hsrd systems diagram ten fra criteria 1.ridership forecasts: calculated using a logit model that...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
HSRD Systems Diagram
Ten FRA Criteria1.Ridership Forecasts: Calculated using a logit
model that incorporates the reliability, cost, and travel time of each mode
.
*Pr(Modey=j): probability a user selects transportation mode y*y: modes include cars, trains, planes, and HSR*Bk : selection criteria coefficient
*Xkj : modal selection criteria value
2.Reduction in CO2 emissions (pounds/year)3.Reduction in oil consumption (gallons/yr)4.Reduction in energy consumption (kWh/yr)5.Capital costs ($/mile)6.Operating costs ($/year)7.Travel time saved (hrs/pass-mile)8.Automotive congestion reduction9.Intermodal Connections10.Populations connected
Additional Model CriteriaQualitative : The model requires the user to score the qualitative impacts on a scale of -5 (severe) to 5 (positive).Project Specifics: Economic recovery benefits, safety increase, intermodal connections, and populations connected .Weights: The weighting system allows the user to allocate 100 points among the ten criteria to place emphasis on important criteriaFinal Score:
*Wx = Weight for criteria *Cx = Percentage of points allocated *S = Final Score
UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
ABSTRACT
As road and air routes across the United States become more congested, high speed rail represents an opportunity to optimize transportation networks and improve economic connectivity. Europe and Asia have experienced significant benefits with extensive high speed rail connections. Now the United States has allocated an initial $8 billion in 2010 and $1 billion per year for five years into the development of high speed rail. The Federal Government received over $103 billion worth of proposals and has already allocated the initial $8 billion. However, the selection process was not transparent or consistent, drawing criticism across the nation.
The High Speed Rail Decision Analysis Model is a comprehensive model for scoring high speed rail proposals in order to aid in the selection of projects to fund. The model scores proposals based on criteria specified by the government, including factors such as ridership forecasts, economic recovery benefits, and environmental benefits. Data for the specified criteria are extracted from the proposals and inputted into the model. If the necessary numbers are not computed in the proposal, the model allows the user to enter available pertinent data necessary for the model to perform the criteria calculations. A weighting system is then applied to the results of the criteria calculations, allowing the user to place emphasis on preferred criteria. Once the weights are applied, the final score for each project will be calculated facilitating the user in ranking the proposals. The model is tested by comparing and ranking currently proposed lines using the scores outputted by the model. To illustrate the effectiveness of the methodology, the rankings are compared with the government allocated funding.
GROUP 18
AUTHORSPaul Deren SSE ‘10
Alexandra Malikova SSE ‘10Pia Ramchandani SSE ’10
ADVISORDr. John D. Keenan
DEMO TIMESThursday, April 22, 20109:30, 10:00, 10:30, 11:00
1. Safety2. Travel time efficiency3. Economic stimulus through connectivity4. Energy efficiency (see Fig 1)5. Environmental friendliness6. Interconnected livable communities
Investment in passenger train service has been very low in recent history, as shown in Figure 2.
However, in 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act allocated $8 billion dollars for development of intercity and high speed rail (HSR). After receiving pre-applications totaling $103 billion, the U.S. government needs an impartial evaluation methodology to allocate the funds. The use of a model will increase the efficiency and transparency to the selection process.
Model Overview
This model uses the criteria specified by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to assess the feasibility of proposed High Speed Rail projects. The model allows the user to input any information available from the proposal, but will calculate the criteria if the data is not provided. The model then scores the proposals by comparing them with data from HSR projects that have already been implemented.
MODEL VERIFICATION
The model was used to rank these three operating lines to compare results with the expected outcome. The Shinkansen is globally renowned as the ideal example of HSR, while the TGV is known as a strong HSR line. The Acela has not fulfilled international HSR standards. As shown in Table 2, the international lines were ranked in the expected order.
The model scored proposed projects with even weights to understand how the FRA decided which projects to fund:
For these three proposed lines, the model rankings align with the order of the funding from the FRA, as shown in table 3. The difference in project score is not proportional to the difference in the funding allocated because the government weighed the criteria unevenly, and these scores are calculated using equal weights for each criteria.
While the first round of funding has been allocated, $1 billion will be allocated each year for the next five years. Therefore, this model will be useful in determining which lines in the United States should receive priority because the vision of HSR involves a large number of regions.
Table 1: Definitions of HSR
Classification Distance (miles) Speed (mph)
Emerging HSR 100-500 90-110
High Speed Rail Regional High Speed Rail
Commuter Rail Bus Private Car Plane0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180170
106
90
54.1
39
20
Fig 1. Energy Efficiency of Various Modes
Pa
sse
ng
er-
Kilo
me
ters
Ca
rrie
d p
er
Un
it o
f En
erg
y
Fig 2. Federal Investment in Intercity Transportation 1949-2008 (in 2009 dollars)
10
1x x
x
S W C
1
1 1
exp
Pr( )
exp
K
k kjk
Y N K
k kjn k
B X
Mode j
B X
Current Line
Length (miles)
Ave Speed (mph)
Ridership per Mile
Total Points in
Model
Shinkansen (Japan)
342 186 192,982 96
TGV(France)
245 168 125,627 76
Acela(USA)
442 125 7,466 34
Table 2: Model ranking of the Shinkansen, TGV and Acela
Proposed Line
Length (miles)
Top Speed (mph)
Projected
Ridership per
Mile
Total Points
in Model
Actual Funding
California HSR
505 200 20,800 65$2.25 billion
Orlando to Tampa
97 102 69,340 43$1.25 billion
Chicago to
Detroit267 110 18,455 41
$244 million
Table 3: Model ranking of proposals from CA, FL, and Midwest
Fig 4. United States Vision for High Speed Rail
Shinkansen (Japan)
TGV (France) Acela (USA)
United States Vision for HSR
Primary Benefits of HSR
Model Overview
Fig 3. HSRD Systems Diagram HSRD Model Verification
HSR Proposals in the United States
Conclusions
HIGH SPEED RAIL DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL (HSRD)
top related