Transportation Planning and Technology: Please Scroll Down For Article

This article was downloaded by: [2008-2009 LungHwa University of Science and Technology]
On: 25 February 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789302507]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Transportation Planning and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713653693
Design Considerations for a 21st Century Ground Transportation System

Based on Value-Capture Financing
Mark A. Stull a
a
The Law Office of Mark A. Stull, Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
Online Publication Date: 01 June 2008
To cite this Article Stull, Mark A.(2008)'Design Considerations for a 21st Century Ground Transportation System Based on Value-
Capture Financing',Transportation Planning and Technology,31:3,249 275
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03081060802086330
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081060802086330
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Transportation Planning and Technology, June 2008
Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 249275
ARTICLE
Design Considerations for a 21st

Century Ground Transportation
Downloaded By: [2008-2009 LungHwa University of Science and Technology] At: 10:44 25 February 2009
System Based on Value-Capture

Financing
MARK A. STULL
The Law Office of Mark A. Stull, Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
(Received 21 February 2007; Revised 10 January 2008; In final form

28 March 2008)
ABSTRACT Numerous studies have demonstrated that transportation systems raise

property values and stimulate economic growth, and it has been proposed that
some of this value enhancement might be captured to finance their construction
and/or operation. However, other studies suggests that recently constructed urban
rail systems have had only marginal economic impact, implying that mass transit
investments may not create significant value-capture potential. Census data
suggests an explanation for this discrepancy, specifically, that transportation
systems elevate property values and income levels in a given location by increasing
the number of people who have access to that location. To generate more than a
marginal economic effect, a transportation system should represent a quantum
leap over the accessibility provided by the existing network. Accessibility, as well
as ridership, depend upon capacity and load factor, which can be affected by fare
structure, system design and choice of transportation technology. Capacity and
load factor are increased by high-speed, high-acceleration systems based on small
vehicles, short headways, central control, dynamic scheduling, and off-line
stations. As a result, electromagnetic propulsion with a linear motor has, by far,
the greatest value-capture potential of any ground transportation technology.
KEY WORDS: Accessibility; capacity; ground transportation systems; load factor;
ridership; value-capture financing
Correspondence Address: The Law Office of Mark A. Stull, 63 High Street, Manchester, NH
03104, USA. Email: mastulllaw@comcast.net
ISSN 0308-1060 print: ISSN 1029-0354 online # 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03081060802086330
250 Mark A. Stull
Introduction
The beneficial effect of transportation systems on property values and
economic growth has been well documented. For example, completion
of New York Citys first subway line, the IRT, in 1904, caused property
values to rise on the west side of upper Manhattan; in the area between
72nd and 96th Streets, assessed values rose 34% from 1905 to 1913 for
taxable land west of Amsterdam Avenue serviced by the new line, while
in more distant areas to the east of Amsterdam Avenue, values rose by
only 11% during the same period of time (Hood, 1978, p. 185). As a
second example, it has been estimated that $3.734 billion in added land
value was generated along just a 9-mile stretch of Interstate 87 near
Albany, New York, since the highway opened in the late 1950s (Batt,
2001). Many other examples exist (Smith & Gihring, 2006).
The development of new transportation systems has resulted in
windfall gains to those fortunate enough to own nearby property
(Hood, 1978, pp. 192194), while the operating and capital costs of
transportation systems have rendered it difficult to operate them
profitably on the basis of revenues generated by fares. Therefore, it
has been suggested that the economic gains realized by the beneficiaries
of transportation systems should be taxed to help finance their
construction and/or operation. For example, it has been estimated
that the cost of construction of Interstate 87 could have been paid by
capture of less than 10% of the value added to adjacent land (excluding
improvements) by the highway (Batt, 2001). While such value-capture
financing is an attractive concept, its viability necessarily depends upon
the ability of a particular transportation system to replicate the effects
of systems such as the IRT and I-87.
Some transportation systems appear not to do so. For example, a
comprehensive study of recently constructed urban rail systems in
California concluded that, although urban rail transit systems do affect
property values and land use, they do not do so consistently or by very
much (Landis et al., 1995). Another study found that the opening of the
Manchester, England Metrolink had no discernible impact on property
values, and that, in general, the railway corridors of the greater
Manchester area were regions where the value of property had a
negative premium (Forrest et al., 1996). However, as will be shown
below, there is no discrepancy between these studies and those referred
to above. The transportation systems such as the IRT in 1904 and I-87
in the late 1950s represented quantum technological leaps over the
previously existing transportation network, while the more recent
construction of urban rail systems in California and Britain did not.
This paper will attempt to identify characteristics of ground transpor-
tation systems that are relevant to their economic impact, and to
A 21st Century Ground Transportation System 251
suggest the type of ground transportation system that would represent a

quantum leap over the currently existing transportation network. Such
a system would be a much better candidate for value-capture financing
than one whose economic impacts were purely marginal.
This paper will first examine some relationships between population
distribution, ridership and certain economic indices; these suggest that
transportation systems create economic growth by increasing accessi-
bility and ridership. It will then digress slightly by considering a simple
model of the manner in which value-capture revenue affects the

profitability of a transportation system. Cost may be seen as an
impediment to the introduction of new technology or system designs, so
it is important to point out that ability to increase value-capture
revenue may offset system capital cost, and to illustrate the likely effects
of lowering fares. The main discussion will resume with design
considerations for increasing capacity and load factor, upon which
accessibility and ridership depend, leading to the conclusion that
traditional types of passenger railroads, either typical urban systems
or high-speed trains such as the French TGV and the American
(Amtrak) Acela, compare unfavorably to dedicated busways and
high-speed self-propelled railcars on dedicated tracks with off-line
stations, while electromagnetically propelled systems have, by far, the
highest economic-growth potential, and can provide a true quantum
leap over the existing transportation network.
Economic Growth, Accessibility and Ridership

