In Chicago, a feasibility study indicated that automated truck-way technologies (automatic truck steering, speed, and platoon spacing control) would save travel time and reduce fuel consumption.
ANALYSIS OF CVHAS APPLICATIONS FOR TRUCK/FREIGHT MOVEMENT
Using available rail rights-of-way, a new truck-only facility was proposed to serve a selected set of intermodal rail yards, industrial parks, and points-of-entry to the region. The following CVHAS technologies were evaluated to determine their impacts on truck operations:
- Automatic steering control
- Automatic longitudinal control in platoons
- Fully automated driving
- Baseline (no CVHAS technologies, no truck-only facilities)
- Truck-only facility without CVHAS technologies, open to all trucks
- One standard 12-foot lane in each direction prior to the Year 2015, and a second lane added for several segments of the facility by the Year 2015
- Truck-only facility with CVHAS technologies (automatic steering) for equipped trucks only
- One 10-foot lane in each direction. Automatic steering control makes it possible for equipped trucks to follow lanes very accurately. For maximum width trucks of 9 feet, lanes need only be 10 feet wide rather than the standard 12 feet
- Truck-only facility with fully automated CVHAS technologies (automatic steering, automatic speed and spacing control with two or three truck platoons if warranted) for equipped trucks only
- One 10-foot lane in each direction
- Truck-only facility without CVHAS technologies before Year 2015
- At Year 2015, upgrading the facility to be an automated truck-way (automatic steering, speed and spacing control with two or three truck platoons)
- One standard 12-foot lane in each direction
- The costs associated with each alternative included the following primary cost categories:
- Construction costs of truck-only roadway
- Right-of-way costs
- Annual facility operation and maintenance cost
- CVHAS equipment and installation costs (facility)
- CVHAS equipment and installation costs (vehicles)
For comparison purposes, the evaluation results below—excerpted from Table 4.16 of the report—are expressed in terms of 2003 dollars.
Travel time savings
Reduction of fuel consumption
Accounting for increased demand and the assumption that the relative costs of each technology would decrease in future years, a t-test indicated that Alternative 5 was economically feasible compared to the baseline case with no truck-only facility.
Author: Shladover, Steven E., et al.
Published By: California PATH Program, University of California
Source Date: August 2004
Other Reference Number: Report No. UCB-ITS-PRR-2004-26URL: http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/path/reports/UCB-ITS-PRR-2004-26/
Average User Rating
Typical Deployment Locations