Let’s Get a Move on It!
Policy Analysis of the City of
Atlanta’s Persistent Problem with
Traffic Congestion
Darius Smith
University of Denver’s Institute for Public Policy
Fall 2015
Advisor: Richard Lamm
Cost-Benefit Analysis Advisor: Andy Sharma
1
Table of Contents
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………3
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..4
Introduction and Problem Definition…………………………………………………………………….………..5-15
Historical Information………………………………………………………………………….………………5-9
Present Situation………………………………………………………………………………..……………….9-15
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……....15-16
What kind of evidence was gathered to establish the existence of the problem?.............15-16
What evidence was used to select the appropriate alternative?.......................................16
Issue Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….……..16-21
Pollution from automobiles is a negative externality……………………………………………….…….17-19
Time and resource inefficiency…………………………………………………………..………………………….19-20
Fatalities and injuries due to automobile accidents………………………………..……………………..20-21
Proposed Solutions……………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……21-32
Status quo…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………21-23
Expanding the Light-Rail System…………………………………………………………………………………….23-27
Increase Bus Ridership……………………………………………………………………………………………………27-29
Collector-Distributor Lane……………………………………………………………………………….………………30-32
Formal Cost-Benefit Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….…….……32-37
Strategic Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..…….……….….37
Weaknesses and Limitations………………………………………………………………………………….……….37-39
Appendix I: Cost-Benefit Analysis Calculations………………………………………………………….…….40-42
Appendix II: Statistical Inputs for Monetary Costs and Benefits………………………………….…..43-52
Appendix III: How did Texas Transportation Institute distinguish congested traffic from noncongested traffic?..............................................................................................................53
Appendix IV: Data Tables: Important Traffic Statistics for Atlanta and United States…......54-55
2
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of Atlanta: Per Capita Income…………………………………………..…………………………….6
Figure 2: 2010 Census Map of Atlanta: Ethnic Breakdown……………………..……………………………..8
Figure 3: Map of Atlanta’s Highway System…………………………………………..……………………………10
Figure 4: Box and Whisker Plot……………………….…………………………………………………………………..12
Figure 5: Box and Whisker Plot of Congested Travel in the U.S.…………….……………………………..12
Figure 6: Annual Hours of Delay per Auto-commuter………………..…….…………………………………..14
Figure 7: Annual Cost of Congestion per Auto-commuter…..………………………………………………..14
Figure 8: Excess Gallons of Fuel Used in Commuting …………………………………….……………………..15
Figure 9: Negative Consumption Externality Graph ……………………….……….……………………………17
Figure 10: Average Excess CO² Emissions Due to Congestion…………………..…………………….……..18
Figure 11: Map of Atlanta’s Current Light Rail System …………………………………………………….…..24
3
Executive Summary
This policy memorandum examines Atlanta’s problem with traffic congestion. First, the
memorandum delves into the historical development of Atlanta’s traffic congestion, and then clearly
explains the present situation. The racial history, socioeconomic makeup, and urban sprawl in Atlanta
are examined to provide the reader with the origins of the city’s problem with traffic congestion.
Specifically, the Historical Information section elaborates on how Atlanta’s clogged roadways developed
overtime. While in the Present Situation section, the metropolitan Atlanta area’s six highways for
automobile commuting, I-20, I-285, I-85, I-575, I-675, and I-75, are discussed. Atlanta’s current traffic
situation is also explained in quantitative terms to provide the reader with a numerical context of the
problem.
After thoroughly examining the past and present situation, several possible solutions are
presented and analyzed in the Proposed Solutions section. Along with the status quo, three different
alternatives are analyzed to find a solution. The first alternative is expanding Atlanta’s existing light rail
system; the second alternative is increasing bus ridership; while the third and final alternative is
additional collector-distributor lanes. After delving into the idiosyncrasies of each alternative, a formal
cost-benefit analysis is conducted with the intention of determining which option provides the greatest
social benefit to the city of Atlanta. Expanding the light-rail is the alternative with the highest net
present value, and consequentially is the recommended policy alternative.
In the conclusion of the memorandum, the reader is presented with a recommendation that is
focused around the expanding the light rail option, in the Strategic Recommendation section. Also,
limitations and weaknesses of my analysis are examined at the end of the memorandum. Carefully
examining the limitations and weaknesses of the analysis is done with the intention of being both
transparent and thorough. Please continue reading to understand the problem of traffic congestion in
Atlanta, as well as possible solutions.
4
Introduction and Problem Definition
Traffic congestion is a persistent problem in many metropolitan areas. With a large number of
people living in a common geographical location comes a large number of commuters. A city’s residents
are required to travel to engage with various economic and social events. Residents of metropolitan
areas must travel to different locations for employment, schooling, and recreational activities. Many
people commuting in the same city—utilizing the same roadways—is bound to lead to traffic congestion
if no policy action is taken. The city of Atlanta is a contemporary example of this public policy
predicament.
Problem Definition: Traffic congestion in Atlanta is costing the city’s residents unnecessary amounts
of money, time, and pollution. Therefore, a policy needs to be implemented in Atlanta to solve the
city’s problem with excessive traffic congestion.
Why should Atlanta’s policy makers dedicate their efforts to solving this problem? Because
metropolitan areas with extensive traffic congestion face negative externalities in the form of pollution,
excess time spent in traffic by drivers, and deaths/injuries caused by automobile accidents. Traffic
congestion is the responsibility of local government, and with all of these negative side-effects of traffic
congestion this issue has become a high priority of the state of Georgia, and the city of Atlanta.
However, before dealing with ways to address Atlanta’s problem with traffic congestion, a brief
historical analysis of how the problem has developed will illuminate the critical factors involved.
Historical Information: How has Atlanta’s problem with traffic congestion developed over time?
Atlanta experienced an economic boom in the 1990s, which has incentivized over 650,000 people to
move to the Atlanta metropolitan area since the year 1990.1 Atlanta’s unprecedented population
growth has led to extensive urban sprawl in the city over the past two decades. With an influx of
1
"Moving Beyond Sprawl: The Challenge for Metropolitan Atlanta." The Brookings Institution. January 1, 2000.
Accessed February 3, 2015. Page 9.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2000/3/atlanta/atlanta.pdf.
5
Figure 1
residents—living in urban sprawl—comes an influx of traffic congestion because people must commute
to engage in economic activities. This is a phenomenon dubbed “spatial mismatch” by the Brookings
Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.2 Due to spatial mismatch, the northern region of
the city is growing much faster than the southern region of the city. Job opportunities have increasingly
moved to northern Fulton County, which is the northern part of the Atlanta metro area.3 Fulton and
Dekalb are also divided financially—the northern sections of both counties are home to most of
Atlanta’s high-income residents, while the southern sections of both counties are home to many of the
city’s lower income residents.4 As Figure 1 above demonstrates, from the year 2005 until 2009, Atlanta’s
2
"Moving Beyond Sprawl: The Challenge for Metropolitan Atlanta." The Brookings Institution. January 1, 2000.
Accessed February 3, 2015. Page 9.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2000/3/atlanta/atlanta.pdf.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
6
higher-income residents—those making $58,103 to $130,623 annually—resided almost exclusively in
the northern parts of Fulton and DeKalb counties.5 Conversely, from the year 2005 to 2009, Atlanta’s
lower-income residents—those making $3,704 to $22,488 annually—resided almost exclusively in the
southern parts of Fulton and DeKalb counties.6 Income level is one of the best indicators of where
someone in Atlanta resides.
Atlanta is also divided by race in a similar fashion to its division by income. The American
Community Survey (ACS) conducted a demographic breakdown of the city of Atlanta from the year 2009
until 2013. ACS’s study reveals that from 2009 to 2013, an average of 231,628 residents (margin of
error=+/-2,409 people) in Fulton and DeKalb counties were African-American; comprising an average of
53.5% (margin of error=+/-0.6%) of all Atlanta’s residents.7 During this same time frame, an average of
170,176 residents (margin of error=+/-2,449) in Fulton and DeKalb counties were white, or an average of
39.3% (margin of error=+/-0.6%) of all Atlanta residents.8 As Figure 2 on page 8 illustrates, northern
Fulton County and part of northern DeKalb County are predominantly white, while the southern
portions of both counties are predominantly African-American.
Careful analysis of multiple years of data reveals how socioeconomic stratification and racial
segregation contribute to the northern and southern divide in Atlanta: the northern part of the city is
host to mostly higher-income and white residents, while the southern part of the city is host to primarily
African-Americans of all income levels, and low-income residents of various backgrounds.
5
Carnathan, Mike. "Atlanta Metropolitan Area: High Population Growth, Employment Losses Adding to Income
Woes." Metro Trends. 2012. Accessed March 17, 2015. http://metrotrends.org/spotlight/atlanta.cfm.
6
Ibid.
7
"Community Facts: Atlanta, Georgia." American Fact Finder. 2010. Accessed March 15, 2015.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.
8
Ibid.
7
Figure 2: Map of Atlanta by Ethnicity
Atlanta’s spatial mismatch and suburban sprawl is correlated with white flight. A large number
of African-American residents started migrating to the city after the 1950s. During the following
decades, this mass migration of black Americans seemingly encouraged many white residents of Atlanta
to move to the northern section of the city. White flight and urban sprawl over the past 50 years has
caused the metropolitan area of Atlanta to be thinly spread out over 8,000 square miles.9 In
contemporary times, sprawl of this magnitude forces the residents of metropolitan Atlanta to spend
large amounts of time driving in traffic while commuting from one destination to another. In fact, in
9
Carnathan, Mike. "Atlanta Metropolitan Area: High Population Growth, Employment Losses Adding to Income
Woes." Metro Trends. 2012. Accessed March 17, 2015. http://metrotrends.org/spotlight/atlanta.cfm.
8
2014, the average amount of miles driven per day for the Atlanta metro area’s 2.5 million workers was
66 miles per day.10 Millions of workers driving over 60 miles per day is the primary source of Atlanta’s
problem with traffic congestion. Reducing the amount of time people spend commuting to and from
work is the key to reducing the negative externalities associated with traffic congestion.
Imbalance in socioeconomic distribution in the city of Atlanta is creating a “mismatch” between
where the jobs are locating and where the people who need the jobs live. The affluent northern part of
the city is where most new jobs are located, so most of the city’s working residents have to commute to
this area. This mass-commuting to one area of the city creates traffic congestion in Atlanta’s highway
system.11 Urban sprawl in the city causes people to commute from all over the metropolitan area,
making the city’s highways heavily congested during peak travel times. Any policy solution to the
problem of traffic congestion in Atlanta will need to address reducing the amount of time workers spend
commuting in the city.
Present Situation: Due to spatial mismatch and urban sprawl, Atlanta consistently places among
the top ten U.S. metropolitan areas with the highest level of traffic congestion, in contemporary times.
