ENDORSING PARTNERS

The Potential of MISTER
Personal Rapid Transit to
Sustain the Mobility and
Development of Modern
Commu...
The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure
University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013

The Potent...
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Transport and Innovation
Challenges for Next Generation Infrastructure
Key Challenges fo...
1. Transport and Innovation

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain t...
1.1 Transport and Innovation

What is Meant by Innovation?
Two basic forms:
Incremental: piecemeal enhancement to existing...
1.3 Transport and Innovation

Transformational Innovation
Typically a number of improvements in different
technologies, co...
2. Challenges for Next
Generation Infrastructure

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid...
2.1 Challenges for Next Generation Infrastructure

Next Generation Infrastructure: Challenges
 Be an agent of change for ...
3. Challenges for
Public Transport

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Su...
3.1 Key Challenges for Public Transport

Challenges: The Motor Car
 The desirability of the motor car: from 1960-2002:
(D...
3.2 Key Challenges for Public Transport

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit ...
3.4 Key Challenges for Public Transport

Public Transport Trip: Strategic View
Origin

Destination

Richard F. Di Bona
Oll...
3.5 Key Challenges for Public Transport

Journey Broken Down into Stages
Origin

Destination

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mik...
3.6 Key Challenges for Public Transport

PT User Issues: Accessibility

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of...
3.7 Key Challenges for Public Transport

PT User Issues: Waiting
• Uncertainty: increases with interchange
• Comfort, safe...
3.8 Key Challenges for Public Transport

PT User Issues: Interchange
 How direct are routeing options?
 As cities expand...
3.9 Key Challenges for Public Transport

PT User Issues: Comfort, Crowding
•
•
•
•

Crowding
Comfort: getting a seat?
Temp...
3.10 Key Challenges for Public Transport

PT User Issues: The Weather
• Too hot or sunny? Too cold?
• Too humid or wet? To...
3.11 Key Challenges for Public Transport

Other PT User Issues
 Journey time reliability
• Street-running services caught...
3.12 Key Challenges for Public Transport

Issues for Public Transport Operators
 Financial viability, possibly CapEx & Op...
4. What is Personal Rapid
Transit?

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Su...
4.1 What is Personal Rapid Transit?

What is Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)?
Advanced Transit Association defines PRT as:
 ...
4.2 What is Personal Rapid Transit?

What does Personal Rapid Transit Offer?
 No travelling with strangers
 Stations can...
4.3 What is Personal Rapid Transit?

Examples of Personal Rapid Transit
Left: ULTra on test track
(First Generation PRT)

...
4.4 What is Personal Rapid Transit?

First vs Second Generation PRT
First Generation PRT: e.g. ULTra, Vectus, 2getthere.
H...
4.5 What is Personal Rapid Transit?

First vs Second Generation PRT
Second Generation (MISTER). Lightweight,
suspended pod...
Typical Roles of Mass Transit
and Typical Issues Faced

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal...
5.1 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit?

Metropolitan Individual System of
Transportation on Elevated Rail

 Brainchil...
5.2 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit?

MISTER’s Key Attributes
In addition to lightweight, suspended design:
 Captiv...
5.3 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit?

Aboard MISTER
 Capacity for five people, or two with bicycles, those with
sho...
5.4 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit?

Key Performance Metrics (1)
 Operating speed up to 70kph in urban environment...
5.5 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit?

Key Performance Metrics (2)
 US$5-10m per km of two-way track:
• Includes up ...
5.8 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit?

Possible Applications of MISTER
 As a transit service in its own right
 As a...
6. Comparison of Cost
Effectiveness

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to S...
6.1 Comparison of Cost Effectiveness

MISTER versus 1st Generation PRT
First Generation
(ULTra, Vectus, 2getthere)
Heavy, ...
6.2 Comparison of Cost Effectiveness

MISTER versus Alternatives
Capital Costs
Capacity
Capacity
(passengers/ hour/directi...
7. Case Study of Opole:
Demand and Viability

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Tra...
7.1 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Case Study
 Provincial capital in southwest Poland
 Population ≈ 14...
7.2 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Modelling
 917-zone EMME model: for closely-spaced stops
 Model dev...
7.3 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Layout

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Per...
7.4 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (without MISTER)

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Poten...
7.5 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (without MISTER)

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Poten...
7.6 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (Phase 1: 8.4km)

Phase One:

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosz...
7.7 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (Phase 2: 9.1km)

Phase One:
Phase Two:

Richard F. Di Bona
O...
7.8 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (Phase 3: 9.0km)

Phase One:
Phase Two:
Phase Three:
Richard ...
7.9 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (Phase 4: 6.2km)

Phase One:
8.4km
Phase Two:
9.1km
Phase Thr...
7.10 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (Phase 5: 14.2km)

Phase One:
8.4km
Phase Two:
9.1km
Phase T...
7.11 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Network (Phase 6: 6.0km)

Phase One:
8.4km
Phase Two:
9.1km
Phase Th...
7.12 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Opole Modelling Assumptions
Population

(incl. Tertiary Students)

Case
Ba...
7.14 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Key Financial Assumptions
Costs
Case

Certification

Depot

Base
Conservat...
7.15 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows
With Phase One

Passengers per Day on Link...
7.16 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows
With Phase Two

Passengers per Day on Link...
7.17 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows
With Phase Three

Passengers per Day on Li...
7.18 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows
With Phase Four

Passengers per Day on Lin...
7.19 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows
With Phase Five

Passengers per Day on Lin...
7.20 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows
With Phase Six

Passengers per Day on Link...
7.21 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Summary of Transport Impacts (2020)

PLN3.40+0.34/km fares
Base Case

Phas...
7.22 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Public Transport Impacts (2020)

PLN3.40+0.34/km fares
Base Case

Phases 1...
7.23 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Financial Internal Rate of Return
PLN3.40 + 0.34 per km Fares
(US$1.00+0.1...
7.24 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Cumulative Cashflow Forecast (PLNm)
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000

Base Ca...
7.25 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Financial IRR by Fare Level
Base Case
Network
Scenario
Phases
1,2,3,4
Phas...
7.26 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Notes on Financial IRR
 Financial IRR only considers the financial scheme...
7.27 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability

Elasticity Analysis: Base Case
2020: Phases 1 to 4
Fare
3.40+0.34/km
1.70+...
8. Conclusions

Richard F. Di Bona
Ollie Mikosza

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility a...
8.1 Conclusions

MISTER Meeting NGI’s Challenges
 Offers improved mobility for all
 Versus traditional permanent way sys...
8.2 Conclusions

MISTER Qualifies as Transformational
MISTER:
 Offers better outcomes than incremental
improvements to ex...
8.3 Conclusions

Thank You
Any other queries? Feel free to contact me:
rfdibona@yahoo.com

Thank You!

Richard F. Di Bona
...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

SMART International Symposium for Next Generation Infrastructure: The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities

320
-1

Published on

A presentation conducted by Richard F. Di Bona, Independent Transport Planner, Hong Kong.
Presented on Wednesday the 2nd of October 2013.

The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities
1. Introduction: the role of transport in Schumpeterian innovation waves
2. Key challenges faced for public transport investments:
–– CapEx, OpEx and the subsidy requirements of most public transit systems
–– Providing a level of service sufficient to persuade motorists from their cars and making transit itself an attractive choice
–– Mass personalisation in consumer markets
–– The issue of pedestrian, vehicular and junction conflicts
–– Engineering problems with retro-fitting good solutions into existing urban environments
3. Outlining Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), comparing some of the systems in the market place, to show how Second Generation PRT could likely address the above issues and ISNGI’s stated Grand Research Challenge, likely including:
–– Summary results from transport modelling-based analysis
–– Explanation of some features specific to MISTER PRT

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
320
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SMART International Symposium for Next Generation Infrastructure: The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities

  1. 1. ENDORSING PARTNERS The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The following are confirmed contributors to the business and policy dialogue in Sydney: • Rick Sawers (National Australia Bank) • Nick Greiner (Chairman (Infrastructure NSW) Monday, 30th September 2013: Business & policy Dialogue Tuesday 1 October to Thursday, 3rd October: Academic and Policy Dialogue Presented by: Richard F. Di Bona, Independent Transport Planner, Hong Kong www.isngi.org www.isngi.org
  2. 2. The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities Richard F. Di Bona Independent Transport Planner, Hong Kong, rfdibona@yahoo.com Ollie Mikosza President, MISTER Corporation, Auckland, o.mikosza@mist-er.com Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 2
  3. 3. Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Transport and Innovation Challenges for Next Generation Infrastructure Key Challenges for Public Transport What is Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)? What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit? Comparison of Cost Effectiveness Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Conclusions Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 3
  4. 4. 1. Transport and Innovation Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 4
  5. 5. 1.1 Transport and Innovation What is Meant by Innovation? Two basic forms: Incremental: piecemeal enhancement to existing technologies or methods  Improvements in the design or manufacture of cars, trains, etc Transformational: radical step-wise change, with significant impacts on the broader economy  The invention of railways, the motor car, radio telecommunications, the internet, etc Next generation surely means transformational Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 5
  6. 6. 1.3 Transport and Innovation Transformational Innovation Typically a number of improvements in different technologies, combined creating something new  Offers better methods than can be achieved by individual, incremental improvements  Lower costs (fixed and/or variable) • Reduced CapEx and OpEx for transport infrastructure  Higher benefits • Better level-of-service and potential market penetration  Better externalities than pre-existing solutions • More (or greater) positive externalities • Fewer (or smaller) negative externalities Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 7
  7. 7. 2. Challenges for Next Generation Infrastructure Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 9
  8. 8. 2.1 Challenges for Next Generation Infrastructure Next Generation Infrastructure: Challenges  Be an agent of change for societal development  Expanding population  Increasing affluence  But also serving the less affluent  Increased demand/ need for mobility  Constrained resources: • Financial, Environmental and Space  Support increasing liveability of communities  Sustainable: • Environmentally, Socially, Economically and Financially Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 10
  9. 9. 3. Challenges for Public Transport Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 11
  10. 10. 3.1 Key Challenges for Public Transport Challenges: The Motor Car  The desirability of the motor car: from 1960-2002: (Dargay, J., Gately, D. & Sommer, M. Vehicle Ownership and Income Growth, Worldwide: 1960-2030, Energy Journal, 2007, Vol. 28, No. 4) • Real income growth 2.0% p.a. • Motorisation rate growth 4.6% p.a. • Compound growth: 130% income; 560% motorisation  Despite massive investments in public transport • Usually requiring substantial CapEx and OpEx subsidies  Demand management measures often unpopular • Can also result in social exclusion  Affects the viability of public transport investment  Compromises policy objectives: • Congestion, liveability, emissions, climate change, etc Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 12
  11. 11. 3.2 Key Challenges for Public Transport Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 13
  12. 12. 3.4 Key Challenges for Public Transport Public Transport Trip: Strategic View Origin Destination Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 15
  13. 13. 3.5 Key Challenges for Public Transport Journey Broken Down into Stages Origin Destination Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza Which is the weakest link? (may vary by city/ area) Do not overlook any stage! The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 16
  14. 14. 3.6 Key Challenges for Public Transport PT User Issues: Accessibility Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 17
  15. 15. 3.7 Key Challenges for Public Transport PT User Issues: Waiting • Uncertainty: increases with interchange • Comfort, safety, security of facilities Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 18
  16. 16. 3.8 Key Challenges for Public Transport PT User Issues: Interchange  How direct are routeing options?  As cities expand more interchanges likely Kuala Lumpur Sentral Station: 400 metres, not counting in-station distance, one highway crossing (direct route implemented 2012) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 19
  17. 17. 3.9 Key Challenges for Public Transport PT User Issues: Comfort, Crowding • • • • Crowding Comfort: getting a seat? Temperature Security news.bbc.co.uk www.straitstimes.com Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza news.com.au The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 20
  18. 18. 3.10 Key Challenges for Public Transport PT User Issues: The Weather • Too hot or sunny? Too cold? • Too humid or wet? Too windy? own photo E-teachme.blogspot.com Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 21
  19. 19. 3.11 Key Challenges for Public Transport Other PT User Issues  Journey time reliability • Street-running services caught up in congestion?  Safety and security: • Onboard and to/ from public transport • Especially at night • Crime-ridden areas www.unblockcambridge.com  With kids, shopping bags, mobility impaired?  Pricing Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 22
  20. 20. 3.12 Key Challenges for Public Transport Issues for Public Transport Operators  Financial viability, possibly CapEx & OpEx subsidies • Financial resources getting scarcer: rising interest rates?  As cities grow • • • • • Increased route complexity Interchange facilities are costly Sprawl creates lower densities and hence lower demand Profits decrease Danger of legacy networks  Trying to provide for a social need or trying to persuade motorists out of their cars? • Low cost versus high comfort • Different criteria can be hard to meet simultaneously Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 23
  21. 21. 4. What is Personal Rapid Transit? Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 24
  22. 22. 4.1 What is Personal Rapid Transit? What is Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)? Advanced Transit Association defines PRT as:  Automated guideway transit system  All stations are on bypasses  Vehicles are designed for a single individual or small group (family or friends) travelling together  On a segregated network  Trips are non-stop without transfers Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 25
  23. 23. 4.2 What is Personal Rapid Transit? What does Personal Rapid Transit Offer?  No travelling with strangers  Stations can be spaced far more closely than metro  Point-to-point journeys • No transfers between lines needed (by the passenger)  Likely quicker journeys (no intermediate stops) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 26
  24. 24. 4.3 What is Personal Rapid Transit? Examples of Personal Rapid Transit Left: ULTra on test track (First Generation PRT) Right: Morganstown system (quasi-PRT since 1975) (source: wikipedia) Vectus on test track (First Generation PRT) (source: company website) Visual rendering of MISTER (Second Generation PRT) (source: MISTER) 2getthere, Masdar, Abu Dhabi (First Generation PRT) (source: company website) Making the Di Bona of Public TransportPersonal Rapid Transit to Sustain the MobilityandDevelopment of Modern Communities Richard F. Future The Potential of MISTER Intelligent, Responsive, Efficient and Personalised Ollie Di Bona The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, UniversityConference 1-3 October 2013 Richard Mikosza 2nd Annual ITS India of Wollongong, 27
  25. 25. 4.4 What is Personal Rapid Transit? First vs Second Generation PRT First Generation PRT: e.g. ULTra, Vectus, 2getthere. Heavy, supported track. Systems can either be:  Wholly elevated (or tunnelled) guideway and stations: expensive  Street-running: space-take; conflicts with pedestrians and roads  Street stops & elevated track: significant space-take for ramps First Generation PRT relatively constrained by topography (natural and man-made) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 28
  26. 26. 4.5 What is Personal Rapid Transit? First vs Second Generation PRT Second Generation (MISTER). Lightweight, suspended pods:  Street-level stops with elevated track (size of bus stop)  Saves space and cost, relative to traditional permanent way systems and First Generation PRTs MISTER can handle hilly and other constrained environments:  MISTER has a 3 metre turning radius  Can handle gradients up to 45 degrees (up or down) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 29
  27. 27. Typical Roles of Mass Transit and Typical Issues Faced Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 30
  28. 28. 5.1 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit? Metropolitan Individual System of Transportation on Elevated Rail  Brainchild of Ollie Mikosza; first patents filed in 2005  1:1 full size working prototype demonstrated in Opole in 2007  Successfully underwent comprehensive technical and economic due diligence; awarded European Union High Technology Grant Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 31
  29. 29. 5.2 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit? MISTER’s Key Attributes In addition to lightweight, suspended design:  Captive guideway: no possibility of de-railing  Static, non-contact switching: • Rail points do not move – saving time, reducing headway • Stations and intersections can be inserted without changing structure of existing tracks  Distributed computing – readily scalable  Plethora of sensors, monitoring systems, cameras: • Preventing anti-social activities onboard and at stations • Offers additional security in neighbourhoods along track Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 32
  30. 30. 5.3 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit? Aboard MISTER  Capacity for five people, or two with bicycles, those with shopping bags, pushchairs, wheelchairs (level boarding)  Cornering: swivel suspension means that no superelevation (cost) of track is required  Freight pods available (max 400kg) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 33
  31. 31. 5.4 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit? Key Performance Metrics (1)  Operating speed up to 70kph in urban environments: • Assumed average speed approx. 55kph across full journey • No stopping en route, so can be quicker than even metro • Inter-urban speeds estimated at >100kph  Power consumption averaging 5kW: • Includes heating/aircon • <2kW for level cruising (rail reduces friction) • 15kW when on 45° climb Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 34
  32. 32. 5.5 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit? Key Performance Metrics (2)  US$5-10m per km of two-way track: • Includes up to 8 x 5-bay stops (staggered on either side); and • 100 pods per km  Mainline capacity: • approx. 7,500 passengers per hour per direction • 1.5 pax/pod; 10-metre spacing, 55kph: higher possible • Can have >1 tracks running parallel for less cost than LRT  Boarding & alighting capacity: • 1km of track: 2,700 boardings + 2,700 alightings per km per hour • 1km grid: 5,400 boardings + 5,400 alightings per km2 per hour • 500m grid: 10,800 boardings + 10,800 alightings per km2 per hour Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 35
