Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies

Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

10. Applications and Case Studies

The cost and elasticity estimates developed in this study are applied in this chapter to
representative examples of transportation decision making.

Chapter Index

10.1 Evaluating Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Savings ........... 1 

10.2 Price Impacts on User Travel Decisions .................................................. 3 
10.3 Marginalizing User Costs ......................................................................... 5 
10.4 Evaluating Congestion Reduction ............................................................ 7 
10.5 Evaluating Traffic Calming and Traffic Management Options .................. 9 
10.6 Evaluating Electric Vehicle Benefits ......................................................... 10 

10.1 Evaluating Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Savings

Many communities have programs that encourage mode shifting. The Oil-Smart
Commute Performance Test examines the benefits of such a program. The Oil-Smart
campaign, an annual program spearheaded by the Seattle based Bullitt Foundation,
encourages residents to use efficient travel modes. Hundreds of people participate.
During four days in March 1994, 62 trips were monitored for a Commute Performance
Test to determine the benefits of changing travel patterns. Of these trips, about half
consisted of two links, such as walking to a park-and-ride lot to catch a vanpool, so 92
total links were analyzed. Table 10.1-1 summarizes the distances, times, costs and
savings for one day’s trips from Capitol Hill to the Pioneer Square area.

Table 10.2-1 Capitol Hill to Pioneer Square Trip Summary (Urban-Peak 2007 USD)
Mode Dist- Travel Internal External Savings Over
ance Time Cost Cost Total Cost SOV
miles minutes per trip per trip per trip per day
1 Walk 2.2 41 $3.64 $0.01 $3.66 $6.05
2 Bike 2.75 10 $1.27 $0.08 $1.35 $10.65
3 Bike 3.5 16 $1.89 $0.11 $1.99 $9.37
4 Van Pool Driver 2.7 18 $3.95 $0.37 $4.32 $4.71
5 Van Pool Passenger 2.7 18 $2.57 $0.38 $2.96 $7.43
6 Van Pool Passenger, Walk 2.8 24 $3.04 $0.38 $3.41 $7.93
7 Van Pool Passenger, Walk 2.8 24 $3.04 $0.38 $3.41 $7.93
8 Van Pool Passenger, Walk 2.8 24 $3.04 $0.38 $3.41 $7.93
9 Van Pool Passenger, Walk 2.8 24 $3.04 $0.38 $3.41 $7.93
10 Bus Rider, Walk 3.2 35 $5.17 $1.27 $6.44 $0.46
11 Bus Rider, Walk 2.5 30 $4.82 $1.12 $5.94 $1.48
12 Car Pool Driver 3.4 15 $3.71 $0.81 $4.51 $4.33
13 Car Pool Passenger, Walk 3.3 20 $2.89 $0.82 $3.71 $5.93
14 Car Pool Passenger, Walk 3.3 20 $2.89 $0.82 $3.71 $5.93
15 SOV Driver 3.4 10 $3.96 $2.72 $6.68 $0.00
Totals 44.15 329 $48.91 $9.98 $58.89 $88.07
This table illustrates one of four Commute Performance Test days. Savings compared with an
SOV trip are doubled to estimate daily savings.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-1
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

Shifts to alternative modes provide especially significant reductions in external costs. For
example, the calculated external cost of a trip from Capitol Hill to Pioneer Square is
about $2.60 for an SOV driver, but averages only $0.50 for other modes. If all 15 round
trips that day were made by SOV, the total external cost would have increased from
about $20 to $80. Figure 10.1-1 shows these by major cost categories.

Figure 10.1-1 Major Cost Categories per Mile by Mode

$2.50 External Non-Market
External Market
Cost Per Passenger Mile $2007

User Time and Risk

$2.00
Vehicle Ownership Costs
Vehicle Operating Cost
$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$0.00
Walk Bicycle Van Pool Car Pool Transit SOV

This graph compares average travel costs per passenger mile for six modes used in the 1994 Oil
Smart Commute Performance Test.

Significant Findings:
• Total savings were $616 compared with the same trips made entirely by SOV. This averages
about $11 daily savings per capita.
• External costs of SOV travel average about 5 times greater per trip than other modes.
• The greatest savings per trip resulted from vanpool riders who did not drive to their vanpool
stop. Total costs of van pool, car pool, and transit trips were sensitive to how the traveler got
to their transit stop or rideshare meeting place.
• The greatest savings per mile resulted from bicyclists, since they had low operating and
external costs but travel faster than pedestrians. The costs of bicycle and pedestrian trips are
sensitive to the time value assigned to travel.

