Personal rapid transit

Personal rapid transit (PRT), also referred to as podcars, is a public transport

mode featuring small automated vehicles operating on a network of specially
built guideways. PRT is a type of automated guideway transit (AGT), a class of
system which also includes larger vehicles all the way to small subway systems.
In terms of routing, it tends towards personal public transport systems.

PRT vehicles are sized for individual or small group travel, typically carrying no
more than three to six passengers per vehicle.[1] Guideways are arranged in a
network topology, with all stations located on sidings, and with frequent
merge/diverge points. This allows for nonstop, point-to-point travel, bypassing An ULTra PRT vehicle on a test track
all intermediate stations. The point-to-point service has been compared to a taxi at Heathrow Airport, London
or a horizontal lift (elevator).

Numerous PRT systems have been proposed but most have not been
implemented. As of November 2016, only a handful of PRT systems are
operational: Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit (the oldest and most extensive),
in Morgantown, West Virginia, has been in continuous operation since 1975.
Since 2010 a 10-vehicle 2getthere system has operated at Masdar City, UAE,
and since 2011 a 21-vehicle Ultra PRT system has run at London Heathrow
Airport. A 40-vehicle Vectus system with in-line stations officially opened in
Suncheon,[2] South Korea, in April 2014 after a year of testing.[3][4]
A vehicle on West Virginia
University's PRT system,
Morgantown, West Virginia
Contents
Overview
List of operational automated transit networks (ATN) systems
List of ATN suppliers
History
Origins
UMTA is formed
PRT research starts
System developments
Later developments
System design
Vehicle design
Propulsion
Switching
Infrastructure design
Guideways
Stations
Operational characteristics
Headway distance
Capacity
Single line capacity
 Networked PRT capacity
Travel speed
Ridership attraction
Control algorithms
Safety
Energy efficiency

Opposition and controversy

Technical feasibility debate
Regulatory concerns
Concerns about PRT research
New urbanist opinion
PRT vs. autonomous vehicles
See also
References
External links

Overview
Most mass transit systems move people in groups over scheduled routes. This has inherent inefficiencies.[5] For passengers, time
is wasted by waiting for the next vehicle to arrive, indirect routes to their destination, stopping for passengers with other
destinations, and often confusing or inconsistent schedules. Slowing and accelerating large weights can undermine public
transport's benefit to the environment while slowing other traffic.[5]

Personal rapid transit systems attempt to eliminate these wastes by moving small groups nonstop in automated vehicles on fixed
tracks. Passengers can ideally board a pod immediately upon arriving at a station, and can — with a sufficiently extensive
network of tracks — take relatively direct routes to their destination without stops.[5]

The low weight of PRT's small vehicles allows smaller guideways and support structures than mass transit systems like light
rail.[5] The smaller structures translate into lower construction costs, smaller easements, and less visually obtrusive
infrastructure.[5]

As it stands, a citywide deployment with many lines and closely spaced stations, as envisioned by proponents, has yet to be
constructed. Past projects have failed because of financing, cost overruns, regulatory conflicts, political issues, misapplied
technology, and flaws in design, engineering or review.[5]

However, the theory remains active. For example, from 2002–2005, the EDICT project, sponsored by the European Union,
conducted a study on the feasibility of PRT in four European cities. The study involved 12 research organizations, and concluded
that PRT:[6]

would provide future cities "a highly accessible, user-responsive, environmentally friendly transport system which
offers a sustainable and economic solution."
could "cover its operating costs, and provide a return which could pay for most, if not all, of its capital costs."
would provide "a level of service which is superior to that available from conventional public transport."
would be "well received by the public, both public transport and car users."
The report also concluded that, despite these advantages, public authorities will not commit to building PRT because of the risks
associated with being the first public implementation.[6][7]
 Comparison of Personal Rapid Transit with existing transport systems
Similar to Cars /
automobiles Vehicles are small—typically two to six passengers
Vehicles are individually hired, like taxis, and shared only with the passengers of one's
choosing
Vehicles travel along a network of guideways, much like a network of streets. Travel is
point-to-point, with no intermediate stops or transfers
Potential for on-demand, around-the-clock availability
Stops are designed to be off the main guideway, allowing through traffic to bypass stations
unimpeded

Similar to trams,
buses, and A public amenity (although not necessarily publicly owned), shared by multiple users
monorails Reduced local pollution (electric powered)
Passengers embark and disembark at discrete stations, analogous to bus stops or taxi
stands

Similar to
automated Fully automated, including vehicle control, routing, and collection of fares
people movers Usually above the street—typically elevated—reducing land usage and congestion

Distinct features
Vehicle movements may be coordinated, unlike the autonomous human control of cars and
bikes
Small vehicle size allows infrastructure to be smaller than other transit modes
Automated vehicles can travel close together. Possibilities include dynamically combined
"trains" of vehicles, separated by a few inches, to reduce drag and increase speed, energy
efficiency and passenger density

The PRT acronym was introduced formally in 1978 by J. Edward Anderson.[8] The Advanced Transit Association (ATRA), a
group which advocates the use of technological solutions to transit problems, compiled a definition in 1988 that can be seen
here.[9]

List of operational automated transit networks (ATN) systems

Currently, five advanced transit networks (ATN) systems are operational, and several more are in the planning stage.[10]
 System Manufacturer Type Locations Guideway Stations / vehicles Notes
Up to 20
passengers
per vehicle,
Morgantown Morgantown, 13.2 km some rides
Boeing GRT 5[12] / 73[11]
PRT West Virginia, (8.2 mi)[12] not point-to-
point during
US (1975)[11]
low usage
periods[11]
2nd
generation
GRT (Group
Rapid Transit)
vehicles
accommodate
up to 24
passengers
(12 seated).
The vehicles
operate on-
2getthere (htt schedule
ps://web.archi during peak
ve.org/web/20 Rivium, the hours, at a
16122719581 1.8 km 2.5 minute
ParkShuttle GRT Netherlands 5
0/http://www.2 (1.1 mi) interval, and
(November
getthere.eu/pr can operate
2005)
ojects/rivium- on demand
grt/) during off-
peak hours.
The current
system will
operate until
the end of
2018, after
which it is
expected to
be replaced
and
expanded.[13]
CyberCab 2getthere (htt PRT 1.5 km 2 passenger, 3 Initial plans
p://www.2gett Masdar (0.9 mi) freight / 10 called for cars
here.eu/)[14] City, Abu passenger, 3 to be banned,
Dhabi, UAE freight[15] with PRT as
(November the only
2010) powered
intra-city
transport[16]
(along with an
inter-city light
rail line[17]) In
October 2010
it was
announced
the PRT
would not
expand
beyond the
pilot scheme
due to the
cost of
creating the
undercroft to
segregate the
 system from
pedestrian
traffic.[18][19]
Plans now
include
electric cars
and electric
buses.[20] In
June 2013 a
representative
of the builder
2getthere said
the freight
vehicles had
still not been
put into
service
because they
had not
worked out
how to get
freight to and
from the
stations.[21]
The Heathrow
PRT system
became
operational in
2011,
connecting
Terminal 5
with a long-
term car
Heathrow park.[24] In
3.8 km
ULTra PRT ULTra PRT Airport, 3 / 21[23] May 2014
England, UK (2.4 mi)[22]
BAA said in a
(June 2011) draft 5-year
plan that it
would extend
the system
throughout
the airport,
but this was
dropped from
the final plan.
Connects the
site of 2013
Suncheon
Garden Expo
Korea to a
station in the
wetlands
"Buffer Area"
Suncheon, next to the
4.64 km
Skycube[25] Vectus PRT South Korea 2 / 40[25] Suncheon
(September (2.9 mi)[26] Literature
2013)[25] Museum;[27]
the line runs
parallel to the
Suncheon-
dong
Stream.[28]
Stations are
"on-line."
List of ATN suppliers
The following list summarizes several well-known automated transit networks (ATN) suppliers as of 2014.[29]

