Representatives of the US Department of Transportation met in Washington DC last week for one and a half days to further advance their Memorandum of Cooperation with their Swedish counterparts on sustainable transportation. The officials from the two governments were joined by members of academia, consultants and suppliers/vendors. After joint meetings, subgroups met to discuss livability, multimodal station area planning, personal rapid transit/group rapid transit/automated transit networks (PRT/GRT/ATN) and railway technologies.

The four subgroups agreed that they all needed to collaborate since there is potentially considerable synergy between their areas of focus.

The PRT/GRT/ATN group agreed on a number of ways the two countries could work together to better understand and consider the potential for these technologies to help solve transportation issues. After the meetings, most members of this group toured the Morgantown PRT system after which Hans Larsen, San Jose Director of Transportation said, ““I (and I believe everyone in the group) thought the Morgantown PRT system tour was exceptional.  The system serves a very important transportation function for the Morgantown community.  It has high ridership and cost effective operations.  And it provides inspiration that automated transit is not a far out idea for the future; it works with 40 year old technology. “

The results of the meetings include the following:

• Agreement between the Cities of San Jose and Uppsala to coordinate and share information about their respective efforts to investigate and potentially implement ATN systems.
• Undertake workshops, surveys and develop a website to find out what people in different cities are looking for in transportation solutions (including their potential desire for ATN and estimates of probable ATN ridership).
• A strategic plan should be developed outlining how ATN could be leveraged to the best advantage of transportation overall in the next 30 to 40 years.
• Pursue more university collaboration.
• Develop an ATN planning guidebook (probably through the Transportation Cooperative Research Program process).
• Explore partnerships with private industry on development and manufacturing of ATN systems
• Help facilitate further research and development of ATN demonstration projects
• Seek a more comprehensive USDOT consideration of ATN as a compliment to existing transportation systems involving FTA (transit), FHWA (highways and parking), FAA (airports), and FRA (high speed rail).
• Convene sessions on ATN at the 2013 meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

On Sunday, November 28^th, the Masdar PRT system opened to the public. To quote Larry Fabian, 2getthere, the manufacturer, got there. 2getthere operates the system with the support of Singapore Mass Rapid Transit. Masdar City is a new carbon-free city being developed adjacent to Abu Dhabi in the UAE.

The system has 10 passenger and 3 freight vehicles serving 2 passenger and 3 freight stations connected by approximately one mile of track. The system is in operation 18 hours a day, seven days a week serving the Masdar Institute of Technology. Trips take about 2 and a half minutes and are presently free of charge. Average wait times are expected to be about 30 seconds.

Masdar PRT Station

Robbert Lohmann, Marketing Director for 2getthere, is quick to point out that the elaborate stations are not necessarily reflective of what a station should look like, but more an indication of what one could look like, if desired.

As mentioned previously, it is unlikely that this system will be extended throughout the entire Masdar City as originally planned. However, it is hoped it will be expanded beyond the extent of the present rather limited system.

The Heathrow ULTra PRT system recently achieved 99.6% availability during four weeks of passenger trials. We look forward to receiving availability results from Masdar. It will bode well for PRT if they are in a similar range. To put 99.6% in perspective, it means 4 trips in a thousand do not go as planned. This is six times more reliable than transit level of service A for transit reliability as defined in TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, where 25 trips per thousand are permitted to be late.

Communities considering retrofitting personal rapid transit (PRT) guideways in urban settings are finding this is not always easily accomplished. In most situations it is logical for the guideways to be within existing street rights-of-way (ROW) and these are often cluttered/adorned with trees, overhead utility lines, street lights, traffic signals, signs, etc. In addition, the adjoining buildings often have little or no setback and can be significantly impacted by an elevated guideway in close proximity. To help highlight some of the opportunities and hurdles, we have developed a series of illustrations showing different potential guideway locations within an existing urban ROW. They conclude with some ideas for proposed (new) ROWs, highlighting the potential to reduce guideway visual intrusion, while taking advantage of the mobility offered by PRT to also reduce vehicle intrusion. The illustrations can be downloaded here.

The final two sketches are dramatically different than the others and prompt the question: “Shouldn’t this be the ultimate goal of PRT?” Visit this website to learn more about sustainable green cities enabled by PRT.

PRT proponents often promote the concept of using the guideway infrastructure to support streetlights and eliminate the need for overhead utilities. This very logical concept may prove quite difficult to implement in practice. Utility companies presently resist hanging their utilities on each other’s poles – a seemingly equally logical concept.

If common use of the guideway structure is to be accomplished, it will be important that each entity using the structure can obtain unhindered access to their key elements, without hindering the functioning of the key elements of the other entities. Utility lines strung on the guideway structure above a suspended PRT system (such as Beamways, MISTER or SkyTran) may be almost inaccessible, without somehow reaching over the dynamic envelope reserved for moving T-Pods – a maneuver unlikely to pass the safety certification process.

Utilities strung under the guideway of a supported PRT system with the bogie captured within the guideway structure (such as Skyweb Express) might pose similar problems if the guideway covers had to be removed while working in close proximity to the energized utility lines. The best opportunity for PRT and utilities to coexist seems to lie with supported systems of the open guideway type (such as 2getthere, ULTra or Vectus). Such systems could allow almost all PRT maintenance to be accomplished by workers working above the guideway riding surface and almost all utility maintenance to be accomplished by workers working below the guideway riding surface. Thus the riding surface would form a well-defined natural boundary between the systems.

Masdar City, near Abu Dhabi in the UAE, set out to be a sustainable, zero-carbon, zero-waste community. Part of the premise was to exclude automobiles entirely. The city was going to rely mostly on a personal rapid transit system for internal mobility. A PRT system with some 80 stations and thousands of vehicles was planned. Unfortunately, recent  (October 2010) announcements indicate that this plan has now been scaled back and the PRT system will be confined to a pilot system or a small system serving the area close to the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology. This is a blow to PRT proponents, but is PRT to blame for the setback?

Since PRT does not mix well with street level traffic, most urban plans call for an elevated PRT system with a very small ground-level footprint. This was considered at Masdar, but there was a chicken and egg problem. If the PRT was built first, it would be difficult to integrate it in the buildings to follow. Worse, all the costs would have to be borne by the developer. If the buildings were built first, they could be planned to accommodate and integrate the PRT system, and the building developers could possibly absorb station and other costs. Building developers were slow in coming forward and so the latter, preferable, option was not feasible, although it could possibly still have been accomplished by imposing carefully-planned building requirements (not easily accomplished in the prevailing culture). This, coupled with a desire to provide a pedestrian-friendly “ground” level, led to the decision to raise the pedestrian level, some 7 meters above the ground level to form a “podium” level, and to build the PRT system and the utilities in the undercroft formed below. Future buildings could then be constructed on the podium level with few restrictions.

2getthere PRT vehicle in the Masdar undercroft

Putting PRT in the undercroft has proven problematic because:

• The PRT routing was constrained to follow surface street routing, which is deliberately discontinuous to help prevent windy conditions.
• The PRT routing is the same as that for special delivery (and, possibly, emergency) vehicles – violating one of the principles of PRT, which is to separate it from other traffic.
• There is no way of enticing building developers to share the costs of the PRT stations and other elements.

The podium decision was made in more prosperous times. It is an expensive way to build a city, and current economic considerations have resulted in the decision being made not to extend the podium concept and the PRT system throughout the city. Thus the podium/undercroft decision underlies the decision not to extend the PRT system. Hopefully, the PRT system will soon come into successful public service, indicating that it can at least do the first part of what it was acquired to do.

Masdar is apparently considering electric cars and/or buses instead of the PRT system. It is difficult to imagine how this can be accomplished without revisiting the design parameters for the streets which are narrow and discontinuous. It may make much more sense to take a hard look at how an elevated PRT system could work and what it would take to merge it with the undercroft system.

Wednesday – Thursday 22^nd – 23^rd September 2010

I attended the morning tour of the PRT system thereby missing the first four Wednesday presentations. I had previously seen and ridden on the entire system. However, I had not seen the T-5 station since it was completed. It is an elegant and well-designed facility that appears to have ample space. Strolling around it, one appreciates some of the difficulties of designing for a system few will initially understand. For example, when passengers read “wait here for an empty berth” will they understand what a berth is and be able to determine where one ends and another begins? During the remainder of the tour and the ride the following morning (the system was closed for track maintenance on Wednesday morning), I paid attention to the opinions of others. Perhaps most telling was the comment of a Bombardier representative who indicated the system was much better than he had expected. I was interested in better evaluating the ride quality which, while not perfect, is definitely better than that in the back seat of a taxi.

Sven Beller, PTV AG, discussed the adaptation of existing tools such as VISUM and VISSIM to simulate PRT systems. Necessary adaptations can be scripted through the Application Programming Interface using other tools such as Excel’s Visual Basic for Applications.

Joerg Schweizer, Universita di Bologna presented work he is doing on a PRT Capacity Manual. The manual is intended to provide performance models that are quick and easy to apply with a focus on station operations.

Jochen Rabe, Associate, Ove Arup & Partners Ltd., said that comprehensive PRT networks covering entire cities may not be realistic. Local authorities must compare the transport service benefits of PRT with the visual impact and potential privacy loss.

Gabriele Giustiniani, Researcher, University of Rome ‘La Spienza’, outlined a CityMobil project with a round trip of 1.61km, 11 stops and 6 cybercars. He found the mode share for the cybercars was 10% more than that for a mini bus with the same schedule.

Steve Perliss, Lea+Elliott moderated a Procurement Workshop which included addresses from Bo Olsson, Senior Strategist, Trafikverket, David Holdcroft, PRT Manager, BAA, Martin Lowson, President, ULTra PRT, Robbert Lohman, Commercial Director, 2getthere and Jorgen Gustafsson, Managing Director, Vectus Ltd. Olsson described a two-step procurement process (first qualifications, then price) and said numerous questions must be answered before committing to a procurement process. Holdcroft described the process used to select ULTra. He said they received 15 responses. Lowson and Lohman implied they approved of the BAA procurement process. Perliss said it is important to give responders time to build teams and to bring them in early to get feedback. Ahuja said this is not possible in India where the tender period is limited to 6-8 weeks. Lowson and Lohmann agreed that the supplier must have control of the structural specifications to ensure ride quality and vehicle interfaces are adequate. Gustafsson said clear roles and responsibilities with simple interfaces and a lean organization able to make quick decisions (especially on the client side) were important. He said the Suncheon project will comprise 11km, 40 vehicles with 3M annual visitors. It will be mainly point-to-point and is being financed by Vectus who will receive an annual stipend. Muller pointed out that the workshop seemed to be moving towards guidance for consultants in preparing tender documents and that guidance for owners in moving from considering to implementing PRT was perhaps also needed. Lowson stated that, in his opinion, the ASCE APM standards are insufficient on the topic of safety and that safety clearance requirements vary greatly from country to country and even within some countries like the U.S.A.

Simon Babes, Director, Colin Buchanan, discussed a potential role for PRT in the Chinese megacity of Shanghai. He presented an analysis of a 20km, 20 station PRT system with 500 vehicles and 67,000 daily trips connecting a business park to a metro station. He anticipated fare revenues plus savings in shuttle bus operating costs could cover PRT operating costs and pay back the capital investment in five to ten years.

Richard Caple, Engineer Project Manager, Daventry District Council, said the major concerns for the Daventry PRT project include: visual intrusion; cost; anti-social behavior; ease of use and the complexity of the network. There is no funding presently available but he expects the system will happen eventually. He briefly outlined a document called Outlines for the Implementation of PRT in Urban Areas.

