The Choice of V/Stol Transportation For The Northeast Corridor

-vmlnk
THE CHOICE OF V/STOL TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
William M. Swan
June 1972 FTL Report R72-2
MIT Libraries
Document Services
Room 14-0551 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph: 617.253.5668 Fax: 617.253.1690 Email: [email protected] http://libraries.mit.edu/docs
DISCLAIMER OF QUALITY
Due to the condition of the original material, there are unavoidable flaws in this reproduction. We have made every effort possible to provide you with the best copy available. If you are dissatisfied with this product and find it unusable, please contact Document Services as soon as possible. Thank you.
. Page 50 is missing from this report.
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Flight Transportation Laboratory
Report FTL - R72 - 2
The Choice of V/STOL Transportation for the Northeast Corridor
William M. Swan June 1972
Abstract
Aircraft type, aircraft size, number of terminals, and degree of nonstop routing for a V/STOL transportation system in the Northeast Corridor are chosen by exploring a wide range of combinations. Helicopter and STOL aircraft from 20 to 200 seats are considered. From 15 to 20 total terminals were considered. Nonstop, one stop and two stop routings were used. A market model explores the response of a typical route to variations in these parameters. Demand response to the total trip cost, trip time, and frequency of service is measured by a modal split model. It is found that land costs and manoeuvre times make STOL operations less attractive than VTOL. The system is found to be sensitive to indirect operating costs associated with ticketing and boarding. A small number of terminals is required. A 16 port system serving 10 cities using a 60 seat helicopter can carry 16% of the 1985 intercity traffic while charging the full costs to the user. The results were confirmed by a market by market analysis for the corridor.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Title
Abstract iii List of Tables List of Figures List of References
Chapter I Chapter 2
Introduction Methodology for Developing the Performance of V/STOL
Chapter 3
The Performance of V/STOL Systems
Transportation
Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6
The Market for V/STOL Transportation Case Study of 1985 QVTOL Summary and Conclusions
Appendices A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Air Traffic Control for Short Haul Systems Aircraft Performance City Access Costs and Times for all Modes Discussion of Metroport Location Methodology The Market for Transportation Services The Choice of a Representative Route The Modal Split Demand Model The Performance of Exisiting Competitive Modes Standard Conditions for 1985 Quiet Helicopter (QVTOL) J. Studies 125 129 82 85 96 103 107 110 114 121
Inputs to FA-4
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2
Possible STOL Metroport Locations Possible VTOL Metroport Locations Cost of VTOL Metroports Cost of STOL Metroports System Sizes for QVTOL at Maximum Volume Optimum System Sizes for QVTOL and Quieted Tilt Rotor at Maximum Volume Optimum
5 6 12 13 49
52 58 60 63
5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 H.1
Intercity Demands Division of City Demands 1985 QVTOL Helicopter System Models Compared
Daily Activities for Combinations of Aircraft Size 65 Daily Frequency in 1985 Case Study 68 71
Comparison of VTOL and STOL Performance of Competitive Modes in the Northeast
Corridor
123
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Page
1.1 2.1 2.2
Map of the Northeast Corridor Layout for STOL and VTOL Metroports Cost of Unimproved Land in the Northeast Corridor
2 10
14
2.3
Average Access Distance to V/STOL Terminal as a Function of the Number of Metroports in the Corridor 19
3.1
Product Possibilities Function for a V/STOL Transportation System 24
3.2
Isoquant for VTOL (helicopter) service at 20,000 trips per day 27
3.3
Isoquant for STOL Service at 20,000 trips per day 30
3.4
Vertical Slice through Product Possibilities Function 31
3.5
Intersection of Demand Surface on V/STOL Product Possibilities Function 32
4.1
Total Demand for V/STOL Transportation in the Northeast Corridor in 1978, Indifference Curves 34
4.2
Product Possibilities and Demand for V/STOL Travel in 1978, 15,000 trips per day 35
4.3
4.4
Product Possibilities and Demand for V/STOL Travel in 1978, 20,000 trips per day 37
1985 Demand
Intersection of 1985 Demand Surface and QVTOL Product Possibilities at 35,000 trips per day
39
4.5
4.6
40
Vertical Slice through Product Possibilities Function for QVTOL Service 42
4.7
QVTOL Product Possibilities Function at Various Volumes (Isoquants) 43
iv
4.8 4.9
Effect of DOC on QVTOL Isoquant Effect of Processing Costs on QVTOL Isoquant
45 46
4.10 Comparison of Quieted Tilt Rotor System with

QVTOL (quiet helicopter) 5.1 5.2 Data Flow Between Market Model and FA-4 Importance of Five Flights per day in Service Attractiveness 6.1 6.2 B.1 B.3 B.4 Relative Costs for STOL and VTOL (typical) Route Segments Shown in 1985 Case Study Conversion of DOC to Linear Format Takeoff, Maneuver, and Turn Around Times DOC Comparison for Quiet Helicopter and Tilt Rotor B-5 B.6 C.1 D.1 F.1 Noise Reduction with Distance from Source Noise Footprints for Two Noise Limits Access Costs to CTOL Airports Typical City in the Corridor Number of Valid Markets vs Number of V/STOL Ports in the Northeast Corridor G.l Typical Market Share vs Frequency for V/STOL H.1 Line Haul Travel Times and Costs for the Competitive Modes 124 119 113 93 94 95 100 105 69 78 79 90 92 51 57
1.0
INTRODUCTION This report brings together work performed by a number of people at the
Flight Transportation Laboratory over the last seven years.
The main body of
the report can be read for an understanding of the analysis and for the principal results. The appendices contain details which are useful to a
complete understanding of the material. 1.1 Introduction to the Northeast Corridor The Northeast Corridor is the area between Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston. Six other cities, Baltimore, Hartford, New Haven, Trenton,
Providence, and Wilmington complete the list of major traffic centers. Figure 1.1. is a map of the area. The corridor is interconnected by inter-
state highways, passenger rail service, and either direct or indirect commercial flights. At present over 80% of the passenger traffic among these cities travels by car. This is true even though the circuity of the roads and the delay of
gas and toll stops reduce the average speed of highway travel to 41.1 mph "as the crow filies". Trains and buses, traveling at similar effective speeds, The remainder of the trips are made on
carry less than a tenth of the traffic.
aircraft, in spite of delays which stretch the sum of take off and landing times to an average of 35 minutes. The performance of the current public modes of travel is deteriorating with increasing numbers of travelers. Two solutions have been proposed:
(1) improved rail transportation emphasizing the use of existing rights of way along the back bone of the corridor and (2) improved air transportation using aircraft and facilities dedicated to short haul traffic. This report investigates the second of these two propositions.
- 1 -
Figure 1.1:
"Map" of the Northeast Corridor
BOSTON
/ HARTFORD
\ -PRI
PI-ILADELPHIA *
. ...-.ILMINGTON
*~
AVEN
NEW YORK CITY

TREN
BALTIMORE
WASHINGTON
100 miles
- 2 -
1.2
A Short Haul Air System There are great advantages in getting the short haul aircraft out of
the current airport traffic.
Reduction of congestion at the major airports
of the Corridor would reduce expensive delays in both long and short aircraft flights. This would permit expansion of long haul air service.
In addition the divorce of both vehicle and terminal from long haul operations can allow a short haul air system to serve what has become a mass transport market. A new and separate short haul air system would include: (1) new
aircraft designed to reduce aircraft take off costs and to use inexpensive terminals, (2) multiple new metroports located for convenience and designed to reduce the cost and delay of boarding the aircraft, (3) an air traffic control environment that permits direct routing, minimal loitering times, and all weather operations without interfering with long haul traffic, and (4) a corporate structure which separates the short haul operations from long haul service. This report will concern itself with items (1) and (2), aircraft and metroport considerations. Air traffic control is a relatively small part A
of the system cost, and therefore has not influenced this discussion. brief discussion of the air traffic control problems is presented in Appendix A. discussions. Institutional factors have been left to less technical This analysis assumes that metroports are financed by tax
exempt bond issues and run without loss, and that the aircraft by private enterprise.
are managed
- 3 -
1.3
Possible Configurations of a Short Haul System There are two major candidates for a new short haul air system based
on the type of aircraft used.
A STOL system offers the relatively low
mileage costs of STOL aircraft at the expense of complication of terminal operations. expense. A VTOL system offers more efficient terminals but higher cruise
Let us look first at the STOL system.
The set of 15 metroports in table 1.1 is a proposed STOL network. The terminal sites were selected on the basis of both access convenience and total cost. Each site has space for a single 2000' runway and is These sites may not all be politically
situated to reduce noise impact. feasible.
The expense of elevated city center metroports has forced the Initially, a
selection of existing airport sites for most operations.
downtown STOL system was studied, but was found prohibitively expensive. The competition is offered by the corresponding 15 terminal VTOL system in Table 1.2. In order to choose between these two systems one must consider (1) community acceptance (noise, safety, etc.), (2) ease of implementation, (3) overall system cost, (4) flexibility, (5) compatibility with the
current CTOL air system, (6) the changing importance of city center congestion, and (7) technical performance, i.e. the ability to attract sufficient numbers of travelers to operate without financial loss. This report evaluates and compares technical performance only. other six considerations are briefly discussed in the last chapter. The
- 4 -
Table 1. 1
Possible STOL Metroport Locations
New York City SEC LGF WES Boston BOS HAN Logan Airport STOL strips (new) Hanscom Field STOL strips (new) Secaucus STOLport site La Guardia Flushing site Over an interchange on route 287 in White Plains near Westchester
Philadelphia SPC SPW Washington SUN WAS Baltimore SBL Hartford HRD Trenton TTN New Haven NHV Providence SPV Wilmington SWL New Castle Airport STOL strips (new) Providence Airport STOL strips (new) New Haven Airport STOL strips (new) Mercer County Airport STOL strips (new) Brainard Airfield STOL strips (new) Over Port Covington Rail Yard Over Union station (elevated) Washington National STOL strips (new) Over 30th Street Railroad Station (elevated) Across Schuykill River from Conshocken, by an expressway
- 5 -
Table 1. 2
Possible VTOL Metroport Locations
New York City JMW JME LGA EWK Boston JNS J28 Over North Station (downtown) Intersection of route 128 and Mass Turnpike Manhattan on West 30th Street docks Manhattan on East River south of U.N. STOL comparison) La Guardia Airport Newark Airport
(not included in
the
Philadelphia SPC SPW Washington SUN WAS Baltimore SBL Hartford HRD Tranton TTN New Haven SNH Providence SPV Wilmington SWL Over Cherry Island railyard Over downtown trains Over Railyard near Connecticut Turnpike Mercer County Airport Braina rd Airfield Over Port Covington rail yard Over Union Station Washington National Over 30th Street station Across Schuykill River from Conshocken
- 6 -
1.4. Report Structure This project begins with a set of assumptions about component costs and ends with the selection of a system which is in some sense optimal. The development of time and cost structure for a V/STOL system is given in Chapter 2. Detailed development of individual numbers has been relegated to the appendices. Once the structure for assembling and comparing different
systems is established, the system which can attract the greatest traffic without loosing money is found by what is basically a cut and try method. This is done in Chapters 3 and 4. The crude assumptions of the basic
structuring are checked in Chapter 5 by exercising the chosen system in a more sophisticated network study. reviews its limitations. The reader may originally be surprised at the extensive discussion in Chapter 3 and 4 of what has just been described as a "cut and try" approach. In fact, the author has attempted to explore over a broad range The work in Chapter 3 Chapter 6 summarizes the effort and
the forms a V/STOL transportation system could take.
is independent of demand, and merely defines the range of operating conditions achievable by V/STOL systems. The concept of a three
dimensional surface of possible operations is introduced. It is only in Chapter 4 that a corresponding surface ,conveying
information about the collective desires and values of the users of the system is introduced and by comparison of the surfaces, a "best" system is determined. The purpose of this somewhat roundabout procedure is to arrive at the destination with some idea of where we have been.
- 7 -
2.
METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING THE PERFORMANCE OF V/STOL
2.1
Defining the Performance of an Air Transportation System For the purposes of this study, the performance of a transportation
system is measured by the total cost and total time with which it can serve a given size travel market without a loss. This performance
depends not only on the type of system, STOL or VTOL, but also on internal adjustments of the system design. Changes in aircraft capacity, average
frequency, number of terminals, and number of direct flights can adjust a single type of system over a wide range of cost and time. establishes the framework for these design options. The total cost of a trip is the ticket price plus access (and egress) costs. The ticket price is the shared system cost composed of: This chapter
(1) a share of the cost of capital investment in terminals. (2) a share of terminal operations and take off costs and (3) a share of the aircraft mileage costs. To this will be added the access and egress costs. costs will be explored in the next section. The total time of a trip includes: (1) the time spent in flight (2) the time spent in boarding, taking off, and making intermediate stops (3) a time associated with waiting for a convenient departure. time is related to the daily frequency. and This The details of all
(4) access and egress times to and from the terminals of the system.
- 8 -
2.2
The Structure of V/STOL Trip Costs Sharing Method for Capital Costs
2.2.1.
A major consideration in the design of a STOL or VTOL system is the cost of the terminals. becomes overpriced. If the cost is too high, the system very quickly
Capital investments are assumed to be made at the Land is purchased and buildings are The
beginning of a system's life. constructed.
Financing would normally be through local bond issues.
difficulty lies in allocating the costs in an equitable way.
The simplest
possibility is to repay interest and debt equally over a 20 year period like a home mortgage. annuity. 2.2 Each boarding passenger pays an equal share of the
This was the method followed.
Development of Capital Costs Good metroport design can save considerable expense and reduce transit
times.
The great advantage of a V/STOL system is the low cost of the Suggested metroports have shown tremendous variations in cost In view of the magnitude of cost variations, and the
airports.
and convenience.
importance of the metroport performance to the system, the design used in this study was chosen with careful consideration. The gate positions were chosen from design #8 by Allen and Simpson (Reference 1). This design provides a swift boarding procedure at a minimum expense. The cost of a gate position designed to Two
of capital or operating
accommodate eighty seat helicopters was estimated at $2.02 million. thirds of the cost is proportional to vehicle size. STOL Runways and taxiways were assumed to cost $0.667 million
($1.21/sq ft) at ground level and nine times that if elevated (See Reference 13).
- 9 -
Figure 2.1: Layout for STOL and VTOL Metroports
2000' STOL STRIP
92 ACRES (INCLUDING NOISE BOUNDARY ZONES)
550,000 SQUARE FEET OF PAVEMENT
-A-0H-500'
IA
VTOL METROPORT
GATE
F
1150'
- I
150'
-1
200'I L
1000' 26.4 ACRES
1000'
10
$.5 million was included to represent the cost of half a mile of elevated and half a mile of ground level roadway for access. The layout for the STOL and VTOL ports is illustrated in figure 2.1. Borderland around each landing site must be purchased because other use is impossible for noise reasons. In cases where the STOL port is located Otherwise the land cost is
on an existing airport, the land is free. derived from figure 2.2.
The minimum number of gate positions is two. it, more gates were added at cost.
If the traffic warranted
Following these guidelines, the total ground system investment is $252 million for VTOL and $406 million for STOL (see tables 2.1 and 2.2). If
financed by 20 year 4.5% bonds these figures become $19.4 and $31.2 million per year respectively. This reduces to $2.66 and $4.28 per boarding if there
are 20,000 passengers a day for the total system. 2.2.3. Terminal Maintenance
Maintenance costs for the terminal buildings are estimated a $1.68/ft 2 /year (reference 13 in 1970 dollars) or $38,400/gate/year. just like the capital costs. 30 gate positions. day. 2.2.4. Processing Costs Maintenance is shared
The annual total is $1.15 million per year for
This is $0.16 per passenger for 20,000 passengers per
An efficient short haul system will need an automated ticketing system to avoid labor costs. Credit card holders will be able to write their own Presumably reservations and
tickets using machines at the airport.
perhaps checked baggage will cost extra -- enough to cover additional costs. Under these ground rules it is likely that passenger handling costs This cost of service falls between current
will be below $2.00 per boarding.
airline and express bus operation, which are roughly $5.00 and $0.50 respectively.
11
Table 2. 1
Cost of VTOL Metroports
Metroport Name Cost /acre JMW JME LGA EWK JNS
Land Cost
Cost of road and 2 gates
Total Cost
Percent of Metropolitan Market 25%
$ 1.67
1.67 0 0
$ 44.0
44.0
0 0 11.1 1.7
4.54
4.54
48.54
4.54 4.54
J28 SPC SPW