Revenue service: Boeing (Morgantown PRT), ULTra, 2getthere (http://www.2getthere.eu), Vectus (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20090817143907/http://www.vectusprt.com/index.php).
Full test track: Modutram (http://www.modutram.com/), Cabinentaxi.[30]
Mockups or scale models: ecoPRT (https://web.archive.org/web/20180806024515/http://ecoprt.com/), Spartan
Superway (http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/smssv/), Fultran (http://www.milotek.co.za/), Taxi 2000 (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20061207093819/http://www.taxi2000.com/), Skycab (http://www.skycab.se/eng/?vision), MoveMile,
EcoMobility, Cybertran (http://cybertran.com/), Shweeb, SkyRide (http://www.skyridetechnology.com), Tubenet
Transit Systems (https://web.archive.org/web/20170924011049/http://www.tts-21.com/index_en.html).
Historical: CVS, Aramis, PRT2000 (Raytheon),[31] Monocab/ROMAG.

History

Origins
Modern PRT concepts began around 1953 when Donn Fichter, a city transportation planner, began research on PRT and
alternative transportation methods. In 1964, Fichter published a book[32] which proposed an automated public transit system for
areas of medium to low population density. One of the key points made in the book was Fichter's belief that people would not
leave their cars in favor of public transit unless the system offered flexibility and end-to-end transit times that were much better
than existing systems – flexibility and performance he felt only a PRT system could provide. Several other urban and transit
planners also wrote on the topic and some early experimentation followed, but PRT remained relatively unknown.

Around the same time, Edward Haltom was studying monorail systems. Haltom noticed that the time to start and stop a
conventional large monorail train, like those of the Wuppertal Schwebebahn, meant that a single line could only support between
20 and 40 vehicles an hour. In order to get reasonable passenger movements on such a system, the trains had to be large enough to
carry hundreds of passengers (see headway for a general discussion). This, in turn, demanded large guideways that could support
the weight of these large vehicles, driving up capital costs to the point where he considered them unattractive.[33]

Haltom turned his attention to developing a system that could operate with shorter timings, thereby allowing the individual cars to
be smaller while preserving the same overall route capacity. Smaller cars would mean less weight at any given point, which
meant smaller and less expensive guideways. To eliminate the backup at stations, the system used "offline" stations that allowed
the mainline traffic to bypass the stopped vehicles. He designed the Monocab system using six-passenger cars suspended on
wheels from an overhead guideway. Like most suspended systems, it suffered from the problem of difficult switching
arrangements. Since the car rode on a rail, switching from one path to another required the rail to be moved, a slow process that
limited the possible headways.[33]

UMTA is formed
By the late 1950s the problems with urban sprawl were becoming evident in the United States. When cities improved roads and
the transit times were lowered, suburbs developed at ever increasing distances from the city cores, and people moved out of the
downtown areas. Lacking pollution control systems, the rapid rise in car ownership and the longer trips to and from work were
causing significant air quality problems. Additionally, movement to the suburbs led to a flight of capital from the downtown
areas, one cause of the rapid urban decay seen in the US.

Mass transit systems were one way to combat these problems. Yet during this period, the federal government was feeding the
problems by funding the development of the Interstate Highway System, while at the same time funding for mass transit was
being rapidly scaled back. Public transit ridership in most cities plummeted.[34]
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy charged Congress with the task of addressing these problems. These plans came to fruition in
1964, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 into law, thereby forming the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration.[35] UMTA was set up to fund mass transit developments in the same fashion that the earlier
Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 had helped create the Interstate Highways. That is, UMTA would help cover the capital costs
of building out new infrastructure.

PRT research starts

However, planners who were aware of the PRT concept were worried that building more systems based on existing technologies
would not help the problem, as Fitcher had earlier noted. Proponents suggested that systems would have to offer the flexibility of
a car:

The reason for the sad state of public transit is a very basic one - the transit systems just do not offer a service
which will attract people away from their automobiles. Consequently, their patronage comes very largely from
those who cannot drive, either because they are too young, too old, or because they are too poor to own and
operate an automobile. Look at it from the standpoint of a commuter who lives in a suburb and is trying to get to
work in the central business district (CBD). If he is going to go by transit, a typical scenario might be the
following: he must first walk to the closest bus stop, let us say a five or ten minute walk, and then he may have to
wait up to another ten minutes, possibly in inclement weather, for the bus to arrive. When it arrives, he may have
to stand unless he is lucky enough to find a seat. The bus will be caught up in street congestion and move slowly,
and it will make many stops completely unrelated to his trip objective. The bus may then let him off at a terminal
to a suburban train. Again he must wait, and, after boarding the train, again experience a number of stops on the
way to the CBD, and possibly again he may have to stand in the aisle. He will get off at the station most
convenient to his destination and possibly have to transfer again onto a distribution system. It is no wonder that in
those cities where ample inexpensive parking is available, most of those who can drive do drive.[36]

In 1966, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was asked to "undertake a project to study … new
systems of urban transportation that will carry people and goods … speedily, safely, without polluting the air, and in a manner
that will contribute to sound city planning." The resulting report was published in 1968[37] and proposed the development of PRT,
as well as other systems such as dial-a-bus and high-speed interurban links.

In the late 1960s, the Aerospace Corporation, an independent non-profit corporation set up by the US Congress, spent substantial
time and money on PRT, and performed much of the early theoretical and systems analysis. However, this corporation is not
allowed to sell to non-federal government customers. In 1969, members of the study team published the first widely publicized
description of PRT in Scientific American.[38] In 1978 the team also published a book.[39] These publications sparked off a sort of
"transit race" in the same sort of fashion as the space race, with countries around the world rushing to join what appeared to be a
future market of immense size.

