A PRT Workshop was hosted by Mn/DOT on August 18, 2010 in the Radisson University Hotel in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the workshop was to share responses to Mn/DOT’s request for PRT information and to allow participants to understand PRT benefits and barriers to its implementation and explore the viability of PRT in Minnesota. This blog attempts to succinctly capture what was said and the essence of the workshop which was attended by approximately 100 people with a wide variety of interests in PRT.

Opening Comments

Tom Sorel, Commissioner of the Mn/DOT, said the DOT has an obligation to the citizens to be on the leading edge of all technologies.

Derrell Turner, Division Administrator, FHWA, said that PRT technology fits in well with U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood’s livability and sustainability initiatives. 

Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, said that, while the community is still automobile-based, PRT emulates many aspects of the car. PRT appears to be economical, safe, reliable, sustainable and comfortable.

Arlene McCarthy, Director, Metropolitan Council, said we must consider how PRT complements and integrates with the entire system. Funding is a struggle and she questioned if PRT will be a potential drain on public funds. She also asked if PRT promotes good land use.  The Council does not support public funds going to PRT.

Summary of RFI Responses

Mukhtar Thakur, Director, Office of Multimodal Innovation, Mn/DOT said that all responses have been posted at              http://www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/prt/PRTPublicRFISubmittals.pdf He said there are issues to be addressed when trying to establish the feasibility of a PRT application, namely: aesthetics, how it fits in the current land form and surrounding land uses, ROW, and how it’s going to be funded, O&M costs, among others. He summarized the 21 responses to the RFI and found the following to be of interest:

PRT system technologies

• Hanging pods vs. pods that travel along a guideway or track
• Magnetically levitated pods vs. motor driven pods
• True PRT systems vs. quasi PRT systems
• Fare collection

Costs (planning level) ranged from $8M to $21M per mile

Financing ideas

• Govt, PPP, Private & Community Interest Company

Aesthetics of various systems

Level of PRT experience among vendors & consultants

Speeds 25 mph – 60 mph

Headways 0.5s – 10s

Timeline from NTP to revenue service 15 – 48 months

In Minnesota there may be interest in PRT in Bloomington, Maple Grove, Ford Plant Site, Edina, Richfield and Winona. Nationally studies are under way or completed in San José, New Jersey and Virginia.

RFI Responders Comments & Reactions from Attendees

Carlos Espinoza with the City of Winona announced that they did not receive an FTA grant. The FTA suggested they consider New Starts funding and/or Section 5309 research funding for a pilot project.

Mike Lester with Taxi 2000 recommended that ASCE APM Standards be used to see how different systems comply.

Dennis Sweet with Citizens for PRT recommended three roles for Mn/DOT:

1. System requirements
2. Developing capital & operating costs
3. Collaborating with other states and communities for common standards

Christopher Perkins with Skytran recommended an aviation risk management model would be more applicable and could avoid incompatibility with legacy requirements.

Policy Issue Panel Discussion

Steve Elkins, Council Member, Bloomington City Council indicated that, while Bloomington is interested in PRT, it does not want to be a guinea pig. If a vendor builds a working system as an amusement park ride at the Mall of America/IKEA site, the city will consider providing them ROW.

Senator David Senjem, MN State Legislature, said he does not think PRT has a champion in Minnesota. Every cause needs a champion. The legislative process is not analytical. This is new to the legislature and they will need a lot of education. Start by selling it locally then request the State match local funds. A demonstration project is absolutely vital.

Barb Thorman, Executive Director, Transit for Livable Communities, said her organization has been publicly critical of PRT but it is good that the conversation has turned to a mix of modes, not one vs. the other. Where does PRT fit in the mix?

Representative Frank Hornstein, MN State Legislature, said he is a PRT skeptic and will stick to demonstrated successful systems until PRT is demonstrated to be successful. He agrees that transportation policy has to focus on reduction in dependence on oil.

Keynote Presentation

Curt Johnson, President, Citistates Group said the major impediment to PRT rolling out has been policy and politics. It is important we get the transportation question right – access – not just mobility. PRT can intensify the use of activity-rich zones – reducing unwelcome auto use, reducing air and noise pollution and raising the quality of life. There is a tendency to overestimate technology in the short term and under estimate it in the long team.

