Forbes: Renewed Interest in High-Speed Rail

[Roy Reynolds]

Link: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/07/ap4093616.html

BLOOMINGTON, Ill. - Seven hours after boarding a train in Kansas City,
Douglas Lewandowski finally arrived at Chicago's Union Station -
rested after the 500-mile trip but anxious to get home to Elkhart,
Ind.

"How long it takes on these trains is so frustrating," said
Lewandowski, 55. "I'd be more likely to take more trains if they were
faster, but I'm afraid I'll be six feet under before that ever
happens."

While sleek new passenger trains streak through Europe, Japan and
other corners of the world at speeds nearing 200 mph, most U.S.
passenger trains chug along at little more than highway speeds -
slowed by a half-century of federal preference for spending on roads
and airports.

But advocates say millions of Americans may be ready to embrace high-
speed rail for everything from business travel to vacations because of
soaring gas prices, airport delays and congested freeways that slow
travel and contribute to air pollution.

"We have to change these things really fast. The era of cheap oil is
over," said Rick Harnish, executive director of the nonprofit Midwest
High Speed Rail Association. "People want choices in how they travel,
and it's time for the states and feds to start providing those."

Still, getting trains moving fast enough, and in enough places, to
entice travelers is a funding and logistical challenge.

Track and safety improvements for already-proposed projects could cost
billions of dollars - and require reprioritization of federal
transportation funds.

Congress is considering a six-year Amtrak funding bill co-sponsored by
40 senators that would provide the first matching federal grants for
rail projects. The measure proposes $100 million in first-year grants,
paltry considering that California alone needs $40 billion for a
mammoth bullet train project that would link San Francisco and
Sacramento with Los Angeles and San Diego.

Some argue federal money would be better spent to research electric-
powered cars and other cutting-edge travel alternatives, rather than
the ribbons of steel that triggered America's westward expansion in
the 1800s.

"Solutions to our current problems have to be found, not imposed from
previous centuries. High-speed rail is just a polished version of 19th
century technology," said William Garrison, co-author of "Tomorrow's
Transportation" and a retired civil engineering professor at the
University of California at Berkeley.

But supporters contend high-speed trains could be an important
alternative, rivaling even air travel once home-to-airport travel
times and delays cause by airport security measures are taken into
account.

A new European rail line that hits speeds up to 199 mph has cut the
292-mile ride between Paris and Frankfurt from 6 hours and 15 minutes
to 3 1/2 hours. At those speeds, the 260-mile ride between Chicago and
St. Louis would drop from 5 1/2 hours to just over 3 hours.

"They'd have to go awful fast. When I go somewhere I like to get there
in a hurry, not take all day," John Wilson, 79, said while waiting for
his son's plane at an airport in Bloomington, Ill.

Few envision U.S. high-speed rail would stretch coast to coast or
match the dizzying speeds of other countries in the next few decades,
even if Congress approves the matching funds for intercity rail
projects.

Instead, supporters see most trains running at about 110 mph between
major cities 200 to 300 miles apart, similar to Amtrak's Acela line
that trimmed about a half-hour from the usual 4-hour trip from Boston
to New York and about 15 minutes from the three-hour ride from New
York to Washington.

The six-year-old Acela Express is the only U.S. rail line that tops
the 125 mph considered "high speed" by international standards. And
even supporters concede it barely qualifies, hitting its maximum 150
mph for less than 20 miles from Boston to Washington, D.C., and
averaging just 86 mph over the full 456-mile run.

Even so, Acela's ridership rose 20 percent in May as gasoline prices
topped $3 a gallon nationwide, said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Cole.
Nationally, Amtrak is poised for its fifth straight year of ridership
gains this year, said Marc Magliari, a spokesman for the railroad.

Ridership was up nearly 18 percent through May on a Pennsylvania line
that bumped speeds from 90 mph to 110 mph last October, cutting 15 to
30 minutes off the two-hour ride from Philadelphia to Harrisburg.

States across the country have gambled on increased interest in rail
travel, investing millions of their own dollars in studies and
construction for high-speed projects that helped launch about a half-
dozen routes that now run above 90 mph.

Illinois has sunk about $80 million into track and crossing
improvements over a decade, but has finished less than half of a
planned high-speed route from Chicago to St. Louis that would shave 90
minutes off the current 5 1/2-hour train ride.