The 2000 United States Census includes population data for over
30,000 zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs), as well as economic data for
each. Geographical data for each ZCTA is also available, including
latitude, longitude and area. This data was analyzed to determine
whether it showed any relationship between economic indicators and
population distribution. As might be expected, a strong relationship
was found. This relationship can be attributed to the character of the
national ground transportation system.
More specifically, 29,912 ZCTAs within the contiguous 48 states
were considered. For each ZCTA a distance was determined to every
other ZCTA using the latitudes and longitudes given by the Census
Bureau. These distances were then used to compute the population
within each n-mile radius of each ZCTA, for n from 0 to 150 in 2-
mile (3 km) increments, by adding the populations of all ZCTAs
whose distances from the subject, central ZCTA were less than n to the
population of the central ZCTA. Recognizing that this procedure
overestimates the population for areas small compared to the central
ZCTA, the population that was calculated was multiplied by a rough
252 Mark A. Stull
correction factor equal to one or the ratio of the area within the n-mile
radius to the area of the ZCTA, whichever was less.
The populations within the 75 different distances of each ZCTA
were then compared to the economic data for the central ZCTA. Three
indices were used: median house value, per capita income and house-
hold income. For each index the correlation coefficient between the
index and the population within each 2-mile increment of distance was
found; in this manner a relationship was obtained between the
correlation coefficients and distance. The correlation between each

index for the central ZCTA and the population with n miles of the
ZCTA increased with n for small n, to a maximum, then monotonically
decreased for larger values of n. In other words, the three economic
indices for a given ZCTA are, on average, most highly correlated with
the population within a certain distance from the ZCTA, and are less
highly correlated with the population within smaller or larger distances
from it.
These results are shown in Figure 1, which is a plot of the correlation
coefficient (y-axis) for each of the three indices against distance
(x-axis). Note that the distance at which the correlation reaches its
maximum varies only slightly from one index to the next, 50 miles
0.6
0.5
Correlation Coefficient
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
84
90
0
42
60
72
0
6
8
0
18
30
36
66
78
4
12
6
54
96
24
48
4
13
15
10
12
12
13
10
11
14
R (miles)
per capita income household income median house value
Figure 1. Correlation coefficient for economic indices and population within distance,
R, of central ZCTA
(80 km) for per capita income, 58 miles (93 km) for household income,
and 46 miles (74 km) for median house value. The peak correlation
coefficient for each index was 0.42 for per capita income, 0.49 for
household income, and 0.53 for median house value. If the correction
factor for small distances had not been applied, the same relationship
would have been observed, except that, going from larger distances to
smaller, the correlation would have a minimum at 2 miles (3 km) and a
second maximum at zero distance. It is believed that this second, zero-
distance maximum is not real, and, indeed, the use of the rough
correction factor makes it disappear.

The observed distance dependence of the correlation suggests that,
for virtually every ZCTA in the 48 contiguous states, the wealth level,
as measured by both income and home values, depends upon the
number of people who potentially have access to the ZCTA by virtue of
the transportation system (the transportation-accessible population).
The distances at which the maxima occur are particularly suggestive,
because they are distances that can be traversed at typical automobile
speeds in reasonably short travel times. It is therefore tempting to
attribute the observed behavior of the correlation coefficient to the
character of the national ground transportation network, particularly
the highway system and the near-universal availability of automobiles.
The wealthiest ZCTAs tend to be those to and from which the largest
numbers of people can readily travel, rather than those in which the
largest number of people live, or, especially, those in which few people
live and to which few people can readily travel.
For any geographical location, the transportation-accessible popula-
tion, P, can be defined in terms of the distance, r, from the location and
the angular coordinate, u, as follows:
2p
P
g g r(r; u)F(r; u)r dr du
0 0
(1)
where r(r, u) is the local population density and 05F(r, u)51 is the
fraction of the population at (r, u) that is willing and able to use the
transportation system to travel between the location and the point (r,
u). The fraction of potential riders, F, depends upon the numerous
characteristics of the transportation system that affect peoples will-
ingness and ability to use it; F is a function that describes the ability of a
system to provide access from one point to another.
The form of the dependence of F on travel time is suggested by census
data, specifically, the data on travel time to work. The Census Bureau
has published the number of workers over 16 whose travel time to and
from work falls within each five-minute time interval up to 44 minutes,
as well as for the time intervals from 45 to 59 minutes, 60 to 89
254 Mark A. Stull
minutes, and 90 minutes or more. This data is plotted in Figure 2, with

the logarithm of the fraction of the population that accepts (endures) a
specific amount of time, t, to travel to and from work on the y-axis and
the time interval on the x-axis. Also plotted is the best-fit straight line,
determined by least squares. Unsurprisingly, the slope, a, is negative;
fewer people are willing or able to endure longer commutes. More
importantly, the line fits the data reasonably well within the rather
large scatter. This indicates that a suitable form for F may be
at(r;u)
F(r; u) Ae (2)
where the exponential gives the travel time dependence and the
proportionality factor A includes the dependencies on all other factors
such as fares.
Equations (1) and (2) imply a relationship between indicators of
wealth such as income and real estate values, which appear to depend
on transportation-accessible population, and speed of travel, v. If travel
time, t, is replaced by r/v, and it is assumed, for the sake of simplicity,
that A, v and the population density, r, are constant over the region of
integration; evaluation of the integral gives the following result:
2pArv 2
P (3)
a2
This suggests that, all other factors being equal, transportation-accessible
population, and the resulting economic effects, depend strongly on
the average speed of travel, increasing as its square. This result will be
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.2
Log of Population Fraction
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
actual
best fit
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
Time Interval
Figure 2. Travel time to work

important to the discussion, later in this paper, of load factor and

capacity, and to a possible explanation for the apparent failure of at least
some new urban rail systems to have a large economic impact.
Equation (1) was also used to find an average transportation system
velocity. An estimate of transportation-accessible population for each
ZCTA for an assumed velocity, v, was found from
X
P r e ar=v rDr
where the values were summed for each 2-mile shell around the central
ZCTA using the average population density for that shell, the appro-
priate value of r, and the value of a determined from the travel time to
work data, 0.005690.0025 min1. The latter was found by
excluding the data point for the shortest time interval, which has the
highest deviation from the best-fit line (including that data point would
have changed the result to 0.005090.0029 min1). The population
calculation was repeated for all values of v from 2 to 90 mph (3145 km/
h), in 2 mph increments, and the resulting values for transportation-
accessible population were then correlated with the three economic
indices for the central ZCTAs. The correlation coefficients were thereby
found as a function of velocity. The results are plotted in Figure 3. It can
be seen that as speed increased, the correlation coefficient increased to a
maximum and then declined. The observed maxima occurred at 12 mph
(19 km/h) for per capita income (0.41), 16 mph (26 km/h) for household
income (0.47) and 10 mph (16 km/h) for median house value (0.52).
These are the speeds for which estimated transportation-accessible
population, calculated on the basis of the travel time to work data, is
most highly correlated with income and property values.
At first glance, these speeds seem a little slow for typical automobile
and rail travel. However, the calculation is subject to significant
uncertainty because the value of a is not well determined by the data.
More negative values within one or two standard deviations would give
higher speeds; for example, a two-sigma change to a 0.011 would
give 26 mph (42 km/h) for per capita income, 30 mph (48 km/h) for
household income and 18 mph (29 km/h) for median house value.
More importantly, according to the Census Bureaus description of the
travel time data, the times include time spent waiting for public
transportation, picking up passengers in car pools and time spent in
other activities related to getting to work. Therefore the calculated
speeds do not represent actual vehicle speeds, but average speed from
departure to arrival, which, the data suggest, is the relevant speed that
determines economic effects. The existence of the maxima at speeds
that can plausibly be associated with common ground transportation
modes supports the thesis that transportation-accessible population is
256 Mark A. Stull
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
per capita income
household income
median house value
0.2
0.1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
Velocity (mph)
Figure 3. Correlation coefficient between estimated transportation-accessible popula-

