1-COLEY_Economic_Ana..

586 views
522 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
586
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
18
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Workshop slides and notes. Much more information about the concepts and tools provided in this workshop is available at the BCA.Net website and in the Economic Analysis Primer , FHWA IF-03-032 at www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/primer.htm
  • Let’s begin by providing some background about this workshop.
  • Understanding these 5 principles is key to understanding asset management. All of these ideas work together to help an agency make decisions to better address the needs of its infrastructure.
  • The application of EA to highway investments is not new. It was well-developed by AASHTO by 1960. Much methodological progress has been made since then though. Many State and local governments use EA tools in some capacity. Only a minority of agencies, however, regularly measure project net benefits in monetary terms, even for large projects. There remains a great potential for broader application of EA to highway investments. When I was in the division Office, our STIP and TIP included tables for the long term costs of projects which were always blank. When I asked our planner why, her response was, “The state never fills that in, how would they know that”
  • The application of EA to highway investments is not new. It was well-developed by AASHTO by 1960. Much methodological progress has been made since then though. Many State and local governments use EA tools in some capacity. Only a minority of agencies, however, regularly measure project net benefits in monetary terms, even for large projects. There remains a great potential for broader application of EA to highway investments. When I was in the division Office, our STIP and TIP included tables for the long term costs of projects which were always blank. When I asked our planner why, her response was, “The state never fills that in, how would they know that”
  • The application of EA to highway investments is not new. It was well-developed by AASHTO by 1960. Much methodological progress has been made since then though. Many State and local governments use EA tools in some capacity. Only a minority of agencies, however, regularly measure project net benefits in monetary terms, even for large projects. There remains a great potential for broader application of EA to highway investments. When I was in the division Office, our STIP and TIP included tables for the long term costs of projects which were always blank. When I asked our planner why, her response was, “The state never fills that in, how would they know that”
  • The application of EA to highway investments is not new. It was well-developed by AASHTO by 1960. Much methodological progress has been made since then though. Many State and local governments use EA tools in some capacity. Only a minority of agencies, however, regularly measure project net benefits in monetary terms, even for large projects. There remains a great potential for broader application of EA to highway investments. When I was in the division Office, our STIP and TIP included tables for the long term costs of projects which were always blank. When I asked our planner why, her response was, “The state never fills that in, how would they know that”
  • The above graph is a fairly typical profile of the monetized cost and benefit flows of a transportation project. The initial cost spike in year 0 represents the capital cost of building the project. Subsequent costs are attributable to maintenance (smaller bars) and periodic rehabilitations (medium height bars). Benefits build over time as traffic grows, due to the effect of the project in reducing future congestion and delay or increased reactionary maintenance costs that would have occurred without the project.
  • We recommend that you remove the triangular area for both of these cost types because they're similar across alternatives and the fact is that they're generally very small values compared to the agency costs and user costs associated with the major activities. This leaves discreet costs at certain times to be evaluated.
  • The BCA process should generally follow the steps summarized here. Critical to the process is the careful definition of the objectives of a project, the assumptions about future conditions and demand, and the identification of a comprehensive range of actions, including the continued operation of the facility under good management but without major investments —known as the base case or no build case. All alternatives are compared against the base case.
  • Once the analyst has calculated all benefits and costs of the project alternatives and discounted them, there are several measures to compare benefits to costs in BCA. The FHWA recommends the use of either the NPV or BCR measures for most economic evaluations (see next slides).
  • With the probabilistic approach, we have different methods. We can evaluate the uncertainty using statistical analysis and not rely on graphing point data. Inputs are defined by the range of values and likelihoods instead of a single number. We'll show this in a few slides here. Through simulation, by using a multitude of iterations of deterministic calculations using these range of values, outputs are expressed as a range of possible values and the probability of occurrence. Just like deterministic inputs, probabilistic inputs are based upon historical data, expert opinion, and research. Probabilistic analysis allows for simultaneous variability among inputs with the probabilistic outputs expressed as ranges of values with calculated likelihoods of occurrence through basic statistical analysis. In simulation modeling, you can vary all the inputs at one time and come up with a potential output or the present value curve of the outputs. So, you can have multiple inputs that you change within your model as opposed to being able to change only a single input to get a sensitivity analysis. This method is defined as a Monte Carlo simulation. The Monte Carlo approach allows all the range of inputs to be included in the model to get the present value which is represented as a potential range of values. Probabilistic analysis results are obtained by using simulation software. We will perform a Monte-Carlo simulation later in this course. The LCCA outputs are a function of several inputs, such as agency costs, user costs and discount rates, which we believe all may vary independently. Probabilistic analysis allows for simultaneous variation of inputs. An entire probability distribution of LCCs is generated for the project alternative along with the mean or average LCC for that alternative. By including all possible values for the analysis inputs in relation to their probability of occurrence, risk analysis elevates the LCCA debate from contesting the validity of results to deciding best public policy.