Completing the estimated $400 million project will take years, but is
projected to boost ridership from 300,000 last year to 1.2 million,
said George Weber, chief of the Illinois Department of
Transportation's passenger rail division.

Weber said trains could begin running at 110 mph by 2009 on 120 miles
of the 280-mile route after the state recently settled on safety
technology that will ensure faster trains can coexist with cars and
slow-moving freight traffic that shares the line.

"To think this state (Illinois) has known for 10 years how to get
Chicago-to-St. Louis to three hours and 45 minutes, and we kind of
languish at five and a half to six hours," Harnish said. "Imagine what
difference that would make to the St. Louis economy if you could get
to Chicago by train (that much quicker)."

California has proposed the nation's most ambitious plan: a 700-mile
electric-powered train that would run at up to 220 mph from San
Francisco to San Diego, cutting the roughly 9-hour drive to about 3
1/2 hours.

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association said recent
forecasts show the system carrying up to 117 million passengers a year
by 2030.

The massive project, which would lay all new track, could complete its
first phase from San Francisco to Los Angeles within 15 years if
voters approve a $10 billion bond issue scheduled for next year. But
the vote has been pushed back twice and could be postponed again
because of worries that it could hinder the state's bonding authority
for roads, schools and other projects.

"How can we say we can't afford this in California, the biggest state
in the country, when these systems are being built all over the
world? ... It's a matter of priority," said Dan Leavitt, deputy
director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

John Spychalski, a transportation expert and professor at Penn State
University, says high-speed rail will continue to languish unless
lawmakers provide the same financial backing as highways and air
travel. He said some could be swayed if high-profile projects such as
California's succeed.

"I don't think there's any question that it would help build momentum
for making this kind of service a reality where it makes sense to have
it," Spychalski said. "There just needs to be a political will, and
right now not enough elected officials see it as a viable
alternative."

Associated Press writers Michael Tarm in Chicago and Jim Suhr in St.
Louis contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

Posted by Roy Reynolds
www.prtstrategies.com

[Kirston Henderson]

on 9/7/07 1:39 PM, Roy Reynolds at ral...@gmail.com wrote:

> Link: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/07/ap4093616.html

> John Spychalski, a transportation expert and professor at Penn State
> University, says high-speed rail will continue to languish unless
> lawmakers provide the same financial backing as highways and air
> travel. He said some could be swayed if high-profile projects such as
> California's succeed.
>
> "I don't think there's any question that it would help build momentum
> for making this kind of service a reality where it makes sense to have
> it," Spychalski said. "There just needs to be a political will, and
> right now not enough elected officials see it as a viable
> alternative."

He hit upon the real answer. In my opinion, high-speed rail as just
about everyone visualizes it, it is not "a viable alternative" and is not
likely to become one. Only far more lower cost, advanced technology is
going to be able to provide the desired service.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Dennis Manning]

I heard a rumor that the FROG system was bankrupt. Repeat rumor. Anyone have
information?

Dennis

[Kirston Henderson]

on 9/7/07 4:43 PM, Dennis Manning at john.m...@comcast.net wrote:

>
> I heard a rumor that the FROG system was bankrupt. Repeat rumor. Anyone have
> information?
>

It appears that their web site is still operating.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Eric Baumgartner]

"A new European rail line that hits speeds up to 199 mph has cut the
292-mile ride between Paris and Frankfurt from 6 hours and 15 minutes
to 3 1/2 hours. At those speeds, the 260-mile ride between Chicago and
St. Louis would drop from 5 1/2 hours to just over 3 hours.

"They'd have to go awful fast. When I go somewhere I like to get there
in a hurry, not take all day," John Wilson, 79, said while waiting for
his son's plane at an airport in Bloomington, Ill."

 

 

Why would I want to take a 199mph train that takes 3+ hours when I can take a 550 mph jet and get there in 1 hour and 10 minutes? 

 

 

 

Eric Baumgartner
eri...@shaw.ca

http://www.edmontonprt.com/

[Jerry Roane]

Eric

The reason is upper level air pollution and energy waste.  If the 79 year old doesn't give a rip about the future generations then in his short lifetime there is no problem taking a 550 mph jet if he can find one.  550 is pretty fast for a jet even after it is in the air.  The 8 mph trip across the tarmac takes a while after the struggle to de-fang passengers from their nail clippers at .04 mph, but I am biased. 