Peter Muller, President, PRT Consulting (the author), suggested that the true benefits of PRT will only be realized when it is used to develop entirely new cities built with a focus on ideal living conditions along with sustainability. He outlined how his vision for a “perfect” city could be enabled by PRT and recommended that those attempting to retrofit existing cities with PRT might want to keep this vision in mind, as something to strive towards. A poll of the audience revealed that about 75% would like to live in such a city.

Colin Bates, Managing Director, Customer Champions reported on a study of ULTra’s previous leads and key contacts. They found that the key barriers to sales were: risk aversion; desire not to be first (Heathrow will help but is not always applicable); urban developments are impacted by politics; PRT is not understood by decision makers; there is a lack of comparable data and proven benefits.

Malcolm Buchanan, Director, Colin Buchanan, summarized the conference. He asked if roads and cars or rail networks could eventually become PRT networks.

Tuesday 21^st September 2010

The Conference was opened by John Holland-Kaye, Commercial Director, BAA Airports, who said that the PRT system is obtaining 100% records for reliability. He was excited by the chance to create a new form of technology that will change the way people travel.

Fraser Brown, Head of Travel Services, Heathrow Airport Ltd – BAA, listed numerous advantages of the PRT system including: predictable; reduction in journey times; more than 70% have no waiting; reductions in emissions, noise and congestion; improved office rents, land values & availability as well as road safety. He is looking forward to a future where the passenger needs no local knowledge – they will not need to know where they have to go, just what they want to do. The system should be able to account for congestions, last-minute changes and delays in flight schedules.

David Holdcroft, PRT Manager, BAA, outlined completed and on-going system testing and passenger trials. He said that they have found out from passenger trials to date that passengers like the system. They also have learned that there are many aspects of the system that can be improved and have been tweaking such things as the audio message volume, door timings and button sequences. The on-going daily trials include passengers with luggage and are being used to monitor trends in the system status. The recent emergency situation rehearsal provided valuable lessons including that it resulted in duplicative responses from multiple jurisdictions. The system will open once BAA is satisfied with the results of daily trials and full integration of the PRT system with all other airport systems that could interact with it in any way. The integration process involves safety integration, new and updated operations protocols and familiarization of all potentially impacted airport staff.

Mark Griffiths, Head of Operations, ULTra PRT, continued the theme David Holdcroft started and told of unexpected passenger behaviors, such as going to an empty station berth to call a vehicle because they mistakenly assumed the one already waiting in a berth must be broken. He said they have a core staff of 24 for the 24/7 operation. Batteries must be recycled after about 3 months. Opportunity charging in stations allows a full battery pack to keep a vehicle running for several hours.

The Masdar PRT system had a two-hour test last week with 10 vehicles and 25 passengers according to Robbert Lohmann, Commercial Director, 2getthere. He said they put doors on one side of the vehicles only because doors tend to be problematic. However, this has required some special station layouts. When asked about rumors that Masdar is considering abandoning the PRT system for electric cars or other solutions, he said that Masdar is still committed to the PRT system but continually reconsidering their options because of the state of the economy.

Dario Menichetti with Mott MacDonald discussed the modeling of the MASDAR PRT system. They used conventional transportation modeling tools as well as a micro-simulation model in order to model the integrated systems and optimize the PRT topology and network performance.

Michel Parent, Team Manager, INRIA, said that cyber cars are fully-automated individual road vehicles that are part of an optimized transportation system but are not necessarily separated from other traffic. He described a cyber-car demonstration that will run for 6 months (January to June, 2011) with three vehicles in La Rochelle, France.

Tony Kerr, Director, Ove Arup & Partners Ltd., reported that they are now under contract and beginning work on the San José PRT project. The initial portion of the project will include investigating a PRT system connecting the airport to light- and commuter-rail stations.

Magnus Hunhammer, CEO, Institute for Sustainable Transportation described how they have used a full- scale portable PRT station to publicize and educate people about PRT. He also showed a PRT visualization.

John Hammersley with ULTra PRT discussed planning efforts and competition for a PRT system in the historic city of Bath. He said the competition led to overwhelmingly positive response and the PRT system could pay for operating costs and provide a return on investment of 7.3% based on a very reasonable fare.