The city’s traffic congestion is troubling because Atlanta is moderately populated. Atlanta had
approximately 447,841 residents in 2013, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.12 Despite its moderate
population size, Atlanta has one of the worst problems with traffic congestion of any U.S. city. As
recently as 2011, it had the seventh-worst commute times of any U.S. metropolitan area, according to
10
Jurney, Russell. "How Can Atlanta's Traffic Problems Be Solved?" Quora. October 5, 2014. Accessed May 24,
2015. http://www.quora.com/How-can-Atlantas-traffic-problems-be-solved.
11
“Moving Beyond Sprawl: The Challenge for Metropolitan Atlanta." The Brookings Institution. January 1, 2000.
Accessed February 3, 2015. Page 6.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2000/3/atlanta/atlanta.pdf.
12
"State & County QuickFacts: Atlanta (city), Georgia." United States Census Bureau. February 5, 2015. Accessed
March 2, 2015. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/1304000.html.
9
the Texas Transportation Institute. 13 Currently, the metropolitan Atlanta area has six highways for
automobile commuting: I-20, I-285, I-85, I-575, I-675, and I-75.14 Figure 3 below shows a graphic
depiction of Atlanta’s highway system. These six sprawling highways have been, and continue to be,
corridors for severe traffic congestion due to thousands of residents driving on them in bumper-tobumper traffic throughout the year. Atlanta’s sprawling urban development and spatial mismatch has
led to it consistently being one of the most heavily congested U.S. cities.
Figure 3: Map of Atlanta’s Highway System
Atlanta has gained national notoriety because of its severe traffic congestion. Reporters and
analysts have taken note of this fact and have written about the city’s lackluster transportation system.
For instance on October 17, 2014, “Car Talk.com” blogger Jim Motivalli stated, “How bad is Atlanta?
With only the seventh-worst gridlock among our major metros, Atlanta’s jams cause commuters to
waste an average of 51 hours in traffic each year, burning 23 extra gallons of gas. Their bottom line:
13
"National Congestion Tables: 2011." TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report Powered by INRIX Traffic Data. January 1,
2012. Accessed February 15, 2015.
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestion-data/national/national-table1.pdf.
14
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/business-economy/interstate-highway-system
10
$1,120 per commuter.”15 Although Motivalli is an informal source, he expresses the discontent with
traffic congestion that many Atlanta residents feel in quantitative terms. Also, the figures he states are
approximately the same as the figures listed in the Texas Transportation Institute’s analysis, which is a
well-renowned source for traffic statistics and analysis. The Texas Transportation Institute’s graphic
states that in the year 2011, congestion cost the average Atlanta commuter $1,179 (2014 dollars).16
Traffic congestion also cost 23 gallons of excess fuel to be used by the average Atlanta auto commuter in
2011; and cost 51 extra hours in traffic. 17 Statistics such as these reveal that traffic congestion is costing
Atlanta commuters extra gasoline, money, and time. Public policy intervention is needed to resolve this
misallocation of resources in the city.
Atlanta is an outlier regarding traffic statistics. Texas Transportation Institute’s “2011 Urban
Mobility Report” provides statistics on time spent in traffic, fuel consumed while in traffic, and the
financial costs of traffic congestion for 439 U.S. urban areas. The report states that from the years 2000
through 2010, U.S. drivers, as a conglomerate, spent an average of 5.7 billion hours per year delayed by
traffic; wasted 1.9 billion gallons of fuel per year; and congestion cost the U.S. approximately $1.053
trillion per year (2014 dollars).18 Breaking it down per auto commuter: from the years 2000 through
2010, U.S. drivers spent an average of 35.5 hours per year in traffic on U.S. roads; wasted 14.75 gallons
of fuel per year; and U.S. traffic congestion cost approximately $798.97 per driver (2014 dollars).19 One
of the key statistics in traffic analysis is percentage of vehicle miles travelled (% VMT) in traffic
15
Motavalli, Jim. "Traffic Congestion Could Cost $4.4 Trillion." Car Talk. October 17, 2014. Accessed February 15,
2015. http://www.cartalk.com/blogs/traffic-congestion-could-cost-44-trillion.
16
"National Congestion Tables: 2011." TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report Powered by INRIX Traffic Data. January 1,
2012. Accessed February 15, 2015.http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestiondata/national/national-table1.pdf
17
Ibid.
18
Schrank, David, Tim Lomax, and Bill Eisele. "2011 Urban Mobility Report." Texas Transportation Institute.
September 1, 2011. Accessed February 15, 2015.
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2011-wappx.pdf. Page 1 states
traffic congestion cost the U.S. approximately $1,053,201,230,000 per year.
19
Ibid.
11
congestion. Percentage of vehicle miles travelled in traffic reveals just how stop-and-go the traffic flow
is in any given particular geographical location. The average American spends 54 percent of vehicle miles
travelled in traffic congestion, according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s (TTI) “2012 Annual
Urban Mobility Report”.20 Given the importance of the statistic, what distinguishes congested VMT from
non-congested VMT? TTI’s report gives a detailed breakdown of how automobile travel is carefully
analyzed to distinguish congested driving from non-congested driving. Please consult Appendix IV on
page 53 for a more detailed explanation of how congested travel is calculated and analyzed.
Figure 4: Box and Whisker Plot
Figure 5:
Atlanta: 60.400
20
"2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report." Annual Urban Mobility Report. January 1, 2012. Accessed February 10,
2015. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/.
12
Viewing similar statistics for Atlanta reveals a city plagued by the ill-effects of traffic congestion.
From 1982 to 2010, Atlanta’s average annual delay per auto commuter increased by 231 percent,
causing drivers to waste more than 142 hours in traffic and burn more than 63 million excess gallons of
gasoline.21 From the years 2000 to 2010, Atlanta’s average annual delay per auto commuter was 61
hours per year in traffic; average annual fuel wasted per driver was 28 gallons of fuel per year; and
congestion cost Atlanta’s residents $1,455 per commuter during the timespan.22 One of Atlanta’s most
startling statistics pertaining to clogged roadways is the percentage of VMT in traffic congestion in the
city. The typical Atlanta driver spent 76 percent of their time driving an automobile in congested traffic
from the year 2000 to 2010, which is 22 percentage points more than the typical U.S. driver.23 So, for the
past 10 years Atlanta residents had to grapple with traffic congestion during approximately 75% of their
driving—which is atrocious! Compared to the national figures, Atlanta is a statistical outlier regarding
key statistics related to traffic congestion. Figure 5, on the previous page, graphically depicts the
anomalous nature of Atlanta traffic in a box-and-whisker plot of the percent of VMT in traffic congestion
in the U.S. from 1982 to 2011. The box-and-whisker plot reveals that Atlanta truly is an outlier regarding
traffic congestion in the U.S.
21
Feigenbaum, Baruch. "Practical Strategies for Increasing Mobility in Atlanta." Reason Foundation. August 28,
2013. Accessed March 2, 2015. http://reason.org/news/show/strategies-mobility-atlanta.
22
"2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report." Annual Urban Mobility Report. January 1, 2012. Accessed February 10,
2015. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/.
23
Ibid.
13
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
14
Figure 8:
Cities with severe traffic congestion face multiple negative externalities that adversely affect the
public. Pollution, time-wasted, and fatalities are the three externalities targeted for extinguishment in
this memorandum because of their deleterious effects; these negative externalities costs Atlanta
residents too much time and money.
Methodology
What kind of evidence is presented to establish the existence of the problem? Average commute
times, excess fuel utilized because of automobiles sitting in traffic, and the financial cost of time spent in
traffic are common indicators used to analyze traffic congestion. Thus, in this memorandum these
statistics are stated and analyzed for Atlanta to clearly demonstrate the city’s problem with traffic
15
congestion. Other U.S. metropolitan areas’—similar in population size to Atlanta—average commute
times, excess fuel usage, and the financial cost of time spent in traffic are analyzed to demonstrate that
Atlanta’s traffic congestion is abnormal for a city of its size.
What evidence is used to select the appropriate alternative? Each alternatives’ projected impact
on average commute times, reduction in carbon emissions, and reduction in traffic related injuries and
deaths are used to assess the appropriate alternative to solve the problem. Why are these factors used
to establish the criteria? Because these are three of the most crucial statistics pertaining to traffic
congestion in metropolitan areas. Thus, they are the focus of reduction efforts for each policy. The
policy that reduces Atlanta commuters’ time in traffic, fuel usage, and car accidents the most will be the
recommended policy.
So, what method of evaluation is utilized to determine which policy most effectively solves the
problem? How is success or failure determined? At the end of the memorandum, a cost-benefit analysis
is conducted to attach numerical values to each alternative. Monetary values will be derived from key
statistical inputs included in the analysis because this will allow for quantitative comparisons of each
alternative. The alternative with the highest net present value (NPV) will be deemed the appropriate
option.
Issue Analysis
Why is traffic congestion in Atlanta an appropriate problem for intervention by government
officials? Traffic congestion is a negative consumption externality. A negative consumption externality is
inefficient resource allocation in society that occurs because the party generating the externality does
not compensate society for the loss in social welfare their economic activity incurs on the rest of the
16
community.24 Residents in the city of Atlanta are not financially compensated for the costs of the
pollution, time-loss, and car accidents associated with the bumper-to-bumper traffic that consistently
occurs in the city. Traffic congestion is directly associated with negative side-effects generated by
private consumption, thus, it is a negative consumption externality.25
Figure 9: Negative Consumption Externality Graph26
Pollution from automobiles is a negative externality: Deadweight loss—which means loss in economic
output—includes pollution because of the negative consumption externality associated with it.
Deadweight loss is a common justification for public policy intervention because it is loss in social
welfare, and traffic congestion in the city of Atlanta is resulting in deadweight loss in the form of
pollution.
24
Wheelan, Charles. "Why We Do What We Do." In Introduction to Public Policy, 111. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Westford, MA:
W.W. Norton & Company, 2011.
25
Gruber, Jonathan. "Externalities: Problems and Solutions." In Public Finance and Public Policy, 128-129. 4th ed.
New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2011.
26
"File:Negative Consumption Externalities.jpg." WikiMedia Commons. May 24, 2011. Accessed April 10, 2015.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Negative_Consumption_Externalities.jpg.
17
Carbon emissions is the specific form of pollution, and one specific negative externality of traffic
congestion. With thousands of cars sitting in traffic throughout the year, millions of cubic tons of carbon
are emitted per year in the city of Atlanta, which affects the state of Georgia’s carbon emissions overall.