SUN WAS SBL HRD TTN SNH
.142 .063
4.54
4.54
48.54 4.54 4.54 15.64

6.24 22.24 6.44 19.24
30 32
14
.67
.072
17.7
1.9
14.7 0
.56
.0
4.54 4.54 4.54

4.54
74 26 79
21
4.54
35 65
100 100 100 100 100 100
.136
0 0 .0575 .07 .024
35.8
0 0 1.5
SWL SPV
1.8
.6
4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54 4.54

TOTAL:
40.34 4.54
4.54
6.04
6.34 6.14
$ 268.44
Notes 1) 2) 3) All costs in millions The cost of unimproved land is used to represent the cost of sharing improved land such as at North Station in Boston The cost of 15 terminals is 15/16 of the cost of 16 terminals
12
Table 2.2
Cost of STOL Metroports
Metroport Cost/acre Name
Land Cost
cost of roadrunway, and 2 gates
Total Cost
Percent of Metropolitan Market
SEC
LGF WES BOS HAN SPC SPW
$ 1.05
x .3 x x .67 .072
$ 96.6
0 26.6 0 0 61.8 6.6
5.21
5.21 11.21 5.21 5.21 11.21 5.21
$ 101.81
5.21 37.81 5.21 5.21 73.01 11.81
68%
20 12 86 14 79 21
SUN
WAS SBL HRD TTN NHV SPV SWL
.56
x .064 x x
x
51.6
0 58.9 0 0 0 0 0
11.21
5.21 11.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21
62.81
5.21 70.11 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21
35
65 100 100 100 100 100 100
x x
TOTAL:
$ 406.25
Notes 1) 2) All costs in millions The cost of unimproved land is used to represent the cost of sharing improved land such as at 30th street station in Philadelphia
13 -
Figure 2.2:
Cost of Unimproved Land in the Northeast Corridor
10.0 NEW YORK CITY 5.0
c-
WASHINGTON PKILADELPHIA
Co
U-
1.0 1.0 -D 0.5
BOSTON BALTIMORE
W
M
PROVIDENCE HARTFORD
U-
0
I-
NEW HAVEN
WILMINGTON TRENTON 0.1
0.05
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
DISTANCE FROM CITY CENTER (MILES)

Source: Eastman, reference 3
14
2.2.5.
Income from Parking A significant percentage of air terminal operations is supported
by income from nearby parking garages.
There is no reason why garages
located on floors below the boarding areas can not contribute to V/STOL overheads. Roughly 44% of the passengers come or go by car. One quarter of these park for two days at $3.00 per day. costs $4,800 in capital costs or $1.00 per day. at $0.25 per day per car. (See appendix C) A parking place
Labor costs are estimated
Assembling all this, the net income is $1.75 This contributes to the support of
per day or $0.39 per boarding per day. the terminal. 2.2.6.
Direct Operating Costs of the Aircraft Direct Operating Cost (DOC) is usually half the ticket price. In
a STOL or VTOL system, DOC's are expected to be higher since the aircraft is compromised to allow lower indirect operating costs (IOC's) and convenient access. This trend is balanced by the reduced take off and maneuver cost As a result DOC remains near half of the
experienced by these aircraft.
ticket price for short trips, but is higher at longer ranges. Operating costs for both the helicopter and the STOL aircraft used in this study were derived from vehicles designed as part of an ongoing effort at the FTL. costs. A 60% load factor was assumed for conversion to ticket
The results used in this report are discussed in appendix B. The
conclusions are presented here. It was found that the DOC of STOL and VTOL aircraft could be simply described as a combination of a take off and maneuver cost and a cost per cruise mile. It was further shown that these two costs vaired linearly with
15
the seating capacity.
As a result it costs on the order of $1.00 per take These figures go up consider-
off and $.02 per mile for each aircraft seat. ably for smaller aircraft.
Using a load factor of 60%, each passenger would
be charged roughly $2.00 per take off plus $.04 per mile for his trip. Variations depend on aircraft size and type. Large aircraft are cheaper. In addition,
VTOL aircraft cost less per take off, but more per mile.
multistop operations cause a greater burden of take off costs. 2.2.7. Stewards Stewards (male or female) are necessary for safety and boarding, even though no inflight service is necessary. passengers was assigned to each aircraft. One steward for every forty
$8.40 per hour was charged
against stewards during boarding, takeoff, maneuver, and flight times. These costs, although technically indirect operating costs, were added to the aircraft DOC because they accrue in exactly the same manner. 2.2.8. Aircraft Handling Costs Short haul aircraft will not be fueled or inspected at every stop. To cover these intermittent servicings, a charge of $6 per landing I is added to the aircraft DOC. Ground handling costs,like stewards' salaries,
vary directly with aircraft activity.
Reference 8 suggests $10.70 if refueled at every stop.
16
2.2.9
Operating Overheads Overhead comes from general and administrative expenses and includes
before taxes profits.
Since the cost of managing is proportional to
the size of operations, overhead was estimated to be a percentage of the total ticket price. ticket price. 2.2.10 Total Ticket Price, an example A short haul ticket cost can be assembled from the several costs listed above. For example Simple operations are assumed to cost 22% of the
$ 3.00 - contribution to terminal capital costs

.17 - terminal maintenance -.39 - income from parking concession 2.00 - ticketing costs
2.41 - aircraft DOC, handling IOC, steward IOC for the take off and maneuver 4.13 - Cruise costs DOC and steward 1OC for 200 miles
3.18 - 22% G & A and Profits
$14.50 - AIRLINE TOTAL
1.16 - 8% ticket tax (equaling ATC expenses)

$15.66 - Ticket Price
2.2.11
Access and Egress Costs Demand models relate the volume attracted by a new mode to the total
perceived cost of travel on that mode.
This cost of travel is the sum of A new V/STOL system can spend
ticket price and access and egress costs.
more on its terminals and charge more for its services if it can reduce the average access costs enough.
1 More sophisticated models have weighted the ease of access more highly, but this exercise treats it as a simple part of the total.
17
Access costs are developed for all modes in appendix C. Figure 2.3 illustrates the results of a study of possible terminal locations in the Northeast corridor. location methodology.) (Appendix D contains discussion of the
The average access distance for all potential
passengers in the ten metropolitan areas is dependent upon the total number of metroports in the corridor. access. More metroports offer easier
Failure to locate STOL sites near the city center puts the STOL
system at a slight disadvantage. The sum of access and egress costs is typically near $4.00 for a V/STOL trip. The cost performance of the V/STOL system would be
the ticket price plus the access costs or $15.66 + $4.00 = $19.66 for the 200 mile trip in the preceding example.
18
Figure 2.3:
Average Access Distance to V/STOL Terminal as a Function of the number of-Metroports in the Corridor
(points developed from case studies)
STOL
81
II
NUMBER OF PORTS IN THE 10 CITIES (TOTAL)
19
2.3
The Structure of V/STOL Trip Times
The trip cost of a V/STOL system is only half of the performance picture. time. The other predictable index of performance is the total trip
This involves not only the speed but also the convenience of
the scheduled departures. Viewing a trip through the traveler's eyes the successive steps are: access, boarding, flight time, disembarking, and egress. It is
in this order that the times are discussed. Access times are dependent on access distance. Once again the Access time
discussion of appendix C and the data of figure 2.3 apply.
is lower for VTOL than STOL operations because of the more convenient metroport locations. As before, increasing the number of terminals An average access time might
can cut access time for either system. be 35 minutes.
Boarding through the gate positions should be fast.
An average
of seven minutes is assumed, although faster processing can easily be imagined with this particularly direct design. Flight time is composed of takeoff and maneuver time plus time spent in cruise. little time. V/STOL vehicles achieve flight conditions in very
The STOL aircraft spend about 10 minutes in takeoff and VTOL aircraft do without taxiing and cut this The
landing maneuvers.1 figure in half.
On the other hand, cruise speeds are quite low. The helicopters
STOL aircraft of our design cruise near 300 mph. cruise even slower, 240 mph.
Thus a 200 mile journey could take from
lThis is the design performance as presented in Appendix B.
20 -
40 minutes to an hour.
Later designs can achieve higher speeds.
Additional flight time would be experienced by a traveler if he is on a multistop trip. An intermediate landing would add a
second increment of maneuver time plus an additional seven or eight minutes of turn around time. multi-stop flight operations. The 15 minute penalty is paid only in Multistop operations are used if the
daily frequency would be too low (4 to 7 flights per day) using single load flights. Upon arrival at his destination the passenger should be able to disembark in three minutes and achieve his final destination with roughly another 35 minutes of egress time. A tally of the travel times above might look like this for the typical 200 mile trip: 35 10 5 60 12 35 min. min. min. min. min. min. access time (average) boarding plus disembarking aircraft maneuver time flight time (2oo miles) intermediate stop maneuver and turnaround egress time (average)
Total 2 hours 37 minutes
The last influence on the time is the frequency of service, i.e., the convenience of departure times. venience was chosen. An artificial index of this con-
Half the average headway was added to the total Thus for 6
time to give the time performance of V/STOL service.
flights in a 16 hour day the timeliness delay is 1/2 - (16 + 6) = 1.33 hours. If two demands can be combined into a single route, twice the
daily frequency could be maintained and timeliness would improve to
21
.67 hours.
Adding this to the total travel time produces a total
trip time of 3 hours 17 minutes. The data of the preceding sections is Standard Conditions for 1985 QVTOL studies. repeated in Appendix I.,
22
3.0 THE PERFORMANCE OF V/STOL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
3.1
The Concept of a Product Possibilities Function Figure 3.1 illustrates the three dimensional surface which forms the
product possibilities I function for V/STOL transportation in the Northeast Corridor. It is a surface of "best" system performance measured by total
trip time and cost.
Notice as passenger volume is increased that average
total trip time can be reduced due to increased frequency of service. Average total trip cost is also reduced as the cost of terminals is spread over more passengers. Each point on the surface is a possible operating condition of some VTOL or STOL system. The surface was defined by cut and try. Each point on
the surface is defined by a specific aircraf-t size and type and a specific set of terminals. Operating the same system at a traffic volume below that Operating at volumes above
indicated by the surface will result in a loss.
a given point on the surface, but still at the same trip time and cost, will produce a profit if the assumed load factor (60%) is maintained. 2 The surface does not portray the performance of any single- system. Each part of the surface is defined by the specific system which can perform "best" in that region. Best performance means carrying the minimum traffic Thus the surface is The aircraft
volume at the stated cost and time without a loss.
a combination of STOL and VTOL systems both large and small. type and size varies over the surface.
The number of gates at each terminal
Although functionally similar to the economic concept of production possibilities, this new term refers to a different phenomenon. See Appendix E. There is no reason why the concept could not be extended to more dimensions to include performance characteristics such as noise exposure or ride pleasure. 2 The load factor could reasonably vary from 40% to 70%. The assumption of a constant load factor is only justified by the great simplification of the solution process that results. In essence we have "guessed" that system economics and consumer demand for seat availability always converge on a 60% load factor as a reasonable compromise of cost and convenience.
23 -
Figure 3.1: Product Possibilities Function for a V/STOL Transportation System
PASSENGER VOLUME SURFACE OF PRODUCT POSSIBIL ITIES AT 60% LOAD FACTOR
24
inm
milw4
i 1I i
and indeed the number of terminals can vary also. per terminal and 15 terminals was enforced.
A minimum of 2 gates
The remainder of this section will be devoted to discovering which systems dominate the different areas on the surface. To do this
horizontal cuts through the surface are made and the set of cost-time tradeoffs available at the constant passenger volume is graphed. curves are called "isoquants". These
In order to fix specific numbers to the cost The volume on the
and time,a representative route was chosen2 at 200 miles.
route was such that 274 round-trip passengers a day represented a total of 20,000 trips on all the routes in the V/STOL system for the whole Northeast Corridor.
2 See Appendix F.
25 -
3.2 3.2.1
Product Possibilities Function for VTOL and STOL VTOL Performance Figure 3.2 is a graph of the performance choices for a helicopter
based system carrying 20,000 passengers per day.
Each point on the graph
was developed using the methodology of chapter 2. The set of fifteen terminals was used to evaluate fixed costs. A specific volume of traffic The resulting unit costs and
was postulated and a vehicle size was assumed.-
frequency of service at 60% load factor produced the points on the graph. The area of the curve closest to the origin is of the greatest In this area one At
interest since this is close to present airline services.
stop service by small to intermediate size aircraft performs best.
extremely low costs (and high times) nonstop service by larger aircraft is better. Also at very low times and high costs one stop service using very
small aircraft is competitive. The two small x's on figure 3.2 illustrate the effect of adding another terminal. The x's mark the system operation if a second Manhatten Both trip cost and trip time are worse.
terminal is built on the east side.
The unit cost goes up because the additional capital costs must be defrayed. Trip time goes up because the addition of eight new markets (from splitting up old markets) has reduced the market size on each route, thus reducing the daily frequency. The savings in access time and cost are not enough to 1 The minimum number of terminals
compensate under stated assumptions.
(arbitrarily 15) was best for all V/STOL systems studied. 1 If access costs are more important, or if they are congestion, these conclusions can be reversed.
larger due to
26
Figure 3.2: Isoquant for VTOL (helicopter) at 20,000 trips per day representative route length of 200 mi. fifteen terminal network represented
20
40 t20 SEA TS
35 }30
30 F-
30
50
40
25
60 \ 80 100
20
*0650 60 SEA TS %%*-w80 ''-,

