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.

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?

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.

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.

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 3^rd 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.

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.”

Airport parking products typically are provided at a range of costs, depending on proximity to the terminal, and features such as valet service and shelter. Studies have shown air travelers are prepared to pay over $1 per day extra for every minute they can park closer to the terminal. In addition, travelers have been found prepared to pay more for parking served by personal rapid transit (PRT). Although not entirely clear, this willingness to pay extra is thought to be influenced by the high level of service provided by PRT, in addition to shorter trip times.

A PRT system provides a higher level of service more efficiently than a shuttle bus because:

• There is less waiting (less than one minute)
• Trip time is less because there is no stopping to pick up others or for other traffic
• Trip time is the same every time
• Platforms are at floor level – roll-on, roll-off
• Everyone gets a seat
• It costs less to operate
• Curbside congestion and emissions are reduced.

Unlike conventional automated people movers, PRT stations are small and can be located at grade in the interior of parking lots. Numerous stations can be provided to minimize walking distances. Since stations are typically off-line, trips are non-stop and adding stations does not slow service down. Click here to see pictures of the PRT system at Heathrow Airport.

Small station sizes can be beneficial at the terminal end of the trip too. Numerous small stations can reduce walking distances to the airline of choice. In some terminals it may be possible to retrofit PRT stations in the interior of the building. Replacing shuttle buses with PRT service will reduce both emissions and curbside congestion.

PRT service to passenger parking lots could both increase the use of the lots and allow higher rates. The increased revenues, coupled with lower operating costs, could more than offset the initial capital costs of the system. In addition, a PRT system can be easily expanded to also provide inter-terminal transportation and serve other facilities, such as employee parking lots and rental car companies. Each rental car company would still get direct non-stop service, and the need for a consolidated facility could thus be reduced or eliminated.

Interest in personal rapid transit (PRT) is growing rapidly, and a wide variety of entities are now looking at purchasing, supporting and/or facilitating PRT applications of vastly differing sizes and complexities. Many of these entities are relatively new to the concept of PRT and, although enamored by it, may lack the skills to adequately protect themselves and/or their communities from the risks that may be involved. PRT is very easy for the user to understand, but it incorporates a number of technical aspects not easy for the owner to understand. Even those well versed in conventional transit will usually require many years of study and involvement before they comprehend all of the nuances associated with PRT.

There are now a number of PRT suppliers with paying clients and commercially available systems. Other entrepreneurs are developing new systems – each with the stated potential to provide even better service for less cost. Few system developers have the capital to both develop and commercialize their systems independently, and many are seeking projects suitable to allow the development process to be folded into a commercial application. This type of arrangement can bring benefits to all parties, but the risks must be thoroughly understood.

While the developer may (or may not) understand all of the risks involved, it is unlikely that the party, to be the beneficiary of the ultimate application, has the technical expertise to truly understand what they are getting into and how to mitigate their risks. In addition, the beneficiary needs the tools necessary to fully understand the different options that are available, in order to receive a PRT application that meets its needs. If one company is offering what seems like an unbeatable deal, there will often be others available with different offers that may or may not better meet the beneficiary’s needs and, therefore, may warrant consideration.

We have added a new section to our website to provide an overview of the activities involved in a typical PRT project. However, not all of these activities are necessarily required for each project. This section is not intended to be exhaustive, just to outline the types of things that need to be done to help ensure successful PRT projects.

Transportation is Broken – a New Solution is Needed

A review of the major characteristics of our urban transportation system quickly reveals that it is thoroughly broken. Of even greater concern is the fact that most of the solutions currently gaining traction will do little to solve the most pressing problems.

The problem

Let’s start by comparing how various indicators have grown relative to population growth over the past 20 years. Table 1 lists major transportation characteristics and their growth over a 20 year period. The horizontal red line shows the U.S. population growth over that time (about 24%), and the discussion below compares the growth of each characteristic to the population growth, in order to put things in perspective (if nothing changed, these characteristics could all be expected to grow at the same rate as the population has grown).

Accidents. The total number of accidents has actually declined. While this is the only factor to decline, and clearly a good thing, it is still not nearly enough. Over 40,000 people are still killed on US roads annually (compared with total U.S. deaths in Vietnam – 58,159; Iraq – 4,334; 9/11 – 2,993), and road traffic injuries are one of the top three causes of death for people aged between 5 and 44 years worldwide. Lest you think the US is much safer than the rest of the world, we are not. There are approximately 60 countries with lower death rates per 100,000 population. Improving safety is no easy feat, since advances in safety technology can be easily offset by societal changes, such as texting while driving.

Use of Public Transportation. Transit use grew a little more than population but much less than passenger vehicle miles traveled. Try as we might, we just cannot convince people to leave their cars for transit. During the recent period of high gasoline prices, a small jump in transit use was experienced. This caused problems for transit agencies around the country, because they lose money on each rider! This unsustainable practice was exacerbated by reduced tax-based subsidies and meant that many agencies had to reduce service at the precise time they should have been increasing it. Subsidized transit systems may be necessary to ensure that the disadvantaged have reasonably priced transportation. However, a sustainable transit system, that can rise to meet changing demand, needs to cover at least its operating expenses from the fare box – something that few US transit systems can accomplish.