For instance, in the year 2012, the state of Georgia emitted 57,020,000 metric tons of carbon, according
to the Environmental Protection Agency.27 Georgia ranked thirteenth highest regarding carbon
emissions among U.S. states in 2012. 28 A more extensive analysis of carbon emissions reveals that
compared to the average U.S. city, Atlanta drivers are responsible for outstanding amounts of carbon
emissions from year to year. From 2000 to 2010, the average amount of carbon emitted per driver in
498 U.S. cities was 418 pounds of carbon per year.29 In comparison, from 2000 to 2010, the average
amount of carbon emitted per driver in Atlanta was 558 pounds per year.30
Figure 10:
27
"Where You Live." Carbon Pollution Standards. November 6, 2014. Accessed February 17, 2015.
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/where-you-live.
28
Ibid.
29
"National Congestion Tables: 2011." TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report Powered by INRIX Traffic Data. January 1,
2012. Accessed February 15, 2015.
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestion-data/national/national-table1.pdf.
30
Ibid.
18
Atlanta drivers get stuck in traffic more often than drivers in the majority of U.S. cities, and
consequentially, their cars exhaust more pounds of carbon into the atmosphere. Carbon emissions
contribute to the greenhouse effect that is causing the earth’s average surface temperature to rise.
Thus, reducing the pounds of carbon emitted from cars stuck in traffic will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions overall, and help the U.S. combat climate change. Although fossil-fueled power plants are the
main source of carbon emissions in Atlanta, and the U.S. overall,31 carbon dioxide emitted from
automobiles stuck in traffic also contributes to the problem. Reducing the city of Atlanta’s traffic
congestion will reduce the city’s carbon emission footprint.
Time and resource inefficiency: Lost production time is another negative consequence resulting from
traffic congestion in the city of Atlanta. The time people spend commuting is less time they have to
commit to other economic activities, such as labor. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, 51
hours was the specific time-cost of traffic congestion for the typical Atlanta driver in 2011. 32 This extra
time in traffic is an opportunity cost of congestion in the city. Drivers in Atlanta could have utilized this
time to do other economic and/or leisurely activities.
Aside from costing time, traffic congestion also requires resources, such as tax dollars, to be
allocated to maintaining roadways. This additional money demand caused by traffic congestion has high
opportunity cost associated with it. Tax dollars spent on the costs of traffic congestion could be
allocated to other, more economically efficient public endeavors, such as public transit or infrastructure
development. Georgia’s Department of Transportation (GDOT) has an extensive archive called “Highway
Performance Maintenance System (HPMS).”33 GDOT even provides a data collection guide for HPMS;
31
"Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions." United States Environmental Protection Agency. August 20, 2014.
Accessed February 18, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html.
32
Ibid.
33
“Roadway Mileage and Characteristics Reports”. Georgia Department of Transportation. Roadway Mileage &
Characteristics Reports (400 Series Reports). The 400 Series Reports are produced every year and are available as
PDF files for 2000 - 2011. These reports depict mileage and Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) in several
19
this data-collection guide makes the data-archives on Atlanta’s highways easily accessible. GDOT uses
HPMS to compile “Roadway Mileage & Characteristics Reports (400 Series Reports)” on the state’s
highways and byways.34 Extensive data on the roadways is provided for Fulton county and Dekalb
county, which are the two counties in Georgia that comprise the city of Atlanta. In 2012, Fulton County
accounted for 383.74 state highway systems mileage in the city; while Dekalb County accounted for
184.07 state highway systems mileage.35 Atlanta’s highway systems accounted for the majority of
highway miles travelled in the state in 2012, and this has been the case for the past twenty years.36 So,
reduction in traffic congestion in Atlanta will reduce the wear and tear on Atlanta’s highway system,
which will reduce the costs of repair and maintenance on the city’s highway system, in turn reducing
Georgia’s overall expenditure on public infrastructure.
Fatalities and injuries due to automobile accidents: One of the most dangerous activities that humans
routinely engage in is driving an automobile. Significant to fatal injury is a potential—and often
actualized—cost of commuting in cars, and traffic congestion increases the likelihood of being in a
serious car accident. In 2012, 1,199 people died from injuries as a result of car accidents in the state of
Georgia; in 2013, 1,186 persons died as a result of vehicle crashes.37 Fulton and DeKalb counties—the
counties that comprise the city of Atlanta—accounted for the majority of fatalities during these two
categories for each county in Georgia and for the state. These reports provide a useful way to tabulate roadway
mileage for further reporting and analysis. 2012. Accessed January 31, 2015.
https://www.dot.ga.gov/informationcenter/statistics/RoadData/Pages/default.aspx.
34
Ibid.
35
“Roadway Mileage and Characteristics Reports”. Georgia Department of Transportation. Roadway Mileage &
Characteristics Reports (400 Series Reports).
https://www.dot.ga.gov/informationcenter/statistics/RoadData/Documents/437/DPP437_2012.pdf.
36
National Congestion Tables: 2012." TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report Powered by INRIX Traffic Data. January 1,
2012. Accessed February 15, 2015. Page 21.
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestion-data/national/national-table1.pdf.
37
"Georgia 2013 Highway Fatalities Down For 8th Consecutive Year." WCTV.tv. April 24, 2014. Accessed February
10, 2015. http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Georgia-2013-Highway-Fatalities-Down-For-8th-Consecutive-Year253237361.html.
20
years.38 Reduced traffic congestion in Atlanta will reduce the number of car accidents, which will reduce
the costs associated with car collisions.
So the negative externalities of pollution, inefficient use of time and resources, and traffic fatalities
are involved with the problem of traffic congestion in Atlanta. These negative externalities clearly
warrant the intervention of local and state government officials to reduce the amount of traffic
congestion in the city.
Proposed Solutions
There are four solutions (alternatives) to solving Atlanta’s traffic congestion problem that will be
discussed in this memorandum: 1) status quo 2) expanding the light-rail system 3) increase bus ridership
4) additional highway lanes. Each one of these alternatives offer advantages and disadvantages that will
be discussed below.
Status quo.
One possible solution is to not have the local government of Atlanta intervene whatsoever—a
laissez-faire approach. No public policy action may be required to solve the problem because the natural
progression of the market may solve it. Atlanta’s traffic situation may just be a momentary condition.
The city may be in the process of transitioning to a more stable situation regarding traffic congestion.
As was mentioned in the Present Situation section, the metropolitan Atlanta area currently has
six highways for automobile commuting: I-20, I-285, I-85, I-575, I-675, and I-75.39 Maybe Atlanta
residents driving on these six highways is the most cost effective solution to the city’s current traffic
38
"Georgia Crashes, Injuries & Fatalities Statistics: 2005-2011 Georgia Traffic Safety Performance Measures."
Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety. January 1, 2014. Accessed February 18, 2015.
http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/research/ga-crashes/injuries/fatalities/.
39
Toon, John D. "Interstate Highway System." New Georgia Encyclopedia. June 5, 2014. Accessed March 15, 2015.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/business-economy/interstate-highway-system.
21
predicament. Simply allowing the market to adjust without policy intervention is one policy option. No
augmentation of Atlanta’s current transportation system is one possible policy route for the city.
Advantages: Normal market clearing is allowed to occur. One of the central assumptions of
modern economics, is that, given enough time, prices will adjust until the quantity demanded of a
particular good will come into equilibrium with the quantity supplied of that same good.40 The natural
progression of the market in Atlanta may cause the price of driving up to a quantity at which there will
be fewer drivers on the road because it is simply too expensive for them to drive consistently. Simply
letting Atlanta’s current traffic situation play out could allow for market clearing, and market clearing
requires minimal public policy intervention. Unfortunately, given the presence of the negative
externalities previously discussed, there is not much evidence to suggest that market clearing is
occurring regarding Atlanta’s traffic congestion.
Disadvantages: The negative externalities associated with traffic congestion—carbon emissions,
time wasted in traffic, and fatalities/injuries resulting from accidents—are unlikely to be addressed by
allowing the market to clear. Carefully observing traffic over time in the city suggest that the problem
will not be solved by just market factors. As was previously stated in the Current Situation section,
through the years 2000 and 2010, typical Atlanta drivers spent 76 percent of their vehicle miles travelled
in traffic congestion, compared to only 54 percent for the average U.S. city.41 These figures suggest that
the market is failing to capture the true costs associated with driving in Atlanta, which means that
market clearing is unlikely to be the most beneficial solution to the city’s problem with traffic
congestion.
40
Mankiw, N. Gregory. "The Science of Macroeconomics." In Macroeconomics, 10-11. 8th ed. Vol. 1. Houndmills:
Worth/Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
41
"2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report." Annual Urban Mobility Report. January 1, 2012. Accessed February 10,
2015. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/.
22
Increasing Atlanta’s public transportation ridership is another option. Presently, only 3.6 percent of
jobs in the metropolitan Atlanta area are accessible by public transportation, and only 37 percent of
Atlanta’s residents have access to public transportation.42 Making public transportation more extensive
and more accessible is a policy pathway to lead Atlanta down the road to significantly reduced traffic
congestion. So what particular policies can be implemented to increase Atlanta’s public transit usage?
Public finances could be used to expand Atlanta’s existing light rail system, or public finances could be
used to subsidize bus passes to increase ridership and reduce Atlanta’s traffic congestion. Although
Atlanta’s light rail system and bus system are both public transportation options, they offer different
advantages and disadvantages to Atlanta’s residents. Thus, increased light rail ridership and increased
bus ridership will be presented and analyzed as distinct policy alternatives.
Expanding the Light-Rail System.
A more extensive light-rail transit system is one policy option the city of Atlanta could
implement to alleviate traffic. Light-rail is a public transportation method that involves trams moving on
track lines, alongside existing highway routes to give commuters an alternative method of travel in a
city. Increasing the number of access points by adding new rail ways and boarding stations to the
existing light rail system is one alternative to reduce traffic congestion in metropolitan Atlanta.
So what exactly is light rail transportation? The American Public Transportation Association
defines light rail in the following way:
Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail
cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often
separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically
with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an
42
Feigenbaum, Baruch. "Practical Strategies for Increasing Mobility in Atlanta." Reason Foundation. August 28,
2013. Accessed March 2, 2015. http://reason.org/news/show/strategies-mobility-atlanta.
23
operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using
steps.43
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) oversees the city’s existing light rail system.
Figure 11: Map of Atlanta’s Current Light Rail System
43
"Fact Book Glossary." American Public Transportation Institution. 2014. Accessed March 25, 2015.
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx#8.
24
What specific tracks can be laid and/or extended? One way to increase light rail ridership is by
increasing the amount of access points in the system by constructing additional railways and boarding
stations. Figure 11 clearly depicts I-285 as the only major highway in the city of Atlanta without any light
rail access points connected to it. New railways for light rail trams could be built along the inner-ring of
the I-285 highway. This would mean adding over ten miles of overhead rail lines and tram tracks for
passenger cars to conduct alongside the 63.98 mile long I-285.44 So considerable construction would
need to occur for light rail to run alongside the inner-loop of I-285.
