The Use of Passenger Transit Infrastructure for The Use of Passenger Transit Infrastructure for Goods Movement: A Bay Area Case Study Karthik Sivakumaran, Dr. Xiao-Yun Lu, ITS, U. C. Berkeley Matt Hanson, Caltrans DRI Richard Lu, BART; Faisal Zaman & Run Zhou, FedEx;
26
Embed
The Use of Passenger Transit Infrastructure forThe Use of ...path.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Line 1_METRANS... · The Use of Passenger Transit Infrastructure forThe
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Use of Passenger Transit Infrastructure forThe Use of Passenger Transit Infrastructure for Goods Movement: A Bay Area Case Study
Karthik Sivakumaran, Dr. Xiao-Yun Lu, ITS, U. C. BerkeleyMatt Hanson, Caltrans DRIRichard Lu, BART; Faisal Zaman & Run Zhou, FedEx;
• Air cargo in the Bay Area will double by 2010 and triple by 2020, relative to 1998 levelsT k th i t t d f i t• Trucks are the primary transport mode for air cargo movement between airport sorting sites and customers
• Increased trucking will lead to increased:Air pollution– Air pollution
Accidents– Accidents• There exists a need for alternative . . .• Alternative:
Use Commuter Rail System for Transshipments between Airports and– Use Commuter Rail System for Transshipments between Airports and Local Collection and Distribution Centers
• Starting from air freight, but may extended to other products from manufacturers or agricultural products
Introduction
• Project history– First meeting at California PATH (FedEx, BART, Caltrans,
BAAQMD) J l 6th 2005BAAQMD) on July 6th 2005, – Many activities conducted after that
Visiting FedEx Western Regional Hub at OAKP d t t d d do Products types and demand
o Operation in sorting and with truckso Container types and sizeo Loading/unloadingo Loading/unloading
Visiting BART Yards, Stations for loading/unloading accessibilityVisiting UPS and DHL Sorting Center at OAKDiscussion with BART Operation Division and FedExDiscussion with BART Operation Division and FedExFinding opportunities for small scale operation/demonstration
– Project currently funded by Caltrans DRI and Goods Movement
Introduction
• Potential Benefits– Integrated Air Freight Carriers
I d li bilit i iIncreased reliability in serviceCost savings in a long runBusiness expansion
– Public CommunityReduced trucking activitiesReduced trucking activitiesReduced emissionMaximally using heavily invested infrastructure including recycled BART carReduced road maintenancePotentially reduced fatal highway accident
System Characteristics
• BART– 104 miles of track– 43 stations– Car Dimensions
70 ft X 10.5 ft X 7 ft– Door Dimensions
4.5 ft X 6.5 ft– Nonstandard Gauge;
5.5 ft– Net loads: 30,000lbs– 15 min headway; shorter in SF direction in peak hours– Future Plans
Extension to San Jose by 2018Renewal of BART fleet with 700 new cars by 2024
System Characteristics
• BART– Only 30% capacity of BART system is used currently on average
f tfor passenger movement;– BART system control technology is 20~30 years ago; building by-
passing tracks at some critical stations and using modern technology of sensors wireless communications and controltechnology of sensors, wireless communications, and control system, headway could be greatly reduced and BART system capacity could be greatly increased;
• BART Lines and FedEx Collection Distribution Centers
• BART Yard at Concord
57 min ODY
51 min OHY
1:14 MB
28 OKS
ORY 59 min ODY
51 min OHY
1:16 MB
28 O S
OCY
35 min CL 28 min OKS
35 min CL
OKS
ODY
58 min OHY
35 Min OKS58 min ODY
OHY
= BART Yard
57 min ODY
47 min OHY
1:08 MB
35 min CL
59 min ODY
43 min OHY
1:20 MB
31 C31 min CL
46 min ODY46 min OHY
= BART Yard = FedEx Stations
Possible Consist Configurations
1) Modified BART Cars
2) Flatcar used as a Control Car
3) Flatcar without Control Elements
System Characteristics
• FedEx Western Regional Hub at OAKSorting and distribution center for seven states
Time Dependent Demand– Time-Dependent DemandDistribution: 3:00 AM to 7:00 AMCollection: 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM
– Container TypesContainer TypesVarious sizesNearly all use ball-bearings for transport (no lifts)
o Exception: USPS ContainerpAvg. load density 5.5 lbs/ft3
– CTV5 Truck Dimensions53 ft X 10.5 ft
Preliminary Economic Analysis: Methodology and AssumptionsAssumptions
• Preliminary Stage of Economic Feasibility Study:– Examine only operating costs and externalities
If infeasible then no need to explore capital expenditure– If infeasible, then no need to explore capital expenditure– Timeline showed: 2021-2040
• Compare the following four alternatives to Status Quo (trucks only):
1 2
A
Little capital investment CTV5 Trucks for local transshipments; Existing BART yards and maintenance
Little capital investment Electric trucks for local transshipments; Existing BART yards stations andExisting BART yards and maintenance
areas for access point; Dedicated freight train
Existing BART yards, stations and maintenance areas for access point; Dedicated freight train
CTV5 Trucks for local transshipments; BART connection between OAK and
Electric trucks for local transshipments; BART connection between OAK and
B
BART connection between OAK and Coliseum Station; Certain capital investment for retrofitting of existing BART stations for goods movement;
BART connection between OAK and Coliseum Station Certain capital investment for retrofitting of existing BART stations for goods movement;
Dedicated freight train Dedicated freight train
Preliminary Economic Analysis: Alternatives A1 and A2:
6b: Glen Park
7b S San
Black oval: FedEx Center
(Oakland City Center/12th St.)7b: S. San Francisco
5a: CCR
7a: SQL
6b.7b: Colma
White oval: BART Yards;
Rectangle: BART t f i t
6a: SFO5b: Concord (Yard) (YARD)
(YARD)
4ab: (Coliseum/ Oakland Airport)
transfer points
RHV: San JoseHWD: Hayward
(Bay Fair)
OAK
2b: Union City
3b: Dublin/ Pleasanton
Oakland Airport) OAK: Oakland Airport HubSFO: San Francisco (near airport)SQL: South San2b: Union City
(YARD)
1b: Milpitas
2a: HWD
3a: LVK1a: RHV
SQL: South San FranciscoCCR: ConcordLVK: Dublin
1b: Milpitas1a: RHV
Alternatives B1 and B2:
6b: Glen Park
7b S San
Black oval: FedEx Center
(Oakland City Center/12th St.)7b: S. San Francisco
5a: CCR
7a: SQL
6b.7b: Colma
White oval: BART Yards;
Rectangle: BART t f i t
6a: SFO5b: Concord (Yard) (YARD)
(YARD)
4ab: (Coliseum/ Oakland Airport)
transfer points
RHV: San JoseHWD: Hayward
(Bay Fair)
OAK
2b: Union City
3b: Dublin/ Pleasanton
Oakland Airport) OAK: Oakland Airport HubSFO: San Francisco (near airport)SQL: South San2b: Union City
(YARD)
1b: Milpitas
2a: HWD
3a: LVK1a: RHV
SQL: South San FranciscoCCR: ConcordLVK: Dublin
1b: Milpitas1a: RHV
Methodology and Assumptions
• Demand (lbs/day)
1a: 2a: 3a: 5a: 6a: 7a:1a:RHV
2a:HWD
3a:LVK
5a:CCR
6a:SFO
7a:SQL
From OAK 18,300 13,800 12,900 13,200 25,500 15,900To OAK 60,000 219,00 99,000 51,000 76,500 36,000
# trucks req for given link = (route demand)/(truck capacity) # trucks req. for given link = (route demand)/(truck capacity)Link truck VMT = (# trucks req. for link) X (link travel distance)Sum across all linksConsider empty container returnsConsider empty container returns
BART# cars req. for given link = (link demand)/(car capacity)Consolidate cars into consists (max length = 10 cars)( g )Calculate train VHT for given link, and sum across linksConsider empty container returnsConsider empty train returns to BART yards, s. t. same number of
i i i d t b i i f h dcars is in given yard at beginning of each day• Handling Costs (incl. labor)
Incurred by both BART and FedEx at transshipment pointAssumed 0 025 hrs/container Assumed 0.025 hrs/container
• Analysis shows significant promise for exploring the possibility of mixed-goods service on commuter rail systems. Alt ti h t d ti th t th hi h th d d th• Alternatives show a trend suggesting that the higher the demand, the lower the level of subsidy required.
• With certain capital investment, BART can actually derive profit from this service while the air freight carrier (FedEx) can derive savings.this service while the air freight carrier (FedEx) can derive savings.
• Future work– Adjust parameter values through further discussions with BART and FedEx– Quantify reliability benefitsy y– Further examine logistical barriers– Inclusion of other demand sources including manufacturer products– Determine capital costs for system modification– Social cost and benefit– More extensive analysis on emission and energy consumption
• Other aspects of feasibility study: logistics, security, institutional issuesissues
Acknowledgments
• BART– Steve Peery
• CyberTrans Int.– Eugene Nishinaga (Previous BART Research Manager)
• FedEx– Michael Graham
• Caltrans Goods Movement– Tom Messer– Michele Fell– Marcus Evans