Technology Assessment - Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning ...

Representative Automated People Movers
Fact Summaries
96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

Representative Medium Performance Monorail Systems
Fact Summaries
105

106

107

Representative Cable-Driven Systems
Fact Summaries
108

109

110

111

112

113

114

Representative Fast Transit Links
Fact Summaries
115

Representative Personal Rapid Transit Systems
Fact Summaries
116

117

4. TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
118

4. TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The development of a transit system should not be undertaken merely because technology is
available and right-of-way exists. The usefulness of a transit system will depend on technical and
non-technical conditions that exist or appear attainable before implementation efforts are
undertaken. Before conceptualizing the system, there is a need for evidence that the
technology/routing will supply services that satisfy genuine needs in the selected Indianapolis
corridors. To select the most appropriate technology and alignment for the Indianapolis
applications, it is necessary to compare alternatives with one another. The following methodology
has been developed for adoption.
We developed a list of evaluation factors. Figure No. 17: "Evaluation Methodology" shows
the recommended process that can be used to discriminate between the alignment and technology
alternatives. Five major groups were identified:
• Transit technology constraints;
• Alignment feasibility;
• Affordability;
• Attractiveness;
• User convenience.
Evaluations and comparisons of the selected corridor and various transit technologies
require the adoption of several planning criteria within all groups, including (but not limited to) the
following.
4.1 Transit Technology Constraints
Physical Limitations
Is the overall design concept suitable for urban applications (grade capability, curvability
limitations, weather resistance, safety, other)?
Performance Limitations
What is the maximum speed in the urban environment?
What is the performance in severe weather conditions?
What is the passenger ride comfort?
Operational Limitations
What is the passenger capacity?
What is the evacuation procedure in the urban environment?
Is it suitable for cargo movement (if desired)?
119

120

Risks
Is it proven?
Is it safe?
Is the system implementation feasible?
4.2 Alignment Feasibility
Right-of-Way Impacts
Is adequate right-of-way available and feasible?
Are specific real estate sites available for stations?
Do obstacles exist? (Are there any underground utilities, structures, and/or geological formations
that would interfere with construction?)
Station Locations
Is the transit system easy to use?
Are there access roads for emergency and service vehicles?
Is station implementation practical?
The capability of transit systems to handle considerable grades and turns gives the designer
flexibility in providing passenger and vehicle access to stations. Station locations are influenced by
terrain, geology, the existence of underground structures and utility lines, and the availability and
configuration of suitable sites. Two types of stations have been identified for the Indianapolis
corridors, including:
• Terminal stations located at the ends of a transit system;
• Intermediate stations located along a transit system.
Alignment Design Standards
Horizontal Alignment
Are tight turns acceptable (feasible) for the performance of the system (and passenger comfort)?
A preferred system alignment may require curves that are too sharp for the vehicle's turning
radius. Too many horizontal curves may cause rider discomfort and increase the wear on lateral
guidance wheels. Where the guideway surrounds the vehicle (for the elevated systems), either the
guideway, the dynamic envelope, the horizontal geometry, or combinations of these three factors
may control horizontal curves and clearances. However, where the vehicle surrounds the guideway,
as with monorails, the dynamic envelope may control lateral curves and clearances throughout the
length of the guideway. Since the technology type has not been selected, various cases must be
considered.
Horizontal alignment can be affected by the options available for locating columns or other
supporting structures. Since guideway strength and flexibility are functions of span length, spacing
between supporting structures can become critical. Curved guideway alignments frequently require
intermediate support. This support is usually provided by columns located within the crossing or
by bends.
In addition, the particular alignment is contingent upon adequate space for the footings.
121