  • Having completed a simulation of our probabilistic inputs, let’s look at our outputs (or more correctly, our output distribution). Let’s assume that we are looking at total project cost and describe our outputs through some of the mechanisms that we have reviewed in this module. Note that we have bounded the range of possible costs: The range is 3.3 – 2.9 = 0.4. We have identified likelihoods of occurrence. Our best case scenario is 2.9, the worst case scenario is 3.3, and the most likely outcome is about 3.1.
  • Summing the area under the frequency distribution, we can form a cumulative distribution of project costs as shown on the slide. The cumulative distribution function shows the likelihood of occurrence of values less than or equal to the derived project cost. Using our cumulative distribution function we can now investigate the likelihood of meeting specific outputs. While the output can range from 2.9 to 3.3, the likelihood of the project costing exactly either of these amounts is extremely small because these values are at the tails of the distribution. Using the cumulative distribution function we can now align reliability estimates with project cost. For example, there is a 90% chance that the project cost will be 3.2 or less . There is even an 50% chance that the project cost will be about 3.1 or less . However, there is only a 10% chance that the project cost can be brought in for 3.0 or less.
  • Let’s see how we might compare the distributions of total project cost for two competing alternatives A and B keeping in mind their variability and most likely values. As we examine the two distributions we can easily see that there is greater uncertainty associated with Alternative A because it is more spread out than Alternative B which is narrow. The range of costs for alternative A is 0.4 (i.e. 3.3-2.9) which is greater than that for Alternative B which is 0.1 (i.e. 3.2-3.1). However, the most likely values for Alternative A are less than that for Alternative B (about 3.15 compared to 3.1). Let’s evaluate these alternatives using a cumulative distribution function (CDF).
  • Let's compare alternatives A and B.  This shows that 84% of the simulation outcomes for both alternatives are less than $3.15 million. To determine the percentage of Alt A outcomes that are less than all outcomes for Alt B the simulation results can be sorted from low to high and the corresponding number of outcomes where Alt A is less than the minimum for Alt B converted into a percentage.  This is shown on the graph as 64% which represents the percentage of simulation outcomes for Alt A that are less than all outcomes for Alt B.
  • The application of EA to highway investments is not new. It was well-developed by AASHTO by 1960. Much methodological progress has been made since then though. Many State and local governments use EA tools in some capacity. Only a minority of agencies, however, regularly measure project net benefits in monetary terms, even for large projects. There remains a great potential for broader application of EA to highway investments. When I was in the division Office, our STIP and TIP included tables for the long term costs of projects which were always blank. When I asked our planner why, her response was, “The state never fills that in, how would they know that”
  • The application of EA to highway investments is not new. It was well-developed by AASHTO by 1960. Much methodological progress has been made since then though. Many State and local governments use EA tools in some capacity. Only a minority of agencies, however, regularly measure project net benefits in monetary terms, even for large projects. There remains a great potential for broader application of EA to highway investments. When I was in the division Office, our STIP and TIP included tables for the long term costs of projects which were always blank. When I asked our planner why, her response was, “The state never fills that in, how would they know that”
  • The most basic economic questions that people face in their day-to-day personal and business lives involve the tradeoffs between dollars earned, spent, or invested today and those dollars they hope to earn, spend, or invest in the future. Such tradeoffs must also be considered when evaluating highway and other transportation investments.
  • The BCA.Net tool enables users to manage data for an analysis; select from a wide array of sample economic values; develop multi-segment cases corresponding to alternative strategies for managing highway facilities; evaluate and compare the benefits and costs of improvements; and provide summary indicators for supporting resource allocation decisions. It has flexible report writing capabilities and can accommodate risk analysis.
  • Now lets talk about Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. Here we have the definition as written in TEA 21. Essentially we are using LCCA as an analytical tool to provide a cost comparison between two or more competing design alternatives that produce equivalent benefits for the project being analyzed.