These findings indicate that significant investments in Transportation Demand

Management programs are justified for programs that encourage use of alternative modes
and reduce automobile use. They also indicate which modes and trip combinations offer
the greatest total savings and the greatest potential for reducing external costs. Note that
this does not account for the economies of scale that could be obtained by substantial
mode shifts to transit.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-2
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

10.2 Price Impacts on User Travel Decisions

Motor vehicle travel has increased both absolutely and per capita. This growth is
sometimes cited as evidence of “America's love affair with the automobile,” but an
alternative explanation is that low prices simply make driving too attractive for other
modes to compete. As indicated in Chapter 4, the immediate out of pocket cost of driving
is typically lower per mile than bus fares. Studies described in Section 5.2 show that
transport prices significantly affect travel patterns. Low priced driving supports a cycle of
increased automobile use, automobile ownership and automobile dependency.

Consider the impacts of different transport prices (defined as the perceived variable
internal cost, which includes user non-market costs such as travel time and risk) on
typical shopping trips.1 Assume a resident has three shopping options: a local store
accessible by a 1/2-mile walk, a small supermarket 2 miles away where prices average
15% lower than the local store, and a megastore 7.5 miles away where prices average
30% lower than the local store.

The current variable price of Urban Off-Peak driving is $0.41 per vehicle mile, which
includes vehicle operating costs, travel time, and internal risk. The total cost of driving,
including fixed and external costs, averages $1.20 per mile. Since walking has minimal
external costs, both price and total cost are $1.39 per mile. Including health benefits
brings the cost down to $0.91. Table 10.2-1 compares the shopping expenditure that
would justify traveling to a more distant store, based on current and full-cost pricing.

Table 10.2-1 Current Variable and Total-Cost Travel Price Impact on Store Selection
Local Store Local Megastore
Supermarket
Round Trip 1 mile walk 4 mile drive 15 mile drive
Savings over Local Store. $0 15% 30%
Current trip price. 1 x 1.15 = $1.15 4 x 0.41 = $1.64 15 x 0.41 = $6.15
Current travel price premium over Local Store. $0 1.64-1.15= 0.49 6.15-1.15=$5.00
Current shopping total to justify longer trip. $0 0.49/15% = $3.27 5.00/30% = $16.67
Full trip cost. 1 x $0.91 = $0.91 4 x $1.20 = $4.80 15 x 1.20 = $18.00
Full-cost travel price premium over Local Store $0 $4.80-0.91=$3.89 $18.00-0.91=$17.09
Full-cost shopping total to justify longer trip. $0 $4.80/15% = $32.00 $17.09/30%=$56.97
This table shows how underpricing discourages use of local services.

Because driving is underpriced, users have little financial incentive to walk 1/2 mile to a
local store, or shop at a local supermarket. At $0.41 per mile, the price of driving to a
store 2 miles away appears almost the same as the price of walking to a store 1/2 mile
away, and even a purchase under $20 justifies the 15 mile Megastore trip. But when all
costs are considered the shorter trips become more attractive, and the Megastore is only
justified for purchases over $57. This illustrates how prices that are below total costs
skew user decisions to make longer and more frequent automobile trips.

1 Jean-MarieBeauvais (2008), Setting Up Superstores and Climate Change, Beauvais Consulting; at

www.vtpi.org/superstores.pdf.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-3
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

Of course, other factors affect shopping habits. It can be difficult to carry big shopping
loads without a car (although easier with a wagon or bicycle trailer), and large stores
have a wider selection of goods. On the other hand, walking and shopping at local stores
offers health, enjoyment and community contact benefits. Shopping is often part of
linked trips, which reduces per trip costs, but linked trips tend to occur during peak
periods when congestion and travel time values are high. This analysis indicates that a
portion of the savings that individuals enjoy by shopping at a large, central store are
offset by incremental external transport costs, and the discrepancy between user price and
total costs affects many travel decisions.

Some economists argue that transport costs should be considered when calculating
maximum mortgage payments.2 Currently, the increased travel expenses associated with
an automobile dependent home are not considered a cost by most lending agencies. As a
result of underpriced driving and the omission of transportation expenses in mortgage
budget analysis, home selection decisions are skewed toward automobile dependent, high
travel cost houses, resulting in greater internal and external costs.

