Posts Tagged ‘personal rapid transit’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Urban Personal Rapid Transit Guideways

Thursday, November 25th, 2010

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Why Has Masdar Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Been Scaled Back?

Saturday, October 16th, 2010

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.

Rubber-tired, battery-operated PRT vehicle, manufactured by 2getthere, being tested in the undercroft below the podium (pedestrain) level at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology.

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

PRT @LHR 2010 – Summary of Personal Rapid Transit Conference at Heathrow Airport – Days Two and Three

Saturday, September 25th, 2010

Wednesday – Thursday 22nd – 23rd 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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conferences | No Comments »

PRT @LHR 2010 – Summary of Personal Rapid Transit Conference at Heathrow Airport – Day One

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

Tuesday 21st 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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conferences | No Comments »

Mn/DOT Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Workshop

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conferences | No Comments »

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and Risk

Saturday, August 14th, 2010

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?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Car-Free City Enabled by Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Imagine a city designed to be free of cars, trucks and buses, yet to include a transportation system that will whisk its residents to any destination quickly and quietly without stopping. Children, the elderly, disabled and poor would have mobility similar to that currently available to the rest of the population.  The buildings could be much closer together, allowing easier walking, and/or they could accommodate more open space. The lack of accidents (personal rapid transit (PRT) is two orders of magnitude safer than current forms of transportation) would bring significant social benefits and greatly reduce the need for emergency services. Crime would be deterred, since the PRT stations and vehicles would be under constant video surveillance.

Some would argue that such a city would still need roads for emergency response, maintenance, refuse removal and large delivery vehicles. However, there are probably other (potentially better) ways of providing these services. Buildings could be sprinkled for fire suppression and equipped to facilitate emergency evacuation. Emergency personnel could utilize the PRT system, which would provide faster access than any present road system, and bring their personal gear with them. Special PRT vehicles could be equipped to accommodate gurneys and function as ambulances, while others could be equipped to support fire fighting. PRT freight vehicles could remove trash and deliver goods. Low-impact vehicles could deliver large goods by slowly driving down the pedestrian walkways, linking the buildings to each other and the PRT system. Some of the infrastructure savings could be used to fund helicopter services for extreme emergencies or exceptionally difficult movement of large items. All of these concepts need to be refined and incorporated in the new city’s building and planning codes, but none seem insurmountable.

Such a city couldbe made more sustainable by incorporating numerous additional low energy/emissions/waste technologies and yet be built for less than the cost to build a conventional city, since it would require less transportation infrastructure. Fewer PRT vehicles (and vehicle storage spaces) would be needed than the cars they replace, because each vehicle would make 50 to 100 trips per day. Even though the city cost less to build, its value would likely be higher than a conventional city. Studies have shown that the value of housing served by a good transit system is increased 6% to 45%, and commercial land values have been shown to increase 24% to 103%.

Residents would be able to purchase homes at a reduced cost and to reduce their automobile ownership. They would leave any cars they did own in parking facilities at the perimeter of the new city. Recreational vehicles would also be stored at the perimeter. Those with jobs in the new city would seldom use automobiles and thus lead much safer lives with reduced waste of time. Opportunities to use technology for improving many aspects of life, beyond just transportation, could help keep the new city almost free of crime and allow the residents to have a truly wonderful standard of living. It is finally time to take our cities back from the automobile and let them serve human needs once more.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Modern Mobility, What is PRT and Why You Should Care

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

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 23rd, 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

 

Probable Construction Costs

Item

At-Grade

Elevated

Guideway/mile

$1.33M

$4.4M

2-bay Station

$48,000

$362,000

3-bay Station

$69,000

$465,000

 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

 

  Dulles Rail Project Mid-Jordan LRT Extension Fort Carson PRT Project Village West PRT Project
Miles of track 23 (2-way) 11 (2-way) 23 (1-way) 10 (1-way)
Stations 11 9 35 26
Daily  pax 60,000 9,500 53,500 15,519
Capital cost $5,200M $428M $529M $137M
Cost per mile $113M $19M $23M $14M
Cost per station $473M $48M $15M $5M
Cost per annual pax $290 $150 $33 $24
Type Corridor Corridor Network Network

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conferences | No Comments »

Passenger Terminal Expo 2010 – Summary of PRT Presentations

Friday, March 26th, 2010

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 3rd 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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conferences | 1 Comment »

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Papers and Presentations at TRB 2010

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

There were four personal rapid transit (PRT) –related papers and/or presentations at the 89th 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

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 Progress

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

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

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.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conferences | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »