Personal Rapid Transit
Strategies for Advancing
The State Of The Industry
Transportation Research Board - January 23, 2007
Paul Hoffman – hoffman_paul@bah.com 703-377-0496
Agenda
The Urban Transportation Challenge
Overview of Personal Rapid Transit
Performance Comparisons
State of the Industry
Lessons Learned from Other Industries
The Transportation Utility Business Model
2
Congestion – The Urban Transportation Challenge
Congestion in the U.S. is a significant
problem affecting:
Economic viability of urban regions
Quality of life
Environment
National metrics of congestion*:
2.3 billion annual gallons of fuel wasted
$63 billion in financial costs
Average annual delay per person




93 hours in Los Angeles
69 hours in Washington DC
49 hours in NY/NJ
47 hours US average
Congestion is only getting worse and has
increased an average 9% per year since
1982
*Source TTI 2005 Urban Mobility Study
3
19th Century Options for a 21st Century Problem
Expansion of current modes is limited by:
High costs
Land availability
Impact and public acceptance
Highways
Expensive in urban areas
Limited land availability
Metro/Commuter Rail
Expensive in urban areas
Light Rail
High service factor but limited by surface traffic
unless separated at higher cost
Bus
Low cost but limited by surface traffic and
slower trip times
Additional capacity is needed
ITS can optimize use of current infrastructure
Congestion pricing can manage demand
New infrastructure that offers high service
and capacity at a reasonable cost and
impact is also needed to meet growing
demand
4
The Genesis of PRT - Needs and Features
A New Paradigm for Urban Public Transportation
PRT has been engineered as an innovative and new system using advanced,
commercially available automation to address the needs of urban
transportation
Need
Design Feature and Goal
Faster and more attractive
service
 Non-stop, on-demand service
Lower operating costs
 Reduced staffing through increased levels of automation
 Private, seated-only vehicles
 Reduced energy use
Lower capital costs
 Reduced size of infrastructure for stations, track and rightof-way
Improve urban integration
and access
 Lower costs, smaller footprint and tighter turning radius to
integrate into dense urban environments
Reduce congestion
 Faster and personalized service to attract private
automobile users
Reduced pollution
 Quiet, electric vehicles
Reduced energy use
 Small, lightweight vehicles operating non-stop and on
demand to eliminate unnecessary vehicle movements
Increased safety and security
 Distributed demand and continuous flow to eliminate
crowds under advanced monitoring and control
5
Technology Overview – PRT Fundamentals
Fundamental elements of PRT technology:
On-demand, non-stop, origin-to-destination service
Small, automated vehicles
Small, exclusive use guideways
Off-line stations
Network of connected guideways
Combines elements of automotive, computer,
network and transit technologies
Uses current state-of-the-art technologies
including:
Advanced propulsion systems
On-board switching and guidance
High speed controls and communication
Lightweight advanced materials
6
PRT represents a new
option for sustainable,
effective urban
transportation providing
higher access and service
at a lower cost than
current transit options.
Components of PRT
Small, fully automated vehicles
ULTra
Skyweb Express
Vectus
Small, exclusive use guideways
Small guideway and
foundation reduces right of
way requirements
Low impact allows ease of
urban integration
7
Components of PRT
Off-line stations sized to demand
3 Berth
6 Berth
9 Berth
12 Berth
Networks supporting distributed demand and line haul access
Line-Haul
Rail System
8
Comparison and Performance of PRT
PRT is expected to offer cost and performance improvements over
conventional transit and road solutions. Expected benefits from
engineering studies and pilots systems include:
Need
Design Feature and Goal
Faster total travel times
 14 – 65% faster overall travel speeds than rail
Lower operating costs
 25 -50% lower than light rail
 Comparable or slightly higher than heavy rail
 Lower or comparable with automobile
Lower capital costs
 25-50% lower than light rail
 35-75% lower than monorail or heavy rail
Reduced energy use
 Auto equivalent of 70-90 mpg
 Up to 50% less than rail
Capacity
 Comparable to light rail and advanced bus systems
 Lower than heavy rail per corridor, higher on a
capacity/cost basis
 One-way guideway equal to 2-3 highway lanes
Small right of way
 3’-5’ wide guideway
 Able to be installed on curb or median
 Stations integrated into buildings
9
PRT Performance Comparison – Average Speed
Average speed is determined
by line speed, number of stops,
distance between stops, dwell
time at stops, and trip length
25
Average Speed (mph)
PRT systems can achieve an
average speed of 20-25 mph
with line speed of 25-30 mph
due to non-stop trip
PRT trips can be 80-100%
faster than a typical bus trip
20
15
10
5
0
PRT trips can be 20-30%
faster than a typical heavy rail
trip
Transit
Average
Metro Rail Light Rail
Bus
PRT
Mode
Source: 2005 APTA Fact Book
All else being equal, higher
average speed can result in
higher patronage
Non-stop service allows PRT to
have higher average speeds than
other transit modes
10
O&M Cost Comparison
O&M Cost Per Passenger Mile
Au
to
h
Hig
PR
T
Av
g
PR
T
Lo
w
PR
T
Av
g
AP
M
Bu
s
US
LR
T
US
Co
mm
ute
r
US
US
Me
tro
$0.90
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
High levels of automation, reliable commercial components and
exclusive use guideways should allow PRT systems to have
competitive Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs.
