Virginia PRT study -- Not too bad

The Examiner has the story on the release of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation study on the viability of Personal Rapid Transit. The bad news -- PRT is still "unwise," because there are no full-fledged true PRT systems currently in operation. VDRPT (great acronym by the way) therefore concludes PRT might cost the state too much in research and development.

Basically, another example of a jurisdiction not wanting to be first to innovate, because it would have to assume the risk. Which is fine, really, we are after all talking about public funds.

The good news -- there's a lot of it in the report itself.



It reads as current, the references go up to 2007, and it includes the New Jersey study. A lot of the characterization of PRT is positive, the conclusion about ULTra beating LRT service in the UK in terms of 2,000 people served per kilometer is new to me.

The potential applications page is positive also, in that it includes urban transit service for trips up to 10 miles in length.

I have a feeling this might be the last time a report of this kind will decide "not yet in commercial operation, too much R&D risk."

Some clips to show how much VDRPT got right:

• The expected capacity of PRT systems would also be equivalent to the observed capacity of existing light rail and busway lines (roughly 10,000 pphpd). This is possible despite the much smaller vehicles due to the short headways enabled by automated operation and the higher average speeds achieved through separated guideways and off-line stations. (p. 3)
  
• Operating and maintenance costs are estimated to be equivalent to heavy and commuter rail systems ($0.30 to $0.80 per passenger mile) due to the automated nature of the system, which reduces staffing costs, reduced energy use and vehicle wear as a result of on-demand service, and the use of advanced components such as linear motors that require less maintenance and repair. (p. 4)
  
• The RTA and Raytheon joint development initiative ultimately cost RTA $21 million and Raytheon $45 million (1993 dollars)... By the time the prototypes were completed, however, cost estimates had risen to over $40 million/ mile (1993 dollars). When engineers modified the originally selected vehicle technology to incorporate transit design elements already in use, these elements created a much heavier vehicle that required a larger, heavier, more visually intrusive track. (p. 7)
  
• ULTra technology has been used on two British test tracks and demonstrated its ability to offer six second headways and potentially serve 2000 passengers per kilometer. This service capacity is significant in that no other UK light rail system currently operates at this capacity. Vehicle weight and energy efficiency were high priorities for LTS [sic] in this product’s development. Additionally, tracks are one-way in order to limit the visual impact on cities. Many ULTra investors see PRT as a way to implement the widely successful "just in time" delivery model to the public transit industry. (p. 9)
  
• Based on the elements described above, PRT could theoretically have application for short trips of four to ten track miles in urban dense areas throughout the state with land use characteristics appropriate for medium-capacity transit modes, such as urban centers, dense neighborhoods, and residential areas close to high-capacity transit lines, for which PRT could serve as a feeder. PRT could also have application connecting activity centers, such as college campuses and nearby town centers, or as circulators in retail, employment, or entertainment centers or college campuses. It also has potential application as an airport circulator. (p. 11)

It's a well researched report; my website is listed in the references *rimshot*.