Capacity-based cost modeling for light rail and bus rapid transit systems

Choosing between Light Rail Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems is often controversial and not an easy task for transportation planners who are contemplating the upgrade of their public transportation services. These two transit systems provide comparable services for medium-sized cities from the suburban neighborhood to the Central Business District (CBD) and utilize similar right-of-way (ROW) categories. The research is aimed at developing a method to assist transportation planners and decision makers in determining the most feasible system between LRT and BRT. ^ Cost estimation is a major factor when evaluating a transit system. Typically, LRT is more expensive to build and implement than BRT, but has significantly lower Operating and Maintenance (OM) costs than BRT. This dissertation examines the factors impacting capacity and costs, and develops cost models, which are a capacity-based cost estimate for the LRT and BRT systems. Various ROW categories and alignment configurations of the systems are also considered in the developed cost models. Kikuchi's fleet size model (1985) and cost allocation method are used to develop the cost models to estimate the capacity and costs. ^ The comparison between LRT and BRT are complicated due to many possible transportation planning and operation scenarios. In the end, a user-friendly computer interface integrated with the established capacity-based cost models, the LRT and BRT Cost Estimator (LBCostor), was developed by using Microsoft Visual Basic language to facilitate the process and will guide the users throughout the comparison operations. The cost models and the LBCostor can be used to analyze transit volumes, alignments, ROW configurations, number of stops and stations, headway, size of vehicle, and traffic signal timing at the intersections. The planners can make the necessary changes and adjustments depending on their operating practices. ^

Variables affecting government debt: A comparison of certificates of participation, tax -exempt revenue bonds and tax -exempt general obligation bonds

This dissertation analyzed and compared variables affecting interest rate and yield of certificates of participation, tax-exempt revenue bonds and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. The study employed qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. ^ Qualitative research methods included surveys, interviews and focus groups. The survey solicited debt load information from 67 Florida school districts (21 responded) and addressed the question which districts used certificates of participation and why. Eight individuals with experience dealing with all three debt instruments were interviewed. A follow-up focus group of six school district financial officers gathered additional data. Results from the qualitative methods revealed school districts used certificates of participation based on millage authority amount available relative to overall tax base. Also identified was the belief of a significant difference in certificates of participation costs and the other two debt instrument types. ^ The study's quantitative methods analyzed 1998 and 1999 initial issues of Moody's AAA rated certificates of participation, tax-exempt revenue bonds and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. Through an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), the study examined interest rates and yields while controlling for the covariates of credit enhancement, issue size, and maturity date. The analysis identified no significant difference between interest rates of certificates of participation and tax-exempt general obligation bonds (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference between interest rates of tax-exempt revenue bonds and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. This study discerned no significant difference between yield on certificates of participation and tax-exempt general obligation bonds. It identified a difference in yield between both certificates of participation and tax-exempt general obligation bonds compared with tax-exempt revenue bonds. ^ The study found COPs to have lesser overall costs than RV bonds. COPs also have a quicker entry into the market resulting in construction cost savings. The study found policy implications such as investment portfolio limitations and public choice issues about using COPs as a mechanism to grow government. ^

Children with Special Health Care Needs: Comparison of the Effects of Home Care Setting, Prescribed Pediatric Extended Care Setting, and Long-Term Care Setting on Child and Family Health Outcomes and Health Care Service Use

Technological advances during the past 30 years have dramatically improved survival rates for children with life-threatening conditions (preterm births, congenital anomalies, disease, or injury) resulting in children with special health care needs (CSHCN), children who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who require health and related services beyond that required by children generally. There are approximately 10.2 million of these children in the United States or one in five households with a child with special health care needs. Care for these children is limited to home care, medical day care (Prescribed Pediatric Extended Care; P-PEC) or a long term care (LTC) facility. There is very limited research examining health outcomes of CSHCN and their families. The purpose of this research was to compare the effects of home care settings, P-PEC settings, and LTC settings on child health and functioning, family health and function, and health care service use of families with CSHCN. Eighty four CSHCN ages 2 to 21 years having a medically fragile or complex medical condition that required continual monitoring were enrolled with their parents/guardians. Interviews were conducted monthly for five months using the PedsQL TM Generic Core Module for child health and functioning, PedsQL TM Family Impact Module for family health and functioning, and Access to Care from the NS-CSHCN survey for health care services. Descriptive statistics, chi square, and ANCOVA were conducted to determine differences across care settings. Children in the P-PEC settings had a highest health care quality of life (HRQL) overall including physical and psychosocial functioning. Parents/guardians with CSHCN in LTC had the highest HRQL including having time and energy for a social life and employment. Parents/guardians with CSHCN in home care settings had the poorest HRQL including physical and psychosocial functioning with cognitive difficulties, difficulties with worry, communication, and daily activities. They had the fewest hours of employment and the most hours providing direct care for their children. Overall health care service use was the same across the care settings.