4.4 Article

Pavement Repair Marginal Costs: Accounting for Heterogeneity Using Random-Parameters Regression

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000367

关键词

Cost allocation; Tolling; Weight-distance charging; Overweight fees; Direct user charging; Marginal cost; Random parameters; Pavement cost

资金

  1. NEXTRANS Center, Purdue University under U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), University Transportation Centers Program
  2. Colombian Government's Department of Science and Technology
  3. Universidad del Valle, under the Colciencias, Generacion del Bicentenario Fellowship Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highway agencies seek to establish road user cost responsibilities, in the form of marginal costs associated with the maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) of their existing infrastructure, on the basis of lifecycle data on the infrastructure usage levels and repair costs. Due to the differences in physical characteristics and operational conditions across individual pavement segments, it can be hypothesized that the current practice, which imposes a uniform average user fee to cover repair damage of all pavements systemwide or within specific families, is not equitable. To address this issue, this paper assesses the marginal costs of pavement damage by accounting for segment-specific heterogeneity. To do this, the paper uses a random-parameters (RP) regression model. Through application of the developed model, the paper shows that the M&R marginal cost differs significantly across pavement segments. The results suggest that it is feasible for agencies to develop fee structures that charge different highway user fees for individual highway segments on the basis of the damage the users inflict to the pavement. This outcome can help agencies introduce more equitable charging for the use of their highways. (c) 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据