Vertical Alignment
Are grades and column height (for the elevated system)s acceptable (feasible) for performance of
the system (and passenger comfort)?
Minimum vehicle clearance is defined as the vertical distance between the top of the vehicle
and the nearest fixed obstruction above. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requires a 16-ft vertical clearance under a guideway on state
highways and interstate systems. Also, 16 ft should be the minimum clearance for local routes
below the guideway, "where such clearance is not unreasonably costly and where needed for
defense requirements." Segments of the guideway, which must span roads, rail tracks or other types
of crossings, may require deviations from a constant grade in order to satisfy vertical clearance
requirements.
Environmental Impacts
How does transit technology physically impact this environment?
Potential impacts to adjacent land uses need to be considered, including noise, vibration,
air quality, and compatibility with land-use types. Impacts to the natural environment should also
be considered.
4.3 Affordability
Can we afford to build and operate this technology?
Capital Costs
Does this alignment reduce the system length to maintain minimum system cost ?
Is this technology cost effective for this application?
Based on the alignment configuration (length, spans, double/single trackway/
guideway/busway, number of stations and track switches, other), it is possible to rate the
affordability of the alignment/technology alternatives.
The resolution of some of these issues, particularly in the area of exact alignment, may
require engineering determinations. They also require policy considerations because of cost
implications (capital and O&M), possible community concerns, or a degradation of service or ride
comfort.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Does this technology offer the best life cycle costs?
Funding Potential
Is this technology within funding limits for this type of application?
Can this technology be a candidate for a demonstration project under various public/private
initiatives?
Certain types or levels of technology may be more readily fundable than others.
122

Economic Enhancement Potential
Will the system implementation enhance land values, rental rates and business activities?
Does this project make long-term economic sense and attract investors?
4.4 Attractiveness
Will this technology attract residents and visitors, and induce new trips?
Ride Experience
How will passengers perceive the ride both from the ride comfort and overall experience point of
view?
Certain types of technology may be more comfortable and attractive than others.
Ride Safety and Security
How will passengers perceive the ride both from the ride safety and security?
Visual and Aesthetic Impacts
How does transit technology visually impact this environment?
When designing transit systems, a few viewpoints should be considered–that of the system
user and that of the impacted urban environment.
Visual Barriers
Station and guideway structures should not degrade scenic views of natural or historic sites
from locations where these views are normally enjoyed by the public. Guideways should not limit
desirable views. The view from hotels, for instance, should not be obstructed.
Adverse Impacts of Shade
Shade and shadow patterns (for elevated systems) should be considered in relation to their
effects on adjacent land use and on the right-of-way. By blocking sunlight, elevated structures may
contribute to problems of cast shadows on nearby uses. Consideration should also be given to any
blocking of the sun's rays to facilities which require them.
Visual Intrusion on Residences and Commercial Establishments
The system should be aligned and stations placed to minimize visual intrusion on public and
private spaces. Public spaces are especially sensitive to visual intrusion. Guideway placement
within the urban environment that allows riders a view into private residences, hotel rooms, or
offices exemplifies visual intrusion. Occupants of facilities adjacent to guideways should also be
spared the kaleidoscopic effects of passing vehicles.
Overall Image
Will transit technology improve the overall image of the Indianapolis metropolitan area?
123

The quality of the overall image is vital to the success of the project in terms of attracting
residents and visitors making repeated trips.
4.5 User Convenience
Market Served
Is the transit system easily accessible from various destinations?
Transit System Integration
Can the transit system operate in this environment, integrate with other systems (bus, Clarian
Health People Mover, future rail) and be upgraded in the future?
Are intermodal transfers convenient and time efficient?
Would the station entry zone provide ample space for transfer to access modes and safe
pedestrian circulation?
The comfort and efficiency of the transferring passengers should be of prime concern in
this project.
Travel Time/Frequency
Does this alignment reduce the system length to maintain minimum travel time?
How long does a trip to a specific destination take?
How long does a patron wait at the station?
Does the system length permit high frequency of service?
Long systems would require a large fleet of vehicles.
Parking Availability
Is there existing parking available or is there sufficient space to build dedicated parking lots?
Parking areas for the transit stations should provide sufficient spaces to eliminate commuter
parking on local roadways. Entrances to on-site parking should be placed to minimize interference
with local traffic.
Patronage Potential
What is the patronage potential of the transit line?
Each technology for the Indianapolis corridors will need to be assessed in terms of the
potential patronage levels and the ability to serve urban passenger circulation markets.
* * *
In the process of establishing our evaluation criteria and methodology, we primarily focus
on whether our study will be able to define the overall "Transit System Effectiveness."
Does the transit system overcome the natural and artificial barriers of Indianapolis corridors?
Does the transit system serve identified travel patterns?
Does the transit system overcome traffic congestion in the corridors?
124