Jerry Roane

[Michael Weidler]

Because it's actually at least 2 hours 10 minutes. You forget to factor in the hour plus wait to actually get on the plane. Then once you get to your destination airport, you still need to get to wherever it is you are actually going.

[Eric Baumgartner]

Hello Jerry & Michael

 

This is the argument to conventional rail and high speed rail.  There is a proposal in the work to build a Bombardier high speed rail between Edmonton and Calgary, Alberta.  300 Kilometres (180 miles) apart.  Estimated cost approaching $10B to $15B.  The energy to build the route; construction equipment, aggregate, concrete, steel, ballast and the labour to construct it would take many times the energy than the utilizing the existing airports between the two cities.  In fact the municipal airport in Edmonton has severe restrictions thrust upon it.   The municipal airport which is 5 minutes from downtown, used to handle 737 flights and is now not allowed flights with more than 9 passengers.  This was not due to noise restrictions but rather to encourage more flights to the International airport outside of Edmonton. 

 

The high speed rail proposal is the biggest white elephant since the 1976 Montreal Olympics.  The Edmonton to Calgary route has only 35,000 cars & trucks each day traveling the entire distance, about the same as the traffic between Kansas City & Topeka, KS.

 

Any  high speed rail being proposed in a post 9/11 world in Canada and the USA would have the same security and baggage restrictions as the airlines.  Furthermore the route selected has 7 stops which slow the net route time to 2-1/2 hours or 72 mph.  The current posted highway speed limit is 110km/hr or 67 mph (most travel about 10% faster).  The problems with trains & planes are the first and last mile, or should I say the first 5 miles and last 5 miles as stations are not usually close to you destination or point of origin.  The net travel time is still faster between cities when you add in the taxi ride to the station, security, baggage, waiting for scheduled trains and the car rental at the other end.  In the Alberta case, a family of 4 in a van not only gets there faster, utilizes existing infrastructure and it is cheaper than $49 rail tickets ($420.00 with tax), but the energy per passenger is far less than rail or air travel. Recently I was traveling to San Diego and had to fly from Edmonton to Calgary, change planes and fly to San Diego.  From leaving my home, going to the Edmonton airport and flying to Calgary and waiting to board my connecting flight took a total of 6 hours, that is 180 miles by jet or 30 mph.

 

I know I am preaching to the choir but the Forbes article totally misses the point on these issues.

 

I would much rather see a TriTrack built than see one dollar wasted on high speed rail.

 

 

NEW Web Site!

 

http://www.edmontonprt.com/

 

Eric Baumgartner
eri...@shaw.ca

[Jack Slade]

I agree. 200 mph ground transport would be the equal of air transport, if it eliminates the wait times at the airport. However, if it also delivered you to within a very short distance from the actual address that is your destination, then you have some more time, and an expensive taxi ride.

That is what PRT can do, eventually, when inter-city as well as local routes are established.  Think about that: leave your city in a vehicle, travel 200 mph to another city, and go on it's local system to very close to where you really want to be, all in the same car.

 

Isn't that what you do in your present car? ( Except for the speed)?

 

Jack Slade

Michael Weidler <pstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Rob Means]

David,

 

They already shipped the throttle today.  Actually, they seem to have shipped two items.  When they arrive, I’ll contact you.

 

Rob Means, Electro Ride Bikes and Scooters
408-262-8975   rob....@electric-bikes.com
1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035-6913
Discover cycling that's Easy, Safe, Fast - and FUN!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Weidler [mailto:pstr...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 8:24 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [t-i] Re: Forbes: Renewed Interest in High-Speed Rail

 

Because it's actually at least 2 hours 10 minutes. You forget to factor in the hour plus wait to actually get on the plane. Then once you get to your destination airport, you still need to get to wherever it is you are actually going.

Eric Baumgartner <eri...@shaw.ca> wrote:

<BR

[Guala Luca]

> Why would I want to take a 199mph train that takes 3+ hours when I can take a 550 mph jet and get there in 1 hour and 10 minutes?

Eric,

an airplane will take you from airport to airport, a train from station to station. While new airports are built further away from towns, train stations typically are still near the city centres. There's a much bigger time penalty at the two ends of an airplane trip. Moreover, a train can stop at intermediate cities with a small time penalty and a small increase in infrastructure cost and impact. Airplanes cannot do intermediate stops if not at a great cost, impact and waste of time. High speed trains can revive the towns between two major destinations, while aiplane travel kills them.

cheers, Luca

[Michael Weidler]

Interestingly, the ridership estimates for 2030 forcast 320,000 people per day. That's a lot of people. The question is are these locals commuting or long distance travelers going essentially the entire distance?

[Robbert Lohmann [2getthere]]

All,

Dennis approached me by e-mail and I now saw this post. Seems I have to clarify a 'little'.

Frog has restructured earlier this year, splitting the company in three independent companies. The industrial business is still conducted by Frog AGV Systems, while Advanced Cargo Transhipment (ACT) is responsible for harbor applications and 2getthere for APM-systems. Both companies hold exclusive licenses for the application of the FROG-technology in their respective fields.

ACT has been taken over by the Finnish multinational Kalmar the past week. Kalmer was solely interested in taking over the harbor activities. 2getthere shares its offices with ACT. The vehicle and supervisory technology being developed by ACT is a good fit for APM systems, being able to cope with the inherent complexity of large networks.

Personally I will continue to work for 2getthere, at times providing ACT with assistance for some marketing activities. Hope this provides some clarity on what has been going on... We did publish a news item on our website on it last week; but did not officially communicate this through a press release.

Regards,

Robbert





Kirston Henderson schreef:

    It appears that their web site is still operating.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail(r)






  

[Jerry Schneider]

There is an interesting paper at the Magplane website that describes
a system suited for an interactive-information age--metropolis,
features multiple off-line stations in an areawide network - along
the lines of the concept that Dennis has articulated.
http://www.magplane.com/downloads/Hangzhou.PDF
Some first and last mile problems would still be there, but would
probably not as great as conventional proposals.

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[a.boender]

Kirston Henderson wrote:

    It appears that their web site is still operating.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail(r)






  

Yes FROG-company is bankrupt, the system is not.
The system lives on in the company "2 get there"
.

[Eric Baumgartner]

Luca

 

Your over simplification of the benefits of HSR are the root of the problems.  HSR has more problems than answers to the improvement of intercity transport.  The huge tax breaks and grants offered to the construction of HSR would do more benefit to cities if those tax dollars would be used towards direct reinvestment in urban core infrastructure and creating more housing downtown.

 

Eric Baumgartner
eri...@shaw.ca

[Eric Baumgartner]

Michael

 

Where did you get those statistics?  I would be very interested in seeing those or giving me a link to that information.  Edmonton & Calgary are growing fast (about 5%/yr) but with a population of 1M each, 320,000 would be totally unrealistic.  Somebody using those numbers is inflating bulls**t like it was bubblegum. 

 

You asked "The question is are these locals commuting or long distance travelers going essentially the entire distance?"  In answer to that question, I look at the traffic volume stats. and pick the lowest volume on the route also known as the pinch point.  There is still local traffic but I will give HSR planners the benefit of the higher numbers. (they are going to lose mathematically anyway)

My numbers are from 2006 Traffic Volume, Vehicle Classification, and Travel Statistics, Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/docType181/production/vc2006x.pdf page 4 of 87 for Highway #2 reveals an average of 20,720 vehicles/day (N OF 2A SW OF MORNINGSIDE) of which 78.8% are private vehicles and 0.4% are buses.  Using 20,720 x .788 x 1.57 pass/vehicle + 20,720 x .004 x 15.7 pass/vehicle (est) = 26,935 people/day.  My previous statement was 35,000 as I recalled but the 26,935 is more easily verified.  The big questions what percentage of trips are traveling further than Edmonton or Calgary on some trip beyond (such as Calgary, Edmonton and on to Fort McMurray?  Secondly, what percentage will switch to HSR?  If 20% did and forecasts for 2030 double in volume this would amount to 10,774 one way trips at $49 or $527,926/day or $193M/year.  Not enough to cover even 4% interest on $15B.

[Gary Penn]

Does anyone have information or an informed opinion of why high Speed Rail seems so impossibly expensive in this country while Europe has a lot of it and appears to be building more and upgrading what it already has? Does HSR cost more per mile in the US because it is a novelty or for some other reason? Or do Europeans simply see the same cost as cost effective in denser cities with much better connecting intra-urban public transportation?