Table 10.2-2 evaluates transportation cost impacts on home location decisions. The
Central Home reduces external costs by about $4,900 annually compared with the
Exurban Home, with a capitalized value of approximately $50,000 (the additional
housing value that could be purchased if savings were invested in the mortgage). This
implies that underpriced driving underprices exurban housing by this amount. The
Central Home saves $10,852 annually in total driving costs over an Exurban Home,
worth over $100,000 in capital value if used for mortgage payments.

Table 10.2-2 Current and Total-Cost Travel Price Impact on Home Selection3
Exurban Home Central Home Savings
Cars owned. 2 1 1
Annual Household VMT. 25,000 12,500 12,500
Annual user costs. $11,880 $5,940 $5,940
Annual external costs.4 $11,237 $6,325 $4,912
Total costs. $23,117 $12,265 $10,852
Many decisions, including where to live, involve a tradeoff between travel costs and potential
benefits. The more travel is underpriced the more automobile dependant land use, and resulting
automobile travel, can be expected.

2 Institute for Location Efficiency (www.locationefficiency.com); VTPI (2008), “Location Efficient

Development,” Online TDM Encyclopedia, VTPI (www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm22.htm).
3 John Holtzclaw (1990), “Explaining Urban Density and Transit Impacts on Auto Use,” NRDC
(www.nrdc.org).
4 This assumes that Central vehicles are driven 33% Urban Peak, 33% Urban Off-Peak, and 33% Rural,
Exurban vehicles are driven 23% Urban Peak, 33% Urban Off-Peak and 44% rural, and this driving incurs
external costs of $0.61, $0.34 and $0.20 per mile respectively, as calculated in the previous version of this
report and updated to 2007 dollars by CPI.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-4
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

10.3 Marginalizing User Costs

Marginalizing costs could allow automobile owners who reduce their driving to enjoy
savings currently unavailable.5 Various versions of this concept have been advocated by
environmental and consumer organizations.6 The following example based on the
previous version of this study is expressed in 1996 dollars and is based on lower than
current total mileage; present savings would be considerably greater.

Automobile owners typically pay approximately 21¢ per mile in fixed costs and 13¢ per
mile in variable costs to drive. Fixed costs include about 8¢ per mile in vehicle insurance,
licenses, registration, and vehicle ownership taxes, totaling about $1,000 per year.7 Table
10.3-1 shows the effect of an 8¢ per mile increase in vehicle operating costs.

Table 10.3-1 Estimated Annual VMT Impact of Marginalizing User Costs (1996 USD)8
Units Urban Peak Urban Off-Peak Rural Totals
Current Vehicle Operating Cost $ per mile 0.15 0.13 0.11
Current VMT billions 460 920 920 2,300
Revised Price (+$0.08/mile) per mile 0.23 0.21 0.19
1-10 Year Elasticity -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
1-10 Year Revised VMT billions 400 806 813 2,019
Changing insurance, registration, licensing, and taxes into variable costs would reduce overall
driving at no extra cost to users, increasing overall transportation efficiency.

The estimated 281 billion miles per year foregone represents low value driving that users
would forgo rather than pay an extra 8¢ per mile. Marginalizing these costs provides
benefits to users (who enjoy savings not currently available) and society from reduced
external costs. Table 10.3-2 shows the potential savings from this price change.

Table 10.3-2 Savings of Reduced Driving from Marginalizing User Costs (1996 USD)9
Units Urban Peak Urban Off-Peak Rural Totals
Travel Reduction billion VMT 60 114 107 281
Internal Saving $/mile 0.71 0.71 0.64
Total Internal Saving $billions $43 $81 $69 $193
External Savings $/mile 0.61 0.34 0.20
Total External Savings $billions $37 $39 $21 $97
Total Savings $billions $80 $120 $90 $290
Marginalizing costs that are currently fixed could save over $290 billion annually.

5 Vehicle owners who currently reduce their driving by 100 miles only save about $13.00. By
marginalizing these costs the same 100 mile reduction in driving would save $21.00.
6 VTPI (2008), “Pay As You Drive Vehicle Insurance,” Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm
7 Jack Faucett Associates (1992), Costs of Owning and Operating Automobiles, Vans and Light Trucks,
FHWA (www.fhwa.dot.gov).
8 VTPI (2008) “Transportation Elasticities,” Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm
9 Assumes user savings proportional to reduced driving.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-5
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

Table 10.3-2 analysis oversimplifies actual travel cost savings. In practice, some reduced
automobile costs would be offset by increases in other types of travel. Table 10.3-3
recalculates the savings assuming that VMT reductions result 1/3 from reduced trips, 1/3
from reduced trip length, and 1/3 from mode shifts that are distributed equally among van
pools, car pools, bus, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. This more accurate analysis
shows lower savings than in Table 10.4-2, but still worth over $200 billion annually.

