1. HSRD Systems Diagram Ten FRA Criteria 1.Ridership Forecasts: Calculated using a logit model that incorporates the reliability, cost, and travel time of each mode. *Pr(Mode y =j): probability a user selects transportation mode y *y: modes include cars, trains, planes, and HSR *B k : selection criteria coefficient *X kj : modal selection criteria value 2.Reduction in CO 2 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 reduction 9.Intermodal Connections 10.Populations connected Additional Model Criteria Qualitative : 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 criteria Final Score: *Wx = Weight for criteria *Cx = Percentage of points allocated *S = Final Score U NIVERSITY of P ENNSYLVANIA 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 AUTHORS Paul Deren SSE ‘10 Alexandra Malikova SSE ‘10 Pia Ramchandani SSE ’10 ADVISOR Dr. John D. Keenan DEMO TIMES Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:30, 10:00, 10:30, 11:00 1.Safety 2.Travel time efficiency 3.Economic stimulus through connectivity 4.Energy efficiency (see Fig 1) 5.Environmental friendliness 6.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. M ODEL V ERIFICATION 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 ClassificationDistance (miles)Speed (mph) Emerging HSR100-50090-110 Fig 2. Federal Investment in Intercity Transportation 1949-2008 (in 2009 dollars) Current Line Length (miles) Ave Speed (mph) Ridership per Mile Total Points in Model Shinkansen (Japan) 342186192,98296 TGV (France) 245168125,62776 Acela (USA) 4421257,46634 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 50520020,80065 $2.25 billion Orlando to Tampa 9710269,34043 $1.25 billion Chicago to Detroit 26711018,45541 $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 H IGH S PEED R AIL D ECISION A NALYSIS M ODEL (HSRD)