tion and economic indices as a function of travel velocity based on travel time to work
data
an important determinant of income levels and property values. This

can be understood by recognizing that increasing accessibility increases
the availability of economic opportunities, for example, the pool of
employees available to employers, the number of jobs available to job
seekers, and the geographical market available to many businesses. The
low speeds calculated suggest that there is considerable potential for
economic gain if the transportation system can be upgraded to increase
them.
Transportation-accessible population, as defined here, is not the
same as ridership. The mere fact that a person is able to use a
transportation system to go from point A to point B, and is willing to
do so should the need arise, does not determine the frequency with
which he or she will actually use the system. Therefore, the actual
number of riders on a transportation system per unit time must be
obtained by multiplying the integrand in Eq. (1) by the actual frequency
of use by the potential riders.
Highway traffic data provide insight into the relationship between
ridership and population distribution. Many states compile highway
traffic count statistics. Arizona, in particular, has traffic counts for 1159
highway segments. Using a publicly available geographical information

system (Marplot), approximate latitudes and longitudes were deter-
mined for 1108 of these segments. The census data was then used to
determine the population within each 2-mile increment of distance from
each segment, in the same manner as for the ZCTAs. These populations
were then correlated with the traffic counts for the census year, 2000,
for all 1108 segments. The result differed somewhat from that for the
economic data. Similar to the economic data, the correlation coefficient
at first increased with increasing distance, reached a maximum, and

then decreased for larger distances out to a minimum at 150 miles (241
km), although with a small increase between 92 and 120 miles (148 and
193 km). However, the maximum correlation coefficient for the traffic
counts occurred at 10 miles (16 km), a smaller distance than the
corresponding maxima for the economic data, and the value of the peak
correlation coefficient was 0.85, indicating a stronger correlation at the
distance of the maximum. Thus, highway use, at least as measured by
use in Arizona in the year 2000, is strongly correlated with the
population within approximately 10 miles of the relevant highway
segment, and is less strongly correlated with the population within
greater or lesser distances of the highway segment. A plot of the
correlation coefficient as a function of distance is shown in Figure 4.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine further the
relationship between population distribution, ridership and the many
economic indices that are available. However, the observation that
highway use is strongly correlated with population in the immediate
vicinity raises the question of whether economic indicators that were
not analyzed, for example, retail sales, may also be more strongly
correlated with population in the immediate vicinity than in the larger
area accessible through the transportation network. If so, this would
have implications for the manner in which value-capture revenue might
be raised, because it would suggest that certain types of economic
effects result from increasing ridership, while others result from
increasing accessibility. For example, if value-capture revenue is raised
by income or property taxes, the results here suggest that these should
be levied in each locality on the basis of its transportation-accessible
population. On the other hand, value-capture revenue might also be
raised from business activities near points of access to the transporta-
tion system, if they benefit from high ridership, by sales taxes, license
fees, ground rents or other mechanisms.
What is important for the remainder of this paper is that both
ridership and accessibility depend similarly upon the characteristics of
the transportation system, in accordance with the function F in Eq. (1),
and may therefore be used interchangeably. The data are consistent
with a strong relationship between these characteristics and economic
258 Mark A. Stull
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
4
0
6
2
8
4
0
6
14
20
26
32
38
44
50
56
62
68
74
80
86
92
98
2
8
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
14
R (miles)
Figure 4. Correlation coefficient for traffic counts and population within distance, R, of
Arizona highway segments
growth, and further suggest that both accessibility and ridership

increase exponentially with average travel speed. This provides a likely
explanation for the differing results of studies of the economic effects of
transportation systems: the studies that have demonstrated large
positive economic impacts concerned systems that represented the
introduction of new, faster, higher-capacity transportation technolo-
gies, while those systems found to have little or no economic impact
improved accessibility only marginally, for reasons that will be
discussed later in this paper. As a result, the success of any value-
capture financing scheme will depend upon the degree to which
ridership and accessibility can be increased by the design and manner
of operation of the transportation system.
Fares and Costs in Value-Capture Financed Systems

The import of fares and costs in a business model based on
value capture can be illustrated by comparing the profitability of the
value-capture model with that of a business model based solely on
revenues from fares. Although the comparison is an obvious and
intentional oversimplification, it provides useful insights.
For the fare-based model, system profit can be described by the
following equation:
p s(f c v )c f (4)

where f represents the fare per passenger mile, cv is the total system
variable cost per passenger mile, s is the total number of passenger
miles traveled on the system during the time period in question, and cf
represents the fixed cost for that time period. The fare which maximizes
profitability can be found by differentiating the right-hand side of Eq.
(4) with respect to f and setting the result equal to zero:
ds ds
f scv 0
df df
Solving for f,
1
f cv (5)
d ln S=df
We expect d ln s=df to be negative, since ridership should decline as
fares are raised, all other things being equal. Thus, in a purely fare-
based system, the fare which maximizes profitability (or minimizes
losses, if, in this model, fixed costs are too high), is a multiple of total
cost per passenger mile, bcv, where b 1(cv (d ln s =df ))1 : For ex-
ample, if, for mathematical simplicity, we assume that ridership
declines exponentially with increasing fares, such that sAeaf then
the optimum fare becomes fcv(1(acv)1).
For the value-capture model, profitability also depends upon value-
capture revenue, v, which is expected to increase with ridership or
transportation-accessible population, depending on the manner in
which the revenue is raised. The model used here assumes that there
is a system owner or operator, which could be either a private entity or
a government agency, that is paid money raised by a value-capture
mechanism that taps economic activity stimulated by ridership.
Modifying Eq. (4) accordingly, and finding the optimum fare, as
before,
dv
f bcV (6)
ds
If, for example, value-capture revenue is linearly related to ridership,
then f bcv v0.
Thus, in the value-capture model, profitability is enhanced by
reducing fares, possibly to zero (or less, as by offering riders some type
of reward), to increase ridership (or accessibility), subject to the caveat
that the model used here implicitly assumes that the system has adequate
or excess capacity. For a capacity-limited system, higher fares could
provide a means to restrain demand. In addition, the actual profit earned
260 Mark A. Stull
with value-capture at the optimum fare, according to Eq. (6), will always
be higher than the profit earned solely from fares at the optimum fare
according to Eq. (5). Thus, higher system capital costs are justified by
value capture where the resulting higher profitability improves return on
investment. In other words, expensive investments in new transportation
systems or technology may be justified if they sufficiently boost
accessibility and ridership, and may not be justified if they dont.
Determinants of Accessibility and Ridership

The use of a transportation system, represented by the function F in Eq.
(1), depends upon capacity and load factor. F cannot be large for a
system that can transport only a limited number of passengers. On the
other hand, F will also be small for a system capable of carrying
enormous numbers of passengers if people are unwilling to use it
because they find it unattractive. Both capacity and load factor depend
on the physical characteristics and capabilities of the transportation
technology employed.
Capacity
The passenger stream on a transportation system can be regarded as a
current measured by the number of passengers per unit time. For any
ground-based (one-dimensional) transportation system the flux, or flow
rate, can be defined as rv, where r represents the passenger density
(number of passengers per unit length) of the system, and v the speed at
which they move. The capacity of a system is the maximum flux it can
carry by operating at the highest passenger density and velocity safely
achievable, provided r and v are independent of each other. However,
passenger density may depend upon velocity, in which case higher
speeds can actually reduce capacity. Value-capture-based systems need
to be designed to have high passenger density at high speeds.
If, for simplicity, all vehicles on a system are of the same length, L,
and are separated by a headway distance, H, passenger density is
m
r (7)
(L H)
where m is the number of passengers per vehicle. For any transporta-

tion system, headway is constrained to some minimum permissible
distance by the need to avoid collisions. Two types of headway criteria
can be used, so-called brick-wall and safe-approach. Brick-wall
requires that the distance between vehicles be sufficient to allow the
following vehicle to decelerate from its operating speed to a complete
stop over that distance. Safe-approach, on the other hand, recognizes

that brick walls do not commonly materialize out of thin air to block
traffic on transportation arteries; instead, if a sudden event requires a
vehicle to stop, the following vehicle will also be able to stop safely if
the distance between vehicles is sufficient for the following vehicle to
decelerate in that distance plus the additional distance that the
preceding vehicle will move before it comes to a complete stop. Both
types of headway are determined by the rate at which the system
vehicles can decelerate, as well as by the time required for the operator
of the following vehicle to recognize and react to the need to decelerate.

If all vehicles on the system have the same deceleration capability,
then the headways can be calculated from elementary principles of
physics:
v22
Hbw v2 tr (8a)
2a
(v22 v21 )
Hsa v2 tr (8b)
2a
where a is the deceleration rate, v1 and v2 are the speeds of the (slower)
preceding and (faster) following vehicles, respectively, and tr is the
reaction time required for the following vehicle to begin deceleration.
The safe-approach criterion can be further relaxed for systems where
the following vehicle can switch to another lane or track to avoid a
decelerating preceding vehicle.
These simple formulas have important consequences for the design of
transportation systems. For a system in which high and low speed
vehicles, such as passenger and freight trains, operate in the same lane,
the safe-approach criterion requires headways nearly as large as the
brick-wall criterion, which is really a special case of the safe-approach
criterion for v1 0. On the other hand, in a system in which all vehicles
are operated at identical or nearly identical speeds, the safe-approach
criterion permits very short headways, approaching zero if reaction
time can be minimized. To maximize capacity, the system must be
designed to permit the use of the safe-approach criterion; this, in turn,
requires dedicated, congestion-free guideways, where all vehicles
operate at nearly identical speeds, preferably under central control.
To understand this, consider first what happens when speed
differences between vehicles are large, that is, v2v1. In that case, the
safe-approach headway can be approximated by the brick-wall head-
way, with the result that, for reasonably expected reaction times, H
v2/2a. Substituting this into Eq. (7), system capacity (maximum flow
rate), K, becomes
262 Mark A. Stull
mv
K rv
L v 2 =2a
In the limit of high velocity, this reduces to
2am
K (9a)
v
Thus, we have the perverse result that increasing system velocity
decreases capacity. In other words, if you operate high-speed vehicles

on the same line as slow-moving passenger vehicles or freight carriers,
the high-speed vehicles may actually diminish the economic-growth
potential of the system.
On the other hand, if vehicle velocities are nearly identical, the result
is different. In that case the safe-approach headway can be approxi-
mated by H vDv/avtr, where Dv v2 v1, and the formula for
capacity is
m
K (9b)
L=v Dv=a t r
Therefore, on guideways where vehicles move at similar speeds, such as
an interstate highway, capacity increases with increasing velocity, until
it approaches a limiting value (this ignores the effect of variations in
vehicle velocities, which may cause clumping that could reduce
capacities at high speeds) given by
m
Kmax (9c)
Dv=a t r
It follows that value-capture-based systems need dedicated guideways
where all vehicles move at similar speeds. Subject to this constraint,
freight carriers can share a guideway with passenger vehicles; this
probably permits light freight transport but precludes heavy freight
loads.
Equation (9b) has an additional consequence. The speed difference
between vehicles depends on factors which include individual operating
characteristics and maximum permissible speed to traverse a switch. If
each vehicle is independently operated by its own operator, as cars on a
freeway, speed differences will exist because different operators will
drive at different speeds. However, for systems under central control,
such as maglev systems, vehicle speeds can be identical, subject to
switching constraints. For centrally controlled systems in which
vehicles can travel through the switch at maximum operating speed,
speed differences very close to zero can be achieved, and, because the
speed of all vehicles can be simultaneously adjusted, reaction time is

essentially zero. Under those conditions, Eq. (9b) becomes
mv
K (9d)
L
Therefore, in centrally controlled systems capacity can be increased,

without limit, by increasing system velocity. An example of this
principle is a familiar carnival ride: the merry-go-round. The faster it

spins, the greater the number of riders that pass a particular point per
unit of time.
A centrally controlled transportation system is equivalent to a linked
system. An example that illustrates this principle is the typical
passenger train. Because the cars are mechanically linked, they move
at the same velocity and accelerate and decelerate at the same rate,
provided the link does not break, resulting in an accident. As long as
the link holds, all cars are under common, central control, and the safe-
approach headway between adjacent cars is essentially zero. Therefore,
each car can be regarded as a separate vehicle separated from the
preceding and following vehicles by the safe-approach headway.
Equation (9d) is not valid if the tolerance for failure of the link or
central control mechanism is exceeded.
Maglev and other systems operated by a linear motor are also linked
systems; in their case, however, the linkage is not mechanical, but
electromagnetic. All electromagnetically propelled vehicles are con-
strained to operate in positions that are locked to the waveform of the
current in the guideway; as a result, vehicle separation can be centrally
controlled, and the number of vehicles in a so-called block is limited to
one, where the length of the block (and hence the minimum possible
separation between vehicles) is determined by the distance between
stations for power supply (Thornton et al., 2004). If, for the sake of
illustration, the limitation imposed by block size is ignored, then the
safe-approach headway for electromagnetically linked systems is also
essentially zero, provided we have sufficient confidence in the strength
of the link, that is, the reliability of the central control mechanism.
Absent a power failure, against which protection can be devised,
electromagnetic linkage is probably stronger and more reliable than
mechanical linkage. Automated highways represent another approach
to central control that can eliminate speed differences between vehicles.
Similar technology can be used for steel-wheel on rail vehicles.
Other factors can require larger headways and thereby reduce
capacity below that which would otherwise result from Eqs. (9a)
(9d). One of the most important is the existence of on-line stations.
If the preceding vehicle comes to a complete stop for a time ts at a
264 Mark A. Stull
station, headway must be the sum of the safe-approach headway and

