The Potential of Using Transit Infrastructure for Air Freight

Document Sample
The Potential of Using Transit Infrastructure for Air Freight Powered By Docstoc
					The Potential of Using Transit Infrastructure for Air Freight Movement: A Case Study in the Bay Area

Phase I Final Report Project sponsored by UCTC and Caltrans

Authors California PATH: Karthik Sivakumaran, Xiao-Yun Lu, Rohit Rai, Rui WANG

Active Participants of the Project BART: Richard Lu, Stephen Peery FedEx: Faisal Zaman, Run Zhou, Michael Graham Caltrans: Matt Hanson
October 25, 2009

- ii -

Keywords: feasibility study, mixed passenger goods movement, air freight, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), urban rail, economic analysis, air freight carrier, emission

Abstract
This report examines the viability of the use of passengers transit infrastructure for freight movement. As a case study, the economic feasibility of the use of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system for FedEx Express cargo movement is examined. limitations imposed by both BART and the assumed freight carrier. A qualitative discussion first introduces the various considerations that must be made to accommodate the A methodology for determining economic feasibility is then presented. Some preliminary results are discussed. FedEx Express was particularly selected due to the location of the company’s major western regional hub at Oakland International Airport (OAK). To examine the potential costs and benefits of the use of BART for FedEx transport, four alternatives are compared to the status quo of truck-only transport. Alternatives A1 and A2 consider only minor capital investment, while Alternatives B1 and B2 assume far greater capital investment, including a jointly operated BART/FedEx facility at OAK. However, Alternatives A1 and B1 make use of FedEx long-haul trucks for all goods movement, while Alternatives A2 and B2 utilize electric FedEx delivery trucks for local transshipments. Truck VMT, FedEx operating costs, BART operating costs, and CO2 emissions are determined for the status quo and each alternative. Analysis shows not only that significant truck VMT savings can be accrued from mixed-goods service, but also that upon passing a critical demand threshold such service can both be profitable for passenger rail systems and cost-effective for air cargo carriers. This concept provides a reference to other metropolitan areas with similar transit systems such as Los Angles, Washington D.C., New York and Chicago.

ii

- iii -

Acknowledgements
This project is sponsored by UCTC (University of California Transportation Center) and the State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FHWA or the State of California. This paper does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. All the ideas presented here are for research purposes. Neither BART nor FedEx carries any commitment or liability for any content of this paper. Previous active participation of former BART Research Group Director Engineer Eugene Nishinaga and other BART staff, the strong support from Tom Messer, Marcus Evans and Michele Fell in Caltrans Goods Movement, and Colette Armao in Caltrans Aeronautics, are gratefully acknowledged. The demand data used in all calculations has been scaled, and is not true FedEx demand data.

iii

- iv -

Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures and Tables………………………………………………………………………………………….v Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………..vii Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3 Potential Benefits for Involved Parties .................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Benefits to Rail Transit Operator.................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Benefits to Freight Carrier ............................................................................................................................ 6 3.3 Benefits to Society ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 4 Characteristics of Case Study .................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Rail Transit Operator: Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) .............................................................................. 9 4.2 Freight Carrier: FedEx Express .................................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 5 Operational Feasibility Issues ................................................................................................................ 16 5.1 Required Terminal Modifications............................................................................................................... 16 5.2 Required Transport Link Modifications ..................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 6 Economic Analysis: Assumptions and Methodology ............................................................................ 22 6.1 Case Study Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 22 6.2 BART for Freight Services Based on Scaled Demand ............................................................................... 22 6.3 Container Type ........................................................................................................................................... 23 6.4 Locations .................................................................................................................................................... 23 6.5 Demand ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 6.6 Empty Container Returns ........................................................................................................................... 27 6.7 Vehicle Types and Capacity ....................................................................................................................... 27 6.8 Freight Car Storage Areas and Empty Train Travels.................................................................................. 29 6.9 Link Travel Times ...................................................................................................................................... 30 6.10 Handling ................................................................................................................................................... 32 6.11 Truck VMT Estimation ............................................................................................................................ 33 6.12 External/Social Costs................................................................................................................................ 33 6.13 Operating and Labor Costs ....................................................................................................................... 34 6.14 Time Windows ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 7 Economic Analysis: Results .................................................................................................................. 38 Chapter 8 Concluding Thoughts and Future Plans ................................................................................................. 47 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………49

iv

-v-

List of Figures and Tables
Page Figure 4.1: BART System Map….. ............................................................................................................................ 10 4.2: LD.3 Container….. .................................................................................................................................... 14 4.3: AYY Container….. .................................................................................................................................... 14 4.4: SAA Container….. ..................................................................................................................................... 14 4.5: AMJ Container….. ..................................................................................................................................... 14 4.6: FedEx Long-Haul Truck, Type CTV5….. .......................................................................................... 15 5.1: BART Yard Accessibility….. ................................................................................................................. 17 5.2: Cumulative count diagram for a sample container from a local center to hub….................... 18 5.3: Sample x-t diagram ….............................................................................................................................. 20 6.1: Mixed-goods BART network in Alternatives A1 and A2….. ....................................................... 24 6.2: Mixed-goods BART network in Alternatives B1 and B2….. ....................................................... 25 6.3: Oakland Annex Shop ….. ........................................................................................................................ 25 6.4: BART Concord Yard….. ......................................................................................................................... 26 6.5: FedEx Zero-Emission Electric Delivery Vehicle…......................................................................... 28 6.6: Stripped BART Car….. ............................................................................................................................ 29 6.7: Travel Route between Concord Yard and CCR (~4 miles)….. .................................................... 32 Table 4.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 FedEx Container Types….. ............................................................................................................... 13 O-D Demand Matrix (from OAK or to OAK)….. ...................................................................... 27 BART Travel Times for all Alternatives ….. ............................................................................... 30 Truck Travel Distances for Various Alternatives….. ................................................................ 31 Train Hourly Operating Cost as a Function of Length….. ....................................................... 35 End-to-End Travel Time for SQ ….. .............................................................................................. 36
v

- vi 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 End-to-End Travel Times for Alts. A1 & A2 (neglecting handling time)….. .................... 37 End-to-End Travel Times for Alts. B1 & B2 (neglecting handling time)….. .................... 37 Summary of Case Study Alternatives…........................................................................................ 39 Results for Status Quo….................................................................................................................... 40 Results for Alternative A1….. .......................................................................................................... 41 Results for Alternative B1….. .......................................................................................................... 42 Results for Alternative A2….. .......................................................................................................... 43 Results for Alternative B2….. .......................................................................................................... 44 Results comparison: A1 and A2….. ................................................................................................ 45 Results comparison:B1 B2….. ......................................................................................................... 46

vi

- vii -

Executive Summary
The San Francisco Bay Area has one of the most congested metropolitan corridors in both California and nationwide, with very high demand for both passenger and air-freight transport. It is also a main entrance to the United States for the huge Asia market, and thus critical for the United States to play a leading role in the global economy. On one hand, traffic congestion in the main corridors through the Bay Area is severe and is becoming worse with the rapid increase of population and the development of the local economy, in which a substantial impact is created by truck-related activities such as the ever increasing air freight business (performed by companies such as Federal Express and UPS). On the other hand, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) operates a regional environmentally-green transit system has excess capacity during non-commute periods and during the commute on some lines in some reverse-commute direction. On average, BART only uses 30% of its capacity for daily passenger movement with the other 70% unused. Here the capacity calculated is based on current full operation with 15 minutes headway and ten-car consist. If, however, BART system adopts modern technologies in sensor, communication system, and control system, the operation headway could be greatly reduced and the capacity could be doubled, or even tripled. (2) it is completely grade separated from general traffic, making its service free of cross-traffic delays, accidents, etc., and its travel times can be competitive to the automobile during congested periods; (3) it operates at higher frequencies than other train systems and has a high on-time reliability of nearly 95%; (4) it operates a system that places a high regard for safety; (5) it is electrically powered and emits no air pollution. For the interests of traveling public as well as local, regional, and state government, it would reduce truck activity and its corresponding negative impacts on traffic, environment, safety and land use. If the BART system were to be used by the air-freight delivery service providers, BART could in theory provide reliable service to integrated air freight carriers to meet their limited-time window delivery needs. This could lead to additional revenue generation for BART. Using BART for air freight movement as a model for combined goods and passenger movement can be generalized to other critical corridors nationwide to effectively relieve corridor congestion problem. Improving movement through these critical metropolitan corridors could yield

vii

- viii significant benefits in terms of reduced travel time, delays, increased reliability, and predictability of freight movement. Another benefit is increased utilization of heavily invested existing transportation infrastructure through public-private partnerships. This report focuses the economic viability of the use of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system for freight movement from Oakland International Airport (OAK). A qualitative discussion first introduces the various considerations that must be made to accommodate the limitations imposed by both BART and the assumed air freight carrier. We started from air freight simply because it has similar safety and security standard as the passenger movement. However, some other products such as high-tech manufacturer products and agricultural products can be easily made to satisfy those standards and therefore could be accounted as potential demand. To examine the potential costs and benefits of the use of BART for FedEx transport, four alternatives – A1, A2, B1, and B2 - are compared to the status quo of truck-only transport. Alternatives A1 and A2 consider only minor capital investment, while Alternatives B1 and B2 assume far greater capital investment, including a jointly operated BART/FedEx facility at OAK. However, Alternatives A1 and B1 make use of FedEx long-haul trucks for all goods movement, while Alternatives A2 and B2 utilize electric FedEx delivery trucks for local transshipments. Truck VMT, FedEx operating costs, BART operating costs, and CO2 emissions are determined for the status quo and each alternative. Analysis shows not only that significant truck VMT savings can be accrued from mixed-goods service, but that upon passing a critical demand threshold, such service can both be profitable for passenger rail systems and cost-effective for air cargo carriers. If freight demand for a rail alternative is high enough, this may even lead to crosssubsidization, where in fact freight movement could help subsidize the movement of passengers. This would lead to less BART financial dependence on public subsidies, making the agency much more economically viable. Profits could potentially be used to improve connectivity to BART system for increased ridership, for example, which would lead to improvements in both passenger and freight service of BART system.