The oil crisis of 1973 made vehicle fuels more expensive, which naturally interested people in alternative transportation.

System developments
In 1967, aerospace giant Matra started the Aramis project in Paris. After spending about 500 million francs, the project was
canceled when it failed its qualification trials in November 1987. The designers tried to make Aramis work like a "virtual train",
but control software issues caused cars to bump unacceptably. The project ultimately failed.[40]
Between 1970 and 1978, Japan operated a project called "Computer-controlled Vehicle System" (CVS). In a full-scale test
facility, 84 vehicles operated at speeds up to 60 kilometres per hour (37.3 mph) on a 4.8 km (3.0 mi) guideway; one-second
headways were achieved during tests. Another version of CVS was in public operation for six months from 1975–1976. This
system had 12 single-mode vehicles and four dual-mode vehicles on a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) track with five stations. This version
carried over 800,000 passengers. CVS was cancelled when Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport declared it
unsafe under existing rail safety regulations, specifically in respect of braking and headway distances.

On March 23, 1973, U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) administrator Frank Herringer testified before
Congress: "A DOT program leading to the development of a short, one-half to one-second headway, high-capacity PRT (HCPRT)
system will be initiated in fiscal year 1974."[41] However, this HCPRT program was diverted into a modest technology program.
According to PRT supporter J. Edward Anderson, this was "because of heavy lobbying from interests fearful of becoming
irrelevant if a genuine PRT program became visible." From that time forward people interested in HCPRT were unable to obtain
UMTA research funding.[42]

In 1975, the Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit project was completed. It has five off-line stations that enable non-stop,
individually programmed trips along an 8.7-mile (14.0 km) track serviced by a fleet of 71 cars. This is a crucial characteristic of
PRT. However, it is not considered a PRT system because its vehicles are too heavy and carry too many people. When it carries
many people, it operates in a point-to-point fashion, instead of running like an automated people mover from one end of the line
to the other. During periods of low usage all cars make a full circuit stopping at every station in both directions. Morgantown PRT
is still in continuous operation at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia, with about 15,000 riders per day (as of
2003). It successfully demonstrates automated control, but was not sold to other sites because the steam-heated track has proven
too expensive for a system that requires an operation and maintenance budget of $5 million annually.[43]

From 1969 to 1980, Mannesmann Demag and MBB cooperated to build the Cabinentaxi urban transportation system in Germany.
Together the firms formed the Cabintaxi Joint Venture. They created an extensive PRT technology that was considered fully
developed by the German government and its safety authorities. The system was to have been installed in Hamburg, but budget
cuts stopped the proposed project before the start of construction. With no other potential projects on the horizon, the joint
venture disbanded, and the fully developed PRT technology was never installed. Cabintaxi Corporation, a US-based company,
obtained the technology in 1985, and remains active in the private-sector market for transportation systems.

In 1979 the three station Duke University Medical Center Patient Rapid Transit system was commissioned. The system was
closed in 2009 to allow for expansion of the hospital.

Later developments
In the 1990s, Raytheon invested heavily in a system called PRT 2000, based on technology developed by J. Edward Anderson at
the University of Minnesota. Raytheon failed to install a contracted system in Rosemont, Illinois, near Chicago, when estimated
costs escalated to US$50 million per mile, allegedly due to design changes that increased the weight and cost of the system
relative to Anderson's original design. In 2000, rights to the technology reverted to the University of Minnesota, and were
subsequently purchased by Taxi2000.[44][45]

In 1999 the 2getthere designed ParkShuttle system was opened in the Kralingen neighbourhood of eastern Rotterdam using 12-
seater driverless buses. The system was extended in 2005 and new second-generation vehicles introduced to serve five stations
over 1.8 kilometres (1.1 mi) with five grade crossings over ordinary roads. Operation is scheduled in peak periods and on demand
at other times.[46] In 2002, 2getthere operated twenty five 4-passenger "CyberCabs" at Holland's 2002 Floriade horticultural
exhibition. These transported passengers along a track spiraling up to the summit of Big Spotters Hill. The track was
approximately 600-metre (1,969 ft) long (one-way) and featured only two stations. The six-month operation was intended to
research the public acceptance of PRT-like systems.
In 2010 a 10-vehicle (four seats each), two station 2getthere system was opened to connect a parking lot to the main area at
Masdar City, UAE. The systems runs in an undercroft beneath the city and was supposed to be a pilot project for a much larger
network, which would also have included transport of freight. Expansion of the system was cancelled just after the pilot scheme
opened due to the cost of constructing the undercroft and since then other electric vehicles have been proposed.[18]

In January 2003, the prototype ULTra ("Urban Light Transport") system in Cardiff, Wales, was certified to carry passengers by
the UK Railway Inspectorate on a 1 km (0.6 mi) test track. ULTra was selected in October 2005 by BAA plc for London's
Heathrow Airport.[47] Since May 2011 a three-station system has been open to the public, transporting passengers from a remote
parking lot to terminal 5.[22] In May 2013 Heathrow Airport Limited included in its draft five-year (2014–2019) master plan a
scheme to use the PRT system to connect terminal 2 and terminal 3 to their respective business car parks. The proposal was not
included in the final plan due to spending priority given to other capital projects and has been deferred.[48]

In June 2006, a Korean/Swedish consortium, Vectus Ltd, started constructing a 400 m (1,312 ft) test track in Uppsala,
Sweden.[49] This test system was presented at the 2007 PodCar City conference in Uppsala.[50] A 40-vehicle, 2-station, 4.46 km
(2.8 mi) system called "SkyCube" was opened in Suncheon, South Korea, in April 2014.[51]

In the 2010s the Mexican Western Institute of Technology and Higher Education began research into project LINT ("Lean
Intelligent Network Transportation") and built a 1/12 operational scale model.[52]. This was further developed and became the
Modutram[53] system and a full-scale test track was built in Guadalajara, which was operational by 2014.[54]

System design
Among the handful of prototype systems (and the larger number that exist on paper) there is a substantial diversity of design
approaches, some of which are controversial.

Vehicle design
Vehicle weight influences the size and cost of a system's guideways, which are in turn a major part of the capital cost of the
system. Larger vehicles are more expensive to produce, require larger and more expensive guideways, and use more energy to
start and stop. If vehicles are too large, point-to-point routing also becomes more expensive. Against this, smaller vehicles have
more surface area per passenger (thus have higher total air resistance which dominates the energy cost of keeping vehicles
moving at speed), and larger motors are generally more efficient than smaller ones.