Henk van Zuylen of The University of Technology, Delft described a PRT system connecting the Airport of Rotterdam and The Hague with existing rail and Scienceport Holland. The 21 km system would have 14 stations and 70 vehicles. Capital costs were estimated at €109M and annual O&M costs at €1.7M. He said the real barriers are institutional and political.

Sonal Ahuja, Director International Development, Capita Symonds Ltd., said there are 17 to 18 PRT projects currently being taken seriously in India where there is no recession and people pay for purchases in cash. He described a PRT study in New Delhi where they had to resort to double guideways to accommodate projected demand using 3 second headways and an occupancy factor of 3.0. The study showed a benefit/cost ratio of 4 and an internal rate of return of 18%.

Martin Lowson, President, ULTRa PRT discussed the design of a high capacity PRT station. He said they have found loading and unloading times to be quite consistent with that on other modes. Door cycle times tend to dominate station dwell times. Station designs can minimize the number of bays required by keeping standby vehicles close by in order to immediately replace departing vehicles.

Arturo Dávila, Project Engineer, IADIADA Automotive Technology SA, described a vehicle platooning system called SAfe Road TRains for the Environment (SARTRE) where the lead vehicle is driven and following ones are driverless. The intent is to increase safety and capacity while reducing energy used.

Ingmar Andréasson, Professor, KTH, discussed the ridership effects of PRT mixed with scheduled transit. He found that conventional transit is inadequate and PRT can increase total transit share and induce more travelling. In order to estimate the new transit share including PRT, all we need to know is the transit disutility and how much it is going to change, if the other modes are going to remain unchanged. He found the bus penalty relative to car to be € 2.50 and the PRT penalty to be half that, when the entire trip is by PRT.

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.

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.”

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!

There were 15 papers focused on personal rapid transit (PRT) at the 12^th International Conference on Automated People Movers held in Atlanta May 31 – June 3, 2009. The proceedings are bound in a 600-page book that can be obtained from the American Society of Civil Engineers.

 In her paper titled Sustainability, PRT and Parking, Shannon Sanders McDonald presented options for parking garages linked to PRT to provide fully sustainable approaches to integrating transit into the urban fabric.

I presented a paper on station options for open-guideway PRT systems. http://www.prtconsulting.com/docs/PRTStationsMullerAPM09.pdf These types of systems are typically more flexible than captive-bogey or suspended systems and a variety of ways of incorporating stations into existing or new developments were illustrated and explained. I presented a suggestion (not included in my paper) to consider grade-separated overpasses in place of merge/diverge figure-of-eight guideway layouts for reasons of capacity, time, capital and operational costs savings. This paper shared a $500 Best Paper award with Shannon’s.

Building station

Urban Elevated Guideway Station

 Robbert Lohman presented a paper based on the PRT system being deployed in the zero-carbon, zero-emission City of Masdar in the UAE. It answered such questions as “How would you build a city if you could start from scratch? With sustainability in the back of your mind, would you still allow access to cars? If not, how would you accommodate mobility of people and goods? Would you be able to with today’s technology?” He concluded that the advantages of including PRT in the transportation mix include energy savings, environmental friendliness and the huge reduction in space required for transit systems – allowing the space to be used for other purposes. The initial PRT system is scheduled for passenger service later this year.

2getthere T-Pod for Masdar City

Jörgen Gustafsson discussed the Vectus PRT concept and test track experience. The Vectus test program in Sweden has included two full winter seasons and has proven the system’s capability to cope with various snow and ice conditions. They have successfully proven the control concept using distributed asynchronous control based on a dynamic moving –block vehicle protection system along with receiving safety approval for all other aspects of the PRT system at a 3-second headway and speeds of 45 km/h.

Vectus Snowslinger

Göran Tegnér presented a paper summarizing a Swedish research project examining how a doubled transit ridership by podcars could be financed. He showed that it would be possible to double the transit ridership in cities with bus or LRT traffic when shifting to podcars. The cost per trip was shown to be lower by podcar than LRT and – in some cases – than bus.

David Holdcroft presented a very well attended paper updating the progress on the Heathrow PRT system. This system is now up and running under test. It has about 2 miles of guideway, three stations and 18 T-Pods. Passenger service will be phased in starting with BAA employees, then adding business car park users and finally the general public. Full public service is anticipated to be in place late this year.

ULTra T-Pod at Heathrow Airport

 Stan Young presented a paper (which I co-authored) about a case study we are undertaking at Village West Development in Kansas City, Kansas. The study found that the Kansas DOT did not approve of the ULTra guideway structural design but an acceptable precast concrete alternative was developed that had similar costs. Potential funding mechanisms for a PRT system do exist in the area but the viability of a PRT retrofit has yet to be explored. It does appear that numerous benefits would have derived had the PRT system been incorporated into the design from the beginning.

Proposed PRT Layout

My paper, Personal Rapid Transit’s Impact on Army Base Sustainability http://www.prtconsulting.com/docs/PRTArmyBaseSustainabilityFinal21909.pdf was based on a study we did for the U.S. Army Post at Fort Carson, Colorado Springs. The results were remarkably positive considering the sprawling layout of the Post. We found a benefit/cost ratio of 2.75 and that a fare of under $2.00 per ride would cover both operating costs and annualized capital costs. The following table compares our findings with those of two recently-announced conventional transit projects.

Steve Raney presented concepts for a PRT Circulator for Pleasanton and Perimeter Center. Both locations are edge cities associated with larger cities. In both cases PRT could increase transit ridership and reduce single occupant vehicle use. PRT provides a good last-mile solution and also helps prevent employees who don’t use cars for their commute from being stuck at their desks in the lunch hour. After the conference, Steve and I presented these concepts to Perimeter Center stakeholders where they were very well received.

Tony Kerr discussed lessons learned on the Heathrow PRT Guideway. The paper is very useful because it addresses elevated as well as at-grade guideways and covers a range of issues such as modular design, guardrail requirements and tolerances required for ride comfort. He indicated that PRT guideways require tighter tolerances than usual in civil engineering works and that provisions for fine adjustments to the running surface should be made.

J. Edward Anderson presented a paper titled “How to Design a PRT Guideway”. He argued that in most cases, the design of the guideway has been more or less an afterthought. The purpose of his paper was to stress the importance of adequate consideration of guideway design requirements and criteria. He listed 33 PRT guideway design requirements, discussed issues and tradeoffs and presented 19 PRT guideway design criteria before drawing detailed conclusions.

Ray MacDonald argued for high capacity PRT standardization. He was concerned that the technology is becoming divided into low capacity PRT following APM criteria (e.g. brick wall stopping requirements) and high capacity PRT rejecting these requirements. He considered low capacity PRT to not be financially feasible and urged standardization around high capacity PRT, even if used initially for low capacity applications.

John Lees-Miller presented a well-illustrated discussion of the potential for ride sharing in PRT. He stated that, in order to promote ride sharing it is very important to generate an environment that encourages it. He also showed that ride sharing becomes less effective as the number of potential destinations increases.

Wait Time vs. No. of Destinations

Ingmar Andreasson presented a paper titled “Extending PRT Capabilities” in which he examined various ways of increasing PRT capacity without reducing headway. He discussed three different ways of increasing capacity – ride-sharing, platooning of empties (since there is no safety reason not to run empties at very short headways) and pair-coupling (trains of two occupied vehicles). His results are tabulated below:

He suggested that combining all three features could increase capacity by a factor of 3 above the basic 1,200 passengers per hour per direction for a system with a 3-second headway.

Finally Jun-Ho Lee presented a paper on PRT computer simulation. He proposed an apparatus making it possible to directly evaluate vehicle operation characteristics on the guideway using real hardware. This could reduce the time for the development, implementation and evaluation of the operational control algorithm for PRT.