3.0 DETERMINATION
OF TRANSPORT COSTS
The Road Authority is legally funded by the Road Fund Administration. The Road Fund Administration is expecting to get an optimum value for its financial input to the Road Authority. This means that in the normal case the Road Fund Administration only funds the financial costs and not the economic costs. It has to be argued that the difference between financial and economic costs (D x) has to be financed by Vote of Parliament and not the Road Fund Administration if it cannot be proven that D x is the most efficient way executing the job. In this Study the economic evaluation is based on the annual road owner costs and road user costs generated. In order to distinguish between financial and economic costs conversion factors (shadow pricing) are used as shown in table 4 [4]: |
TABLE 4: CONVERSION FACTORS BETWEEN FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSPORT COSTS
|
3.1 ROAD OWNER COSTS
The annual cost of road works is calculated from the amount of routine maintenance, periodic maintenance and any other road improvements carried out in the given year in the Oshikoto, Ohangwena, Oshana and Omusati Regions and are shown in table 5 [5]: |
|
Earth Roads | Gravel Roads | Surface Dressing | Asphalt Concrete (hot Mix) |
Periodic
Maintenance
Costs N$/km |
In general no periodic maintenance |
Regravelling: 5 to 50 years |
Spray
Every 9 to 20 years |
Spray
Every 9 to 20 years |
||||||||||||||||||||
- |
Approx. 90 000 N$/km (Financial Unit Costs) Approx. 77 400 N$/km (Economic Unit Costs) |
Rejuvenation: Approx. 18 000 N$/km (Financial Unit Costs) Approx. 14 760 N$/km (Economic Unit Costs) Slurry Spray: Approx. 125 854 N$/km (Financial Costs) Approx. 103 200 N$/km (Economic Costs) Reseal: Approx. 84 000 N$/km (Financial Unit Costs) Approx. 69 880 N$/km (Economic Unit Costs) |
Rejuvenation: Approx. 18 000 N$/km (Financial Unit Costs) Approx. 14 760 N$/km (Economic Unit Costs) Slurry Spray: Approx. N$ 125 854 (Financial Costs) Approx. N$ 103 200 (Economic Costs) Reseal: Approx. 84 000 N$/km (Financial Unit Costs) Approx. 69 880 N$/km (Economic Unit Costs) |
TABLE 6: COSTS FOR UPGRADING ACTIVITIES IN THE STUDY AREA
Upgrading | Improve geometric and structural standards | Improve geometric and structural standards | Improve geometric standards |
Investment, Works | 150 200 mm
gravel Drainage Culverts Bridges |
Regravelling 150
200 mm Surface Dressing Culverts Bridges |
Regravelling 150
200 mm 30 50 mm hot mix asphalt concrete |
Costs (financial) N$/km | Approx. 240000,- | Approx. 760000,- | Approx. 800000,- |
The construction costs for the activities for a paved road section on an existing road with flat terrain in the Study Area is currently estimated in table 7 [6]:
TABLE 7: COSTS COMPONENTS FOR A PAVED ROAD IN THE STUDY AREA
Activities |
N$/km |
Double Surface Dressing |
130 000 |
200 mm Gravel Base Layer (10,000 m x 0,2 x 120) |
240 000 |
Subbase |
90 000 |
Drainage Structures |
220 000 |
Project and Construction Control |
80 000 |
TOTAL |
760 000 [8] |
The road construction costs (financial costs) in the Study Area are estimated in table 8 [8]:
The road construction costs (financial costs) in the Study Area are estimated in table 8:
TABLE 8: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR ROAD IN THE STUDY AREA
TYPE OF ROAD |
FINANCIAL COSTS (N$/km) |
50 000 |
|
|
Min. 136 000 Max. 461 000 Aver. 289 000 |
230 000 (Class A (10 m)) |
|
180 000 (Class B (7,5 m)) |
|
Surfaced Road Double Surface Dressing |
Min. 55 000 Max. 1 172 000 Aver. 719 000 |
760 000 |
Road user costs (RUC) are defined as the costs incurred by vehicle operators and the travelling public. The road user costs are considered as the sum of:
![]() | Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) |
![]() | Travel Time Costs (TC) and |
![]() | Accident Costs (AC) |
3.2.1 VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS (VOC)
Economic evaluation involves the assessment of the economic worth of a project in order to ensure the optimal use of scarce economic resources. It involves the quantification of economic benefits and costs, as opposed to financial income and expenditure. Benefits are compared with costs on a marginal basis, i.e. relative to the null alternative. A project is regarded as justified if the benefits exceed the costs, regardless of who pays and who benefits.
Benefits are normally derived from a reduction in road user and maintenance costs relative to those incurred on the null alternative. Road characteristics which lead to cost and quality optimised models can be described by user related costs on a road, the "Vehicle Operating Costs" (VOC). Vehicle operating costs consist of cost components like petrol, tyre, maintenance and depreciation costs. "VOC" are a function of the riding quality of the roads on which the user travels. While the normal differences in evenness of paved roads have only a slight or even negligible effect on individual vehicles, heavy traffic loads have a considerable influence on the total sum of vehicle operating costs, a situation, which, however, is rarely encountered under Namibian traffic circumstances. The vehicle operating costs do, however, strongly increase on unpaved roads with bad riding qualities and high roughness, even for relatively small traffic numbers. It is therefore important to know the relationship between vehicle operating costs and riding quality of a road surface in order to establish a cost and quality optimised maintenance model. This relationship is changing from place to place, thus indicating its dependence on local conditions [9].
Vehicle operating costs on unpaved roads with a poor riding quality are considerable higher than on roads with good riding quality. This can be illustrated by the following example. The reported findings indicate that operating busses on the poorest class of investigated unpaved roads entails the following additional costs over and above the cost on level, paved roads:
![]() | Petrol: increases by 20%, depending on speed and topography; |
![]() | Tyres: increases by 100%, depending on the type of gravel; |
![]() | Maintenance: increases by 40%, depending on vehicle age; |
![]() | Total: increases by 40%. |
Several studies for the establishment of "VOC" under Namibian conditions were made in the past and are summarised in tables 9 to 11 [10]:
TABLE 9 VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FOR A PASSENGER BUS
|==================================================================|
| ROAD | SURFACE | VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS IN US CENT PER KM
|
|ROUGHNESS| TEXTURE |----------------------------------------------|
| IRI | | TYRE
|MAINTENANCE|DEPRECIATION| FUEL | TOTAL |
| |
| |
LABOUR | INTEREST | |
|
|---------|---------|------|-----------|------------|------|-------|
| 1,50 | P | 2,8 |
7,0 | 9,4 |
14,6 | 33,8 |
| 2,00 | P | 3,1 |
7,8 | 9,7 |
15,3 | 35,9 |
| 3,00 | P | 3,5 |
9,1 | 10,5 | 15,4
| 38.5 |
| 3,50 | P | 3,9 |
9,8 | 10,9 | 15,5
| 40,1 |
| 4,25 | P | 4,3 |
10,5 | 11,4 | 15,6
| 41,8 |
| 5,00 | UP | 4,7 |
11,4 | 11,7 | 15,9
| 43,7 |
| 5,75 | UP | 5,1 |
12,1 | 12,2 | 16,0 | 45,4 |
| 6,50 | UP | 5,5 |
13,3 | 12,5 | 16,2 | 47,5 |
| 7,00 | UP | 5,9 |
14,1 | 12,9 | 16,4 | 49,3 |
| 7,50 | UP | 6,2 |
14,5 | 13,3 | 16,6 | 50,6 |
| 8,40 | UP | 6,7 |
16,0 | 13,7 | 16,7 | 53,1 |
| 9,00 | UP | 7,0 |
16,8 | 14,1 | 16,9 | 54,8 |
| 9,75 | UP | 7,8 |
17,2 | 14,5 | 17,0 | 56,5 |
| 10,50 | UP | 8,2 |
17,6 | 14,8 | 17,2 | 57,8|
|==================================================================|
NOTA: Tables 25 to 27: Data are recalculated and adapted to
Namibian road conditions for the price level of December 1989
(1 US $=R 2,63). P = Paved Roads; UP = Unpaved Roads. Original
data of the Natal/Kwazulu Study were established for the year 1986. Prices have been
established without taxes and subsidies.