The number of riders who will share a vehicle is a key unknown. In the U.S., the average car carries 1.16 persons,[55] and most
industrialized countries commonly average below two people; not having to share a vehicle with strangers is a key advantage of
private transport. Based on these figures, some have suggested that two passengers per vehicle (such as with UniModal), or even
a single passenger per vehicle is optimum. Other designs use a car for a model, and choose larger vehicles, making it possible to
accommodate families with small children, riders with bicycles, disabled passengers with wheelchairs, or a pallet or two of
freight.

Propulsion
All current designs (except for the human-powered Shweeb) are powered by electricity. In order to reduce vehicle weight, power
is generally transmitted via lineside conductors rather than using on-board batteries. According to the designer of
Skyweb/Taxi2000, J. Edward Anderson, the lightest system is a linear induction motor (LIM) on the car, with a stationary
conductive rail for both propulsion and braking. LIMs are used in a small number of rapid transit applications, but most designs
use rotary motors. Most such systems retain a small on-board battery to reach the next stop after a power failure.
ULTra uses on-board batteries, recharged at stops. This increases the safety, and reduces the complexity, cost and maintenance of
the guideway. As a result, a street-level ULTRa guideway resembles a sidewalk with curbs and is very inexpensive to construct.
ULTRa resembles a small automated electric car, and uses similar components.

Switching
Most designers avoid track switching, instead advocating vehicle-mounted switches or conventional steering. Those designers say
that vehicle-switching permits faster switching, so vehicles can be closer together. It also simplifies the guideway, makes
junctions less visually obtrusive and reduces the impact of malfunctions, because a failed switch on one vehicle is less likely to
affect other vehicles. Other designers point out that track-switching simplifies the vehicles, reducing the number of small moving
parts in each car. Track-switching replaces in-vehicle mechanisms with larger track-moving components, that can be designed for
durability with little regard for weight or size.

Track switching greatly increases headway distance. A vehicle must wait for the previous vehicle to clear the track, for the track
to switch and for the switch to be verified. If the track switching is faulty, vehicles must be able to stop before reaching the
switch, and all vehicles approaching the failed junction would be affected.

Mechanical vehicle switching minimizes inter-vehicle spacing or headway distance, but it also increases the minimum distances
between consecutive junctions. A mechanically switching vehicle, maneuvering between two adjacent junctions with different
switch settings, cannot proceed from one junction to the next. The vehicle must adopt a new switch position, and then wait for the
in-vehicle switch's locking mechanism to be verified. If the vehicle switching is faulty, that vehicle must be able to stop before
reaching the next switch, and all vehicles approaching the failed vehicle would be affected.

Conventional steering allows a simpler 'track' consisting only of a road surface with some form of reference for the vehicle's
steering sensors. Switching would be accomplished by the vehicle following the appropriate reference line- maintaining a set
distance from the left roadway edge would cause the vehicle to diverge left at a junction, for example.

Infrastructure design

Guideways
Several types of guideways have been proposed or implemented including
beams similar to monorails, bridge-like trusses supporting internal tracks,
and cables embedded in a roadway. Most designs put the vehicle on top of
the track, which reduces visual intrusion and cost as well as easing ground-
level installation. An overhead track is necessarily higher, but may also be
narrower.[56] Most designs use the guideway to distribute power and data
communications, including to the vehicles. The Morgantown PRT failed its
cost targets because of its steam-heated track, so most proposals plan to
resist snow and ice in ways that should be less expensive. Masdar's system
has been limited because it attempted to dedicate ground-level to PRT
guideways. This led to unrealistically expensive buildings and roads.[18]

Stations Simplified depiction of a possible PRT

Proposals usually have stations close together, and located on side tracks network. The blue rectangles indicate
stations. The enlarged portion illustrates a
so that through traffic can bypass vehicles picking up or dropping off
station off-ramp.
passengers. Each station might have multiple berths, with perhaps one-
third of the vehicles in a system being stored at stations waiting for passengers. Stations are envisioned to be minimalistic,
without facilities such as rest rooms. For elevated stations, an elevator may be required for accessibility.

At least one system, Metrino, provides wheelchair and freight access by using a cogway in the track, so that the vehicle itself can
go from a street-level stop to an overhead track.

Some designs have included substantial extra expense for the track needed to decelerate to and accelerate from stations. In at least
one system, Aramis, this nearly doubled the width and cost of the required right-of-way and caused the nonstop passenger
delivery concept to be abandoned. Other designs have schemes to reduce this cost, for example merging vertically to reduce the
footprint.

When user demand is low, surplus vehicles could be configured to stop at empty stations at strategically placed points around the
network. This enables an empty vehicle to quickly be despatched to wherever it is required, with minimal waiting time for the
passenger.

Operational characteristics

Headway distance
Spacing of vehicles on the guideway influences the maximum passenger capacity of a track, so designers prefer smaller headway
distances. Computerized control and active electronic braking (of motors) theoretically permit much closer spacing than the two-
second headways recommended for cars at speed. In these arrangements, multiple vehicles operate in "platoons" and can be
braked simultaneously. There are prototypes for automatic guidance of private cars based on similar principles.

Very short headways are controversial. The UK Railway Inspectorate has evaluated the ULTra design and is willing to accept
one-second headways, pending successful completion of initial operational tests at more than 2 seconds.[57] In other jurisdictions,
preexisting rail regulations apply to PRT systems (see CVS, above); these typically calculate headways for absolute stopping
distances with standing passengers. These severely restrict capacity and make PRT systems infeasible. No regulatory agency has
yet endorsed headways below one second, although proponents believe that regulators may be willing to reduce headways as
operational experience increases.[58]

Capacity
PRT is usually proposed as an alternative to rail systems, so comparisons tend to be with rail. PRT vehicles seat fewer passengers
than trains and buses, and must offset this by combining higher average speeds, diverse routes, and shorter headways. Proponents
assert that equivalent or higher overall capacity can be achieved by these means.

Single line capacity

With two-second headways and four-person vehicles, a single PRT line can achieve theoretical maximum capacity of 7,200
passengers per hour. However, most estimates assume that vehicles will not generally be filled to capacity, due to the point-to-
point nature of PRT. At a more typical average vehicle occupancy of 1.5 persons per vehicle, the maximum capacity is 2,700
passengers per hour. Some researchers have suggested that rush hour capacity can be improved if operating policies support
ridesharing.[59]

Capacity is inversely proportional to headway. Therefore, moving from two-second headways to one-second headways would
double PRT capacity. Half-second headways would quadruple capacity. Theoretical minimum PRT headways would be based on
the mechanical time to engage brakes, and these are much less than a half second. Although no regulatory agency has as yet (June
2006) approved headways shorter than two seconds, researchers suggest that high capacity PRT (HCPRT) designs could operate
safely at half-second headways.[60] Using the above figures, capacities above 10,000 passengers per hour seem in reach.
In simulations of rush hour or high-traffic events, about one-third of vehicles on the guideway need to travel empty to resupply
stations with vehicles in order to minimize response time. This is analogous to trains and buses travelling nearly empty on the
return trip to pick up more rush hour passengers.

