Website
Header

Efficient Transit Solutions                                                                                      Spring 2013

Connecting Greenville 

I facilitated a connectivity workshop in Greenville, South Carolina recently. The results are summarized below.

 
Connecting Greenville
Linking neighborhoods and businesses through innovative transportation 
Using multiple modes: walking, cycling, car, bus and personal rapid transit 
Creating GreenVillages where connected people love to live, work, shop, dine and play 
Anywhere, anytime - it's a moving experience
 
In a workshop held May 9 and 10, 2013 over 35 community leaders, professionals and citizens agreed personal rapid transit (PRT) solutions in Greenville should be seriously explored in order to:

Create a sustainable future for Greenville by improving accessibility and economic vitality

PRT is like a driverless taxi system and attracts choice riders. Since it operates on overhead guideways, it takes you safely to your destination nonstop. Numerous stations reduce walking distances and wait times are very short. The system can operate 24/7 and, because of the lack of drivers, operating costs are low. Because PRT offers first class private transit, its impacts on land values are expected to at least match those of regular transit (found to increase land values by an average of 42% by the American Public Transit Association). A survey of Greenvillians is finding a surprisingly high proportion of car drivers would consider switching to a high quality transit system like PRT.

In considering the potential impact of PRT on problems associated with cars and roads, the group compared it with other modes and concluded it could be far more effective. 
 
Potential Impact on Car and Road Problems

 
Will you join us in Connecting Greenville...
When: Starting now! Downtown to CUICAR by 2018!

Surface Transportation System Automation 

Introduction

The US Department of Transportation is presently soliciting input on the above topic. Our response to some of their subtopics is presented here.

General

1. Role of government

Federal government should work to understand how market forces and regulatory requirements may unbalance the playing field to the detriment of society. Some examples follow, comparing autonomous vehicles to personal rapid transit (PRT) where PRT is a systematized form of autonomous vehicles travelling on separated fixed guideways and functioning as a public transit system, while autonomous vehicles function individually and travel on the open road.

If autonomous vehicles can increase road safety and capacity, significant benefits will accrue to the travelling public. PRT is already proven to reduce road congestion and to be orders of magnitude safer than cars and transit and, if it also proves to be scalable, significant benefits will accrue to the traveling public. It seems that both technologies (variations on the same theme) have the potential to significantly benefit the travelling public and will probably each address different segments of the market that may blend over time.

a) Market forces

Since autonomous vehicles will mostly be sold to the general public and since they are being developed as incremental modifications of conventional automobiles, the barriers to entry are not high. In addition, since most households own cars, the general interest in autonomous cars is naturally high and many already dream of owning one.

On the other hand PRT is a system that requires new infrastructure. Even though the total cost of a PRT system per passenger mile can be much less than the total cost of the road/automobile system, this requirement for new infrastructure is a huge barrier to entry. It means that most PRT systems will be purchased by government agencies and require significant upfront capital funding. Federal government agencies tend to react to requests from their constituents, many of whom have never heard of PRT and do not understand its potential to solve their problems. In addition, the political situation is such that a mayor would often rather wait for a $1 B light rail project with 50% FTA funding than proceed immediately with a $400 M locally- funded PRT project that does a better job but does not bring $500 M of federally funded jobs to his/her community. Even if the PRT project were FTA funded it would only bring $200 M federal money to the community. The current federal subsidy of fixed guideway projects is thus a barrier to entry for new, innovative and less expensive solutions.

In addition, federal funding of transit projects is biased towards conventional corridor-based modes since many qualification criteria are based on corridor analyses. PRT can function in a corridor but, in many applications, provides optimal service when functioning as a network. Since most people desire to travel from origin to destination with little or no need to pass through a corridor on the way, it would seem more appropriate to consider transportation alternatives on the basis of service area analyses rather than corridor analyses.

While it is appreciated that the scope of this RFI has been broadened to include PRT, this is insufficient. The scope needs to also include the driverless transportation of goods and freight - preferably not limited to roads but also including railroads. The driverless revolution will impact all of these modes and the interaction between modes must be understood if full advantage is to be taken of automation. The ability for automation to allow us to reinvent the entire surface transportation system (and some aspects of the air transportation system too) should not be underestimated.

Automating cars in mixed traffic is a challenge. However, the mix of small and large vehicles may change dramatically if drivers are eliminated. To what extent will it be necessary to have large vehicles transport freight if all vehicles are driverless? What proportion of freight would be more economically and efficiently moved in small driverless vehicles that require much smaller and less expensive supporting infrastructure? How much less capital and O&M cost would be required for the infrastructure? What would the impacts on road congestion be?