viii

Chapter 1. Introduction
Traffic congestion in the Bay Area has rapidly increased with the onset of the 21st century. With rising congestion comes attached a plethora of “externalities” or costs to society, such as lost productivity, increased stress on pavement which leads to higher maintenance costs, more accidents, and of course emissions, which contribute to worldwide global warming crisis. As freight movement, particularly those shipments which occur across the Pacific Ocean, increases, so does the number of trucks on the road, and unfortunately for all of society, trucks contribute significantly more than cars to the externalities mentioned above. According to MTC’s Regional Goods Movement Study- Final Summary Report [19], the growth of the U. S. and global economies will increase local air cargo business 100% by 2010 and 200% by 2020, compared to 1998 levels. Presently, trucks are the primary mode for airfreight door-to-door service delivery for all the integrated/non-integrated carriers, providing connectivity between airports, sorting sites, local distribution (collection) centers and customers. However, trucks have a significant impact on peak period highway congestion, auto drivers’ safety, security and air pollution in the vicinity of major airports and on the highway corridors that lead to them. To mitigate those impacts, it is urgent to find other available alternatives with less pollution, away from road traffic, and with easier control for safety and security to reduce truck activities. With such problems attached to the current mode of choice for freight transport – truck – it becomes imperative to seek methods of transport which make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and offer a “greener”, or more environmentally sustainable, alternative. We start from air freight simply because it has similar safety and security standard as the passenger movement. However, some other products such as high-tech manufacturer products and agricultural products can be easily made to satisfy those standards and therefore could be accounted as potential demand. With this inspiration in mind, this report offers an analysis of the potential for the use of BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, in mixed-goods movement – that of people and air freight. BART may perform well because (1) BART only uses 30% of its mainline capacity for daily passenger movement with the other 70% unused. Here the capacity calculated is based on current full operation: 15 minutes headway with ten car consist. If, however, BART system adopt modern technologies in sensor, communication system, and
1

control system, the operation headway could be greatly reduced and the capacity could be doubled, or even tripled; (2) it is completely grade separated from general traffic, making its service free of cross-traffic delays, accidents, etc., and its travel times can be competitive to the automobile during congested periods; (3) it operates at higher frequencies than other train systems and has a high on-time reliability of nearly 95%; (4) it operates a system that places a high regard for safety; (5) it is electrically powered and emits no air pollution For the traveling public as well as local, regional, and state government it could reduce truck activity, and its corresponding negative impacts on traffic, environment, safety, land use and the economy. A methodology for determining economic feasibility is then presented. The United States has several urban rail lines within many of its cities, and as such this ideas can potentially be extended to other regions, and perhaps be even more successful. Rail systems in fact were extensively used in the 1900s as a means of moving freight. Once trucks entered the scene, using rail for freight transport soon became obsolete due to the cheaper truck transport. However, trucks have, within most transportation circles, been considered to be severely underpriced which directly leads to very low payment to truck drivers. It therefore places stress on other motorists, pavement, and the environment. With so much urban rail infrastructure already in place for passenger movement, it becomes a natural extension to ask whether there is also potential for freight movement along these very same rail lines. However, there is a surprising lack of exploration in this direction, and this work hopes to spur future action in this regard. The report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 discusses the relevant literature. Chapter 3 examines some of the potential benefits as they relate to involved parties in general for mixed goods movement. Chapter 4 more clearly explores mixed-goods movement as it relates to the Bay Area and presents specific characteristics of each party. Chapter 5 considers the characteristics introduced in Chapter 4 in order to examine the operational feasibility of mixed goods movement for the case study, from a purely qualitative perspective. Chapter 6 introduces the assumptions and methodology utilized in this economic feasibility study. Chapter 7 presents the results of the feasibility study. Chapter 8 presents some final thoughts and future plans.

2

Chapter 2. Literature Review
Most of the previous studies on freight transport focused on improving the highway traffic conditions and discussed the benefits to the motorists; hence not much literature is available regarding the benefits for transportation system improvements. However, these studies do provide some methodology for the quantitative economic analysis of cost and benefits. The literature basically can be divided into two categories. Approaches in the first category look at the overall benefits of a transportation improvement. Other studies look at some particular aspect of the improvements like Value of Travel Time Savings (VTTS), environmental benefits, and safety issues. Work in [33] used an input/output model to study regional economic benefits of transportation system projects. A translog cost function econometric model was used by Keeler [16] to analyze the benefits of federal-aid highway infrastructure investments in the United States on costs and productivity of firms in road freight transport industry. Mohring and Williamson [22] evaluated the “reorganization” benefits, resulting from adjustments in logistical arrangements that shippers make in response to lower costs of freight movement. The paper provided the theoretical foundation for the cost benefit analysis and demonstrated the validity of using consumer surplus in estimating net benefits of transportation investments under very broad conditions. Two types of benefits of highway corridor investments were identified by Forkenbrock: reductions in transportation costs and increases in economic activity. The Committee for Study of Public Policy for Surface Freight Transport [31] used previous cost research and case studies to estimate and compare marginal costs of freight transport, including internal costs to carriers, congestion, accidents, air pollution, energy consumption externalities, noise, and public facility costs. Bjorner [3] concluded that external costs of freight (air pollution, noise, accidents and congestion) were about four times higher for one truck-kilometer than for a private car. The report by Oxford Economic Research Associates [26] investigates full social and environmental costs of road freight, including factors such as pollution and uncovered costs of structural damage, and concluded that the road freight currently paid only 70% of its full costs and left the other 30% on tax payer’s shoulder.

3

As mentioned earlier, most of the previous studies focused on improving the highway traffic condition and hence deal with Value of Travel Time Savings (VTTS) for the motorists. The Value of Travel Time (VTT) refers to the cost of time spent on transport including waiting as well as actual travel. The Value of Travel Time Savings (VTTS) refers to the benefits from reduced travel time. According to Small et al. [30], travel time unit costs vary depending on type of trip, travel conditions, and traveler preferences. Travel time costs also vary depending on traveler needs and preferences. Studies quantified travel time costs based on analysis of business costs, traveler surveys, and by measuring the responses by travelers faced with a tradeoff between time and money. Li [17] estimated personal travel time at 25% to 50% of prevailing wage rates, varying with factors such as type of trip, traveler income and comfort. Wener et al. [32] and Freij [6] assigned increasing values to travel time savings with increase in congestion, discomfort and insecurity. Small et al. [29] concluded that travel time costs tended to increase with variability and arrival uncertainty and were particularly high for unexpected delays during activities with strict schedules. Motorists’ willingness to pay road tolls for reduced travel time and variability was analyzed by Brownstone and Small [7]. They reported the average morning commute travel time savings to be $10-40 per hour. Cirillo and Axhausen [8] used travel surveys for residents of German cities and found an average value of travel of about $10 per hour. Fatal and non-fatal damage costs make up of an important part of the external costs of traffic and include a variety of expenses such as medical treatment, material and immaterial damage, legal assistance, law enforcement, loss of time, etc. Some of these costs are measurable in monetary terms; others, due to lack of trading opportunities, may not be easy to measure. A value of one million Euros per human life is used by the European Union in the safety cost benefit analysis. It, however, does not take into account the willingness to pay to avoid pain and suffering as stated by Despontin et al. [10]. Although, there is abundant literature on the subject of Value of Statistical Life (VOSL) in road safety, the magnitude of VOSL estimates reported in literature is vastly different. The value ranges from less than 400,000 to 30 million in 1996 U.S. dollars. Consequently, economists differ on an appropriate estimate of the VOSL that may be usefully applied in designing traffic and safety policies.

4

Chapter 3. Potential Benefits for Involved Parties
This chapter discusses the potential benefits for the rail transit operator, the freight carrier, and society at large from a qualitative perspective. These benefits will later be examined quantitative in Chapter 7.

3.1 Benefits to Rail Transit Operator
As discussed in BART is a regional rail transit system that serves approximately 340,000 passenger trips per weekday. Despite BART’s excellent track record in moving people, system utilization was at 29.3% in 2004 of its mainline capacity. This statistic indicates that although many passengers use BART, they do so during periods of peak demand in certain directions, leaving much unused capacity during off-peak hours and in some reverse-commute directions during peak hours. BART continues to aim for increased usage of the remaining 70.7% of its overall capacity through marketing and other strategies to bring in more riders [18]. In a broader sense, BART capacity can be looked at from two viewpoints: The primary viewpoint is the capacity of mainline, or track, which can be measured by the number of consist can run and the maximum number of trains in each consist. The second viewpoint involves Yard, vehicle (seating) and station (platform access and egress) capacity for transport but not restricted to passengers only, which is related to the dynamics of tail-track and storage track capacity. In either case, the total capacity minus the passenger demand produces the extra capacity. To understand where and when the extra capacity exists is critical to primary service, revenue service staging and scheduled maintenance procedures. Here the revenue service staging means other possible services beside the primary passenger service. There are more than simply the social benefits of using urban rail lines, previously used for solely people transport, for mixed-goods movement. Consider that rail systems are operated under the supervision of public agencies, and use public funds to support their operation. Many systems rarely recover even 50% of their operating costs. Furthermore, transit systems are often underutilized during off-peak periods, as well as in the “reverse commute” direction during peak hours. Consequently, there is often excess capacity available to transport of people and/or items. In fact, while BART maintains an exemplary service record, as suggested by its 2004 award, it
5

exhibited only approximately 30% service utilization in that same year. As explained above, the capacity is calculated based on currently full operation with 15 minutes headway and ten-car consist. This statistic leads us to consider alternatives for more efficiently utilizing the 70% excess capacity. It is noted that BART control system still uses technologies of 30 years ago. If, however, BART system adopts modern technologies in sensor, communication system, and control system, the operation headway could be greatly reduced and the capacity could be doubled, or even tripled. Mixed goods movement essentially presents a business opportunity for increasing a public transit operators’ total revenue. However, passenger movement is the foremost mission of nearly all public operators, and consequently freight movement would have to take place in such a way to negate any conflicts with existing and planned passenger service. Furthermore, this necessitates the need for full cost recovery of the rail system in providing goods movement, because it would, for all intensive purposes, be unlikely that public funds could be funneled towards the movement of private goods. This cost recovery will of course depend on the fixed and variable costs of operation by the transit operator, and the demand presented by the freight carrier and potentially others such as high-tech manufacturers and farmers. Furthermore, If freight demand for a rail alternative is high enough, this may even lead to cross-subsidization, where in fact freight movement could help subsidize the movement of passengers. This would lead to less BART financial dependence on public subsidies, making the agency much more economically viable. Profits could potentially be used to improve connectivity to BART system for increased ridership, for example, which would lead to improvements in both passenger and freight service of BART system.

3.2 Benefits to Freight Carrier
A mixed-goods method of transport also presents several benefits to the freight carrier. Firstly, the independent guideways offered by urban rail negate the potential for delays due to congestion and consequently provide a more reliable mode of transport to the freight carrier. For high priority products in particular, this can provide significant cost savings. Secondly, the transport mode in itself may be even cheaper than truck transport for high levels of demand, when one considers that the “road” equivalent of a long freight train would likely be several trucks; in other words, urban rail offers economies of scale, or decreasing transport unit costs
6

with increasing demand. Using trucks to accommodate increasing demand does not offer this advantage, and can in fact compound congestion on freeways, which in turn produces even greater uncertainty in delivery times. Furthermore, a single freeway disturbance can have far-reaching implications, as the recent gas tanker explosion on Interstate 880 showed. I-880 is a considered the primary north-south route for freight movements originating from and arriving at the Port of Oakland. The aforementioned gas tanker explosion on October 23rd created significant delays to both commuters and freight shippers, as vehicles were suddenly detoured to more circuitous routes with limited capacity. Recent discussions between PATH researchers and FedEx confirmed an increased interest in alternative freight transport in lieu of this recent event.

3.3 Benefits to Society
Much of the benefits which arise from the use of transit infrastructure for mixed goods movement stem from the decrease in truck volumes along urban roadways. Decreasing the number of freight vehicles on urban roads can lead to several societal benefits mentioned earlier, which again include decreased pollution, noise, accidents, and congestion. The negative externalities produced by truck traffic have been explored and confirmed in several academic studies; these have been outlined in [18]. We identified the following aspects of benefits to the public society all due to the reduced truck activities: • • • • Reduced GHG emission and other pollution to the environment Maximally using heavily invested infrastructure including recycled BART car Reduced road maintenance cost Potentially reduced fatal highway accident

The GHG emission will be discussed quantitatively in detail later.  As reported in previous research, 80% of the victims killed in crashes involving trucks are occupants of smaller vehicles. Reducing trucks on busy highways can reduce such fatalities. Truck activities have a great impact on the environment. Ground level ozone, the main ingredient smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) in the presence of heat and sunlight. Particulate Matter (PM), a diesel
7

engine pollutant, is easily inhaled and disposed in lungs. Goods movement generates emissions both during on-roads activity (truck driving) and non-roads activity (cargo loading/unloading and idling). The reduction of pollution is proportional to the reduction of truck activities. It is wellknown that trucks, particularly heavy-duty trucks, are the main cause of pavement damage [11]. As an example, one fully loaded 102’ wide truck does as much damage to the road surface as nearly 10,000 cars. Although, such damages are slightly different due to the difference in the number of axles, they are still very significant. Therefore maintenance cost could be significantly saved by reducing truck activities.