Grade separated light rail systems can move 15,000 passengers per hour on a fixed route, but these are usually fully grade
separated systems. Street level systems typically move up to 7,500 passengers per hour. Heavy rail subways can move 50,000
passengers per hour. As with PRT, these estimates depend on having enough trains. Neither light nor heavy rail scales well for
off-peak operation.

Networked PRT capacity

The above discussion compares line or corridor capacity and may therefore not be relevant for a networked PRT system, where
several parallel lines (or parallel components of a grid) carry traffic. In addition, Muller estimated[61] that while PRT may need
more than one guideway to match the capacity of a conventional system, the capital cost of the multiple guideways may still be
less than that of the single guideway conventional system. Thus comparisons of line capacity should also consider the cost per
line.

PRT systems should require much less horizontal space than existing metro systems, with individual cars being typically around
50% as wide for side-by-side seating configurations, and less than 33% as wide for single-file configurations. This is an important
factor in densely populated, high-traffic areas.

Travel speed
For a given peak speed, nonstop journeys are about three times as fast as those with intermediate stops. This is not just because of
the time for starting and stopping. Scheduled vehicles are also slowed by boardings and exits for multiple destinations.

Therefore, a given PRT seat transports about three times as many passenger miles per day as a seat performing scheduled stops.
So PRT should also reduce the number of needed seats threefold for a given number of passenger miles.

While a few PRT designs have operating speeds of 100 km/h (60 mph), and one as high as 241 km/h (150 mph),[62] most are in
the region of 40–70 km/h (25–45 mph). Rail systems generally have higher maximum speeds, typically 90–130 km/h (55–
80 mph) and sometimes well in excess of 160 km/h (100 mph), but average travel speed is reduced about threefold by scheduled
stops and passenger transfers.

Ridership attraction
If PRT designs deliver the claimed benefit of being substantially faster than cars in areas with heavy traffic, simulations suggest
that PRT could attract many more car drivers than other public transit systems. Standard mass transit simulations accurately
predict that 2% of trips (including cars) will switch to trains. Similar methods predict that 11% to 57% of trips would switch to
PRT, depending on its costs and delays.[6][63][64]

Control algorithms
The typical control algorithm places vehicles in imaginary moving "slots" that go around the loops of track. Real vehicles are
allocated a slot by track-side controllers. Traffic jams are prevented by placing north/south vehicles in even slots, and east/west
vehicles in odd slots. At intersections, the traffic in these systems can interpenetrate without slowing.

On-board computers maintain their position by using a negative feedback loop to stay near the center of the commanded slot.
Early PRT vehicles measured their position by adding up the distance using odometers, with periodic check points to compensate
for cumulative errors.[39] Next-generation GPS and radio location could measure positions as well.
Another system, "pointer-following control", assigns a path and speed to a vehicle, after verifying that the path does not violate
the safety margins of other vehicles. This permits system speeds and safety margins to be adjusted to design or operating
conditions, and may use slightly less energy.[65] The maker of the ULTra PRT system reports that testing of its control system
shows lateral (side-to-side) accuracy of 1 cm, and docking accuracy better than 2 cm.

Safety
Computer control eliminates errors from human drivers, so PRT designs in a controlled environment should be much safer than
private motoring on roads. Most designs enclose the running gear in the guideway to prevent derailments. Grade-separated
guideways would prevent conflict with pedestrians or manually controlled vehicles. Other public transit safety engineering
approaches, such as redundancy and self-diagnosis of critical systems, are also included in designs.

The Morgantown system, more correctly described as a Group Rapid Transit (GRT) type of Automated Guideway Transit system
(AGT), has completed 110 million passenger-miles without serious injury. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
AGT systems as a group have higher injury rates than any other form of rail-based transit (subway, metro, light rail, or commuter
rail) though still much better than ordinary buses or cars. More recent research by the British company ULTra PRT reported that
AGT systems have a better safety than more conventional, non-automated modes.

As with many current transit systems, personal passenger safety concerns are likely to be addressed through CCTV monitoring,
and communication with a central command center from which engineering or other assistance may be dispatched.

Energy efficiency
The energy efficiency advantages claimed by PRT proponents include two basic operational characteristics of PRT: an increased
average load factor; and the elimination of intermediate starting and stopping.[66]

Average load factor, in transit systems, is the ratio of the total number of riders to the total theoretical capacity. A transit vehicle
running at full capacity has a 100% load factor, while an empty vehicle has 0% load factor. If a transit vehicle spends half the
time running at 100% and half the time running at 0%, the average load factor is 50%. Higher average load factor corresponds to
lower energy consumption per passenger, so designers attempt to maximize this metric.

Scheduled mass transit (i.e. buses or trains) trades off service frequency and load factor. Buses and trains must run on a
predefined schedule, even during off-peak times when demand is low and vehicles are nearly empty. So to increase load factor,
transportation planners try to predict times of low demand, and run reduced schedules or smaller vehicles at these times. This
increases passengers' wait times. In many cities, trains and buses do not run at all at night or on weekends.

PRT vehicles, in contrast, would only move in response to demand, which places a theoretical lower bound on their average load
factor. This allows 24-hour service without many of the costs of scheduled mass transit.[67]

ULTra PRT estimates its system will consume 839 BTU per passenger mile (0.55 MJ per passenger km).[68][69] By comparison,
cars consume 3,496 BTU, and personal trucks consume 4,329 BTU per passenger mile.[70]

Due to PRT's efficiency, some proponents say solar becomes a viable power source.[71] PRT elevated structures provide a ready
platform for solar collectors, therefore some proposed designs include solar power as a characteristic of their networks.

For bus and rail transit, the energy per passenger-mile depends on the ridership and the frequency of service. Therefore, the
energy per passenger-mile can vary significantly from peak to non-peak times. In the US, buses consume an average of 4,318
BTU/passenger-mile, transit rail 2,750 BTU/passenger-mile, and commuter rail 2,569 BTU/passenger-mile.[70]

Opposition and controversy

Opponents to PRT schemes have expressed a number of concerns:

Technical feasibility debate

Vukan R. Vuchic, professor of Transportation Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a proponent of traditional forms
of transit, has stated his belief that the combination of small vehicles and expensive guideway makes it highly impractical in both
cities (not enough capacity) and suburbs (guideway too expensive). According to Vuchic: "...the PRT concept combines two
mutually incompatible elements of these two systems: very small vehicles with complicated guideways and stations. Thus, in
central cities, where heavy travel volumes could justify investment in guideways, vehicles would be far too small to meet the
demand. In suburbs, where small vehicles would be ideal, the extensive infrastructure would be economically unfeasible and
environmentally unacceptable."[72]

PRT supporters claim that Vuchic's conclusions are based on flawed assumptions. PRT proponent J.E. Anderson wrote, in a
rebuttal to Vuchic: "I have studied and debated with colleagues and antagonists every objection to PRT, including those presented
in papers by Professor Vuchic, and find none of substance. Among those willing to be briefed in detail and to have all of their
questions and concerns answered, I find great enthusiasm to see the system built."[72]

The manufacturers of ULTra acknowledge that current forms of their system would provide insufficient capacity in high-density
areas such as central London, and that the investment costs for the tracks and stations are comparable to building new roads,
making the current version of ULTra more suitable for suburbs and other moderate capacity applications, or as a supplementary
system in larger cities.