Table 10-3.3 Accurate Savings of Reduced Driving from Marginalizing Costs (1996 USD)
Units Urban Peak Urban Off-Peak Rural Totals
Eliminated Trips billion VMT 20 38 36 192
Internal Savings $/mile $0.71 $0.71 $0.64
Total Internal Savings $billions $14 $27 $23 $64
External Savings $/mile $0.61 $0.34 $0.20
Total External Savings $billions $12 $13 $7 $31
Total Savings $billions $26 $40 $30 $96
Shortened Trips10 billion VMT 20 38 36 94
Internal Savings $/mile $0.47 $0.47 $0.41
Total Internal Savings $billions $9 $18 $15 $42
External Savings $/mile $0.49 $0.30 $0.18
Total External Savings $billions $10 $11 $6 $27
Total Savings $billions $21 $31 $22 $74
Shift to each of Six Modes billion VMT 3 6 6
Internal & External Savings11 $/mile Varies Varies Varies
Total Internal Savings $billions $5 $11 $8 $24
Total External Savings $billions $10 $8 $1 $19
Total Savings $billions $15 $19 $9 $43
Total VMT Reduction billions 60 114 107 281
Total Internal Saving $billions $28 $56 $46 $130
Total External Savings $billions $32 $32 $14 $78
Total Savings $billions $60 $88 $60 $208
This analysis, more accurate than Table 10.4-2, shows annual savings over $200 billion.

Another way to marginalize user costs is to “Cash Out” free parking.12 This offers
employees who currently receive parking subsidies the option of receiving cash instead.
This benefits employers by reducing parking costs and gives a financial bonus to
emplolyees who use alternative modes. The combination of marginalizing automobile
insurance and registration, and Cashing Out employee parking could reduce current
driving about 15%, providing many billions of dollars in savings to users and society.
The foregone trips represent low value travel that automobile users are willing to
eliminate given greater choice.

10 Internal savings include user variable costs. External savings are all external costs except parking.
11 Calculated in a separate spreadsheet.
12 VTPI (2008), “Commuter Financial Incentives,” Online TDM Encyclopedia,
(www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm9.htm)

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-6
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

10.4 Evaluating Congestion Reduction

Although congestion reduction often dominates transportation planning goals, our
comprehensive analysis indicates that overall it is only a middle-range cost, as shown in
Figure 10.4-1. Traffic congestion is a relatively small cost compared with the total of
costs that typically increase in response to efforts to accommodate more vehicle traffic.

Figure 10.4-1 Average Automobile Costs Ranked by Magnitude

$0.30
2007 Dollars Per Vehicle Mile

$0.25

$0.20

$0.15

$0.10

$0.05

$0.00
e
el n
p

e
ol s

t D ise
nd Fa ng

Tr rier te r

ty
ge s
p e sh

as
n

te
es
Im s

Se ect
R stio
m

o n ct
hi

rP e
av io

se tie

ho alu
G La n t io

si
as
ki

Ai urc

ic
G
a

a
C pa

o
Tr rat

Ti
rs

f ic Ef f

er
r

U cili

lu

Ba W

N
ar

rv
V

W
cle C
ne

iv
o
P

us
d
es
w

O
O

La d

or
oa

en
e

af

sp
icl

hi

re

an
eh

Ve

Tr
V

Congestion is overall a moderate cost.

Since travel time is a high ranking cost, it could be argued that projects that increase
travel speeds offer significant potential benefits. However, as discussed in Section 5.4,
people tend to maintain a constant travel time budget, so the benefits of increased travel
speeds translate into more and longer trips, and shifts in activity locations, called
generated traffic (the additional peak-period travel on the improved route, including
shifts in time and route) and induced vehicle travel (absolute increases in total per capita
vehicle mileage).13 Most highway investment analyses compare construction financial
costs against long-term congeston reduction benefits, primarily travel time and vehicle
operating cost savings. However, it is accurate to compare short-term congestion
financial costs and time delays (due to construction) plus long term incremental cost
increases from induced travel, against medium-term congestion reduction benefits.