The role of the federal government should be to understand the societal benefits of the different solutions and seek to balance market forces in a way that society receives the solutions it needs, not just the ones that natural market forces and political considerations tend to favor. The federal government needs to lead in the development of an integrated automated surface transportation system for people and freight that dramatically improves safety, efficiency and sustainability. Such a system needs to address all of the following issues related to surface transportation:

* Congestion
* Safety
* Energy use
* Foreign oil use
* Emissions and climate change (cradle to grave)
* Overall mobility/accessibility
* Mobility/accessibility of non-drivers
* Mobility/accessibility of non-vehicle owners
* Logistics
* Severance of neighborhoods
* Right-of-way requirements
* Capital, operating and maintenance costs
* Walkability
* Economic impacts
* Land use

Specifically with regard to PRT, one role of the federal government should be to fund a PRT demonstration program. While many of the concerns expressed in the recent San Jos� PRT feasibility study may be easily addressed, some, such as scalability to large networks, require complicated hardware-in-the-loop evaluation, and almost all could be overcome with an extensive demonstration program. Without such a program, PRT in the U.S. will continue to languish behind systems being deployed elsewhere and will likely be limited to small campus-type applications for many years. A PRT demonstration program is needed in order to demonstrate if PRT is scalable to widespread urban deployment of the kind necessary to attract many drivers from their cars - a feature that could probably eliminate congestion long before autonomous vehicles are able to do so. If PRT can be widely deployed, its ability to significantly increase transit mode share has been demonstrated in many studies such as by Dekhordi which show transit mode shares doubling, tripling and more in many European cities.

b) Regulatory Requirements

Cars have a horrendous safety record yet the general public seems to have grown immune to the dangers of driving - they are presently outraged at gun-related deaths but seem not to realize or care that even more are killed by cars every year. On the other hand the Morgantown PRT system has completed over 140 million injury free passenger miles in its 37-year existence - a safety record unmatched by any non-automated transportation system.

The regulatory requirements for PRT in the U.S. seem likely to be based on the ASCE Automated People Mover Standards which seems reasonable since PRT is a subset of automated people movers. The safety requirements in these standards are very rigorous and will result in PRT systems far exceeding the safety of driven systems.

The regulatory requirements for privately-used autonomous vehicles seem unclear but may be no stricter than those for present-day automobiles. Autonomous taxis on the other hand could be regulated as automated transit just like PRT. This could create an interesting situation where privately-used autonomous vehicles come to fruition quickly, but do not bring substantial safety benefits and autonomous taxis struggle for a long time to meet the rigorous standards PRT currently meets.

The role of the federal government should be to evaluate the benefits and costs of regulatory requirements w.r.t. safety (and other issues), to determine appropriate requirements and to ensure that all transportation systems provide similar levels of safety. The current disparity between automobile and airline safety should be eliminated (and not by decreasing airline safety!).

2. Smooth assimilation of automation into an integrated transportation system

PRT is leading the way in automating passenger vehicles because it is doing so in a controlled environment - automating vehicles on the open road is far more difficult and being undertaken in an uncertain regulatory environment. Autonomous vehicle developers could learn from the experience of the PRT community.

Smooth assimilation of automation into an integrated transportation system will not occur without a rigorous systems engineering process. This process must start at the highest level and incorporate all surface transportation. The federal government needs to initiate a process whereby the requirements for an integrated fully-automated transportation system of people and goods are developed and agreed upon. Only once we understand the end system that we are striving for can we know how each component should be developed and can we design a logical phased implementation plan. The opportunity exists for the U.S. to develop a revolutionary automated surface transportation system that is highly efficient and safe. It will probably require a Kennedy-like vision and sense of mission to accomplish this.
 

Phoenix International Airport Automated People Mover

The new Phoenix International Airport Automated People Mover (APM) is scheduled to open April 8th. This magnificent system will carry 7,000 passengers a day from the 44th Street Light Rail Station across a 90 foot high bridge spanning an active aircraft taxiway to Terminal 4, while also linking to the East Economy Lot. Trains will run every 3 minutes and be comprised of two, 53-passenger cars. The initial $644 M system is part of a $1.6 B system that will also connect Terminal 3, the West Economy Lot and the Car-Rental Facility.



APMs are expensive and this one is no exception. At a 5% interest rate it will take a monthly payment of $3.5 M to amortize the $644 M capital cost over 30 years. The capital cost for each passenger carried is thus $16 - and does not include operating costs. Few facilities other than airports can afford such costly systems. Airports can afford APMs because they have revolutionized the way airports are built and allow them to function far more efficiently.

Personal rapid transit (PRT) systems are now demonstrating that they can do a better job than APMs for less cost. The Heathrow Pod receives higher customer satisfaction scores than any other system at the airport and could easily transport 7,000 passengers a day. The Vectus system entering service in Suncheon this month promises even higher capacities. With its numerous small vehicles replacing the few large vehicles used by APM, PRT requires slender guideways that are much less costly than the one depicted above for the Phoenix APM.

Heathrow found that PRT could solve a problem APM could not. How soon will other airports follow?

Personal Rapid Transit and Automated Taxis

Driverless cars are moving ever closer to reality and promise many of the benefits offered by personal rapid transit (PRT). Shared driverless cars could function as automated taxis (AT) and, some think, could replace the need for PRT altogether. This article briefly examines the similarities and differences between AT and PRT. 

 

First, let's define AT and PRT for the purposes of this discussion with the understanding that the lines between the two are liable to blur with time.

