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.

The success of the conference PRT@LHR (April 21 – 23, 2009) was amplified by fascinating tours of the ULTra PRT system at London’s Heathrow Airport (LHR). The dynamic three-day conference drew over a hundred people comprising approximately 24% owners/potential owners, 50% consultants and 20% PRT suppliers with a large portion of the remainder being made up of academics. Session attendance was slightly depleted by small groups leaving for frequent tours of the PRT system. Presentation topics were varied and interesting, making it a challenge to decide when to schedule a PRT tour. The only negative comments heard about the conference related to the hardness of the seating, while the only negative comments heard about the PRT system related to the ugly guideway fencing. The fencing was constructed for worker safety during erection and, it is hoped, will be replaced by more elegant safety railing.

T-Pod emerging from station

Vectus and 2getthere impressed the audience with their system advancements – Vectus with an impressive video of their winter weather capabilities and 2getthere announcing that they intend to commence carrying the public at their Masdar, UAE, installation later this year. The Masdar system is expected to ultimately have about a hundred stations and thousands of T-Pods.

The second day was focused on PRT plans in Holland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States. Nick Ford explained that a recent Frost & Sullivan study estimates €30b will have been spent on PRT worldwide by 2020. Gőran Tégner, of WSP, said that Swedish studies show total transit mode share rising 15 percentage points on average when PRT is introduced. Nathan Koren of ATS, Ltd., said that land value uplift can dwarf PRT capital costs. The author indicated their studies of PRT for a US Army Post found capital costs per passenger to be 11% and 22% respectively of those of recent rail and light rail projects.

The final day of the conference was focused on the CityMobil program. Michel Parent of INRIA stated that it is not possible to mix manual and automated cars at high speeds. He said that automated platooning at 0.3 second headways has been demonstrated at any speeds.

While attendees were not given rides on the PRT system, the author was privileged to ride it after the conference. Videos taken during the ride and during the conference tour may be viewed at