The Beltline LRT is a specific additional rail-line that has been proposed in the past. This
alternative entails adding more light railways around the entire Central District. Newly constructed
railway tracks and lines would form a loop along the inner ring of the I-285 highway loop. Additional
light rail cars being conducted throughout the year alongside the I-285 would be a dependable, safe
alternative for Atlanta commuters. So what structural adjustments would need to be made to operate a
new rail-line encircling Fulton and DeKalb counties?
New light rail lines and tracks would be laid, connecting 40 new neighborhood stops. In order for
all four quadrants of the city to be connected, 22 miles of new rail line would need to be constructed to
form a loop around the central part of the city.4546 Atlanta Beltline Inc. (ABI) has been assigned the task
of implementing the new rail system into the city. In December of 2013, ABI laid out a 30-year plan to
implement the rail line. Constructing an additional light rail line that encompasses the city’s central
district, and connects all four quadrants of the city is one viable alternative to reduce Atlanta’s traffic
congestion.
44
"Interstate 285 Travel Guide." Roadnow. 2015. Accessed March 25, 2015. http://roadnow.com/i285ga/.
Burns, Rebecca. "Can Atlanta Go All In on the BeltLine?" The Atlantic City Lab. May 6, 2014. Accessed March 27,
2015. http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/05/can-atlanta-go-all-beltline/9036/.
46
"Atlanta BeltLine/Atlanta Streetcar System Plan: A Transit Plan With an Eye to the Future." The Atlanta BeltLine.
2014. Accessed March 10, 2015. http://beltline.org/progress/planning/transit-planning/atlanta-beltline-atlantastreetcar-system-plan/.
45
25
Advantages: Increased light rail ridership has the advantage of providing a less environmentally
costly travel option than driving. Light rail trains do emit carbon, but far less than thousands of cars
stuck in congested traffic. Two environmental scientists, Mikhail V. Chester and Arpad Horvath,
performed a comprehensive study of carbon emissions from various forms of travel in their article titled
“Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply
chains.” According to Chester and Horvath, the majority of carbon emissions associated with light rail
arise during construction, not actual operation. Carbon emission totals from operating light rail to travel
are significantly lower than carbon emission totals associated with operating automobiles to travel. Light
rail trains emit 25 grams of CO² per passenger-kilometer-traveled (PKT) on average; while the typical
sedan-sized automobile emits 144 grams of CO² per PKT.47 Implementing the Beltline LRT would reduce
carbon emissions drastically, if ridership levels are high enough.
Another advantage offered by the light rail option is a reduction of the number of car accidents
in Atlanta because there would be less drivers on the road throughout the year. Automobile accidents
would be reduced with more Atlanta citizens commuting to and from work on light rail instead of
highways.
Lastly, light rail offers the advantage of being timely. Light rail can be coordinated temporally—
well conducted light rail systems ensure that passengers are in designated places, at designated times.
Disadvantages: Light rail is costly to operate and maintain. Constructing an additional 22 miles of
rail line is a time, as well as capital intensive project. The time horizon for the Beltline LRT is 30 years. 30
years is an eternity in the policy world! Obstructions and delays are likely to occur during a 30 year
47
Chester, Mikhail V., and Arpad Horvath. "Environmental Assessment of Passenger Transportation Should Include
Infrastructure and Supply Chains." IOP Science: Environmental Research Letters. June 8, 2009. Accessed March 27,
2015. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/2/024008/fulltext/.
26
project. If the city of Atlanta treated the project as a high priority, completion time could be shortened.
However, the current projection for the Beltline LRT stands at 30 years, which is disadvantageous.48
The Beltline LRT project also demands a lot of capital. Many workers would need to be hired;
building materials would need to be bought, transported, stored, and assembled. Building and
maintaining the LRT requires a substantial public investment from the citizens of Atlanta, and this is an
investment they would not see the return on for 30 years.
Another disadvantage of the Beltline LRT alternative is its restrictiveness. Light rail is difficult to
modify. The circular route of the Beltline LRT will be its path for the entirety of its existence. Residents of
Atlanta will have to commute to and from the light rail stations, which will require many riders to drive
to boarding stations. So, although the light rail option reduces the amount of miles driven in a
metropolitan area, it does not eliminate them.
Increase Bus Ridership.
This option would require Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) to expand its
existing public transportation capacity through an increase in bus ridership. The American Public
Transportation Association’s most recent publication of traffic related statistics on cities throughout the
U.S. reports that from calendar year 2012 to the 2013, the total number of bus trips in Atlanta increased
from 60,042,900 total bus trips to 60,292,300 total trips.49 An average of 192,500 passenger trips were
taken per day on MARTA buses in 2013. 50 Enough people in Atlanta consistently ride the bus to warrant
greater public investment. This increase in public investment in Atlanta’s bus system would be executed
48
For simplicity sake, the light rail expansion option (the BeltLine LRT project) project time is condensed down to 6
years in the cost-benefit analysis performed later in the memorandum.
49
Dickens, Matthew. "PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP REPORT: Fourth Quarter 2013." American Public
Transportation Association. February 26, 2014. Accessed March 27, 2015.
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2013-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf. Page 16
50
Ibid.
27
in the form of a subsidy. Tax dollars in the state of Georgia and the city of Atlanta could be diverted to
essentially pay the partial to full amount of bus fares for Atlanta riders, throughout the year. So having
more residents take buses consistently, year-around, is another alternative to reduce traffic congestion
in Atlanta. Subsidizing bus passes is the specific policy change that could be made to increase ridership.
Lower ticket prices would make riding the bus more accessible to Atlanta’s residents, encouraging more
of them to ride the bus consistently.
Currently, MARTA is charging $2.50 for a single trip fare and $5.00 for a roundtrip fare.51 There
are special deals and passes for those who ride the bus consistently. MARTA offers a 10-trip deal costing
$25.00, as well as a 20-trip deal costing $42.50.52 MARTA also provides passes that last for designated
periods of time, and allow the possessor to ride any bus-line while the pass is valid. Passes that last from
one to four days cost from $9.00 to $19.00, while a 30-day-pass cost $95.00.53
A subsidy by the state of Georgia and the city of Atlanta could be directed at bus fares and
passes to bring the price level down to $2.25 per single trip and $4.00 per roundtrip. A $2.25 fare per
single trip and $4.00 fare per roundtrip price level could increase demand for bus fares and passes,
leading to more habitual bus-riders, and subsequently reducing the amount of daily drivers in Atlanta.
These price levels are only suggestions—one of the city of Atlanta’s professional economists could
conduct an analysis of the bus ridership in Atlanta to select an appropriate price level to increase
ridership to significantly reduce the negative externalities resulting from Atlanta’s problem with traffic
congestion.
51
"Fares and Passes." Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. 2009. Accessed March 27, 2015.
http://www.itsmarta.com/fares-passes.aspx.
52
Ibid.
53
"Fares and Passes." Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. 2009. Accessed March 27, 2015.
http://www.itsmarta.com/fares-passes.aspx.
28
Advantages: Buses require lower capital investment than light-rails and additional highway
lanes. No new facilities, roads, or railways need to be constructed to increase bus ridership. With 92
different bus lines, Atlanta already has the infrastructure in place to support more bus riders.54 Cheaper
priced tickets, brought about by subsidization, is the only systemic alteration that would need to occur.
So, low cost is one key advantage of the increased bus-usage option.
Also, having more residents consistently ride buses would reduce the occurrence of traffic
accidents. More people on public transportation, reduces the number of people on the roads, which
reduces the potential for traffic accidents.
Disadvantages: Buses are restrictive in regards to time and access. You have to be at a certain place, at a
certain time to catch the bus. This lack of freedom regarding time expenditure when riding the bus
serves as a disincentive. People are dissuaded by the buses rigid time structure, and this dissuasion
makes people who would save time and money riding the bus in the long run reluctant to consistently
pursue it as an option.
Another detriment of increased bus ridership is the psychological resistance many Americans
harbor in regards to riding buses. Unfortunately, bus-riding is associated with low socioeconomic status
in many American cities. Those who ride the bus are perceived to be of lower social status than those
who drive European sports cars. This perception of low status makes riding the bus a somewhat
shameful endeavor for people in American cities such as Atlanta. Quantifying this problem is difficult,
thus statistically analyzing the number of people who avoid riding the bus because of status is nearly
impossible. However, this perception of low socioeconomic status attached to riding the bus must be a
consideration when analyzing low levels of bus-ridership.
54
"MARTA Facts." Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Fact Sheet. 2011. Accessed March 28, 2015.
http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/News_And_Events/Newsletters/MARTA Fact Sheet 010611.pdf.
29
Collector-Distributor (CD) Lanes on State Route 400 (SR 400)
Atlanta’s highways may not have enough lanes to accommodate the amount of drivers utilizing
them on a day-to-day basis. So, adding new lanes to the State Route 400 (SR 400) highway is another
policy alternative to reduce traffic congestion in Atlanta. These additional lanes would be toll lanes,
allowing high-demand users a faster alternative for highway driving, if they are willing to pay the toll.
Georgia’s Department of Transportation has dubbed these new proposed lanes “Collector-Distributor
(CD) lanes”.55 What exactly are collector-distributor (CD) lanes? Collector-distributor lanes are located at
intersections and allow drivers to by-pass traffic signals by driving underneath them. “A collectordistributor is similar to an exit ramp, but is typically longer than an exit ramp, and has the advantage of
allowing drivers to bypass traffic signals at intersections.”56 The new CD lanes would stretch four miles
along SR 400; starting from the SR 400 interchange with Interstate 285 (I-285), and finishing at Spalding
Drive.57 The CD lanes would be added on both the southbound and northbound sides. Completion time
for this project is approximately 42 months.
Advantages: New CD lanes has the advantage of being easily incorporated into the existing
highway system. Construction workers, materials, and project coordination are an integral part of
adding new lanes, however, adding new lanes is less labor and capital intensive than adding whole new
highways and overpasses. It will take less time to integrate new highway lanes into Atlanta’s
transportation system than either a new light-rail line, or an entire new highway.
55
"I-285 & SR 400 Improvements." Travel Smart. 2015. Accessed March 29, 2015.
http://www.dot.ga.gov/BS/Projects/i-285-sr-400-improvements.
56
Reyna, Kelli. "Collector-Distributor Roads Fact Sheet: What Is a Collector-Distributor Road?" Texas Department of
Transportation. Accessed March 28, 2015. ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/aus/collector-distributor-factsheet.pdf.
57
Reyna, Kelli. "Collector-Distributor Roads Fact Sheet: What Is a Collector-Distributor Road?" Texas Department of
Transportation. Accessed March 28, 2015. ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/aus/collector-distributor-factsheet.pdf.