 

ATs are driverless cars which operate on the road in mixed traffic providing door-to-door service on demand. They are available for general public use and the user is assumed not to own any portion of the vehicle.

 

PRT consists of driverless vehicles custom-designed to operate between stations on a fixed guideway separated from other vehicles and pedestrians. As for autonomous taxis, the PRT vehicles are available for general public use and the user is assumed not to own any portion of the vehicle or associated infrastructure.

 

ATs will benefit from being able to use the existing road infrastructure. This will make them much cheaper and easier to bring to market than PRT which requires expensive guideways and stations. However, ATs will also have to deal with all other road traffic and the associated congestion. This congestion may be alleviated with time as the other road traffic becomes automated too. A number of factors will play into the extent to which automated vehicles alleviate congestion.

 

Congestion Relief
Many assume that automated vehicles will be able to travel closer together, thus increasing capacity by jamming more vehicles on existing roads. This may be easier said than done. Vehicle spacing is already too close for safety. Yes, computers will be more alert and have shorter reaction times, but rubber tires on highly variable road surfaces will never result in reliable braking situations. In addition, if autonomous vehicles park themselves, this function could add a leg to each trip (that could be quite long if people attempt to save on parking costs). ATs are also expected to run around empty some of the time going to pick up the next fare. This additional empty vehicle movement will require additional capacity.

Autonomous vehicles may be able to operate safely in narrower lanes allowing more use to be made of existing pavement. Once again, this benefit will probably not be realizable until all vehicles are automated and it may require separating large trucks from smaller vehicles - possible but not easy.

 

One advantage provided by the separate guideways required for PRT is that traffic congestion will immediately be relieved to the extent that drivers are attracted to the PRT system.

 

Ridesharing
Some think that vehicle occupancy will be higher with ATs than it is with present-day cars. However, ridesharing is not just a matter of willingness; it is also a matter of convenience and logistics. 

Since the AT is picking up at a discrete point in time and space and delivering to another discrete point out of many tens or hundreds of thousands, there will almost never be a stranger at the origin discrete point and time heading to the destination discrete point. This will make finding a stranger to share a ride with very difficult for those who wish to do this.

Even the chances of a stranger being at the origin discrete point and time heading to a discrete point along the AT's planned route is likely to be remote. Sharing will thus involve, at a minimum, some way for strangers to coordinate their travel plans, an intermediate stop and a possible detour.

 

Ridesharing cellphone applications could facilitate picking up hitchhikers at the expense of extra stops. These applications have not made a significant dent in automobile congestion and it is not clear if they would work any better with ATs. ATs may feel more like cars than transit and users may resist sharing rides with strangers.

 

PRT has discrete stations that require walking distances up to about � mile. An advantage that results from this is that there are far fewer discrete origins and destinations. In addition, the station platform can be used to organize people into groups having similar destinations, or destinations along a route. Schemes have been proposed for two-class PRT systems having lower fares for those willing to share rides and have a few intermediate stops.

 

Passenger behavior on existing PRT systems shows a propensity for ridesharing and people hold the doors just as they do on elevators. For these reasons, it seems PRT vehicle occupancy will be significantly higher than that for automated taxis.

 

Availability

The final factor considered here is availability. The availability of ATs may depend more on regulation than on technology developments. If automated taxis are regulated as driverless transit, they will have to meet very stringent safety requirements. It is unlikely that they will be able to meet these requirements until all vehicles sharing the roads with them are also automated. Even then, meeting these requirements could require larger spacing between vehicles to the point where ATs contribute to, rather than relieve, congestion.

 

Low speed, low range PRT is already available. Higher speed, unlimited range is also available and about to go into public service in Korea. High speed unlimited range is on the drawing boards of more than one PRT developer. Speeds of 40 mph (70 kph) in town and up to 125 mph (200 kph) between cities are likely soon to be available. Intercity travel at these speeds to stations within � mile of actual origins and destinations will be very competitive with automobiles and short range air travel. Few road vehicles are likely to reach anywhere near these speeds, driverless or not.

 

Conclusions
It seems unlikely that driverless vehicles will be implemented in sufficient numbers to start to have an impact on congestion within the next twenty years. Until that time, and possibly for some time afterwards, ATs are likely to have limited efficiency. The disadvantage of having to build and pay for PRT guideways and stations gives PRT the advantages of immediately alleviating surface traffic and being better suited to ridesharing.

 Peter Muller picture


 




  
Peter J. Muller, P.E.
President

Twitter  

  


In This Issue
Connecting Greenville
Surface Transportation System Automation
Phoenix International Airport Automated People Mover
Personal Rapid Transit and Automated Taxis
Website Updates
Upcoming Conferences


Website Updates

In addition to PRT news updates (which now occur almost daily) we have recently made the following additions:

  • New Vectus Suncheon Bay Project Pictures
  • New Modutram Test Track Picture


Upcoming Conferences

PodcarCity 7, Washington, DC, October 23- 25, 2013

Picture 
Quick Links

 

PRT Consulting, Inc.