of consumer surplus (CS). When CS theory is used to evaluate the benefits of transportation improvements, benefits (or costs) to new users are valued at their mid-point.


Document info
Document views281
Page views281
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 12:41:33 UTC 2017