PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL CAPACITIES AND COSTS

Similar documents
PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL CHARACTERISTICS AND COSTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ROLES

Appendix. Statistical Profile

Appendix. Statistical Profile

What IS BRT, Really? Not BRT and RNY

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

Benchmarking Efficiency for MTA Services. Citizens Budget Commission April 6 th 2011

Brian Pessaro, AICP National Bus Rapid Transit Institute

Modal Choice for Mass Rapid Transit

Operating & Maintenance Cost Results Report

Bus Rapid Transit. Jennifer Flynn and Cheryl Thole Senior Research Associates Commuter Choice Workshop January 2012 Tampa, FL

Two years since our book

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study

Light rail, Is New Zealand Ready for Light Rail? What is Needed in Terms of Patronage, Density and Urban Form.

HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

Roma McKenzie-Campbell Amtrak, Project Manager. Caroline Ducas VHB, Senior Transit Planner. Boston, Massachusetts

Dr.- Ing. Helmut Gerndt, Mass Transit Rhine-Ruhr. Ruhr. Urban & Regional Rail Services

REPORT CARD FOR CALIFORNIA S INFRASTRUCTURE WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA S TRANSIT FACILITIES

PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

Road Map for Sustainable Transport Strategy for Colombo Metropolitan Region with Cleaner Air, through Experience

BRT: What is it & Where Does it Fit? Sam Zimmerman

Bringing Bus Rapid Transit to Tanzania

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. TAC Briefing December 4, 2013

Whither the Dashing Commuter?

Alternatives Analysis Findings Report

Preliminary Definition of Alternatives. 3.0 Preliminary Definition of Alternatives

An Overview of Rapid Transit Typical Characteristics. Date April 30, 2009

Transit Fares for Multi-modal Transportation Systems

Converting BRT to LRT in the Nation s Capital Ottawa, Canada. John Manconi City of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada

Transit Access Study

PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation

Toolbox Transit Presentation Professors Joseph DiJohn and Siim Sööt University of Illinois at Chicago

DART Capital Program Update

The range of alternatives has been reviewed with the RTAC Subgroup and the preliminary analysis is proceeding on the following HCT alternatives:

Maryland Gets to Work

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

Stakeholders Advisory Working Groups (SAWGs) Traffic and Transit SAWG Meeting #7

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Update

NEW YORK SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

Transit Access to the National Harbor

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Metropolitan Council Transit Capital Improvement Plan. September 23, 2009

SFMTA Energy Use by Vehicle Type: Transit Investments vs Life Cycle Costs

V03. APTA Multimodal Operations Planning Workshop August Green Line LRT

Istanbul METROBUS BRT. Adapted from Presentations by World Resources Institute/EMBARQ s Sibel Koyluoglu and Dario Hidalgo

Path to achieving a good transport system:

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

The Latest on Joint Development Policy Guidance

Status of Plans March Presented by CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

RTSP Phase II Update

Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY

TRANSIT IDEA STRATEGIC INITIATIVE On BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

The capital cost estimates do not include allowances for: ROW acquisition. Third-party mitigation works. Hazardous materials handling.

International and USA BRT TOD Comparisons. Cliff Henke and Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Appendix G: Rapid Transit Technology Backgrounder July 2017

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

Mobility Corridor Updates. Transit & Active Transportation Projects

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. Joe Calabrese CEO/General Manager

Back ground Founded in 1887, and has expanded rapidly Altitude about 2500 meters above MSL Now among the ten largest cities in Sub Saharan Africa

October 22, Dear Focus40 Project Team:

Metro Green Line to LAX Alternatives Analysis. March 2012

The Case for. Business. investment. in Public Transportation

Proposed Program of Interrelated Projects

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

PEACHTREE CORRIDOR PARTNERSHIP. Current Status & Next Steps

Analysis of Top BUS RAPID TRANSIT. Projects in North America SPONSORED BY APRIL 2007 METRO MAGAZINE 27

D2 - CBD Second Alignment

Calgary Transit and the Calgary Transportation Plan Chris Jordan, M.Sc., P.Eng. Coordinator, Strategic Transit Planning, Calgary Transit

BART Silicon Valley. Berryessa Extension Project Community Update. October 27, 2010