Transportation Energy Use. This is growing an alarming 50% faster than the population and a large portion of this energy comes from foreign oil suppliers. 96.6% of all transportation energy use is petroleum-based and any growth at all is problematic. As cheap oil resources are depleted, and as countries such as India and China dramatically increase their oil use, cost of oil is likely to rise steeply and cause serious problems for transportation.

Delays Caused by Congestion. As more and more cities face rush-hour gridlock (and rush-hours get longer and longer), this factor is growing twice as fast as the population and congestion now wastes 3.5 billion man-hours every year. We do not seem to be able to build ourselves out of this problem. Consider I-25 through Denver; Two years after a major improvement project took it from six to eight lanes plus light rail, it regularly suffers congestion similar to what it did before the construction. Paradoxically, even in bad traffic, the light rail train seldom passes the automobiles. This is because the light rail system only averages under 25 mph. By the way, the light rail’s two lines cost about the same to build as the eight lanes of highway, even though they carry much less traffic.

Passenger Vehicle Miles Travelled. The amount of driving we do is outgrowing the population by almost three times! This high level of passenger vehicle use is widely seen as being unsustainable. The energy used (and the related foreign oil dependence) is seen by many as being the major issue. However, automobile use brings numerous other problems. While accidents and congestion are discussed separately, two other problems are real estate/infrastructure and automobile manufacture. Each car typically requires four parking spaces (one at home, one at work and two others for intermittent use). The cost of this infrastructure (these spaces are typically paved and often roofed) and the street/road/highway infrastructure, needed to support our automobile use, is enormous. At the same time, the real estate used to support automobiles increases the cost of other utilities and decreases the quality of urban living. Furthermore, the cost of highways is increasing as design standards are continually raised in an attempt to reduce accidents. In addition, the tax revenue to support this infrastructure has not kept pace with the need, and we are likely to face increased taxes and/or more and more tolled highways. The cost to society of individual automobile ownership is rising as we strive to make cars more sustainable. It’s time we took a long hard look at what automobile ownership really costs.

Logistics Costs. These are the costs of moving goods and they have increased far faster than the population has grown. At this pace, logistics costs are set to have major impacts on our economy. Part of the reason is that we move a very large proportion of goods by semi trucks rather than rail. Rail is a far more efficient way to move goods, but we lack the infrastructure to economically collect and distribute goods at the ends of the rail lines. Shipping suffered from a similar problem, wherein the cost of handling goods in harbors exceeded the cost of shipping them over the seas. This changed with the advent of container ships. A similar revolution is needed for rail.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Transportation accounted for 47% of the net increase in total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. It currently contributes 34% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing transportation-related greenhouse gases requires reducing the amount of energy used by transportation, as well as changing the primary source of that energy.

A solution

Think transit is the solution? Think again. In the U.S., transit uses (wastes) as much energy per passenger mile as the automobile. This is largely because trains and buses run around empty most of the day. Transit infrastructure is expensive to build, consumes much real estate and resources, and its construction contributes significantly to greenhouse gases. High speed rail and air travel may be good solutions for long distances, but both suffer a last mile (or last many mile) problem and do nothing for urban mobility.

It is amazing to think that we are still using the stagecoach model for transit. A stagecoach runs on fixed routes with designated stops. There is seldom a stop at the desired origin and destination (the first/last mile problem mentioned above). The vehicle accommodates many people, to spread the cost of the driver, and has to stop whenever somebody needs to get on or off. All we have done to this model is make the vehicles bigger, turn the stops into stations and the routes into corridors. The ride may be a little smoother and the speed a little higher, but the quality of service has hardly improved. A rail system, with top speeds in the fifties and stations every mile, has an average speed under 25mph. “Modern” street cars often have average speeds in the single digits. It is no wonder transit only achieves a mode share of around 4%. The model is broken and we need to quit trying to fix it. We need a new model.

What if you did not have to wait for transit, you always got a seat, and it took you where you want to go without stopping? Would you use it? The only mode of transportation that currently operates this way is the automobile at 3a.m. Even then, stops at “dumb” traffic signals for no crossing traffic at all are often required. Amazingly enough, transit that operates this way was invented over fifty years ago. It is called personal rapid transit (PRT) and it can be likened to automated (driverless) taxis operating on a system of guideways. The reasons PRT could help solve our transportation problems are:

1. It has a high level of service (more like a car than a bus) and really can attract drivers from their cars.

1. It uses about a third the energy of most other modes.
2. It is electrically powered so, as we convert the grid to renewable sources of energy, we automatically also convert PRT-based transportation.
3. It has proven to be about a hundred times safer than conventional transit.
4. Elevated or buried (PRT tunnels are much smaller to move the same number of people) guideways do not use up real estate or cause neighborhood severance.
5. Small vehicle sizes (like a small automobile) require minimal infrastructure.
6. Each automated T-Pod (transportation pod) will be reused fifty or more times a day – an efficient use of manufacturing resources and a reduced need for parking.
7. In off-peak times, unused T-Pods wait in stations or depots – there is much reduced empty vehicle movement.

Table 2 below shows my opinion of the extent to which various solutions are likely to have a positive impact on the transportation problems mentioned at the beginning of this discussion. 0 = no impact, 1 = some impact, 2 = significant impact. Certainly, some will argue with my ratings, which are based on my own opinions and analyses. In addition, PRT has yet to be proven in large applications. The point is that PRT appears to have the potential for quite significant impacts across the board, yet it is receiving attention that is dramatically disproportionate to this potential.

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.