11
Source: 2005
APTA Transit
Fact Book, NJT,
FTA, Case
Studies, PRT
Vendors
O&M Cost and Revenue Per Trip Comparison
Transit O&M cost recovery is 34% nationally
PRT systems can be expected to recover a higher percentage of O&M
costs if fares reflect per mile O&M cost
$ per Trip
PRT in a moderate scale application can expect to break even on
operating costs for an average four mile trip and average fare of $1.60
$9
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
US
al l
r
e
Ov
US
m
Co
ter
u
m
US
T
LR
US
s
Bu
US
M
o
etr
T
PR
M
Revenue
12
T
PR
O&M Cost
Source:
2005 APTA
Transit Fact
Book, NJT,
FTA, Case
Studies, PRT
Vendors
PRT Capital Cost Comparison
Capital costs are highly specific to
location, line layout, number and
complexity of stations
Capital Cost/Mile ($M)
The design of PRT systems, with
small vehicles and guideways,
can support lower capital costs
than other exclusive, gradeseparated, fixed guideway rail
systems
PRT costs can be expected to be
comparable with exclusive rightof-way BRT systems
Lower capital costs would be
primarily due to:
Mode
Low
Average
High
Metro Rail
$110
$200
$2,000
Light Rail
$25
$50-$70
$195
APM – Urban
$30
$100-$120
$145
APM - Airport
$49
$100-$150
$237
BRT Busway
$7
$14-$25
$50
BRT Tunnel
$200
$250
$300
PRT One Way
$15
$20-$35
$50
PRT Two Way
$25
$30- $50
$75
Smaller guideway and stations
Reduced civil work and right-ofway acquisition
Sources:Kerr-2005, TCRP –R90, GAO – BRT 2000,
Vendor Estimates, Case Studies
13
PRT Energy Comparison
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
ENERGY USE, kW- 3.0
2.5
hr/pass-mi
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Build
HVAC
Air Drag
Road
Kinetic
HR
LR
TB
MB
VP
DB
A
PR
Source: Anderson 1998 - Note: PRT figures are engineering estimates only
TRANSIT MODE
PRT can provide lower overall energy use than other transit modes
with an auto equivalent of 70-90 MPG
HR - Heavy Rail Transit; LR - Light Rail Transit;
TB - Trolley Bus; MB - Motor Bus;
VP - Van Pool; DB - Dial-a-Bus;
A - Automobile; PR - Personal Rapid Transit.
14
PRT Performance Comparison – Capacity
Line capacity is determined by headway, vehicle capacity and load factor
PRT systems can have comparable line capacity with bus and light rail if
safe and reliable short headway operation is achieved
PRT systems can have higher overall system capacity when multiple lines
and network layouts are considered with comparable total costs
Transit Mode Line Capacity
PRT Theoretical
Expected
BUSWAY Theoretical
Observed
LIGHT RAIL Theoretical
Observed
M ETRO RAIL Theoretical
Observed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Passengers/Hour/Direction (k)
15
70
80
90
Source:
TCRP
Transit
Capacity
Manual
PRT Technology Maturation
PRT has followed an extended R&D stage and is entering an
early adopter stage of maturation
High
Large Scale Urban Mass Market
Regulated Utilities, Commoditization
Small – Moderate Scale Systems
Standardization, Public/Private Development
Adoption
Early Adopters - Public Systems
Morgantown
Heathrow, UAE? Sweden? Macau?
Applied Research -Prototype and Pilot Systems
Cabintaxi, CVS, Raytheon, ULTRa, EDICT, Vectus, Siemens?