  • There are two notable research studies in Bridge Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. The firs is a report and software package completed as part of NCHRP 12-43 called Bridge Life Cycle Cost Analysis The second is a software package developed by NIST called Bridge Life Cycle Cost(BLCC)
  • Each of these software packages gets into predicting deterioration rates for the bridges and timing the countermeasure activities
  • Here is a pictorial of how the FHWA RealCost Softwre performs the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. The user inputs the project parameters such as traffic growth and characteristic data, discount rate, timing for activities, and costs etc.. The RealCost software models the traffic conditions as far as how the workzones will impact traffic. It then calculates the present value of the life cycle costs for the project and displays the outputs in various forms for the user to evaluate.
  • 1-COLEY_Economic_Ana..

    1. 1. Benefit Cost Analysis Nathaniel D. Coley Jr. Economic Analysis Program FHWA Office Of Asset Management
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Economic Analysis and Asset Management </li></ul><ul><li>Benefit Cost Analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Activities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guidance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Existing Tools </li></ul>
    3. 3. Transportation Economic Analysis(Definition) <ul><li>“ Transportations Economic Analysis is the analysis of the design, construction, preservation, maintenance, and consumption of transportation assets and services and the impact of those activities on direct and indirect users and the environment.” </li></ul><ul><li>Nat Coley </li></ul>
    4. 4. Economic Analysis Supports the Vision <ul><li>We seek to link user expectations and needs for system condition, performance, and availability with system management and investment strategies over an extended time horizon. </li></ul><ul><li>We maintain, upgrade, and operate our transportation assets to meet or exceed the needs of our transportation users for the long term. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Asset Management Principles 4 DECISIONS BASED ON QUALITY INFORMATION – management systems and tools are used 2 PERFORMANCE BASED – clear measures of performance and target service levels are established 1 POLICY DRIVEN – decisions reflect policy goals and objectives that define desired system condition and service levels 3 OPTIONS EVALUATED – comprehensive choices and tradeoffs are examined at each level of decision-making 5 CLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY – performance results are monitored and reported
    6. 6. Leveraging BCA to Support Policies Transportation Asset Management Guide:Vol.2 A Focus on Implementation (Chapter 5)
    7. 7. New Transportation Bill <ul><li>National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission recommends: </li></ul><ul><li>“… Federal funding that is performance-based and focused on cost-beneficial outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>with accountability for the full range </li></ul><ul><li>of economic, environmental, and </li></ul><ul><li>social costs and benefits of </li></ul><ul><li>investments;” </li></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>Code of Federal Regulations Section 650 Various bridge projects require a Benefit Cost Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Section 627 Value Engineering – Projects over $25 million “establish a worth for that function, generate alternatives through the use of creative thinking, and provide the needed functions to accomplish the original purpose of the project, reliably, and at the lowest life-cycle cost without sacrificing safety, necessary quality, and environmental attributes of the project. “ </li></ul>FHWA Economic Analysis Activities
    9. 9. <ul><li>Section 450.320- Identification and evaluation of the anticipated performance and expected benefits of appropriate congestion management strategies that will contribute to the more effective use and improved safety of existing and future transportation systems based on the established performance measures. </li></ul><ul><li>Also Section 450 –”all of the reasonable alternatives under consideration must be fully evaluated in terms of their transportation impacts; capital and operating costs; social, economic, and environmental impacts ; and technical considerations” The benefit cost analysis model also assists practitioners develop reports required specifically by various National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) requirements </li></ul>FHWA Economic Analysis Activities
    10. 10. <ul><li>US Code Title 23 Section § 101 –Projects of National and Regional Significance: COMPETITIVE GRANT SELECTION AND CRITERIA FOR GRANTS. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to reduce congestion, including impacts in the State, region, and Nation; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to improve transportation safety, including reducing transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Grants for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery(T.I.G.E.R.) requirements </li></ul>FHWA Economic Analysis Activities
    11. 11. <ul><li>The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering Economic Analysis Practices for Highway Investment (NCHRP 20-05/Topic 41-03) </li></ul><ul><li>FHWA's Office of Operations Technology Services Developing a Benefit-Cost Analysis desk reference to assess investments in management and operations </li></ul><ul><li>BCA in Freight </li></ul>FHWA Economic Analysis Activities
    12. 12. Benefit Cost Analysis <ul><li>“ Benefit Cost Analysis is a calculation of the stream of both benefits and costs over the lifetime of the facility or strategy.” </li></ul><ul><li>FHWA Procedural Guidelines for Highway Feasibility Studies </li></ul>
    13. 13. Status of Economic Analysis – FHWA Guidance Typical Life-Cycle Profile <ul><li>Example Direct Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced Accident Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Reductions in Delay Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced noise or emissions </li></ul><ul><li>Example Indirect Benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Land use impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Employment </li></ul><ul><li>Non-user benefits </li></ul>16 17 18 19 20 Initial Capital Cost Year Dollars Benefits Costs 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
    14. 14. Benefits Activities Major Activity Initial Activity Costs Calculate Present Values of Costs and Benefits $ $ Time Time What is the present value of future sums?
