Personal Rapid Transit (PRT): Another Option for Urban Transit?

The full report  was published as Volume 2, No. 3, of the Journal of Advanced Transportation, 1988, pp 192-314. Copies are available from J.A. Kieffer, Chairman of the Advanced Transit Association (ATRA), 9019 Hamilton Drive, Fairfax, VA 22031-3075, for $15 USD, delivered. The price to ATRA members is $5 USD, delivered. Checks (only) should be payable to ATRA and be sent to J.A Kieffer.  Information about ATRA membership is available at the ATRA website.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

• Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
• Technical Committee Objectives
• Evaluation Criteria System Presentations

Chapter 2: URBAN TRANSIT: CHALLENGE AND RESPONSES

• Rail Transit (HRT and LRT)
• Buses - The Urban Workhorse
• Automated People Movers (APM)
• Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)

• Elements of PRT
• Cabintaxi
• TAXI 2000
• Visualizing PRT in Urban Application

Chapter 3: FEASIBILITY OF PRT

• Technical Feasibility of PRT
• Technical Weaknesses of Earlier PRT Concepts
• Possible Technical Deficiencies of PRT
• Recent Technology Advances of Significance for PRT
• TAXI 2000 Technical Feasibility
• Conclusions As To The Technical Feasibility of PRT

Economic Feasibility of PRT

• Methods for Comparing PRT with Alternative Transit Systems
• Evaluation of Cost Claims Made for Taxi 2000
• Guideway Cost
• Station Cost
• Vehicle Cost
• Right-of-way, Utility Relocation and Other Costs

Conclusions As To The Economic Feasibility Of PRT

• Public Acceptance Feasibility
• Environmental Impacts
• System Safety and Passenger Security
• Evaluation of TAXI 2000 Passenger Security
• Evaluation of TAXI 2000 Safety
• Conclusions As To The Public Acceptance of PRT

Chapter 4: RECOMMENDATIONS

Appendix A: Sources of Information about Cabintaxi

Appendix B: Sources of Information about TAXI 2000

Appendix C: Loon Mountain Costs for TAXI 2000

Appendix D: Performance and Cost Parameters for TAXI 2000

Appendix E: Performance and Economics for TAXI 2000 Networks

Appendix F: Correspondence about TAXI 2000

Technical Committee Objectives

The Committee met as full committee a number of times, including a meeting to hear presentations from PRT system developers, with the following objectives:

• to review PRT state of the art, taking into account its physical and service characteristics;
• to identify the conditions that must be satisfied to develop and implement PRT systems for practical use in urban settings;
• to identify the factors that decision makers would weigh in considering PRT for transit service in urban areas, especially in fulfilling needs for transit in underserved locations;
• to suggest further steps, if any, that need to be taken to make PRT a practical option for decision makers; and to develop strategies to bring the Committee's findings and conclusions to the attention of private and governmental policy makers, and others who are concerned.

These objectives were achieved by the committee, working part-time as volunteers, only in varying degrees. Much remains to be done, but the committee feels that this report represents an important first step.

The Committee focused on current PRT development activity. As worthwhile as it might have been to evaluate the many interesting PRT ideas that had been conceived through the years, such an effort was beyond the scope of the committee's work.

Evaluation Criteria

The Committee felt that decision makers examining PRT would apply evaluation criteria within the following categories, and therefore considered these in producing this report about PRT:

Categories that include features critical to whether PRT is "market ready"

• system safety and personal security (e.g., prospect for system-caused death or injury, personal threats and vandalism, and damage to property of others)
• performance (e.g., capacity, minimum speed and travel time, service availability, threshold standards of ride quality, and system reliability).

Variable categories, subject to customer desires, site-specific needs, economic capability and varying legal requirements categories that affect PRT "market potential"

• quality of service (e.g., maximum speed, travel time, average walk distance to stations, ride comfort);
• accessibility (e.g., for elderly, handicapped, adults with small children, and for carried luggage and groceries);
• environmental (e.g., noise, visual impact, amount of land used, and siting of guideways, stations and other facilities);
• economic and financial (e.g., cost-benefit ratios, cost-effectiveness ratios, capital, operations and maintenance life-cycle costs, insurability, and revenue generating potential;
• sources of funds, including subsidies; and
• institutional arrangements for building, owning and operating PRT systems.

System Presentations

The Committee announced publicly its desire to receive information from all developers of PRT. Only two companies responded, TAXI 2000 Corporation, Revere, Massachusetts and Cabintaxi Corporation, Detroit, Michigan. Both requested and received an opportunity to appear before the committee. Rumors that other PRT activity is underway could not be confirmed, much to the regret of the committee.

The representatives of these companies were asked for the following:

• a general description of their system - its projected capacity, cost, and safety/security features, including data to support their claims;
• the status of the system's development;
• system design for removing passengers from disabled vehicles, clearing guideways of inoperable vehicles, and restoring service on damaged guideways;
• comments about the feasibility of short headways;
• plan for prospective subcontracting;
• power requirements and means of achieving them;
• requirements to demonstrate a PRT system;
• conditions necessary to gain approval of certifying agencies for safety, personal security, liability insurance;
• answers to the following market questions: (a) why have no PRT systems been built yet? (b) why have major U.S. and non-U.S. companies or governments stopped PRT development?
• steps needed to overcome negative perceptions of PRT; and
• what they think the Advanced Transit Association should do to encourage more attention to PR

HOME

Last modified: May 27, 2001