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:
- System requirements
- Developing capital & operating costs
- 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.
