A framework for a cost benefit analysis of the Fairfax County, Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Project.
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This paper presents a framework for conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the Fairfax County, Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Project (ASAP), a federally funded demonstration program initiated under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The study addresses the pervasive problem of alcohol-related highway crashes, which were estimated to cause 25,000 deaths and cost between $7 and $8 billion annually in the United States. The Fairfax ASAP was designed to test community countermeasures—including police enforcement, judicial processing, rehabilitation, public information, and administration—to reduce the frequency and severity of alcohol-related accidents. The research was motivated by the need to systematically evaluate the economic efficiency and effectiveness of these countermeasures to inform future funding decisions and program improvements. The methodology establishes a theoretical framework for estimating the incremental costs and benefits of the project over a three-year period (1972–1974), using 1969–1971 as a baseline. Costs are categorized into four groups: federal expenditures (approximately $2.1 million, with nearly 50% allocated to police enforcement), incremental costs to participating agencies (such as courts and mental health centers), the opportunity cost of citizen time for roadside and attitude surveys, and the inconvenience costs to individuals altering their transportation habits. Benefits are primarily defined as reductions in alcohol-related accident costs, specifically shifts from fatal to injury or property-damage crashes. The study acknowledges significant uncertainties in causal relationships and the difficulty of attributing behavioral changes to specific countermeasures, noting that Henrico County data serves as a control group for comparison. The paper outlines procedures for calculating these values, including trend analysis, break-even rate of return analysis, and sensitivity analysis regarding discount rates. It also details methodologies for roadside surveys, attitude surveys, and mobile van operations to detect drunken drivers. However, the report explicitly states that a complete numerical exhibit of costs and benefits cannot be prepared because crucial data on the project’s effects was not yet available at the time of writing. Instead, the study provides a structured approach for identifying variables, such as the value of time for survey participants and the economic impact of reduced fatalities, while highlighting the limitations of quantifying "non-priceable" externalities and social benefits. The significance of this work lies in its provision of a flexible analytical tool for decision-makers to evaluate the Fairfax ASAP and similar programs. By defining the scope of costs and benefits and identifying key performance indicators, the framework aims to facilitate rational decision-making regarding the continuation or alteration of alcohol safety countermeasures. The study concludes that while precise quantification is currently limited by data availability and complex causal variables, the systematic examination of inputs and outputs is essential for assessing the project's contribution to highway safety and for guiding future federal funding allocations.
Key finding
The report provides a structured analytical framework for evaluating the Fairfax ASAP but does not present completed quantitative results or final cost-benefit calculations.
Methodology
theoretical
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 24 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation
- Empirical Findings: crash risk outcomes