150 100
200
''* 120
g-
15 -
ONE-STOP SER VICE - NON-STOP SER VICE X ONE-STOP SERVICE USING 16 TERMINALS
TOTAL TRIP TIME (HOURS)
27
3.2.29
STOL Performance Figure 3.3 is the same drawing for the STOL system. Here the This
nonstop operations are everywhere better than multistop routings. is because of the higher maneuver costs for STOL. aircraft dominate the region near the origin. 3.2.3. STOL and VTOL compared
Once again moderate size
Figure 3.4 is an altogether different look at the 3-dimensional supply function. time axes. Here a slice has been made at an angle to both cost and
The plane is determined by the point cost = $25, time = 3.5 This
hours, volume = 20,000 passengers and the line forming the volume axis.
plot shows that for all reasonable volumes VTOL service is better than STOL service. STOL is better only for extremely low time and extremely high cost Almost all of the surface is dominated by
operations at high volumes. helicopter based systems.
Four general areas (A,B,C, and D) are suggested on the product possibilities function redrawn in figure 3.5. Except for extreme values of
time or cost, the area is dominated by one-stop helicopter service using 40 to 80 seat aircraft. If passenger volumes are high, and trip time is not as important as cost, a nonstop helicopter service is indicated using large vehicles. If passenger volumes are high and times is of essence, a high frequecy helicopter system using nonstops service is cheapest. If passenger volume is extremely high and time is extremely important, a STOL system is best. At high volumes STOL port costs are low since In addition, large STOL aircraft designs Nonstop
they are shared among many people.
tend to be relatively cheaper and faster than larger helicopters.
28
service is indicated. If passenger volumes are low or moderate and if there is a balancing of time and cost priorities, a service using a 40 to 80 seat helicopter is best. stop. Sneaking a look ahead, the demand forces us to look at the area inside line NEM. In this region a viable VTOL system can exist because the Another way of looking at is that a less than 60% load We now turn our attention to forecasting the demand for On longer flights the passengers would experience an intermediate
demand is available. factor is economic.
an average market in the Northeast Corridor in order to pick the appropriate VTOL or STOL system.
29
Figure 3.3: Isoquant for STOL service at 20,000 trips per day representative route length of 200 mi. fifteen terminal network represented
20 SEA TS
40
30 SEATS
35
-~
60 SEA TS
25|
60 SEA TS
200 SEA TS
120 SEA TS
20
- -
- ONE-STOP SER VICE

NON-STOP SERVICE
15 10 TOTAL TRIP TIME (HOURS)
30 -
IIWIWW mwmiflmmlhM161
Figure 3.4: Vertical Slice through Product Possibilities Function for V/STOL Service
60t-
---
ONE-STOP VTOL
NON-STOP STOL
sq.
501-
DEMAND IN 1978
40 -
30 1-
20 -
K,
3 I 20
31 -
DEMAND
STOL VTOL 6 7
5 4 TOTAL TRIP TIME (HOURS) 1 I 40 30 TOTAL TRIP COST (DOLLARS)
1 50
Figure 3.5: Intersection of Demand Surface on V/STOL Product Possibilities Function
REGION A: REGION B : REGION C : REGION D: POINT E :
NON-STOP VTOL, LARGE AIRCRAFT NON-STOP STOL NON-STOP VTOL, SMALL AIRCRAFT ONE-STOP VTOL VOLUME = 23,500 TRIPS PER DAY
THE LINE N E M IS THE INTERSECTION OF THE DEMAND SURFACE FOR SOME YEAR ON THE PRODUCT POSSIBILITIES FUNCTION
32
1IIN1i11 ll 1fli
4.0
THE MARKET FOR V/STOL TRANSPORTATION
4.1
Concept of Demand The last two figures have included "demand" curves along with the
product possibilities function for V/STOL transportation.
These demand
curves are developed from a demand survace that has much the same shape used in figure 3.1 to illustrate the product possibilities function. The
demand surface reflects the maximum number of passengers that would be attracted from the existing air, rail, and highway modes to a new system. At each time and cost a specific volume of travelers prefers the new mode. As time and cost are reduced, these volume increases. The demand surface is developed using a modal split demand model which compares the performance of a new mode to the existing performances to estimate the percentage of the traffic that will be attracted. Any individual point on the demand surface marks the largest possible volume that could be attracted by a mode offering the stated performance. All the points below the demand surface represent possible operating conditions for a system offering this performance. Constant volume "indifference" curves for typical demand in 1978 (as &rived from Appendix G)are plotted in figure 4.1. The convexity of the
demand surface is slightly less than that of the supply function.
4.2
Intersection of Demand and Product Possibilities Figure 4.2 is a horizontal (constant volume) cut through both
the product possibilities and demand surfaces. isoquant and an indifference curve respectively.
The curves are called an The shaded area between
33
Figure 4.1: Total Demand for V/STOL Transport in the Northeast Corridor in 1978 (indifference curves)
TOTAL TRIP TIME (HOURS) NOTE: CURVES REPRESENT CONDITIONS WHICH WILL ATTRACT THE STATED DAILY TOTAL VOLUME OF TRIPS.
34
MIIIMMIIW
Figure 4.2: Product Possibilities and Demand for V/STOL Travel in 1978 15,000 trips per day representative route length of 200 mi.
30
25
20
10
TOTALTRIPTIME (HOURS)
35
the two curves represents possible operating conditions.
The points
within the area are feasible from both a profit and a marketing viewpoint. Figure 4.3 is the same graph, plotted at a higher volume. The
isoquant for the STOL system has been included to show that there is no solution at this volume. For VTOL the shaded area is smaller, however
another 5,000 travelers find the new service a desirable convenience. As the volume level is increased points M and N more closer together until they form a single point. are tangent at 23,500 passengers a day. of 3.4 hours. The demand and product curves
This is a $24.00 trip with a time
A 60 seat helicopter flying multistop services is indicated.
Figure 3.5 illustrates in three dimensions the line formed by the intersection of the demand surface with the product possibilities. line corresponds to the points M and N. equilibrium volume. This
Point E is the maximum possible
Above this level no V/STOL system can match the
existing demand without a loss when operating at 60% load factor. The intersection point, E, is a characteristic of the market and system interactions. This point has been chosen as the statistic with Other intersecting points also could be
which systems will be compared. compared.
At higher costs, slower time, and lower volumes there is a
point where distance in the direction of the cost axis between the product possibilities function and the demand surface is the greatest. point of maximum profit per passenger. This is the
Near it are points of maximum profit If
as a percent of ticket price and as a percent of capital investments. the
ticket price can be raised enough, it benefits private enterprise to
operate at higher frequencies and with smaller aircraft than exist at the maximum volume point.
36
Figure 4.3:
Product Possibilities and Demand for V/STOL in 1978 20,000 trips per day representative trip length of 200 mi.
r--VTOL SYSTEMS 40|STOL SYSTEMS
35 1-
30 1-
MI
251N 20 |-
DEMAND IN 1978
15 I-
37
The maximum volume point has been selected as a basis for measuring the system both because it is the clearest unique point and because it is the point usually considered in system planning studies. a good representative of system operations. 4.3 Redefinition of the Vehicle for a Mature System The next sections explore the behavior of the system near the maximum volume intersection. are going to change: Before doing this, however, the ground rules In In any case it is
1985 volume levels 1 are going to be examined.
addition a new set of helicopters designed at the Flight Transportation Laboratory will be used. These vehicles were particularly designed to be
quiet -- 82.5 pndb at 500 feet in take off and 70 pndb on the ground during cruise. The DOC's are presented in Appendex B. Quiet operating
conditions are typical of acceptable new urban operations and would have been used for the STOL/VTOL comparison if appropriate STOL designs had been available. This new system is called a QVTOL system.
Using these ground rules changes the location of the maximum volume intersection point, point E on figure 3.5 The new intersection of product A 60 seat
possibilities and demand is at 35,000 passengers per day. helicopter is called foroperating one stop routes.
Figure 4.5 illustrates the intersection of 1985 demand and QVTOL product possibilities at a volume of 35,000 travelers. is nearly as effective as a 60 seat vehicle. The 80 seat vehicle
1 1985 demands are 35% above 1978 demands. The indifference curves for the demand surface are presented in figure 4.4.
38
|ilililliM
ilIIbiI li IIlAll
Figure 4.4:
1985 Demand
DEMAND LEVELS IN THOUSANDS/DAY
39
Figure 4.5: Intersection of 1985 demand surface and QVTOL product possibilities function at volume*35,000 trips
40
4.4
The Nature
of the Maximum Volume Intersection
The intersection of product possibilities and demand is a very shallow one, as can be seen in figure
4.6.
Figure
4.6 is a
vertical slice through the product possibilities and demand surfaces at the angle cutting through the optimum point. tion of the cost of QVTOL service would result in in the maximum volume that could be carried. Any small perturbaa drastic change
Similarly any change
in the demand function creates equally dramatic shifts in volume. It is interesting to note that while the maximum volume can change quite radically, the operating conditions are nearly the same throughout. The minimum number of terminals, 16 for the QVTOL study,
is still desirable, and a 60 seat vehicle can serve the market adequately over a wide range. Figure 4.7 displays the product possibilities function at several volume levels. Between 5,000 and 20,000 travelers per day Terminals are severely underAbove
the system is barely creeping along. utilized.
Multistop service would be used on most routes.
50,000 travelers the terminals have costed themselves out and nonstop services have been implemented. Some savings result from the very Additional
small advantages of using aircraft over 80 seats capacity.
gate positions and eventually additional terminals allow the system to expand to carry quite large volumes before congestion sets in to increase unit costs.
41
Figure 4.6: Vertical Slice through Product Possibilities Function for QVTOL Service
2 I
4 5 TOTAL TRIP TIME (HOURS) I I
TOTAL TRIP COST (DOLLARS)
42 -
MININki 61.1
Figure 4.7: QVTOL Product Possibilities Function at various volumes
43 -
4.5 4.5.1
Variation of QVTOL System Parameters Variation of QVTOL Performance: DOC
In Figure 4.8 the performance of a system employing aircraft with DOC inflated by 25% is compared to the standard QVTOL performance.1 The effect produces a marked change in the trip costs. equilibrium volume drops from 35,000 to 26,000. comes from the penalties of cruise costs. The maximum
Most of this drop
A 25% increase in takeoff costs are relatively
costs alone has a very small effect since takeoff small originally.
4.5.2
Variation of QVTOL Performance:

In Figure
Processing Costs at Airline Levels
4.9
the processing cost and time for each passenger
has been altered from what is available through efficient terminal design and operation. Costs at airline levels are even more detrimental The maximum volume is only 23,000
to operation than increased DOC. trips per day.
This is a good argument for separating a new short haul Spartan processing operations
system from current airline operations. must be insured.
4.5.3
Variation of QVTOL performance:
Changes in Capital
costs
Once VTOL daily volumes exceed 20,000 trips, the importance of the capital investment costs is reduced dramatically. This is one
advantage of VTOL systems, the "fixed" capital costs are the lowest for any high performance system. STOL systems, the next best, have
Both costs and times were made 25% worse.
44
-1111mimill
Figure 4.8: Effect of DOC on QVTOL Isoquant; volume=30,000 trips
10 ' 2
5 4 TOTAL TRIP TIME (HRS)
45
Figure 4.9: Effect of processing costs QVTOL isoquant at volume=30,000 trips per day
40 -
35
46
nearly twice the capital costs.
For the 1980 - 1990 framework, and until
tilt rotor vehicles make both STOL and helicopters obsolete, the traffic in the Northeast Corridor is best carried by the helicopter system. A
change in the capital costs of t 25% is barely noticeable, changing the maximum volume point by only
-
4%.
4.5.4
1980, 1990 demands
The demand for travel does not affect the performance function for V/STOL systems. Only the demand surface changes. This simple
analysis assumed the 1990 demand was 18% greater than 1985 demand. This can be done merely by changing the volume scale on the demand surface. The shape is unaltered.
Table 4.1 lists the demand levels and the performance of a QVTOL system for the years 1978 - 1990. very important phenomena. a wide range of volumes. The table highlights two
First, a 60 seat vehicle is optimal over And second, as volumes increase, terminal
activity remains constant because fewer multistop flights are flown. Thus a system built for 1978 is still optimal in 1990 even though travel has doubled!
4.5.5
Comparison with a Tilt Rotor
By 1985 it is entirely possible that a tilt rotor VTOL vehicle would be manufactured to take the place of the conventional helicopter. Information from tilt rotor designs performed at the Flight Transportation Laboratory as a continuation of the work of Ref. 6 was converted
to 1985 quiet tilt rotor design by ratioing the cost of noisy to quiet tilt rotors by the factors available from the helicopter studies. This
47 -
method is crude, especially since the tilt rotor tends to be harder to quiet than the helicopter, but it was the only avenue available. result was a vehicle with the following parameters: Cruise speed is 400 mph Cruise DOC is $.585 per aircraft plus $.00498 per seat Takeoff DOC is $39.50 per aircraft plus $.521 per seat Takeoff and maneuvre time is .054 hrs. The tilt rotor can use VTOL terminals, but has a cruise speed and cost that approaches the performance of advanced STOL aircraft. in takeoff costs is made compared to helicopters. A sacrifice The
The performance of the
quiet tilt rotor is compared to the quiet helicopter (QVTOL) system in Figure 4.10. Clearly the saving in cruise time and cost increases the Indeed the maximum volume point
capabilities of the system considerably. is at 51,000 trips per day.
The optimal vehicle size is still 60 seats,
in spite of an altered cost structure for the DOC. Table 4.2 compares the performance of the quiet tilt rotor with the quiet helicopter system. service at reduced cost. Tilt rotor vehicles offer essentially the same A 60 seat tilt rotor is used nonstop to replace
a 60 seat helicopter operating multistop routes.
-48-
MW
MMMIN16
Table 4.1
System Sizes for QVTOL at Maximum Volume Optimum
1978 1 Total Demand levels 2 (all modes) QVTOL Performance (optimal volume) Number of Vehicles Used (2300 hrs per year) Size ( (number of seats) Average daily landings per terminal Ticket Cost (1970 dollars) Daily one way frequency on representation route 160,000
1980 176,000
1985 216,000
1990 256,000
20,000
25,000 100 60
35,000 139
44-45,000 175 or 105 60 or 100 76 - 94 $16.8-17.5 7.5- 9.3
82
60
60 90 $18.2 8.9
71 $21.3 7.0
86 $20.6 8.5
1Actually 2 Demand
these aircraft could not be in service before 1980.
levels are indicative of relative market sizes only. For conversion to actual daily trips expected in the corridor, see discussion in appendix F.
-49-
PAGES (S) MISSING FROM ORIGINAL
Page 50 is missing.
INUMNININNIUNIN
Figure 4.10: Comparison of Quieted Tilt Rotor System with Quiet Helicopter isoquant at 35,000 trips per day
4 TOTAL TRIP TIME
5 (HOURS)
51
Table 4.2
System Sizes for QVTOL and Quieted Tilt Rotor at Maximum Volume Optimum
1985
Total Demand level (all modes) Performance (at optimal Volume) Number of Vehicles Used (2300 hrs per year) Size (number of seats) Average daily landings per terminal Ticket Cost (1970 dollars) 216,000 TILT-ROTOR 51,000
1990 256,000 TILT-ROTOR 66,000
QVTOL 35,000
QVTOL 44,000
139
168
176
219-164
60
60
60
60-80
90
88
76 $ 16.8
114-86 $ 13.8-12.3
$ 18.2
$ 14.1
Frequency on representative route
8.9
7.5
11.3-8.5
52
5.0
CASE STUDY OF 1985 QVTOL
5.1
Introduction to the Case Study Up to this point a simple market model employing demand and
product surfaces has been used to predict the aggregate V/STOL activity that could exist in the N6rtheast Corridor. that a 16 terminal VTOL system using 60 seat The model has suggested vehicles would work.
To test this prediction a market by market study of the corridor was made. This study involved creating and scheduling a network to serve The tool that
the specific intercity markets in the corridor. allowed this to be done is called FA-4.
FA-4 is a fleet assignment model created at the Flight Transportation Laboratory (ref. 17). This model assigns aircraft to
specific routes in such a way that the daily frequency for each market is built up to attract passengers. FA-4 will continue to schedule
flights as long as the income from the additional passengers attracted to the service covers the expense. The procedure in FA-4 is economically different from the processes used in the product possibilities and demand study above. In the product possibilities function the ticket price was built up from the costs incurred. During this process the capital (i.e. long
term) costs of the terminals was shared among the daily passengers. In FA-4 the ticket price (or price structure, for each market has a different ticket price) is fixed. The model attempts to schedule
service wherever the costs are below the revenues.
Since most of the costs used in FA-4 are the same as used in
the product possibilities function, the result should be nearly identical. The FA-4 solution will differ because:
53 -
1)
it will seek
to maximize profits --
i.e. operate below the maximum volume at a
point where the distance between demand and product possibilities surfaces is largel, and 2) it will not include the capital costs. This study of the individual markets can only confirm that at the given ticket price, capital costs can be recovered from excess operating profits. In practice the information available from an FA-4 case study is more than just a check of a possible operating point of the market model. aircraft. It is possible to consider a mixed fleet of
FA-4 can decide to use a small and expensive aircraft Alterna-
in order to get the frequency up in a particular market.
tively by proper route selection several services can be combined on a single flight and a larger aircraft employed. FA-4 can 1) what
answer two questions that the market model analyses cannot:
would happen if several different aircraft were simultaneously available to the system? and 2) what route patterns develop? 2 Thus the purposes of the case study are threefold: 1) to check predictions of the product possibilities function analysis by a study of individual markets, 2) to examine the attractiveness of a mixed fleet, 3) to observe developed route patterns
lStrictly speaking the FA-4 solution is interested in the cost distance multiplied by the volume. The distance is between the product possibilities surface without capital costs and the demand surface at the established ticket price.
2
The conclusion in favor of multistop routes in the market model hints at the answer to this already.
54
5.2
Performance as Defined in the Market Model In Chapter 4 the product possibilities function was studied in the
neighborhood of the maximum volume optimum.
This point defined the largest
volume of traffic that could be carried by any VTOL system without a loss. In 1985 this point was defined at 34,610 passengers per day carried by 60 seat helicopters. It is this point on the product possibilities function
that will be tested in the case study. A glance at figure 5.1 will reveal that most of the formulations used in this market model are also used in the FA-4 system analysis. IOC's that were used to build up the ticket cost are used as marginal operating costs in FA-4. The DOC's used to describe the aircraft operations Only the The
are also considered marginal expenses in the system analysis. capital costs do not enter into the FA-4.
If the optimum volume point in
the market model is valid, the case study will have a total excess of ticket income over operating costs that will cover the fixed costs. The work that went into evaluating the product possibilities function must be repeated for each city pair in the corridor for the case study. the case study the whole network of markets, small and large, long and short, is examined. This means a specific distance, access, competition, In
and demands are necessary. The Demand in each Market The demand for VTOL service in each market is qualitatively illustrated in Figure G.1 Appendix G. This figure suggests that each additional daily service attracts progressively fewer passengers than the service before. 1 The curve is developed by the same modal split demand
5.3
model used to generate the demand surface in chapter 4. The competitive
55
modes' costs are the specific access and ticket costs for that city pair. The time is also the specific trip and access time by city. costs and times used the distance formulae of figure H.l. for the competitive modes is fixed. to produce the demand curve. The total demand for travel between any two cities is established from historical data. pair in the corridor. Table 5.1 lists the demands in 1978 for each city The 1985 demands are 35% higher. Thus The line haul The frequency
For the VTOL mode, frequency is varied
This demand is splintered among the metroports in each city. the New York - Washington market is split into eight separate markets among the six ports.
Each port is treated as if it were a separate city.
For example consider the Manhattan west (JMW) and Washington Union Station (SUN) sites. JMW is closest to 25% of the New York trip origins. Thus the JMW-SUN demand is 19%
SUN is best for 75% of Washington traffic.
(25% of 75%) of the New York-Washington demand.
1 The point of inflexion must be eliminated for successful solution. It can be shown that the solution cannot be in the lower region for any single route.
-
56 -
UNINININNIOW
Figure 5.1:
Data Flow Between Market Model and FA-4
flight schedules passenger traffic aircraft usage route selection airport activities
57
Table
5.-1
Intercity Demands
City pairs NYC -BOST BALT-BOST -NYC PHIL-BOST -NYC -BALT WASH-BOST -NYC -BALT -PHIL PROV-BOST -NYC -BALT -PHIL -WASH TTN -BOST -NYC -BALT -PHIL -WASH -PROV HRFD-BOST -NYC -BALT -PHIL -WASH -PROV -TTN WILM-BOST -NYC -BALT -PHIL -WASH -PROV -TTN -HRFD NEWH-BOST -NYC -BALT -PHIL -WASH -PROV -TTN -HRFD -WILM
distance 1978 2 way (miles) demand (1000's)
187.1 359.4
172.3
12,60l 511
2,850
268.5 81.5
91.1
1,849 20,942
2,584
395.8
208.8 37.2 127.3 41.1 151.6 323.7 232.5
2,466
12,114 0 3,623 10,214 2,092 108 309
daily frequencies BUS CTOL RAIL 27 35 13 14 4 22.5 30.5 13 13 26 24 4 14 23 73 13.5 15 22.5 27 27 4
46 48
13.5 18 24
9
10.5 10.5 2
55 43 38 7 9 6
13 24 29 22.5 13 13
6
10 2
4
4 10
359.7
242.0
352
47
54.9
117.4 26.9 153.9 206.4
11,469
106 1,884 251 5
5 5
24 10 3 12 12
4 0 7
15 5 24
8
0
8
3
92.0 97.3
5,646 2,942
268.6
178.4 305.4
141
805 628
9 9
0 0
63.6
151.6 293.8 106.7
1,153
33 90 1,710
4 6 6 8
3
6 6
10 18 0 2
3 3
3 8 3 4
7.5 5
16.5 24 16 3 5 3 12.5 10.5 21. 5 23 21.5
1
0 3
5
13 24
66.3
25.3 102.1 257.6 52.2 203.8 124.5
1,331
6,278 661 28 171 45 850
4
0 2 0 0
13
3 5 3 13
66.7
238.2 149.7 271.4
5,080
525 411 130
7
1
13
5
2 4
0
87.1
5 13.5
13.5
358
0
3.5 5
35.4
2,980
0
58
mfifibit.
In the JMW-SUN market the competitive modes have the same frequency and speed as in all other New York - Washington markets.' However, the average access times to the competitive modes depends on which metroport's "subcity" is being considered. travelers to subcities is listed in Table 5.2 A ticket price structure of $10.24 per trip plus $0.0482 per mile was established in the market model. Inserting this and the The distribution of
vehicle's speed into the modal split model defined the following demands among the sixteen metroports: Intracity markets (zero demand) 2 Markets with less than five passengers/flight Markets with 5 to 10 passengers/flight Markets with 10 to 50 passengers/flight Markets with above 50 passengers/flight Total possible connections for 16 ports 9 31 11 54 15 120
Each metroport pair competes against the same bus, rail, auto, and airline services. The frequencies are included in Table 5.1. 2 Passengers are the maximum attracted to any additional daily service. This is the initial slope of the curve presented in Figure G.l.
59
Table
5.2
Division of City Demands Among the Metroports
Boston JNS J28 New York JMW JME LGA EWR Washington SUN WAS Philadelphia SPC PNW 30th Street Station 74% Suburban NW 26% Union Station National Airport 75% 25% Manhattan west Manhattan east La Guardia Newark 25% 30% 32% 16% North Station Route 128 74% 26%
Notes: 1. Demands from Wilmington, Trenton, New Haven, and Providence are concentrated from J28, EWR, PNW, and WAS to city center ports since the markets are too small to receive service alone. Any tendency of people to travel to a more distant metroport in order to take a more convenient flight will improve levels of service.
2.
60
-1 -
16I NNll MMINMMIb
5.4
The Importance of Routes Routes in short haul operations are not just flights from A to
B.
Multistop services are essential to efficient operation.
Nonstop In light
connections are mandatory only in heavily traveled markets.
markets it is better to add fifteen minutes to the flight time for an intermediate stop if the services can thereby be offered at a healthy daily frequency. The analysis of FA-4 chooses from a list of possible multistop routes those routes which best amalgamate demands. In this way the
maximum frequency can be maintained and the largest number of passengers satisfied. Unfortunately, there are quite a few
geometrically reasonable routes that can be created for the 80 markets considered. In some cases the markets are so large that For the other flights the
nonstop service is the only possibility.
possibility of having enough demand on each segment and of exchanging passengers at each stop must be considered. In the final of
analysis each market must be satisfied with a reasonable choice routes rather than all possible connections.
Using these considerations the case study was made with a total of 40 possible nonstop routes, 108 possible one stop flights, and 12 two stop services. From this set the final solution was chosen.
In the market model the product possibilities function includes the cost and time penalties associated with these intermediate stops. In the case study the operating cost is increased, but the ticket price remains the same. Still, the passenger is assumed to find the