Facilitated Group Discussions

The group brainstormed impediments to PRT implementation, anticipated PRT benefits and principles for PRT deployment in Minnesota.

Dean Zimmerman said people love cars because they wait for you, go directly to your destination and keep you out of the weather. PRT satisfies all three and erases the negatives associated with cars.

There was general discussion of what to do next – select a location? No political will – need a public process? Winona could work with a league of MN cities? Join CPRT? Need to define purpose and need.

Summary Comments & Next Steps

Mukhtar Thakur said that nobody is offering funding. A different model is needed than asking the legislature. Cities are trying to move ahead. Where do we go from here? Is there another Mn/DOT Forum? How do we communicate? Mn/DOT will consider all of the input and decide what next.

Heathrow’s PRT system: an update on progress. David Holdcroft, PRT Manager, BAA.

The Heathrow system has 21 vehicles. They currently have 12 to 13 running at a time. PRT has proven to be very space efficient requiring the relocation of a portion of perimeter fence only.

They have had some software and destination panel glitches. They are planning a full emergency exercise in mid May with the full system opening in late spring followed by a 1 year review process.

BAA is branding the system as the Heathrow Pod – a new travel experience – smart, personal and friendly. The new color scheme includes purple on the lower portion of the vehicles.

They have had a lot of interest in 3^rd party sponsorship but passengers do not want internal advertising. They anticipate increasing the charge for parking once the system is operational.

They are considering adding automated way-finding where the rider enters their flight number, airline or car-hire company and the systems knows where to take them.

Snow and ice is dealt with by a special vehicle fitted with snow plows and deicing sprayers. This vehicle can continuously circulate around the system in inclement weather. The objective is to not have the system shut down before the roads do.

They have found that people want to share rides with others. This may become an issue that needs to be dealt with once more destinations become available. Having specific berths dedicated to particular routes may be a solution.

Once the system is open to the general public anyone will be able to use it from Terminal 5.

Insurance of the system has been no problem and is just part of the airport’s regular policies.

Personal rapid transit: how is safety assured? Christopher Elliott, Director, Pitchill Consulting, Ltd.

The Heathrow PRT system carried its first “real” passengers (members of the public participating in passenger trials) last week after receiving safety certification to do so. Final sign-off will be required before the system enters revenue service in June. The system is now real and transportation planners have to take it seriously.

The safety requirements for new transportation systems are much higher than those for existing systems. If introduced today, existing systems would never meet modern safety requirements. Modern systems have to be safe and be seen to be safe.

A good safety system leads to reliability. The Heathrow system safety goal is less than 10^-3 fatalities per year (less than one fatality every thousand years).

Both leading PRT systems (ULTra & 2getthere) have built safety into their designs and are having it verified through independent certification.

PRT systems in an APM world. Thomas Ludwig, Head of Automated People Mover Services, Logplan.

PRT will be primarily a landside system with conventional automated people movers (APMs) being primarily airside. PRT competes more directly with cars and buses and is more suitable for landside. However, the cost/benefit of PRT could impact APM systems.

Translating lessons learned at Masdar into an airport environment.  Robbert Lohman, Marketing Director, 2getthere.

Benefits of PRT at airports include improved service, cost effectiveness, sustainable and green, makes new connections possible and provides improved accessibility.

All 2getthere vehicles have obstacle detection and will stop for a person on the guideway. Destination selection can be accomplished either outside or inside the vehicle. A blue medical assistance button will redirect the vehicle to the best station and alert responders that it is coming. The technology is now at an advanced stage and having the right people involved is more of a risk than the technology is.

The Masdar safety case is similar to the one for Rivium. Lloyds Register is currently verifying safety.

Masdar stations are not air conditioned and heat gain is a problem. Vehicles connect to a charging plate at berths to allow the air conditioning to keep running. Doors close after 4 to 5 seconds with no one entering or exiting. Dust and corrosion mitigation measures seem to be working.

