CLOSE OVERLAY
Project Details
STATUS

Completed

PROJECT NUMBER

2018-01

START DATE

01/11/19

END DATE

05/29/20

SPONSORS

AECOM
Federal Highway Administration Aurora Program Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF-5(290))

Researchers
Principal Investigator
Daryl Taavola

AECOM

About the research

Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a data-driven tool that provides a detailed account of the total costs of a project over its expected life. LCCA has been proven to create short-term and long-term savings for transportation agencies by helping decision-makers identify the most beneficial and cost-effective projects and alternatives. To help state departments of transportation (DOTs) make more informed decisions with regard to budget planning for the various costs associated with the use of a road weather information system (RWIS), the Aurora Pooled Fund Program initiated the RWIS Life-Cycle Cost Analysis research project. The objectives of this research were to develop guidelines to do the following:

  • Help quantify the costs and benefits associated with RWIS sites
  • Better assess costs arising from RWIS assets over the life cycle
  • Provide a framework for calculating net present worth
  • Assess alternatives and associated cost implications
  • Determine long-term RWIS life-cycle costs and the optimal point to replace RWIS equipment
  • Support decisions on repair versus replacement based on projected expenses
  • Assist in planning and funding the replacement or repair of RWIS infrastructure

This report provides methods and general guidelines to assist public agencies with determining RWIS site life-cycle costs. Public agencies can follow the information provided herein to gather necessary data and perform the analysis to help quantify the costs and benefits associated with RWISs. The methodologies presented in this report provide a framework for calculating life-cycle costs and net present worth, which helps agencies make more informed decisions in repairs and replacement of RWIS sites. It also helps assess and compare alternatives and associated cost implications.

TOP