vts, assuming all vehicles stop at all stations; if they dont then headway
must additionally be increased by v2/2a, where a represents the
acceleration of the preceding vehicle, rather than the deceleration rate
of the following vehicle, since the following vehicle may not be
stopping at the station, and the preceding vehicle will still present a
danger of collision while accelerating to operating speed after leaving
the station. System-specific factors, such as the distance between power
stations for maglev systems, can also limit headway. As another

example, for aircraft confined to the same flight path, headway must
be larger than the safe-approach headway in order to avoid dangerous
wake vortices generated by the preceding plane. For systems that use
mechanical switches, the time required to reset a switch must be used in
Eq. (8b) instead of tr, if larger than tr.
Turning to the other factor upon which capacity depends, system
velocity, this is the total travel distance divided by the total travel time.
Four factors determine this: maximum operating speed, acceleration/
deceleration rate, time spent stopped at stations, and velocity fluctua-
tions caused by vehiclevehicle interactions or station inaccessibility,
commonly known as traffic jams and airport delays. For a system
without velocity reductions caused by congestion, the total travel time
can be approximated by the sum of the following: time spent traveling
at peak velocity, time spent accelerating and decelerating between stops
and peak velocity and vice versa, and time spent stopped. If vm is peak
velocity, n is the number of intermediate station stops, ts is the time
spent stopped at each station, a is the acceleration/deceleration rate
(assumed to be the same for simplicity), and d is the total distance
traveled, then system velocity in the absence of congestion delays is
given by
d
v
fnt s (2n 2)vm =a [d (2n 2)v2m =2a]=vm g
d
(10)
[nt s (2n 2)vm =2a d=vm ]
If congestion occurs, system velocity is further reduced. Maximizing

capacity requires minimizing station stops and congestion delays.
Minimizing congestion, in turn, requires minimizing or eliminating
differences in velocity between individual vehicles, which is also
required to enable the use of smaller safe-approach headways.
Load Factor
Load factor considerations are less susceptible to mathematical
analysis. Load factor depends upon the willingness and ability of
passengers to use a particular type of transportation. This is subjective,
and, obviously, differs from one person to another. However,
numerous studies have documented the effect of a variety of factors;
for example, a recent study of 28 transit systems found that ridership
was increased by service adjustments, including increases in the
frequency of service and reduction of travel time, fare adjustments

resulting in decreased fares for specific classes of riders, such as college
students, added vehicle amenities, and expansion of service to new
locations (Stanley & Hyman, 2005). Of crucial importance, certain
system characteristics which increase capacity, such as higher speed,
also increase the load factor. The frequency of service, in particular,
strongly depends on the same factors as system capacity. The maximum
frequency at which service can be provided is the system velocity
divided by the headway; thus higher capacities also allow increased
frequency of service.
This paper will not present an in-depth analysis of load factor
determinants. However, Eq. (3), which is based on census data on
travel time to work, suggests that load factor increases as the square of
system velocity. Therefore, the speed of travel, measured from origin to
destination, is critically important to both capacity and load factor.
Furthermore, both frequency of service and the number of access/egress
locations also relate to system speed; if one must wait for a train, bus or
other vehicle to arrive, or must travel a substantial distance to or from
an access/egress point, travel time is increased.
Other considerations relevant to load factor include fares and
personal comfort and convenience. With respect to fares, we have
already noted that in a value-capture system fares can be reduced or
eliminated to maximize ridership. And while it is difficult to quantify
comfort and convenience, there should be little argument that
convenience of use is what makes the private automobile attractive.
It is the mode of transportation most able to get people from
wherever they are to wherever they want to go, while carrying as
many heavy or oddly shaped packages as they desire. Higher ridership
requires replicating this level of convenience to the greatest extent
possible.
System Design Considerations

The foregoing analysis allows the identification of critical system
characteristics that enhance economic-growth potential. These include
266 Mark A. Stull
large numbers of off-line stations, dedicated guideways optimized to

maintain traffic flow, high-speed switching, a mix of small and medium
capacity vehicles with on-demand scheduling capability, high operating
speed and rapid acceleration/deceleration, and central control systems
capable of maintaining safe operation and uniform speed for large
numbers of vehicles separated by minimum safe-approach headways.
The American interstate highway system and European counterparts
have many of these characteristics, and, in some respects, represent
ideal transportation systems. Specifically, interstate highways use off-

line stations (entry and exit ramps), small vehicles capable of fairly
rapid acceleration operated at short headways, high-speed switching,
multiple lanes, breakdown lanes, and on-demand scheduling; private
automobiles maximize comfort and convenience. And, indeed, it is well
established that construction of new interstates can enhance economic
activity and property values. Nevertheless, interstate highways have
some notable deficiencies. These include relatively low peak velocity
and considerable variation in speed among vehicles; both limit capacity
and contribute to congestion. Interstates are also vulnerable to weather-
related delays, and suffer from a high rate of accidents (Muchuruza &
Mussa, 2005), which frequently results in traffic jams, not to mention
property damage, personal injury and loss of life. Some of these
accidents occur because certain motorists are not satisfied with even the
short safe-approach headways that can be maintained, and, instead,
follow the preceding vehicle too closely. A 21st century transportation
system optimized for value-capture should replicate the advantageous
features of the interstate highway system, while remedying its
deficiencies.
Stations
The number and character of stations is an important determinant of
economic-growth potential. The greatest value enhancement occurs
near stations (Brinkerhoff, 2001), and station characteristics strongly
influence both capacity and load factor. The derivation of Eq. (3)
implicitly assumed that all elements of the population have equal access
to the transportation network. Accessibility is increased by a system
with numerous, closely spaced points of access and egress rather than
one which services only a handful of widely separated locations,
provided stations do not decrease capacity and load factor by impeding
traffic flow and increasing travel time.
Modern transportation systems use both on-line and off-line stations.
Most rail systems use on-line stations, where the station is located on
the main guideway, upon which vehicles stop while in the station.
Interstate highways, on the other hand, use the equivalent of off-line
stations; in order to stop at any intermediate or final destination, a

vehicle must leave the main guideway on an exit ramp, and return to it
on an entry ramp. Some rail systems (most notably New York City
subways and commuter rail lines) create a hybrid type of station by
providing separate local and express service on two sets of tracks in
each direction. Airports can function as off-line stations, although in a
hub-and-spoke system they do not.
On-line stations diminish capacity by increasing required headway,
thereby lowering passenger density, as well as by lowering system