Regulatory concerns
Possible regulatory concerns include emergency safety, headways, and accessibility for the disabled. Many jurisdictions regulate
PRT systems as if they were trains. At least one successful prototype, CVS, failed deployment because it could not obtain permits
from regulators.[73]

Several PRT systems have been proposed for California,[74][75] but the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) states that
its rail regulations apply to PRT, and these require railway-sized headways.[76][76] The degree to which CPUC would hold PRT to
"light rail" and "rail fixed guideway" safety standards is not clear because it can grant particular exemptions and revise
regulations.[77]

Other forms of automated transit have been approved for use in California, notably the Airtrain system at SFO. CPUC decided
not to require compliance with General Order 143-B (for light rail) since Airtrain has no on-board operators. They did require
compliance with General Order 164-D which mandates a safety and security plan, as well as periodic on-site visits by an
oversight committee.[78]

If safety or access considerations require the addition of walkways, ladders, platforms or other emergency/disabled access to or
egress from PRT guideways, the size of the guideway may be increased. This may impact the feasibility of a PRT system, though
the degree of impact would depend on both the PRT design and the municipality.

Concerns about PRT research

Wayne D. Cottrell of the University of Utah conducted a critical review of PRT academic literature since the 1960s. He concluded
that there are several issues that would benefit from more research, including urban integration, risks of PRT investment, bad
publicity, technical problems, and competing interests from other transport modes. He suggests that these issues, "while not
unsolvable, are formidable," and that the literature might be improved by better introspection and criticism of PRT. He also
suggests that more government funding is essential for such research to proceed, especially in the United States.[79]
New urbanist opinion
Several proponents of new urbanism, an urban design movement that advocates for walkable cities, have expressed opinions on
PRT.

Peter Calthorpe and Sir Peter Hall have supported[80][81] the concept, but James Howard Kunstler disagrees.[82]

PRT vs. autonomous vehicles

As the development of self-steering technology for autonomous cars and shuttles advances[83], the guideway technology of PRT
seems obsolete at first glance. Automated operation might become feasible on existing roads too. On the other hand, PRT systems
can also make use of self-steering technology while there remain significant benefits from operating on an own, segregated route
network.

See also
Duke University Medical Center Patient Rapid Transit, a permanently discontinued personal rapid transit system
Inductrack (An inexpensive form of magnetic levitation.)
Skytran
Shweeb (Human-powered PRT.)

