HRTPO Strategic Campaign and Vision Plan for Passenger Rail

Similar documents
Rocky Mountain Rail Authority (RMRA)

AMTRAK PURSUING PRIVATE INVESTMENT TO SUPPORT NORTHEAST CORRIDOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL PLANS

CE 561 Lecture Notes. Transportation System Performance. Set 4. -interaction between demand and supply Demand

Impacts of Amtrak Service Expansion in Kansas

220 MPH HIGH SPEED RAIL PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY

Using Activity Based Models for Policy Analysis

TEX Rail Fort Worth, Texas Project Development (Rating Assigned November 2012)

April 30, 2016 Financial Report

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Metro Budget Overview

The Future Scenarios

Development of a Risk Analysis Model for Producing High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasts

A Qualification Based Selection method will be used to review proposals submitted in response to this RFP.

May 31, 2016 Financial Report

INVESTING STRATEGICALLY

Drawbacks of MNL. MNL may not work well in either of the following cases due to its IIA property:

Feasibility Update. RMRA Feasibility Study Steering Committee. Study Work Schedule: Tasks 1 thru May 22, 2009.

CALIBRATING THE INTERCITY HIGH SPEED RAIL (HSR) CHOICE MODEL FOR THE RICHMOND-WASHINGTON, D.C. CORRIDOR

2007 Legislative Program Northern Virginia Transportation Authority Approved: November 10, 2006

ALL Counties. ALL Districts

Modal Split. Lecture Notes in Transportation Systems Engineering. Prof. Tom V. Mathew. 1 Overview 1. 2 Mode choice 2

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE PORTLAND METRO REGION

Travel Forecasting for Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Review of the Federal Transit Administration s Transit Economic Requirements Model. Contents

Report of Independent Accountants on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures

September Board of Directors Briefing Materials. September 24, 2018 FISCAL YEAR. NNEPRA Office Wells Town Hall Sanford Road Wells, ME 12:30pm

Aggregated Binary Logit Modal-Split Model Calibration: An Evaluation for Istanbul

REPORT TO THE CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010

Appendix G TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL DOCUMENTATION

August 31, 2016 Financial Report

Marsh Barton Rail Station Draft Benefits Realisation Plan and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Review and Update of Year 2035 Regional Transportation Plan

University Link LRT Extension

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix G Economic Analysis Report

FY 2018 PRELIMINARY BUDGET. September 16, 2016

TECHNICAL NOTE. 1 Purpose of This Document. 2 Basic Assessment Specification

32 nd Street Corridor Improvements

a GAO GAO INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak s Management of Northeast Corridor Improvements Demonstrates Need for Applying Best Practices

Chapter 5: Cost and Revenues Assumptions

Contracts Administration Management Action Plan Status June 20, 2013

SEPTA s State of Good Repair Funding Crisis

10-Year Capital Highway Investment Plan DRAFT

A. HAMPTON ROADS TRANSPORTATION FUND: MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT

Contents. Appendix. Cost Model Structure. Tables

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

The Economic Impact of Amtrak s Southwest Chief Rail Service on the Colorado Economy.

Puget Sound 4K Model Version Draft Model Documentation

Chairman Skinner and the VRE Operations Board. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals for Federal Legislative Services

NATIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAMME / INformation sheet / october 2012

This chapter describes the initial financial analysis and planning for the construction and operations of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).

Appendix C: Modeling Process

Arlington County, Virginia

Table 13-1 Data Sources of Forecasts for the Pioneer Valley Region

Economic Analysis Concepts

Regional Transit System Return on Investment Assessment. November 30, 2012

National Railroad Passenger Corporation and Subsidiaries (Amtrak)

DRAFT. Relationship of Asset Condition Rating to Transit System Performance. Prepared for. Transportation Research Board

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND. Update of Previous Planning Work. Plan Development Process. Public Involvement and Review Process

Guideway Status Report

FY2018 Third Quarter Financial Update

Columbia River Crossing Project Vancouver, Washington Engineering (Rating Assigned November 2012)

Caltrain Funding 101

Sound Transit 2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Methodology Report. with Analysis Results. Prepared for: Sound Transit. Prepared by: PB Consult

