The%20Pennsylvania%20Project%20High%20Speed%20Maglev

1
The Pennsylvania Project High Speed Maglev
A Cost Benefit Analysis Presented by Shawn
Buckner, Poonsri O Charoen, Chia-Hui Lan
Afshan Yousuf April 25, 2003
2
Agenda

• Overview of Maglev
• Costs
• Benefits
• Synthesis
• Conclusion

3
What is Maglev?

• Short for Magnetic Levitation
• Magnetic Levitation is an advanced technology in
  which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a
  vehicle over a guideway
• Authorized by Congress in the Transportation
  Equity Act (TEA 21), encouraging the development
  and construction capable of safe use by the
  public
• New and proven mode for high speed ground
  transportation
• Maglev permits cruising speeds of over 300 mph,
  or almost 2 times the speed of conventional
  high-speed rail service

Source Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement Vol. I
4
Technology Propulsion
Travelling magnetic field (guideway)
Source http//www.asme.org/sections/pgh/maglev000
5.pdf
5
Vehicle Structure and Dimensions
Vertical Structure
End Section Middle Section
Length 26.99 m 24.77 m
Width 3.70 m 3.70 m
Height 4.16 m 4.16 m
Passenger Seating 136 150
Total 62.0 t 64.5 t
Passenger Vehicle
Source http//www.maglevpa.com/vehicals.html
6
Why Pittsburgh?
7
Objectives and purpose of The Pennsylvania
Project

• Bring high speed Maglev to the U.S.
• Begin in SW PA
• Expand across PA
• Expand to neighboring states
• Capture the economic benefits of PA
• Develop new technology
• Create new jobs
• Become a tourist attraction
• Technology for the Maglev Guideway
• Provide benefits to the traveler

Source http//www.asme.org/sections/pgh/maglev000
5.pdf
8
MAGLEV, Inc.
1995 Preliminary study On suitability of
Maglev in PA
1987 Creation of the high-speed rail by CMU
2001 Downselect to PA and MD
2005 Construction begins
Early 1999 Downselect to 11 projects
1997 Technology transfer Agreement
(MAGLEV, Inc., and Transrapid International
Late 1999 Downselect to 7 Projects PA,
Nevada, Baltimore-Washington, California,
Georgia, Louisiana, Florida
May 2003 Decision will be made
1991 Completion of Maglev demonstration/ design/d
evelopment
Source http//www.maglevinc.com/about.html
9
Proposed initial high speed maglev line
Greensburg
13 Miles/6 Minutes
Monroeville
15 miles/10 Minutes
Downtown Pittsburgh
19 Miles/7 minutes
Pittsburgh International Airport
47 Miles in 26 Minutes With Stops
10
Cost-Benefit Analysis
11
Assumptions
Project planning period 30 years
Construction period 5 years
Monetary values Market/Nominal term
Discount rate 10
Principle of accounting Annual cash basis
Salvage value Excluded from PV
Bond period 20 years
Bond coupon rate 7 annual rate
Life cycle of vehicle 15 years
12
Ridership
Source The Pennsylvania Project High Speed
Maglev Presentation on May 2000.
13
Ridership Projection Approach

• Number of passenger 140 in 1 section.
• Total hour operating 20 hours per day with 6
  hours rush hour
• Number of vehicle service in 1 hour is 7
  vehicles while 6 vehicles for off Peak
• Ridership per vehicle of section of
  seat available of passenger filled
• Ridership per one day ridership per vehicle
  (of rush hour of vehicle per
  one rush hour) (of off-peak hour
  of vehicle per one off-peak hour)
• Ridership per year ridership per one
  day 365

Year  of section of passenger per one vehicle per one day per year
Year 3-4 2 65 182 22,932 8,370,180
Year 5-7 3 70 294 37,044 13,521,060
Year 8-10 3 75 315 39,690 14,486,850
Year 11-20 3 80 336 42,336 15,452,640
Year 21-30 3 85 357 44,982 16,418,430
14
Cost Methodology
Detail
Infrastructure including guide way and vehicle 1.8 billion (360 million per year for first 5 years)
Other related costs 1 billion (200 million per year for first 5 years)
Operating and maintenance 10 centannual ridership of total kilometers of the route (increases by 20 every ten years)
Vehicle replacement 70 million outflow at year 16
Parking construction 3 million
Operating and maintenance for parking 2.83 million per year (increases by 20 every ten years)
Interests on bonds Principalannual interest rate
15
Financing of the Initial Project
Total initial Cost 2.8 Billion
125 million
500 million
1.6 billion
575 million
16
Cost Analysis
(In Million)
Year 0 Beginning 5 Full completion 16 Veh.repla-cement 20 Last year of bonds 30 End of Project
Infrastructure 360 - - - -
Other related costs 200 - - -
Operating and maintenance - 102.76 140.93 140.93 179.68
Vehicle replacement - - 70 - -
Parking construction 3 - - - -
OM for parking - 2.84 3.41 3.41 4.09
Interests on bonds - 35 35 535 -
17
Cost Allocation
NPV of Total Cost 3,657.12 Million
18
Benefit Methodology
Revenue from riding (real revenue) FareRidership (Increase at 10-year interval)
Revenue from parking (real revenue) FeeRidership (Increase at 10-year interval)
Value of time saved 10.881.3hr saved70Ridership
Energy savings Fuel cost/mileMiles of Maglev70Ridership
Savings from air pollution Air pollution cost/mileMiles of Maglev70Ridership
19
Benefit Analysis
(In Million)
Year 3 Partial completion 5 Full completion 10 20 Last year of bonds 30End of project
Revenue from riding 23.02 108.17 115.89 148.35 181.42
Revenue from parking 9.75 9.75 9.75 10.40 11.05
Value of time saved 82.87 113.87 143.43 152.99 162.56
Energy savings 22.03 35.59 38.13 40.67 43.21
Savings from air pollution 5.56 8.35 8.99 5.78 3.70
20
Benefit Allocation
NPV of Total Benefit 2,815.57 Million
21
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Profit/Loss Revenue Cost
Total Benefit 1,160.99 Million
Total Cost 3,657.12 Million
Loss -2,496.13 Million

• Net Social Benefit Total Benefit Total Cost

Total Benefit 2,815.57 Million
Total Cost 3,657.12 Million
Net Social Benefit -841.55 Million
22
Synthesis Analysis
23
Synthesis

• Discount rate
• Bond coupon rate
• Percentage of bonds issued
• Total cost
• Fare Price
• Economic development

24
Discount Rate
Break-even discount rate 4.27
25
Percentage of Bond Issued
26
Bond Coupon Rate
27
Total Cost
Base Case
50 increase
100 increase
28
Fare Price
(In Million)
29
Economic Development
30
Conclusion
31
Circumstances that Warrant Investment in Public
Project
When societys resources are under utilized
When public funds are idling and can be invested
When the potential project will lead to a higher
level of productivity than any competing project
32
Economic Impact
Maglev
Alternative Investment
33
The Maglev Project Vision
34
Conclusion

• Maglev is a worthy pursuit, although the CBA
  study does not directly reflect this conclusion
• Sometimes the numbers do lie! Professor Shawn
  Buckner, Clinton School, Hovard University

35
Thank you
Prof. Strauss
Afshan?Shawn?Chia-Hui?Poonsri