Long term (how long?) networks of personal automated transport throughout origin and destination cities would be the preferred answer with PAT/PRT compatible inter-urban connections for closer pairs and evacuated tube links for longer distances.

Gary Penn

[Jack Slade]

Gary:  I would think that terrain is one of the major problems, as well as the fact that European companies have been improving rail technology while North American companies have done very little, by comparison. Right-of-way acquisition costs might be another factor. The other factor will be average wage for workers, and rental price of construction equipment.

When they talk of high speed rail in California I have to wonder about the wisdom of proposing it in one of the world's most active earthquake areas. I have not yet bothered to check whether such activity has damaged  the system operating in Japan, but I think I will try, unless somebody already has results.

 

Jack Slade

Gary Penn <gary...@mac.com> wrote:

[Michael Weidler]

Eric - sorry for the confusion, but I was referring to the California HSR between San Fran and LA.

Eric Baumgartner <eri...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Michael

 

Where did you get those statistics?  I would be very interested in seeing those or giving me a link to that information.  Edmonton & Calgary are growing fast (about 5%/yr) but with a population of 1M each, 320,000 would be totally unrealistic.  Somebody using those numbers is inflating bulls**t like it was bubblegum. 

 

[Michael Weidler]

I'll give you 2 good reasons. 1)Europeans are actually willing to get on a train, whereas most Americans aren't. 2)The distances covered in Europe (which appear to be primarily in France) are not really all that long. The longest according to the map at Wikipaedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV) is not even as long as the prososed San Fran to LA route.

 

I must admit that I am surprised that we haven't installed TGV type service in the Bos-Wash corridor.

Gary Penn <gary...@mac.com> wrote:

[Guala Luca]

Eric,
I am sure that you noticed that mine was a simple and plain reply by choice, since we are discussing the matter in a friendly way, not taking decisions. I am also sure that you are perfectly aware that the real decision makers (and I am not one) take the matter a bit less leisurely than it's usually done in a mailing list. I don't think I can really be accused of being the roots of the problems of HST.

Europe is linking most main cities by means of HSR and creating international corridors that connect nations. The city-centre to city-centre trip time is comparable to that of the air travel but many cities that do not have important airports can benefit from HSR with a minimal extra investment. The Rome to Milan line HSR for example, will cut the travel time from 5 to 2.5 hours and still stop in Florence and Bologna which both have less than 1M inhabitants and very small airports. An airplane trip between Rome and Milan lasts 1 hour 15 minutes, but from airport to airport. You must add at least 1 hour 30 minutes to allow for check in procedures and trips to and from the airports of origin and destination. This takes the overall trip duration to the same level as HST. Airport improvements are not planned in Bologna and Florence and reducing train travel time seems to be a much better solution than increasing air traffic.

If you want a more thorough analysis of the problem I can lead you to several readings, although the ones I have handy at the moment are all in Italian and they all deal with Europe and other non-North American Contries, which you seem to disregard completely

regards, Luca


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com per conto di Eric Baumgartner
Inviato: sab 08/09/2007 22.40
A: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc:
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: RIF: [t-i] Re: Forbes: Renewed Interest in High-Speed Rail

Luca

Your over simplification of the benefits of HSR are the root of the problems. HSR has more problems than answers to the improvement of intercity transport. The huge tax breaks and grants offered to the construction of HSR would do more benefit to cities if those tax dollars would be used towards direct reinvestment in urban core infrastructure and creating more housing downtown.

Eric Baumgartner

eri...@shaw.ca <mailto:eri...@shaw.ca>

[Ian Ford]

Americans traveling in Europe tend to ride trains, and Europeans
traveling in America tend to rent cars. While there are cultural reasons
for setting budget priorities and development patterns, I think people
are flexible about how they get places. This is a really important point
because the logical conclusion is that mode split can be predicted.
American planning seems to operate as if mode split cannot be predicted,
or in a vacuum of knowledge about how to predict it. Transit depts spend
money on advertising as if mode split is highly sensitive that factor,
when in fact mode split is highly sensitive to end-to-end travel time,
and advertising has little to do with it. Related to this, proposals for
a certain technology (such as TGV) are pushed under the false assumption
that the technology (its comfort level, for example) will drive
ridership instead of the factors that are known to be more important
(travel time).

