Final Report That Follows
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CEE 5910 Spring 2014 Master of Engineering Project Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Cornell University Sruja Aluri Kati Chang Sean Chayanupatkul James Chen Allen Cheong Henry Huang Ravi Kodali Brett Musco Shivam Patil Leonardo Pozzobon Nitin Sahgal DongChul Rhue Aakash Sureka Bo Tangmitpracha Cecilia Turcios Peng Wang Yanjun Wang Yiyao Yan FEASIBILITY STUDY OF SERVICE OPTIONS FOR TOMPKINS CONSOLIDATED AREA TRANSIT IN ITHACA AND TOMPKINS COUNTY Executive Summary 1 Executive Summary In order to improve bus services provided by Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) for Ithaca and the rest of Tompkins County, problem areas were identified in their existing system. Our study proposes various techniques which can be used which will allow TCAT to improve its efficiency, run cost-effective bus routes, reduce emissions into the local environment, and provide a better customer experience for Ithaca and the surrounding communities. This technical report focuses on six primary topics: addressing the issues in current TCAT operations, switching to buses which use modern green technology, implementing a bus route with a higher level of service, implementing bus rapid transit, improving system capacity with larger articulated buses, and using simulation to determine optimum setups of bus operations. In addressing issues with TCAT’s current system, we proposed a morning bus route which will be more effective than an existing route with low ridership. Direction-bound naming of routes will remove the ambiguity in many of TCAT’s current route names. In addition, technological innovations such as Google Transit and HASTUS can be utilized to provide customers with real- time information on buses and assist TCAT in optimizing its driver assignments, respectively. The composition of the current bus fleet was also addressed, and new types of bus technology could be used to improve services. Through a study of various alternative fuel sources for buses, we have determined that biodiesel may be the best option for TCAT’s fleet in terms of environmental impact and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, the implementation of articulated buses, particularly those which run on green technology, can simultaneously improve bus capacity while reducing emissions. Infrastructural and network changes can significantly decrease travel time at relatively low costs. In a study of buses with a high level of service, express routing and reduced dwell time proves to be an effective method of improving the customer experience in a cost-effective manner. Bus rapid transit, an innovation which allows buses to operate like a rail network, can be implemented at a reduced scale to achieve similar results with the use of off-board fare collection and level-platform boarding. Assessing the effects of current or proposed services can be made possible with computer simulations. Using ProModel, this feasibility study assessed the system performance by simulating the elements of various bus network configurations and identifying optimal cases. By applying these innovations to the existing TCAT system, the provided bus services can be dramatically improved and have significant positive benefits for the company, on the local environment, and the community. Feasibility Study of Service Options for Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit in Ithaca and Tompkins County Advisor’s Foreword 2 Advisor’s Foreword This report summarizes the findings of a one-semester project analyzing the feasibility of technology and service changes at TCAT in Ithaca and Tompkins County, New York State. The project was carried out by a team of students from the 1-year Master of Engineering in Engineering Management program in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) at Cornell University, and advised by me in my capacity as Senior Lecturer in the School. The genesis of the project topic comes from an agreement in 2013 with Doug Swarts, service development manager at TCAT, to offer a research project on public transportation and TCAT in particular in our engineering management program. M.Eng teams have in the past studied a range of sustainability related projects from renewable energy systems and alternative fuels for transportation to green building, and public transportation fits very well within this range of possible topics. Also, the mission of the M.Eng in engineering management projects is to mix engineering and management, and technology with the contemporary context for pursuing environmental protection and sustainability, so the projects that I advise are carried out with that objective in mind. The students join the project not by creating the topic themselves but by choosing from among several projects that are offered by CEE faculty each year. Once the project starts, however, the student team quickly enters into a leadership role and the advisor steps back into the position of explaining the broad parameters of the project and providing feedback and technical insight. It is up to the team to take the syllabus that is provided to them at the beginning of the semester and create from it a proposal and scope of work that is approved by the advisor and partner organization (TCAT in this case), as well as their own team management structure. Once the proposal is approved, the team carries out the work and delivers both a final oral presentation, which took place at the TCAT offices on May 9, 2014, and the final report that follows. Since the organization and content of the report is the responsibility of the team (with input from myself advisor), feedback and comments on the project compiled by myself and Doug in a post- project closeout meeting appear in Appendix B, and the interested reader is referred to these comments in addition to the findings within the report. In closing, I would like to thank TCAT and Doug for providing this opportunity. While their input is much appreciated, the contents of the report do not reflect the opinions of TCAT, Doug Swarts, or Cornell University, and responsibility for errors rests with the team and myself as advisor. Respectfully submitted, Francis M Vanek, PhD Senior Lecturer and Research Associate June 13, 2014 Feasibility Study of Service Options for Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit in Ithaca and Tompkins County Table of Contents 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Advisor’s Foreword ........................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3 List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................. 10 List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 13 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 14 Motivation ............................................................................................................................... 14 Scope of the Project ................................................................................................................ 14 Service Improvements ...................................................................................................... 14 Service Expansion ............................................................................................................. 15 Limitations of the Project Scope ....................................................................................... 15 Feasibility .................................................................................................................... 15 Environmental Impact ................................................................................................. 15 Other Factors ............................................................................................................... 15 Good Faith .................................................................................................................. 15 Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 15 Team Structure ........................................................................................................................ 15 Team Members ................................................................................................................. 16 Sub-Teams ........................................................................................................................ 20 Current System & System Improvements................................................................... 20 Environmentally-Friendly Buses ................................................................................ 20 Buses with a High Level of Service ............................................................................ 20 Bus Rapid Transit ....................................................................................................... 21 Articulated Buses ........................................................................................................ 21 Simulation ..................................................................................................................