We often come across situations in the U.S. where managers are strongly motivated to avoid all risk (even small risks associated with potentially large benefits) and situations overseas where managers want to evaluate the risks and rewards. We believe the problem in the U.S. lies not so much with the individual managers as with societal expectations, the structure of their job and the way they are rewarded. The manager of a transportation authority must keep those buses and trains running despite increasing fuel costs and decreasing fares and subsidies. He/she is rewarded for implementing a glistening new light rail system and no one cares (or knows) if most of the passengers come from the reduced bus system. Were the light rail system to have a hiccup (delayed opening or budget overrun), the manager’s head may have to roll. No wonder the manager has no time, budget or inclination to look at an innovative system that has few successful operating examples he/she can kick the tires on.

Fortunately for personal rapid transit (PRT or Podcars), there are niche applications where small systems can be effective, such as airports, universities and other campus-like situations. PRT can (and is) make its debut and prove itself in these small applications. Transit managers will then see that it works and be emboldened to apply it in broader situations. Or will they? After a disastrous beginning, the Morgantown PRT system has been running very successfully (substantially beating conventional guideway transit by many measures) for over thirty years (the New York Times characterized it as “A White Elephant Turned Into a Transit Workhorse”) yet few transit managers seem interested in whether its success can be repeated without repeating its teething problems.

Without successful niche applications, PRT in the U.S. would be doomed until overseas applications have been operating successfully for twenty or more years. With successful niche applications, we may be able to stay close on the heels (say ten years behind) of our foreign friends.

How can a society be so risk averse and yet simultaneously accept extreme danger every day in their cars (we kill about as many Americans on the roads each year as were killed in the entire Vietnam War)? If we cannot learn to balance risk and reward, how are we going to ever regain the lead in transportation or any other field where we have lost it?

Judging by the rapt attention (at times you could hear a pin drop) and the lively discussions during the breaks, the Modern Mobility Conference, held near Kansas City on April 23^rd, 2010, was a resounding success. The conference was moderated by Stan Young, President of the Advanced Transit Association (ATRA) and marked the culmination of a project investigating the feasibility of a PRT system at the Village West development east of Kansas City.

Mokhtee Ahmad, Regional Administrator, FTA Region 7 welcomed the attendees. While expressing caution about the willingness of FTA to embrace PRT, he privately stated that PRT projects are eligible for FTA New Starts funding.

 ATRA board member and events coordinator, Larry Fabian, introduced the topic of automated people movers (APM). He stated that there are 146 worldwide of which 4 are PRT. APMs have historically been noted for their high costs. While PRT systems may require more sophisticated control systems, they will hopefully also reduce costs.

Peter Muller, president of PRT Consulting rounded out the first session with an introduction to PRT planning. He began by outlining how cars are ruining our cities by contributing to congestion, killing over 40,000 per year, contributing a third of all greenhouse gases, using more oil than all other uses combined and devouring property (at Village West four times as much land is devoted to roads and parking as to buildings). Conventional transit is no solution since transit’s mode share has barely changed in the last 20 years. He then outlined how PRT’s characteristics may allow it to address many of these problems.

Mr. Muller went on to educate the attendees in the technical aspects of PRT and how it should be planned for. He stressed that public participation can be key in dealing with potential nay-sayers early in a project. He outlined a public outreach process that has shown that people generally prefer small, private modes of transport such as cars, bicycles and PRT over rail-based modes and that the least-preferred modes are bus-based.

 The second session was focused on reporting on the results of the Village West PRT Project. Dr. Moni Al Aasar reported on BG Consultant’s analysis of structural and code compliance issues. He stated that the Kansas DOT had concerns about the ULTra guideway design as used at Cardiff and Heathrow. These concerns related to the fracture-critical, non-redundant nature of the design and the fact that it has out-of-plane loading. BG Consultants developed an alternative pre-cast concrete guideway design and Dr. El-Aasar presented estimated guideway costs based on this design. He also presented estimated costs for stations as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Probable Construction Costs

 Dr. Steven Schrock, Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas, reported on the environmental aspects of the Village West PRT Project. No major environmental concerns are anticipated but NEPA requirements will have to be met if federal funding is involved. He discussed the methodology used to estimate the value of benefits deriving from reductions in automobile operating costs, onsite emissions and accident costs.