30
Another advantage of the CD lanes alternative is it allows for Atlanta commuters to maintain
their independence regarding time, unlike buses and light rails. People will have the option to utilize the
CD lanes during times they need to commute quickly. During times they do not, drivers can utilize nonCD lanes. This logic can be applied to any time of day, not just during rush-hour traffic.
Disadvantages: GDOT has proposed this as a solution for years, but funding this project has been
problematic.58 Funding has been problematic because CD lanes will reduce traffic congestion, but only
temporarily. There will come a time when the amount of drivers utilizing CD lanes will be so great that
traffic congestion in Atlanta will return to present-day levels. At that point, what will GDOT and the city
of Atlanta do? Construct even more lanes? CD lanes are a short-term solution to traffic congestion, but
not a long-term one. Mathematics supports this skepticism of lane additions on roadways and traffic
congestion as a viable long-term solution to traffic congestion.
There is a unique mathematical property of traffic congestion known as the “Pigou-KnightDowns paradox”. The Pigou-Knight-Downs paradox states that increasing a road’s capacity to hold more
vehicles to any value less than twice the rate of traffic flow, on any given road, has no effect on travel
time on that given road.59 So, increasing SR 400’s vehicle capacity is only a short-term solution to traffic
congestion; advanced mathematical analysis supports this assertion.
Another disadvantage is CD lanes do little to nothing to combat carbon emissions. Having
additional lanes for drivers does nothing to curtail the amount of carbon emitted from the cars these
drivers will be in. In fact, additional lanes may increase the amount of carbon emissions from cars in
58
Feigenbaum, Baruch. "The Importance of Reducing Congestion by Spotlighting One Intersection." National Center
for Policy Analysis. August 11, 2014. Accessed February 15, 2015. http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/theimportance-of-reducing-congestion-by-spotlighting-one-intersection/.
59
Arnott, Richard, and Kenneth Small. "The Economics of Traffic Congestion." American Scientist, Volume 82.
October 1, 1994. Accessed March 29, 2015. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/Ec1F07/traffic.pdf. Page 2.
31
Atlanta by allowing more drivers to utilize the highway on a consistent basis. Additional highway lanes
may incentivize more people to drive, which exacerbates the negative externality of carbon emissions.
Formal Cost-Benefit Analysis
An ex ante cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to determine which alternative has the
greatest monetary value. An ex ante cost-benefit analysis consists of assigning monetary values to each
policy alternative, prior to the adoption and implementation of any one, with the intent of determining
which alternative has the greatest net social benefit.60 Some of these values are costs, while others are
benefits. Costs are values that represent losses to stakeholders, while benefits are values that represent
gains to stakeholders. Each value is calculated utilizing the following formula:
( )∑
(
)
.
“PV(X)” represents present value of x; “n” represents number of periods; “t” represents current year; “s”
represents social discount rate.
This discounting method is used on each net present value (NPV) associated with each
alternative, with the intention of assigning a single monetary value to the overall social benefit or overall
social cost of each alternative. The net present value of the overall cost of each policy alternative will be
subtracted from the net present value of its overall benefit, in order to determine the net present value
of each alternative.
=
( )−
( ). The alternative with the highest monetary value
will be the recommended policy solution because it will be the solution that best satisfies the KaldorHicks Criterion.
60
Boradman, Anthony, David Greenberg, Aidan Vining, and David Weimer. "Intro to Cost-Benefit Analysis." In CostBenefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 3-4. 4th ed. Vol. 1. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education,
2011.
32
The Kaldor-Hicks Criterion, also known as the potential Pareto efficiency rule, will be utilized to
select the appropriate alternative. This criterion states that as long as the stakeholders who will benefit
from a particular policy could potentially fully compensate those stakeholders who will lose the most
from the policy, and still be better off, then the policy should be implemented.61 That is, as long as the
net social benefit of any given policy has a greater monetary value than net social cost, then the policy is
adoptable. In simpler terms, the policy alternative with the greatest net present value will be selected
because it presents Atlanta’s residents with the option that best satisfies the potential Pareto efficiency
rule.
Stakeholders: The first step when conducting a cost-benefit analysis is to identify the stakeholders
involved. Stakeholders are the social groups who will incur the costs and reap the benefits of the
suggested alternatives directly. Atlanta residents and the city of Atlanta are the two relevant
stakeholders in this cost-benefit analysis. Specific costs and benefits associated with each alternative will
be assigned to a particular stakeholder. The costs of carbon dioxide emissions and of time in congestion
are assigned to Atlanta’s residents; while the costs of construction, safety related services, and of
operation are assigned to the city of Atlanta. The benefits of travel time saved, carbon dioxide
reduction, and accidents avoided are assigned to Atlanta residents; while the benefit of vehicle
operation cost saving is assigned to the city of Atlanta. The next step is to assign monetary values to
each policy alternative utilizing the calculation method previously described.
Now that the purpose, as well as the procedure, of the cost-benefit analysis has been explained,
on the following page are the results for the cost-benefit analysis conducted on the status quo, expand
the light-rail system, increase bus ridership, and collector-distributor lanes on SR 400.
61
Boradman, Anthony, David Greenberg, Aidan Vining, and David Weimer. "Intro to Cost-Benefit Analysis." In CostBenefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 32. 4th ed. Vol. 1. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education,
2011.
33
Cost-Benefit Analysis Tables:
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Alternatives to Reduce Traffic Congestion in Atlanta, 2015
Status Quo
Stakeholder
Atlanta Residents
Costs:
Carbon dioxide emissions
Time in congestion
Government of Atlanta Construction
Safety related services
Operation
Total Social Cost
Atlanta Residents
Benefits:
Travel time saved
Carbon dioxide reduction
Accidents avoided/Safety
$
$
Alternative 1: Expand the Light-Rail System
2,320,496,180.00 $
1,104,471,750.00
N/A
$
$
$
317,302,338.53
334,900,714.48
$
$
2,874,971,700.00 $
79,590,708.75
234,323,938.68
NPV(Total Social Benefit - Total Social Cost) $
(2,716,407,630.00) $
(100,576,775.80)
Costs:
Carbon dioxide emissions
Time in congestion
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,223,780,000.00
1,120,000,000.00
$
$
$
$
137,189,560.00 $
1,259,966,333.60 $
328,940,449.28
260,000,000.00
12,733,000.00
3,945,453,449.28
$
$
$
1,188,737.90 $
8,097,199.87 $
83,729,242.89 $
336,017,074.42
31,540,194.73
13,883,929.11
$
$
115,800,180.30
208,815,360.96 $
NPV(Total Social Benefit - Total Social Cost) $
(1,051,150,972.64) $
Benefits:
Travel time saved
Carbon dioxide reduction
Accidents avoided/Safety
Government of Atlanta Vehicle operating cost savings
Total Social Benefit
$
$
Alternative 3: Collector-Distributor Lanes on SR 400
2,776,773.60 $
1,120,000,000.00 $
Government of Atlanta Construction
Safety related services
Operation
Total Social Cost
Atlanta Residents
14,723,404.25
N/A
152,158,228.19
585,227.66
1,989,774.08
Alternative 2: Increase Bus Ridership
Atlanta Residents
N/A
2,874,971,700.00 $
$
$
Government of Atlanta Vehicle operating cost savings
Total Social Benefit
$
$
257,788,080.00
1,908,623,320.00 $
5,591,379,330.00 $
2,874,971.70
N/A
N/A
N/A
381,441,198.26
(3,564,012,251.02)
*Please see Appendix II on page 44 for the statistical calculations and sources of each monetary value.
34
Ten year projection of Net Present Value of each alternative:
Total NPV of Each Alternative
Status Quo
Light Rail Expansion
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
($2,637,288,961) ($2,560,474,720) ($2,485,897,786) ($2,413,492,996) ($2,343,197,084)
($325,146,324)
($315,676,043)
($306,481,595)
($297,554,946)
($288,888,297)
Increase Bus Ridership
($1,020,534,924)
($990,810,606)
($961,952,044)
($933,934,024)
($906,732,062)
Collector-Distributor Lane onSR400
($3,830,537,329) ($3,718,968,281) ($3,610,648,816) ($3,505,484,288) ($3,074,348,276)
Status Quo
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025 Total NPV
($2,274,948,624) ($2,208,687,986) ($2,144,357,268) ($2,081,900,259) ($2,021,262,388) ($12,440,351,547)
Light Rail Expansion
($84,231,465)
($81,778,122)
($79,396,234)
($77,083,723)
($74,838,566) ($1,533,747,205)
Increase Bus Ridership
($880,322,390)
($854,681,932)
($829,788,284)
($805,619,693)
($782,155,042) ($4,813,963,660)
Collector-Distributor Lane onSR400
($2,984,804,150) ($2,897,868,109) ($2,813,464,183) ($2,731,518,623) ($2,651,959,829) ($17,739,986,990)
*Please see Appendix I on page 41 for formal calculations of the NPV of each alternative.
Net Present Value of each alternative after ten years of implementation:
Alternative
Total NPV (Ten Years)
Status Quo
$
(25,887,915,702.00)
Light Rail Expansion
$
(2,265,976,029.00)
Increase Bus Ridership
$
(10,017,681,973.00)
Collector-Distributor Lane onSR400
$
(35,765,055,333.00)
35
Sensitivity Analysis of Light Rail Expansion Alternative
Sensitivity Analysis of the Alternative of Light Rail Expansion
Given a +/-10% Change in Operation Cost
Original
Costs:
Carbon dioxide emissions
Time in congestion
10% Decrease
10% Increase
$
2,874,971.70 $
N/A
2,874,971.70 $
N/A
2,874,971.70
N/A
$
$
$
14,723,404.25 $
N/A
317,302,338.53 $
334,900,714.48 $
14,723,404.25 $
N/A
285,572,104.68 $
303,170,480.63 $
14,723,404.25
N/A
349,032,572.38
366,630,948.33
Benefits:
Travel time saved
Carbon dioxide reduction
Accidents avoided/Safety
$
$
$
152,158,228.19 $
585,227.66 $
1,989,774.08 $
152,158,228.19 $
585,227.66 $
1,989,774.08 $
152,158,228.19
585,227.66
1,989,774.08
Vehicle operating cost savings
Total Social Benefit
$
$
79,590,708.75 $
234,323,938.68 $
79,590,708.75 $
234,323,938.68 $
79,590,708.75
234,323,938.68
NPV(Total Social Benefit - Total Social Cost)
$
(100,576,775.80) $
(68,846,541.95) $ (132,307,009.65)
Construction
Safety related services
Operation
Cost-Benefit Analysis Results: So, after conducting the formal cost-benefit analysis, the alternative of
expanding the light rail system is least costly to the residents and local government of Atlanta. Due to its
highest net present value, light rail expansion will be the recommended policy solution to the problem
of traffic congestion in Atlanta.
