1 / 24

Case study

Case study. Development of Airport for Mexico City. Suggestions. Two studies were made before One suggested that the Lake Texcoco site should be greatly enlarged The other suggested that the majority of air traffic should be moved to Zumpango. Texcoco.

cicada
Télécharger la présentation

Case study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case study Development of Airport for Mexico City

  2. Suggestions • Two studies were made before • One suggested that the Lake Texcoco site should be greatly enlarged • The other suggested that the majority of air traffic should be moved to Zumpango

  3. Texcoco • Texcoco was built in the 1930s an expanded greatly since • Expansion would increase noise level • It would also displace people • It is on a lake bed and sinking at different rates • Access to airport is good but not to Zocalo

  4. México Zumpango Texcoco airport

  5. Institutional factors • Three institutional bodies involved • Secretaria de Obras Publica (SOP) • Secrataria de Communicaciones y Transportes (SCT) • Secretaria de la Presidencia

  6. Alternatives • International • Domestic • General • Military • 30 year horizon with decision nodes at 1975, 1985 and 1995 • Each category can only operate at one of two sites

  7. Alternatives • There are many possible alternatives • “Develop Zumpango, move general aircrafts to Zumpango in 1975 and international to Zumpango in 1985” • There are (23)4 alternatives! • But some were not relevant • In total, there were 100 real alternatives

  8. Specifying objectives • 1. Minimize total construction and maintenance costs • 2. Provide adequate capacity to meet the air traffic demand • 3. Minimize access time • 4. Maximize the safety of the system • 5. Minimize social disruption • 6. Minimize noise pollution

  9. Converting objectives…. • X1 = cost in $ with discounting • X2 = capacity in terms of number of aircrafts • X3 = access time to the airport weighted by the number of people in each zone • X4 = number of people killed or seriously injured due to an accident

  10. objectives • X5 = number of people displaced by the airport development • X6 = number of people subjected to high level of noise (> 90 CNR) • Missing factors: air pollution, political prestige, etc.

  11. 1995 1985 1975 T-IDMG Z-IDMG

  12. Intertemporal considerations • Costs: discounted at 12% (not important using sensitivity analysis) • Noise: equally undesirable in all years • Safety: average people killed not probability • Access time: stationary over time • Disruption: equally important over time • Capacity: They were treated separately for each of the target years 1975, 85, 95

  13. Specifying utility function • U(x1, x2, x3, x4, x5, x6) = kSkiui(xi)+kSSkikjui(xi)uj(xj) +k2SSSkikjknui(xi)uj(xj)un(xn)+… • This means that there are interactions between factors taken into account

  14. Assessing utility • Set u3(12)=0 and u3(90)=1 • Find out what value of x3 gives indifference between 12 and 90 • It was 62 • u3(62)= 0.5xu3(12)+0.5xu3(90)

  15. Utility u3 1 9 8 7 6 5 Acess Time X3 12 20 40 50 60 70 80 90

  16. utility u275 1 9 8 7 6 5 Capacity for 1975 50 flights per hour 130

  17. utility u285 1 9 8 7 6 5 Capacity 1985 80 flights per hour 200

  18. Utility u295 1 9 8 7 6 5 Capacity 1995 100 flights per hour 250

  19. Utility u1 1 9 8 7 6 5 Millions of pesos X1 500 2000 4000

  20. Utility u4 1 9 8 7 6 5 Number of people X4 1 1000

  21. utility u5 1 9 8 7 6 5 Number of people X5 2500 250,000

  22. Scaling • K1=0.48 • k2=0.60 • k3=0.10 • k4=0.35 • k5=0.18 • k6=0.18

  23. Analysis • First evaluate the static expected utilities • Dynamically evaluate based on various scenarios • Take into account “prestige factor” and other political issues for each alternative • Revalue the projects again

More Related