Economic Impact Analysis of Accelerated Bridge Construction

Funda Yavuz, Turner Joseph Solterman, Upul Bandara Attanayake, Haluk Mehmet Aktan

Abstract Traffic disruption due to bridge construction has been reduced to sev-eral hours with the development of the state-of-the-art bridge construction meth-ods characterized as Accelerated Bridge Construction. Even though Accelerated Bridge Construction brings in many benefits, risks and additional work involved with the specific construction method selected for a site result in increased initial project cost. Primarily the savings in user cost due to minimum impact to com-muters and commercial traffic is used to justify Accelerated Bridge Construction implementation even though there is an increase in initial project cost. Reduced risk for traffic within work zone, cost for maintenance of traffic, impact on the en-vironment, and economic impact of surrounding communities and businesses are the other benefit parameters. Even though more than 120 Accelerated Bridge Construction projects were implemented throughout the U.S., except the user cost, many of the other benefit parameters are not rationally calculated. This article presents a model that is developed to quantify the economic impact to the sur-rounding communities and businesses due to a construction project with an em-phasis on Accelerated Bridge Construction.

1 Introduction

A roadway closure due to bridge construction project results in major concerns regarding safety and cost. The duration of a roadway closure, called mobility im-pact time, induces different types of costs to surroundings. Hence, accelerated bridge construction (ABC) technologies are implemented over conventional con-struction (CC) techniques in order to reduce mobility impact time. This aim of ABC brings along complexity, risk and time constraints. These three main factors require innovative methodologies which contribute to the additional construction cost. Due to this reason, initial cost of an ABC is 6% to 21% higher than CC [1]. On the other hand, Table 1 shows qualitative and quantitative benefit parameters associated with ABC [2]. From these benefit parameters, the savings in economic impact on surrounding businesses and surrounding communities is considered as a benefit for the justification of ABC. In this paper, economic impact on surround-ing communities is quantified by considering user cost of passenger car driver and passenger and environmental costs of air pollution, water contamination and cli-mate change. Economic impact on surrounding businesses is quantified by consid-

ering user costs for commercial trucks and economic activity costs due to change in accessibility to the businesses.

Table 1. Benefit Parameters

Benefit Parameter

Quantitative Parameters

1. Level of service (LOS) on facility carried(FC) 2. Impact on nearby major intersection/highway-rail grade

crossing with full closure of FC (Bridge) 3. LOS on feature intersect (FI) 4. Impact on nearby major intersection/highway-rail grade

crossing due to (FI) traffic 5. LOS on detour 6. Maintenance of traffic (MOT) cost 7. Life-cycle cost 8. Economic impact on surrounding communities (user

costs, environmental cost) 9. Economic impact on surrounding businesses (user cost

for commercial trucks, economic activity cost) 10. Risk for traffic within work zone 11. Construction duration

Qualitative Parameters

1. Stakeholder’s limitations 2. Seasonal limitations 3. Site condition complexities 4. Environmental protection near and within the site

2. Literature Review

Highway construction can cause many disturbances throughout the duration of the project and these negative impacts include economic losses and annoyances which the surroundings of the construction face [3]. Furthermore, FHWA states that so-cial, economic, and environmental costs associated with highway construction and operation that are born by public agencies but that fall upon others must be con-sidered in investment and other highway management decisions [4]. In order to achieve clear understanding and correct quantification of costs, there is a need to categorize associated costs.

There are different approaches on how to group the costs. One approach is to define those under four categories such as; traffic, economic activities, pollution, and ecological, social, health related costs solely due to construction process since surrounding ecological, sociological and economical systems are directly impact-ed by construction activities [5]. In terms of mobility impact time comparison, one of the similar topics to ABC and CC is trenchless technology vs open cut methods.

The major cost groups associated with the trenchless technique analogy are deter-mined as road damage, damage to adjacent utilities, damage to adjacent structures, noise and vibration, air pollution, vehicular traffic disruption, pedestrian safety, business and trade loss, damage to detour roads, site safety, citizen complaints and environmental impacts [6]. The social cost categories used in the comparison of trenchless technologies and open cut methods for pavements in another study are defined as adverse impacts on traffic conditions (e.g., delays and increased vehicle operating expenses); environmental costs; costs resulting from decreased safety (e.g., higher rate of traffic accidents and risk to pedestrians); accelerated deteriora-tion of road surfaces; lower business turnovers; decreased property values; and damage to existing utilities or adjacent foundations [7]. In another study about jus-tification of trenchless technology over open cut methods, the cost categories are defined as traffic delay and vehicle operating cost; parking loss and pavement res-toration; noise pollution and air pollution; dirt pollution and loss of business reve-nue [8].