Table 10.4-1 compares the costs typically reduced and increased with highway
expansion. Conventional project economic evaluation considers a limited set of costs
(italicized). Many of the costs that tend to increase with induced travel are overlooked.
As a result, conventional evaluation tends to exaggerate highway expansion benefits, and
therefore undervalues alternative congestion reduction solutions such as pricing reforms,
grade separated HOV and transit routes, and commute trip reduction programs.

13Todd Litman (2001), “Generated Traffic; Implications for Transport Planning,” ITE Journal
(www.ite.org), Vol. 71, No. 4, April, pp. 38-47; at www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-7
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

Table 10.4-1 Transportation Costs Affected by Increased Roadway Capacity

Costs Reduced in the Medium Costs Increased Over the Long Term by
Term by Roadway Expansion Road Expansion
Vehicle Costs Parking Road Facilities
Congestion delays Accidents Air Pollution Resource Externalities
Vehicle Operating Costs Waste Disposal Barrier Effect Municipal Services
User Travel Time Land Use Impacts Water Pollution Roadway Land
Noise Diveristy/Equity Climate Change
Increasing roadway capacity reduces 3 costs, but increases 15 others over the long term.

Current road pricing and planning practices lead to overinvestment in both money and
urban land in roads and parking facilities.14 Empirical evidence indicates that traffic
congestion imposes a relatively minor constraint to economic activity: cities such as
Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York, London and Paris, have intense traffic congestion yet are
economically successful. Although traffic congestion is clearly an economic cost, it does
not appear to be a significant burden if people have alternative access options such as
grade separated public transit and neighborhood stores.

Conventional transportation project evaluation model results are significantly affected by

the consideration of generated traffic.15 Incorporating generated traffic reduces projected
highway expansion benefits and increased the net projected benefits of No Build, Light
Rail, and Road Pricing options. External costs were not incorporated in this analysis;
doing so would certainly increase the calculated costs and decrease the benefits
associated with projects that add roadway capacity. Williams and Lam reached similar
conclusions, and point out that highway investments can impose external costs in terms
of reduced transit service efficiency.16

Framing the Congestion Cost Question

If you ask people, “Do you think that traffic congestion is a significant problem that deserves
significant investment?” most would probably answer yes. If you ask them, “Would you rather
invest in road capacity expansion or use lifestyle changes, such as increased urban density and
more use of walking, bicycling, car pooling and public transit to solve congestion problems?” a
smaller majority would probably choose the road improvement option. These are essentially how
choices are framed by conventional transportation plans. But if you presented a more realistic
description of choices by asking, “Would you rather spend a lot of money increasing road
capacity to achieve only moderate and temporary reductions in traffic congestion, and deal with
increase personal, municipal, social and environmental costs from increased motor vehicle
traffic, or would you rather create a more diverse transportation system to avoid such
problems?” the preference for road building would probably disappear.

14 Takahiro Miyao and Yoshitsugu Kanemoto (1987), Urban Dynamics and Urban Externalities, Harwood
Academic Publishers (NY), pp. 77-87.
15 Robert Johnston and Raju Ceerla (1996), “The Effects of New High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes on
Travel and Emissions,” Transportation Research, Vo. 30A, No. 1, pp. 35-50.
16 H.C.W.L. Williams and W.M. Lam (1991), “Transport Policy Appraisal With Equilibrium Models I:
Generated Traffic and Highway Investment Benefits,” Transport. Research B, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 253-279.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-8
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

10.5 Evaluating Traffic Calming and Traffic Management Options17

A conflict often exists between different roadway design features. Designs that maximize
motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds increase:
• Land requirements for streets and parking.
• Risk of accidents between automobiles and other road users.
• Barriers to pedestrian and bicycle movement.
• Noise, air pollution and dust.
• Petroleum depletion and global warming.
• Automobile dependency and urban sprawl.

Figure 10.5-1 illustrates estimated costs likely to decline due to traffic calming and other
traffic management strategies, assuming that the same amount of driving takes place but
at lower speeds.18 This analysis indicates that local environmental and social costs are
significant compared with other transport costs.19 Current roadway evaluation practices
ignore many of these impacts, skewing road design to favor vehicle traffic at the expense
of local environmental objectives and alternative modes.

