Personal Rapid Transit

Anderson, Jordan; Dais, J. L.; Garrard, William L.; Kornhauser, Alain L.; Kieffer, Jarold A.; Lea, N D; Scrafton, D; Adams, Russell B.; Sturman, Gerald M.; Aldrich, Brian C.; Leistner, H. G.; Russell, Wallace; Camp, Stacey Lynn; Oom, R.; Cunliffe, Joanne

doi:10.1080/00139157.1980.9932442

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 19 PRT technologies investigated, only two-ULTra and Vectus-offered a feasible set of operating characteristics that adhere to the fundamental parameters of PRT as described in Advanced Transit Association, Calverley, and Anderson (1,23,24) and elsewhere. A number of similarities between ULTra and Vectus were observed (e.g., vehicle size, minimum headway, throughput, minimum turning radius, acceleration rate).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New-Generation Personal Rapid Transit Technologies

Cottrell

Mikosza²

2008

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An overview and a comparison of several new-generation personal rapid transit (PRT) technologies are provided. A total of about 40 known PRT concepts existed as of 2007, of which 19 were being actively developed (i.e., not dormant, with some testing completed). Of the 19, 10 had readily accessible operational specifications, enabling an assessment and comparison. Ten operational parameters were considered for each of the technologies. A throughput of 7,200 passengers per hour on a single-track PRT line is possible with a minimum headway of 1.0 s, line speed of 35 km/h, and braking rate of 9.8 m/s2 (i.e., Gx). A minimum headway of 0.5 s is possible either at low speeds (<20 km/h) or with hard emergency braking (≥2Gx). PRT technologies proposing values that exceed these limits may not be feasible. To accommodate short headways and high emergency braking rates, controls that require seated passengers should be considered. Only Urban Light Transport and Vectus feature a full slate of either feasible or fundamental (i.e., preferable) operating characteristics. CyberCab and MISTER would be more feasible with decreases in minimum headway and line speed, respectively. The other technologies are partially feasible, unclear in terms of certain characteristics, or better classified as “high-speed” PRT. The findings may facilitate the formulation of PRT standards and operating criteria. These, along with a successful implementation of PRT at Heathrow Airport in England, may generate new markets and competitive technologies. Further studies comparing guideway design, materials, switching, station design, visual impacts, costs, and financing are needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New-Generation Personal Rapid Transit Technologies

Cottrell

Mikosza²

2008

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By comparison, contemporary modestly priced automobiles cost in the range of $2000 per place and the jobshop price quote on a new three-passenger automated vehicle I have been working on is about $7600 per place. A chart in Anderson (1980) shows that the weight per place of transit vehicles is also remarkably in the same range. Thus, transit vehicles cost roughly in the same range per pound regardless of their size, and this cost is substantially higher than the corresponding cost of automobiles.…”

Section: Vehicle Cost Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Maximum station throughput is attained by using a platooning operating procedure, such as described by Dais and York (1973). As an example of the station platform length reduction possible, Anderson (1980) showed that the maximum station flow during the busiest hours at the busiest station of the Philadelphia-Lindenwold rapid rail system could be handled by three-passenger vehicles in a platooning operation using nine station berths. The present system uses eight-car trains, requiring a platform about 560 feet long.…”

Section: Stationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of transit‐system characteristics

Anderson¹

1984

J of Advced Transportation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transit industry is facing declining ridership and increasing costs with no apparent end in sight. This paper takes the view that totally new solutions are needed. The approach is to examine the equation for total cost of a transit system per passenger-mile to determine how to configure a new system to minimize this quantity. Term-by-term analysis leads to derivation of a consistent set of optimum characteristics. Guideway costs are minimized by distributing the load in very small capsules. The fleet cost is minimized by increasing the average speed without increasing the cruising speed by use of off-line stations, which in turn minimize energy use by permitting nonstop trips. Maintenance costs are minimized by designing a very light-weight, automated vehicle with very few moving parts. While this general configuration has been known for several decades, it has not been generally recognized that it can be derived by minimization of system costs, and that cost minimization is obtained simultaneously with service maximization. While a great deal of controversy surrounded this concept a decade ago, advances in technology make it fully practical now. J. EDWARD ANDERSON is Executive Vice President of Automated Transportation Systems,Inc.. and is on leave from the University of Minnesota where he serves as Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

show abstract

“…Using the smallest practical vehicle size makes sense only if the cost of a fleet needed to move a given number of people does not thereby increase enough to cancel out the reduction in guideway cost. The acquisition cost per unit of capacity and weight per unit of capacity of transit vehicles are in the same range regardless of the vehicle size (Anderson, 1978(Anderson, , 1980; i.e., for a given person-carrying capacity of a fleet of transit vehicles, the cost of the fleet is independent of vehicle size, and depends roughly only on fleet capacity and weight per unit of capacity, which is independent of vehicle capacity.…”

Section: Vehicle Fleet Capital Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated transit vehicle size considerations

Anderson¹

1986

J of Advced Transportation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthesis of cost-effective transit alternatives using automated vehicles requires consideration of a wide range of factors that are moot in determination of the optimum size of manually driven vehicles where the need to amortize driver wages dominates the economics. Discussions of many of these factors have appeared in previous papers. This article brings them together into consideration of one specific system characteristic: the optimum automatedtransit-vehicle size.J. EDWARD ANDERSON is with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

show abstract

Personal Rapid Transit

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

New-Generation Personal Rapid Transit Technologies

New-Generation Personal Rapid Transit Technologies

Optimization of transit‐system characteristics

Automated transit vehicle size considerations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About