multistop service less convenient; the time delay of a one-stop service causes only 90% of the nonstop demand to be attracted to a flight. For a two stop the figure is 80%.
61
5.5
Summary of Imputs to FA-4 Case Study Demand curves stating traffic generated as a function of
frequency were input for markets among all the metroports. Routes that were attractive were input with the aircraft DOC's and travel times' for each aircraft considered.
Indirect operating costs proportional to passenger boardings,
passenger miles, aircraft departures, and aircraft miles were included to allow calculation of costs. Using this information, (details in Appendix J), FA-4 put aircraft on specific routes in order to earn demands by frequency of service. The objective was to create the largest possible contribution
to the support of fixed (capital) costs.
The times were used to limit daily utilization.
62
olmlliililiw No111 A
Table 5.3
1985 QVTOL Helicopter System Models Compared
Total Daily Activities Revenue
Market Model
Network Model
$ 635,000
75%
12% 13%
$ 495,000
% DOC
63%
15%
22%
%IOC
% Capital Costs for terminals and excess profits Capital Costs Excess Profits Aircraft needed Passengers per day Average trip length Average stage length Average landings per terminal Number of markets served
83,000 0
83,000 28,000 107 27,200 197 170
165 34,600
200 100
120
81
55
82
"Market Model" is the optimum volume point for 1985 QVTOL system. "Network Model" is the FA-4 case study using identical ticket pricing and and aircraft as the optimum volume point, but seeking to maximize profits.
63
5.6 5.6.1
Results of Case Study of 1985 QVTOL Covering costs from Revenues The above sections have outlined the ground rules for converting the
analyses of the demand and product possibilities surfaces to the specific case study performed by FA-4 modeling. The optimum volume
point and the results of the FA-4 study are compared in Table 5.4 The case study revealed that a system operating at the ticket price suggested and using the aircraft suggested could cover all costs from revenues. The FA-4 solution resulted in a smaller number of
passengers because it was not constrained to remain on the minimum profit surface of the product possibilities function. the agreement is satisfactory. Nonetheless,
The excess profits would be consumed
in offering service up to the maximum volume level. Independent confirmation of the product possibilities! predictions reinforces the validity of the work presented in the first four chapters of this report. The simple market model analysis can
be trusted to predict the performance of more detailed studies.
5.6.2
The Value of a Fleet of Mixed Aircraft Sizes Case studies were run with a choice of vehicle seating
capacities. available. well.
A 120 seat vehicle was added to the 60-seat craft already A second run introduced the option of a 20-seat craft as
A glance at Table 5.4 reveals that nothing dramatic
occurred.
The addition of aircraft options allowed a more economic carriage of passengers, as expected. Excess profits increased slightly. At the
64
Table 5. 4
Daily Activities for Combinations of Aircraft Sizes
60 and
60 seat QVTOL Revenue Excess Profit Passengers Aircraft needed 20 seat 60 seat 120 seat Maximum Landings at any single airport Number of Markets served 1-3 times per day 3-7 times per day 7-15 times per day 15+ times per day 120 seat QVTOL
20, 60, and 120 seat QVTOL
$ 496,000 $ 28,000
27,200
$ 444,000 $ 32,500
24,500
453,000 47,500
25,100
107
130
Total
The cost of gate positions for 120 seat aircraft is greater than that for 60 seat aircraft
65
same time, the maximum profit point dropped to a lower volume level. conclusion must be that additional aircraft sizes are not extremely valuable contributions to system economics.
The
A deeper examination of Table 5.4 reveals a singular phenomenon. In the case study using 20, 60, and 120 seat vehicles, no 60-seat aircraft were employed at all. This suggests that a combination of two vehicle This
sizes approaches the performance of an infinite selection of sizes. is in part due to a weakness in the modeling; in real life there is
difficulty maintaining both utilization and load factor when are used on the same route. 5.1.3 Prediction of Average Stage Length
several aircraft
The product possibilities study suggested that most passengers would travel on one-stop flights. It was predicted that the average stage In the case study, this
length would be closer to 100 miles than 200 miles. prediction was overthrown.
The average stage length was 170 miles. The vast In this
Nonstop services were offered between most points.
majority of multistop services connected through New York City.
way, service to thin markets was established at healthy frequencies. This network pattern occurred because of the particular structure of the Northeast Corridor markets. The thin markets lie in between the
dominant Washington to New York and New York to Boston traffic flows. Travelers between these major cities support such high flight frequencies that nonstop service is mandatory. Such routings as Washington-Trenton-
New York are unacceptable because the Washington-New York traffic does not need the Trenton traffic to make the frequency of service high.
66
111611"
5.4
Development of a Minimum Daily Frequency Early studies of the intersection of demand and product
possibilities surfaces revealed that no service could be feasible from both profit and market considerations unless the frequency was above four flights a day. The case studies of multiple aircraft fleets If the frequency using a 60 seat
revealed the same phenomenon.
vehicle was above five flights a day, 120 seat vehicles were substituted to gain economic efficiency. a day. See Table 5.5. Figure 5.2 illustrates that near five flights per day, the time savings from adding further flights diminish. For short-haul markets, Few services were offered below three flights
the minimum viable number of flights per day is near four or five. Otherwise, the service is basically not convenient.
67
Table
5.5
Daily Frequency in 1985 Case Study
JNS JNS J28 JME JMW LGA EWR xx A 14 11 9 8
J28
JME
JM4W
LGA
EWR
SBL
SPC
PNW
SUN
WAS
SPV
TTN
HRD
SWL
NHV M
< m (DC+
19 9
A xx A
20 9
A A xx
9 3
A A A xx 0
7
2 7
3 3
11 12
14 12 12
7
2
4
20 5
30 26 23
5 9
9
4
3
SBL
SPC
7 6
T
8 2
A 4 12
A
3
2
xx
5
12 xx
3
3
9
11
10 6 4
2
GcJJ
(D d
C+
PNW
SUN WAS SPV TTN HRD SWL NHV
4
12
10
3
10
3
5
9
3
4
C 12 8 3
3
4
3
3
3
B
7 3 8 3 3
C
A
xx
10
A 9 9 2
C
4
6
C
9
xx
4
A 2
B
0-
3
3
xx A
p o
(D 0
G\
0
B
(D
4
3
5
0
B
B
3
0
3
C
3
B
7
0
2
B
Pi
Case study with 20, 60, and 120 seat vehicles available Codes: A B C D No services used intracity links Intracity route, no demand. Service prohibited between these points. The demand transfers to other city terminals No demand exists between these points. No services were offered Demand existed, but it was uneconomical to serve it
- _11fifilk hilil
Figure 5.2: 10
The Importance of 5 flights per day in service attractiveness
o4
-J
- -
CRITICAL REGION
-0 2
* VERA GE."-- - :-WA IT. TIM E- :
-..-.
.;- .:-.:...1
FLIGHT AND ACCESS 0 0 2 4 1 1 1 1 6 8 DAILY FREQUENCY 10 12 14
MARKET PENETRATION CURVE
CRITICAL REGION
6 8 DAILY FREQUENCY
10
12
14
69
6.0 6.1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary The preceding chapters have traced the following steps: 1) A mehodology for developing V/STOL system's performance in
total trip time and cost was presented. 2) The performance of various systems was graphed. Advanced A
helicopters were found to be more attractive than STOL aircraft. relatively small number of terminals (15) was found to be best.
3) The characteristics of the demand function were brought into the analysis. In 1978 as many as 23,500 passengers per day could be served
over the whole corridor. 4) The demand and performance in 1985 were examined. Although
the maximum volume that could be carried was quite sensitive to variations in performance and demand, a 60 seat helicopter was best over a wide range of operating conditions. be very important. 5) The performance of the 60 seat 1985 helicopter at the maximum volume level was translated into conditions for a complete case study of the Corridor's markets. 6) The case study confirmed the feasibility of a viable 1985 QVTOL service. At the beginning of this report the analysis was limited to considerations of technical performance. From this viewpoint a quiet Passenger processing costs were found to
60 seat helicopter serving 16 metroports in the Northeast Corridor is the best choice. The choice was made considering only the ability of
different designs to provide an attractive service to the passenger at cost. If non-technical considerations create any great objections to the chosen
70
system, it would be appropriate to evaluate the penalties for alternative choices. We now mention some of the other factors
which must be considered in selecting a new transportation system.
71
6.2
Community Acceptance Community acceptance of a transportation system is loosely
associated with the amount of noise impact, the perceived fear of crashes, and the perceived business impacts. The noise impact of helicopter operations is as small as any other form of operations. of absolute noise output. Since noise levels tend Helicopters can reach the lowest levels They also have small noise footprints. to rise with vehicle size, the choice of A complete study of the impact
a moderate size vehicle is fortunate.
of noise distributed in frequency and location is necessary to delineate the full implications of different systems, but the recommended system has'no critical drawbacks. The picture is not so clear with respect to safety. It is
true that helicopters tend to pass higher overhead than STOL vehicles, causing less fear. enviable. But the public safety record to date is not
Just the same, helicopters with engine-out hover capability There
may well be safer than STOL aircraft in city center operations.
will be a community acceptance problem in safety, and it may or may not reflect the actual safety performance. The businessmen in a given community probably prefer small airports. Business is easier if good transportation is at hand; yet More than
a large airport will cause undue local ground congestion.
sixteen metroports would be urged from a purely business oriented community acceptance viewpoint. In general, the chosen system comes out well in the most important consideration of community acceptance -noise impact.
72
"MMIM11011i'1116
6.3
Ease of Implementation The proposed short-haul air system is almost totally new. Very
little is shared with current air systems.
This allows for the system
to escape the institutional inefficiencies that make conventional shorthaul air uneconomic. implementation. travel. On the other hand, a VTOL system can start with limited facilities and very small ground investments. It is relatively easy However, this "newness" causes a problem in
The system is not a gradual adaptation of current air
to inititate service from non-airport sites using VTOL. The problem of inherent separateness of VTOL operation is compensated for by its basic flexibility.
6.4
Flexibility of Operation All air services are intrinsically flexible because they need
no right-of-way on the ground.
VTOL is the most flexible because it The small VTOL ports can be most The technologically
has the smallest ground commitments.
easily located within existing activity patterns.
optimal system can not be faulted in this respect. 1
lWhen designing in the face of uncertainty, adaptibility may be more important than design performance.
73 -
However, the concept ot tiexibility has other dimensions. VTOL system is economic only where land costs are high.
A STOL system
would have wider applicability to travel markets that exist outside of the crowded corridors. center operations. Thus, the proposed system is flexible in its ability to serve metropolitan environments, but not so widely suited as STOL operations to a spread of population densities. 6.5 Over-all Capital Investment The time staging of capital investment is a consideration in choosing a new transportation system. A VTOL system would involve VTOL vehicles are essentiall dedicated to city-
investment in vehicle technology before it could become economic. This investment falls heavily on the manufacturers, who are little able to absorb it. This hurts a VTOL system more than a STOL system, because This fact, coupled with the limited
VTOL vehicle costs are higher.
market types 1, may prevent the development of the system. The investment in terminals can be slow and is by nature small for a VTOL system. It is less likely that the chosen system would be
infeasible for a lack of metroport construction money.
Fortunately, one size vehicle is suited to quite a range of market sizes.
74
inMwiw
6.6
Connections to Existing Transportation Systems The proposed VTOL system does not rely heavily on existing
airport sites.
Because of this, the short-haul system does not serve
to connect long-haul passengers with their flights as well as it might. If the demand for this connecting service- were significant Without these additional
services could be initiated at airports.
flights, the proposed VTOL system lacks connectivity with long-haul air service. On the other hand, the metroports are quite accessible from rail, transit and superhighway transportation links.
6.7
City Center Congestion, Changes in
Importance of Access
Performance and cost considerations urged a small number of metroports. negligible. The cost of adding more metroports to the system is not Still,if city center congestion places an increasingly
high value on ease of access, a VTOL system based on a small vehicle should be able to respond more easily than any other system. the present design, the major contribution in reducing access inconvenience is the use of well located metroport sites rather than in the number of sites served. In
Connecting traffic was not included in demand predictions for the Northeast Corridor.
75
6.8
Summary of Results A study of the V/STOL systems performance over a wide range of
operating volumes and cost and time performance showed that a helicopter based system was superior to a STOL based system. This is true because
of the increased terminal investment costs for STOL, because of STOL's greater maneuver times, and because of the reduced convenience of STOL metroport sites. Table 6.1 compares the operations of two canmeasurable
systems, STOL and VTOL, at the greatest level of traffic the systems can attract. A typical cost breakdown is illustrated in figure 6.1. VTOL
provides better service to more people at this maximum equilibrium volume. A study of a quiet helicopter system revealed that in 1985 36,000 people a day can be served by a sixteen terminal system. developed from a case study is presented in figure 6.2. 6.9 Conclusions 1) Future air transport systems can serve short-haul transportation needs. 2) A system based on a 60 seat helicopter can produce the best service at the least total cost. 3) Such a system has no unusual problems adopting to non-technical considerations. A route map
76
IIIII, IliAl j
Table 6. 1
Comparison of VTOL and STOL
1978 Demands
VTOL Helicopters
2000' STOL
Maximum Passengers Attracted per day 23,486
12,494
Representative Trip Cost $24.02
$34.66
Representative Trip Time 3.41 hrs 4.10 hrs
Total Land Based Investment (million)
$268
$406
Aircraft DOC ($ per Passenger Trip) $10.59 $13.59
Average Access Distance
8.2 miles
9.31 miles
77 -
Figure 6.1-.
Relative Costs for STOL and VTOL over the same 200 mile Market (typical)
TICKET PRICE
TRAVEL TIME
5 OVERHEAD AND TAXES