TABLE 10 VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FOR A PASSENGENGER CAR
|==================================================================|
| ROAD | SURFACE | VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS IN US CENT PER KM
|
|ROUGHNESS| TEXTURE |----------------------------------------------|
| IRI | | TYRE
|MAINTENANCE|DEPRECIATION| FUEL | TOTAL |
| |
| |
LABOUR | INTEREST | |
|
|---------|---------|------|-----------|------------|------|-------|
| 1,50 | P | 0,30 |
1,57 | 5,03 | 3,52 | 10,4 |
| 2,00 | P | 0,44 |
1,95 | 5,82 | 3,55 | 11,8 |
| 3,00 | P | 0,47 |
2,30 | 5,94 | 3,59 | 12,3 |
| 3,50 | P | 0,57 |
2,65 | 6,32 | 3,62 | 13,2 |
| 4,25 | P | 0,65 |
3,04 | 6,77 | 3,67 | 14,1 |
| 5,00 | UP | 0,68 |
3,41 | 7,22 | 3,71 | 15,0 |
| 5,75 | UP | 0,74 |
3,78 | 7,72 | 3,80 | 16,0 |
| 6,50 | UP | 0,82 |
4,12 | 8,23 | 3,87 | 17,0 |
| 7,00 | UP | 0,87 |
4,53 | 8,64 | 4,01 | 18,0 |
| 7,50 | UP | 0,96 |
4,97 | 9,16 | 4,03 | 19,1 |
| 8,40 | UP | 1,04 |
5,26 | 10,11 | 4,08 | 20,5 |
| 9,00 | UP | 1,10 |
5,65 | 10,79 | 4,18 | 21,7 |
| 9,75 | UP | 1,17 |
5,90 | 11,70 | 4,26 | 23,0 |
| 10,50 | UP | 1,21 | 6,30
| 12,57 | 4,29 | 24,4 |
| 11,00 | UP | 1,26 | 6,64
| 13,48 | 4,40 | 25,8 |
|==================================================================|
TABLE 11 VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS FOR A MEDIUM TRUCK
|==================================================================|
| ROAD | SURFACE | VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS IN US CENT PER KM
|
|ROUGHNESS| TEXTURE |----------------------------------------------|
| IRI | | TYRE
|MAINTENANCE|DEPRECIATION| FUEL | TOTAL |
| |
| |
LABOUR | INTEREST | |
|
|---------|---------|------|-----------|------------|------|-------|
| 1,50 | P | 3,1 |
17,1 | 14,0 | 9,3
| 43,5 |
| 2,00 | P | 3,5 |
17,9 | 14,4 | 10,1 |
45,9 |
| 3,00 | P | 3,9 |
18,7 | 15,0 | 10,6 |
48,2 |
| 3,50 | P | 4,1 |
19,1 | 15,4 | 11,1 |
49,7 |
| 4,25 | P | 4,3 |
19,8 | 15,8 | 11,8 |
51,7 |
| 5,00 | UP | 4,7 |
20,3 | 16,1 | 12,2 | 53,3 |
| 5,75 | UP | 5,0 |
20,8 | 16,6 | 12,9 | 55,3 |
| 6,50 | UP | 5,3 |
21,4 | 17,1 | 13,6 | 57,4 |
| 7,00 | UP | 5,7 |
22,0 | 17,3 | 14,0 | 59,0 |
| 7,50 | UP | 6,1 |
22,9 | 18,0 | 14,7 | 61,7 |
| 8,40 | UP | 6,5
| 23,3 | 18,4 | 15,2
| 63,4 |
| 9,00 | UP | 6,8 |
23,9 | 18,8 | 15,8 | 65,3 |
| 9,75 | UP | 7,4 |
24,5 | 19,4 | 16,4 | 67,7 |
| 10,50 | UP | 7,8 |
25,2 | 20,0 | 17,0 | 70,0 |
| 11,00 | UP | 8,2 |
25,7 | 20,5 | 17,6 | 72,0 |
|==================================================================|
Table 9 shows between the two extreme roughness relationships a maximum increase in total vehicle operating costs of 71% from a very smooth paved road with IRI=1,50 to a very rough unpaved road with IRI=10,50. The same relationships will be developed also for a passenger car in table 10 (increase in total "VOC" = 147% for a riding quality difference between IRI=1,50 and IRI=11,00) and for a medium truck in table 11 (increase in total "VOC" = 65% for a riding quality difference between IRI=1,50 and IRI=11,00) adapted to Namibian conditions (all for rolling terrain).
The tendencies in above tables are confirmed in recent Namibian investigations for the year 1998 and are summarised in table 12 [11]:
TABLE 12 ECONOMIC VOC BY TYPE OF ROAD AND TERRAIN FOR SIX CATEGORIES IN NAMIBIA (N$/Vehkm)
Vehicle Type/ Surface Type/ Roughness IRI |
Flat | Tangent and Rolling (TR) |
Flat and Winding (FW) | Rolling | Mountainous |
SMALL CAR |
|||||
Bitumen (B) 2,00 |
0,787 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
0,845 |
B 4,00 |
0,858 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
0,914 |
Gravel (G) 6,00 |
0,980 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,074 |
G 8,00 |
1,132 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,194 |
G 12,00 |
1,620 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,680 |
UTILITY CAR |
|||||
B 2,00 |
0,915 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,009 |
B 4,00 |
0,998 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,091 |
G 6,00 |
1,149 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,269 |
G 8,00 |
1,347 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,480 |
G 12,00 |
1,976 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
2,054 |
MINIBUS | |||||
B 2,00 |
1,059 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,108 |
B 4,00 |
1,154 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,204 |
G 6,00 |
1,290 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,378 |
G 8,00 |
1,512 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
1,630 |
G 12,00 |
2,110 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
2,232 |
BBUS | |||||
B 2,00 |
2,596 |
2,729 |
See TR |
See TR |
4,180 |
B 4,00 |
2,783 |
2,923 |
See TR |
See TR |
4,410 |
G 6,00 |
3,025 |
3,199 |
See TR |
See TR |
4,729 |
G 8,00 |
3,406 |
3,612 |
See TR |
See TR |
5,292 |
G 12,00 |
4,542 |
4,768 |
See TR |
See TR |
6,372 |
MEDIUM TRUCK | |||||
B 2,00 |
1,776 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
2,440 |
B 4,00 |
2,118 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
2,790 |
G 6,00 |
2,475 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
3,193 |
G 8,00 |
2,918 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
3,520 |
G 12,00 |
3,969 |
See Flat |
See Flat |
See Flat |
4,208 |
HEAVY TRUCK | |||||
B 2,00 |
3,278 |
See Rolling |
See Flat |
4,042 |
7,205 |
B 4,00 |
3,836 |
See Rolling |
See Flat |
4,613 |
7,853 |
G 6,00 |
4,420 |
See Rolling |
See Flat |
5,252 |
8,553 |
G 8,00 |
5,106 |
See Rolling |
See Flat |
5,943 |
9,261 |
G 12,00 |
6,746 |
See Rolling |
See Flat |
7,453 |
N/A. |
Travel time have to be related to the country or the area in which a project is located. No detailed data are available for Namibia or for the Oshikoto, Ohangwena, Oshana and Omusati Regions at present. Taking data from some investigations in the SADC Region, notably RSA, the following approximate values for travelling time are given in table 13 [12]:
TABLE 13 VALUE OF TIME FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS (N$/h)
Description | Value of Time (N$ per hour) |
Workers - High Income - Medium Income -Low Income Non-Workers or Leisure Time |
54 16 3 2 |
The most recent study on vehicle occupancy was done for the Windhoek Eastern By-pass. Using the results for this study and applying also the results of the Ovambo Roads Master Plan studies gives the following time costs per vehicle type in table 14 [13]:
