The Last Mile

I live 1.1 miles from the East Falls Church metro, which can be a pleasant walk on a 75 degree day, but is pretty miserable on days like today or in the rain.  One of the hardest nuts to crack for transit providers has been that last mile.  Most of the way to and from my destination I can take a transit vehicle, but the last little bit to the front door I can't.  Watch this video for an idea whose time has more than come.

Although this is not appropriate for my neighborhood, there are lots of places in the greater DC area where a PRT (personal rapid transit) system like this could really work.  A few I can think of are: N. Bethesda/Medical Center, Tysons Corner (particularly after the rail is built, but there's no reason it can't be designed in now), Springfield, Silver Spring, National Harbor (cool if it could be extended over the river to Alexandria, too!), etc. 

Imagine how it could be used to transform some of our urban and suburban areas.  Well implemented it can reduce the need for parking lots, which can then be converted to better use: retail, office, parks, housing, etc. (any use is better than parking!).

More info here and here and here.

====================
Steve Offutt, Arlington resident

Comments

[Steve Raney]

Avidor: The ULTra PRT was supposed to open at Heathrow this year. Now they say 2009. Why the delay?
ANSWER: Normally in a high-tech industry, delay would be caused by engineering under-estimates or a parts shortage. In this case, the delay was administrative in nature. One contributing factor was that the customer, BAA (formerly British Airports Authority), was acquired by Grupo Ferrovial. BAA is happy, evidenced by their December press release:
David Holdcroft, BAA Project Manager, said; “This innovative system forms part of BAA’s plan to transform Heathrow, improve the passenger experience and reduce the environmental impact of our operation through the development of cutting edge, green transport solutions.
“It offers a completely new form of public transport – one that will deliver a fast, efficient service to passengers and bring considerable environmental benefits, saving more than half of the fuel used by existing forms of public or private transport. Not only that, it’s a world first.”
“Phase one of the Heathrow PRT system will open for passengers in 2009 following the opening of Terminal 5, on time and on budget.”

Avidor: How well does ULTra run in snow?
ANSWER: Think of ULTra as a high-technology “product.” Version 1.0 is not well-suited to running in snow. Version 1.5 will provide robust operation in snow and will look terrific in Tysons Corner.

Fairfaxian: Elevating anything makes the cost go way up.
ANSWER: Roller coasters are very inexpensive ($2M per mile), airport people movers often cost $80M per mile. Elevated transit cost is a function of vehicle weight squared.

Fairfaxian: every pretty picture i've ever seen of prt shows cars whizzing by with no congestion and no lines at the pick up points. assuming a lot of people ride the thing, how is it there's no congestion? strikes me as wishful thinking.
ANSWER: First, planners have to create an accurate forecast of the travel demand between stations. Next we run system simulations against that demand and calculate average waiting time. Then, we adjust station size and eliminate any network bottlenecks that arise (we might have to add more guideway, for instance). We often design systems to have an average wait time of 20 seconds or less, with a maximum wait of 2 minutes.

[fairfaxian]

how can prt be cheaper than light rail to build? elevating anything makes the cost go way up.

also, every pretty picture i've ever seen of prt shows cars whizzing by with no congestion and no lines at the pick up points. assuming a lot of people ride the thing, how is it there's no congestion? strikes me as wishful thinking.

[Avidor]

How well does ULTra run in snow?

http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRTGetReal2.jpg

[A Transportation Enthusiast]

BeyondDC, PRT is not restricted to "low density". It would also work quite well in medium or medium-high density areas that are now served by buses or light rail. It could also serve as a circulator for existing metro systems in high density areas.

Compared to buses, PRT is more expensive to build but would likely make it up in the long run with reduced operational costs, especially with gas at $4 and rising. Compared to light rail, PRT can be cheaper to build and would also be cheaper to run (no fixed routes, no drivers).

The operational cost characteristics for PRT are so favorable that it is realistic to believe that it can break even in the long term, even paying off construction costs. Some even foresee long term profitibility.

These predictions are based on decades of study; they remain to be proven in real world settings. But even a system that just covered operational costs would be a win over most existing transit solutions (which almost always require a significant subsidy).

One more point: the ambitious Masdar City initiative in UAE is pure PRT for nearly all internal transportation. There will be no cars, and only a single rail line to connect to the outside world. The designers of Masdar (including MIT and Foster and Partners) clearly believe that PRT can handle the load of being the one and only transit system in a city.

[Avidor]

The ULTra PRT was supposed to open at Heathrow this year. Now they say 2009. Why the delay?

http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRTisaJoke.html

[Steve Raney]

I'm a full-time employee of ATS, the company that is building the ULTra PRT system (starts up in 2009) for Heathrow Airport: http://www.ultraprt.com/heathrow.htm

Airports such as Heathrow are privatized in the UK. "BAA" owns Heathrow. BAA paid for the PRT system, but they also bought an equity stake in ATS. So, the numbers given in the press releases don't give costing info. Based on Heathrow costs, I quote $10M to $15M per mile for PRT. Heathrow PRT is 100% private sector funded.

PRT might be following the technology adoption curve of the electric trolley. First trolley came to Richmond, VA in 1888; there were 24 trolleys by 1890; trolleys took over the transit market by 1900.

There are many PRT companies and many just bid on the next PRT system, for Masdar Ecocity in Dubai. There is a short construction schedule for Masdar.

[BeyondDC]

>belief that a mature PRT system would run without subsidy

Once it's built, maybe. But you're talking about building what amounts to an elevated rail line network around every Metro station. The capital costs to do that (and to get enough coverage to qualify as true PRT) would be pretty tremendous.

Looking at ULTra's website and applying some back-of-the-napkin math, it looks like it will cost about $32 million to build enough track to go one mile and come back.

Considering that the whole point is to serve relatively low-density neighborhoods without the critical mass to support a transit line, and considering you'd need several miles of track around every station for the concept to work, and considering that throwing up elevated rail lines on suburban streets is likely to generate substantial opposition... well... I'm a long way from being sold on the idea. That's not to say I can't be sold, but it's going to take a lot more information.

I'm all for getting people out of their cars, but I have a hard time believing PRT is the most efficient way to do it. There has to be a way using existing infrastructure.

The biking community, of course, will tell you they've got the solution already.

[Steve Offutt]

Also, the PRT vehicles are much lighter than cars and operate at constant speeds, making them far more efficient.
PRT is not intended to replace transit, which can carry large numbers on "line hauls." It is intended to supplement transit by making it accessible and convenient to a lot more people.

My wife works about 2 miles from the nearest metro station, but she drives all the way there, because there is not a convenient way to get from the metro to her work. If she could step from metro into a waiting vehicle that would whisk her directly there in 4 minutes, then transit would work for her. That's what PRT is designed to do.

[A Transportation Enthusiast]

Modern PRT systems would be more efficient than rail or buses, while providing better service (24x7, on demand, nonstop). The reason for this is that trains and buses must move a huge vehicle all day, regardless of how many people are riding.

Theoretically speaking, a train packed with riders might be more efficient than PRT, but it's only packed with passengers for 10% of any given day. The rest of the 90% it is underutilized, therefore less efficient overall. Further, if a train runs 24x7 at 2-minute intervals, thereby providing a similar level of service to PRT, it's MUCH less efficient. That's why trains in many cities run shortened schedules (or not at all) on nights and weekends.

This efficiency advantage, combined with the fact that PRT is driverless, is the basis for the belief that a mature PRT system would run without subsidy, and may even run at a modest profit. So the cost argument is not so straightforward when you consider the long term.

Think of it this way: if milk costs $2 per quart and $3 per gallon, you're theoretically MUCH better off buying the gallon. But if you never finish a quart before it goes bad, the quart is a better buy.

[BeyondDC]

PRT seems to me to combine the efficiency of cars with the convenience of transit, which is to say it's neither efficient nor convenient.

Not that I'd necessarily oppose a trial project (the one in Morgantown is more of a transit line than a true PRT), but I don't see how PRT could handle large numbers of people as efficiently as normal transit, and don't see how it would be worth the cost to build with low ridership.

I wonder what it would cost for a local government to provide free cab rides to anyone within (say) a 1 mile radius of a Metro station. That'd be worth exploring, I think.