velocity by virtue of the time passengers are forced to spend stopped at
intermediate stations. Off-line stations, on the other hand, do not
reduce capacity at all. With off-line stations, vehicles on the main line
can all be moved at nearly identical speeds, enabling short safe-
approach headways, as on an interstate highway. Furthermore, off-
line stations increase system velocity by making express service possible
between any pair of stations; vehicles on an interstate highway can
proceed non-stop from origin entry ramp to destination exit ramp.
Therefore, off-line stations are critically important to maximizing
density and velocity.
As a simple illustration of the adverse effect of on-line stations on
capacity, consider a transportation system that runs a total distance of
300 km, with 20 stations. Assume that the operating speed of the
vehicles is 40 m/s, that they accelerate at 0.5 m/s2, and that the reaction
time for vehicle operators is 3s. From Eq. (10), if the stations are off-
line, then system velocity is 39.6 m/s between the two most widely
separated stations and 34.5 m/s between any adjacent pair of stations,
whereas if they are on-line, and it is also assumed that all vehicles stop
at all stations for 5 minutes per station, system velocity drops to 20.8
m/s. The effect on passenger density is even more drastic. For the
system with off-line stations, the safe-approach headway is 120 m; this
rises to 12.1 km for the system with on-line stations, again assuming
that all vehicles stop at all stations. The use of on-line stations may
explain why at least some new urban rail systems have minimal
economic impact; the resulting reductions in velocity and passenger
density prevent more than a marginal improvement in accessibility.
A few constraints on the use of off-line stations should be noted.
They should be constructed to prevent vehicles entering or exiting the
station from impeding traffic on the main line. This requires that
vehicles be able to switch to and from exit and entrance ramps at
system operating speed. It also requires that current flow be conserved
on the ramps; that is, div(rv)0. Otherwise, traffic will back up from
the ramps onto the main line, or will suffer long delays waiting to leave
a station. The conservation condition can be met if density is increased
as velocity drops; one way this can be accomplished is by providing a
268 Mark A. Stull
branching system of ramps, so that additional lanes become available

to move vehicles along as they slow down. Stations must also be
designed to avoid delays within them caused by the need to load and
unload large numbers of vehicles at once, or to eliminate this need by
dispersing traffic into other networks in the manner of an interstate
highway ramp.
Guideways
Guideway requirements are also determined by the need to maximize

speed and passenger density. Therefore an essential guideway char-
acteristic is dedicated use; if high-speed passenger vehicles have to
dodge slow-moving trucks or freight trains, longer headways are
necessary. System costs are also increased by safety considerations; if
heavy-duty vehicle construction is required because of the danger of
collision with massive freight carriers, then vehicles will be more
expensive to manufacture, and will have higher maintenance and fuel
costs. If longer headways are required, longer vehicles are needed to
maintain passenger density; this reduces the capability to offer on-
demand or frequent service during off-peak periods and between less-
utilized stations.
The maximum permissible curvature depends upon the ability of
vehicles to maintain control at the desired speed. This depends upon the
coupling between the vehicle and the guideway, as well as on the ability
of the vehicle to tilt or bank. If sharp curves or steep grades are
necessary, traffic flow can be maintained without congestion by
providing one or more additional lanes, exactly as is commonly done
on highways that go up a steep grade. Multiple lanes increase capacity,
and also allow faster vehicles to pass slower ones, if vehicles are
operated at different speeds; at a minimum, a continuously accessible
breakdown lane is necessary to prevent vehicles from impeding traffic
when mechanical problems or passenger needs require them to slow
down or stop.
Switching
Switching capability is an important determinant of capacity. If a
vehicle has to slow significantly in order to switch, or if slow speed of
the switch constrains minimum headways because the switch must be
reset, capacity drops. Rubber-tire vehicles on flat roadbeds have
continuous switching capability at peak speed; this capability is
difficult or impossible to replicate in steel-wheel on rail systems. It
should also be possible to design maglev systems to have continuous
switching capability at peak operating speed, although the author is not

familiar with any current maglev design that offers this.
Vehicle Size and Scheduling

The multi-car passenger train is almost a tradition. However, it is
poorly suited for a value-capture-based transportation system. Longer
vehicles increase system capacity only where the required headway is
much greater than the vehicle length. This is evident from Eq. (7); if
LH, r approaches m/H, and it makes sense to maximize vehicle length

in order to increase m. Most rail systems require long headways; hence,
their use of multi-car consists increases effective vehicle length, and
bolsters capacity. However, multi-car consists do not increase capacity
when headways are short. If HL, r approaches m/L, the number of
passengers per unit length on a single vehicle. This is maximized by an
appropriate choice of vehicle design, for example, a double-decked
structure with a large ratio of passenger space to space occupied by
system components; it is not necessarily increased by longer vehicles.
This is especially true because longer, more massive vehicles require
more propulsive or braking force to achieve the same rate of
acceleration or deceleration; if the required force is not available,
then the resulting lower rates of acceleration/deceleration increase
required headways.
Smaller vehicles are needed to take advantage of the ability of off-line
stations to enable high-frequency express service between any pair of
stations. If a sufficient number of small (310 passengers) vehicles are
available, on-demand service becomes possible, while bus or railcar-
sized vehicles, which have a higher ratio of passenger space to space
filled by system components, can provide frequent service if demand is
high.
Acceleration/Deceleration
Equations (8) and (9) demonstrate that capability for rapid vehicle
acceleration and deceleration decreases headway and increases the
average speed. Harder to quantify, but probably more important,
acceleration capability increases load factor by enabling frequent, high-
speed express service on lines with closely spaced stations. For example,
a vehicle which is capable of operating at a peak speed of 100 m/s, but
can accelerate at only 0.25 m/s2, values typical of some high-speed
trains, requires a distance of 20 km to reach peak velocity, and, if it
decelerates at approximately the same rate, a like distance to stop.
From Eq. (9), such a vehicle requires that stations be separated by at
least 120 km if it is to achieve an average speed between them equal to
270 Mark A. Stull
75% of its peak speed. On the other hand, a vehicle capable of

operating as fast, but which can accelerate at 4.5 m/s2, a rate
comparable to that of a large passenger jet taking off, requires a
distance of only 1.1 km to reach the peak speed. Such a vehicle can
average 75% of its peak speed between stations if they are only 6.7 km
apart.
Control Systems
Central control maximizes the capacity by reducing or eliminating

speed differences between vehicles and making system operation
independent of, or insensitive to, operator reaction times. As shown
above, centrally controlled systems can reduce safe-approach headways
to essentially zero, which permits system capacity to be maximized.
Central control can reduce or eliminate accidents resulting from
operator failure to maintain the applicable safe-approach headway.
Technology Comparison
Three competing transportation technologies are considered here: steel-
wheel-on-rail, rubber-wheel-on-pavement, and electromagnetic. Sys-
tems based on each of these can be designed to use off-line stations,
dedicated guideways and relatively small vehicles. Differences impor-
tant to ridership and accessibility include speed, rate of acceleration
and deceleration, amenability to central control, and switching
capability.
The capacities of the three competing modes have been compared by
assuming approximate, representative values for peak velocity, accel-
eration and deceleration; these are shown in Table 1. In addition,
Table 1 includes corresponding values for a high-speed train similar to
the French TGV. The parameters chosen for the self-propelled railcar
are based on the DMU manufactured by Colorado Railcar, Inc. The
values for maglev are somewhat arbitrary. Electromagnetically pro-
pelled systems can be designed to operate at widely ranging velocities
and accelerations. Furthermore, they need not be levitated; linear
Table 1. Representative values for peak elocity,acceleration and deceleration

