The evaluation of navigation projects has evolved from a standard procedure done strictly by engineers and economists to a process that involves a wide range of stakeholders. Not surprisingly, these diverse stakeholders have different views regarding what should count in the benefit–cost analysis of water resource development projects and how the effects are to be economically valued. The methodologies that are described have been used to measure and monetize some of the externalities of inland navigation, the benefits and costs of which have not traditionally been included in benefit–cost ratios. The emphasis is the benefits (lower air emissions) associated with freight transport via water compared with those of other modes, particularly truck.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GriffinR. C., JamesA. P., and BasilottoJ. P.A Synthesis of Modern, Professional Economic Wisdom and Literature Pertaining to Navigation Projects. Research Report 467109-1. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., February 1997.
2.
TolliverD.Analysis of the Energy, Emission, and Safety Impacts of Alternative Improvements to the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System: UMR-IWW System Navigation Study. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Rock Island, Ill., August 2000.
3.
LeeN. S., and CasavantK.Impacts of a Snake River Drawdown on Energy Consumption and Environmental Emissions in Transporting Eastern Washington Wheat and Barley. EWITS Research Report Number 23. Eastern Washington Intermodal Transportation Study, Washington State University, Pullman, Wash., April 1998.
MaibachM., SchenkelP., PeterD., and GehrigS.Environmental Indicators in Transport, Measures for Ecological Comparisons Between Various Means of Transport.Consulting Group for Policy Analysis and Implementation (INFRAS), Zurich, Switzerland, 1997.
6.
MaibachM., BanfiS., DollC., RothengatterW., SchenkelP., SieberN., and ZuberJ.External Costs of Transport: Accident, Environmental, and Congestion Costs in Western Europe. Consulting Group for Policy Analysis and Implementation (INFRAS), Zurich, Switzerland, and Instituts für Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftsforschung (IWW), Karlsruhe, Germany, March 2000.
7.
White Paper: European Transport Policy for 2010—Time to Decide. European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2001.
8.
EastmanS. E.Fuel Efficiencies in Freight Transportation.American Waterway Operators, Inc., Arlington, Va., June 1980.
9.
DavisS.Transportation Energy Databook, Edition 19.Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1999.
10.
DavisS.Transportation Energy Databooks, Editions 18–22. Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 1998–2002.
11.
DavisS.Transportation Energy Databook, Edition 22.Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 2002.
12.
BrayL. G., DagerC. A., HenryR. L., and KoroaM. C.River Efficiency, Fuel Taxes, and Modal Shifts: Tennessee Valley Authority Model Assists Policy Makers. TR News, No. 221, July–August 2002, pp. 18–22.
13.
HarringtonW., McConnellV. D., and CannonM.1998. A Behavioral Analysis of EPA's MOBILE Emission Factor Model. Discussion Paper 98-4d7. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 1998.
14.
Modeling Mobile-Source Emissions.TRB, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000.
15.
Limitations of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Model and Plans to Address Them. GAO/RCED-97-210. U.S. General Accounting Office, 1997.
16.
DelucchiM. A.Analysis of Particulate Matter Emission Factors in the PART5 Model. Report UCD-ITS-RR-00-21. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Calif., 2000.
17.
EPA's New Generation Mobile Source Emissions Model: Initial Proposal and Issues. EPA420-R-01-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001.
18.
HubbellB. J.Evaluating the Health Benefits of Air Pollution Reductions: Recent Developments at the U.S. EPA. Presented at the U.K. DETR/U.N. ECE Symposium on the Measurement and Economic Valuation of Health Effects of Air Pollution, London, U.K., Institute of Materials, London, Feb. 19–20, 2001.
19.
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-R-00-026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000.
20.
AlberiniA., CropperM., KrupnickA., and SimonN.Does the Value of a Statistical Life Vary with Age and Health Status? Evidence from the United States and Canada. Discussion Paper 02-19. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 2002.
21.
GrahamJ. D.Benefit–Cost Methods and Lifesaving Rules. Memorandum to the President's Management Council from J. D. Graham, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003.
22.
Program Update: Reducing Air Pollution from Nonroad Engines. EPA420-F-03-011. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003.
23.
Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2001 Status and Trends. EPA454/K-02-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 2002.
24.
SchrankD., and LomaxT.The 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report.Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., 2003. Available from mobility.tamu.edu, Accessed August 2003.
25.
Mobility and the Costs of Congestion in New Jersey.National Center for Transportation and Industrial Productivity, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J., 2000.
26.
ZiliaskopoulosT.Advanced Traffic Modeling Tools. Presented at the Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, Va., Nov. 18, 2003.
27.
DOT Performance Plan—FY 2003 and Performance Report—FY 2001.U.S. Department of Transportation, March 2002.
CasavantK.Inland Waterborne Transportation: An Industry Under Siege.Agriculture Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000.
30.
PimentalD., LachL., ZunigaR., and MorrisonD.Environmental and Economic Costs Associated with Non-indigenous Species in the United States.College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1999.
31.
The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010: EPA Report to Congress.Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999.
32.
McCubbinD., and DelucchiM.The Social Cost of the Health Effects of Motor Vehicle Air Pollution. Report UCD-ITS-RR-96-3(11). Institute for Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 1996.
33.
Highway Economic Requirements System. Technical Report, Version 3.1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1999.
34.
ChatterjeeA., WegmannF. J., JacksonN. M., EverettJ. D., and BrayL. G.Effect of Increased Truck Traffic from Chickamauga Lock Closure. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1763, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 80–84.
35.
ChatterjeeA., WegmannF. W., EverettJ. D., DagerC., and JacksonN. M.Impacts of Changes in Truck Traffic Due to the Extension of Navigation on Southwest Arkansas River. Unpublished Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 2002.
36.
Soo Locks Study.Center for Business and Economic Research, Marshall University, Huntington, W. Va., undated.
