Benefit-Cost Analysis of Infrastructure Improvement for Derailment Prevention

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang Liu ◽  
Mohd Rapik Saat ◽  
Christopher P. L. Barkan
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Track Maintenance ◽  
Potential Safety ◽  
Reduction Strategies ◽  
Accident Data ◽  
Infrastructure Improvement ◽  
Accident Rates ◽  
Infrastructure Maintenance ◽  
Benefit Cost

U.S. railroad accident rates have declined substantially since the 1980s; however, further improvement in train safety remains an important objective of the railroad industry. In this paper, we describe a framework developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of railroad infrastructure improvement to reduce railroad train accidents. Higher FRA track classes have been shown to be statistically correlated with lower accident rates, thereby indicating potential safety benefits. However, such infrastructure improvement also increases both capital and operating costs for track maintenance. We use accident data from the U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) accident database and cost data from several recent U.S. railroad infrastructure maintenance projects presented in an FRA report to quantitatively evaluate the safety benefits and costs associated with infrastructure improvement decisions. Our model is intended to consider the trade-off between reduced accident rates and increased costs in evaluating railroad risk reduction strategies and operational decisions. The benefit-cost analysis framework is illustrated by considering the upgrade of track class 3 to class 4 in a hypothetical case study.

scholarly journals Midblock U-Turn and Elevated U-Turn Safety and Economy Comparison: A Case Study Application

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Osama H. Ahmed ◽  
Ibrahim M. I. Ramadan ◽  
Mohamed S. Abdel-Monem
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Limited Capacity ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Traffic Capacity ◽  
Analysis Technique ◽  
Accident Rates ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Study Application ◽  
Two Alternatives

Abstract In Egypt, intersections are encountering congestion and safety problems. Midblock U-turns have been used for solving these problems. The midblock U-turn increased the accidents, besides, it has limited capacity. In the last decade, elevated U-turns have been applied to solve these problems. The extensive use of elevated U-turns has not been accompanied by any research for studying the performance of elevated U-turns with respect to safety and economy. This paper developed a simple framework for comparing elevated and traditional midblock U-turns in terms of safety and economy. The study applied a case study to evaluate the two alternatives using a benefit-cost analysis technique. Although the results show the high cost of the elevated U-turns, it has been demonstrated to be the best solution since they provide the greater traffic capacity and lower accident rates. Accident number reported at elevated U-turns was 59 % less than the number associated with traditional U-turns.

What’s in, what’s out? Towards a rigorous definition of the boundaries of benefit-cost analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Daniel Acland
Keyword(s):  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Consumer Sovereignty ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Rigorous Definition ◽  
Pareto Criterion ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is typically defined as an implementation of the potential Pareto criterion, which requires inclusion of any impact for which individuals have willingness to pay (WTP). This definition is incompatible with the exclusion of impacts such as rights and distributional concerns, for which individuals do have WTP. I propose a new definition: BCA should include only impacts for which consumer sovereignty should govern. This is because WTP implicitly preserves consumer sovereignty, and is thus only appropriate for ‘sovereignty-warranting’ impacts. I compare the high cost of including non-sovereignty-warranting impacts to the relatively low cost of excluding sovereignty-warranting impacts.

Distributional Weights in Benefit-Cost Analysis: Examples from Rwanda and Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles B. Moss ◽  
Andrew Schmitz
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Systematic Variation ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Benefit Cost Analysis ◽  
Small Producer ◽  
Agricultural Research And Development ◽  
Benefit Cost

Abstract The question of how to allocate scarce agricultural research and development dollars is significant for developing countries. Historically, benefit/cost analysis has been the standard for comparing the relative benefits of alternative investments. We examine the potential of shifting the implicit equal weights approach to benefit/cost analysis, as well as how a systematic variation in welfare weights may affect different groups important to policy makers. For example, in the case of Rwandan coffee, a shift in the welfare weights that would favor small coffee producers in Rwanda over foreign consumers of Rwandan coffee would increase the support for investments in small producer coffee projects. Generally, changes in welfare weights alter the ordering for selecting investments across alternative projects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document