2040 Transit System Plan

Quiz #2 The Northeast Corridor

Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment 2014 UPDATE

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION PROJECT PACKAGES

Indiana Transportation Funding Update

10-Year Capital Highway Investment Plan DRAFT

Tampa Bay Express Planning Level Traffic and Revenue (T&R) Study

A Summary of Changes to the HS2 Economic Case

Executive Summary: Review Result of Jakarta MRT Project

2. Scenario Planning. Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years

Financial Snapshot October 2014

February 2016 Financial Report

Project Summary Project Name: Route 37 Corridor Safety Sweep Project Number:

State Taxes Only See Separate Analysis for Property Taxes and Local Aids

5/3/2016. May 4, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

8. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Chapter 4: Regional Transportation Finance

MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT NOVEMBER FY 2018

Freight Rail Improvements Oklahoma City to Shawnee TIGER Grant Application Benefit Cost Analysis Technical Memo October 2009

10 Financial Analysis

Portal North Bridge Project Hudson County, New Jersey Core Capacity Project Development (Rating Assigned February 2017)

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Mass Transit Return on Investment

Westshore Circulator Study. Westshore Alliance Transportation Committee Meeting

Transit Asset Management Initial Performance Targets

MEMORANDUM. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors. Michael T. Burns General Manager. DATE: August 4, 2008

Regional Economic Development Impacts of Transportation Investments

GLOSSARY. At-Grade Crossing: Intersection of two roadways or a highway and a railroad at the same grade.

California High-Speed Rail Project

The Economic Impact of Travel on Massachusetts Counties 2009

Financial Update for the Period Ended April 7, 2018

January Board of Directors Briefing Materials. January 29, 2018

CHAPTER 9 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Transit Subsidy. Mission Statement. Mandates

Transportation Theory and Applications

FTA Rural and Tribal NTD Overview and Updates. December 12, 2018

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. Table 1: Vehicle Fleet Characteristics Four- Medium Car. Light Bus. Wheel Drive

TSHWANE BRT: Development of a Traffic Model for the BRT Corridor Phase 1A Lines 1 and 2

Transcription:

Presentation To HRTPO Steering Committee Agenda Item #1 HRTPO Strategic Campaign and Vision Plan for Passenger Rail Presentation By March 17, 2010 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc.

Study Timeline PHASE 1: Preliminary Vision Plan Tasks Step 1. Study Databank Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Task 1 Study Design Task 2 Data Assembly Market Database Stated Preference Survey Sensitivity Data Engineering Database Technology Database Step 2. Service Scenarios Task 3 Service Scenarios Step 3. Interactive Analysis Task 4 Interactive Analysis Demand Analysis Sensitivy and Risk Analysis Rail Service Analysis Step 4. System Forecasts and Outputs Task 5 Ridership and Revenue Forecasts Task 6 Operating and Capital Costs Task 7 Financial and Economic Feasibility Analysis Financial Analysis Economic Analysis of User / Non-User Benefits Step 5. Institutional and Financing Framework Task 8 Financing and Funding Arrangements Task 9 Institutional Framework Task 10 Allocation of Costs and Revenues Step 6. Vision Plan Task 11 Implementation Plan Task 12 Preliminary Vision Plan Task 13 Final Vision Plan MEETINGS PRESENTATIONS MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORTS 1

Service Concepts Base Level Service Concept: A Higher Speed 79-mph and 90-mph service operating within the context of a stand alone or a Northeast Corridor integrated service. Improved Service Concepts: service improvements that would be associated with upgraded track and High Speed 110-mph and/or 150-mph train speeds. 2

The RightTrack System Using the RightTrack Business Planning System An integrated set of programs allowing an Interactive Analysis of the specific requirements for any passenger rail technology 3

RightTrack Interactive Analysis Existing Databases Capital Costs Operating Costs Market Engineering Operations Financial Economic Engineering Analysis Operating Plan Ridership & Revenue Financial & Economic Analysis Report Optional as Required Capacity Analysis Train Routes and Speed Scenario Formulation Train Technology and Service Levels Fares, Stations, and Quality of Service 4

Phase 1 Range of Rail Technologies Conventional Amfleet Virgin Voyager Amtrak Acela 79-90 mph Diesel Non-tilting 110-130 mph Diesel Tilting 150 mph Electric Tilting 5

Speed (mph) Comparative Train Acceleration Curves 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 150-mph Acela 130-mph Voyager 0 5 10 90-mph 15 Amfleet 20 Miles 6

Locomotion Result: CSX Peninsula Sub Unconstrained Performance reflecting Curve Speed Limits Only, 110-mph Max Richmond Viaduct Diano 3º Curves 2º Curve near Toppings 7

