Mercer County 1. Background Information Mercer County was carved out of surrounding counties in 1838 and has a history dating back to the Revolutionary War. It has 13 municipalities covering 226 square miles, contains the capital of New Jersey, and is home to numerous universities, including Princeton 1. Approximately 365,000 people live in about 140,000 households, and the median household income is about $69,000 2. There are 10,000 business employing about 190,000 people, and Mercer has a relatively well-educated population. Image from: http://www.eileneshaugerrealestate.com/njtowns/njmap/mercerfull.jpg 2. Land Use Characteristics The population density in Mercer varies greatly. Although there are over 1600 persons per square mile on average, there are large areas of sparsely populated areas because of farms and protected green areas 3. Trenton and its surrounding area has a very high population density, as does Princeton, but the large variation makes retrofitting a PRT network for the entire county difficult. 3. Transportation Demand The current transportation infrastructure in Mercer is relatively well developed. The Northeast Corridor of New Jersey Transit allows a large number of commuters to travel 1 http://www.state.nj.us/counties/mercer/about/ 2 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34/34021.html 3 http://orfe.princeton.edu/%7ealaink/papers/orf%20467f08prtsystem.pdf
to New York, Trenton, and Philadelphia, and connects to Newark Airport. Light rails and the River Line provide additional mobility to residents, and NJ Transit Bus service also provides mobility. Several interstates run through Mercer including 95, 195, and 295, and finally there is the Trenton-Mercer Airport. The major areas in Mercer County, mainly Trenton, Princeton, and Lawrenceville, require great mobility to allow large numbers of commuters, employees, shoppers, and students to reach their destinations. Large employers include Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sarnoff Corporation, Medarex, and Xerox. The major educational facilities include Princeton University, Rider University, the College of New Jersey, Thomas Edison State College, and Trenton Central High School. 4. PRT Network Assumptions A functional PRT network in Mercer County, which has relatively educated and wealthy residents, will provide equal or greater mobility to residents at an equal or lower cost. Travelers must have a compelling reason to give up their automobiles, especially if they are luxury cars. Since the guideway is one-way, the design must try to avoid long loops for adjacent stations because people will be unwilling to take a 20-minute trip in a PRT pod that takes 5 minutes in a car. In addition, pods could include creature comforts, such as climate control, audio jacks for MP3 players, and outlets to entice people to switch, although these costs may prove to be too great. Finally, the PRT network must provide accessibility to NJ Transit stations, especially Princeton Junction and Trenton, large employers, major shopping areas, and schools. (The network will take the place of the Dinky, the second most inefficient line on NJ transit, because it will run at a lower cost due to automation and provide on-demand trips). 5. Initial Networks I located initial networks in Princeton Borough, the Princeton Junction area, and in Trenton near the NJ Transit station. I chose these areas because of high overall population density, a good mix of residential, school, and commercial areas, and the fact that they connect (or are close) to the Northeast Corridor stations. The network in Trenton is very close to an idealized grid system and provides excellent mobility with minimal guideway. Both the Princeton and Princeton Junction networks mainly use loops to provide mobility. The following pages contain screenshots of the networks and tables that summarize the overall trip data and accounting analysis of the initial networks. Since these networks only capture a small portion of the total productions and attractions, the numbers of trips on these networks is low and the break-even analysis is not revealing. However, the Princeton Borough and Trenton Networks clearly perform better than the Princeton Junction network, which does not appear to have enough trips to survive on its own. However, as stations are added to the network, the connection to the Northeast Corridor line that the Princeton Junction network provides will become much more valuable. The analysis of the small networks provides a useful context for analyzing the overall Mercer County PRT network.
5.1: Initial Network, Princeton Junction Trip ends served per station Small Network: Princeton Junction 20,000 10,000-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Highest to lowest Miles of Guideway Length Networks Statistics; Small Network: Princeton Junction Total Trip ends served Average Occupancy Operating Costs Peak hour Average trip Stations Interchanges Toal Trips Trips Fleet size Length Fare (#) (#) (miles) (per day) (per day) (per day) (#) (Miles) (Trips/vehicle) 13 17 26.5 104,831 66 10 1 5 2 $3.00 $0.20 Basic Costs, Revenue; Small Network: Princeton Junction Capital Costs Annual Recurring Costs Annual Revenue P&L Station lease and naming Stations Guideway s Total Cost of Capital Maintenance Operating Total Fare rights Total (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) $26 $133 $0 $159 $13 $3 $0 $16 $0 $0 $1 $(15)
5.2: Initial Network, Princeton Borough Trip ends served per station Initial Network: Princeton 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Highest to lowest Miles of Guideway Length Total Trip ends served Networks Statistics; Initial Network: Princeton Average Occupancy Operating Costs Peak hour Average trip Stations Interchanges Toal Trips Trips Fleet size Length Fare (#) (#) (miles) (per day) (per day) (per day) (#) (Miles) (Trips/vehicle) 11 10 10 176,718 316 47 5 5 2 $3.00 $0.20 Basic Costs, Revenue; Initial Network: Princeton Capital Costs Annual Recurring Costs Annual Revenue P&L Station lease and naming Stations Guideway s Total Cost of Capital Maintenance Operating Total Fare rights Total (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) $22 $50 $1 $73 $6 $1 $0 $7 $0 $0 $1 $(7)
5.3: Initial Network, Trenton Trip ends served per station Initial Network: Trenton 100,000 50,000-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Highest to lowest Miles of Guideway Length Total Trip ends served Networks Statistics; Initial Network: Trenton Average Occupancy Operating Costs Peak hour Average trip Stations Interchanges Toal Trips Trips Fleet size Length Fare (#) (#) (miles) (per day) (per day) (per day) (#) (Miles) (Trips/vehicle) 13 11 11.5 291,842 1,425 214 24 5 2 $3.00 $0.20 Basic Costs, Revenue; Initial Network: Trenton Capital Costs Annual Recurring Costs Annual Revenue P&L Station lease and naming Stations Guideway s Total Cost of CapitalMaintenance Operating Total Fare rights Total (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) $26 $58 $2 $86 $7 $2 $0 $9 $1 $0 $2 $(7)
6. Transition to Countywide Network The transition to a countywide network would be gradual. Assuming that the initial networks proved to be compelling examples of the benefits of PRT, which for Trenton and Princeton Borough could very well be the case, these networks could grow to add stations in neighboring areas, eventually covering a large portion of Mercer County. The connection to NJ Transit is a key feature of these initial networks because the mass transit system provides mobility outside of the PRT network. The Princeton Borough and Princeton Junction networks would merge into one network, and the Trenton Network would grow organically to include all of Trenton and the surrounding areas. However, sparsely populated areas would probably never be connected to the PRT network, and people would eventually shift residential patterns in order to be within a quarter mile of a station. 7. Final PRT Network After collecting housing, employment, and school data, I searched for obvious retail locations in order to calculate the number of patrons. My search terms included mart (Kmart, Walmart), bank, retail, wawa, restaurant, depot (home depot, office depot), hotel, and inn. For these locations, I used a rough estimate of 10 times the number of employees to calculate patrons. Next, I removed all of the duplicate entries, which proved to be a significant problem, especially for schools. After I finished cleaning the data, I located all of the stations that would approximately 2,000 trip ends or more in order to try to make the network financially viable. To connect the stations, I employed several different strategies. In the densest areas, I implemented a grid system with interchanges between stations to provide the greatest mobility with the minimum amount of track. This was especially effective in Trenton and the surrounding area. I connected the majority of the stations using a loop system in order to minimize the amount of guideway. When possible, I made the track follow existing roads to reduce the costs of clearing trees and infringing on property rights. I minimized the amount of two-way track to keep costs down, but there were some stations best-served using a two-way track. These stations were in relatively remote areas, but had sufficiently high demand to warrant a station. The revenue analysis shows that the Mercer County PRT network has the potential to be profitable. The current network serves about 82.5% of trip ends in the county, which translates to about 631,000 trips. At 8% cost of capital and a fare of $2.55, the network breaks even. At a fare of $2.60, the network is projected to produce revenues of approximately 600 million per year and a profit of about $80 million per year. Since there are about 140,000 households and the median household income is $69,000, residents collectively earn approximately $9.66 billion dollars. Mercer County residents would have to spend less than 10% of their incomes on transportation using the PRT network. Overall, my strategy to place stations in locations with 1,500 trip ends or more seems to have made this network close to economically feasible.