Getting back to the original question, I have the sense that European
train planning is driven by more realistic knowledge of the effects of
decisions - for example, upgrading the Paris-Lyon line to a higher speed
will produce a predictable shift in ridership from air/auto to train.
Meanwhile in America we are acting like rail is an open-ended experiment.

Michael Weidler wrote:
> I'll give you 2 good reasons. 1)Europeans are actually willing to get on
> a train, whereas most Americans aren't. 2)The distances covered in
> Europe (which appear to be primarily in France) are not really all that

> long. ...

>
> */Gary Penn <gary...@mac.com>/* wrote:
>
> Does anyone have information or an informed opinion of why high
> Speed Rail seems so impossibly expensive in this country while
> Europe has a lot of it and appears to be building more and upgrading
> what it already has?

--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.246.8490

Axisbase: 100% .NET database server and application development tool
Download free from www.ianford.com

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:58 AM 9/9/2007, Ian Ford wrote:
>snip ------------------

>
>American planning seems to operate as if mode split cannot be predicted,
>or in a vacuum of knowledge about how to predict it. Transit depts spend
>money on advertising as if mode split is highly sensitive that factor,
>when in fact mode split is highly sensitive to end-to-end travel time,
>and advertising has little to do with it. Related to this, proposals for
>a certain technology (such as TGV) are pushed under the false assumption
>that the technology (its comfort level, for example) will drive
>ridership instead of the factors that are known to be more important
>(travel time).

For those who would like to know more about mode choice (or mode split)
analyses, here is a description of how it is currently done by
transportation planners (not
all of them, as some agencies would rather just guesstimate). PRT and
dualmode could be included as identified modes and compete with other
modes for patronage in these demand forecasting calculations.
-------------------------------------------------

Mode Choice:
Mode choice is one of the most critical and highly developed parts of
the travel demand modeling process. It is the step where trips
between a given origin and destination are split into trips using
transit, trips by car pool or as automobile passengers and trips by
automobile drivers. Calculations are conducted that compare the
attractiveness of travel by different modes to determine their
relative usage. All proposals to improve public transit or to change
the ease of using the automobile are passed through the mode
split/auto occupancy process as part of their assessment and
evaluation. It is important to understand what factors are used and
how the process is conducted in order to plan, design and implement
new systems of transportation.

The most commonly used process for mode split is to use the 'Logit'
model. This involves a comparison of the "disutility" of travel
between two points for the different modes that are available.
Disutility is a term used to represent a combination of the travel
time, cost and convenience of a mode between an origin and a
destination. It is found by placing multipliers (weights) on these
factors and adding them together. Travel time is divided into two
components: in-vehicle time to represent the time when a traveler is
actually in a vehicle and out-of-vehicle time which includes time
spent traveling which occurs outside of the vehicle (time to walk to
and from transit stops or parking places, waiting time, transfer
time). Out-of-vehicle time is used to represent "convenience" and is
typically multiplied by a factor of 2.0 to 7.0 to give it greater
importance in the calculations. This is because travelers do not like
to wait or walk long distances to their destinations. The size of the
multiplier will be different depending upon the purpose of the trip.
This is because it has been found that people tend to be more willing
to wait or walk longer distances for work trips than for shopping trips.

Travel cost is multiplied by a factor to represent the value that
travelers place on time savings for a particular trip purpose. For
transit trips, the cost of the trip is given as the average transit
fare for that trip while for auto trips cost is found by adding the
parking cost to the length of the trip as multiplied by a cost per
mile. Auto cost is based on a "perceived" cost per mile (on the order
of 5-7 cents/mile) which only includes fuel and oil costs and does
not include ownership, insurance, maintenance and other fixed costs
(total costs of automobile travel are 25-40 cents per mile).
Travelers have been found to only consider the costs that vary with
an individual trip rather than all costs when making mode choice decisions.

Disutility calculations may also contain a "mode bias factor" which
is used to represent other characteristics or travel modes which may
influence the choice of mode (such as a difference in privacy and
comfort between transit and automobiles). The mode bias factor is
used as a constant in the analysis and is found by attempt to fit the
model to actual travel behavior data. Generally, the disutility
equations do not recognize differences within travel modes. For
example, a bus system and a rail system with the same time and cost
characteristics will have the same disutility values. There are no
special factors that allow for the difference in attractiveness of
alternative technologies.Once disutilities are known for the various
mode choices between an origin and a destination, the trips are split
among various modes based on the relative differences between
disutilities. The logit equation is used in this step. A large
advantage in disutility will mean a high percentage for that mode.
Mode splits are calculated to match splits found from actual traveler
data. Sometimes a fixed percentage is used for the minimum transit
use (percent captive users) to represent travelers who have no
automobile available or are unable to use an automobile for their trip.