Figure 10.5-1 Costs Reduced by Traffic Calming

Dollars Per Average Automobile Mile

$0.30

$0.25 Affected by Traffic Calming

$0.20 Not Affected by Traffic Calming

$0.15

$0.10

$0.05

$0.00
er Pa h

U rE s
Tr a ff d V s

re ir P rsity

as
e

R o ng in g

u s io n
p hip

W s
l P in g

te
iv s
In ve l on

Im ect
h

W r
Fa on

sp Se lu e

e
E n al ra s

nd ie ce
ie

t D ce
rn Tim

In r na ra s

ct
e s is

as
at
G
ti

d sti
La cilit
e er s

pa
o
h o lut
C a rk

se ff
a
na rk

L a Bar our
Tr e ra

o r rvi

e
r lC

N
te C

e
oa e

e n ol
hi wn

Ex a l

Tr n
O

r
Ve le O

R
an c

A
i
te
cl

te
c

xt
hi

G
Ve

A number of motor vehicle costs can be reduced by traffic calming.

17 VTPI (2008), “Traffic Calming,” Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm4.htm
18 Based on an average of Urban Peak and Off-Peak costs, with noise and barrier effect costs doubled to
represent higher impacts on neighborhood streets.
19 This does not include additional long term benefits resulting from reducing automobile dependency.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-9
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

10.6 Evaluating Electric Vehicle Benefits

Alternative fuels, especially electric vehicles, are often cited as solutions to transportation
pollution problems. The costs developed in this report can be used to evaluate these
options from an overall economic perspective. This analysis focuses on electric vehicles,
although a similar analysis could be performed for other fuels.

Table 10.6-1 summarizes how various cost categories are affected by changing from
petroleum to electric propulsion. A number of costs are reduced, although none are
eliminated by electric vehicles. In particular, tailpipe air pollution is shifted to electrical
generation facilities, and engine noise is reduced, although tire noise is not.

Table 10.6-1 Fuel Type Effects on Transportation Costs

Costs Typically Reduced in Costs Unaffected by Costs Typically Increased in
Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicles
Air pollution User travel time Congestion Vehicle ownership
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Crashes Parking Vehicle operation
Noise Land value Barrier effect Road facilities20
Water pollution Transport Diversity Land use impacts Waste (from batteries)
Resource externalities (energy) Traffic services
This table shows how costs typically differ between gasoline and electric vehicles.

Three types of electric vehicles are considered:

1. Standard Electric. This is based on current electric car ownership and operating costs, which
are higher than a standard automobile. This uses the electric vehicle costs defined earlier in
this report.
2. Cheaper Electric. This assumes that electric car costs will decline in the near future due to
increased production. Ownership and operating costs are equal that of an average automobile,
and other costs are as defined earlier for an electric vehicle.
3. Neighborhood Vehicle. These are small, inexpensive, low power, low speed electric vehicles
intended for local urban travel.21 These are estimated to reduce all costs except travel time,
congestion, and road services (policing, planning, etc.) by 50%.22

Figure 10.6-1 shows the total costs of these four vehicles by major category. Although
Standard Electric cars reduce some non-market externalities, their current high ownership
and operating costs make them slightly more expensive overall. Of course, these average
values underestimate the cost differential in urban areas where noise and local air

20 Although road facility costs do not actually increase, electric vehicle use does not contribute to
dedicated fuel taxes, so their subsidy is greater based on the cost analysis framework used in this report.
21 Daniel Sperling (1995), “Prospects for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles,” Transportation Research
Record 1444 (www.trb.org), p. 16-22.
22 This estimate is somewhat arbitrary since specific performance and cost data are not available.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-10
 Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Applications and Case Studies
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)

pollution costs are relatively high.23 Assuming that reduced future production costs will
make Cheaper Electric cars available, overall savings are possible. However, electric cars
do not reduce many external costs of driving, including parking subsidies, accident risk,
urban sprawl, or inequity. To significantly reduce total costs requires an inexpensive,
efficient, safe, small vehicle that does not encourage urban sprawl, such as the
Neighborhood Car.

Figure 10.6-1 Electric Vehicle Cost Comparison by Major Category

$1.25 External Market
External Non-Market
1996 Dollars Per Vehicle Mile

Time & Risk

$1.00
Vehicle Operating
Vehicle Ownership
$0.75

$0.50

$0.25

$0.00
Average Standard Electric Cheaper Electric Neighborhood Car
Automobile

This graph compares cost categories of three electric vehicles and an average automobile based
on the assumptions stated above. Data is based on the previous version of this study and
presented in 1996 dollars.

23Roland Hwang, et al. (1994), Driving Out Pollution: The Benefits of Electric Vehicles, Union of
Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org). Estimated electric vehicle lifecycle benefits are $17,570 in So.
California.

2 January 2009 www.vtpi.org/tca/tca10.pdf

Page 10-11