The first phase at Masdar has 1.5 km of track, 2 passenger stations, 3 freight stations, 8 standard vehicles, 2 VIP vehicles and 3 freight vehicles. The ultimate system is planned for 45 km of track, 2,100 vehicles, 90 passenger stations and 100 freight stations. The current control system configuration can control 100 to 200 vehicles.

The perspective of cities. Suzanne Hoadley Membership Services Coordinator, Polis.

Daventry is still interested in PRT.

Cities considering PRT face the following challenges: legal, certification, risk aversion, visual intrusion, financial and societal.

PRT: the business case and revenue generation. Martin Lowson, Vice Chairman, Advanced Transport Systems, Ltd.

PRT typically reduces commute times by about ten minutes. The literature provides a number of studies indicating what the value of time is. Airport value of time is double that for other applications.

A study of all UK airport car parks found people pay £1.49 extra per stay for every minute they can park closer to the terminal. A good business case can be made for PRT for lots with more than 4,000 spaces that are close in and more than 6,000 spaces further out (10km). 18 hotel data points indicate room rates increase £3 – £6 per minute closer to the airport.

Various studies indicate home values increase 21% on average when they have good light rail access. Commercial properties increase 23% – 120% on average. Property value gain is $65M per km of track.

Master Plan Personal Rapid Transit Analysis for Baltimore/Washington International  Thurgood Marshall Airport. Peter Muller, President, PRT Consulting, Inc.

The purpose of the study was to investigate conceptual feasibility of PRT for: surface transport garages to terminals, secure inter-concourse travel, expansion to surface lots, LRT, Amtrak & the consolidated rent-a-car facility (CONRAC).

The following assumptions were made: speeds 15mph close in and 25 mph further out, minimum headways 2 and 3 seconds respectively, maximum theoretical capacities 3,600 and 2,400 passengers per hour per direction respectively. The system comprised 3.6 miles of dual-lane guideway, 7.7 miles of single-lane guideway, and 37 stations. 517 T-Pods were found to be necessary to provide an adequate level of service to the projected daily ridership of approximately 60,000 passengers.

The capital cost of $387M was compared to the capital cost of an APM ($1,194M) that had previously been studied to provide similar service. In addition to having a significantly lower capital cost, the podcar system had shorter trip times, provided seated travel for all and had the capability to deliver passengers inside the terminal building. It also had the potential to provide a loop serving the secure portion of the terminal/concourses. It was postulated that it could be satisfactorily demonstrated to the TSA that passengers entering the system at a non-secure station would not be able to exit at a secure station.

In addition to having lower capital and operating costs than the planned APM system, the PRT system was found to have operating costs of around 60% of those of the present bus service. It was speculated that it could potentially attract more cars to the long term surface lots and boost concession sales in the concourses.

The master plan, of which this study formed a small part, has not yet been adopted by the airport.

Vectus PRT operational experience applied at airports. Jörgen Gustafssen, Chief Technology Officer, Vectus Ltd.

Vectus safety complies with APM standards and is verified by a subsidiary of Lloyds Register. The system operates under distributed asynchronous control with a dynamic moving block vehicle protection system. They have no obstacle detection and have designed the guideway to be inaccessible.

Vectus uses a high-vehicle-flow station design with in-line bays. It is full duplex (board and de-board in the same location). They have found it important to have a spacious vehicle with good access. Their vehicle can be fitted with six seats. They have found actual boarding times to be less than anticipated. A 4-berth station can accommodate 8 – 12 vehicles per minute.

They are investigating a combined vehicle arrangement with 6 – 10 seats and room for 20-30 standing.

The Suncheon system will have 11km of track and 40 vehicles. It is mainly point-to-point but may have three stations. They hope the letter of intent will be finalized in a few weeks. Operations are scheduled to start in February 2013. It is a private-public-partnership.

Today’s airport innovations – tomorrow’s urban transportation systems. Malcolm Buchanan, Director Transport Planning, Colin Buchanan and Partners.

Airports and historic towns have a lot of similarities including congestion and remote parking issues.

Taxi earnings can be an important indicator of the potential for transit improvements.

Connecting terminals to the airport landside. David Little, Principal, Lea + Elliott Inc.