Trackman Chart: CSX Peninsula Sub Showing 3º Curve Cluster at Diano 8

Locomotion Result: NS Southside Unconstrained Performance reflecting Curve Speed Limits Only, 110-mph Max Petersburg Belt Conn + Poe 1º 42 Curve at Suffolk 9

We will estimate Rail Operating Costs Framework resulted from previous multi-year, multi-state planning efforts (e.g., MWRRI and Florida Business Plans) Drivers Train Miles Passenger Miles Cost Categories Equipment Maintenance Energy & F uel Train & Engine Crews OBS Crews Operator Profit Insurance Liability Ridership 1 Sales & Marketing Station Costs Fixed Cost Service Administration Track & ROW Maintenance Feeder Bus 1 Station costs as well as sales and marketing are only affected weakly by ridership, so these two costs can be considered fixed for practical purposes. 10

We will estimate Rail Capital Costs Capital Costs by Technology/Route Land and Right-of-Way Sub-grade, Structures, and Guideway Track Rolling Stock Signals and Communications Electrification Maintenance and Facilities Highway and Railroad Crossings Farm and Animal Crossings Pedestrian Crossing Fencing Stations 11

Demand Model Components Total Demand: Socioeconomic Growth Induced Demand: Transport Conditions Mode Choice: Comparative Performance 12

Travel Utility Where U ijp = ƒ(gcijp) GC ijp = Generalized cost of travel between zones i and j for purpose p TC ijmp VOF mpoh VOR mp exp( OTPi jm) GC ijmp = TT ijm + VOT mp VOT mp F ijm Ci jm VOT mp Where TT ijm = Travel time between zones i and j for mode m (in-vehicle time + waiting time + delay time + connect time + access/egress time + interchange penalty), with waiting, delay, connect and access/egress time multiplied by two to account for the additional disutility felt by travelers for these activities TC ijmp = Travel cost between zones i and j for mode m and purpose p (fare + access/egress cost for public modes, operating costs for auto) VOT mp = Value of Time for mode m and purpose p VOF mp = Value of Frequency for mode m and purpose p VOR mp = Value of Reliability for mode m and purpose p F ijm = Frequency in departures per week between zones i and j for mode m OH = Operating hours per week OTP ijm = On-time performance for travel between zones i and j for mode m 13

Total Demand T ijp = e B0p (SE ijp ) B1p (U jp ) B2p Where T ijp = Volume of trips between zones i and j for purpose p Se ijp = Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for purpose p U ijp = All mode generalized cost of travel for zones i and j for purpose p B 0p, B 1p, B 2p = Calibration parameters for purpose p 14

Modal Split Model Only two choices exist at each level of the modal split hierarchical structure, a Binary Logit Model is used, as shown in Equation 1: Equation 1: Where, P ijmp exp( U exp( U ijmp / ) ijmp / ) exp( U ijnp / ) P ijmp = Percentage of trips between zones i and j by mode m for trip purpose p U ijmp, U ijnp = Utility functions of modes m and n between zones i and j for trip purpose i is called the nesting coefficient In Equation 1, the utility of travel between zones i and j by mode m for trip purpose p is a function of the generalized cost of travel. Where mode m is a composite mode (e.g., the surface modes in the third level of the Modal Split Model hierarchy, which consist of the rail and bus modes), the utility of travel, as described below, is derived from the utility of the two or more modes it represents. 15

Preliminary Zone System 16

Main Sources for Socioeconomic Database 1. Hampton Roads MPO 2. Richmond Area MPO 3. Crater MPO 4. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 5. Baltimore Metropolitan Council 6. State Planning Organizations (multiple) 7. Bureau of Economic Analysis 8. U.S. Census Bureau 9. Applied Demographic Solution 17

RENTS will determine what technology and routes are financial and economically feasible and meet FRA requirements RENTS uses output from the COMPASS Demand Forecasting System to estimate the financial and economic benefits of a project. This includes the financial return (Operating Ratio, NPV and IRR), economic return (Gross and Net Consumer Surplus, NPV, and Cost-Benefit Ratio), and Economic Rent, i.e., community benefits (changes in household income, employment by sector, property values, and population) that result from infrastructure and technology improvements or timetable and fare modifications. 18

We will provide Pro forma Financial Analysis 7.5 Pro forma Cash Flows The pro forma cash flows are shown in Exhibit 7.7 and Exhibit 7.8. These present the forecasted total revenues and operating expense projections for 2012 through 2040. Since these projections are based on the Back Loaded capital plan, operations can t start before 2012. This plan includes two years of revenue ramp up at 50% and 90% factors for the first and second years, respectively, so the first year of full operations occurs in 2014*. Exhibit 7.7 Minneapolis to Duluth 110-mph Rail Service: 8-Train Base Plan - Preliminary Operating Statement Thousands of 2006 $ Total to 2040 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Revenues Ticket Revenue $1,080,230 $13,567 $25,107 $28,659 $29,422 $30,185 $30,948 $31,711 $32,474 $33,236 $33,999 On Board Services $86,418 $1,085 $2,009 $2,293 $2,354 $2,415 $2,476 $2,537 $2,598 $2,659 $2,720 Express Parcel Service (Net Rev) $54,011 $678 $1,255 $1,433 $1,471 $1,509 $1,547 $1,586 $1,624 $1,662 $1,700 Total Revenues $1,220,660 $15,331 $28,371 $32,385 $33,247 $34,109 $34,971 $35,833 $36,695 $37,557 $38,419 Train Operating Expenses Energy and Fuel $75,081 $2,013 $2,013 $2,013 $2,013 $2,013 $2,013 $2,013 $2,013 $2,542 $2,542 Train Equipment Maintenance $204,890 $5,494 $5,494 $5,494 $5,494 $5,494 $5,494 $5,494 $5,494 $6,937 $6,937 Train Crew $96,367 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 $3,323 On Board Services $80,631 $1,833 $2,295 $2,437 $2,467 $2,498 $2,528 $2,559 $2,589 $2,620 $2,650 Service Administration $147,171 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 $5,075 Total Train Operating Expenses $604,139 $17,738 $18,200 $18,342 $18,372 $18,403 $18,434 $18,464 $18,495 $20,497 $20,527 Other Operating Expenses Track & ROW Maintenance $114,663 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 $3,954 Station Costs $40,547 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 $1,398 Sales & Marketing $51,009 $643 $1,190 $1,358 $1,394 $1,429 $1,465 $1,501 $1,536 $1,572 $1,607 Insurance Liability $43,345 $549 $1,015 $1,158 $1,188 $1,218 $1,248 $1,278 $1,308 $1,338 $1,368 Total Other Operating Expenses $249,564 $6,544 $7,557 $7,868 $7,934 $7,999 $8,065 $8,130 $8,196 $8,262 $8,327 Total Operating Expenses $853,703 $24,283 $25,757 $26,210 $26,306 $26,402 $26,498 $26,594 $26,690 $28,758 $28,854 Cash Flow From Operations $366,957 ($8,952) $2,614 $6,175 $6,941 $7,707 $8,473 $9,239 $10,005 $8,799 $9,565 Operating Ratio 1.43 0.63 1.10 1.24 1.26 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.37 1.31 1.33 * In contrast, some of the earlier Financials, such as the Operating Ratio discussions in Chapter 6, assumed that operations could start as early as 2010 based on the Front Loaded capital plan and they don t include the ramp-up factors. A 2010 start-up would make 2012 the first year of full operations. 19

We will measure USDOT FRA approved economic benefits 20

Will estimate supplyside community benefits Economic Rent Factor 110/4 125/4 110/8 125/8 State of Minnesota: Employment (# productivity jobs) 5,647 6,409 13,114 13,876 Income (2006$) $252 mill $285 mill $583 mill $616 mill State Income Tax 2006$) $10.6 mill $12.0 mill $24.5 mill $25.9 mill Federal Income Tax (2006$) $28.5 mill $32.3 mill $66.0 mill $69.7 mill Property Value (2006$) $722 mill $817 mill $1,672 mill $1,767 mill Property Tax (2006$) $ 8.4 mill $ 9.5 mill $ 19.5 mill $ 20.6 mill Average Household Income (2006$) $167 $189 $384 $406 State of Wisconsin: Employment (# productivity jobs) 305 351 719 765 Income (2006$) $15 mill $17 mill $34 mill $37 mill State Income Tax (2006$) $0.5 mill $0.6 mill $1.2 mill $1.3 mill. Federal Income Tax (2006$) $1.5 mill $1.7 mill $3.5 mill $3.8 mill Property Value (2006$) $45 mill $52 mill $106 mill $113 mill Property Tax (2006$) $ 0.8 mill $ 0.9 mill $ 1.8 mill $ 2.0 mill Average Household Income (2006$) $102 $117 $240 $255 21

Implementation Plan Template for the HRTPO Preferred Alternative 22

Thank You 23