..........% .......... . ......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... .... .......... .......... .......... .......... . ......... ..........
FLIGHT TIME AIRCRAFT COSTS
.......... .......... .......... .... ......
.......... .......... ..........
.......... ......... ..........

...........
AVERAGE WAIT TIME
TERMINAL COSTS
ACCESS, EGRESS, AND PROCESSING
ACCESS AND EGRESS
STO L
VTO L
STO L
VTO L
COSTS FOR 60 PASSENGER AIRCRAFT (THE OPTIMUM SIZE IN EACH CASE)
78
Figure 6.2: Route Segments Flown in 1985 case study with 60 seat helicopter
79
REFERENCES
1.
Ground Facilities for a VTOL Intercity Transportation System, Allen, E., and Simpson, R.W., MIT FTL report R69-2 (1970) San
2.
Study of Aircraft in Intraurban Transportation Systems: Francisco Bay Area,, Boeing Co., NASA CR-2006 (1972)
3.
Comparative Cost and Capacity Estimates of Vertiports and Airports 1975-1985, Eastman, Sam E., AIAA paper 69-208 (1969)
4. Access and Demand Data Used in the Development and Calibration of

the Northeast Corridor Transportation Models, DOT, NECTP-230 5. 6, Passenger Demand and Modal Split Models, DOT, NECTP-217 (1969)
(1969)
Analysis of V/STOL Aircraft Configurations for Short Haul Air Transportation Systems, Gallant, Scully, and Lange, MIT FTL report FT66-1 (1966)
7.
Optimal Location of Transportation Terminals, Genest, Bernard-Andre, MIT Civil Engineering Report R70-54 (1970)
8.
IOC Calculation Procedure Designed for Short Haul Airline Operations, Houlihan, R.E., (1967)
9.
Ground Access to Major Airports in the United States, Munds, A.J., MIT FTL Report R68-7 (1968)
10.
A Location Study for a System of V/STOL Airports in the Boston Metropolitan Area, O'Doherty, J.D., i.IT Civil Engineering thesis (1968) Stoessel,
12
A Standard Method for Estimating VTOL Operating Expense, R.F. and Gallagher,
J.E., Lockheed Report CA/TSA 013 (1967)
13.
A Systems Analysis of Short Haul Air Transportation, Part III, MIT FTL report 65-1, Clearinghouse PB 169 521
(1965)
80
-IlilollilkNIIIIIi IiW 14
14.
Direct Exhibits, Civil Aeronautics Board, Northeast Corridor Investigation, DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., (1969)
15.
A Method for Determining Optimum Vehicle Size and Frequency of Service for a Short Haul V/STOL Air Transporation System, Simpson, R.W. and NeuveEglise, M.J., MIT FTL report R68-1 (1968)
16.
Hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee Administration's Proposal on Aviation User Charges, October 1969 Scheduling and Routing Models for Airline Systems, Simpson, R.W., MIT FTL report R68-3 (1969) and FTL Memo 71-9
17.
18.
The Cost of Noise Reduction in Helicopters, Faulkner, H., MIT FTL Report RTl-5 (1971)
19.
Choice of a V/STOL Transportation System for the Northeast Corridor, MIT Engineer's Thesis, June 1971. William M. Swan
81
APPENDIX A
Air Traffic Control for Short Haul Systems
82
OMMIMIMININNIMM,
Appendix A:
Air Traffic Control for Short-Haul Systems
Short-haul air systems will be different from current long-haul operations in three basic ways: cruise will be at lower altitudes, cruise
will be in straight lines, and landings will involve curvilinear high angle approach paths. Cruise Flight V/STOL operations will probably occur at low altitudes (10,000 feet for STOL; 5,000 feet for VTOL) in order to avoid existing traffic and to achieve economic flight profiles. Current STOL aircraft need an automatic
gust alleviation system to improve ride quality, since low wing loadings aggrevate the normal problems of turbulence at these altitudes. VTOL
vehicles are less sensitive to gusts, but have some vibration problems. These vibrations can be reduced by design of rotor and fuselage and by bifilar energy absorbers. Flight paths will probably be direct, or in any case will not follow the high altitude airways. navigation abilities. Terminal Areas Both STOL and VTOL landing patterns can fit within the structure of current terminal area traffic patterns. will be followed. Curved high angle approach paths This means that the aircraft must have area
Although there will be less congestion on current
approaches if short-haul traffic has its own system, the metropolitan area traffic monitoring load will not decrease. The curved approach paths will be used in city center operations to reduce noise impact. STOL aircraft must be able to make cross-wind This requires
landings on elevated runways in all weather conditions.
considerable performance from both the aircraft and the landing system.
83
For VTOL, the landing system requirements are much less demanding. The aircraft is flown using a "velocity control system" -- a black box which automatically corrects for acceleration due to gusts while allowing the pilot to control velocity. In poor weather the aircraft will be The final touchdown
guided to a hover at a point above the landing pad. will be made relying on ground lights.
Cost The cost of the ground based part of both enroute and terminal area air traffic control is borne by the FAA. tax supports these operations. Currently a 4.8% ticket
The average cost is very roughly $33 per
flight hour plus $21 per departure for current commercial operations. A 60-passenger V/STOL would contribute some 80% of these costs from ticket taxes. There are arguments for these costs going either up or down. In
either case the relief of CTOL congestion probably makes any small cross subsidy of V/STOL worthwhile. FTL aircraft design studies made in reference 6 revealed that the cost of electronic gear in the aircraft was not an unusually expensive part of DOC. As a consequence, no special treatment of the electronics
costs was made in this study.
1 The other 3.2% of the ticket tax supports the airport development trust fund services. The split is for 1970 operations as presented in Reference 18.
84
010I11MuMI iNHNa
APPENDIX B
Aircraft Performance
85
Appendix B:
Aircraft Performance
Theoretical aircraft were used to represent vehicle performance in this study. process. Minimum cost for a 100 mile trip was sought in the design
The use of "paper" aircraft designs allowed for consistent Because
evaluations to be made across the full range of aircraft sizes.
of variations in design mission and costing, industry data showed no clear patterns. Three distinct aircraft were examined. to those of reference Unpublished designs similar These designs
6 were used for STOL aircraft.
represented 10 year advances over 1965 abilities. were designed using identical assumptions.
A set of helicopters
In chapter
5, an advanced
The
(prototype in 1975) quiet helicopter was used for parametric studies. Lockheed-New York Airways formula (reference 12) employing 12 year depreciation, 2300 hours annual utilization, and labor rates 25% above the 1967 figures was used for DOC's.
The traditional DOC curve could be converted to linear form employing a cost per seat take off-and a cost per seat mile (figure B.l). true for all the aircraft that were examined. Within the accuracy of the designs, the cost per aircraft take off and the cost per aircraft mile could be represented as linearly dependent on aircraft size (figure B.2). This is the case for three reasons: Second, This was
First, certain vehicle parts and weights have minimum sizes.
crew costs are expressed as a fixed salary plus an increase proportional to vehicle gross weight. And third, maintenance costs are expressed in
terms of dollars per operation plus dollars per aircraft pound.
86
owl
Block times were calculated from vehicle design performance. maneuver time was derived from the zero distance intercept of block time vs. distance plots.
The
Take off and landing for all helicopter designs This reduces the noise footprint. Some variation Both
included 500' of vertical path.
STOL and VTOL vehicles had very low maneuver times. with size was found, see Figure B.3.
Minimum turnaround times were assumed as in Figure B.3 also. STOL vehicles were designed for 200 mile range. ations were taken into account. Competitive VTOL vehicles were designed for the same range. again noise was not a factor. Additional characteristics of the designs included low weight furnishings suitable for short trips, wide aisles, and at least two boarding doors for each forty seats in order to speed passenger movements. icopters could hover with one engine out. reference 6. Details of an 80 seat STOL design Configuration: 4 engine straight wing turboprop STOL Cruise Speed: 350 mph at 20,000 feet Field Length: 1800 feet Range: 200 miles Capacity: 80 passengers Crew: 2 pilots, 2 stewardesses Cost: $2,400,000 Weights: gross weight 51,000 lbs., weight empty 30,000 lbs. Wing loading: 50 lbs/sq ft Engine specifications: 2,233 shp; SFC: .55 lbs/shp-hr; horsepower weight: 5.31 hp/ Fuel burned in 100 mile trip: 1475 lbs.; block speed: 196 mph The helOnce No noise consider-
The basic design is that of
87
Configuration: tandem rotor helicopter, four truboshafts cross coupled Cruise speed: 237 mph at 5,000 ft. Field length: 0 Range: 200 miles Capacity: 80 passengers Crew: 2 pilots, 2 stewardesses Cost: $2,900,000 Weights: gross weight 50,000 lbs. Empty weight: 30,000 lbs. .058; disc loading: 4 lbs/sq ft
Rotor: 6 blades; 90 ft diameter; solidity:
Engine specifications: 5,438 shp; SFC: .55 lbs/shp-hr; horsepower weight: 6.0 hp/lb Fuel burned in 100 mile trip: 1140 lbs; block speed: 211 mph Details of Advanced 80 seat QVTOL design Configuration: 4 engine tandom rotor helicopter Cruise speed: 223 mph Field length: 0 Range: 300 miles Capacity: 80 passengers Crew: 2 pilots, 2 stewardesses Cost: $5,600,000 Weights: gross weight 74,000 lbs, Weight Empty 51,500 lbs Rotor: 6 blades; 90 ft diameter; solidity: .208; disc loading: 6 lbs/sq ft
Engine specifications: 10,289 shp; SFC: .40 lbs/shp-hr; horsepower weight: 9 hp/lb Fuel burned in 100 mile trip: 1650 lbs; block speed: 183 mph Costs are
The quiet helicopter was designed for a 300-mile range.1 presented in Figure B.4.
Noise on the ground during cruise was 70 pndb. The noise source consi-
Take-off noise at 500 feet is roughly 82.5 pndb. dered was the vortex noise.
While vortex noise is the dominant noise in
present helicopters, quiet operations may well make other noises critical.
1 A 2% increase in DOC would be expected for 400 mile range capability. 400 mile range was allowed in the FA-4 case study.
88
An aircraft making 95 pndb of noise at 500' is audible over a vast land area. A vehicle making 82.5 pndb at 500', which sounds about half as loud, Figure B.6 compares the land areas A contour for a
is heard over a much smaller area.
where operations could be heard at each of these levels. quiet STOL vehicle has been included for comparison.
Figure B.6 shows how important it is to reach low noise levels. quietest helicopter could be as low as 75 pndb at 500'.
The
A complete later
study of helicopter design for minimum noise is presented in reference 18.
-89-
Figure B.1;
Conversion of DOC to Linear Format
DOC FOR FORTY PASSENGER VTOL, TYPICAL
CONVENTIONAL DOC FORMA T 0.05
0.01 100 150 DISTANCE (MILES)
200
250
D0C CONVERTED TO LINEAR FORM, SAME DA TA
50
100
150 DISTANCE (MILES)
200
250
90
Figure B.2:
DOC Comparison for Similarly Designed 1978 STOL and VTOL Aircraft
150
STOL 100
.10
0000*0
VTO L
50
STOL: VTOL:
$64. +$.5T/seat
$21.60 + $.375/seat
~I
I NUMBER OF SEATS
I 100
I 120
I 140
1.50 VTOL
STOL 1.00
or-
00
STOL:
VTOL:
$.6o + $.0066/seat
$.72 + $.00925/seat
.0
.50
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
NUMBER OF SEATS
91
Figure B.3: Takeoff, Maneuver, and Turnaround Times
0.2 STOL 0.179 HOURS
ALL VTOL
0.03 HOURS + 0.000 167 HOURS/SEAT
100 AIRCRAFT SIZE
120
0.1
20
40
60 80 AIRCRAFT SIZE
100
120
92
Figure B.4:
DOC Comparison for Quiet Helicopter and Tilt Rotor for Similar 1985 Designs
150
100
TILT ROTOR
50
QVTOL: $22.00 + $.49/seat TILTR: $39.50 + $.521/seat
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
NUMBER OF SEATS
1.50
HELICOPTER
1.00
TILT ROTOR
.50
QVTOL: $.63
+ $.0108/seat
TILTR: $.585 + $.00498/seat
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
NUMBER OF SEATS
93
100 95 PNOB
90
82.5 PNDB
oft-ftum "--ftft
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE (FEET)
WIN0111411111j"i
Figure B.6
Noise Footprints for two Noise Limits
MAP OF BOSTON BEDROOM COMMUNITIES WITH NOISE CONTOURS FOR. VTOL TAKEOFF FROM ROUTE 128 AND MASS TURNPIKE INTERSECTION
%LEXINGTON
AUDIBILITY IS 60 PNDB (BACKGROUND NOISE LEVEL)
CONTOUR OF AUDIBILITY FOR 95 PM0B AT 500 FEET
95
APPENDIX C City Access Costs & Times for all Modes
96
illil l1l1W II ,Ilh il~llllil iilli|ll~ii IN NO o
ab
,il
Appendix C:
City Access Costs & Times for all Modes
The cost in time and money to access line haul transportation is a major part of trips within the Northeast Corridor. This section
details the methodology followed in assessing access costs for V/STOL as well as train, busand air modes. The proper inputs for the modal split model employed in this study are the average trip time and cost for all the passengers who might use a particular V/STOL terminal.1 a fixed catchment area to each terminal. Thus it is necessary to allot This is not practically correct;
a person might go to either of two nearby V/STOL terminals depending on which has the most convenient flight or whether he is headed north or south. Nevertheless the use of a fixed catchment area is a great simpliThe task is to calculate averaged
fication and is acceptable in an average sense. the access costs to each of the modes: rail,
air, bus, and V/STOL,
over all the travelers in a V/STOL terminal catchment area. In order to do this the access distance to the closest terminals is calculated for roughly a score of geographic divisions within a city. A
15% penalty is charged to non-suburban travel. The demand from each 2 division is then assigned to the catchment area of the closest V/STOL terminal. At the end the access distance to each mode is averaged over all
1 Appendix D outlines the methodology of terminalsite
choice.
2 As provided in the DeHavilland report (reference 14) or estimated from map information where data is unavailable.
97
the divisions in a catchment area.
Per mile times and costs are applied
to this distance to determine access costs. Per mile costs are difficult to estimate. Travelers use varying
mixtures of access means (i.e., car, taxi, transit, limousine) at varying access distances. It would seem from both actual data and professional
estimation that travel costs can be approximated by a linear formula (cost = a + badistance). While this is not very accurate for specific
trips in known conditions, it is not inappropriate for average trips in a future city transportation environment. By combining linear costs for
each access means with estimates of which means are used at varying distances, a generalized access cost and time can be plotted. below: The procedure is outlined
Automotive Costs: drive.
In the city a car can be presumed to cost $.06/mi. to
To this must be added a parking charge that varies with the length Furthermore only a fraction of the
of the trip as well as the location. people park.
For a two day trip with parking at $3.00 a day and only a parking charges are
quarter of the people parking 1, other
$.75 per access.
The
75% of the people must be "dropped off" at the terminal, doubling the
FTL data suggests that cars are shared in such Com-
mileage of the access trip.
a way that only 71% of the costs should be born by a single traveler.
bining these characteristics car access costs are $.53 + $.0745/mi.
The standard percentage from reference 4.
98
Taxi Costs:
Taxi fares are around $.55 + $.60/mi.
To this must be added
a tip (15%/passenger).
Then the tab must be shared among the passengers Following these
according to the likelihood of occupancy for taxicabs. rules,
which result in an individual paying 89% of the fare, cab costs
are $.4o + $.55/mi.
Transit:
Transit costs (except for express transit, which is similar A fare of $.20 +
to limousines) are subsidized by individual cities. $.04/mi was considered representative.
Needless to say, taxis are favored only for mobiles and limousines are used for longer trips. deals with this access mode split for airports. 9 we get the following table:
short distances and autoFTL report R68-7 (ref. 9)
From figure
4 of reference
% Passengers by Mode vs. Distance of Airport from CBD
Access Mode 5
Distance in miles 10 15 20 28
Car
Taxi Limousine
44
44 12
47.5
35 17.5
51
26 23
59.5
17 28.5
58
8 34 % of pax
Data corrected to 100%
Using this information and the characteristics of travel by car, taxi, and Limousine above, trip cost vs. distance was plotted in figure C.l The
value for CTOL is $1.50 + $.105/mi.
- 99 -
Figure C. 1:
Access Costs to CTOL Airports
CTOL $1.50 + $0.105/MIL E
-j -j
0
0 0
C/,
CLOSE IN $1.00 + $0.16/MIL E
10
15
20
ACCESS DISTANCE (MILES)
100
Mill
For access to bus and rail, public transit plays a major role. comparable data on modal split versus distance is available. meager facts do exist.
No
However some
Reference 4 provides the access to selected bus
terminals and to Union train station in Washington:
Access Mode Access to: Washington (train) Selected (bus) TAXI 45 25 CAR TRANSIT 22 59 WALKING 11 4 Scorrected to 100%
)
22 12
Access characteristics for taxi and car travelers were assumed to be represented by the access for CTOL and a weighted average with transit costs is made. The results are:
Bus = $.67 + $.062 x Distance

