- Geographic Scope. The monorail project affects the Seattle metropolitan area. The regions most immediately affected by the project will be areas serviced by the proposed green line and the redeployed feeder bus services, including downtown Seattle, the Seattle Center, and the stadium district.
- Time Period for Analysis. The time period for the analysis is from 2003 to 2029, which covers construction and 20 years of operation. A base year of 2002 is used for cost and benefit comparison, with values discounted to 2002 dollars.
- Benefits, Magnitude, and Value. Travel time savings were valued at $10.10 per hour, which is half the average wage rate for the region in 2002. Those who switch travel modes from automobile to the monorail benefited from parking cost savings, based on the average market value for parking in downtown Seattle, and auto cost savings ($0.365 per mile, with an average trip length of 5.77miles). In an unusual step, improved transit reliability added 10% of travel time savings. Also unusual was the estimated benefit of freed-up road capacity: trips that switch from roads to monorail added $0.15 per vehicle-mile traveled. The rate of bus accidents multiplied by the average cost per accident gave the value of accident reduction. Riders switching from cars to monorail benefited by the amount of an average cost of accidents per passenger mile.
|Benefit Type||Benefit Value (Millions, 2002$)|
|Value of travel time savings||$77.1|
|Reduced auto operating/ownership costs||$11.2|
|Road capacity for drivers||$4.6|
|Reduction in bus-related accidents||$3.7|
|Reduction in auto-related accidents||$2.6|
- Net present value B-C = $390,164,000
- Benefit-cost ratio B/C = 1.23
- Nominal Rate of Return = 7.95%
- Source: DJM Consulting and ECONorthwest. Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Proposed Monorail Green Line. Prepared for the Elevated Transportation Company, Seattle, WA. August 28, 2002.
- Base Case: Reconstruct the existing 5,400 ft. runway and taxiway. This is necessary to maintain the functioning of the runway.
- Alternative Base Case: No Capital Investment. In the short term, this forces the airport to bear increasing costs over time for basic maintenance. In the long term, it is infeasible as the runway would eventually become unusable.
- Project Case: Reconstruct and strengthen the existing 5,400 ft. runway and taxiway, extend it to 7,300 ft., and install new ILS. This alternative makes it possible for the airport to serve the larger aircraft needed by some area businesses.
- Alternative Project Case: Reconstruct and strengthen a different existing 6,700 ft. runway and taxiway, extend it to 7,300 ft., and relocate the ILS. This presents significant adverse environmental impacts and precludes the possibility of future expansion.
- Some were using several smaller cargo aircraft for major shipments instead of a single larger aircraft, resulting in higher total aircraft operating costs;
- Some were trucking cargo to or from a more distant airport with longer runways, resulting in higher ground transportation costs;
- When neither option was available or feasible, some users experienced late or incomplete delivery of incoming cargo, resulting in higher costs from overtime labor or lost revenue from production slowdowns.
|Project||B-C Ratio||Discount Rate||NPV of Net Benefit|
|Comparison Against Alternative #1 (reconstruction only) as Base Case|
|Alternative #3 (project case)||4.90||7%||+ $35.1 million|
|Alternative #4 (different runway)||5.27||7%||+ $35.8 million|
|Comparison Against Alternative #2 (no capital expenditure) as Base Case|
|Alternative #3 (project case)||3.23||7%||+ $30.5 million|
|Alternative #4 (different runway)||3.42||7%||+ $31.2 million|
- Source: Economic Development Research Group. Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Rock County Airport (JVL) Runway Extension. Prepared by Economic Development Research Group for Wisconsin Department of Transportation - Bureau of Aeronautics, submitted to Federal Aviation Administration. 2001.