Case study
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 24

Case study PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 75 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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

  • 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


México

Zumpango

Texcoco

airport


Institutional factors

  • Three institutional bodies involved

  • Secretaria de Obras Publica (SOP)

  • Secrataria de Communicaciones y Transportes (SCT)

  • Secretaria de la Presidencia


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


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


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


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


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.


1995

1985

1975

T-IDMG

Z-IDMG


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


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


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)


Utility u3

1

9

8

7

6

5

Acess Time X3

1220405060708090


utility u275

1

9

8

7

6

5

Capacity for 1975

50 flights per hour 130


utility u285

1

9

8

7

6

5

Capacity 1985

80 flights per hour200


Utility u295

1

9

8

7

6

5

Capacity 1995

100 flights per hour250


Utility u1

1

9

8

7

6

5

Millions of pesos X1

50020004000


Utility u4

1

9

8

7

6

5

Number of people X4

11000


utility u5

1

9

8

7

6

5

Number of people X5

2500 250,000


Scaling

  • K1=0.48

  • k2=0.60

  • k3=0.10

  • k4=0.35

  • k5=0.18

  • k6=0.18


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


  • Login