The accessibility, weight and small turning radius of PRT is an advantage. PRT development is such that it is now available within normal project implementation time frames.

There were four personal rapid transit (PRT) –related papers and/or presentations at the 89^th Annual meeting of the transportation Research Board (TRB) this year.

Martin Lowson, President of Advanced Transport Systems Ltd., (the developers of the ULTra PRT system) delivered an interesting presentation titled Preparing for PRT Operations at Heathrow Airport, United Kingdom. He showed a BBC video (not available in the US) where the reporter claimed to be the first member of the public to ride the system. ATS is still confident they can build complete systems for $10M to $15M per one-way mile.

Heathrow PRT Maintenance Facility

Professor Lowson said that BAA considered PRT to be the only practical solution to their many surface transportation problems. In addition to financial benefits, PRT offers a higher level of passenger service, environmental benefits and a more efficient use of space. He indicated they are well into phase Phase 3 of the following testing and implementation progress chart.

ATS has developed 429 system documents defining: Operations procedures (162), Safety Management System (75), Internal Management (74), Training modules (118). Professor Lowson showed the following slide depicting their safety verification process.

ATS has been surprised to find that passengers expect to share rides and want to wait for others to join them. The ULTra PRT system at Heathrow is in the final stage of test and commissioning and is on target for full passenger operations in mid 2010.

Steve Raney of Cities 21.org presented a paper titled Efficient Edge Cities of the Future and uniquely written in storey form that begins as follows: “October 5, 2020. Hello, my name is Emma Raney. Compared to typical suburban living, I live a life with lower cost of living; more free time; better work/life balance; stronger, more supportive, and more diverse local community; and one-quarter of the energy consumption. My community (SRP) produces emissions well below Kyoto protocol standards.”

The storey continues to describe life in a community that goes to considerable lengths to promote sustainability. Needless to say, the PRT system (a shuttle bus on steroids) is a key part of the community. However it is very much integrated into numerous other forms of accessibility.

Comprehensive Integrated Mobility

“SRP has a personal rapid transit (PRT) system, and I take that to many destinations… I carpool to church… SRP’s PRT connects to PRT systems in other large Silicon Valley office parks (there are 10 others). Via this connection, I connect to a larger variety of stores… Very rarely, I get a little carried away and I end up with a bunch of large items to schlep home. Large wheeled carts are available at some stores. I wheel the cart and items onto PRT vehicle, take my items home, then I wheel the empty cart onto another PRT vehicle where it is re-deployed… I take commuter rail to see Sharks hockey…When I go to Stanford for an event, I usually PRT with bike (on occasion I combine PRT with a foldable electric scooter). To get to places, I walk significantly more than a typical suburbanite – I generally travel the first and last trip segment on foot.”

Robert Baertsch, Nasa Ames Research Center presented a paper titled Renewable Energy Utilization Advantages of Maglev-Based Personal Rapid Transit. “This paper examines the advantages that Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) exhibits in the utilization of renewable energy from usage, distribution, and generation perspectives. The paper also looks at different types of PRT and how they impact the load on the electrical grid. Recent advances in power electronics and maglev technology allow for the design of a novel MPRT system characterized not only by exceptionally low power requirements, but also by a unique capacity to incorporate energy distribution and storage infrastructure into the greater transportation architecture.

MPRT prototype at NASA Ames, Moffett Field, CA

A hypothetical hybrid MPRT design incorporating energy storage and transmission capabilities is presented. Additionally, thorough carbon dioxide and cost analyses are undertaken in order to more fully understand the wide spectrum of benefits of an MPRT solution in comparison to Conventional Vehicle (CV) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) approaches. We conclude that an MPRT system not only offers significant advantages over other technologies in efficiently utilizing renewable energy, but, moreover, that the unique potential of this concept to incorporate power transmission, storage, and generation infrastructure makes it ideal for addressing the energy challenges of the near and distant future.”

The system is anticipated to operate at 40 mph in downtown areas and at highway speeds elsewhere. The upper speed limit is 150 mph. Linear induction motors are built into the guideway. An equivalent 325 mpg and capital costs under $10M per one way mile (up to $18M including integrated photovoltaic panels and power distribution) are anticipated.