TENTH EDITION - CONTENTS

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study

Keeping Seattle Moving Seattle City Council February 2013

Transit on the New NY Bridge

Rail~Volution 2005 Hal Ryan Johnson, AICP, Bus Rapid Transit Project Manager Utah Transit Authority September 7, 2005

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way / West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments

HOW TO DELIVER PUBLIC TRANSPORT ON REDUCED BUDGET

Link LRT: Maintenance Bases, Vehicles and Operations for ST2 Expansion

a GAO GAO MASS TRANSIT Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise Report to Congressional Requesters United States General Accounting Office

FACTSHEET on Metro Systems

Presentation of the Baltimore Metro System

Sound Transit Operations July 2016 Service Performance Report. Ridership

SEPULVEDA PASS CORRIDOR

BUS RAPID TRANSIT INTRODUCTION IN METRO MANILA USING IGES CO

MBTA DEPARTMENT OF SYSTEM-WIDE ACCESSIBILITY FIXED ROUTE REPORT December, 2011

NYCT OPERATING EXPERIENCE WITH HYBRID TRANSIT BUSES

January 2008 Chicago Transit Authority

FACT SHEET. US 192 Alternatives Analysis Modal Technologies. Alternative Description/Overview

WARES. October, 2018

Busways can offer clear advantages

Click to edit Master title style

SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Chapter 4 : THEME 2. Transportation

May 23, 2011 APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference. Metro ExpressLanes

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODES. BY B. I. Singal, Ex Director General, Institute of Urban Transport

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Transcription:

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL CAPACITIES AND COSTS Outline 1. Modal Characteristics (cont d) -- Simple Capacity Analysis 2. World-Wide Status of Urban Rail Systems 3. Capital Costs 4. Operating Costs Nigel Wilson 1

Simple Capacity Analysis Question: Given a pie-shaped sector corridor serving a CBD served by a single transit line, what will be the peak passenger flow at the CBD? Nigel Wilson 2

Simple Capacity Analysis Given: P c = population density at CBD dp = rate of decrease of population density with distance from CBD θ = angle served by corridor r = distance out from CBD L = corridor length t = number of one-way trips per person per day c = share of trips inbound to CB m = transit market share for CBD-bound trips p = share of CBD-bound transit trips in peak hour Then: Population in corridor= = Nigel Wilson 3

Simple Capacity Analysis Peak Passenger Flow = Maximum access distance to transit line = Lθ /2 Examples: P c dp θ L t c m p Req. Capacity Max Access 10,000 800 2Π /9 10 2.5 0.2 0.5 0.25 10,000 3.5 20,000 1,600 2Π /9 10 1.5 0.3 0.8 0.25 30,000 3.5 Nigel Wilson 4

Theoretical Capacities Rail: 10 car trains, 200 pass/car, 2-minute headway Bus: 70 pass/bus, 30-second headways BRT: 200 pass/bus, 20 second headways Light rail: 150 pass/car, 2-car trains, 1-minute headway 60,000 pass/hr 8,400 pass/hr 36,000 pass/hr 18,000 pass/hr Nigel Wilson 5

MBTA Rail Lines Peak Hour Volumes Red Line: Braintree branch 6,100 Ashmont branch 3,700 Cambridge 8,200 Orange Line: North 8,100 Southwest 7,400 Blue Line: 6,000 Green Line: B 2,000 C 1,900 D 2,200 E 900 Central Subway 6,500 Nigel Wilson 6

Worldwide Urban Rail Systems A. Full Heavy Rail Standards Started system operation N. America Europe Rest of World B. Light Rail Systems: total in operation Total Starts N. America Europe Rest of World Total Total Systems 29 60 16 105 Cumulative Starts Pre 1901 2 4 -- 6 6 1901-1920 2 3 1 6 12 1921-1940 -- 2 2 4 16 1941-1960 2 6 1 9 25 1961-1980 5 16 10 31 56 1981-2000 4 9 18 31 87 Post-2000 or 1 3 5 9 96 In Construction 1 1 3 5 101 TOTALS 17 44 40 101 Nigel Wilson 7

Capital Costs In US: $14.5 billion in capital costs in 2007 By type: 27% for vehicles 61% for infrastructure and facilities 12% other By mode: 23% for bus projects 32% for heavy rail projects 17% for commuter rail projects 21% for light rail projects 7% other Nigel Wilson 8

Capital Costs by Type and by Mode Bus Heavy Rail Commuter Rail Light Rail Other Vehicles 52% 27% 18% 11% 58% Infrastructure, facilities, and other 48% 83% 82% 89% 42% Total ($ bill) 3.3 4.7 2.4 3.0 1.1 Infrastructure, facilities and systems capital costs dominate for rail modes Vehicular capital costs represent about half of all capital costs for non-rail modes Nigel Wilson 9

Infrastructure Costs Key factors: type of construction -- at grade (least expensive) -- elevated -- subway: shallow tunnel, deep tunnel (most expensive) land acquisition and clearance (relocation) number, size, complexity, and length of stations systems complexity Nigel Wilson 10

Typical Capital Costs Heavy Rail: System cost (includes stations and vehicles) ($ billion)* Cost/km ($ million) Tren Urbano: new system (2002) Phase I: 17 km, 16 stations 50% at grade, 40% elevated, 10% subway MBTA Red Line Alewife Station Extension (1984) 5 km, 4 stations: 100% subway LA MTA: new system (late 1980s) 7 km: subway WMATA: new system (late 1970s-early 1990s) Multiple phases 100 km, 70 stations (partial system) Mix of subway, elevated, and at grade 2.0 118 0.6 120 1.2 180 6.4 60 * Costs are in current $, not constant $. Kain (mid-1990s) estimate of average heavy rail capital costs: $80 million/km Nigel Wilson 11

Typical Capital Costs (cont d) LRT: System cost (includes stations and vehicles) ($ million)* Cost/km ($ million) LA MTA (late 1980s): 30 km, at grade 690 23 Buffalo (late 1980s): 10 km, subway 529 53 Santa Clara (late 1980s): 30 km, at grade 498 16 Portland: 22 km, at grade 214 10 * Costs are in current $, not constant $. Kain (mid-1990s) estimate of average LRT capital costs: $25 million/km Nigel Wilson 12

Typical Capital Costs (cont d) Busways: MBTA South Boston Transitway (2002): 2 km, bus tunnel Bogotá Transmilenio (2001): 36 km, at grade Seattle (mid 1980s): 2 km, bus tunnel Pittsburgh (mid 1980s): 10 km, at grade Houston (early 1980s): 35 km, at grade System cost (includes stations) ($ million) Cost/km ($ million) 606* 303 200 5 319 160 113 11 290 8 * also includes vehicle cost Nigel Wilson 13

Vehicle Capital Costs Generic Cost MBTA most recent order Rail Car (Heavy Rail or LRV) $1.5-2.5 mill Breda $1.985 mill 100 vehicles (LRT) Standard 40 bus - CNG $0.3-0.35 mill NABI $0.31, $0.32 mill 300 vehicles Standard 40 trolley $1 mill Neoplan $0.943 mill 28 vehicles Articulated 60 bus - CNG $0.5-0.7 mill Neoplan $0.614 mill 44 vehicles Articulated dual-mode 60 bus --- Neoplan $1.6 mill 32 vehicles Nigel Wilson 14

Typical Capital Costs on Per Passenger Mile Basis Vehicle cost per passenger mile: $0.05-0.10 for all modes Infrastructure cost per passenger mile: $0.01-1.00 Nigel Wilson 15

Operating Costs In US: $33.9 billion in operating costs in 2007 By type: 46% for vehicle operations 18% for vehicle maintenance 9% for non-vehicle maintenance 14% for administration 13% for purchased transportation By mode: 51% for buses 17% for heavy rail 12% for commuter rail 4% for light rail 13% for paratransit 3% for other modes Nigel Wilson 16

Productivity # of Employees per Revenue Vehicle (U.S., Industry-wide) Paratransit Bus Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Light Rail Total 1.4 2.9 4.5 4.9 5.5 2.3 Bus/rail comparison for NYCT (from Pushkarev and Zupan in 1970s) (employees/vehicle): Veh. Ops. Veh. Maint. Manage & Control Fare Coll. Way Maint. Total Bus 2.2 0.8 0.5 -- -- 3.5 Rail 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.2 4.4 Metro productivity is 3-4 times average bus productivity measured in pass. miles/rvh Nigel Wilson 17

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 1.258J / 11.541J / ESD.226J Public Transportation Systems Spring 2010 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.