Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published January 2005

Evaluating Interior and Door Configurations of Rail Vehicles by Using Variable Loading Densities

Abstract

As many U.S. metropolitan areas expect unprecedented growth in population and travel in the next 20 to 30 years, rail transit agencies are faced with the challenges of replacing their aging fleets and procuring new vehicles to keep up with ridership increases. As funds become increasingly scarce, many operators are exploring ways of increasing car capacity by considering interior configurations (to maximize loading efficiency) and door configurations (to minimize the effect of increased loads on station dwell times). Few studies address the design and evaluation of interior and door configurations as a system. Typically, seating configurations are designed separately from door configurations. Furthermore, interior configuration evaluations or maximum vehicle loading quoted by car manufacturers assume a uniform loading density applied throughout the car. Loading on transit vehicles, however, varies greatly within a car. This affects practical vehicle capacity and its impact controlling dwell time at the busiest door. The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a heavy rail rapid transit system in California, recently conducted an evaluation of interior and door configurations based on a methodology that used variable loading densities and resulting impact on door loads for dwell time estimation. Variable loading density is more realistic in simulating actual passenger loading experience. This research shows that depending on the interior and door configuration, applying uniform loading density may misrepresent actual car capacity and door loads and thus waste valuable resources or underestimate actual needs.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Parkinson T., and Fisher I. TCRP Report 13: Rail Transit Capacity. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.
2. Railway Operators in Japan, Central Tokyo. Japan Railway & Transport Review, No. 30, Makoto Aoki, Toyama University, Dept. of Economics, undated, pp. 42–53. www.jrtr.net/jrtr30/s42_aok.html. Accessed July 28, 2004.
3. Miniou P. MF2000 to Start Trials This Year. Railway Gazette International, Feb. 2004, pp. 92–94.
4. Jacobs M., Skinner R. E., and Lerner A. C. Transit Project Planning Guidance—Estimation of Transit Supply Parameters. Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1984.
5. Recommendations en vue de l'amenagement d'une installation de transport compte tenu de donnees anthropometriques et des limites physiologiques de l'homme. Battelle Institute, Geneva, Switzerland, 1973.
6. Pushkarev B. S., Zupan J. M., and Cumella R. S. Urban Rail in America: An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed-Guideway Transit. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1982.
7. Lau S. Rethinking BART Car Seating and Standing Capacity. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Oakland, Calif., 2000.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published: January 2005
Issue published: January 2005

Rights and permissions

© 2005 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Samuel W. Lau
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, P.O. Box 12688, Oakland, CA 94604-2688.

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 13

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 1

  1. Accessibility and Design
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub