Indicative Benefit/Cost Analysis of Road Trauma Countermeasures - Interim Report for Discussion

Monash University Accident Research Centre, August 1991

Authors: S. Torpey, K. Ogden, M. Cameron & P. Vulcan

Executive Summary

At the request of its Board of Management, the Monash University Accident Research Centre conducted a project to estimate the benefits and costs of road trauma countermeasures which could be introduced or escalated in Victoria.

Where possible, the economic worth of each project was calculated in three ways:

Community benefit/cost ratio where the benefits to the community were divided by the costs to the Government and the community.
Government benefit/cost ratio where the community benefits minus the community costs were divided by the Government costs, and
Net Present Value which is defined as net benefits minus net costs to community and Government.

Where an estimate of effectiveness of the measure was not available a calculation was made about the level of effectiveness required for the program to break even.

Some community costs and benefits could not be quantified at this stage. Where they were considered to be substantial they were described and listed as unquantified benefits and costs.

The results from this assessment have been summarised in a table which shows estimated benefit/cost ratios ranging from less than one to 43:1. Countermeasures with high benefit/cost ratios include the speed camera program, legalising footpath bicycling, rural and urban roadside hazard management, pedestrian facilities, skid resistance overlays, installation and remodelling of traffic signals and improved delineation of rural roads.

Wherever possible the calculations used effectiveness values for each countermeasure obtained from a limited number of other studies which were assumed to apply to similar future programs, so the results depend on the validity of those studies. In some cases, studies relevant to a specific countermeasure were not available and calculations were made on the basis of professional judgement of effectiveness and cost. Further studies are now being carried out to try and improve some of the assumptions and values used. Until these become available it is recommended that the estimated benefit/cost ratios reported in this study be taken as indicative and used with caution.