Does the transit system overcome adverse weather conditions?
Does the transit system serve primary destinations in the corridors?
Does the system attract new riders?
Alternative transit technologies of many kinds could be conceived to serve the Indianapolis
corridors. Therefore, a clear understanding of the physical and operational characteristics of transit
system and the Indianapolis applications must be established, as only a limited number of
technologies are truly applicable.
125

5. TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
126

5. TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Diversified Technology Selection for Wide Range of Performance
Based on this transit technology assessment, it appears that there are several options for
various Indianapolis corridor applications. Subsequent corridor related analysis will determine
which categories of specific technologies should be pursued depending on line-haul, feeder, or
circulation needs. In the subsequent phases of this study, we will identify and recommend a specific
transit technology for a specific type of application. For example, Automated Rapid Transit
systems for a high density corridor with fluctuating passenger demand, medium performance
monorail systems for suburban areas or areas where synergy of the LRT vehicle and the bus is
desirable, Automated People Mover systems for downtown or activity center circulation, cabledriven
systems for short A to B applications, etc. In addition, we will suggest various innovations,
such as using on-board surveillance equipment and other advance security technologies.
Selected advanced technologies typically offer good promise for most of the applications.
However, many authorities worldwide hesitate to apply them out of lack of understanding of their
benefits, costs, and availability.
To further illustrate our methodology remarks that passenger capacities of various transit
modes tend to be somewhat misleading, if taken from site specific context, we have developed a
comparison chart for all technology categories discussed in this report. Figure No. 18: “Passenger
Capacities of Transit Technologies” compares various transit technologies against each other,
based on passenger capacity range. It clearly shows that Automated Rapid Transit is the most
capacity demand responsive technology, although its limits have not yet been adequately
demonstrated for elevated systems. The recent automation of Paris Metro is an excellent example
of benefits of advanced technologies. No conventional technology can be flexible enough from the
vehicle quantity management and headway decrease point of view. It should be recognized that
performance borders between Automated Rapid Transit and automated high performance monorails
and high capacity Automated People Movers will eventually diminish, for example, depending on
the success of the high capacity, fully automated monorail project for Clark County in Nevada.
Fast Transit Links will also evolve as the primary solution, although the market has not matured to
embrace them. Most people do not realize the usefulness, simplicity, and effectiveness of cabledriven
systems. However, caution needs to be applied, as historically there have been ill-balanced,
politically driven attempts to misapply the technology, such as the recently dismantled system for
Charles deGaulle International Airport.
To better assist in understanding system capacities, we have provided Figure No. 19:
“Transit System Line Capacity Determination”, which explains that the line capacity as a function
of the train car-consist configuration, the operating headway and the vehicle capacity. For at-grade
light rail vehicles operating in a mixed traffic environment, the street intersection conditions often
dictate the line performance.
The following is a comparison between elevated transit systems and at-grade light rail transit
for better understanding of a variety of factors, which determine the overall success of the system
from the passenger and operator perspectives.
It is important not select technologies based on theoretical maximum speed capabilities.
If the distance between stations is short, there is no sufficient time to accelerate to achieve the
maximum speed. For that reason, lower speed Automated People Movers or monorails can
accomplished the same result as high performance rail vehicles for selected application.
127