Qualitative Demand Analysis: In light of the cost-benefit analysis results, it must be noted that the light
rail expansion option is sensitive to consumer demand.62 When the economy of Atlanta is prospering,
there will be more residents consistently riding the light rail than when the economy is in recession.
Policy makers in the state of Georgia’s Department of Transportation must be cognizant of this possible
variance of consumer demand in the Atlanta economy. If Atlanta’s residents have limited disposable
income then the light rail may not be a viable option on a consistent basis. When Atlanta’s economy is in
62
Gruber, Jonathan. "Theoretical Tools of Public Finance." In Public Finance and Public Policy, 45-47. 4th ed. Vol. 1.
New York, New York: Worth, 2004.
36
recession, subsidization may need to be implemented for the light rail to remain a viable option for
many of Atlanta’s residents.
Strategic Recommendations
After conducting the cost-benefit analysis, the alternative with the highest net present value is
expanding the light rail system. Light rail expansion is the alternative that will provide the greatest social
benefit, according to the cost-benefit analysis, and thus it should be the recommended policy to solve
the problem of traffic congestion in Atlanta. However, my personal recommendation to the city of
Atlanta is to pursue both the light rail alternative, as well as the increase bus ridership alternative.
Getting more Atlanta residents off the road and onto public transit is the optimal solution to the city’s
problem with traffic congestion. More public transit usage can be accomplished by investing more
money into MARTA’s existing bus system, which would subsidize bus fares to increase ridership. MARTA
should also use public funds to expand the light rail system with the BeltLine LRT loop, which will also
increase public transit usage. Employing both of these alternatives will be the most efficient method for
eliminating the negative externalities of pollution, excess time spent in traffic by drivers, and deaths and
injuries caused by automobile accidents.
Weaknesses and limitations
The quantitative target for traffic reduction should be the national averages of pollution
exhausted, time-spent, and traffic-related organizations. But what if the national average is too high?
This is a vagueness within the analysis. How much traffic is too much traffic? Quantitative reasoning—
comparing Atlanta’s traffic statistics to that of other cities similar in population size—provides a
numerical framework, but does not objectively identify an appropriate level of traffic congestion for a
city the size of Atlanta.
37
Another weakness is the city of Atlanta is only a part of the Atlanta metropolitan area; what if
urban sprawl is the main cause of traffic congestion in the city? If so, none of the solutions proposed in
this memorandum account for urban sprawl as the source of congestion. The city of Atlanta may need to
take a look at urban redevelopment as a possible solution.
Current methods for measuring traffic congestion are misleading with the data they provide—
data points and calculations for traffic are not entirely accurate. A close look at the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s website on traffic statistics reveals that traffic-related statistics are limited in their
accuracy and verifiability. 63
Advanced Technology, Such as The Driverless Car: Public policy is quite dynamic. Public policy
makers must devise policy amidst a myriad of often-fast changing events. The fast-pace nature of
human societies makes public policy planning and analyzing exceptionally difficult. Past experience is the
foundation of public policy analysis, yet all our current planning assumes a certain future that is at risk
from a myriad of fast changing events. Public policy must constantly change the parts in the engine of a
car that never stops moving. This dilemma is clearly observed when analyzing Atlanta’s problem with
traffic congestion. Could the alternatives mentioned above be rendered obsolete by the new technology
of driverless cars?
My above analysis could become obsolete with the introduction of driverless cars. Public policy
makers must proceed with the facts at hand when dealing with market failures, but my analysis is
vulnerable to the recent technology of driverless cars. The technology is still in its infancy, but who
63
"Better Road Congestion Measures Are Needed." United States Department of Transportation. 2014. Accessed
March 20, 2015.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/special_reports_and_issue_briefs/issue_brief
s/number_04/html/entire.html.
38
knows how fast it will advance. What if the driverless car trend started within five years, and followed
Moore’s Law, and had an immediate impact of reducing vehicles on the road?
Google’s driverless car provides a real-world example of such a technology. Google’s driverless
car has no gas pedal, break, or even a steering wheel. At some point in the future, people will summon
driverless cars in the same fashion as they summon Uber cars now. People will purchase personal
mobility instead of an automobile.
Driverless cars will have many advantages over human-driven cars. For one, safety—95% of
accidents are caused by human failure. This is not hyperbole; Google’s driverless cars have already
travelled 700,000 miles in cities without an accident. Although they are sometime away from being
implementable in mass quantities, driverless cars have the potential to overhaul American’s
transportation needs, and such an overhaul would significantly alter the analysis presented in this
memorandum. This limitation must be acknowledged.
Other Omitted Potential Solution: Carpooling. One possible way to reduce traffic congestion in
any metropolitan area is through carpooling. Carpooling is difficult to gather data on so it was not
included as a formal alternative. Despite this omission, it should be mentioned as a simple alternative to
reduce traffic congestion. People who work in the same areas, or attend the same schools should be
encouraged to carpool with at least one other person. This can only be an informal policy alternative,
but it should be mentioned in any analysis of traffic reduction.
39
Appendix I: Cost-Benefit Analysis Calculations
Future values (FVs) of each alternative were discounted into their present value (PV) using the numerical
figures and calculations listed below. The net present value (NPV) for each alternative is calculated over
a 10-year period, for each period, then aggregated into a single monetary value.
Discounting:
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
PV
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Status Quo Calculations:
$
,
,
(
,
.
,
+
)
,
(
,
.
,
+
)
,
(
,
.
,
+
)
,
(
,
.
,
+
)
,
(
,
.
+
)
-$2,716,407,630 + -$2,637,288,961 + -$2,560,474,720 + -$2,485,897,786 + -$2,413,492,996 +
,
,
(
,
.
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
-$2,343,197,084 + -$2,274,948,624 + -$2,208,687,986 + -$2,144,357,268 + -$2,081,900,259
,
(
,
,
.
)
-$2,021,262,388 = ($25,887,915,702)
40
Light Rail Expansion Calculations:
$
,
,
.
)
(
+
,
(
,
.
,
+
)
,
(
.
+
)
,
(
,
.
,
+
)
(
,
.
,
+
)
(
,
.
)
+
-$334,900,714 + -$325,146,324 + -$315,676,043 + -$306,481,595 + -$297,554,946 + -$288,888,297
Benefits Start
,
(
,
.
,
+
)
(
,
.
+
)
,
(
,
.
+
)
,
(
,
.
+
)
(
,
,
.
)
-$84,231,465 + -$81,778,122 + -$79,396,234 + -$77,083,723 + -$74,838,566= ($2,265,976,029)
Increase Bus Ridership Calculations:
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
-$1,051,150,972 + -$1,020,534,924 + -$990,810,606 + -$961,952,044 + -$933,934,024 +
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
-$906,732,062 + -$880,322,390 + -$854,681,932 + -$829,788,284 + -$805,619,693 +
−1,051,150,972
(1 + .03)
-$782,155,042 = ($10,017,681,973)
41
Collector-Distributor Lanes on SR400:
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
,
.
+
)
,
,
(
,
.
+
)
,
,
(
,
.
+
)
-$3,945,453,449 + -$3,830,537,329 + -$3,718,968,281 + -$3,610,648,816 + -$3,505,484,288
Benefits Start
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
,
,
(
.
,
)
+
-$3,074,348,276 + -$2,984,804,150 + -$2,897,868,109 + -$2,813,464,183 + -$2,731,518,623 +
−3,564,012,251
(1 + .03)
-$2,651,959,829 = ($35,765,055,333)
42
Appendix II: Statistical Inputs for Monetary Costs and Benefits
Status Quo:
Costs
Monetary Value
Source
Cost of traffic
congestion
$1,120,000,000.00
$1.120 billion for traffic congestion related costs.
SOURCE: "GEORGIA TRANSPORTATION BY THE
NUMBERS: Meeting the State’s Need for Safe and
Efficient Mobility." TRIP. February 15, 2015.
Accessed May 10, 2015.
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/GA_Transportation_b
y_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2015.pdf. Page
3.
Cost of safety
services
$260,000,000.00
Cost of vehicle
operations
$545,000,000.00
Cost of carbon
emitted in Atlanta
$2,223,780,000.00
"GEORGIA TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:
Meeting the State’s Need for Safe and Efficient
Mobility." TRIP. February 15, 2015. Accessed May
10, 2015.
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/GA_Transportation_b
y_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2015.pdf. Page
3.
"GEORGIA TRANSPORTATION BY THE NUMBERS:
Meeting the State’s Need for Safe and Efficient
Mobility." TRIP. February 15, 2015. Accessed May
10, 2015.
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/GA_Transportation_b
y_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2015.pdf. Page
3.
In the year 2012, the state of Georgia emitted
57,020,000 metric tons of carbon, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency. $39 is the price of
1 metric ton of carbon in 2012 dollars. The EPA has a
website that conveniently prices the social cost of 1
metric ton of carbon gas. Source: "The Social Cost of
Carbon." Climate Change. November 26, 2013.
Accessed April 15, 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/e
conomics/scc.html. (57020000*39)=$2,223,780,000
Benefits
Monetary Value
Source
Benefit of travel time
saved/WTP for Travel
time saved
$2,899,640,000.00
"2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report." Annual
Urban Mobility Report. January 1, 2012. Accessed
February 10, 2015. http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/;
See Spreadsheet data on Atlanta traffic congestion.
43
Light Rail Expansion:
Costs
Monetary
Value
Source
Dollar per acre
calculation is
$1/.000978 acre or
$1,022.49 per acre
$1,022.49
Mothorpe, Chris, Andrew Hanson, and Kurt Schnier.
2013. "The impact of interstate highways on land use
conversion." Annals of Regional Science 51, no. 3: 833870. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed
November 20, 2014). Link: http://0search.ebscohost.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/login.asp
x?direct=true&db=bth&AN=91997020&site=ehost-live
Cost of construction
$14,396,659.20
22 square miles of rail line=14080
acres*1022.49=14,396,659.20
"Clayton County MARTA Fact Sheet." MARTA BY-THENUMBERS. 2013. Accessed April 18, 2015.
http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/News_And_
Events/Clayton-County-MARTA-Service-FactSheet.pdf.
Cost of operation of
$314,919,990.00
light-rail (expanded line
would not come online
until approximately the
year 2036).
Cost of carbon emitted
$3,306,069.00
2015 MARTA
operations cost
$415,600,000.00
84,771 tons of CO2 in 2008 * $39.00 per metric ton =
$3,306,069.00; Source: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration,
"Transit Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management
Compendium", January 12, 2011, Page 99. LINK:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/GHGCompendGT
v2.pdf.