Automobile trips must be converted from person trips to vehicle trips
with an auto occupancy model. Mode split and auto occupancy analysis
can be two separate steps or can be combined into a single step,
depending on how a forecasting process is set up. In the simplest
application a highway/transit split is made first which is followed
by a split of automobile trips into auto driver and auto passenger
trips. More complex analysis splits trips into multiple categories
(single occupant auto, two person car pool, 3-5 person car pool, van
pool, local bus, express bus, etc.). Auto occupancy analysis is often
a highly simplified process which uses fixed auto occupancy rates for
a given trip purpose or for given household size and auto ownership
categories. This means that the forecasts of car pooling are
insensitive to changes in the cost of travel, the cost of parking,
the presence of special programs to promote car pooling such as may
occur as a result of the clean air act.

[Dennis Manning]

[Dennis Manning]

I think this mode split analysis is particularly interesting in light of the
article Jerry posted at:

http://www.magplane.com/downloads/Hangzhou.PDF

The theory offered is that conventional ridership projections do not take
into account "induced demand". Although ridership isn't quite the same as
mode split they are closely related. The article makes an interesting case
that PRT ridership estimates could be getting short changed by 200-400%
using conventional modeling techniques. Transit people make a big deal of
talking about "induced demand" as regards new freeways, but apparently do
not see the potential for it with PRT. Hmmm.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: [t-i] Mode choice (or split) analyses

>

[Ian Ford]

Further notes on the logit model and new modes: The way these models are
(mis)used in my area makes them good at predicting the present but bad
at predicting people's response to changed conditions. I developed a
model that basically follows the logit model as Jerry's source states,
except that (1) it is not locally specific - which means it requires
very little data and can predict the distant future, but cannot predict
anything smaller than a regional scale; and (2) it allows multiple
constant inputs, such as mode preference, rather than one average
constant - people are different, after all. You can download from
abqtransp.org and alter it, but you need a c# compiler.

Jerry Schneider wrote:
> For those who would like to know more about mode choice (or mode split)
> analyses, here is a description of how it is currently done by

> transportation planners...

[Tad Winiecki]

This seems like a very limited choice of modes and factors affecting
choices.
For example, in the area around Fairbanks, Alaska, I would expect a
significant mode share for motorcycles in summer and snowmobiles in
winter. I would expect a very small share for cars and buses for trips
between Oahu and Hawaii.until they start the Superferry service between
these islands. Many people seem concerned about public transit mode
share but it is mostly less than bicycle and motorcycle shares which
are too often ignored completely.
Despite my negative thoughts on this I believe the logit process is a
good one - it is better than nothing and does account for people's time
and differentiates waiting times.
Where I live transport planning is very fragmented at the local level.
There are seaports, airports, water, sewer, natural gas and petroleum
pipelines, barge and ship channels, railroads, roads, bike, horse and
pedestrian paths and trails. Different agencies are responsible for
different modes, some of which compete with each other. For example
gasoline is shipped by pipeline, barge, rail and trucks.
In the USA transit passenger share in metro areas is around two to
three percent. My goal for a metro suburb-to-suburb PAT system is
thirty per cent share.

snip
>
>
God bless you.
Tad Winiecki
Higherway Transport Research
"Suburb to suburb quicker"
http://higherway.us
Evacuated Tube Transport licensee
http://www.et3.com

[Jerry Schneider]

At 01:47 PM 9/9/2007, Ian Ford wrote:

>Further notes on the logit model and new modes: The way these models are
>(mis)used in my area makes them good at predicting the present but bad
>at predicting people's response to changed conditions.

Is there some evidence to support this assertion? Usually, forecasts are made
for some fairly distant future time. But, if the observed trends are
very inconsistent with the
forecasts, one can argue that they are faulty (as are all forecasts,
by definition)

>I developed a model that basically follows the logit model as
>Jerry's source states,
>except that (1) it is not locally specific - which means it requires
>very little data and can predict the distant future, but cannot predict
>anything smaller than a regional scale; and (2) it allows multiple
>constant inputs, such as mode preference, rather than one average
>constant - people are different, after all.