    15. 15. Method BCA Process <ul><li>Define objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Specify assumptions </li></ul><ul><li>Identify base case and alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>Set analysis period </li></ul><ul><li>Define level of effort </li></ul><ul><li>Analyze traffic </li></ul><ul><li>Estimate benefits and costs </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate risk </li></ul><ul><li>Compare net benefits and rank alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>Make recommendations </li></ul>
    16. 16. Recommended BCA Measures <ul><li>Net Present Value (NPV) </li></ul><ul><li>Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) </li></ul><ul><li>Other measures include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Equivalent Uniform Annual Value (EUAV) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal Rate of Return (IRR) </li></ul></ul>Status of Economic Analysis – FHWA Guidance
    17. 17. User Costs in LCCA <ul><li>User Costs in the LCCA are differential Costs resulting from periods of construction, preservation, and/or rehabilitation activities between the alternates that generally restrict the capacity of the facility and disrupt normal traffic flow . </li></ul>
    18. 18. User Cost Components <ul><li>Vehicle Operating Costs(VOC) </li></ul><ul><li>Delay Costs </li></ul><ul><li>Crash Costs </li></ul>
    19. 19. User Cost Components <ul><li>Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>additional costs incurred by the vehicle for the additional speed changes, stops, miles for detours, hours of idling, etc. that are incurred because of work zone activities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Delay Costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Value($) of time for each vehicle classification used in the LCCA </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Crash Costs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the dollar value of the additional crash types attributed to the work-zone activities. </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. Calculating User Costs <ul><li>User costs are </li></ul><ul><li>… based on capacity flow analysis . </li></ul><ul><li>… a function of workzone impacts for the M&R strategy that you select for maintaining the alternate designs. </li></ul><ul><li>… are directly dependent on the volume and operating characteristics of the traffic on the facility. </li></ul>
    21. 21. <ul><li>Risk and Uncertainty </li></ul><ul><li>Boston Central Artery </li></ul><ul><li>1985-2007 $2.5 to $14+ Billion </li></ul>Status of Economic Analysis – FHWA Guidance
    22. 22. <ul><li>Probabilistic Analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Inputs are defined by their range of values and probability of occurrence (probability distribution) </li></ul><ul><li>Through simulation, outputs are expressed as ranges of values with probabilities of occurrence </li></ul>Inputs Output Status of Economic Analysis – FHWA Guidance
    23. 23. Simulation Results: Histogram Frequency 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Range = 0.4 Net Present Value (NPV), $Millions Best Case Worst Case Most Likely
    24. 24. Results: Cumulative Distribution 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Probability Net Present Value (NPV), $Millions 10% 50% 90%
    25. 25. Comparing Alternatives Frequency 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Alternative A Net Present Value (NPV), $Millions Alternative B
    26. 26. Comparing Alternatives 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Probability Alternative B Alternative A 3.15 Net Present Value (NPV), $Millions 64% 84%
    27. 27. <ul><li>FHWA Economic Analysis Primer </li></ul><ul><li>Benefit Cost and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Fundamentals and Steps </li></ul><ul><li>Provides guidance, recommended values for discount rates and sources of indexes for inflation, values of user time. </li></ul><ul><li>Discusses the consideration of forecasted traffic flows </li></ul><ul><li>Provides guidance on BCA in NEPA </li></ul>Status of Economic Analysis – FHWA Guidance
    28. 28. <ul><li>Grants for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery(T.I.G.E.R.) requirements (See Handout) </li></ul><ul><li>Interchange Access Approval Information Guide </li></ul><ul><li>FHWA Federal Guidelines for Highway Feasibility Studies: Economic Justifications are based on BCA </li></ul><ul><li>Office of Secretary of Transportation(OST) Value of time and value of life guidance </li></ul><ul><li>Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94 Guidance on Discount Rates </li></ul>Status of Economic Analysis – FHWA Guidance
    29. 29. BCA.net and BCA <ul><li>AASHTO Red Book </li></ul><ul><li>Transit Cooperatice Research Program(TCRP) Report 78 Environmental Impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) 2000 Developing Traffic inputs </li></ul>
    30. 30. <ul><li>web-based benefit-cost analysis tool </li></ul><ul><li>develop strategies for improving and managing assets; evaluate & compare the benefits and costs of the alternative strategies; provide summary metrics for investment decisions. </li></ul><ul><li>Calculates the traffic impacts and the present values of agency and user costs and externalities for the base case & alternative then compares them to arrive at measures including the net present value, benefit-cost ratio, and internal rate of return </li></ul>Economic Analysis Tools: BCA.net
