freight on bart talking freight seminar november 15, 2006
DESCRIPTION
Freight on BART TALKING FREIGHT SEMINAR November 15, 2006. CNCI. COALITION FOR A NEW CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Freighton BART
TALKING FREIGHTSEMINAR
November 15, 2006
2
COALITION FOR A NEW CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEYUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORYLAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTECALSTART/WESTSTART
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICTLOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
3
Where Are We Now
Seeking Funding for Preliminary Feasibility Study
Holding Discussions with Fed Ex
4
WHY?
5
Government Interest: Movement of Goods
Congestion Management / Economic Viability Metropolitan Transportation Commission California Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Alameda Co. Congestion Management Agency
Environmental Sustainability Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Shared Track (Reducing Cost of Capital Projects) Federal Transit Administration and Federal Railroad Administration
6
BART’s Rationale for ConsideringFreight on BART
• BART system has excess capacity– Peripheral lines have excess capacity because of how
multiple lines merge into one– Reverse commute direction
• If excess capacity can be put to good use, then existing infrastructure can produce new revenue
• Additional revenues can help to offset the cost to the rider
7
WHAT TRANSIT OFFERS
8
What Might BART Have To Offer
• Excess Capacity On Some Lines and Directions
• Reliable Transportation To/From Strategic Sites
• Long Service Hours
• Rolling Stock
• Access Points
9
RICHMOND
PITTSBURG
DUBLIN/PLEASANTON
MILLBRAE
8 trains/hour (4 to SF)7.5 min average
8 trains/hour to SF7.5 min average
4 trains/hour to SF15 min average
8 trains/hour (4 to SF)7.5 min average
12 trains/hour (8 to SF)5 min average
20 trains/hour3 min average
FREMONT
TRAFFIC DENSITY
10= BART Yard
OKS
57 min ODY51 min OHY
1:14 MB28 OKS
35 min CL
ORY
58 min OHY35 Min OKS
ODY
58 min ODYOHY
59 min ODY51 min OHY
1:16 MB28 min OKS35 min CL
OCY
11= BART Yard
57 min ODY47 min OHY
1:08 MB35 min CL
59 min ODY43 min OHY
1:20 MB31 min CL
46 min ODY46 min OHY
= FedEx Stations
12
Passenger Revenue Service Hours
• 365 days a year• 4am – Midnight (Weekdays)• 6am – Midnight (Saturdays)• 8am – Midnight (Sundays and Holidays)• 7 to 15 Minute Frequencies from 4am – 7pm• 20 Minute Frequencies from 7pm - Midnight
13
Rail Vehicle Specifications
• Approximately 70’ Long x 10’6’’ Wide x 7’ High (~ 5100 cu. ft.)
• Volume Without Vehicle Mods:– ~ 70’ x 2.5’ x 7’ = 1,225 cubic feet
• Door Cutouts: 4’6” Wide x 6’6” High• Carrying Capacity: 30,000 lb.• Propulsion: 600 hp/car• Acceleration/Deceleration: +/- 2 mph/sec• Max Speed: 80 mph
14Coliseum BART Station Platform
15
16
17
Oakland Shops/Annex
A-15 Spur Track
18
BART Maintenance Platform at Richmond Yard
19
Seats Removed in a BART Car
20
FEDERAL EXPRESS
26
Some Possible Scenarios• Scenario 1 (low volume):
– Unmodified Car(s) added to current consists– Packages loaded/unloaded at passenger
platforms• Scenario 2 (high volume):
– Train consist with multiple (3 – 10 cars if available) modified cars made in the yard
– Packages loaded/unloaded at yards
27
ISSUES
28
Integration of Cargo and BART
New Design and/or Modifications
• Container Modifications
• Vehicle Modifications
Existing Container Dimensions are either too wide are too tall to fit through the doorways
29
Container Modifications
2) Creating a New, Smaller Form-Factor that can Fit
Inside Existing Containers
1) Modifying an Existing Container
30
Vehicle-side Modifications
1) Modifying an Existing BART Vehicle
2) Specific-Use Vehicle(e.g. Flat-car)
31
Consist Configurations
1) Modified BART Cars
3) Flatcar without Control Elements
2) Flatcar used as a Control Car
32
Infrastructure Issues• Availability of Facilities and Rolling Stock
• Capital Assets must be able to accommodate retro-fitting
• Costs for retro-fitting is coverable without using traditional District resources
33
Logistical Issues
• Freight rail vehicles must be able to travel through the BART System without interfering with scheduled passenger service
• Cargo service cannot interfere with non-revenue hour track maintenance
• Qualified Personnel for Planning and Operation of Cargo Service would need to be employed
34
Security Issue
• A “Closed System” must be maintained:– Screening and/or Pre-screening– Yard Security– Vehicle Security
35
Kirsen smart container modules
– Customized MEMS and solid-state sensor suite that can monitor or determine:
• Basic features:– GPS positioning (accurate to 25 meters)– Geo-fencing– GPRS communication– Door sensors– Movement inside container (IR)
• Optional: – 6-side intrusion detection– Full/empty control– Movement of container– RFID reader– Light/Humidity sensor– Smoke sensor– Tilt detection– Shock detection– Temperature– Etc.
– Small form factor and lightweight– Worldwide coverage for wireless communication and tracking
• Features
• Modular Open Architecture – allowing for cost-effective customization to satisfy each clients’ requirement
36
Use Case: Immediate detection of security breach (e.g. intrusion) from all six sides of the container
Intrusion attempt in sea/air container
or truck
1
Silent alarm even prior to the actual
intrusion
2
Appropriate notification of law
enforcement
3
Prevention of theft or easy recovery of stolen
cargo through embedded GPS
4
• CONCEPTUAL
37
Planned Next Steps
• Identify and Apply for Grants and Incentives to help study the Cargo Scenario
• Perform Preliminary Feasibility Assessment based on key requirements and needs
• Determine if Business Case Exists• Work with sponsors to demonstrate the
concept assuming feasibility is confirmed