Slope car

References
1. Gilbert, Richard; Perl, Anthony (2007). "Grid-connected vehicles as the core of future land-based transport
systems". Energy Policy. 35 (5): 3053–3060. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.661.3769 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/su
mmary?doi=10.1.1.661.3769). doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.11.002 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.enpol.2006.11.002).
2. "PRT System to Open for Suncheon Bay Garden Expo" (http://kojects.com/2013/02/13/prt-system-to-open-in-apri
l-for-suncheon-bay-garden-expo/#more-1411).
3. "Suncheon Bay Project, South Korea" (http://www.vectusprt.com/EN/first-project/).
4. Masdar City and Suncheon have only two passenger stations while at Heathrow the two stations at the carpark
are very close to one another. Masdar also has three freight stations.
5. J. Edward Anderson (November 2014). "An Intelligent Transportation Network System: Rationale, Attributes,
Status, Economics, Benefits, and Courses of Study for Engineers and Planners" (http://www.advancedtransit.org/
wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ITNS-11-2014.pdf) (PDF).
6. Moving ahead with PRT (http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/newsanddoc/article_2650_en.htm) Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20060921115952/http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/newsanddoc/article_26
50_en.htm) 2006-09-21 at the Wayback Machine from ec.europa.eu
7. EDICT Final Report (PDF)" (http://archive.cardiff.gov.uk/traffic/internet/jondutton/edict/current/CONTENT/Del10%
20-%20Final%20Report.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150526165330/http://archive.cardiff.gov.uk/
traffic/internet/jondutton/edict/current/CONTENT/Del10%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf) 2015-05-26 at the
Wayback Machine from cardiff.gov.uk
8. J. Edward Anderson, "What is Personal Rapid Transit?" (http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/PRT/Backgroun
d.html), University of Washington, 1978
9. "PRT Background" (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRT/Background.html). Faculty.washington.edu.
Retrieved 2012-10-17.
10. "Advanced Transit & Automated Transport Systems" (http://www.advancedtransit.org/advanced-transit/systems/).
ATRA.
11. Gibson, Tom. "Still in a Class of Its Own" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120207004737/http://www.progressivee
ngineer.com/PEWebBackissues2002/PEWeb%2024%20Mar%2002-2/PRT.htm). Progressive Engineer. Archived
from the original (http://www.progressiveengineer.com/PEWebBackissues2002/PEWeb%2024%20Mar%2002-2/
PRT.htm) on 2012-02-07. Retrieved 2008-05-30.
12. West Virginia University - PRT (http://admissions.wvu.edu/undergraduate/discover/prt.asp)
13. "RIVIUM GRT" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170310200020/http://www.2getthere.eu/projects/rivium-grt/).
2getthere. Archived from the original (https://www.2getthere.eu/projects/rivium-grt/) on 2017-03-10. Retrieved
1 September 2017. . I pilot scheme operated on part of the current route between 1999 and 2005.
14. Mogge, John, The Technology of Personal Transit (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/moggeprtpaper.pdf),
"Figure 6. MASDAR Phase 1A Prototype Passenger PRT." Paper delivered at the World Future Energy Summit
(http://www.worldfutureenergysummit.com), January 20, 2009. Available in WFES online media center.
15. "PRT Vehicle Architecture and Control in Masdar City" (http://www.advancedtransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/
08/PRT-Vehicle-Architecture-and-Control-in-Masdar-City-M.-de-Graaf.pdf) (PDF).
16. WWF, Abu Dhabi unveil plans for sustainable city (http://www.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?121361).
World Wildlife Fund, January 13, 2008
17. Desert state channels oil wealth into world's first sustainable city (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/200
8/jan/21/climatechange.energy)). The Guardian, January 21, 2008.
18. "Why Has Masdar Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Been Scaled Back?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131213234
856/http://www.prtconsulting.com/blog/index.php/2010/10/16/why-has-masdar-personal-rapid-transit-prt-been-sc
aled-back/). Archived from the original (http://www.prtconsulting.com/blog/index.php/2010/10/16/why-has-masdar
-personal-rapid-transit-prt-been-scaled-back/) on 2013-12-13.
19. "Masdar City Abandons Transportation System of the Future" (http://singularityhub.com/2011/03/01/masdar-city-
abandons-public-transportation-system-of-the-future). Singularity HUB.
20. "Masdar City - Sustainability and the City - Transportation" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130713185713/http://
masdarcity.ae/en/62/sustainability-and-the-city/transportation). Archived from the original (http://masdarcity.ae/en/
62/sustainability-and-the-city/transportation/) on 2013-07-13. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
21. "Automated People Movers and Automated Transit Systems Conference" (http://shanta-bonsall.com/?p=4).
22. BAA: Heathrow Transit System a World First (http://www.baa.com/portal/controller/dispatcher.jsp?CiID=4a1d6acc
2fce6110VgnVCM10000036821c0a____&ChID=b78aa08ae5c6d110VgnVCM10000036821c0a____&Ct=B2C_C
T_PRESS_RELEASE&CtID=a22889d8759a0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____&ChPath=Home^BAA+Airports
^Press+releases), 18 December 2007
23. "ULTra - ULTra at London Heathrow Airport" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100330100608/http://www.ultraprt.co
m/applications/existing-systems/heathrow/). Ultraprt.com. Archived from the original (http://www.ultraprt.com/appl
ications/existing-systems/heathrow/) on 2010-03-30. Retrieved 2012-10-17.
24. "Heathrow Retail Travel Services" (http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/partners-and-suppliers/retail-travel-s
ervices). Retrieved 2014-01-02. "Heathrow Pod, began public service in 2011 and will carry around 500,000
passengers per year from the Terminal 5 business car park to the main terminal."
25. Posco will help realize new rapid transit plan (http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2910573),
Joong Ang Daily, 26 September 2009
26. "Korea's First Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), SkyCube" (http://globalblog.posco.com/koreas-first-personal-rapid-tr
ansit-prt-skycube/).
27. "Suncheon Literature Museum (pictorial map has representation of PRT connection)" (http://eng.2013expo.or.kr/?
r=ENG&c=274/608&m=festivalmnm&front=view&type=CTS00700016&uid=74).
28. "PRT System to Open for Suncheon Bay Garden Expo" (http://kojects.com/2013/02/13/prt-system-to-open-in-apri
l-for-suncheon-bay-garden-expo/).
29. "Automated Transit Networks(ATN): A Review of the Stateof the Industry and Prospectsfor the Future" (http://tran
sweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1227-automated-transit-networks.pdf) (PDF).
30. "cabintaxi infopage" (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/cabin.htm). Faculty.washington.edu. 2012-09-20.
Retrieved 2012-10-17.
31. "Raytheon's PRT 2000 infopage" (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ray.htm). Faculty.washington.edu. 2002-
08-18. Retrieved 2013-11-24.
32. Donn Fichter (1964), Individualized Automatic Transit and the City, B.H. Sikes, Chicago, IL, USA
33. Anderson
34. Irving, pg. 1-2
35. "The Beginnings of Federal Assistance for Public Transportation" (http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/about_FTA_histor
y.html) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090827051813/http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/about_FTA_history.h
tml) 2009-08-27 at the Wayback Machine, Federal Transit Administration
36. Irving, pg. 2
37. Leone M.Cole, Harold W. Merritt (1968), Tomorrow's Transportation: New Systems for the Urban Future, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Metropolitan Development
38. Systems Analysis of Urban Transportation Systems, Scientific American, 1969, 221:19-27
39. Irving, Jack; Harry Bernstein; C. L. Olson; Jon Buyan (1978). Fundamentals of Personal Rapid Transit (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20080923093711/http://www.advancedtransit.net/content/fundamentals-personal-rapid-transit-
book). D.C. Heath and Company. Archived from the original (http://www.advancedtransit.net/content/fundamental
s-personal-rapid-transit-book) on 2008-09-23. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
40. Bruno Latour (1996), Aramis, or the Love of Technology, Harvard University Press
41. [Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1974, Hearings before a Subcommittee
of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, Part I, page 876.]
42. J. Edward Anderson (1997). "The Historical Emergence and State-of-the-Art of PRT Systems" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20170830233821/http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/articles/PRThistory.html). Archived from the