System Speed (m/s) Acceleration (m/s2) Deceleration (m/s2)
High-speed train 100 0.25 0.75

Self-propelled railcar 45 0.85 1.1
Bus 30 1.8 4.5
Maglev 135 4.5 40
motors can also be used to propel both rubber-tire and steel-wheel-on-

rail vehicles. The maglev acceleration values here were chosen to be
similar to those of a large passenger jet taking off and landing;
however, the deceleration rate was chosen to be very high, approxi-
mately four times the acceleration due to gravity. It was assumed that
such an extreme deceleration would actually be used only in an
emergency situation, to save lives, and not for ordinary operation. This
minimizes the safe-approach headway. The chosen rates, as well as the
peak operating speed, are well within the capabilities of linear motors,
and there is no reason why transportation systems should not be
designed to take advantage of them.
Capacity was evaluated in two ways. First, Eq. (9) was used to
calculate the average velocity between adjacent stations as a function of
station separation in kilometers; the equation was appropriately
modified to use a deceleration rate higher than the acceleration rate,
and to allow use when the distance between stations is too short to
permit acceleration to peak speed. These system velocities also
represent the relative capacities of the systems if it is assumed that all
can provide the maximum passenger density achievable with the
smallest permissible safe-approach headways, with all vehicles operated
at identical speeds under central control. Although this proposition is
doubtful, it represents a limiting case. The other limiting case, that all
systems use brick-wall headways, was chosen as the other method for
evaluating capacity. Relative capacities were calculated from Eq. (9a),
assuming m1 for each system. The system velocities and brick-wall
relative capacities are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively, each as a
function of distance between adjacent station stops. The brick-wall
headways used are shown in Table 2. For the maglev system, system
velocities were calculated using the same deceleration rate as the
acceleration rate, while the brick-wall headways were calculated using
the extremely high emergency deceleration rate.
It is clear from Figures 5 and 6 that high-speed trains are poorly
suited for value-capture financing. Because high-speed trains cannot
accelerate or decelerate sufficiently rapidly, their ability to operate
between closely spaced stations is limited. Indeed, for station separa-
tions smaller than about 10 km, high-speed trains may actually be
slower than buses and self-propelled railcars, while they are substan-
tially faster only when stations are separated by more than 25 km, and
require still larger station separations before they can achieve an
average speed higher than 75% of their peak operating speed.
Even worse, brick-wall headways are much larger for high-speed trains
than for any other system. At all station separations brick-wall relative
capacities are much higher for buses, while self-propelled railcars have
substantially higher brick-wall relative capacities than high-speed
272 Mark A. Stull
160
140
120
100
HST
Railcar
80
Bus
Maglev
60
40
20
0
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 250 500
Figure 5. Average speed (m/s) as a function of adjacent station separation (km)
trains, except at the shortest station separations. Safe-approach head-

ways for high-speed trains may approach brick-wall values, even if
stations are off-line and dedicated tracks are used, because trains rely
on mechanical switches, which take time to move and cannot be
2.5
HST
Railcar
1.5 Bus
Maglev
0.5
0
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 250 500
Figure 6. Relative brick-wall capacity as a function of adjacent station separation (km)

Table 2. Brick-wall headways

System BW headway (m)
High-speed train 6667

Self-propelled railcar 920
Bus 100
Maglev 228
traversed at peak speed. High-speed trains may provide a useful

alternative or supplement to air travel between central cities; however,
they are incapable of providing the type of quantum leap in ground
transportation that might be financed by value capture.
Maglev, on the other hand, is capable of much higher average
velocities than other technologies, at all station separations. Maglev
brick-wall headways are much lower than for high-speed trains. Even
using the brick-wall relative capacities, which diminish with increasing
velocity, the maglev capacities substantially exceed all other modes,
because of the capability of linear motors to provide extremely high
deceleration in emergency situations. Furthermore, brick-wall head-
ways are inappropriate for maglev systems because they are centrally
controlled and maglev should be capable of high-speed switching.
Unfortunately, maglev is not a mature technology, and it is not yet clear
that the assumptions made here, upon which the foregoing conclusions
are based, are valid for systems that actually can be built at a cost that
gives an adequate return on investment, even with revenue from value
capture. However, such a demonstration may be possible now or in
the immediate future; certainly, in the long term, maglev systems have
the greatest potential for value capture, by far, and represent a
technology capable of a true quantum leap beyond the existing ground
transportation network.
Until maglev is ready, self-propelled railcars and buses (or vans) are
proven technologies that can operate on dedicated guideways, with off-
line stations and high service frequency. Railcars are capable of higher
speeds, but suffer from lower acceleration, which, nevertheless, is
higher than that of more massive trains. Railcars offer superior ride
quality and comfort, which attracts ridership; however, the use of
specially constructed dedicated busways or vanways could permit the
use of wider, more comfortable vehicles. Both railcars and buses can be
constructed with double decks to increase passenger density. Rubber-
tire vehicles can be switched at high speed without a mechanical switch,
and therefore may be better suited to operate at very short headways;
however, they are subject to speed and acceleration limitations imposed
by tire wear. Steel-wheeled vehicles on tracks are capable of all-weather
operation, extreme conditions excepted; rubber-tired vehicles are more
274 Mark A. Stull
sensitive to snow, ice and wind. Provided design criteria are met, both
modes are viable, if not ideal, for value capture. The choice between
them depends upon the specific system under consideration, especially
as the values used here for relevant parameters may not apply to
specific makes or models of buses or railcars, which may be capable of
superior performance.
Conclusion
New transportation systems can be engines of economic growth, and the