8

Chapter 4. Characteristics of Case Study
This chapter explores the characteristics of the major rail transit operator in the Bay Area, BART, as well as the area’s major freight carrier, FedEx. These two parties present unique capabilities and restrictions which must be considered for accurate cost analysis.

4.1 Rail Transit Operator: Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Urban rail systems can be found in several cities across the United States, in metropolitan regions such as New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C.. Many such cities, particularly those bordering a coastline, also exhibit a great deal of freight movement. The concept of using urban rail for mixed goods movement is therefore applicable to several urban regions across the U.S. As mentioned earlier, the following report specifically analyzes the possibility of using BART for freight movement. BART is of course the Bay Area’s primary passenger rail transit system which connects more than 26 cities across four counties. The system’s construction began in 1964, and now exhibits over 104 miles of double-track connecting 43 stations (see Figure 4-1). BART provides five lines of service which generally operate at headways of approximately 15 minutes. However, due to the extensive overlaying of lines throughout the system, the frequency of service for certain trips between particular stations can be very high during peak periods. Furthermore, BART sometimes directly operates service at higher frequencies during peak periods by inserting additional trains onto the track.

9

Source: www.bart.gov

Figure 4-1:

BART System Map

Unlike many other urban passenger rail systems, BART utilizes a nonstandard gauge of 5 ft 6 in; the standard gauge most commonly found in the U.S. is 4 ft 8.5 in. Consequently, the system relies on custom-made rolling stock, which totals 669 cars. The dimensions for the vehicles currently used by BART are 70 ft long, 10.5 ft wide, and 7 ft high. Door dimensions are approximately 4.5 ft X 6.5 ft (width X height). Each car has a load capacity of 30,000 lbs. BART cars can reach a maximum speed of 80 mph, and accelerate/decelerate at a rate of 2 mph/s. Due to BART station length, passenger trains are run at lengths no longer than 10 cars. BART trains are also bi-directional; that is, the trains do not need to be turned around to travel in the reverse direction. During a typical morning peak-hour commute, 541 cars are in service, while the rest are either used to build spare trains, in repair, or involved with other maintenance work. In lieu of the increased stress being placed on BART’s current vehicles, the transit agency is looking to upgrade the entire fleet by 2024.
10

Near future BART extensions include connections to the Oakland International Airport (OAK) using an aerial guide-way systems and track connections southward to San Jose from Fremont, which have been determined by MTC. Those projects have the potential to strengthen the viability of mixed-goods service by BART. Use of BART for mixed-goods movement within the current available infrastructure would require truck transshipments between OAK and the Coliseum/Oakland Airport BART station. MTC (Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission) decided to build a rail link connecting OAK and the Coliseum BART station primarily for passenger movement. However, this connector project could potentially eliminate the truck transshipment for freight movement as well. The San Jose extension would connect the current system to another large urban area with high demand, which increases the need for reliable freight transport between OAK, SFO, and San Jose. This extension is scheduled for completion in 2018 by MTC. It is well-known that San Jose has many electronics manufactures. Their products could potentially be shipped through BART system. While the current BART system has few side track to allow by-passing, its interchanges at key transfer stations such as MacArthur in conjunction with train’s bidirectional capability, allows trains to travel between any two points within the system seamlessly in principle. However, for practical operation, the trains on the same line has to move sequentially which do not allow any by-passing since there is no side tracks, which excluded any direct service between some high passenger volume ODs such as airports and San Francisco Downtown. In a long run, building side tracks at judiciously selected BART stations would allow: (a) direct service between the high ridership ODs which will greatly reduces travel time and attract more passengers; (b) dedicated freight train service without impact on passenger movement. This would greatly increase the utility of the system without doubt; and (c) loading/unloading at BART stations for freight train without affecting passenger service. Looking into the future, the BART’s new vision [11] for development has been blueprinted by the Committee Board and transportation experts as including: (a) adding extra tracks to allow direct service to pass; (b) build more light rails to link with BART main lines to improve connectivity in densely populated areas; (c) add I-680 corridor line; (d) link to Warm Springs and San Jose; (e) add connections with high speed rail and other rail services; and (f) start to think about the second Trans-Bay tube with four bores. It is expected that future

11

development according to the blueprint will significantly increase BART capacity and service quality in near future.

4.2 Freight Carrier: FedEx Express
Air freight carriers, such as FedEx, DHL, and UPS all have a strong need for frequent, reliable, and cost-effective chain of transportation. Typically, this chain consists of the following transport links:

Airport

Airport/Off-Airport Sorting Site(s)

Local Dist. Center(s)

End User

Referencing Lu et al [18], characteristics of this chain include: 1) Sorting sites and local dispatch centers are generally located near airports along a hub-and-spoke network configuration, so goods movement is closely tied to airport ground traffic patterns. As an example, FedEx Western Regional Hub is located near the Oakland International Airport. All the packages from/to the states within the western region of the US will be shipped to this hub first, then sorted and sent to the destination by airplane. 2) Trucks/vans are responsible for local ground transport for dispatching and collection, which are tracked and monitored in real-time by a centralized dispatch control 3) Carriers employ an aircraft fleet for moving freight between most airports, and the Hub generally at night; 4) Long-haul truck fleets are used for moving freight between terminals and cities within certain range in place of airport hubs With the recent withdrawal of DHL from the U.S. air and ground carrier markets, a significant portion of this market share will likely be subsumed by FedEx and UPS, which will further stress existing transport chains. As mentioned earlier, not only will the FedEx market share likely increase within the short term, but the market volume as the number of imports increase from rapidly growing regions such as the Pacific Rim. With increasing traffic congestion within urban corridors, FedEx has been exploring alternatives for delivery which may
12

provide greater service reliability. Again referencing Lu et al [18], air freight carriers would choose freight delivery alternatives are based on the following factors: • • • • • • • • • • Current area demand (amount to be transported through alternative system) Business expansion of air freight carriers, which implies greater product variety and larger demand for each product Capacity and development of alternative system Service Types Reliability for dispatching/collection Operation frequency Empty container returning Travel time Cost for shipment in monetary and time units Trans-shipment cost in monetary and time units

FedEx presents itself as a particularly promising participant in a feasibility study due to its significant presence in the Bay Area. The FedEx Western Regional Hub is located near the Oakland International Airport (OAK) and acts as a sorting and distribution center to seven states on the West Coast. Smaller distribution centers are scattered throughout the Bay Area, in cities such as Concord, Dublin, and San Jose. FedEx also maintains flights to and from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Table 4.1: FedEx Container Types Length (in.] 69 64 62 125 125 125 Width (in.) 42 60.4 88 88 96 96 Height (in.) 60 79 79 79 96 variable Weight (lbs) 550 970 1270 2700 3700 variable

Container USPS LD-3 AYY SAA AMJ AMJ Pallet

Source: Presentation by Michael Graham of FedEx Express in June 2006

13

FedEx currently utilizes the following container types to transport their items: USPS, LD3, AYY, SAA, AMJ, and AMJ pallets. Their respective dimensions are outlined in Table 4-1. Note that all these container types, USPS, are transported throughout the FedEx transport chain using ball-bearings; that is, items are not lifted unto pallets in order to be loaded onto trucks. Rather, containers are simply slid across platforms and aboard trucks via the casters mounted throughout loading platforms.

Figure 4-2:

LD-3 Container

Figure 4-3:

AYY Container

Figure 4-4:

SAA Container

Figure 4-5:

AMJ Container

FedEx utilizes two truck types, CTV4 and CTV5, which differ in truck length. The CT4 is approximately 45 feet long, and the CTV5 is approximately 53 feet long (see Figure 4-6). Both trucks are ~10.5 ft wide. As mentioned earlier, the trucks also use ball-bearings on their
14

beds to allow for seamless loading and unloading of FedEx containers. It is also important to note that FedEx containers operate within a “closed loop” for security purposes – that is, once a container is initially filled and closed before distribution, it remains closed until it reaches its final local sorting center.

Source: Presentation by Michael Graham of FedEx Express in June 2006

Figure 4-6: FedEx Long-Haul Truck, type CTV5 FedEx demand is time dependent. FedEx packages originating from locations outside the Bay Area and destined for the Bay Area are distributed in the morning between 3:00 AM and 7:00 AM. FedEx packages originating from the Bay Area and destined for locations outside the Bay Area are collected between 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM. During the morning distribution period, all containers must arrive at their locations by 7:00 AM.

15

Chapter 5. Operational Feasibility Issues
Before examining the economic viability of a project, it is first helpful to consider its operational feasibility, which in turn can help determine a system’s current limitations and future needs. These issues are introduced qualitatively in Section 5 and considered from a quantitative, economic perspective in Chapter 6.

5.1 Required Terminal Modifications
There are several considerations that need to be made at terminals to allow for freight movement. These include, but are not limited to, - loading equipment - access points - inventory space - security Loading equipment would include items such as pallets, elevators, and specific to the example presented in this case study, ball bearings. A critical factor in the ease of freight movement within terminals is the availability of access points – areas where freight trucks would arrive at a BART station and load/unload freight. Most BART stations have limited loading space available for freight trucks due to their locations within urban areas; for example, there would be little room for a 53 ft long FedEx truck to park at the BART Embarcadero Station located in downtown San Francisco. BART yards, such as those located at Richmond and Concord, however, could more readily accommodate truck egress and ingress.

16

Source: Presentation by BART on Nov. 28, 2006

Figure 5.1:

BART Yard Accessibility

Space requirements can readily be determined through use of a cumulative count diagram as seen below. The y-axis here represents the accumulation of items, and the x-axis represents time. A curve then represents the accumulation of items at a given location over time. For example, the first curve represents item or container arrivals at a BART station. Vertical steps of the curve represent the number of items arriving with each truck. The horizontal components of the curve represent differences in arrival times. Continuing in a similar fashion, the vertical separation of two separate curves represents the accumulation of items at a given location, while the horizontal separation between two curves can represent the time spent by a shipment at a given location (or aboard a vehicle). The figure below presents a rough example of what a cumulative count diagram might show for the proposed case study if two truck transshipments are required for transport of outbound items from the Bay Area. One can initially note the arrival of truck shipments at a BART station, where containers are loaded onto BART cars and left to dwell until a BART train transports these containers to another BART station. There the items are offloaded and left to dwell before being transported again by trucks to the airport, where planes depart with these items. However, one should note that the figure below shows the
17

scenario where only one vehicle can be loaded at time; when examining capital requirements, it may be possible, and perhaps beneficial, to build enough loading capacity such that several vehicles – i.e. trucks and BART cars - can loaded/offloaded simultaneously.

N (items)

th1 nf np

t (time) nt tLH1 tLH2 th2

Figure 5.2: Cumulative count diagram for a sample container from a local center to hub th1 – time to sort given truckload from truck to BART freight consist + wait time th2 - time to sort given load from BART freight consist to trucks + wait time tLH – line haul travel for freight consist along a given link nf = # of items aboard dedicated freight consist nt – # of items aboard truck np - # of items aboard departing plane Security, particularly in consideration of the looming threat of terrorism, becomes a major concern when mixing passengers and freight. It may be necessary to completely segregate passengers and freight at all times within transit stations. Container screening upon entry at a BART station may also need to be considered. However, as mentioned earlier, air freight carrier such as FedEx containers operate within a closed loop and are subject to stringent security at their respective originating airports. In all likelihood, containers which pass U.S. airport security
18

are likely to meet any security requirements imposed by BART. If passengers are segregated from freight, further security screening may in fact be unnecessary.