Yes, people are different but it is hard to quantify mode preference
differences without having
a ton of data (some dealing with non-existent modes or conditions)
about their travel behavior
and life-style preferences to analyze.

How does one know that they can predict the distant future,
especially when some significant changes in the current situation are
assumed to
occur during the forecast period?

Usually, the way a forecasting model is calibrated is to show that
it can replicate a past period (i.e. a model developed in 2007 can be
run with observeddata from
two past times (say 1990 and 2000). If it can then be run to
generate the 2005 observed conditions reasonably well, it is said to
be valid and suitable
for forecasting 2020 (using a number of heroic assumptions regarding
a number of variables
and constants).

Is there any other way to verify a forecasting model and get such
forecasts? Will they be "accurate"?
Not likely. Will they be good enough to justify major investment
decisions? Maybe. Will the politicians believe
them or ignore them? Depends on whether they fit the desired agenda or not.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 04:48 PM 9/9/2007, you wrote:

>This seems like a very limited choice of modes and factors affecting
>choices.

Mode choice models have been developed to forecast the modal
preferences of people.
So far as I know, one can put as many different modes into the model
as they wish - so
long as they can come up with the numbers needed to define the
relative performance and
attractiveness of such modes. I would guess that ferries, bicycles
and motorcycles could
be included if one wished. The basic idea is to define the degree of
competition between
the modes for patronage. Every new system should have to undergo such
an analysis
before substantial investments are made to build and operate it.
Theoretically, one
could introduce seasonal differences by changing the values of the
parameters in the
models, but guessing at their values is probably not a good idea.

[Jeral Poskey]

Ian, this has major implications. Have you tested it yet? That is, use
data from an earlier light rail study, for instance, to see what your model
would have predicted, then compared that to what has actually happened?

Jeral

-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Ian Ford
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 1:47 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Ian Ford]

I admit I was selling the modeling tool without a lot of evidence. I
don't really have time now to do all the testing and explaining. But
basically a model with fewer inputs can be more adaptable to a novel
situation than a model with detail zone and link inputs, because it's
very difficult to figure out what the inputs are, when you are modeling
something that doesn't yet exist.

In my area, they have errors like this one (which they admitted, but
blamed on the model itself): People tend to drive something like 2.3
miles for "regional shopping" on average, but if the development pattern
is changed to make shopping closer, their model will still predict that
same level of travel. Or, their mode choice model uses inputs based on
surveys of actual past mode choice to determine future mode preference.

My conclusion from hearing stuff like this is that complex models run by
understaffed, possibly moderately low paying public agencies are likely
to suffer from garbage-in/garbage-out; and the more "accurate" they get
by taking account of more reams of questionable or historical data, the
more precisely it predicts inaccurate results.

So all I'm saying is that an extremely simple model that's limited to
inputs that are easily verified or common sense cannot suffer as much
from the problems above, and will give better results.

[Daryl Oster]

HSR is impossibly expensive in Europe too -- they apparently like to waste
more money than we do!

Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-
> innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Penn
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 5:39 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: [t-i] Re: RIF: [t-i] Re: Forbes: Renewed Interest in High-Speed
> Rail
>

> Does anyone have information or an informed opinion of why high Speed Rail
> seems so impossibly expensive in this country while Europe has a lot of it
> and appears to be building more and upgrading what it already has? Does
> HSR cost more per mile in the US because it is a novelty or for some other
> reason? Or do Europeans simply see the same cost as cost effective in
> denser cities with much better connecting intra-urban public
> transportation?
>
> Long term (how long?) networks of personal automated transport throughout
> origin and destination cities would be the preferred answer with PAT/PRT
> compatible inter-urban connections for closer pairs and evacuated tube
> links for longer distances.
>
> Gary Penn
>
> On Sep 8, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Eric Baumgartner wrote:
>
>
>
> Luca
>
> Your over simplification of the benefits of HSR are the root of the
> problems. HSR has more problems than answers to the improvement of
> intercity transport. The huge tax breaks and grants offered to the
> construction of HSR would do more benefit to cities if those tax dollars
> would be used towards direct reinvestment in urban core infrastructure and
> creating more housing downtown.
>
> Eric Baumgartner

> eri...@shaw.ca <mailto:eri...@shaw.ca>