Low
Basic Research -Concept Development
We are at a technology
inflection point
Aerospace, UMTA, AGRT, U of M
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
16
2010
2020
2030
2040
Summary PRT State-of-the-Industry
Active or past test track operation
ULTra, CabinTaxi, Raytheon, CVS, Morgantown, Aramis
Current prototype development
Vectus, SkyWeb Express, Microrail, Coaster, Ecotaxi/Kone
Readiness
Significant research, engineering, development and application studies for
over 40 years
Past efforts provide a solid foundation for final engineering and development
Advanced technology components are proven and ready to support an
integrated PRT system design
An optimum configuration and viable vendor base has not been established
Acceptance
Cities and regions continue to display interest in PRT and select as preferred
alternative but disqualify PRT due to lack of proven technology
Research and development
Developers are limited due to lack of market acceptance and financial backing
Korean, Swedish and British development programs underway
Current application interest and procurements
Great Britain - Heathrow; United States; Dubai, UAE; Korea; Europe
17
Moving Forward – PRT as Full Option for Urban Transportation
Conventional transit guideway systems have difficulty providing
urban scale service due to limitations including:
Custom designs
Limited standards and interoperability
Limited scalability
Expensive and disruptive implementation
Required transfers between line haul segments
Service reductions for station additions
To achieve the promise of an urban transportation solution, PRT
will need to:
Avoid custom designs and vendor specific solutions that limit
scalability, require transfers, increase complexity
Adopt standards and commercial business models that provide
increase revenue potential and decreased costs
18
Vision for the Future PRT - The Network Utility Model
PRT has the opportunity to develop a new business model with the
potential to SCALE beyond the limited access of fixed guideway transit
The model is founded on the success of other commercial network
businesses such as:
Telephone
Internet
Cell Phones
Cable
These network industries are founded on several fundamental principles:
Open standards
Mass production and economies of scale
Multiple suppliers and providers
Government regulation of public access and right of way
Market pricing
Open competition
Private funding
Transit can also follow these network successes if the fundamentals are
applied to a common technology
19
Scalable Transit Networks
PRT systems have the potential to evolve from local circulation
and distribution systems to a full regional network
Franchise District #1
20
Scalable Transit Networks
PRT systems have the potential to evolve from local circulation
and distribution systems to a full regional network
Franchise District #1
Franchise District #2
Franchise District #3
21
The Internet Example
Standard-Enabled Business
TCP/IP protocol allowed all manufacturers
to build to a common standard that
allowed different devices and software
products to work on a common network.
A commercial business model with mass
production, competition and division of
providers
Backbone Trunk Lines
Devices
Software
Customer Access
Billing
The Internet: On Demand
Information, Anytime,
Anywhere
Administration
Content Providers
Private utilities with government
regulatory involvement
22
PRT Standards
Performance and technical standards needed for scaleable PRT
deployments:
Vehicle Guideway Interface
Power
Control and Communication
Standards allow
competition and
mass production to
occur resulting in:
Ticketing
• reduced costs
Safety, Security
• increased quality
Propulsion
Development of standards can occur:
• market certainty
As de facto from the industry leading technology
In cooperation with public agencies, federal government,
associations, and manufacturers
23
PRT Standards – Vehicle Guideway Interface
The vehicle guideway interface is a critical standard that will
require market validation to determine the optimum
configuration
Skyweb Express
ULTra
24
Vectus
Transportation Utility Business Model
Structured to be a distributed, self-promulgating model similar
to the Internet, Cable or Cellular
Elements of an integrated business model
Regulator Agency
Developers/Franchise Holders
Service Operators
Vehicle Operators
Manufacturers
Regulatory agency:
Sells or grants public access/right-of-way through franchises
Oversee standards compliance
Insure safety, security, equal access
Manage fare policy and costs of developer/service provider
Manage central operations provider
Provides supplemental funding
25
Development Funded Capital Expansion
Developers
Granted air-rights to install
guideways in specific regions
Multiple developers with
adjoining regions provide
connectivity between networks
Contract with manufacturers to
build and install guideways
Contract with central operations
provider for system management
and control
Revenue Opportunities
Value Capture from capital
appreciation or revenue from
increased land value and real
estate development
Cargo Services
Station Fee from local
developers to install stations and
off-line guideways as an aid to
development
Advertising and
Entertainment fees
Fare Revenue
Right-of-Way Fees
Supplemental Public Support
26
Operators Contract to Provide Services
Service Operators
Provide command and control functions
Supervise overall control of system
Insure vehicles and guideway sections are performing to standards
Vehicle Operators
Multiple providers are allowed to operate vehicles
Similar to access providers for the internet
Contract with manufacturers to build vehicles
Contract with service operators for access to systems
Manufacturers
Build components such as control, vehicles and guideways to
standards
Compete on design, cost, efficacy, reliability, performance
27
Summary
PRT has the potential to offer:
High level of service that can potentially attract drivers from their cars and
help relieve congestion
Lower capital and operating costs than other fixed rail options
Lower right-of-way requirements and opportunity to integrate and expand
existing transportation systems with potentially reduced urban disruption
Reduced energy use and environmental impact
Increased safety and security
To advance beyond limited scale implementations, the industry needs:
Proven performance in public applications
Safe and reliable service
Standardized and scaleable technology
Mass production and economies of scale
A business model that:
 Reduces government capital and operating investments through private
development and value capture
 Allows market competition and innovation to address urban needs
28