 Peter Muller reported on the work done to estimate ridership, system requirements, overall benefits and costs. In addition, he reported that Patti Banks Associates found that quite significant land redevelopment options become available through retrofitting the area with a PRT system. They also found that even more significant opportunities would have been available had the development incorporated PRT from the beginning.

 Mr. Muller stated that the benefits (including societal non-monetize-able benefits) outweighed the costs by some two-and-a-half times. Increased tax revenues plus a per-ride charge of about $0.50 would be sufficient to pay for capital costs in ten years. Ongoing operating costs would thereafter require a fare of approximately $1.00 per trip. He presented a comparison (shown in Table 2) comparing the viability of this project with another PRT project, a light rail project and a commuter rail project.

In summary, the PRT system seems viable and financially feasible. However, the study, which was undertaken as an academic exercise, had insufficient budget with which to adequately investigate important factors such as ridership, increased tax revenues and financing mechanisms.

Table 2. Cost Comparisons

Perhaps the most interesting part of the conference was the closing panel discussion moderated by retired Professor Alan Black. Tom Jacobs with the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) said that transit is the number one solution they are working on. He was very impressed with the attributes and benefits of the PRT system and thought it was really compelling from an environmental standpoint. He considers the 60 to 200 square miles of parking lots within the MARC area to be environmentally damaging due to heat island effects, ozone emissions and increased storm water runoff. He saw promise in PRT’s ability to create vital spaces.

Douglas Bach, The Unified Government of Wyandotte County’s Deputy County Administrator, said that existing remote parking could be used if a PRT system was in place and that there are more and more reasons to park the car and travel around the facility. He felt that the system itself could be an attraction, but implementing it would be challenging. STAR bonds may be difficult to use because of restrictions. However, the recently enabled Community Improvement District has more flexibility on both the taxing and spending sides.

Dick Jarrold with the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority discussed how PRT could help solve the last mile problem experienced by larger systems. However, he expressed concerns regarding the need to verify costs, aesthetics, ridership, security, safety and impact on/of underground utilities. He said that, if the numbers are correct, Village West would be the type of facility at which to implement PRT. The big question is, “who bears the risk if it does not pan out?”

 Dick McReynolds, retired KDOT researcher encouraged the group not to get too hung up on specific costs or issues. This project was funded at about one tenth the usual costs and the results are quite encouraging.

Chris Ozimek, Director of Marketing for Schlitterbahn, explained that while a small portion opened last year, the 270 acre resort will take another four to five years to complete. It includes over four miles of waterways [which the PRT system would connect to]. The resort is designed to have people park and leave their cars for the duration of their stay. PRT could take this to a whole new level and increase the average length of stay.

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.

People generally prefer rail to bus service. Rail usually provides a smoother, faster and more reliable ride. However, the faster service comes at the expense of fewer stations. Feeding a train system with buses does not work well because people don’t like to use two services that can both involve long, unpredictable wait times.

This dilemma can be solved by integrating a personal rapid transit (PRT) collector/distributor system into the rail system. People can be expected to view the combined systems almost as one, since the PRT system involves almost no waiting (typically less than one minute). The cost savings of the rail stations that can be eliminated could go a long way to paying for the PRT system while allowing the trains to run faster, The combined systems will provide a much higher level of service with wider coverage, thereby enticing a higher ridership. A bonus would be the increase in land values of the wider area within walking distance of the combined systems.

The Swedes are ahead of us on this concept and are seriously investigating PRT last-mile service between commuter rail and downtown business districts. The UAE has started construction of an auto-free city (Masdar) dependent on PRT for internal transportation. The British have a PRT system about to go into public service at Heathrow Airport. We Americans need to start catching up!