5.2 Required Transport Link Modifications
Although current BART system could be used for some limited operation of combined passenger and air freight movement, modifications will of course be required for high performance of such movement, which would require capital investment. As an example of the need for infrastructure modification, UPS was interested in using Embarcadero Station to build container onsite for the collected packages from and also for the distribution of the packages to that area. That station it is the center of San Francisco Downtown Area, which is the busiest business area of UPS. We visited the Station on July 22nd , 2008 with UPS IE Managers for East Bay and for San Francisco Area, BART Division of Operation and BART M/W-Line Manager, Caltrans DRI and PATH attended. UPS asked for a space to establish a shop which BART agreed to provide. It almost close to an agreement for operation but one catch killed the opportunity that was the elevator. From Embarcadero Station to the ground level, there was only one elevator which is used by BART passengers. Due to the security standard of FAA, UPS products have to be operated in a closed environment. Therefore the products could not share the elevator with general public passenger to get into and out of the station. If government could have provided a funding to establish a elevator for freight movement use only, the operation could have been started already months ago. In general, the modification of BART stations for container movement accessibility is minor in the sense that an elevator could solve the problem in most cases. The currently utilized transit corridor also presents certain limitations, which include, but are not limited to: - existing passenger line service - maximum operating speed - maximum acceleration/deceleration - train turn-around time - minimum spacing (headway) - other operating regulations imposed by governmental bodies

19

Perhaps the primary requirement in facilitating mixed-goods movement for freight is the avoidance of conflicts with existing passenger service. As mentioned earlier, a public transit agency’s primary goal is the movement of people, and this goal should override any other proposed service. Analysis will require the examination of the operating schedules for both BART and FedEx. To analyze potential conflicts with existing service, an x-t diagram such as the figure shown below can be very helpful. The y-axis represents a given link, such as a BART rail line, while the x-axis represents time. Therefore, a given trajectory for an x-t diagram conveys the location of a vehicle at any point in time, as well as the speed at which the vehicle is traveling at the time. The spacing between any two concurrent vehicles can be seen by the vertical separation between two curves. The headway between any two concurrent vehicles can be seen by the horizontal separation between two curves. It would almost never make sense for multiple trajectories to intersect, because physics does not allow for two objects to occupy the same place at the same time. The exception, which you can see below, would be when intersections occur at locations with multiple tracks, such as sidings, where passing can occur. Construction of a single siding along a given track could significantly increase train frequency, and an x-t diagram could aid in evaluating this benefit. One can readily see how such simple diagrams can capture nearly all the limitations bulleted above.
x (distance) Vehicle trajectory Station Note that intersection of trajectories must take place at siding locations to avoid conflicts

Siding Station Siding vt

Station Freight Consist Passenger Train t (time)

Figure 5.3:

Sample x-t diagram
20

Two subtle, but necessary, points to consider will be the 1) the return of empty containers and 2) the routing of trains after service to BART yards such that at the beginning of each day, the same number of trains are in each BART yard.

21

Chapter 6 Economic Analysis: Assumptions and Methodology
This section outlines the assumptions and methodology which govern our economic feasibility study.

6.1 Case Study Alternatives
This analysis examines four alternatives for BART mixed-goods service over the period between 2015 and 2040. These will be referenced against the status quo (SQ), where only trucks will be used for transport of FedEx products. Alternatives A1 and A2 will consider the scenario where little capital investment is required – only existing BART yards and maintenance areas will be used as FedEx transfer terminals. For Alternatives B1 and B2, far greater capital investment is assumed, specifically a jointly operated BART/FedEx facility at the FedEx Oakland Regional Hub. This would connect OAK to the existing BART network and eliminate truck transshipments along the same link. Alternatives B1 and B2 also include sufficient capital investment to allow for retrofitting of existing BART stations – specifically the Glen Park and South San Francisco stations – so that these stations can adequately facilitate FedEx goods movement. However, Alternatives A1 and B1 make use of FedEx long-haul trucks for all goods movement, while Alternatives A2 and B2 utilize electric FedEx delivery trucks for local transshipments. Note that for all alternatives, only operating cost expenditures are considered. It is noted that all costs are calculated in 2008 dollar. Then with inflation rate accounted for, the shown numbers in the table are the dollar value of the corresponding year. Both alternatives will require capital expenditures towards loading/unloading platforms for containers, stripping and retrofitting of BART cars, and other station modifications to ensure segregation between passengers and FedEx containers. A future report is expected to outline the necessary capital expenditures.

6.2 BART for Freight Services Based on Scaled Demand
Here, economic analysis only considers the transport of FedEx products. It may be beneficial to also consider UPS products, as this would increase the financial viability from
22

BART’s perspective. Introduction of UPS products into the system would likely lead to the critical demand threshold being passed. However, this would require further inspection into UPS container types and handling requirements. Since UPS actively participated in feasibility studies in 2008, and they maintain interest in the possibility of goods movement using BART. They are particularly interested in freight movement between SFO and OAK since they do not operate flights from SFO; all their products from the San Francisco area have to be transferred to OAK for air transport. However, due to limited data availability, economic analysis at this stage will focus only on FedEx products. As we mentioned before, other products from high-tech manufacturers and agricultural products could potentially increase the demand significantly which is critical for the business model for large scale operation will be the considered further in the future.

6.3 Container Type
Note that all FedEx container types, other than the USPS containers, would not be able to both a) fit through existing BART car doors and b) be transported via BART, because they require caster decks for movement. Therefore, rather than completely retrofitting BART cars to include caster decks and wider doors, which may be prohibitively expensive, it is reasonable to only consider transport of USPS containers for the convenience of economic analysis; using an existing container type would limit the startup costs required from FedEx. A load density of 5.5 lbs/ft3 is assumed, which is roughly equivalent to the average load density of most existing FedEx container types (unpublished data). However, other size containers can be shipped on flatbed cars with the same gage as BART rail.

6.4 Locations
There are six key FedEx distribution centers in the Bay Area which are located near existing/future BART facilities: Oakland, Concord, Hayward, Dublin, downtown San Francisco, south San Francisco, and Milpitas. The Milpitas station is scheduled for construction in 2018, but nonetheless has been included as a demand source because construction may potentially be fast-tracked to 2015 as MTC has already made the decision. The lone exception is node 4b in Alternatives A1 and A2 (Figure 6.1); while there is no BART station at this location, there is a
23

small BART maintenance facility known as the Oakland Annex Shop, where there is a spur track and adequate room for truck loading/offloading. BART stations such as Colma, Union City, and Concord are of particular interest due to their proximity to staging areas. These nearby yards will behave as “depots” for freight consists in Alternatives A1, B1, A2, and B2, meaning that all trains must be assembled in one of these yards before servicing a particular route. See Figures 6.1 and 6.2 for a simple graphical depiction of the network for each alternative. BART stations are represented by white ovals, FedEx centers by black ovals, and BART transfer points by white rectangles. Node 4ab acts jointly as a BART station and FedEx center in Alternatives B1 and B2. Solid lines connecting nodes represent BART rail lines, and dashed lines represent truck transshipments. The meanings of the acronyms in the figures are as follows: RHV: San Jose HWD: Hayward OAK: Oakland Airport Hub SFO: San Francisco (near airport) SQL: South San Francisco CCR: Concord LVK: Dublin
6b/7b: Colma (YARD) 7a: SQL 5a: CCR 6a: SFO 5b: Concord (YARD) (YARD) 3b: Dublin/ Pleasanton 2b: Union City (YARD) 1b: Milpitas 3a: LVK

(Oakland City Center/12th St.)

4a: OAK (Bay Fair) 2a: HWD

4b: Oakland Annex Shop

1a: RHV

Figure 6.1: Mixed-goods BART network in Alternatives A1 and A2

24

7b: S. San Francisco 7a: SQL 6b.7b: Colma (YARD)

6b: Glen Park (Oakland City Center/12th St.) 5a: CCR

6a: SFO 4ab: OAK (Bay Fair) 2a: HWD 2b: Union City (YARD) 1b: Milpitas (Coliseum/ Oakland Annex Shop)

5b: Concord

3b: Dublin/ Pleasanton

1a: RHV

3a: LVK

Figure 6.2:

Mixed-goods BART network in Alternatives B1 and B2

Spur Track

Source: Google Earth

Figure 6.3: Oakland Annex Shop

25

Source: Google Earth

Figure 6.4: BART Concord Yard

6.5 Demand
An origin-destination (OD) demand matrix has been developed through communications with FedEx, but scaled so that true demand is not disclosed (for proprietary reasons). This matrix, shown in Table 6.1, roughly conveys the daily demand, in (lbs) across the assumed locations for the year 2009. A demand growth rate term 6% per year is also incorporated in order to capture the expected future increases in goods movement. This growth rate value was determined according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) current and future estimates of Bay Area air cargo movements [19]. All demand follows the time windows mentioned in Section 2, where all distribution takes place during the AM period, and all collection takes place during the PM period. Because items may be particularly time sensitive, both the AM and PM periods have been split into two sub-periods, and demand has been assumed to be split equally amongst those sub-periods.

26

Table 6.1: O-D Demand Matrix (from OAK or to OAK)
1a: RHV From 4a: OAK To 4a: OAK 12,200 40,000 2a: HWD 9,200 14,600 3a: LVK 8,600 66,000 5a: CCR 8,800 34,000 6a: SFO 17,000 51,000 7a: SQL 10,600 24,000

6.6 Empty Container Returns
Empty container returns must also be considered, since the demand O-D table is likely to be unbalanced (Table 6.1). The number of empty containers which must be transported to/from a given location is simply the difference between the location’s outgoing and incoming daily demand.

6.7 Vehicle Types and Capacity
For the SQ and Alternatives A1 and B1, all FedEx trucks are assumed to be of type CTV5 (see Figure 6.5). Truck capacity is constrained both by container shape and weight; when considering both of these constraints, CTV5 trucks have a capacity limit of 16 USPS containers. A constant fuel economy of 10 mpg is assumed for the analysis period. For Alternatives A2 and B2, it is assumed that the local transshipments between FedEx distribution centers and BART stations are made by zero GHG emission FedEx delivery vehicles, such as the one shown in Figure 6.5. These vehicles are assumed to have the same capacity as a commonly used FedEx W700 vehicle, and thus can carry 4 USPS containers. However, Alternative A2 will maintain the use of CTV5 trucks for the transshipment between OAK and Oakland Annex.

27

Source: http://news.van.fedex.com/modec

Figure 6.5: FedEx Zero-Emission Electric Delivery Vehicle For all alternatives, it is assumed that BART uses retrofitted bi-directionally operable “C” cars freight movement; these cars should be available after the agency’s fleet overhaul in 2018. A BART “C” car could readily be stripped of all seating (see Figure 6.6) and fitted with locking mechanisms for wheeled FedEx containers. containers.1 A single BART car, when considering the weight and shape of USPS containers as well as the dimensions of car doorways, can hold 24 USPS

Note that if trucks and BART cars were fully packed with containers, they would be able to carry 24 and 36 containers, respectively. However, some room must be within vehicles for locking mechanism, as well as access to any container. Finally, while consolidation is the aim, vehicles may have to leave their origin before being completely filled due to delivery time window limits or problematic traffic conditions. Thus, slightly reduced capacity constraints are used. 28

1

Source: Presentation by BART on Nov. 28, 2006

Figure 6.6: Stripped BART Car

6.8 Freight Car Storage Areas and Empty Train Travels
For Alternatives A1 and A2, it is assumed that there is no storage space for BART cars at the Oakland Annex Shop, so all freight consists must be assembled at one of BART’s four yards before leaving for a particular route. During AM operations, since all movement is from OAK, the Union City BART yard is assumed to supply freight consists to the Oakland Annex Shop station. After unloading all goods at a given destination, the empty train will then depart for the nearest yard. During PM operations, each origin (nodes 1b, 2b, 3b, 5b, 6b, 6b/7b, and 7b) will have trains supplied from whichever yard is closest. After unloading, each empty train will return to the Union City yard. However, a new train must then be assembled which returns empty containers to a given location (trains may be either originating from or destined for OAK). Empty container returns simultaneously ensure that the same number of freight cars will be in each yard at the beginning of each day. For Alternatives B1 and B2, it is assumed that there is adequate BART car storage at the jointly-operated FedEx/BART facility at node 4ab. Thus, this facility will assume the role

29

played by the Union City yard in Alternatives A1 and A2. Alternatives A1 and A2 are adopted for Alternatives B1 and B2.