User cost calculations are essential for quantification of economic impacts of a bridge construction projects. The user cost model including driver delay costs, ve-hicle operating cost and accident cost from [2] is utilized with a minor improve-ments in this study.

The emissions due to motor vehicle use cause air pollution, water pollution and other forms of environmental damage [9]. The environmental damage is quanti-fied based on impacts on humans, material and ecosystems [10] and called envi-ronmental costs. Environmental cost groups are divided into air pollution cost, wa-ter contamination cost and climate change cost in the framework of this study.

Analysis of the literature on economic impact models shows that another essen-tial cost category is economic activity. Bridge construction projects can potentially disrupt the flow of customers that provide business revenue [11]. The general ways for quantification business revenue change are conducting surveys, and ob-taining the tax data during the construction [12], [13], [14]. Another evaluation approach to local business revenue change due to bypass projects are conducting interviews [15] and utilizing econometric models such as panel data analysis, mixed effects models and spatial econometric models with time series data [16],[17]. Even though there are different approaches used to quantify the business revenue change costs, all of the literature use the traffic flow changes in their models. In [18] and [19] it is pointed out that influence area means the spatial range that the change of traffic flow pattern is remarkable after the construction of highway facilities and it would be a significant criterion for economic activity analysis. Therefore there is a need to designate the influence area of a construc-tion project in order to conduct economic activity analysis associated with the construction project.

3. Cost Categories

Traditionally, the benefit parameters are limited to detour length and duration of travel on detour for cost analysis of ABC projects. From these benefit parameters, savings in user cost are calculated associated with and ABC Project. Based on the literature this is underestimation of benefit parameters. In this article, the quantita-tive cost parameters are grouped as shown in Fig 1 to have a clear and full range of cost estimation associated with any bridge construction project.

Fig 1. The cost categories of economic impact analysis of ABC

3.1 User Costs

User costs are calculated as driver delay cost (DD) (Eqn. 1), vehicle operating cost (VOC) (Eqn. 2) and accident costs (AC) (Eqn. 3) associated with reduced speed limit in the work zone [2].

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = � 𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎− 𝐿𝐿

𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛� 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 1

𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = � 𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎− 𝐿𝐿

𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛� 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 2

𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉 = 𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥𝑎𝑎 − 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛)𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 3

where, L is length of the affected roadway due to bridge construction (i.e., work zone length);Sa is speed limit within the work-zone; Sn is normal speed limit of the roadway; ADT is average daily traffic of the roadway; N is construction days

affecting the work zone; w is weighted-average cost per hour for the personal and commercial drivers based on truck traffic; r is weighted-average vehicle cost per hour for the personal and commercial vehicles based on truck traffic; Aa is acci-dent rate per vehicle-mile due to work zone; An is normal accident rate; and Ca is cost per accident.

The proposed method to calculate user costs includes average vehicle occupan-cy (AVO) for passenger cars [26]. For this reason, the model proposed in [2] is improved to handle passenger costs. Passenger delay cost (PD) with Eqn. 4 and passenger accident cost (PAC) with Eqn. 5 are be quantified.

𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 = � 𝐿𝐿𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎− 𝐿𝐿

𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛� 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 − 1) 4

𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉 = 𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥𝑎𝑎 − 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛)𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 − 1) 5

where, 𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 is average vehicle occupancy for passenger cars, 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 is average medi-cal cost per accident per person (accident cost without considering damage cost of vehicle).

When the bridge is closed due to rehabilitation, the users need to take the de-tour. It is proposed in [2] Eq. 6 and Eq. 7 for DD and VOC respectively while tak-ing detour. Eqn. 8 and Eqn. 10 are proposed for the calculation of AC for driver and passenger. Eqn. 9 is the PD due to detour taken.

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = (𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷 − 𝑥𝑥𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 6

𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = (𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷 − 𝑥𝑥𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 7

𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉 = (𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷 − 𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎 8

𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷 = (𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷 − 𝑥𝑥𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑀𝑀𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 − 1) 9

𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉 = (𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷 − 𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑥𝑥(𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 − 1) 10

where 𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷 is time to travel via detour; 𝑥𝑥𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 is time to travel on the bridge for FC us-er cost or under the bridge for FI user cost; 𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 is volume of traffic on the roadway to be impacted during the ABC window; 𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷 is the length of detour; 𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 is the length of closed part of the road.