Rail = $1.05 + $.079 x Distance
These were considered acceptable. In the case of V/STOL access no data exists. between rail and near distance CTOL was taken. A reasonable average
This produced costs of $1.00
+ $.12 -Distance. Travel time is a simpler matter. roughly the same (25 mph). Car, cab, and limousine speeds are
Transit is usually about half:
101
Boarding Delay (Minutes) Car Cab Limousine Transit
Driving Delay (Minutes)
Speed
Approximate % use by: Air V/STOL Bus Rail
25 mph 25 mph 25 mph 12.5 mph
44
22 22
20
10 10
26
13 13
12
60
24
To the driving delay must be added the terminal impedance:
Terminal impedance (average of access + egress) CTOL V/STOL Bus Rail 25 (min.) (reference 4) 5 (Estimated from the FTL design work in reference 1) 12 (reference 4) (reference 4) 12
Taking a weighted average of driving pedances, the access or egress times are:
times and adding terminal im-
access to
CTOL V/STOL Bus Rail
40 min. + 17.2 min. 33 min. + 29.5 min.
25 mph 1 + 23.5 mph 17.5 mph + 21.8 mph
1 The
terminal impedance is included in the trip time calculations for V/STOL, so it has been subtracted out here. See section 2.3. - 1 0 2 -
APPENDIX D
Discussion of Metroport Location Methodology
103 -
Appendix D:
Discussion of Metroport Location Methodology
The problem of V/STOL access time is both intriguing and disappointing. On the one hand, fixed costs of additional terminals and increased aircraft operating costs can be balanced against savings in access cost. On the
other hand, time savings from increased numbers of metroports are not dramatic. Several sets of metroports were considered for Washington, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. In addition, a choice of locations in the smaller
cities of Wilmington, Trenton, Baltimore, New Haven, Hartford, and Providence were investigated. From these studies the variation of access time in the
corridor with number of metroports presented in figure 2.3 was developed. Variations of access time with metroport cost were not represented in the final performance function, since cost considerations forced STOL terminals to airport sites, and VTOL costs were not heavily dependent on land prices. The study that led to the final selection of terminals can best be illustrated by discussion of the case history of the typical city pictured in figure D.l. We shall call the city Oz. Oz has a train and a bus station
in the CBD (central business district) and Oz International Airport to the south. Potential V/STOL travelers include all the trips originating within the dotted boundary to the greater Oz metropolitan area. This excludes
fringe area travelers and those using V/STOL as the tail end of a long-haul trip at Oz International Airport.
104 -
Figure D.1: Typical City in the Corridor: Oz
LIMIT -
FLUMEN
PONS OCEANUS
BOUNDARY OF METROPOLITAN AREA
...
......... -
--
'
Oz INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
105
The location of the first metroport anywhere within the metropolitan area produces very much the same average access time (reference at a node
7).
The choice of VTOL south would be good, since its location
in the highway system is advantageous. This advantage, however, would not appear in our access methodology. If the River Flumen presents a real impediment to travel, the addition of VTOL north will knock the equivalent of two miles off the average access distance for the area. In New York, for instance, the Huds.on River costs For most cases, the additional
as much to cross as five miles of open road.
site will only reduce the average access distance by a mile or so. For a smaller city only a single site can be justified. Although
STOL might be able to operate out of the CBD VTOL site, costs drive it to the nearby airport. VTOL could either use the city center location
if there is a good site, or move out to VTOL south. For a large city, a terminal would be located at the VTOL CBD site to provide the large city center market very small access costs. Reduction
to small inconveniences may have a disproportionately high influence on perceived ease of travel. methodology. Unfortunately this factor did not enter the costing
One or two secondary metroports would be located outside of The cost of land for STOL drives these locations to existing
the city center. airports. time.
VTOL tends to be closer in, providing some small savings in access
Using these methods, feasible locations were chosen in each city on the basis of city by city information some of which did not influence the mathematical performance. 1.1 and 1.2. A list of possible locations is presented in Tables
106 -
APPENDIX E
The Market for Transportation Services
107 -
Appendix E:
The Market for Transportation Services
The product possibilities function is a surface of constant profit for the operator of a V/STOL system. have already been made 1, All the cost minimization tradeoffs
and the operator is willing to function at any
point on the surface using one or another of the combination of aircraft,
terminals ,and routings available to him.

The surface used in this study is an approximation of the level of profit a government regulation agency would approve. surface represent higher profits. Points above this
Since the market for transportation is
multidimensional, and since dollar cost is only part of one of these dimensions, it is possible to enjoy excess profits even in a seemingly "competitive" situation.
It takes all three dimensions -volume, time, and costs -to
characterize the output of transportation activities. enumeration of the number of seats is not sufficient.
A simple dhat is demanded
by the market is a level of service, which is characterized by seats, time, and cost. (Other dimensions such as reliability, availability, Thus
comfort, etc., have been ignored in this simple formulation. 2)
the output of the system is characterized by a three-dimensional surface. There are two reasons why the dimension of time had to be added to the study. First of all, the conversion of time to cost in the traveler's
evaluation of a service was variable depending on the existing levels of both. And, secondly, the conversion has a different position dependence
By varying the combinations of aircraft type, number of terminals, routings, etc. This is a study of production possibilities.
2
The effects are lumped into the mode specific appeal factors of the modal split model.
108 -
for the system operator.
Since time could not be "costed", consistantly
over different times and since the value of time conversion was not the same for aircraft and passenger, a new dimension had to be added to the problem. The adding of this time dimension drastically alters the nature of the intersection of profit and market forces. The condition that the
volume of production at least equal the volume of sales is no longer sufficient to determine the operating point. As was seen in section 4.2,
the intersection of demand forces and product possibilities is a set of points. profits. Operation above the product possibilities surface means excess Operation below the demand surface means that there are people
who would benefit from the system who have not been served. Any point in this intersection set is a possible operating condition. Profit motives urge serving lower volumes with smaller This is where the income most exceeds
aircraft and higher frequencies. the cost.
Social benefit motives suggest serving the maximum possible The final resting place for the solution process
volume of travelers.
depends on the relative strength of corporate and governmental influences.
109
APPENDIX F
The Choice of a Representative Route
110 -
Appendix F:
The Choice of a Representative Route
The studies comparing STOL and VTOL performance in 1978 and examining the performance of quiet helicopters in 1985 were made using the concept of a representative route. The demand volume and the length for this
route were carefully chosen so that performance on this route reflected ability to perform in all the markets in the corridor. describes the choice of size for the route. Initially, a route length of 125 miles was chosen. This was the This section
distance that resulted from dividing the total intercity miles traveled between the ten cities involved by the number of trips on all modes. The market size (demand) was then determined from Figure F.1. This is a
plot of the number of significant markets developed among a varying number of terminals. This number of markets was divided into the total demand for travel to predict the representative demand. For the original 15 terminal cases,
321,000 people were shared among 73 markets to produce 2,200 one-way travelers per day. The addition of a 16th terminal creates 8 new markets
(by splitting up the old ones) and reduces the representative market size to 1,980 people. Using the original combination, 321,000 people and 125 miles, studies were made for the maximim equilibrium volume for quieted helicopter operations in 1978. Then the performance at these volumes was used in an This analysis followed the
analysis by FA-4 of the complete system.
lines of the later one described in Chapter 5. The result in terms total system performance was compared to the prediction of the market model using the representative route:
111
Market Model Revenues (without tax or access costs) Revenue Passenger Miles Passengers Average Trip Length $ 360,000/day
FA-4 Test Case $ 336,000/day
3,390,000 28,069 125 mi.
4,100,000 20,700 197 mi.
The degree of agreement, particularly in revenues, was better than expected. However, it was clear that the average route length should be
increased to 200 miles and the market correspondingly reduced to 200,000 people. It was quickly found that so many smaller markets had been
eliminated from service that a further 20% reduction in total trip demand was appropriate. After this first iteration, the representative market
was 200 miles with a total of 160,000 people to be shared among 73 markets. This was the basic representative route used in the discussion presented throughout the study of 1978 systems. By the same analysis, in 1985, 216,000 people are shared among 81 routes.
at this rate, 274 people on the representative route would represent a total volume of 20,000 passengers per day on V/STOL. The competitive modes could carry the rest of the 1,100 daily trips each way in each market.
112 -
Figure F.1
200
NUMBER OF VALID MARKETS vs NUMBER OF V/STOL PORTS IN THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR
175 -
MAR KETS = (PORTS - 6) x 8.17
150
I-
125 1-
100 1-
50=4-
25 tRANGE OF INTEREST
NUMBER OF PORTS IN THE CORRIDOR
113 -
APPENDIX G
The Modal Split Demand Model
114
Appendix G. The Modal Split Demand Model
A modified version of the model developed by NeuveEglise (ref. 11) was used to predict V/STOL market share. It is essentially the same
as the DOT models for the Northeast Corridor of reference 5. The problem of measuring service to a whole market is a difficult one. Each traveler has a different local origin and destination, a
different accessability to each mode, a different value for his time and money, and a different opinion of the amenities of each mode. Furthermore there is significant amount of correlation between the several factors. reconstruction. The best compromise so far has been to employ a relatively simple trip impedance model using average values for trip cost, time, and appeal. The volumes of travelers are viewed as responding to the relative merits of the several modes. All variations such as proximity to access arteries, In short, the market does not lend itself to statistical
individual convenience of departure times, personal preferences for types of travel, and specific nearness to terminals are smoothed into an averaged curve. To predict the V/STOL share of the travel between two cities, the V/STOL convenience (I) for all travelers in the cities is compared to the mean convenience of all the available travel modes:
115
V/STOL Market Share
= VSTOL CTOL
VSTOL +IBUS +ICAR +ITRAIN
I = K = T = C =
KTa(CP = convenience mode specific appeal factor total trip time by mode total trip cost by mode
This formula predicts the market share of a aew transportation service between two cities given the performance of the existing modes. of alpha, beta and the "appeal" factors K are constant. The values
They were
obtained from a regression analysis of 24 markets in the Northeast Corridor The data from reference 4 for 1965 was used to obtain the following values:
= =
-1-354
-1.298 3.91
KCar K Bus
= = =
.5355 1.589
1.
KCTOL KTrain
The appeal factor for V/STOL was estimated to be KV/STOL = 1.3, reflecting a level of service below that of the airlines but above that of the trains. This appeal could easily be as high as current aircraft certainly will be even higher during the years when
service, and most
V/STOL is a novelty.
Time is the sum of line haul, access, and a "waiting" time associated with daily frequency.
116 -
=moil
IM
The effect of sharing travel costs for automotive travel was arbitrarily lumped into the automotive appeal factor. However, the
large appeal of automotive transportation is chiefly derived from such conveniences as having a personal car at the destination. It is distressing to note that with this and all similar market share models, market penetration is handled poorly. V/STOL service
does not cut deeply into the regular air service, as one would expect, but steals an equal percentage of each mode's passengers. quite as upsetting as it seems at first. This is not
What the model really does is
predict penetration of alternative modes into a basically automotive travel market. The process is essentially a curve fit. For
This model will not be accurate over a specific route.
instance, a business-oriented city pair will have a market which values time above cost; while a pleasare market works the other way. calibrated on corridor-wide data share this weakness. All models
However, the
weakness becomes a strength in our use of the model to predict the generalized level of V/STOL activity over the whole corridor. The final reservation about the market share model involves the use of "wait" time. The only way frequency is reflected in the system perforStudies
mance is in terms of the average waiting time for a flight. show (reference 15) that if
the passengers arrive when they desire to
depart, without concern for schedules, and if the aircraft are scheduled to respond to demand peaks, the average waiting time is half the average headway. same. With frequent departures, waiting time and wasted time are the
But at frequencies near four or five flights a day, travelers can
117
plan to make constructive use of the time between desired departure and the next scheduled flight. Thus, at low frequencies, the methodology
may underestimate the market share.
The Underlying Demand Only a limited number of cities were considered in this study. Most
of the traffic in the corridor is between the four major cities: New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Boston. Traffic from people outside of the In addition, traffic
metropolitan area was considered negligible.
from towns in the corridor down to the size of New Haven was included. V/STOL traffic to smaller markets was not investigated. This does
not imply that such travel should not be offered in the final system, but only that it is economically justifiable only on the basis of shortrun marginal costs. a V/STOL system. The total trip demand between the ten major cities was used in Small markets do not contribute to the overhead of
the DOT studies of the Northeast Corridor, and was obtained from reference 5. The numbers used are listed in Table 5.1. For any individual market
the demand for V/STOL travel was developed by applying the modal split model to these total demand figures. For the FA-4 case study the frequency
of V/STOL service was allowed to vary, so that the demand was dependent on the frequency of service. curve. Figure G.1 illustrates the resulting demand
The performance of the competitive modes is given in appendix H.
Access times are explained in appendix C. The demand surface used in chapter 4 was developed using the same modal split model. To generate the surface the performance stated by the
118 -
TYPICAL MARKET SHARE vs FREQUENCY FOR V/STOL