John Lees_Miller, University of Bristol, United Kingdom presented a paper titled Theoretical Maximum Capacity as a Benchmark for Empty Vehicle Redistribution in Personal Rapid Transit. “A Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system uses compact, computer-guided vehicles running on dedicated guideways to carry individuals or small groups directly between pairs of stations.  Vehicles move on demand when a passenger requests service at his/her origin station. Because the number of trips requested from a station need not equal the number of trips ending there, some vehicles must run empty to balance the flows. The empty vehicle redistribution (EVR) problem is to decide which empty vehicles to move, and when and where to move them; an EVR algorithm makes these decisions in real time, as passengers arrive and request service.

This paper describes a method for finding the theoretical maximum demand (with a given spatial distribution) that a given system could serve with any EVR algorithm, which provides a benchmark against which particular EVR algorithms can be compared.  The maximum passenger demand that a particular EVR algorithm can serve can be determined by simulation and then compared to the benchmark. The method is applied to two simple EVR heuristics on two example systems, and the results suggest that this is a useful method for determining the strengths and weaknesses of a variety of EVR heuristics across a range of networks, passenger demands and fleet sizes.

This paper demonstrates a new method for the evaluation of empty vehicle redistribution (EVR) algorithms, providing an absolute measure of their performance according to a metric based on the capacity region for a given network. The capacity region is defined as the set of OD matrices which are feasible in the sense that their demands can be met without passenger queues growing indefinitely.  It describes the maximum possible demand that a particular system could serve with an ideal EVR algorithm, and hence acts as an absolute benchmark against which different EVR algorithms can be compared.

The ability to compare and evaluate EVR algorithms is important for the successful operation of highly-connected PRT systems…  In normal PRT operation, the minimization of passenger waiting time is usually the priority, and hence one could expect an EVR heuristic which prioritizes this…to be in operation.  At times of high demand, however, when the vehicle fleet is stretched and there are passengers waiting at numerous stations across the network [this]… often moves vehicles too far.  One would instead prefer an algorithm which prioritizes the efficient use of the vehicle fleet…

This analysis also shows how both the network topology and the spatial distribution of the demand can affect EVR performance, even when line congestion is ignored…The proposed method allows for the absolute assessment of EVR algorithms in terms of throughput, subject to the modeling assumptions…There are a number of alternative heuristics already present in the literature … and an analysis of these algorithms using this evaluation tool is a natural next step.”

Airport parking products typically are provided at a range of costs, depending on proximity to the terminal, and features such as valet service and shelter. Studies have shown air travelers are prepared to pay over $1 per day extra for every minute they can park closer to the terminal. In addition, travelers have been found prepared to pay more for parking served by personal rapid transit (PRT). Although not entirely clear, this willingness to pay extra is thought to be influenced by the high level of service provided by PRT, in addition to shorter trip times.

A PRT system provides a higher level of service more efficiently than a shuttle bus because:

• There is less waiting (less than one minute)
• Trip time is less because there is no stopping to pick up others or for other traffic
• Trip time is the same every time
• Platforms are at floor level – roll-on, roll-off
• Everyone gets a seat
• It costs less to operate
• Curbside congestion and emissions are reduced.

Unlike conventional automated people movers, PRT stations are small and can be located at grade in the interior of parking lots. Numerous stations can be provided to minimize walking distances. Since stations are typically off-line, trips are non-stop and adding stations does not slow service down. Click here to see pictures of the PRT system at Heathrow Airport.

Small station sizes can be beneficial at the terminal end of the trip too. Numerous small stations can reduce walking distances to the airline of choice. In some terminals it may be possible to retrofit PRT stations in the interior of the building. Replacing shuttle buses with PRT service will reduce both emissions and curbside congestion.

PRT service to passenger parking lots could both increase the use of the lots and allow higher rates. The increased revenues, coupled with lower operating costs, could more than offset the initial capital costs of the system. In addition, a PRT system can be easily expanded to also provide inter-terminal transportation and serve other facilities, such as employee parking lots and rental car companies. Each rental car company would still get direct non-stop service, and the need for a consolidated facility could thus be reduced or eliminated.