All other procedures from

6.9 Link Travel Times
In order to determine the operating costs incurred for BART cars, the travel times across the system network must be considered. Since it is infeasible for a single train to transport all goods throughout the network due to FedEx delivery time window, particular routes have been assigned for BART freight trains, as seen in Table 3. Route travel times were approximated from BART schedules [2]. However, those provided times include the dwell times across intermittent stops; thus, an assumed 40 second dwell time per stop has been subtracted from the provided BART trip times. Furthermore, the aforementioned empty train travel times (from/to the yards corresponding to the beginning and end of a particular route) should be added to all route travel times in order to calculate the true cost of service. The resulting total service times, as well as the route travel times, are given in Table 6.2. Table 6.2: BART Travel Times for all Alternatives
Route Alts. B1 & B2 Alts. A1 & A2 1b 3b 5b 7b/6b 1b 3b 5b 7b 2b 4ab 4ab 6b 4ab 2b 4b 4b 4b 4ab 4b Route Travel Time (hrs) 0.66 0.51 0.52 0.56 0.66 0.46 0.65 0.72 Source: www.bart.gov Total Service Time (hrs) 1.33 1.34 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.65 0.77

It is also necessary to determine the link travel distances and times across the road network for truck transport of FedEx goods. Travel distances for all links are determined according to the locations of BART stations and FedEx distribution centers. These distances are listed in Table 6.3. However, while it can safely be assumed that transshipment travel times between local FedEx distribution centers and BART stations will remain constant, the line-haul

30

travel times in the Status Quo might be expected to change over time due to rising freeway demand over time (and subsequently, reduced travel speeds). Thus, analysis makes use of the predicted inter-regional travel speeds given by the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission [20].

Table 6.3: Truck Travel Distances for Various Alternatives
Link 4a STATUS QUO 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a 1b Alts. A1 & A2 2b 3b 5b 6b/7b 6b/7b 4a 1b Alts. B1 & B2 2b 3b 5b 6b 7b 4b 1a 2a 3a 5a 6a 7a Source: Google Earth 1a 2a 3a 5a 6a 7a 1a 2a 3a 5a 6a 7a Truck Travel Distance (mi) 33.1 15.5 20.9 31.6 22.4 28.6 3 4 3.6 4 8.6 4.9 8.8 3 4 2.6 4 3.8 3.4

31

CCR

Concord Yard

Source: Google Earth

Figure 6.7: Travel Route between Concord Yard and CCR (~4 miles)

6.10 Handling
A handling time of 0.025 hrs (1.5 minutes) per container is assumed. This handling time is defined as the time to move one container from a BART vehicle across a station platform and secure the container onto a FedEx truck (and vice-versa). With respect to the status quo, Alternatives A1 and A2 will require two additional handling movements (one movement at all local distribution centers and one movement at node 4b), and Alternatives B1 and B2 will require one additional handling movement (at all local distribution centers). Total handling cost is estimated by simply multiplying the assumed handling time per container by the number of containers handled, the number of handling movements, and the handler costs. Regardless of how responsibility is divided for loading/offloading items at BART stations, BART must still incur some labor cost, since BART operators will be standing by until trains are loaded. Similarly, FedEx truck operators will at least be on standby while trucks are being offloaded.
32

Therefore, this total handling time cost is essentially incurred by both air freight carriers and BART. Although this would not cause union issues to FedEx, it could cause such problem to UPS.

6.11 Truck VMT Estimation
The number of trucks required between any two points can be approximated as where ,

demand originating from location i and destined for location j, in containers, and With these capacity considerations, the demand matrix

truck capacity, in containers.

provided earlier can be readily converted into a “Truck Trips” matrix. From the number of truck trips, the annual truck VMT, external social costs, and total truck operating costs can be calculated for each alternative. All trucks are assumed to travel round-trip.

6.12 External/Social Costs
There are four key external social costs that arise from heavy-duty truck VMT: 1) congestion/delay costs, 2) emissions costs, 3) accident costs, and 4) infrastructure maintenance costs. The delay savings which arise from reduced truck VMT are difficult to estimate, given that the savings depend on the freeway’s total demand. While it should be noted that there may be some delay reduction from the proposed mixed-goods service, no quantification of these savings are included here. To quantify reductions in harmful GHG’s, a CO2 emissions rate of 22.2 lbs/gallon diesel fuel is used [25]. A constant fuel economy of 10 mpg has been assumed over the analysis period. By reducing truck VMT, the number of freeway accidents will likely be reduced. Within this paper, the accidents of total expectation lower than 0.1 per year will not be considered. As a result, the accidental cost of using the BART system can be considered to be zero, as the accidental events of the BART occurs less than once per 10 years. Therefore, to quantify the accidental cost, a truck accident rate is used. This rate is derived from the 2006 statistics for the United States [12]. The average cost of all heavy truck accidents in 2005 was $91,112 [13]. The

33

annual accident cost is given by the product of two factors together with the annual truck VMT. Half of this cost is allocated to FedEx annual operating cost, and half to society. The road damage unit cost due to urban truck travel is taken as $0.074 per truck-mile [27].

6.13 Operating and Labor Costs
Truck operating costs per-mile were given as $3.28/mile in an unpublished report by R. Rai (whose previous work is continued in this study) but because this per-mile cost included driver costs, a lower operating cost of $2.70 is used so that the per-mile trucking cost only includes fuel, maintenance, and ownership/depreciation costs. The diesel fuel cost component is assumed to follow the same rising trend as gasoline costs, rising to roughly $7.50/gal by 2035 [21]. The per-hour cost includes FedEx driver wages, which are taken as $22/hr [28], and both health insurance and worker’s compensation, leading to an hourly cost of $30 [4]. Hourly handling labor cost is assumed to be the same as FedEx driver costs ($31/hr). An interest rate of 4% per year is utilized (from general salary increase rate and mortgage rate). From the fuel price prediction of California Energy Council [34-36], the fuel price is expected to be increasing at 10% annually. Taken apart of the increase rate, the net increase in price is about 5.8% per year. Other components of driving cost include $8 bridge tolls, a $0.25/mile congestion charge, and a 20% carbon tax on all VMT traveled. All three of these charges are expected to be implemented by 2035 in the Bay Area [20]. The congestion charge is only applied to the freeway travel component of each truck trip, and the bridge toll cost only to those trucks which utilize links 4a 6a and 4a 7a (only these two links require travel across the Bay Bridge). Difficulties arise in approximating BART operating cost due to data limitations; through communications with BART’s Financial Planning Office, an operating cost of $250/per car-hr, was obtained. This value is simply the total annual operating cost by the total annual car-hours. However, the operating cost for trains, which possess economies of scale, is required. Therefore, rather than directly apply the given operating cost per car-hr, the following methodology is applied for cost estimation. First, using BART’s weekly operating schedule and the roundtrip travel times for each route [2], the total number of trains required for each route can be estimated. The total number of trains required during any time period is given by the

34

equation:

. This number is then multiplied against the length of the By

service time period to eventually obtain the total train-hours accumulated over the week.

dividing BART’s weekly operating cost [23] by the total weekly train-hrs, the hourly train operating cost is found to be roughly $1,500/train-hr. By then dividing the hourly train operating cost by the hourly car operating cost, the average train length is found to be six cars. Assuming that BART freight trains will not require the same level of amenities – i.e. air conditioning – as a BART passenger trains, a reduced operating cost value of $1,250/hr is used for a six-car train. Because the relationship between train length where and cost should show economies of scale, it is , assumed that the hourly operating cost can be expressed as the concave function 2-car train to $1,330 for a 10-car train (for freight movement). Table 6.4: Train Hourly Operating Cost as a Function of Length
Train Length Hourly Operating Cost 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

. Using this function, the hourly train operating cost ranges from $1,090 for a

$1,040 $1,090 $1,130 $1,160 $1,190 $1,210 $1,230 $1,250 $1,270

Total BART train hours are determined similar to total truck VMT. The number of BART cars required is simply given by containers, and , where D = demand for route , in

= BART car capacity, in containers. From the number of cars required,

one can determine the number of trains required by dividing the required number of cars by the 10-car limit; the appropriate operating cost value (according to the function above) is then assigned to the required trains and their respective lengths. A single train’s daily operating cost is given by the product of its hourly operating cost and its total time in service. The annual operating cost is found by summing the operating cost over all trains and days for the year.

6.14 Time Windows
The consideration of time windows for the delivery of FedEx Express items is a crucial one. At a recent meeting, FedEx representatives have expressed the importance of ensuring that all containers arrive at their local destination centers no later than 7:00 AM (for the morning

35

distribution period). Furthermore, all containers must arrive at OAK very quickly during the PM distribution period because of the time difference between the West and East coasts. There don’t seem to be any finer time window requirements, particularly for the PM distribution period, because items must be consolidated at OAK regardless. However, there are likely to be instances where trucks leave locations with under-utilized capacity, and this is perhaps dependent on traffic conditions, as well as the handling and sorting time required at distribution centers. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that the large CTV5 trucks would travel at less than 70% capacity due to time-windows, because this would completely negate the purpose of using large trucks; smaller trucks would simply be used at cheaper cost. Furthermore, additional/more sensitive time-windows would prove detrimental to the economic feasibility of using BART for container movement, since again a tremendous capacity advantage would be completely negated. reliability issue. As a reference for how the container end-to-end travel times compare across alternatives, see Tables 6.5 through 6.7. Note that the travel times for the Status Quo are current; these travel times are likely to grow in the future as traffic demand and congestion increase. Furthermore, note that the end-to-end travel times for Alternatives A1, A2, B1, and B2 do not include the additional handling time required at BART stations. Furthermore, containers arriving at or leaving from the Milpitas and South San Francisco BART stations (nodes 1b and 7b) must incur some additional delay when waiting as BART trains are loaded/offloaded at Hayward and Glen Park (nodes 2b and 6b), respectively. Clearly, using BART for container movement will likely require longer total travel times than solely trucks; again, this will depend on the handling capabilities at stations as well as freeway traffic conditions. While any such time-window requirements are not considered in this economic analysis, time-windows should be considered to a greater degree in a future study. Table 6-5: End-to-End Travel Time for SQ
Route 1a 2a 3a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a Total Travel Time (min) 36 20 26 39
36

Future studies should provide greater inspection into this

6a 7a

4a 4a

29 36

Table 6.6: End-to-End Travel Times for Alts. A1 & A2 (neglecting handling time)
Local Transshipment Time (min) 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a 9 7 5 10 12 11 BART Travel Time (min) 40 24 30 31 34 34 OAK Transshipment Time (min) 13 13 13 13 13 13 Total Travel Time (min) 62 44 48 54 59 58

Route 1a 2a 3a 5a 6a 7a 1b 2b 3b 5b 6b/7b 6b/7b 4b 4b 4b 4b 4b 4b

Table 6.7: End-to-End Travel Times for Alts. B1 & B2 (neglecting handling time)
Local Transshipment Time (min) 4ab 4ab 4ab 4ab 4ab 4ab 9 7 5 10 6 7 BART Travel Time (min) 40 16 28 39 32 43 Total Travel Time (min) 49 23 33 49 38 50

