Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorNigel H.M. Wilson.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKairon, Ajmer Singhen_US
dc.contributor.otherSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-09-03T15:27:06Z
dc.date.available2008-09-03T15:27:06Z
dc.date.copyright2006en_US
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/42364
dc.descriptionThesis (S.M.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, System Design and Management Program, February 2007.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 95-97).en_US
dc.description.abstractThis thesis explores and evaluates essential strategies needed for the transit authority/operator to deal with end of life cycle challenges of Rapid Transit Systems (RTS) systems. RTS systems are elaborate systems consisting of various subsystems. It is believed that one of the greatest challenges of such systems is the integration of these various sub-systems to ensure that they work correctly; functionally and safely at the onset of development. While this is true there also exist real challenges towards the end of the life cycle which unfortunately is not dealt with during the design conceptualization and implementation. The fact that the RTS system is an elaborate amalgamation of other subsystems functioning together makes the management of its end of life cycle challenging. The life spans of these various subsystems are different i.e. the mismatch in life cycles of these systems could cause serious problems in the future. There are two approaches to manage these challenges i.e. look at it from a design standpoint and start incorporating fixes at the design stage to address end of life cycle challenges (start of the value chain) or look at the already present RTS systems around the world and see what can be done when most of the systems are mid life or nearing end of life and formulate strategies to address these challenges (end of the value chain). This thesis has focused on the latter approach given that systems at mid-life and near end of life are of priority now and further any lessons learnt from these exercises could be incorporated into new designs. Four different strategies were defined and assessed: Public Private Partnerships (PPP), reusability/remanufacturing/ recycling, life extension and leasing. In planning of the end of life cycle challenges it must be acknowledged that no one strategy is always best.en_US
dc.description.abstract(cont.) The strategies at most allow the transit authority/operator to make more meaningful and informed decisions based on risk and cost amongst many other factors. This allows a transit authority/operator to plan ahead. The transit authority/operator should look at their RTS system and evaluate the best strategy. It may be the case that one of these strategies meets their needs or a hybrid of these strategiesen_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Ajmer Singh Kairon.en_US
dc.format.extent109 leavesen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.titleSystem strategies in the management of transit systems towards the end of their life cycleen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.identifier.oclc234314443en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record