3.2 Environmental costs

The three major cost groups under environmental costs are air pollution, water contamination and climate change. The construction related environmental costs are not included in the context of this study.

Air pollution causes broad spectrum of impacts on humans including acute and chronic health diseases, premature mortality, and cardiovascular illnesses. The physical impacts of air pollution on human health can be monetized according to their associated diseases. The pollutants used in the analysis are as carbon monox-ide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉2); ozone (𝑉𝑉3); and particulate matter (PM), in-cluding PM less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃2.5), and PM be-tween 2.5 microns and 10 microns (coarse𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃10). Eqn. 11 shows the calculation method during construction while traffic is allowed in the work zone and Eqn. 12 show the quantification during traffic closure.

𝑉𝑉𝑃𝑃 = 𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉𝑝𝑝 ∗ 𝐸𝐸 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥 ∗ 𝑥𝑥 ∗ 𝐿𝐿 ∗ (𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥 − 𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊) 11

𝑉𝑉𝑃𝑃 = 𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉𝑝𝑝 ∗ 𝐸𝐸 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝑃𝑃 ∗ (𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷 ∗ 𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷 − 𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥 ∗ 𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥) 12

where CP is cost of pollutant; 𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉𝑝𝑝 is unit cost of pollutant, E is emission of the pollutant; 𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 is the speed correction factor for speed limit before the construc-tion; 𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 is the speed correction factor for speed limit during construction; 𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷 is the speed correction factor for speed limit for detour road.

The reduced visibility cost is determined by considering the asset value of homes; the property damage is determined by the cost of discoloring and damages on building facades; agricultural cost is determined by the crop shortfalls; forestry cost is determined by the decline in timber growth due to exposure of air pollution [21][22][23]. Non health impacts under air pollution can be quantified as a per-centage of health costs due to air pollution with a lower and upper bound in Table 2 [20].

Table 2. The cost of non-health impacts of motor vehicle air pollution as a percentage of the cost of the health impacts

Non-health impact Low High

Reduced visibility cost 10% 19%

Agricultural cost 2% 17%

Property damage cost 3% 1%

Forestry 1% 1%

Fuels and chemicals can spill and leak into oceans, rivers lakes and groundwa-

ter which is harmful for human health, injure and kill wildlife [20]. Eqn. 13 shows the quantification method for the cost of water pollution due to bridge construction project. Water contamination cost is measured due to detour introducing extra miles travelled only since water pollution does not vary with reduced speed.

𝑉𝑉𝑊𝑊𝑃𝑃 = 𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉𝑤𝑤𝑝𝑝 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝑃𝑃 ∗ (𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷 − 𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥) 13

where CWP is cost of water pollution; 𝑈𝑈𝑉𝑉𝑤𝑤𝑝𝑝 is the unit cost of water pollution with the vehicle type.

Transportation activities crates in pollutants that contributes the climates change. These pollutants are called greenhouse gases (GHG) which can be ex-plained as 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉2 equivalent values. This equivalency is addressed as global warm-ing potential (GWP) of other GHG (Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Air Conditioning Refrigerant). Eqn. 14 points out the calculation methodology of climate change cost due to bridge construction project. The unit emission of 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉2 used in the quan-tification in the framework of this study includes 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉2 equivalent mass units using GWP values [24].

𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = 𝑆𝑆𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 ∗ 𝐸𝐸 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝐷𝐷𝑥𝑥 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝑃𝑃 ∗ (𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷 − 𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥) 14

where CCC is cost of climate change; SCCO2 is the unit social cost of CO2; E is the GHG emissions.

3.3 Economic Activity Costs

The designation of influence area of an ABC associated with economic activity can set either by traffic demand models or up to analyst if the traffic network is easy and simple [25]. After the designation of influence area based on the litera-ture given above, the change in revenue is determined as a function of change in number of customers, average money spend by them and mobility impact time in Eq. 15. The number of customer depends on the change in traffic flow, their deci-sion assumption and the frequency (Eqn. 16).

The change in revenue should be calculated differently for different type of businesses.

𝛥𝛥𝑅𝑅 = 𝑥𝑥𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆 ∗ 𝛥𝛥𝑉𝑉 ∗ 𝑥𝑥𝑃𝑃 15

𝛥𝛥𝑉𝑉 = 𝑃𝑃% ∗ 𝐻𝐻𝑊𝑊𝑥𝑥 ∗ 𝑆𝑆𝑥𝑥𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 16

Where 𝛥𝛥𝑅𝑅 is the change in revenue; 𝑥𝑥𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆 is the average money spent by the household to one type of establishment; 𝛥𝛥𝑉𝑉 is the change in number of customer; HWA is the number of houses without direct access during TM, F is the frequency of visiting one type of establishment in a given period of time; %P is the percent of households deciding not to go to area influenced by the project during TM.

In the quantification process the authors assumed that P% is 100%. The potential questions to collect site specific data in order to have a more real-

istic data on P%;

• If the bridge is closed to traffic for two days, would you still go into the area in-fluenced by the construction and continue your weekend routine (shopping, eat-ing, etc.)?

• If no, what type of business/store (gas station, party store, grocery store, phar-macy, auto repair, etc.) would you still make an effort to go to?

For the sake of comparison, the same potential questions are asked about CC.

Another parameter which needs to be determined is the frequency of their visit to different establishment types. In order to obtain a frequency values, the question proposed in the survey is;

• How often do you go to the following businesses/stores? Restaurants: per week; Party/liquor Store: per week; Gas Stations: per month; Pharmacy: per quarter; Auto Repair: per quarter

5. Case Study- M100 ABC Bridge in Potterville, MI

An ABC project took place on M-100 in Potterville in 2015. The sliding occurred during a weekend therefore TM is only 2 days; N is 287 days. For the comparison purposes, if the construction choice was CC, TM is assumed as 180 days and no work zone pass is allowed. The detour length, affected road segment, speed limits, ADT and CADT are obtained from bridge plans. All monetary values are brought to 2015 by applying inflation rate. All calculations are conducted accordingly.

The user costs due to ABC on M-100 in Potterville, MI are calculated in Table 3. The basic databases used in the user cost calculations are ATRI, NHTSA, FHWA, and USDOT. The environmental costs due to ABC on M-100 in Potter-ville, MI are calculated in Table 4. The basic databases used in the environmental cost calculations are EPA, FHWA, US Department of Energy, [9] and [20].

Table 3. User costs of ABC Table 4. Environmental costs of ABC

ABC CC

Personal travel costs Driver $184,927 $1,189,160

Passenger $86,671 $557,316 Commercial travel costs

Driver $12,897 $63,042

ABC CC

Air pollution cost Health $3,288 $41,202

Reduced Visibility $605 $7,582 Crop Damage $526 $6,594 Forest Damage $4 $55 Material Damage $160 $2,005 Water pollution cost $3 $263 Climate change cost $269 $24,210

Fig 2. The area wihout direct acces to Downtown, Potterville

Fig 3. The influence area of ABC

The number of houses without direct access due to ABC project is determined by unifying the mid points of shortest distances to the closest neighbor cities of Potterville (Fig 2). The number of households in that area is 250. The influence area of ABC is shown in Fig 3 as the downtown of Potterville. Therefore the cal-culations are conducted accordingly. The frequencies are determined as once in a week for restaurant and a party/liquor store; once in a month for a gas station; pharmacy and auto repair shop per quarter. %P value is assumed as %100 and left to be quantified with surveys for next study. The basic data base used is DEMOGRAPHICSNOW for Potterville. The average annual household dollar values are obtained for retail sales and manipulated to assumed frequency dura-tion. The revenue losses due to construction activities are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Revenue losses according to business types due to ABC

ABC CC

Business revenue loss

Auto repair shop $368 $33,125 Liquor Store $198 $17,802 Restaurant $1,621 $145,880 Gas Station $4,878 $439,000 Pharmacy $715 $64,375

6. Summary and Conclusions

ABC has several benefit parameters over CC due to short duration of mobility im-pact time, even though it has a higher initial cost. While a few of these benefits are qualitative, the many of them are quantitative. In this study, formulations were proposed with the basic databases to quantify the costs to surrounding business and costs surrounding communities due to bridge construction. The total cost comparison (Table 6) was made in between ABC and CC for Potterville as a case study.

Table 6. Total costs associated with ABC and CC

ABC (2015$) CC (2015$)

Costs to surrounding households $276,454 $1,828,387

Costs to surrounding businesses $20,677 $763,224

Total $297,131 $2,591,611

References

1. FHWA (2011). Accelerated Bridge Construction-Experience in Design, Fabri-cation and Erection Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems. No. FHWA-HIF-12-013, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), McLean, VA.