original (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/isus/articles/PRThistory.html) on 2017-08-30. Retrieved 30 August
2017.
43. "America's One and Only Personal Rapid Transit System" (http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrast
ructure/personal-rapid-transit-system-morgantown-west-virginia.html).
44. Peter Samuel (1996), Status Report on Raytheon's PRT 2000 Development Project, ITS International
45. Peter Samuel (1999), Raytheon PRT Prospects Dim but not Doomed, ITS International
46. "RIVIUM GRT" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170310200020/http://www.2getthere.eu/projects/rivium-grt/).
2getthere. Archived from the original (https://www.2getthere.eu/projects/rivium-grt/) on 2017-03-10. Retrieved
1 September 2017.
47. "BAA signs agreement to develop innovative transport system" (http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/controller/
dispatcher.jsp?CiID=724474cd82a07010VgnVCM10000036821c0a____&CtID=a22889d8759a0010VgnVCM200
000357e120a____&Ct=B2C_CT_PRESS_RELEASE&ChPath=Corporate^Media%20Centre^News%20Releases
^Results) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090211201500/http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/controll
er/dispatcher.jsp?CiID=724474cd82a07010VgnVCM10000036821c0a____&CtID=a22889d8759a0010VgnVCM2
00000357e120a____&Ct=B2C_CT_PRESS_RELEASE&ChPath=Corporate%5EMedia%20Centre%5ENews%2
0Releases%5EResults) 2009-02-11 at the Wayback Machine BAA plc Press Release - 20 October 2005
48. "My Pods" (http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/b0ecc6ab#/b0ecc6ab/1). Futureairports. 2014 (1): 61. Retrieved
8 September 2014.
49. "Vectus News" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083346/http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/vectusnews.
html). Vectus Ltd. 2006. Archived from the original (http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/vectusnews.html) on 29
September 2007. Retrieved 31 December 2007.
50. Podcar City Vectus Shows (https://web.archive.org/web/20080724111201/http://www.podcar.org/uppsalaconfere
nce/confrencevectus.htm) from podcar.org
51. "Korea's First Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), SkyCube" (http://globalblog.posco.com/koreas-first-personal-rapid-tr
ansit-prt-skycube/). April 30, 2014.
52. "Proyecto LINT" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7L7zuB-tMU). YouTube. ITESO Instituto Tecnológico y de
Estudios Superiores de Occidente. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
53. Modutram (http://www.modutram.com/)
54. "ModuTram Test Track" (http://www.advancedtransit.org/library/news/modutram-test-track/). Advanced Transit
Association. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
55. Skytran Web Site: See "common sense"
56. Cite error: The named reference renamed_from_2014_on_20170915114555 was invoked but never
defined (see the help page).
57. Sustainable personal transport (http://www.ultraprt.com/media/papers/docs/me1510110.pdf)
58. J. Edward Anderson (9–10 December 2009). "Overcoming Headway Limitations in Personal Rapid Transit
Systems" (https://www.princeton.edu/~alaink/Orf467F10/EdAnderson/Overcoming%20Headway%20Limitations%
20in%20Personal%20Rapid%20Transit%20Systems.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved 30 August 2017.
59. Johnson, Robert E. (2005). "Doubling Personal Rapid Transit Capacity with Ridesharing" (http://pubsindex.trb.or
g/document/view/default.asp?lbid=803547). Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 1930. Retrieved August 30, 2017.
60. Buchanan, M.; J.E Anderson; G. Tegnér; L. Fabian; J. Schweizer (2005). "Emerging Personal Rapid Transit
Technologies" (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/big/soa2.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of the AATS conference,
Bologna, Italy, 7–8 November 2005. Retrieved August 30, 2017.
61. "Muller et al. TRB" (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831081723/http://www.leighfisher.com/trb/657-2-05-0599.p
df) (PDF). Archived from the original (http://www.leighfisher.com/trb/657-2-05-0599.pdf) (PDF) on 2006-08-31.
Retrieved 2006-09-25.
62. The concept-level SkyTran system is proposed to travel at up to 241 km/h (150 mph) between cities (https://web.
archive.org/web/20120130035414/http://www.skytran.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Ite
mid=18)
63. Andreasson, Ingmar. "Staged Introduction of PRT with Mass Transit" (https://web.archive.org/web/201310142302
59/http://www.princeton.edu/~alaink/Orf467F10/PRT@LHR10_Conf/stagedIntroPRT_Andreasson_paper.pdf)
(PDF). KTH Centre for Traffic Research. Archived from the original (http://www.princeton.edu/~alaink/Orf467F10/
PRT@LHR10_Conf/stagedIntroPRT_Andreasson_paper.pdf) (PDF) on 2013-10-14. Retrieved 2013-10-12.
64. Yoder; et al. "Capital Costs and Ridership Estimates of Personal Rapid Transit" (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/
itrans/yoder.htm). Retrieved 12 October 2013.
65. "Control of Personal Rapid Transit Systems" (https://www.telenor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/T03_1.pdf)
(PDF). Telektronikk. January 2003. pp. 108–116. Retrieved August 30, 2017.
66. "CiteSeerX" (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/594390.html).
67. Anderson, J. E. (1984), Optimization of Transit-System Characteristics, Journal of Advanced Transportation,
18:1:1984, pp. 77–111
68. Lowson, Martin (2004). "A New Approach to Sustainable Transport Systems" (http://www.advancedtransit.org/wp
-content/uploads/2011/08/A-New-Approach-to-Sustainable-Transport-Systems-M.-Lowson.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved
August 30, 2017.
69. The conversion is: 0.55 MJ = 521.6 BTU; 1.609 km = 1 mi; therefore, 521.6 x 1.609 = 839
70. "Transportation Energy Databook, 26th Edition, Ch. 2, Table 2-12" (http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml). U.S.
Dept. of Energy. 2004.
71. "ATRA2006118: Solar PRT, p.89" (http://www.solarevolution.com/solutions/presentations/ATRA20061118.xls)
(Xcel Spreadsheet). Solar Evolution. 2003. Retrieved 18 November 2006.
72. Vuchic, Vukan R (September–October 1996). "Personal Rapid Transit: An Unrealistic System" (http://faculty.wash
ington.edu/jbs/itrans/vuchic1.htm). Urban Transport International (Paris), (No. 7, September/October, 1996).
Retrieved 30 August 2017.
73. See the references in Computer-controlled Vehicle System
74. See www.santacruzprt.com (http://www.santacruzprt.com/).
75. Skytran was proposed for Orange County, California, by its inventor, Maliwicki, who lives in that area
76. "We're so sorry, your page was Not Found!" (https://web.archive.org/web/20091231144823/http://www.cpuc.ca.g
ov/PUC/documents/go.htm). Archived from the original (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/documents/go.htm) on
2009-12-31.
77. California General Order 164-D, ibid. Sections 1.3,1.4
78. "Walker Agenda Dec - Order Concluding that Commission has Safety Jurisdiction Over SFO AirTrain" (http://doc
s.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Agenda_decision/22480-07.htm).
79. Cottrell, Wayne D (May 1–4, 2005). Critical Review of the Personal Rapid Transit Literature. Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Automated People Movers. ASCE. pp. 1–14. doi:10.1061/40766(174)40 (http
s://doi.org/10.1061%2F40766%28174%2940). ISBN 978-0-7844-0766-0.
80. Personal Rapid Transit for Heathrow Airport, Dubai Financial Center (http://www.planetizen.com/node/17760)
from planetizen.com
81. Sir Peter Hall: "The Sustainable City: A Mythical Beast?" Transcript (http://www.planning.org/lenfant/pdf/hall2005t
ranscript.pdf) from planning.org
82. KunstlerCast #13: Personal Transit & Green Buildings (http://kunstlercast.com) from kunstlercast.com
83. "5 Companies Working On Driverless Shuttles And Buses" (https://www.cbinsights.com/research/driverless-shuttl
e-companies/). CB Insights. March 30, 2017. Retrieved 30 August 2017.

External links
"Will You Commute via PRT?" (CNN) -retrieved 31 March 2011 (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/31/bua.persona
l.rapid.transit/index.html?hpt=C2)
Systems Analysis of Urban Transportation Systems, Scientific American, 1969, 221:19–27
advancedtransit.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20101216164717/http://www.advancedtransit.org/doc.aspx?id=
1025)—A history of PRT.
" Personal Rapid Transit" (http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/record/tris/00786190.html) - Book containing papers from
the proceedings of the 1973 International Conference on Personal Rapid Transit (published by the University of
Minnesota)
Smart Links (https://web.archive.org/web/20130328015050/http://www.smart-links.org/)—Website for
professionals working with short distance automated transport.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personal_rapid_transit&oldid=913314457"

This page was last edited on 31 August 2019, at 08:38 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.