"MARTA’s FY 2015 operating budget is $415.6 million
and its total capital budget is $470.1 million, which
includes debt service. SOURCE: MARTA 2013
Comprehensive Financial Report, 2013 National
Transit Database, Carl Vinson Institute of Government
2012 MARTA
Economic Impact Report, MARTA ridership surveys.
Link:
http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/News_And_
Events/Clayton-County-MARTA-Service-FactSheet.pdf.
Benefits
Monetary
Value
Source
Vehicle operating cost savings
(20-year sum)
$1,463,940,000.00
SOURCE: Borrero, Liz. "TIGER II Funding
Application Project Narrative." Georgia
Transit Connector: Atlanta Streetcar. 2010.
Accessed April 25, 2015.
44
Benefit of travel time saved
(Value of Travel Time <VTT>)
(20-year sum)
$2,798,700,000.00
http://www.atlantadowntown.com/_files/d
ocs/10_08-23_atlanta_streetcartigerii_app.pdf. Page 12. All of the values
derived from this site are based on a 20-year
sum. So each number needs to be divided by
20 to apply to one year of the cost benefit
analysis. What justifies this 20 year division of
each value? This is how the company that
conducted the 2014 "Benefit Cost & Economic
Impact Analysis" constructed it; this report
breaks down the benefits and costs of the
project into equal 20+ year periods. SOURCE:
"BENEFIT COST & ECONOMIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS APPENDIX INSUPPORT OF THE
TIGER V APPLICATION." ATLANTA BELTLINE
COMMUNITY CONNECTOR CITY OF ATLANTA
AND ATLANTA BELTLINE, INC. May 30, 2013.
Accessed April 24, 2015.
http://beltline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/ABI-TIGER-V-BCAAppendix.pdf. Page 4.
SOURCE: Borrero, Liz. "TIGER II Funding
Application Project Narrative." Georgia
Transit Connector: Atlanta Streetcar. 2010.
Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://www.atlantadowntown.com/_files/d
ocs/10_08-23_atlanta_streetcartigerii_app.pdf. Page 12. All of the values
derived from this site are based on a 20-year
sum. So each number needs to be divided by
20 to apply to one year of the cost benefit
analysis. What justifies this 20 year division of
each value? This is how the company that
conducted the 2014 "Benefit Cost & Economic
Impact Analysis" constructed it; this report
breaks down the benefits and costs of the
project in equal 20+ year periods. SOURCE:
"BENEFIT COST & ECONOMIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS APPENDIX INSUPPORT OF THE
TIGER V APPLICATION." ATLANTA BELTLINE
COMMUNITY CONNECTOR CITY OF ATLANTA
AND ATLANTA BELTLINE, INC. May 30, 2013.
Accessed April 24, 2015.
http://beltline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/ABI-TIGER-V-BCAAppendix.pdf.
. Page 4.
45
Benefit of reduction in carbon
emissions (20-year sum)
$10,764,299.08
Benefit of reduction in
automobile accidents
(accidents avoided) (20-year
sum)
$36,598,616.90
SOURCE: Borrero, Liz. "TIGER II Funding
Application Project Narrative." Georgia
Transit Connector: Atlanta Streetcar. 2010.
Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://www.atlantadowntown.com/_files/d
ocs/10_08-23_atlanta_streetcartigerii_app.pdf. Page 12. All of the values
derived from this site are based on a 20-year
sum. So each number needs to be divided by
20 to apply to one year of the cost benefit
analysis. What justifies this 20 year division of
each value? This is how the company that
conducted the 2014 "Benefit Cost & Economic
Impact Analysis" constructed it; this report
breaks down the benefits and costs of the
project in equal 20+ year periods. SOURCE:
"BENEFIT COST & ECONOMIC IMPACT
ANALYSIS APPENDIX INSUPPORT OF THE
TIGER V APPLICATION." ATLANTA BELTLINE
COMMUNITY CONNECTOR CITY OF ATLANTA
AND ATLANTA BELTLINE, INC. May 30, 2013.
Accessed April 24, 2015.
http://beltline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/ABI-TIGER-V-BCAAppendix.pdf.
. Page 4.
SOURCE: Borrero, Liz. "TIGER II Funding
Application Project Narrative." Georgia
Transit Connector: Atlanta Streetcar. 2010.
Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://www.atlantadowntown.com/_files/d
ocs/10_08-23_atlanta_streetcartigerii_app.pdf. Page 12. All of the values
derived from this site are based on a 20-year
sum. So each number needs to be divided by
20 to apply one year of the cost benefit
analysis. What justifies this 20 year division of
each value? This is how the company that
conducted the 2014 "Benefit Cost & Economic
Impact Analysis" breaks down the benefits and
costs of the project in equal 20+ year periods.
SOURCE: "BENEFIT COST & ECONOMIC
IMPACT ANALYSIS APPENDIX INSUPPORT OF
THE TIGER V APPLICATION." ATLANTA
BELTLINE COMMUNITY CONNECTOR CITY OF
ATLANTA AND ATLANTA BELTLINE, INC. May
30, 2013. Accessed April 24, 2015.
http://beltline.org/wp46
content/uploads/2013/05/ABI-TIGER-V-BCAAppendix.pdf.
. Page 4.
Increase Bus Ridership:
Costs
Monetary
Value
Source
Cost of bus operations
$137,189,560.00
Cost of carbon
emitted
$2,776,773.60
Cost of traffic
congestion
$1,120,000,000.00
228.2 Million annual bus passenger miles travelled in
2014 + 463.1 Million Annual rail passenger miles =
691.3 Million passenger miles travelled using MARTA in
2014. So, 33.01% (228.2 million/691.3 million * 100) of
MARTA's passenger miles travelled were dedicated to
bus travel in 2014. This percentage of travel will be
used as a baseline for this budget; meaning bus travel
will account for approximately $137,189,560.00
(33.01% of $470.1 million) of MARTA's 2015 operating
budget. SOURCE: MARTA 2013 Comprehensive
Financial Report, 2013 National Transit Database, Carl
Vinson Institute of Government 2012 MARTA
Economic Impact Report, MARTA ridership surveys.
Link:http://www.itsmarta.com/uploadedFiles/News_
And_Events/Clayton-County-MARTA-Service-FactSheet.pdf
68,231,800,000=68,231.80 metric tons x $39.00 per
metric ton = $2,661,040.20 (2011 dollars) =
$2,776,773.60 (2015 dollars) Source: "Comparison of
Energy Use & CO2 Emissions From Different
Transportation Modes." American Bus Association.
May 1, 2007. Accessed April 27, 2015.
http://www.buses.org/files/ComparativeEnergy.pdf.
Page 6.
"$1.120 billion for traffic congestion related costs.
SOURCE:http://www.tripnet.org/docs/GA_Transporta
tion_by_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2015.pdf.
Page 3. "
Benefits
Monetary
Value
Source
Benefits as forecasted by
MARTA
$115,800,180.30
Over the period FY2011 through FY2016, MARTA
forecasts $2,104.82 billion in total revenues for
operations from all sources including sales tax,
fare recovery, and federal grants. So, MARTA
forecasts $350,803,333.30 ($2,104,820,000/6
years) per year in revenue from sales tax, fare
recovery, and federal grants. 33.01% of MARTA's
47
Benefit of travel time saved
(Value of Travel Time
<VTT>)
$1,188,737.90
passenger miles travelled were dedicated to bus
travel in 2014. Therefore 33.01% of total revenues
in the 2015 budget will be ascribed to MARTA's
bus operations. These percentages of travel will be
used as a baseline for this C.B.A, meaning bus
travel will account for approximately
$115,800,180.30 (33.01% of $350,803,333.30 per
year in projected revenue for MARTA from 2011
to 2016) of revenue in MARTA's 2015 operating
budget. SOURCE: MARTA 2013 Comprehensive
Financial Report, 2013 National Transit Database,
Carl Vinson Institute of Government 2012 MARTA
Economic Impact Report, MARTA ridership
surveys.
Denver is a city that is comparable in size to
Atlanta (600,158 people and 420,003 people
respectively. (SOURCE: "Interactive Population
Map." U.S. 2010 Census Bureau. 2010. Accessed
April 28, 2015.
http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/).
This will serve as a specific city for statistical
comparison. The average value of travel time for
Atlanta from 2001 to 2011 was $14.98 per hour;
while the average value of travel time for Denver
was $15.16. Atlanta's average total annual hours
of traffic delay from 2001 to 2011 was 149,303
hours. Denver's average total annual hours of
delay from 2001 to 2011 was 69,952 hours. While
an exact reduction target cannot be given, if a city
with a similar number of people has half the total
annual hours of delay as Atlanta, then it should be
used as a model for reduction purposes. SOURCE:
"2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report." Annual
Urban Mobility Report. January 1, 2012. Accessed
February 10, 2015.
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/ Atlanta and
Denver have similar price levels for their city bus
fares, but Denver's single bus ticket is $2.25, as
compared to $2.50 in Atlanta. RTD-Denver charges
$4.00 for a round trip bus ticket, whereas MARTA
charges $5.00 for a round trip bus ticket.
SOURCES: http://www.itsmarta.com/farespasses.aspx; http://www.rtddenver.com/bus.shtml. Given that Denver and
Atlanta have similar population sizes, similar price
levels for bus tickets should produce similar
ridership levels over time, reducing traffic
congestion. So a reduction in prices in Atlanta
48
Benefit of reduction in
carbon emissions
$8,097,199.87
Benefit of reduction in
automobile accidents
$83,729,242.89
could lead to an increase in bus ridership, which
could lead to a lower amount of total annual hours
of traffic delay. Specifically, a $0.25 reduction in
single ticket prices and a $1.00 reduction in roundtrip tickets for MARTA buses, will be projected to
bring about a 46.85% reduction in the 149,303
average total annual hours of traffic delay in
Atlanta from 2001 to 2011 (Denver had an average
of 69,952 total hours of traffic delay annually;
69952/149303*100=46.85%). So, .4685 x 149,303
= 69,948 total annual hours of delay would be the
projected figure with bus fare prices adjusted to
the levels previously mentioned. 149,30369,948=79,355 reduction in total annual hours of
delay x $14.98 per hour is value of travel time in
Atlanta = 79355 x 14.98 = $1,188,737.90.
23.77$ per metric ton² (2015 dollars) is the
monetary value assigned to carbon emissions by
the U.S. Department of Transportation's report
"Atlanta Congestion Reduction Demonstration."
SOURCE: "Atlanta Congestion Reduction
Demonstration." National Evaluation: Cost
Benefit Analysis Test Plan. August 8, 2011.
Accessed April 17, 2015.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/51000/51600/51696/11101.pdf. Page 3-4. Atlanta had an average of
1,385,000,000 pounds of excess CO2 due to
congestion, which is 628,225.43 metric tons, from
2001 to 2011. While Denver had an average of
634,000,000 pounds of excess CO2 due to
congestion, which is 287,577.56 metric tons, from
2001 to 2011. SOURCE: "2012 Annual Urban
Mobility Report." Annual Urban Mobility Report.
January 1, 2012. Accessed February 10, 2015.
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums. 628,225.43
metric tons - 287,577.56 metric tons = 340,647.87
metric ton reduction x $23.77 per metric ton of
CO2 = $8,097,199.87.
"Empirical studies published in recent years
indicate a VSL (value of a statistical life) of $9.1
million in current analyses using a base year of
2012." SOURCE: "Revised Departmental Guidance
2013: Treatment of the Value of Preventing
Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic
Analyses." U.S. Department of Transportation.
February 28, 2013. Accessed May 2, 2015.
http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VS
L Guidance_2013.pdf. Page 1. The city of Denver
49
will be used as a statistical role model for Atlanta
regarding traffic-related fatalities. Atlanta had 41
fatal car accidents in 2012 and 48 fatal car
accidents in 2013 (average of 45). SOURCE: "Fatal
Car Crashes and Road Traffic Accidents in Atlanta,
Georgia." City-Data. 2014. Accessed May 5, 2015.
http://www.city-data.com/accidents/accAtlanta-Georgia.html. Denver had 34 fatal
accidents in 2012 and 37 fatal accidents in 2013
(average of 36). SOURCE: http://www.citydata.com/accidents/acc-Denver-Colorado.html.
So, 45 - 36 = 9 fewer car accidents = 9 x
$9,303,249.21 (value of a statistical life in 2015
dollars) = $83,729,242.89.
Collector-Distributor Lanes on SR400:
Costs
Monetary
Value
Source
Cost of construction
$329,800,000.00
Construction cost per
month
$7,852,380.95
Cost of maintenance
$12,733,000.00
"The design-build cost is estimated at $329.8 million
which includes the cost of preliminary design,
environmental approval, right of way acquisition,
final design, construction, utility relocations,
construction engineering and inspection (CEI), and
insurance." SOURCE: "State Route 400 CollectorDistributor Lanes System." Georgia Department of
Transportation. August 15, 2014. Accessed April 29,
2015.
http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Projects/Docu
ments/I285SR400/SR400CDLanes.pdf.
42 months is the construction estimate; $329.8
million/42 months=$7,852,380.95 per month of
construction. SOURCE: "State Route 400 CollectorDistributor Lanes System." Georgia Department of
Transportation. August 15, 2014. Accessed April 29,
2015.
http://www.dot.ga.gov/BuildSmart/Projects/Docu
ments/I285SR400/SR400CDLanes.pdf.
SOURCE: "Office of Design Policy & Support
Interdepartmental Correspondence." Department of
Transportation State of Georgia. November 19,
2014. Accessed May 4, 2015.
https://gtas.dot.ga.gov/0007526/Concept
Report/0007526_CR_NOV2014.pdf. Page 1.
50
Cost carbon emissions
$2,223,780,000.00
Cost of safety services
$260,000,000.00
Cost of traffic
congestion
$1,120,000,000.00
"Where You Live." Carbon Pollution Standards.
November 6, 2014. Accessed February 17, 2015.
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollutionstandards/where-you-live. In the year 2012, the
state of Georgia emitted 57,020,000 metric tons of
carbon, according to the Environmental Protection
Agency. $39 is the price of 1 metric ton of carbon in
2012 dollars. The EPA has a website that conveniently
prices the social cost of 1 metric ton of carbon gas.
(Source: "The Social Cost of Carbon." Climate
Change. November 26, 2013. Accessed April 15,
2015.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/e
conomics/scc.html)
(57020000*39)=2,223,780,000.00
SOURCE:
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/GA_Transportation_b
y_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2015.pdf. Page
3.
$1.120 billion for traffic congestion related costs.
SOURCE:
http://www.tripnet.org/docs/GA_Transportation_b
y_the_Numbers_TRIP_Report_Feb_2015.pdf. Page
3.
Benefits
Monetary
Value
Source
Benefit of travel time
saved (Value of Travel
Time <VTT>)
$336,017,074.42
The state of Florida published an official cost-benefit
analysis of its collector-distributor lane system on its I75 mainline in the city of Tampa, on June 17, 2009.
Tampa's collector-distributor system is similar to the
one being proposed on Atlanta's SR400 highway.
Therefore, several financial values from the state of
Florida's official cost-benefit analysis of the project will
be imputed into this cost-benefit analysis of the SR400
alternative. SOURCE: "Expected Project Costs and
Benefits: Southwest Florida International Airport
Collector/Distributor Access Interchange." Florida
Department of Transportation. September 1, 2009.
Accessed May 10, 2015.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/economicstimul
us/SWFIA/CostsBenefits-1.pdf. Page 15.
51
Benefit of reduction in
carbon emissions
$31,540,194.73
Benefit of reduction in
automobile accidents
$13,883,929.11
The state of Florida published an official cost-benefit
analysis of its collector-distributor lane system on its I75 mainline in the city of Tampa, on June 17, 2009.
Tampa's collector-distributor system is similar to the
one being proposed on Atlanta's SR400 highway.
Therefore, several financial values from the state of
Florida's official cost-benefit analysis of the project will
be imputed into this cost-benefit analysis of the SR400
alternative. SOURCE: "Expected Project Costs and
Benefits: Southwest Florida International Airport
Collector/Distributor Access Interchange." Florida
Department of Transportation. September 1, 2009.
Accessed May 10, 2015.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/economicstimul
us/SWFIA/CostsBenefits-1.pdf. Page 15.
The state of Florida published an official cost-benefit
analysis of its collector-distributor lane system on its I75 mainline in the city of Tampa, on June 17, 2009.
Tampa's collector-distributor system is similar to the
one being proposed on Atlanta's SR400 highway.
Therefore, several financial values from the state of
Florida's official cost-benefit analysis of the project will
be imputed into this cost-benefit analysis of the SR400
alternative. SOURCE: "Expected Project Costs and
Benefits: Southwest Florida International Airport
Collector/Distributor Access Interchange." Florida
Department of Transportation. September 1, 2009.
Accessed May 10, 2015.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/economicstimul
us/SWFIA/CostsBenefits-1.pdf. Page 15.
52
Appendix III:
How did the Texas Transportation Institute distinguish congested traffic from non-congested traffic?
“The Congestion Measure Calculation with Speed and Volume Datasets
The following steps were used to calculate the congestion performance measures for each urban
roadway section.
1. Obtain HPMS traffic volume data by road section
2. Match the HPMS road network sections with the traffic speed dataset road sections
3. Estimate traffic volumes for each hour time interval from the daily volume data
4. Calculate average travel speed and total delay for each hour interval
5. Establish free-flow (i.e., low volume) travel speed
6. Calculate congestion performance measures
7. Additional steps when volume data had no speed data match
The mobility measures require four data inputs:
• Actual travel speed
• Free-flow travel speed
• Vehicle volume
• Vehicle occupancy (persons per vehicle) to calculate person-hours of travel delay”64
64
"2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report." Annual Urban Mobility Report. January 1, 2012. Accessed March 10, 2015.
Pages A2-A5. http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2012-appx-a.pdf.
Consult pages A2 through A5 for congestion calculation method of TTI report.
53
Appendix IV65: Data Tables: Important Traffic Statistics for Atlanta and
United States
Urban Area
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Urban Area
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
3,775.0
3,850.0
3,900.0
3,940.0
3,980.0
4,020.0
4,070.0
4,130.0
4,170.0
4,200.0
4,304.0
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Population
(000)
Population
(000)
383
385
392
406
416
426
434
434
441
445
448
Annual Excess Fuel Consumed
Column1
Annual Hours of Delay
Total Gallons
Gallons per
Total Delay
(000)
Auto Commuter
(000)
62,920
65,438
69,873
72,457
73,213
76,750
74,886
72,952
61,560
60,196
62,705
27
27
30
31
31
31
31
30
24
23
23
Column2
Congested
per Auto
Travel
Commuter (% of Peak VMT)
137,437
143,235
150,681
155,087
157,596
165,709
162,402
148,675
134,888
135,732
140,217
Annual Excess Fuel Consumed
Annual Hours of Delay
Total Gallons
Gallons per Total Delay
(000)
Auto Commuter
(000)
4,791
5,044
5,352
5,685
6,057
6,360
6,419
6,495
5,533
5,649
5,725
19
21
22
22
23
23
23
22
19
19
19
9,029
9,440
9,972
10,583
11,270
11,865
11,931
11,799
10,499
10,900
10,957
61
62
64
66
66
68
67
60
53
52
50
76
76
79
77
77
76
76
75
74
74
77
Congested
Travel
(% of Peak VMT)
per Auto
Commuter
39
40
41
41
43
43
43
42
38
38
38
65
Tables were constructed using data from: National Congestion Tables: 2012." TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report
Powered by INRIX Traffic Data. January 1, 2012. Accessed February 15, 2015. Page 21.
http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestion-data/national/national-table1.pdf.
54
52
54
55
55
56
56
56
55
53
53
54
Appendix IV (continued):
Urban Area
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Atlanta GA
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Urban Area
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
All 498 Area Average
3,775.0
3,850.0
3,900.0
3,940.0
3,980.0
4,020.0
4,070.0
4,130.0
4,170.0
4,200.0
4,304.0
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Population
(000)
Population
(000)
383
385
392
406
416
426
434
434
441
445
448
Excess CO2 Due to Congestion
Congested CO2
CO2 per Peak
Pounds (million)
Auto Commuter
(pounds)
1,272
547
1,323
547
1,412
593
1,465
616
1,480
616
1,551
616
1,514
616
1,475
593
1,244
479
1,217
456
1,268
456
Annual Congestion Cost
Total Dollars
per Auto
(million)
Commuter ($)
Excess CO2 Due to Congestion
Congested CO2
CO2 per Peak
Pounds (million)
Auto Commuter
(pounds)
94
388
99
417
105
432
111
432
118
451
124
451
126
451
127
448
108
380
110
374
112
376
Annual Congestion Cost
Total Dollars
per Auto
(million)
Commuter ($)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,305.00
2,457.00
2,601.00
2,752.00
2,949.00
3,289.00
3,370.00
3,190.00
2,939.00
2,949.00
3,095.00
144.80
155.32
166.49
180.40
200.91
224.02
235.70
242.74
221.65
229.78
233.54
55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,393.00
1,455.00
1,521.00
1,593.00
1,690.00
1,865.00
1,888.00
1,276.00
1,122.00
1,092.00
1,106.00
609.00
639.00
662.00
685.00
739.00
802.00
822.00
858.00
782.00
782.00
785.00