Draft regulation Impact Statement for Underrun Protection a draft statement inviting discussion and comments from parties affected by the proposed heavy commercial vehicle safety initiative January 2007 Report Documentation Page

Download 5.27 Mb.

Page	47/50
Date	05.05.2018
Size	5.27 Mb.
	#47808

1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Year	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25
Number of fleet fitted with UP (,000)	126.1	135.8	145.5	155.2	164.9	174.6	184.3	194.0	203.6	213.3	223.0	232.7	242.4
Percentage of fleet fitted with UP (%)	65%	70%	75%	80%	85%	90%	95%	100%	105%	110%	115%	120%	125%

Front UP
Benefits from percentage of fleet fitted with UP ($m)	23.1	24.9	26.6	28.4	30.2	32.0	33.7	35.5	37.3	39.1	40.8	42.6	44.4
Present Value (PV) of the Benefit	5.3	5.1	4.9	4.6	4.4	4.2	3.9	3.7	3.5	3.2	3.0	2.8	2.6
Cumulative PV of the Benefit	62.4	67.4	72.3	76.9	81.3	85.5	89.4	93.1	96.5	99.8	102.8	105.6	108.2

Installation cost of UP for new vehicles ($m)	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3	4.3
Present Value (PV) of the Cost	1.0	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3
Cumulative PV of the Cost	31.7	32.5	33.3	34.0	34.6	35.2	35.7	36.1	36.5	36.9	37.2	37.5	37.7

Net Present Value (NPV)	30.7	34.9	39.0	42.9	46.7	50.3	53.7	57.0	60.0	62.9	65.6	68.1	70.5
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR)	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.3	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.6	2.7	2.8	2.8	2.9

Side UP
Benefits from percentage of fleet fitted with UP ($m)	4.9	5.3	5.6	6.0	6.4	6.8	7.1	7.5	7.9	8.3	8.6	9.0	9.4
Present Value (PV) of the Benefit	1.1	1.1	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6
Cumulative PV of the Benefit	13.2	14.3	15.3	16.3	17.2	18.1	18.9	19.7	20.4	21.1	21.8	22.3	22.9

Installation cost of UP for new vehicles ($m)	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2	8.2
Present Value (PV) of the Cost	1.9	1.7	1.5	1.3	1.2	1.1	1.0	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.5	0.5
Cumulative PV of the Cost	60.9	62.6	64.1	65.5	66.7	67.7	68.7	69.5	70.3	71.0	71.6	72.1	72.6

Net Present Value (NPV)	-47.7	-48.3	-48.8	-49.2	-49.4	-49.6	-49.8	-49.8	-49.9	-49.8	-49.8	-49.8	-49.7
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR)	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3

Rear UP
Benefits from percentage of fleet fitted with UP ($m)	3.0	3.2	3.4	3.6	3.9	4.1	4.3	4.6	4.8	5.0	5.2	5.5	5.7
Present Value (PV) of the Benefit	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.3
Cumulative PV of the Benefit	8.0	8.7	9.3	9.9	10.4	11.0	11.5	11.9	12.4	12.8	13.2	13.5	13.9

Installation cost of UP for new vehicles ($m)	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5
Present Value (PV) of the Cost	1.7	1.5	1.4	1.2	1.1	1.0	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.4
Cumulative PV of the Cost	55.6	57.2	58.6	59.8	60.9	61.8	62.7	63.5	64.2	64.8	65.4	65.8	66.3

Net Present Value (NPV)	-47.6	-48.5	-49.3	-49.9	-50.4	-50.9	-51.2	-51.5	-51.8	-52.0	-52.2	-52.3	-52.4
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR)	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2

							Front	Side	Rear
Number of new vehicles per year (,000)	10		Installation cost for each vehicle ($)				$440	$847	$773
Total number of vehicles in the fleet (,000)	194.4		Benefit per year if installed on whole fleet ($m)				$35.6	$7.5	$4.6
Discount rate	12%

Summary		Front				Side				Rear
Period (years)		10	15	20	25	10	15	20	25	10	15	20	25
Net Present Value (NPV) ($m)		17.6	39.0	57.0	70.5	-44.9	-48.8	-49.8	-49.7	-44.0	-49.3	-51.5	-52.4
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR)		1.6	2.2	2.6	2.9	0.2	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2

Summary of Benefit-Costs

Scenario A - Low Effectiveness UP
		Front			Side			Rear
	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case
Rigid	5.0	3.4	1.7	0.7	0.5	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.1
Articulated	30.0	20.9	10.1	2.0	1.4	0.7	1.4	1.0	0.5

Scenario B - Most Likely Effectiveness UP
		Front			Side			Rear
	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case
Rigid	5.7	4.0	1.9	0.8	0.6	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.1
Articulated	34.5	24.0	11.7	2.4	1.7	0.8	1.6	1.1	0.5

Scenario C - High Effectiveness UP
		Front			Side			Rear
	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case
Rigid	6.5	4.5	1.9	1.0	0.7	0.3	0.5	0.3	0.1
Articulated	39.2	27.3	13.3	2.8	1.9	0.9	1.7	1.2	0.6

Scenario D - Energy Absorbing UP
		Front			Side			Rear
	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case
Rigid	0.36	0.22	0.09	0.08	0.05	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01
Articulated	1.66	1.15	0.56	0.12	0.08	0.04	0.07	0.05	0.02

Best Case - 25 year pay-off period @4%, costed for fatalities, injuries and other costs

Likely Case - 15 year pay-off period @7%, costed for fatalities, injuries and other costs

Worst Case - 10 year pay-off period @12%, costed for fatalities and injuries cost only

Comparison of Benefit-Costs

Scenario B - Most Likely Effectiveness UP Device
		Front			Side			Rear
	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case	Best Case	Likely Case	Worst Case
Rigid	5.7	4.0	1.9	0.8	0.6	0.3	0.4	0.3	0.1
Alternative method	4.3	2.5	1.6	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.1

Articulated	34.5	24.0	11.7	2.4	1.7	0.8	1.6	1.1	0.5
Alternative method	19.7	11.6	7.4	1.7	1.0	0.6	0.4	0.5	0.3

Sensitivity of Benefit-Costs

Scenario A - Low Effectiveness UP Device
	Front	Cost spread over (yrs)			Side	Cost spread over (yrs)			Rear	Cost spread over (yrs)
	Cost margin	10	15	20	Cost margin	10	15	20	Cost margin	10	15	20
Rigid	$ 1,078	108	72	54	-$ 438	-44	-29	-22	-$ 574	-57	-38	-29
Articulated	$ 8,756	876	584	438	$ 325	32	22	16	-$ 17	-2	-1	-1

Directory: barreirastecnicas -> pontofocal -> textos -> regulamentos
pontofocal -> Ind- 2001 0382 nl- en
regulamentos -> Kenya standard ks 06-77: 1978 ics 13. 340

Download 5.27 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50