20 results found
Anderson RJ, Brage-Ardao R, Graham DJ, et al., Econometric Benchmarking of Metro Operating Costs. Methods and Applications, European Transport Conference 2015
Cohen JM, Barron A, Anderson R, et al., Increased likelihood of injury as a form of transport disadvantage for differently abled and elderly travellers: Evidence from urban metro subway systems, 14th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons
Cohen JM, Parasram R, Anderson R, et al., Global trends in metro station organisation and management, 43rd European Transport Conference
Increased uptake of smart ticketing, mass availability of personal information technology,and roll-out of 4G and WiFi coverage within metropolitan railway systems, are leadingmetros to change the way they manage stations.
Horcher D, Graham DJ, Anderson R, The link between crowding pricing and seat supply in public transport, Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
Hoercher D, Graham DJ, Anderson RJ, 2017, Crowding cost estimation with large scale smart card and vehicle location data, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART B-METHODOLOGICAL, Vol: 95, Pages: 105-125, ISSN: 0191-2615
Brage-Ardao R, Graham DJ, Anderson RJ, 2016, Determinants of rolling stock maintenance cost in metros, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART F-JOURNAL OF RAIL AND RAPID TRANSIT, Vol: 230, Pages: 1487-1495, ISSN: 0954-4097
Horcher D, Graham DJ, Anderson RJ, 2016, Merging smart card data and train movement data: How to assign trips to trains?, Merging smart card data and train movement data: How to assign trips to trains?
This report explains the assignment method applied to link trips compiled in smart card data to train movements recorded in the signalling system. Particular attention has been paid to (1) origin-destination pairs with multiple potential route options, (2) peak-hour trips delayed by di culties in boarding crowded trains at the origin station, and (3) trips originating or ending on rail lines not included in the train movement dataset.In the current version of this paper the metro network on which the method has been applied is anonymised.
Brage-Ardao R, Graham DJ, Anderson RJ, 2015, Determinants of Train Service Costs in Metro Operations, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, Pages: 31-37, ISSN: 0361-1981
Canavan S, Graham DJ, Melo PC, et al., 2015, Impacts of Moving-Block Signaling on Technical Efficiency Application of Propensity Score Matching on Urban Metro Rail Systems, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, Pages: 68-74, ISSN: 0361-1981
Cohen JM, Barron AS, Anderson RJ, et al., 2015, Impacts of Unattended Train Operations on Productivity and Efficiency in Metropolitan Railways, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, Pages: 75-83, ISSN: 0361-1981
Cohen JM, Barron AS, Anderson RJ, 2014, Human Operational Support on UTO Lines, Publisher: Imperial College London
Metro automation is an increasing trend worldwide. This study investigated the realities of operating automated lines, focused on the following key questions: What staffing levels are used by metros, and what are the pros and consof each approach? Under what circumstances do metros choose to staff all trains on linesthat are capable of unattended operations? What technology is required to enable automated operations? Do the benefits of automation outweigh the additional investment?
Barron A, Melo PC, Cohen JM, et al., 2013, Passenger-Focused Management Approach to Measurement of Train Delay Impacts, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, Pages: 46-53, ISSN: 0361-1981
Trompet M, Parasram R, Anderson RJ, 2013, Benchmarking Disaggregate Customer Satisfaction Scores of Bus Operators in Different Cities and Countries, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, Pages: 14-22, ISSN: 0361-1981
Allport RJ, Anderson RJ, 2011, Managing strategic risk – the worldwide experience of metros, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law, Vol: 164, Pages: 173-180, ISSN: 1751-4304
Melo PC, Harris NG, Graham DJ, et al., 2011, Determinants of Delay Incident Occurrence in Urban Metros, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, Pages: 10-18, ISSN: 0361-1981
Graham DJ, Crotte A, Anderson RJ, 2009, A dynamic panel analysis of urban metro demand, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART E-LOGISTICS AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, Vol: 45, Pages: 787-794, ISSN: 1366-5545
Trompet M, Anderson RJ, Graham DJ, 2009, Variability in Comparable Performance of Urban Bus Operations, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, Pages: 177-184, ISSN: 0361-1981
Harris NG, Anderson RJ, 2007, An international comparison of urban rail boarding and alighting rates, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS PART F-JOURNAL OF RAIL AND RAPID TRANSIT, Vol: 221, Pages: 521-526, ISSN: 0954-4097
Allport RJ, Anderson R, 2005, A challenging metro agenda, Public Transport International, Vol: 54, Pages: 6-9, ISSN: 1016-796X
Various issues faced by metro operators for the development of a sustainable metro business are discussed. Government needs to provide some degree of predictability in planning, funding, coordination and regulation. The future cost of poor metro planning is high in physical, financial and operational terms, yet the resources put in and their output are often poor. The main requirement to develop a sustainable metro business is the active engagement of government with operator for issues that affect the operator.
Anderson RJ, Hirsch R, Trompet M, et al., 2003, Developing Benchmarking methodologies for Rail Infrastructure Maintenance Management Companies, European Transport Conference
Public transport benchmarking has been growing in use. However, a recent literature review carried out by the authors has revealed that its practical adaptation to the railway industry has largely been confined to either the operation of trains, or the operation of single, vertically integrated railways. The paper describes methodologies developed and tested for the benchmarking of railway infrastructure companies. Much of the work has been conducted as part of a 5th Framework research project for the European Commission (IMPROVERAIL: IMPROVEd tools for RAILway capacity and access management). The paper will also present results from a pilot project that applies the methodologies and has involved the participation of several national railway infrastructure providers. It is argued that the benchmarking of complex and heterogeneous railway infrastructure companies presents particular problems. These must be overcome if any benchmarking process is to yield true comparability and thus any practical value. Railway infrastructure company benchmarking is due to become more important following the vertical separation of trains and infrastructure, not only amongst European Union national railways, but also elsewhere in the world where vertical separation is undertaken within public transport. The approach to benchmarking suggested by the research and applied in the pilot project takes a non-traditional view of railway infrastructure providers, focusing primarily on the concept of entities rather than functions. The traditional view of a railway infrastructure provider is of an organisation made up of a number of separate functions, e.g. operations, engineering, finance, etc. The new approach taken is to look at the entities contained within a railway infrastructure provider. An entity is defined as a product (such as the provision of a defined type of railway infrastructure), an asset or a process. In many cases the management of these entities cuts across functional boundar
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.