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)