2. Aktan H., Attanayeke U., (2015). Research on Evaluation and Standardization of Accelerated Bridge Construction Techniques, Report: MDOT RC-1618A, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI.

3. Ferguson A., (2012). Qualitative evaluation of transportation construction relat-ed social costs and their impacts on local community, University of Texas, Ar-lington, TX

4. FHWA (1997).Federal Highway Summary Report, Other Highway-Related Costs, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), < https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/summary/sum5.cfm> (March 28, 2016)

5. Allouche, E.N., Gilchrist, A. (2004). Quantification of Social Costs Associated with Construction Projects: State-of-the-Art Review. Tunneling and Under-ground Space Technology, 20, 89-104.

6. Gangavarapu B, Najafi M., Salem O., (2004) Quantitative analysis and compar-ison of traffic disruption using open-cut and trenchless methods of pipe installa-tion. No-Dig, New Orleans, LA. Arlington, VA: North American Society for Trenchless Technology.

7. Matthews J. C., Allouche E. N., Sterling R. L., (2014). Social Cost Impact As-sessment of Pipeline Infrastructure Projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review

8. Islam A., Allouche E. N., Matthews J. C., (2014). Assessment of social cost savings in trenchless projects, North American Society for Trenchless Technol-ogy (NASST), Orlando, FL.

9. Delucci M. (1999) Environmental Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use in the US. Journal of Transport Economic and Policy, May 2000, Vol 34, pp 135-168

10.Peter B. (1997) Monetization of Environmental Impacts of Roads, Highway Planning and Policy Branch Information Management Section, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Victoria, British Columbia.

11.De Solminihac, H., Harrison R. (1993). Analyzing Effects of Highway Con-structionon Businesses. Transportation Research Record 1395, pp 137-143.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC

12.Wolffing C., Liesman J., Young R., Ksaibati K. (2004). Highway Construction Related Business Impacts: Phase I Report, Report: FHWA-WY-04/01F, Wyo-ming Department of Transportation, Laramie, WY

13.Schieck S., Young R. (2005) Highway Construction Related Business Impacts: Phase II Report, Report: FHWA-WY-04/01F, Wyoming Department of Trans-portation, Laramie, WY

14.Buffington J. L., Wildenthal M. T. (1997). Estimated Construction Period Im-pact of Widening State Highway 199 in Parker County, Texas, Report: FHWA-TX-98-1260-2, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX

15.Handy S., Kubly S., Larsen D., Sralla J., Vanka S., Oden M. (2000). Economic Impacts of Highway Relief Routes on Small and Medium-Size Communities : Case Studies, Report: FHWA/TX-0-1843-3, Texas Department of Transporta-tion, Austin, TX

16.Kockelman K. M., Srinivasan S., Handy S. L. (2000). Economic Impacts of Highway Relief Routes on Small and Medium-Size Communities : AN Econ-ometric Analysis, Report: FHWA/TX-01/1843-2, Texas Department of Trans-portation, Austin, TX

17.Mills J. B., Fricker J. D. (2011). Transportation and Socioeconomic Impacts of Bypasses on Communities: An Integrated Synthesis of Panel Data, Multilevel, and Spatial Econometric Models with Case Studies, NEXTRANS Re-port:029PY02

18.Kwak H., Kho S. Sul Y., Rhee S. (2009) Establishment of Influence Area using Select Link Analysis for Highway Inverstment Projects, Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 8

19.Forkenbrock D. J., Weisbrod G. E. (2001). Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, Report: NCHRP 456, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC.

20.Delucci M., McCubbin D. (2010). External Costs of Transport in the United States, A handbook of Transport Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MASS.

21.Delucci M., Murphy J., MucCubbin D., Kim J. (1996) The Cost of Reduced Visibility due to Particulate Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Report: UCD-

ITS-RR-96-3(13) Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA

22.Delucci M., Murphy J., MucCubbin D., Kim J. (1998) The Crop Damage Caused by Ozone Air pollution from Motor Vehicles, Report: UCD-ITS-RR-96-3(12) Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, CA

23.Swiss ARE (2005). External Cost of Transport in Switzerland, Swiss Federal Office of Spatial Development-2014 Revision, Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), Bern, Switzerland

24.EPA (2013) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 – Trends. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC.

25.WisDOT(2014) Guidance for Conducting Indirect Effects Analysis, Wisconsin Department of Transportation.(WisDOT), Waukesha, WI.

26.Paracha J., Mallela J. (2011) Road user Cost Analysis for Work Zone Applica-tions, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).