FIGURE NO. 18
TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FOR INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATTION
Passenger Capacities of Transit Technologies
Rapid Transit Systems
At-grade Light Rail Systems
Elevated Light Rail Systems
Commuter Rail Systems
Bus Rapid Transit Systems
Automated Rapid Transit Systems
High Performance Monorail Systems
Automated People Movers
Medium Performance Monorails
Cable-Driven Systems
Fast Transit Links
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000
System Capacity: passengers per hour per direction (pphpd)
Conventional Line Haul Transit Systems
Advanced Elevated Line Haul Transit Systems
Light Guideway Circulation and Feeder Transit Systesms
Selected Transit Technologies Under Development
128

FIGURE NO. 19
TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
FOR INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Transit System Line Capacity Determination
30000
Vehicle Capacity (passengers per hour per direction - pphpd)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Operating Headway (min.)
2 cars 3 cars 4 cars 5 cars 6 cars
Car Size: 100 passengers
129

To offer another important example, it should be realized that typically, the maximum design
speed of at-grade light rail vehicles is typically meaningless. In the US, light rail vehicles have
65 mph capability; however, the statistics show that the average speed of light rail vehicles on all
nationwide systems is only 12 mph, due to system integration into the urban setting (which is
comparable to the speed of a street car pulled by horses in the 1920s).
The representative systems, presented in the previous chapter, offer certain characteristics,
which may or may not affect operation and utilization of selected technology. In order to better
understand any implementation constraints, it is appropriate to illustrate these characteristics in
generic form. Figure No. 20: “Major Elements of a Transit System” illustrates physical
characteristics of transit systems regardless of the category and performance.
5.2 Comparison Between Elevated Transit and At-grade Light Rail Transit
The inability of conventional at-grade Light Rail Transit to provide full-service transit
throughout urban areas, the need for innovations to achieve that goal, and the main avenues for the
development of either conventional or advanced elevated urban public transportation systems are
clear if not widely recognized. However, progress on elevated advanced system development has
been slow and ill-balanced worldwide, and many programs may have been prematurely aborted.
The planning, developing, installing and operating advanced systems have proved to be far more
complex than expected for procuring authorities, primarily due to frequent lack of political support
and misunderstanding of benefits demonstrated on the limited number of systems scattered around
the world.
The benefits that appear to be available through the exploitation of elevated transit systems
with advanced features have not been accepted by many established consultants, are poorly
understood by many of the authorities that would have to install and operate them, and are unknown
to most of the potential beneficiaries. Consequently, there is no powerful political force, except
selected countries, such as Japan and individual regional governments such as British Columbia,
Canada, pressing for the application of advanced technologies.
High installation and operation costs severely limit the use of rail transit in general, however
this does not necessarily apply to elevated systems. It has been shown that the cost on many recent
conventional light rail projects has been approaching the cost of elevated systems, particularly if
sections of elevated guideways or tunnels are necessary. For example, the cost per kilometer of
elevated light rail guideway currently under construction in San Jose, California is over $25 million
in a low-density environment with few underground utilities. Furthermore, the life cycle costs of
conventional technologies are substantially higher in comparison with advanced technologies, due to
high labor costs. High labor cost and low effectiveness associated with traditional rail systems, and
lack of "passenger friendly”, personal features should be recognized in the technology selection
process.
We have created a detailed comparison between all studied elevated transit systems and
conventional at-grade Light Rail Transit. Figure No. 21: “Comparison of Elevated Systems with
At-Grade Light Rail Transit” compares various modes against each other using several criteria,
reflecting the limitations of candidate technologies. They are based on the following key
parameters:
• Affordability: Can Indianapolis afford to build and operate this technology?
• Accessibility: Is the technology easy to use in the Indianapolis environment?
• Reliability: Does the technology meet its advertised performance?
• Travel time: How long does a trip take?
130

