Abstract
Underground freight transportation (UFT) is a class of automated transportation systems in which vehicles carry freight through tunnels or pipelines under roadways between intermodal terminals. The UFT systems increase the current freight movement capacity and alleviate the problems associated with the fast growing need for freight transportation. Despite the inherent UFT benefits to alleviate traffic congestion and enhance safety and security of freight transportation while improving sustainability, a detailed lifecycle benefit-cost analysis is yet required to explicitly show planners and decision makers the economic feasibility of such systems. The primary objective of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive lifecycle benefit-cost analysis of linear induction motor-based UFT systems for five different scenarios. This methodology includes the following steps: (1) developing UFT scenarios with different sizes (small, medium, and large) and routes (short and long) in collaboration with a stakeholder committee; (2) determining lifecycle cash flows; (3) calculating net present values, benefit-cost ratios, and internal rates of returns; (4) conducting sensitivity analysis; and (5) performing breakeven analysis. The results of this research show that the highest benefits of the UFT systems are revenue from shipment and reduction in air pollution. The internal rates of return, benefit-cost ratios, and net present values of the UFT scenarios indicate that the benefits offset the costs of the system. Results of sensitivity analysis show that the economic feasibility of the large and medium-size UFTs is more sensitive to tunnel construction cost and revenue from shipments. They also indicate that the economic feasibility of the UFT system with a short route and small size is more sensitive to higher discount rates and the policies concerning the shipment pricing. Results of breakeven analysis highlight a shorter payback period for the large and medium-size UFTs compared with small-size scenarios. The results show that the price of shipment for all the UFT scenarios is highly competitive compared with the current price of shipment by trucks.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted under a grant from Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) under Project number 0-6870. The authors thank TxDOT for funding this innovative project.
References
ASCE. (2013). “2013 report card for America’s infrastructure findings.” ⟨https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/making-the-grade/report-card-history/2013-report-card/⟩ (Jan. 5, 2018).
ASCE Task Committee on Freight Pipelines of the Pipeline Division. (1998). “Freight pipelines: Current status and anticipated future use.” J. Transp. Eng., 300–310.
Berlier, J. (1885). “The pneumatic transmission of messages and parcels between Paris and London, via Calais and Dover: Preliminary study and surveys.” E & FN Spon, London.
Cole, S. (2005). Applied transport economics: Policy, management and decision making, Kogan Page, London.
DAT Solutions LLC. (2016). “National flatbed rates.” ⟨https://www.dat.com/resources/trendlines/flatbed/national-rates⟩ (Dec. 17, 2016).
Egbunike, O. N., and Potter, A. T. (2011). “Are freight pipelines a pipe dream? A critical review of the UK and European perspective.” J. Transp. Geogr., 19(4), 499–508.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (1998). “Procedural guidelines for highway feasibility studies.” ⟨http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/border_planning/corbor/feastudy.cfm#7⟩ (Oct. 20, 2015).
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., and Buhl, S. (2002). “Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie?” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 68(3), 279–295.
Howgego, T., and Roe, M. (1998). “The use of pipelines for the urban distribution of goods.” Trans. Policy, 5(2), 61–72.
Kocabas, G., and Kopurlu, B. S. (2010). “An ex-post cost-benefit analysis of Bolu Mountain Tunnel project.” Ege Akademik Bakis., 10(4), 1279.
Liu, H. (2000). “Pneumatic capsule pipeline basic concept, practical considerations, and current research.” Proc., Mid-Continent Transportation Symp., Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State Univ. Research Park, Ames, IA, 230–234.
Liu, H. (2004). “Feasibility of underground pneumatic freight transport in New York City.”, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY.
Liu, H., and Li, Y. (2000). “Transporting solid wastes by pipelines: A feasibility analysis.” Proc., Environmental and Pipeline Engineering 2000, ASCE, Reston, VA, 338–347.
Liu, H., and Marrero, T. R. (1997). “Coal log pipeline technology: An overview.” Powder Technol., 94(3), 217–222.
Liu, H., Noble, J. S., Wu, J., and Zuniga, R. (1998). “Economics of coal log pipeline for transporting coal.” Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract., 32(5), 377–391.
Mueller, R. I. (2016). “Logic over paradigms: Introducing large-diameter pipelines for efficient freight movement in southern California.” Pipelines 2016: Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Not Out of Risk, ASCE, Reston, VA, 129–138.
Najafi, M., Ardekani, S., and Shahandashti, S. M. (2016). “Integrating underground freight transportation into existing intermodal systems.”, Texas Dept. of Transportation, Austin, TX.
O’Connell, R. M. (2003). “Linear electric motors for pneumatic capsule pipeline propulsion.” Proc., New Pipeline Technologies, Security, and Safety, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1635–1647.
O’Connell, R. M., Liu, H., and Lenau, C. W. (2008). “Performance of pneumatic capsule pipeline freight transport system driven by Linear Motor 1.” J. Transp. Eng., 50–58.
Roop, S. S., Olson, L., Warner, J., Morgan, C., and Rediniotis, O. (2000). “The technical and economic feasibility of a freight pipeline system in Texas: Year 1 report.”, Texas Dept. of Transportation Research and Technology Implementation Office, Austin, TX.
Schrank, D., Eisele, B., Lomax, T., and Bak, J. (2015). “2015 urban mobility scorecard.” Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX, College Station, TX.
USDOT. (2015a). “Transportation statistics annual report 2015.” Washington, DC ⟨https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/TSAR_2015_final_0.pdf⟩ (Jan. 5, 2018).
USDOT. (2015b). “Freight facts and figures 2015.” ⟨https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/data_and_statistics/by_subject/freight/freight_facts_2015⟩ (Jan. 15, 2017).
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2016). “Discount rates for cost-effectiveness, lease purchase, and related analyses.”, Washington, DC.
Zahed, S. E., Shahandashti, S. M., and Najafi, M. (2017). “Investment valuation of an underground freight transportation (UFT) system in Texas.” Pipelines 2017, ASCE, Reston, VA, 192–201.
Zandi, I., and Gimm, K. (1976). “Transport of solid commodities via freight pipeline: Freight pipeline technology (Vol. V).”, Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Zandi, I., and Kim, K. S. (1974). “‘Solid pipeline’ conserves energy.” Transp. Res., 8(4–5), 471–480.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice
Volume 9 • Issue 2 • May 2018
Copyright
©2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 6, 2017
Accepted: Oct 11, 2017
Published online: Jan 19, 2018
Published in print: May 1, 2018
Discussion open until: Jun 19, 2018
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.