(D
15
D3 Cl)
C_,4
CDD
5 o
I I l
(D
H-
16 DAILY FREQUENCY OF SERVICE
24
32
time and cost coordinates was compared to the performance of the competitive modes over the same representative route. The market penetration that
could be expected by a V/STOL mode having the stated performance is applied to the total trip demand in the corridor to establish the number of passengers for the volume axis.
120 -
APPENDIX H
The Performance of Existing Competitive Modes
121 -
Appendix H:
The Performance of Existing Competitive Modes
The performance of bus, rail, CTOL and automotive transportation was calculated for the modal split model. Trip time, trip cost,
frequency of service, and access time and cost were needed. Bus, car and rail travel times and costs were plotted against CBD (central business district) to CBD distances for the cities in the Northeast Corridor. The data used came from reference 4. In addition,
aircraft travel times were similarly plotted from data in the 1970 OAG for noon flights. The resulting curves are presented in figures H.l.
Costs for 1965 travel were inflated by 21% to create 1970 costs. For CTOL, the fare structure used was $6.40/take off and $.057/mile plus an 8% ticket tax. Costs for auto include gas, oil, and tolls and
are not shared by riders. Average frequency1 for bus was determindd by assuming a 3.3% market share and a 60-passenger bus at 70% load factor. For CTOL and train the
values are chosen by comparing frequencies with bustfrequencies in similar markets. Thus, bus frequency was 9 trips a day, CTOL 8 and Cars, of course, have no waiting time (infinite
rail was 7 trips a day. frequency).
Average access distances2 are the average
for the whole market
considered, i.e., for all people in the ten cities' metropolitan areas.
The average frequency was used in market study only. The actual frequencies listed in table 5.1 were used in conjunction with FA-4.
2
The average was used in market study only.

122 -
See note above.
Table H. 1
Performance of Competitive Modes in Northeast Corridor
CAR Great Circle Speed Starting time Cost per mile Starting Cost Access Cost 1 Access time1 ' 2 Frequency 2 Mode Specific appeal 3
41.1
BUS
CTOL 323. .31
TRAIN
35.3
0 .051 0
43.7 0
mph hrs
0 .0623 0 0 .1
00
.0615
6.92
.0741
0
$ $ $
hrs Services/day
1.48
1.29
2.65
1.1
1.84 .95 7
1.
9 .5355
8
1.589
3.91
'To account for egress, double the figure

2 3 4
Corridor average See Modal split model, appendix D, for explanation Erroneously run as $1.57 for the 1978 demand
123 -
Figure H.l:
Line Haul Travel Times and Costs for the 'Competitive Modes in the Northeast Corridor
RAIL CAR BUS
CTOL
50
100
150
200
250
DISTANCE (GREAT CIRCLE MILES) RAIL CTOL CAR BUS
I
100
I
150
I 200
I 250
DISTANCE (GREAT CIRCLE MILES)
124 -
APPENDIX I
Standard Conditions for 1985 Quiet Helicopter (QVTOL) Studies
125 -
Appendix I:
Standard Data for the 1985 Quiet Helicopter (QVTOL) Studies
All these figures are presented in detail elsewhere in this report. This appendix merely serves as a summary.
Network Data 16 terminals in 10 cities Rent per terminal for land and access roads is $98 0,000/year Rent for a pad and gate position for an 80-seat vehicle including upkeep is $193,400. Rent for a pad and gate position for a vehicle having S seats is
$64,4oo + (s/8o) - $128,000.

A minimum of 2 pads per metroport is required. Network size is 8.17 * (16-6) = 81.7 markets
Total network flow is 216,000 people or 2,640 trips per market Representative route length is 200 miles. 206 miles. Average access distance is 10 miles minus .12 mile per terminal Cruise distance is
8.08 miles
DOC Data Assumed load factor is 60% Aircraft speed is 237 mph Cost per cruise mile is $.63 per aircraft plus $.0108 per seat. Cost per take off, landing, and associated maneuvering is $22. plus
.49 per seat.

Time for above activities is 3.0 hrs. plus .000167 hrs. per seat. Minimum turnaround time is .12 hrs. plus .0002 hrs. per seat Turnaround cost is $6 per aircraft landing.
126 -
IOC Data
Stewards cost $8.4o per hour for the line haul trip time including boarding and intermediate stops. passengers. Processing costs are $2.00 per passenger. Ticketing, boarding and disembarking together form a total terminal occupancy time of .167 hours Overhead is 22% of the total ticket price. One steward for each 40
Tax is 8% added to the ticket price. Parking income is $.39 per passenger.
Other Data Average access cost is $1. + $.12 per mile = $1.971 Average access time is .292 hrs. + 23.5 mph = .636 hrs. 1
The performance of the competing modes, bus, CTOL, train and air is listed in appendix H. The demand model parameters are presented in appendix
G.
For the 1978 STOL vs. VTOL comparison, the following changes were made: VTOL Cost per cruise mile is $.72 per aircraft plus $.00925 per seat Cost per takeoff is $21.60 per aircraft plus $.375 per seat Cruise speed is 240 mph 15 terminals were used 1978 demand was 160,000 trips per day for all modes
STOL Cost per cruise mile is $.60 per aircraft plus $.0066 per seat Cost per takeoff is $64 per aircraft plus $.57 per seat Cruise speed was 310 mph
1double
to account for egress.
127 -
Takeoff and maneuver time was .179 hrs. 15 terminals were used. Average access distance* was 9.31 miles Cost per terminal for land, access road, runway, and taxiway was
$1,770,000 per year (average).
-128-
APPENDIX J
Inputs to FA-4
129 -
Appendix J:
Inputs to FA-4
FA-4 is a linear programming solution to the airline scheduling problem. The objective is to produce the greatest income form the excess of revenues over operating costs. The demand in each market is dependent
on the frequency of service.
For a description of the formulation
of FA-4, the reader is refered to reference 17. Ticket prices were established for each metroport pair (each market) from the formula: ticket = $10.24 + $0.04 8 5/great circle mile
Operating costs for the aircraft were established from the data presented in appendix B for the QVTOL machines. Indirect operating costs were developed from the data in the standard case in appendix I:
Cruise speed and stewards'hourly cost produced an IOC of $.00161 per passenger mile. An IOC of $2.12 per passenger boarding was derived from the excess of processing costs over parking income. is stewards' hourly cost during boarding. $9.09 per aircraft departure covered ground handling and the cost of one steward during maneuver times. No IOC costs were dependent on aircraft miles. In all cases of both IOC and DOC, 28% has been added to cover overhead. Multistop routes were less attractive than nonstop services. one-stop drew 90% of the passengers a non-stop drew; a two-stop A Included in this figure
80%.
130 -

The Choice of V/Stol Transportation For The Northeast Corridor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Choice of V/Stol Transportation For The Northeast Corridor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Choice of V/Stol Transportation For The Northeast Corridor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-vmlnk

THE CHOICE OF V/STOL TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

June 1972 FTL Report R72-2

. Page 50 is missing from this report.

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Flight Transportation Laboratory

Report FTL - R72 - 2

The Choice of V/STOL Transportation for the Northeast Corridor

William M. Swan June 1972

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Abstract iii List of Tables List of Figures List of References

Introduction Methodology for Developing the Performance of V/STOL

The Performance of V/STOL Systems

Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6

1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 H.1

Comparison of VTOL and STOL Performance of Competitive Modes in the Northeast

1.1 2.1 2.2

Product Possibilities Function for a V/STOL Transportation System 24

Isoquant for VTOL (helicopter) service at 20,000 trips per day 27

Isoquant for STOL Service at 20,000 trips per day 30

Vertical Slice through Product Possibilities Function 31

Intersection of Demand Surface on V/STOL Product Possibilities Function 32

Vertical Slice through Product Possibilities Function for QVTOL Service 42

QVTOL Product Possibilities Function at Various Volumes (Isoquants) 43

Effect of DOC on QVTOL Isoquant Effect of Processing Costs on QVTOL Isoquant

4.10 Comparison of Quieted Tilt Rotor System with

Flight Transportation Laboratory over the last seven years.

The main body of

carry less than a tenth of the traffic.

"Map" of the Northeast Corridor

NEW YORK CITY

the current airport traffic.

Reduction of congestion at the major airports

on the type of aircraft used.

A STOL system offers the relatively low

Let us look first at the STOL system.

situated to reduce noise impact. feasible.

selection of existing airport sites for most operations.

Possible STOL Metroport Locations

Possible VTOL Metroport Locations

the forms a V/STOL transportation system could take.

METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING THE PERFORMANCE OF V/STOL

beginning of a system's life. constructed.

Financing would normally be through local bond issues.

difficulty lies in allocating the costs in an equitable way.

This was the method followed.

Figure 2.1: Layout for STOL and VTOL Metroports

2000' STOL STRIP

92 ACRES (INCLUDING NOISE BOUNDARY ZONES)

550,000 SQUARE FEET OF PAVEMENT

on an existing airport, the land is free. derived from figure 2.2.

If the traffic warranted

The annual total is $1.15 million per year for

This is $0.16 per passenger for 20,000 passengers per

tickets using machines at the airport.

will be below $2.00 per boarding.

Cost of VTOL Metroports

Metroport Name Cost /acre JMW JME LGA EWK JNS

Cost of road and 2 gates

0650 60 SEA TS %%-w80 ''-,