Route 1a 2a 3a 5a 6a 7a 1b 2b 3b 5b 6b 7b

37

 Chapter

7. Economic Analysis: Results
The level of subsidy required will simply be the

Analysis results are tabulated in Tables 7.1 through 7.5, corresponding to the Status Quo and Alternatives A1, B1, A2, and B2. difference between the total cost of a given alternative and the total cost of the status quo. Any years which indicate a negative level of subsidy indicate that no subsidies are required; rather, opportunities arise for BART profits and FedEx savings. Note that several of the columns in Tables 7.2 through 7.5 show savings in truck VMT and truck-related externalities rather than the raw values. For Alternative A1, which requires minimal capital investment, some subsidy is required throughout the timeline, roughly $4M annually. However, tremendous savings in truck VMT can be achieved; the cumulative truck VMT savings over the analysis period amounts to nearly 50 million truck VMT. This translates to more than 30,000 lbs of CO2 emission savings. For Alternative B1, which requires more significant capital investment but eliminates one of the transshipments required in Alternative A, even greater savings in truck VMT are achieved. The cumulative VMT savings amount to more than 50 million truck VMT, which translates to roughly 55,000 tons of CO2 emission savings. Perhaps most interestingly, subsidy is only required for a few of the initial years in Alternative B1. Thus, if container demand is sufficient, BART mixed-goods service can both be profitable for BART and beneficial for FedEx from solely a fiscal perspective. The exact levels of profit for BART and savings for FedEx will simply depend on a mutually agreed-upon price for transported containers. Any savings can be channeled towards recovering the initial capital investment, as well as towards improvements in passenger service, which can further incentivize transit ridership. Note that a clear trend is established in the results: the higher the demand level, the more profitable mixed-goods operation becomes. Alternatives A2 and B2 show tremendous social savings as zero-emission vehicles are used for local transshipments. However, these alternatives come at significant cost to FedEx given the limited capacity of the electric vehicles. Nonetheless, Alternative B2 requires a minimal level of subsidy (roughly ~2M annually), while eliminating all of the heavy truck VMT accumulated in the Status Quo (roughly 60 million truck VMT savings).

38

It is noted that other social benefits exist, which are not accounted for here, such as reductions in congestion, noise, and particulate matter, and economic in land use. Government agencies need to weigh all of these benefits against any required subsidies or start-up costs in order to determine whether or not mixed-goods service is worthy of pursuit. Finally, these results are based on parameter values which may require revision. The true operating costs of FedEx vehicles and BART trains should be used in order for appropriate economic analysis to be conducted. Nonetheless, one point to take away from these results – regardless of parameter values – are the trends that were determined through some parametric analysis, where we experimented with different scales of demand. For Alternatives A1 and A2, the required subsidy always increased with demand. However, for Alternatives B1 and B2, the required subsidy typically decreased with increased demand, and in fact turned profitable if demand was high enough. Therefore, even if FedEx demand is not sufficient to result in profitable mixed-goods service, other demand sources should be examined such as high-tech manufacturer products and agricultural products, so that multiple parties can benefit from these economies of scale. In order to visualize the actual situation in future, the time value of money is also calculated. The results are predicted and compared in the following Table 7.1. Table 7.1 Summary of Case-Study Alternatives
1 Little capital investment CTV5 Trucks for local transshipments; A Existing BART yards and maintenance areas for access point; Dedicated freight train CTV5 Trucks for local transshipments; BART connection between OAK and Coliseum Station; B Certain capital investment for retrofitting of existing BART stations for goods movement; Dedicated freight train
 

2 Little capital investment Electric trucks for local transshipments; Existing BART yards, stations and maintenance areas for access point; Dedicated freight train Electric trucks for local transshipments; BART connection between OAK and Coliseum Station Certain capital investment for retrofitting of existing BART stations for goods movement; Dedicated freight train

The summary of the case-study scenarios are listed in Table 7.1 for the convenience of viewing the results in Table 7.2 ~ Table 7.8
39

Table 8.1

Analysis Results for the Status Quo Minimum Subsidy Required (+) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

CTV5 Truck VMT 2,167,910 2,311,320 2,365,020 2,475,490 2,663,780 2,745,020 2,907,770 3,112,990 3,245,130 3,444,130 3,604,270 3,873,810 4,091,370 4,345,100 4,525,330 4,798,540 5,112,190 5,309,050 5,725,770 6,040,700 6,427,790 6,666,310 7,144,280 7,590,080 8,014,650 8,471,460

FedEx Costs $9,641,500 $10,318,200 $10,586,800 $11,116,300 $12,002,700 $12,407,200 $13,181,300 $14,165,200 $14,805,800 $15,763,300 $16,559,500 $17,844,600 $18,902,800 $20,145,600 $21,041,500 $22,387,100 $23,936,700 $24,931,200 $26,969,100 $28,544,200 $30,481,300 $31,711,800 $34,105,200 $36,349,500 $38,502,000 $40,839,000

BART Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Cost $9,641,500 $10,318,200 $10,586,800 $11,116,300 $12,002,700 $12,407,200 $13,181,300 $14,165,200 $14,805,800 $15,763,300 $16,559,500 $17,844,600 $18,902,800 $20,145,600 $21,041,500 $22,387,100 $23,936,700 $24,931,200 $26,969,100 $28,544,200 $30,481,300 $31,711,800 $34,105,200 $36,349,500 $38,502,000 $40,839,000

# CTV5 Accidents 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 14 15

Accident $ $179,270 $191,130 $195,570 $204,700 $220,270 $226,990 $240,450 $257,420 $268,350 $284,800 $298,040 $320,330 $338,320 $359,300 $374,210 $396,800 $422,740 $439,010 $473,470 $499,520 $531,530 $551,250 $590,770 $627,640 $662,750 $700,520

Maintenance $ $160,430 $171,040 $175,010 $183,190 $197,120 $203,130 $215,170 $230,360 $240,140 $254,870 $266,720 $286,660 $302,760 $321,540 $334,870 $355,090 $378,300 $392,870 $423,710 $447,010 $475,660 $493,310 $528,680 $561,670 $593,080 $626,890

Direct CO2 (lbs) 4,812,800 5,131,100 5,250,300 5,495,600 5,913,600 6,093,900 6,455,200 6,910,800 7,204,200 7,646,000 8,001,500 8,599,900 9,082,800 9,646,100 10,046,200 10,652,800 11,349,100 11,786,100 12,711,200 13,410,400 14,269,700 14,799,200 15,860,300 16,850,000 17,792,500 18,806,600 40

Table 8.2

Analysis Results for Alternative A1 Minimum Subsidy Required (+) $6,061,400 $5,889,500 $6,041,100 $6,470,100 $6,161,300 $5,798,100 $6,429,900 $5,695,700 $6,122,200 $6,570,900 $6,411,900 $6,451,400 $5,908,800 $5,990,600 $6,053,400 $6,363,000 $6,084,600 $6,342,200 $5,834,800 $5,466,400 $4,457,100 $4,941,600 $4,022,600 $4,565,800 $4,542,000 $3,758,500

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

CTV5 Truck VMT 1,242,870 1,315,490 1,374,760 1,450,640 1,542,290 1,621,440 1,713,960 1,832,990 1,920,560 2,038,270 2,147,810 2,291,690 2,432,850 2,572,080 2,711,980 2,875,890 3,053,930 3,208,160 3,407,620 3,623,860 3,836,580 4,040,780 4,299,200 4,554,660 4,822,510 5,110,400

FedEx Costs $6,749,800 $7,163,400 $7,519,100 $7,953,800 $8,474,900 $8,937,200 $9,475,200 $10,138,700 $10,668,300 $11,340,500 $11,988,200 $12,804,600 $13,615,800 $14,435,000 $15,262,500 $16,218,800 $17,256,700 $18,186,900 $19,359,100 $20,615,600 $21,877,400 $23,114,400 $24,629,400 $26,149,600 $27,746,500 $29,467,100

BART Costs $8,953,100 $9,044,300 $9,108,800 $9,632,600 $9,689,100 $9,268,100 $10,136,000 $9,722,200 $10,259,700 $10,993,700 $10,983,200 $11,491,400 $11,195,800 $11,701,200 $11,832,400 $12,531,300 $12,764,600 $13,086,500 $13,444,800 $13,395,000 $13,061,000 $13,539,000 $13,498,400 $14,765,700 $15,297,500 $15,130,400

Total Cost $15,702,900 $16,207,700 $16,627,900 $17,586,400 $18,164,000 $18,205,300 $19,611,200 $19,860,900 $20,928,000 $22,334,200 $22,971,400 $24,296,000 $24,811,600 $26,136,200 $27,094,900 $28,750,100 $30,021,300 $31,273,400 $32,803,900 $34,010,600 $34,938,400 $36,653,400 $38,127,800 $40,915,300 $43,044,000 $44,597,500

# CTV5 Accidents 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9

Accident $ $102,780 $108,780 $113,680 $119,960 $127,530 $134,080 $141,730 $151,570 $158,810 $168,550 $177,610 $189,500 $201,180 $212,690 $224,260 $237,810 $252,530 $265,290 $281,780 $299,660 $317,250 $334,140 $355,510 $376,630 $398,780 $422,590

Maintenance $ $91,970 $97,350 $101,730 $107,350 $114,130 $119,990 $126,830 $135,640 $142,120 $150,830 $158,940 $169,590 $180,030 $190,330 $200,690 $212,820 $225,990 $237,400 $252,160 $268,170 $283,910 $299,020 $318,140 $337,040 $356,870 $378,170

Direct CO2 (lbs) 2,759,200 2,920,400 3,052,000 3,220,400 3,423,900 3,599,600 3,805,000 4,069,200 4,263,600 4,525,000 4,768,100 5,087,600 5,400,900 5,710,000 6,020,600 6,384,500 6,779,700 7,122,100 7,564,900 8,045,000 8,517,200 8,970,500 9,544,200 10,111,300 10,706,000 11,345,100 41

Table 8.3

Analysis Results for Alternative A2 Minimum Subsidy Required (+) $9,465,000 $9,533,800 $9,983,300 $10,730,600 $10,739,700 $10,708,900 $11,775,900 $11,378,700 $12,328,900 $13,171,200 $13,536,300 $14,087,700 $14,081,100 $14,770,000 $15,522,800 $16,534,700 $16,954,400 $18,021,000 $18,344,700 $18,903,300 $18,869,800 $20,507,200 $20,633,700 $22,392,300 $23,643,700 $24,263,400

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

CTV5 Truck VMT 794,380 843,740 888,620 937,990 996,340 1,054,680 1,117,510 1,189,320 1,252,150 1,328,450 1,404,740 1,494,500 1,584,260 1,674,020 1,777,250 1,884,960 1,997,160 2,104,870 2,226,050 2,374,150 2,508,790 2,661,380 2,818,460 2,984,520 3,164,040 3,357,020

FedEx Costs $10,153,400 $10,807,700 $11,461,300 $12,214,300 $13,053,300 $13,848,000 $14,821,200 $15,821,700 $16,875,000 $17,940,800 $19,112,600 $20,440,900 $21,788,100 $23,214,400 $24,731,900 $26,390,500 $28,126,500 $29,865,700 $31,869,000 $34,052,500 $36,290,100 $38,680,000 $41,240,500 $43,976,100 $46,848,200 $49,972,000

BART Costs $8,953,100 $9,044,300 $9,108,800 $9,632,600 $9,689,100 $9,268,100 $10,136,000 $9,722,200 $10,259,700 $10,993,700 $10,983,200 $11,491,400 $11,195,800 $11,701,200 $11,832,400 $12,531,300 $12,764,600 $13,086,500 $13,444,800 $13,395,000 $13,061,000 $13,539,000 $13,498,400 $14,765,700 $15,297,500 $15,130,400