TABLE 14 TIME COSTS PER VEHICLE TYPE (N$/h)
Vehicle Type | Vehicle Occupancy |
Time Cost (N$ per hour) |
Small Car Utility Car Minibus Bus Medium Goods Vehicle Heavy Goods Vehicle |
2,5 3,7 6,0 27 3,8 2,0 |
19,30 19,90 20,80 92,20 17,50 25,90 |
Aggregated Cost on Trunk Roads | As above |
22,43 |
Aggregated Cost on Main and District Roads | As above |
20,41
|
No data on accident costs based on research in Namibia is available at present. The lack of reliable accident rate statistics in addition often results in low confidence in the accuracy of accident rate assessments. The most appropriate data base can be obtained from other studies in the SADC Region, notably RSA. The most recent unit costs are shown in table 15 [14]:
TABLE 15 ACCIDENT UNIT COSTS (N$ PER ACCIDENT)
ACCIDENT TYPE |
|||||
Fatal | Serious Injury | Slight Injury | Damage only | Average | |
Average Cost per Accident | 247 764 |
64 954 |
18 494 |
13 076 |
21 228 |
Accident Rates and Costs per Type of Road are shown in table 16 [15]:
TABLE 16: ACCIDENT RATES AND COSTS PER TYPE OF ROAD
Road Type | |||||||||||
Gravel | Two-lane paved | Freeway | |||||||||
Accident Rate (per million vehicle km) |
2,29 |
0,99 |
0,27 |
||||||||
Composition (%)
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Costs (N$ per accident) | 42 587 |
37 246 |
23 817 |
The comparison of the effects on road accident rates from lane and shoulder width is pictured in table 17 [16]:
TABLE 17: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS RELATED TO LANE AND SHOULDER WIDTH
Lane width in metres | Adjustment Factor (F) | Shoulder width in metres | Surfaced Shoulder (F) | Unsurfaced Shoulder (F) |
2,74 3,06 3,35 3,66 |
1,18 1,04 1,00 1,00 |
0,00 1,07 1,68 2,29 2,90 |
1,57 1,29 1,14 1,02 1,00 |
1,57 1,40 1,30 1,23 1,20 |
The only possible comparison with Namibian data is by dividing the number of accidents reported by the Namibian Police during 1996 by total vehicle-kilometres. The overall Road Accident Rate in Namibia for 1996 is shown in table 18 [17]:
TABLE 18: OVERALL ROAD ACCIDENT RATE IN NAMIBIA, 1996
No. of Accidents All Roads |
Vehicle-Kilometres Millions 1996797 |
Accident Rate Per Million Vehicle- Kilometres |
|
No. of Collisions | 6 225 |
2 783,65 |
2,23 |
Fatalities | 182 |
||
Serious Injuries | 437 |
||
Slight Injuries | 703 |
Endnotes
[4] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000
[5] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000
[6] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000
[7] Roads Authority of Namibia in co-operation with Technische Universität Berlin: Economically Justified Maintenance on Unpaved Roads in Namibia, Berlin, 2001
[8] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000
[9] Dierks, Klaus: Technical Aspects for Appropriate Low-volume Roads in Namibia, Ph.-D.-Thesis, Berlin, 1992
[10] See last endnote[11] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000
[12] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000
[13] See above endnote
[14] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000
[15] See last endnote [16] See last endnote[17] Kellerhals, C,; Engelien, M.: Economic Evaluation Spreadsheet-Program, DOT, Namibia, Windhoek, Jan. 2000