growth they generate can be used to pay for them, but only if they are
engineered to provide more than a marginal improvement in accessi-
bility and ridership. Many urban and high-speed inter-urban rail
concepts are not optimal for value-capture financing because they fail
this test. Accessibility and ridership depend strongly on speed (measured
by distance traveled divided by total time from origin to destination) and
passenger density (the number of passengers carried per unit of system
length); these are determined by the choice of transportation technology
and system design. Accessibility and ridership can be increased by design
characteristics that include off-line stations, dedicated guideways, and
small vehicles, either buses, vans or self-propelled railcars; these
facilitate high-speed, high-frequency service at safe-approach headways.
However, the most important conclusion is that we need to make a
major effort to develop electromagnetically propelled systems with the
same design characteristics. Because of the capabilities of linear motors
for speed, acceleration and central control, electromagnetic propulsion
represents a fundamentally new transportation technology that has the
potential to cause a quantum leap in 21st century growth in the same
way that the railroads did in the 19th century and the automobile and
airplane in the 20th.
For electromagnetic propulsion to reach its potential, we must stop
thinking about maglev and non-levitated electromagnetic systems as
new types of trains, thinking which is evident in the design of systems
such as the German Transrapide. Instead, linear-motor powered
guideways should be seen as a means of augmenting automobile travel,
in the manner of a super interstate highway system. We need to develop
electromagnetically propelled highways, which can transport vehicles
that can also ride on existing highways. This might be done either
through novel vehicle design or by development of some type of
electromagnetic ferry. It would enable riders to use either their own
private vehicles or public transportation to travel from origin to
destination on a centrally controlled system with off-line stations,
operating at much higher capacities and speeds than can be achieved on
existing freeways. The capability to move automobile-type vehicles at
200300 mph on electromagnetic highways, without congestion, could

result in a several-fold increase in transportation-accessible population
for most locations; this could stimulate explosive economic growth,
which could be tapped to finance development of the system.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Professor Henry Kolm, retired,
formerly of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the visionaries who
pioneered maglev as a viable transportation technology, for stimulating some of the
ideas developed in this paper, and to Thomas Johnson, who assisted in some of the data
analysis.
References
Batt, H. W. (2001a) Value capture as a policy tool in transportation economics: An exploration in
public finance in the tradition of Henry George, American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 60(1), pp. 195228.
Brinkerhoff, P. (2001) The Effect of Rail Transit on Property Values: A Summary of Studies.
Research carried out for Project 21439S, Task 7, NEORail II, Cleveland, Ohio, 27 February.
Forrest, D., Glen J. & Ward, R. (1996) The impact of a light rail system on the structure of house
prices, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 30(1), pp. 1529.
Hood, C. (1978) The Impact of the IRT on New York City, Historic American Engineering
Record of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Survey Number HAER NY-
122.
Landis, J. S., Guhathakurta, S., Huang, W. & Zhang, M. (1995) Rail Transit Investments, Real
Estate Values, and Land Use Change: A Comparative Analysis of Five California Rail Transit
Systems, Working Paper UCTC No. 285, Berkeley, CA: University of California Transporta-
tion Center, July.
Muchuruza, V. & Mussa, R. (2005) Operational and safety evaluation of freeways with posted
minimum speed limit, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 44(3), pp. 517.
Smith, J. J. & Gihring, T. A. (2006) Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture, An
Annotated Bibliography (Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute). Available at:
www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf (accessed February 2006)
Stanley, R. G. & Hyman, R. (2005) Evaluation of Recent Ridership Increases, US FTA, Transit
Cooperative Research Program Research Results Digest, Vol. 69, pp. 117, Washington, DC.
The frequency of accidents is increased by large variations in vehicle speed. See Muchuruza and
Mussa (2005).
Thornton, R.D., Clark, T. & Perrault, B. (2004) Linear synchronous motor propulsion of small
transit vehicles, in: Proceedings of 2004 JRC: 2004 ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, 68
April, Baltimore, MD.

Transportation Planning and Technology: Please Scroll Down For Article

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transportation Planning and Technology: Please Scroll Down For Article

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [2008-2009 LungHwa University of Science and Technology]

On: 25 February 2009

Transportation Planning and Technology

Design Considerations for a 21st Century Ground Transportation System

Online Publication Date: 01 June 2008

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Design Considerations for a 21st

System Based on Value-Capture

(Received 21 February 2007; Revised 10 January 2008; In final form

ABSTRACT Numerous studies have demonstrated that transportation systems raise

suggest the type of ground transportation system that would represent a

model of the manner in which value-capture revenue affects the

Economic Growth, Accessibility and Ridership

correlation coefficients and distance. The correlation between each

correction factor makes it disappear.

minutes, and 90 minutes or more. This data is plotted in Figure 2, with

Figure 2. Travel time to work

important to the discussion, later in this paper, of load factor and

Figure 3. Correlation coefficient between estimated transportation-accessible popula-

an important determinant of income levels and property values. This

highway segments. Using a publicly available geographical information

at first increased with increasing distance, reached a maximum, and

growth, and further suggest that both accessibility and ridership

Fares and Costs in Value-Capture Financed Systems

p  s(f c v )c f (4)

Determinants of Accessibility and Ridership

where m is the number of passengers per vehicle. For any transporta-

stop over that distance. Safe-approach, on the other hand, recognizes

of the following vehicle to recognize and react to the need to decelerate.

decreases capacity. In other words, if you operate high-speed vehicles

speed of all vehicles can be simultaneously adjusted, reaction time is

Therefore, in centrally controlled systems capacity can be increased,

principle is a familiar carnival ride: the merry-go-round. The faster it

station, headway must be the sum of the safe-approach headway and

stations for maglev systems, can also limit headway. As another

If congestion occurs, system velocity is further reduced. Maximizing

frequency of service and reduction of travel time, fare adjustments

System Design Considerations

large numbers of off-line stations, dedicated guideways optimized to

ideal transportation systems. Specifically, interstate highways use off-

stations; in order to stop at any intermediate or final destination, a

thereby lowering passenger density, as well as by lowering system

branching system of ramps, so that additional lanes become available

Guideway requirements are also determined by the need to maximize

switching capability at peak operating speed, although the author is not

Vehicle Size and Scheduling

LH, r approaches m/H, and it makes sense to maximize vehicle length

75% of its peak speed. On the other hand, a vehicle capable of

Central control maximizes the capacity by reducing or eliminating

Table 1. Representative values for peak elocity,acceleration and deceleration

High-speed train 100 0.25 0.75

motors can also be used to propel both rubber-tire and steel-wheel-on-

Figure 5. Average speed (m/s) as a function of adjacent station separation (km)

trains, except at the shortest station separations. Safe-approach head-

Figure 6. Relative brick-wall capacity as a function of adjacent station separation (km)

Table 2. Brick-wall headways

High-speed train 6667

traversed at peak speed. High-speed trains may provide a useful

New transportation systems can be engines of economic growth, and the

200300 mph on electromagnetic highways, without congestion, could

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

p s(f c v )c f (4)