Total Cost $19,106,500 $19,852,000 $20,570,100 $21,846,900 $22,742,400 $23,116,100 $24,957,200 $25,543,900 $27,134,700 $28,934,500 $30,095,800 $31,932,300 $32,983,900 $34,915,600 $36,564,300 $38,921,800 $40,891,100 $42,952,200 $45,313,800 $47,447,500 $49,351,100 $52,219,000 $54,738,900 $58,741,800 $62,145,700 $65,102,400

# CTV5 Accidents 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6

Accident $ $65,690 $69,770 $73,480 $77,560 $82,390 $87,210 $92,410 $98,350 $103,540 $109,850 $116,160 $123,580 $131,010 $138,430 $146,960 $155,870 $165,150 $174,060 $184,080 $196,320 $207,460 $220,070 $233,060 $246,800 $261,640 $277,600

Maintenance $ $58,780 $62,440 $65,760 $69,410 $73,730 $78,050 $82,700 $88,010 $92,660 $98,310 $103,950 $110,590 $117,240 $123,880 $131,520 $139,490 $147,790 $155,760 $164,730 $175,690 $185,650 $196,940 $208,570 $220,850 $234,140 $248,420

Direct CO2 (lbs) 1,763,500 1,873,100 1,972,700 2,082,300 2,211,900 2,341,400 2,480,900 2,640,300 2,779,800 2,949,200 3,118,500 3,317,800 3,517,100 3,716,300 3,945,500 4,184,600 4,433,700 4,672,800 4,941,800 5,270,600 5,569,500 5,908,300 6,257,000 6,625,600 7,024,200 7,452,600 42

Table 8.4

Analysis Results for Alternative B1 Minimum Subsidy Required (+) -$136,800 -$583,600 -$688,000 -$666,600 -$1,293,700 -$1,801,900 -$1,747,800 -$2,734,600 -$2,794,200 -$2,902,800 -$3,444,500 -$4,035,100 -$4,948,800 -$5,472,200 -$6,000,200 -$6,459,200 -$7,381,100 -$7,759,900 -$9,006,700 -$10,125,700 -$11,791,400 -$12,234,900 -$13,947,400 -$14,629,300 -$15,734,300 -$17,490,600

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

CTV5 Truck VMT 448,490 471,750 486,130 512,650 545,960 566,760 596,450 643,670 668,410 709,820 743,070 797,180 848,590 898,060 934,730 990,930 1,056,770 1,103,280 1,181,570 1,249,700 1,327,790 1,379,400 1,480,730 1,570,140 1,658,470 1,753,380

FedEx Costs $2,592,600 $2,739,200 $2,844,700 $3,006,100 $3,208,200 $3,349,400 $3,540,200 $3,811,700 $3,985,400 $4,236,800 $4,456,900 $4,778,600 $5,089,100 $5,400,600 $5,653,100 $6,004,500 $6,408,800 $6,721,700 $7,202,800 $7,633,500 $8,123,200 $8,492,500 $9,108,200 $9,677,100 $10,246,700 $10,860,800

BART Costs $6,912,100 $6,995,400 $7,054,100 $7,443,600 $7,500,800 $7,255,900 $7,893,300 $7,618,900 $8,026,200 $8,623,700 $8,658,100 $9,030,900 $8,864,900 $9,272,800 $9,388,200 $9,923,400 $10,146,800 $10,449,600 $10,759,600 $10,785,000 $10,566,700 $10,984,400 $11,049,600 $12,043,100 $12,521,000 $12,487,600

Total Cost $9,504,700 $9,734,600 $9,898,800 $10,449,700 $10,709,000 $10,605,300 $11,433,500 $11,430,600 $12,011,600 $12,860,500 $13,115,000 $13,809,500 $13,954,000 $14,673,400 $15,041,300 $15,927,900 $16,555,600 $17,171,300 $17,962,400 $18,418,500 $18,689,900 $19,476,900 $20,157,800 $21,720,200 $22,767,700 $23,348,400

# CTV5 Accidents 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Accident $ $37,090 $39,010 $40,200 $42,390 $45,150 $46,870 $49,320 $53,230 $55,270 $58,700 $61,450 $65,920 $70,170 $74,260 $77,290 $81,940 $87,390 $91,230 $97,710 $103,340 $109,800 $114,070 $122,440 $129,840 $137,140 $144,990

Maintenance $ $33,190 $34,910 $35,970 $37,940 $40,400 $41,940 $44,140 $47,630 $49,460 $52,530 $54,990 $58,990 $62,800 $66,460 $69,170 $73,330 $78,200 $81,640 $87,440 $92,480 $98,260 $102,080 $109,570 $116,190 $122,730 $129,750

Direct CO2 (lbs) 995,600 1,047,300 1,079,200 1,138,100 1,212,000 1,258,200 1,324,100 1,428,900 1,483,900 1,575,800 1,649,600 1,769,700 1,883,900 1,993,700 2,075,100 2,199,900 2,346,000 2,449,300 2,623,100 2,774,300 2,947,700 3,062,300 3,287,200 3,485,700 3,681,800 3,892,500 43

Table 8.5

Analysis Results for Alternative B2 Minimum Subsidy Required (+) $3,083,300 $2,868,600 $3,056,200 $3,384,800 $3,062,400 $2,877,900 $3,356,000 $2,687,300 $3,140,400 $3,410,300 $3,377,200 $3,276,500 $2,877,500 $2,943,500 $3,088,600 $3,309,700 $3,058,800 $3,470,200 $3,022,700 $2,803,700 $2,080,600 $2,770,200 $2,063,800 $2,558,600 $2,693,200 $2,302,400

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

CTV5 Truck VMT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FedEx Costs $5,812,700 $6,191,400 $6,588,900 $7,057,500 $7,564,300 $8,029,200 $8,644,000 $9,233,600 $9,920,000 $10,549,900 $11,278,600 $12,090,200 $12,915,400 $13,816,300 $14,741,900 $15,773,400 $16,848,700 $17,951,800 $19,232,200 $20,562,900 $21,995,200 $23,497,600 $25,119,400 $26,865,000 $28,674,200 $30,653,800

BART Costs $6,912,100 $6,995,400 $7,054,100 $7,443,600 $7,500,800 $7,255,900 $7,893,300 $7,618,900 $8,026,200 $8,623,700 $8,658,100 $9,030,900 $8,864,900 $9,272,800 $9,388,200 $9,923,400 $10,146,800 $10,449,600 $10,759,600 $10,785,000 $10,566,700 $10,984,400 $11,049,600 $12,043,100 $12,521,000 $12,487,600

Total Cost $12,724,800 $13,186,800 $13,643,000 $14,501,100 $15,065,100 $15,285,100 $16,537,300 $16,852,500 $17,946,200 $19,173,600 $19,936,700 $21,121,100 $21,780,300 $23,089,100 $24,130,100 $25,696,800 $26,995,500 $28,401,400 $29,991,800 $31,347,900 $32,561,900 $34,482,000 $36,169,000 $38,908,100 $41,195,200 $43,141,400

# CTV5 Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Accident $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Maintenance $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Direct CO2 (lbs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44

Table 8.6: Results comparison:A1 A2
Alternative Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 # Truck Accidents Saved 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 6 6 Indirect CO2 Saved (lbs) 1,764,042 1,898,991 1,888,340 1,954,397 2,138,652 2,142,604 2,276,522 2,440,934 2,525,975 2,680,939 2,777,491 3,017,066 3,162,752 3,381,110 3,457,990 3,666,470 3,925,115 4,006,376 4,420,672 4,608,879 4,941,398 5,006,853 5,425,530 5,788,543 6,087,304 6,409,429 A1 Direct CO2 Saved (lbs) 2,053,600 2,210,700 2,198,300 2,275,200 2,489,700 2,494,300 2,650,200 2,841,600 2,940,600 3,121,000 3,233,400 3,512,300 3,681,900 3,936,100 4,025,600 4,268,300 4,569,400 4,664,000 5,146,300 5,365,400 5,752,500 5,828,700 6,316,100 6,738,700 7,086,500 7,461,500 Total $ Saved (current) $144,950.00 $156,040.00 $155,170.00 $160,580.00 $175,730.00 $176,050.00 $187,060.00 $200,570.00 $207,560.00 $220,290.00 $228,210.00 $247,900.00 $259,870.00 $277,820.00 $284,130.00 $301,260.00 $322,520.00 $329,190.00 $363,240.00 $378,700.00 $406,030.00 $411,400.00 $445,800.00 $475,640.00 $500,180.00 $526,650.00 # Truck Accidents Saved 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 Indirect CO2 Saved (lbs) 3,278,975 3,507,984 3,582,975 3,743,093 4,038,674 4,153,866 4,407,615 4,708,952 4,913,738 5,214,302 5,456,282 5,867,142 6,183,855 6,573,412 6,847,175 7,261,041 7,733,663 8,020,311 8,665,678 9,136,410 9,725,598 10,081,997 10,800,293 11,479,934 12,121,091 12,811,212 A2 Direct CO2 Saved (lbs) 3,817,200 4,083,800 4,171,100 4,357,500 4,701,600 4,835,700 5,131,100 5,481,900 5,720,300 6,070,200 6,351,900 6,830,200 7,198,900 7,652,400 7,971,100 8,452,900 9,003,100 9,336,800 10,088,100 10,636,100 11,322,000 11,736,900 12,573,100 13,364,300 14,110,700 14,914,100

Total $ Saved (Future) $183,407.99 $205,337.99 $212,360.86 $228,555.41 $260,123.33 $271,020.89 $299,489.09 $333,963.79 $359,426.76 $396,729.84 $427,433.05 $482,884.53 $526,448.94 $585,324.84 $622,563.82 $686,501.67 $764,346.21 $811,359.71 $931,094.60 $1,009,552.22 $1,125,705.91 $1,186,217.83 $1,336,821.94 $1,483,355.38 $1,622,282.57 $1,776,460.71

Total $ Saved $273,320.00 $292,350.00 $298,640.00 $312,010.00 $336,590.00 $346,240.00 $367,340.00 $392,520.00 $409,570.00 $434,610.00 $454,780.00 $489,010.00 $515,480.00 $547,920.00 $570,740.00 $605,230.00 $644,640.00 $668,600.00 $722,300.00 $761,570.00 $810,670.00 $840,400.00 $900,310.00 $956,930.00 $1,010,370.00 $1,067,910.00

Total $ Saved (Future) $345,836.99 $384,712.66 $408,709.46 $444,087.52 $498,235.42 $533,020.57 $588,123.18 $653,574.65 $709,242.72 $782,708.06 $851,794.41 $952,542.82 $1,044,267.90 $1,154,384.80 $1,250,561.62 $1,379,178.80 $1,527,744.45 $1,647,908.81 $1,851,474.60 $2,030,220.97 $2,247,558.08 $2,423,182.95 $2,699,762.59 $2,984,331.13 $3,277,031.54 $3,602,202.90

45

Table 8.7: Results comparison: B1 B2
# Truck Accidents Saved 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 9 10 10 Indirect CO2 Saved (lbs) 2,619,349 2,798,622 2,815,458 2,932,025 3,179,760 3,223,398 3,413,924 3,668,360 3,800,560 4,034,551 4,194,497 4,537,324 4,780,936 5,093,698 5,240,501 5,556,184 5,940,329 6,110,325 6,673,915 6,992,088 7,473,472 7,637,283 8,249,235 8,782,760 9,249,970 9,753,086 Direct CO2 Saved (lbs) 3,049,300 3,258,000 3,277,600 3,413,300 3,701,700 3,752,500 3,974,300 4,270,500 4,424,400 4,696,800 4,883,000 5,282,100 5,565,700 5,929,800 6,100,700 6,468,200 6,915,400 7,113,300 7,769,400 8,139,800 8,700,200 8,890,900 9,603,300 10,224,400 10,768,300 11,354,000 # Truck Accidents Saved 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 Indirect CO2 Saved (lbs) 4,134,195 4,407,615 4,510,008 4,720,720 5,079,782 5,234,660 5,545,017 5,936,377 6,188,408 6,567,914 6,873,289 7,387,314 7,802,125 8,286,000 8,629,686 9,150,755 9,748,877 10,124,260 10,918,921 11,519,534 12,257,672 12,712,513 13,623,998 14,474,150 15,283,758 16,154,869 Direct CO2 Saved (lbs) 4,812,800 5,131,100 5,250,300 5,495,600 5,913,600 6,093,900 6,455,200 6,910,800 7,204,200 7,646,000 8,001,500 8,599,900 9,082,800 9,646,100 10,046,200 10,652,800 11,349,100 11,786,100 12,711,200 13,410,400 14,269,700 14,799,200 15,860,300 16,850,000 17,792,500 18,806,600

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Total $ Saved $345,838.99 $384,714.66 $408,711.46 $444,090.52 $498,238.42 $533,023.57 $588,126.18 $653,578.65 $709,246.72 $782,712.06 $851,798.41 $952,547.82 $1,044,272.90 $1,154,389.80 $1,250,566.62 $1,379,183.80 $1,527,750.45 $1,647,914.81 $1,851,481.60 $2,030,227.97 $2,247,565.08 $2,423,190.95 $2,699,770.59 $2,984,340.13 $3,277,041.54 $3,602,212.90

Total $ Saved (Future) $437,596.66 $506,258.24 $559,349.86 $632,079.28 $737,514.58 $820,565.30 $941,608.96 $1,088,256.50 $1,228,185.85 $1,409,620.20 $1,595,402.45 $1,855,468.37 $2,115,505.28 $2,432,125.20 $2,740,145.47 $3,142,840.00 $3,620,644.50 $4,061,641.25 $4,745,910.49 $5,412,255.50 $6,231,306.27 $6,986,952.64 $8,095,811.02 $9,307,116.69 $10,628,748.38 $12,150,744.69

Total $ Saved $339,700.00 $362,170.00 $370,580.00 $387,890.00 $417,390.00 $430,120.00 $455,620.00 $487,780.00 $508,490.00 $539,670.00 $564,760.00 $606,990.00 $641,080.00 $680,840.00 $709,080.00 $751,890.00 $801,040.00 $831,880.00 $897,180.00 $946,530.00 $1,007,190.00 $1,044,560.00 $1,119,450.00 $1,189,310.00 $1,255,830.00 $1,327,410.00

Total $ Saved (Future) $429,828.87 $476,591.01 $507,164.32 $552,088.42 $617,839.16 $662,149.98 $729,462.30 $812,189.56 $880,540.16 $971,915.18 $1,057,784.89 $1,182,356.12 $1,298,710.45 $1,434,427.19 $1,553,681.60 $1,713,382.92 $1,898,399.75 $2,050,347.57 $2,299,745.23 $2,523,294.06 $2,792,403.84 $3,011,851.48 $3,356,898.43 $3,709,043.36 $4,073,155.90 $4,477,531.02

46

Chapter 8. Concluding Thoughts and Future Plans
The presented economic feasibility study shows significant promise for exploring the possibility of mixed-goods service on passenger-rail systems. Both service alternatives show a trend suggesting that the higher the demand, the lower the level of subsidy required. Furthermore, with significant capital investment, BART can actually derive profit from this service while the air freight carrier (FedEx, in this case study) can derive savings. The fact that economic feasibility is so closely linked to demand should motivate researchers to explore ways to tap into other demand sources so that mixed-goods service can be both profitable and environmentally sustainable. An additional benefit for freight carriers which was not quantified here is the higher level of reliability provided by rail transport compared to truck transport. Including this benefit may further skew the results towards mixed-goods service. This should include the catastrophic even such as the McArthur Maze burnt down on Monday, April 30, 2007: a tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline had overturned at and burst into flames on the 50-foot-high ramp connecting westbound Interstate 80 to southbound Interstate 880. Within minutes, the ramp above it -- connecting eastbound I-80 to eastbound I-580 - collapsed in the 3,000-degree cauldron. This even caused a significant impact on road traffic through the Maze, particularly the link from San Francisco to Eats Bay. Consequently it caused significant loss due product delay for the integrated air freight carriers. Similar events will be considered and will be included in future study. It can be observed from the data that comparing the four different strategies, the higher the initial investment is, the higher the upcoming benefit will be. Considering the economic benefit together with social benefit, the investment is justified. It can also be observed from the data that although the amount of initial subsidy involved can be considerably high, the benefit associated with it can be of more significance. The reduction of on-land traffic load, traffic accident rate, and GHG emission are all of invaluable social benefit and addressing some crucial social problems (global warming, freeway congestion and etc). It is also important to notice that, with the promotion of using rail to transport freight, the social and economical benefit can be expected to magnified, which in turn contributes to the prosperity of public transportation system.

There are several future extensions to this study which will be pursued. One critical consideration is the capital cost required for such service. Once a valid estimate of initial capital and other “start-up” costs is included, all future benefits can be discounted so that a true economic analysis can be conducted. Future studies should also examine in greater detail some of the logistical issues inherent in mixed-goods service, such as handling activities and noninterference with existing passenger transport operations. Another critical element that can contribute to the success of mixed-goods service is the inclusion of other cargo movers as BART “customers”. Doing so can ensure that demand levels are high enough to promote profits for BART and savings for FedEx customers. Another potential location that might be considered in a mixed-goods network might be Sacramento; interestingly, at BART’s Richmond Station, there is a platform which could act as an interface between BART and Amtrak’s Capital Corridor (which continues on to Sacramento). Containers could then be transported from OAK to Richmond using BART, and from Richmond to Sacramento using Amtrak. Most importantly, however, some validation of both the methodology and parameter values must be performed using input from both FedEx and BART representatives. These results should be of particular interest to other urban areas such as such as Los Angles, Washington D. C., New York and Chicago across the U.S. where passenger rail systems exist in close proximity to major air cargo terminals. Some of these systems may possess particularly favorable characteristics towards mixed-goods movement, such as intermodal transfer stations, containers which can interface between multiple modes, and standard gauge rails.

48

References
[1] Arianne de Blaeij & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Piet Rietveld & Erik T. Verhoef, 2000. The Value of Statistical Life in Road Safety: A Meta-Analysis, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-089/3, Tinbergen Institute, 2000 [2] Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). BART Trip Planner. www.bart.gov/. Accessed April 19, 2009. [3] Bjorner, T.B., Environmental Benefits from Better Freight Transport Management: Freight Traffic in a VAR Model, Transportation Research, Part D: Transport and Environment, Elsevier Science, Ltd. (England), 1999. [4] Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary. www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm/. Accessed July 29, 2009. [5] Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C)— Technical Supplement to User's Guide. California Department of Transportation. September 1999b. [6] Brundell-Freij, K., User Benefits and Time in Road Investment and Maintenance: The Role of Speed Choice and Driving Comfort, Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, TRB, 2006 [7] Brownstone, D. and Small, K., Valuing Time And Reliability: Assessing The Evidence From Road Pricing Demonstrations, Transport. Research A, Vol. 39, May, pp. 279-293, 2005 [8] Cirillo, C. and Ashausen, K.W. Evidence On The Distribution Of Values Of Travel Time Savings From A Six-Week Diary, Transportation Research A, Vol. 40, No. 5, June, pp. 444-457, 2006 [9] Daganzo, C. Logistics Systems Analysis. Springer, 2004. [10] Despontin, M., Brucker, K. de, Coeck, C. and Verbeke, A., 1998. The economic evaluation of road safety in the European Union, European Union, Directorate General VII, Luxembourg, 44p., 1998 [11] FHWA, Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, Summary Report, Phase I Synthesis of Truck Size and Weight (TS&W) Studies and Issues, Federal Highway Administration, March 1995, available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/cts.html

49

[12] FMCSA, Motor Carrier Safety Progress Report. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/factsresearch/facts-figures/analysis-statistics/cmvfacts.htm/., Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Accessed July 27, 2009. [13] FMCSA, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Commercial Motor Vehicle Facts. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/facts-figures/analysisstatistics/cmvfacts.htm/. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Accessed July 27, 2009. [14] Forkenbrock, D.J., and Foster, N.S.J., Economic Benefits of a Corridor Highway Investment, Transpn. Res.-A, Vol. 24A, No.4, pp 303-312, 1990. [15] Forkenbrock, D., External Costs of Intercity Truck Freight Transportation, Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept./Nov. 1999, pp. 505-526; 1999 [16] Keeler, T., Ying, ., Measuring the Benefit of a Large Public investment–The Case of the US Federal-Aid Highway System, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 36, (pp. 69-85), 1988. [17] Li, Y. W., Evaluating the Urban Commute Experience: A Time Perception Approach, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 41-67, 2003 [18] Lu, X. Y., Hanson, M., Graham, M., Nishinaga, G., and Lu, R., Investigating the possibility of using BART for air freight movement, Proc. of the 2nd National Urban Freight Conference, Long Beach, LA, December, 2007 [19] Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Regional Goods Movement Study for the San Francisco Bay Area: Final Summary Report. 2004. [20] Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Change In Motion: Transportation 2035 Plan for the Bay Area. 2008. [21] Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Travel Forecasts Data Summary: Transportation 2035 Plan for the Bay Area. 2008. [22] Mohring, H., and Williamson, H., Jr., Scale Economies of Transport Improvements, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Volume 3, Number 3, September 1969. [23] National Transit Database. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). Accessed July 31, 2009.

50

[24] NCHRP Report 431. Valuation of Travel-Time Savings and Predictability in Congested Conditions for Highway User-Cost Estimation, University of California (Irvine) and HLB Decision Economics Inc., 1999. [25] Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Key Facts and Figures. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. [26] Oxford Economic Research Associates , The Environmental and Social Costs of Heavy Goods Vehicles and Options for Reforming the Fiscal Regime, English, Welsh, and Scottish Railway, (www.ews-railway.co.uk), 1999 [27] Parry, Ian. How should heavy-duty trucks be taxed? Journal of Urban Economics. Vol. 63, Issue 2, 2008, pp. 651-668. [28] PayScale. Median Hourly Rate by Job, Employer: FedEx/FedEx Express Corporation. www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=FedEx_/_Federal_Express_Corporation/Hourly_Rat e>. Accessed July 29, 2009. [29] Small, K., et al, Valuation of Travel-Time Savings and Predictability in Congested Conditions for Highway User-Cost Estimation, NCHRP 431, TRB, 1999 [30] Small, K., Winston, C., and Yan, J., Uncovering the Distribution of Motorists’ Preferences for Travel Time and Reliability: Implications for Road Pricing, Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Irvine, 2005 [31] Transportation Research Board, Committee for Study of Policy Options to Address Intermodal Freight Transportation, Policy Options for Intermodal Freight Transportation, Transportation Research Board, 1998. [32] Wener, R., Evans, G. W., and Lutin, J., Leave The Driving To Them: Comparing Stress Of Car And Train Commuters, American Public Transportation Association, 2006 [33] Xin, Y., Study of Regional Economic Benefit Model of Transportation System Projects, International Journal of Transport Economics, (pp. 89-105), 1996. [34] The California Energy Commission: Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2007 integrated energy policy report (2007) [35] The California Energy Commission: California Energy Resources (2009)

51

[36] The California Energy Commission: Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2009 integrated energy policy report (2009) [37] Cabanatuan, M., (2007), BART’s new vision: more, bigger, faster, San Francisco Chronicle, A1, June 22nd

52