Economic and Environmental Evaluations of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Practice: A Case Study of Michigan DOT Pavement Projects

Environmental Damage Cost;Pavement Selection;MDOT;Life-cycle Assessment;Life-cycle Cost Analysis;School of Natural Resources and Environment

Chan, Arthur Wai-CheungMoore, Michael ;

University of Michigan

关键词: Environmental Damage Cost;    Pavement Selection;    MDOT;    Life-cycle Assessment;    Life-cycle Cost Analysis;    School of Natural Resources and Environment;   

Others  :  https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/50469/Wai%20Cheung%20Chan%20Master%27s%20Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

瑞士|英语

来源: The Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship

【 摘 要 】

This thesis investigated the economic and environmental aspects of Life-CycleCost Analysis (LCCA) practiced by Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).From the economic perspective, it analyzed MDOT’s accuracy in projecting the actualcosts over pavement service life and choosing the lowest-cost pavement alternative. Theestimated and actual accumulated costs and maintenance schedules of ten highwaysections were compared. From the environmental perspective, it incorporated pollutiondamage cost (an external cost element) which is currently overlooked by states DOT intoLCCA. A life-cycle assessment model was developed to compare and monetize theenvironmental impact of asphalt and concrete pavement alternatives for thirteen MDOTprojects.While results indicated that MDOT LCCA procedure correctly predicted thepavement type with lower initial construction cost, actual costs were usually lower thanestimated in the LCCA. This outcome was partly because the cost estimation module inMDOT’s model was not site-specific enough. Refinements to its pavement constructionand maintenance cost estimating procedures would assist MDOT in realizing the fullpotential of LCCA in identifying the lowest cost pavement alternative for the studiedpavements. Alternatively, asphalt alternatives looked better than concrete alternatives insome environmental indicators (GHG, NOx, SO2 and Pb) but worse in others (energy,VOC and carcinogens), with material production as the major source of emissions. Thepollution damage cost ranged from $1,900-$76,000/4-lanes-km, but the lowest-damagecostalternative varied across projects. More importantly, it contributed to only 0.8% to9.2% of total life-cycle costs, and did not alter the results recommended in the originalMDOT LCCA documents. Further expansion of the external cost boundary would makeit more significant in LCCA.