131

132

• Adaptability: Can the technology operate in the Indianapolis environment, integrate
with other systems, and be upgraded in the future?
• Impact on environment: How does the technology impact the physical environment?
• Safety and Security: How safe is the technology to use and does it offer sufficient
security features?
• Energy: Is the technology energy efficient?
• Capacity: Is the technology capable of meeting the range of projected ridership
demands?
The somewhat generic comparison above has been conducted without taking a specific
corridor application in consideration. The transit network needs in metropolitan areas are diverse,
and there is always a place for a combination of various technologies, including elevated and atgrade
options.
5.3 Advantages of Advanced Systems
We have identified the following advantages of an advanced system for the Indianapolis
application:
• Superior destination coverage
• Long system life
• High class image
• Environmental friendly
• Passenger friendly (high ride comfort and convenience), including for disabled and
elderly
• Short boarding/deboarding time
• Good integration into the urban environment
• Demand oriented (vehicles can be added or removed from service)
• Slimmer guideways possible
• Rapid construction
• Smaller vehicles
• Intermediate stations possible
• Low life cycle costs (initially driverless or can be upgraded in future))
• High safety and security.
133

5.4 Summary of Findings and Conclusions
We are pleased to report the following findings:
• Both Conventional and Advanced Elevated Transit technologies have been in
operation worldwide and are mature for implementation in Indianapolis
• Advanced Elevated Transit technologies are superior in comparison with
conventional transit technologies
• Conventional Elevated Transit technologies can be upgraded to automated operation
for future use
• The difference between rapid transit and high capacity Automated People Movers
will eventually disappear as transit automation is gaining recognition and support
worldwide
• High performance monorails have been successfully applied to high capacity, urban
applications, primarily in Japan
• Automated People Mover Systems should be a part of any future transit network as
they fill the technological gap necessary for full service transit
• As a rule, elevated transit technologies are superior in comparison to at-grade Light
Rail Transit
• Light Rail Transit systems should not be elevated (unless for very short distances).
There are more cost efficient and technologically superior options
• Commuter and DMU technologies are applicable for the link to the Indianapolis
International Airport, but the technology availability is limited and performance
geared towards suburban needs rather than transit
• Clarian Health People Mover offers sufficient capability and performance for a
sophisticated downtown Indianapolis circulation system which could work as an
integrated part of the entire transit network, including major corridor line haul
systems.
MPO should consider a full service transit approach, which is only feasible with a
combination of technologies working in concert in a simple to use network. In order to achieve the
best value, all transit technologies should be given continued consideration, as alternative system
routings are being selected. The final selection of a "best bet" technology should be made through a
competitive process in the subsequent phases of this project.
5.5 Next Steps
We recommend the following next steps:
• Presentation on Transit Technologies
• Assessment of the applicability of Clarian Health People Mover system for future
extensions to downtown and entire downtown circulation network
• Recommend specific best candidate technologies for the selected corridors.
134

* * *
Jakes Associates, Inc. is fully prepared to stand behind our recommendations and assist the
MPO in the successful and complete implementation of the considered transit systems.
135

Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization
Department of Metropolitan Development
City of Indianapolis
1841 City-County Building
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317.327.5149
www.indygov.org/indympo
Indianapolis Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit Study
Project Office
Landmark Center, Fifth Floor
1099 North Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317.423.4300
Schimpeler/American Division
10400 Linn Station Road
Louisville, Kentucky 40223-3839
502.339.9663
www.ace-plc.com
Schimpeler/American Division
6417 North Carrolton Avenue
Indianapolis, Indiana 46220
317.259.8915
www.ace-plc.com
501 North Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
314.335.4911
www.jacobs.com
Jakes Associates, Inc.
1940 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, California 95126-1427
408.249.7200
www.jakesassociates.com
Manuel Padron & Associates, Inc.
1175 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 414
Atlanta, Georgia 30361
404.873.3206
Paul I. Cripe, Inc.
7172 Graham Road
Indianapolis, Indiana 46250
317.842.6777
www.picripe.com
Infinite
212 W. 10th Street, Suite A225
Indianapolis, Indiana 46202
317.955.9456
www.knownolimits.biz
Shrewsberry & Associates
7168 Graham road, Suite 100
Indianapolis, Indiana 46250
317.841.4799
www.shrewsusa.com
Barnes and Thornburg
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-3535
317-231-7349
www.btlaw.com