Final Network: Mercer County Picture of the overall network
1. The figure shows the welldeveloped grid network in Trenton. This design provides excellent mobility and is supported by the high population density, large number of employers, and connection to New Jersey Transit. 1: Trenton 2. Princeton 2. The network around Princeton makes use of a modified grid with loops. Princeton is relatively dense, although not as much so as Trenton, so the design deviates from a perfect grid. There is a fast path both to and from the Princeton Junction station, which will take the place of the Dinky, the second most inefficient line on NJ transit. 3. This is an example of a large loop used to connect stations in a relatively sparse area. Although it provides less mobility, the population density is too low to merit increasing the number of connections to reduce travel distance between adjacent stations. 3: Sparse area in northeastern Mercer 4: Dense residential area in eastern Mercer 4. I used a similar strategy to connect the stations in this relatively dense residential area that I used in Princeton Township. I used a large number of shape points in order to curve the track to fit existing roads.
Trip ends served per station Mercer County 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000-1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134 141 148 155 162 169 176 183 190 197 204 211 218 225 232 239 246 253 260 267 274 281 288 295 302 309 316 323 330 337 344 351 358 365 372 Highest to lowest P&L for Different Fares (assuming perfectly Inelastic Demand) 400 300 200 100 0 0-100 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4-200 -300-400 -500 Fare ($)
Miles of Guideway Length Total Trip ends served Networks Statistics; Mercer County Average Occupancy Operating Costs Peak hour Average trip Stations Interchanges Total Trips Trips Fleet size Length Fare (#) (#) (miles) (per day) (per day) (per day) (#) (Miles) (Trips/vehicle) 364 433 470 1,863,336 631,037 94,656 10412 5 2 $2.60 $0.20 Basic Costs, Revenue; Mercer County Capital Costs Annual Recurring Costs Annual Revenue P&L lease and naming Stations Guideway s Total Cost of Capital Maintenance Operating Total Fare rights Total (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) (M$) $728 $2,350 $1,041 $4,119 $330 $82 $95 $507 $492 $13 $505 $(1)
8. Improvements and Conclusion There are several ways to improve the quality of the current network. The primary improvement would come from improving the quality of the production and attraction data. Better data would allow for better station placement and ultimately a better network. In addition, placing stations around the largest employers, schools, and housing zones first would probably result in a more efficient network. Overall, this network achieves the goal of profitability while providing mobility to over 80% of Mercer County residents. Given the current population distribution in Mercer County, it is unlikely that a system serving over 90% of the trips would have equal financial prospects to the current system given that there is a large amount of area that is sparsely populated. However, reaching a complete network, even one that serves 80% of the trip ends, will be extremely difficult. As the analysis of the small networks showed, the benefits of the PRT network are not apparent until there is a significant portion of the productions and attractions that are connected. A small network will not be able to survive on its own, but the enormous capital costs will impede efforts to create a viable network from scratch. Trenton is the most promising area to start a network because of its high population density, large number of employers and schools, and connection to mass transit. If a profitable test case could be erected in Trenton, then it would facilitate the development of a countywide network.