    31. 31. Economic Analysis Tools: BCA.net <ul><li>Allows for multi-phased, multi-year programs of preservation or improvements enabling a lifecycle comparison of alternate strategies. </li></ul><ul><li>Enables the analysis of a range of capacity improvement strategies including lane widening, adding lanes and reversible lanes for roadways with skewed directional flows. </li></ul><ul><li>Models traffic conditions for multiple “representative days” to describe forecast facility use. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluates interchange/intersection improvements including the replacement or introduction of traffic control devices and signals. </li></ul><ul><li>Accounts for the effects of roadway conditions on trip cost and, in turn, the impact of trip cost changes on travel demand. </li></ul>
    32. 32. Economic Analysis Tools: BCA.net <ul><li>Has a full-featured risk analysis capability. </li></ul><ul><li>Models and calculates the life-cycle impacts on the environment </li></ul><ul><li>Project Benefits Calculated by BCA.net include </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time savings – the reduction in travel time by users of the roadway </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vehicle Costs reductions – the reduction in expenditures by users on fuel, oil, tires, vehicle maintenance and depreciation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Safety – the reduction in casualties and property damage from roadway crashes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emissions (CO, NOx) </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Economic Analysis Tools: BCA.net
    34. 34. BCA.Net – User Interface Format the data set that we will be analyzing How we plan to meet the objective of the project and specify the effects Define the base case values for traffic stream, input forecasts and assign our available strategies Specify the Distribution of traffic streams, delay times for interchange/intersection Parameters Assign Values inputs such as User costs, Discount Rate, set risk features of input values Specify our sampling routine and simulate the effects of our strategy
    35. 35. Economic Analysis Tools: BCA.net
    36. 36. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Definition <ul><li>Life-Cycle Cost Analysis is a process for evaluating the total economic worth of a usable project segment by analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs, such as maintenance, user, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoring, and resurfacing costs, over the life of the project segment. </li></ul><ul><li>Source: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century </li></ul>
    37. 37. LCCA Process <ul><li>1. Establish Alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>2. Determine Activity Timing </li></ul><ul><li>3. Estimate Agency & User Costs </li></ul><ul><li>4. Compute Life-Cycle Costs </li></ul><ul><li>5. Analyze the Results </li></ul>
    38. 38. Bridge LCCA Resources <ul><li>Bridge Life Cycle Cost Analysis(BLCCA) NCHRP Project 12-43 </li></ul><ul><li>Bridge Life-Cycle Cost(BLCC) National Institute of Technology(NIST) </li></ul><ul><li>PONTIS and FHWA RealCost Software </li></ul><ul><li>Webinar in February with example applications </li></ul>
    39. 39. BLCCA - NCHRP <ul><li>Defines the Bridge Using NBI Data </li></ul><ul><li>Has costing models for bridge condition and load capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Includes many costs for various bridge items </li></ul><ul><li>Performs a sensitivity analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Can’t analyze individual elements </li></ul>
    40. 40. BLCC NIST <ul><li>Performs the LCCA per individual Bridge Components </li></ul><ul><li>Can simulate randomness of variables through a probabilistic analysis(Monte Carlo Simulation) </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporates detailed costs of workzones </li></ul><ul><li>Does not provide detailed models for various costs </li></ul>
    41. 41. BridgeLCC(NIST) <ul><li>Analyzes preliminary design of highway bridges, roadways, piers, and other civil infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>includes sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo simulations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes FHWA CoRe Element System, user costs, probabilistic events, probabilistic costs, and exportable data and results. </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. BridgeLCC: Cost Summary
    43. 43. FHWA LCCA Software
    44. 44. The LCCA Process in RealCost Calculate Costs (User & Agency) Inputs (Traffic Data, Cost data, Discount Rate, etc) Outputs (NPV curves& analysis graphs) Evaluate Results in the Context of Project Objectives Model traffic conditions REALCOST FUNCTIONS Analyst Function Analyst Function
    45. 45. Thank You <ul><li>Nathaniel D. Coley Jr. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation and Economic Investment Team </li></ul><ul><li>FHWA Office of Asset Management </li></ul><ul><li>Washington, DC [email_address] 202-366-2171 </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/economic.cfm </li></ul>

    ×