  33. 33. 5.8 What is MISTER Personal Rapid Transit? Possible Applications of MISTER  As a transit service in its own right  As a feeder to conventional mass transit: • Requires less demand to be viable than metro, LRT, etc • Can provide feeder services that do not get stuck in traffic • Does not interfere with road traffic or pedestrian movements  As a premium service relieving congested metro  Can have dual-pricing strategies • Integrated with metro, LRT for connecting journeys • Higher fares when running parallel to metro Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 38
  34. 34. 6. Comparison of Cost Effectiveness Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 39
  35. 35. 6.1 Comparison of Cost Effectiveness MISTER versus 1st Generation PRT First Generation (ULTra, Vectus, 2getthere) Heavy, Supported Shallow Only (ULTra: up 4.5°; down 2.8°) Second Generation (MISTER PRT) Light, Suspended Typical Cost per km for two-way track ULTra: US$6.6-17.3m (track only) Journey Speed ULTra: Maximum 40kph Headway ULTra: minimum 3 seconds ULTra: 6.4 seconds at Heathrow 2getthere: 4 seconds US$5-10m (includes stops and 100 pods per km) Maximum 70kph Typical 55kph 10 metres (0.65 seconds @55kph) Capacity (passengers per hour per direction) ULTra: 1,200 7,500 Guideway Type Gradients Handled Source: ULTra website 45° up or down (steeper possible) (based on 3 second headway) The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities Richard F. Di Bona Assuming 1.5 pax First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 per pod Ollie Mikosza The 40
  36. 36. 6.2 Comparison of Cost Effectiveness MISTER versus Alternatives Capital Costs Capacity Capacity (passengers/ hour/direction) per US$m (US$m/km) System Range Say (A) Range Say (B) (B) ÷ (A) Heavy Metro $52–260m $150m 30-90,000 60,000 375 Light Metro $39–91m $70m 10-40,000 25,000 357 LRT $13–91m $50m 5-40,000 23,000 460 Tram $6.5–32.5m $20m 2.5-20,000 11,000 550 Monorail $35–100m $67.5m 1-15,000 8,000 119 ULTra PRT $6.6–17.3m $12m 1,200 1,200 100 MISTER PRT $5–10m $7.5m 7,500 7,500 1,000 Typical ranges used, based upon the following data sources: • • • • Scholtz-Knobloch Organizing New Light Rail Projects, Banekonference, Copenhagen 2012 Montassar DRAIEF-SYSTRA, cited in World Bank / Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility “Alternatives Analysis” ULTra Website MISTER Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 41
  37. 37. 7. Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 42
  38. 38. 7.1 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Case Study  Provincial capital in southwest Poland  Population ≈ 146,000, including tertiary students  MISTER exhibited 1:1 working prototype in 2007  Opole approved implementation of MISTER, subject to MISTER raising finance rvsci.us Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza wikipedia.org MISTER The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 43
  39. 39. 7.2 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Modelling  917-zone EMME model: for closely-spaced stops  Model developed on 2013 conditions  Forecasts for 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050 • Base, Conservative and Optimistic Cases  MISTER Network: • Core project of 4 phases, totalling 32.6km • Two further phases also tested (extra 20.2km) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 44
  40. 40. 7.3 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Layout Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities mapa.zumi.pl Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 The First International 45
  41. 41. 7.4 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (without MISTER) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 46
  42. 42. 7.5 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (without MISTER) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 47
  43. 43. 7.6 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (Phase 1: 8.4km) Phase One: Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza 8.4km The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 48
  44. 44. 7.7 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (Phase 2: 9.1km) Phase One: Phase Two: Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza 8.4km 9.1km The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 49
  45. 45. 7.8 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (Phase 3: 9.0km) Phase One: Phase Two: Phase Three: Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza 8.4km 9.1km 9.0km The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 50
  46. 46. 7.9 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (Phase 4: 6.2km) Phase One: 8.4km Phase Two: 9.1km Phase Three: 9.0km Phase Four: 6.2km The Personal and Development of Modern Communities Richard F. Di Bona Total One-Four:ThePotential of MISTERSymposiumRapid Transit to Sustain the MobilityUniversity of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 32.6km Ollie Mikosza First International on Next Generation Infrastructure, 51
  47. 47. 7.10 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (Phase 5: 14.2km) Phase One: 8.4km Phase Two: 9.1km Phase Three: 9.0km Phase Five: 14.2km Phase Four: 6.2km The Personal and Development of Modern Communities Richard F. Di Bona Total One-Four:ThePotential of MISTERSymposiumRapid Transit to Sustain the MobilityUniversity of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 32.6km Ollie Mikosza First International on Next Generation Infrastructure, 52
  48. 48. 7.11 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Network (Phase 6: 6.0km) Phase One: 8.4km Phase Two: 9.1km Phase Three: 9.0km Phase Five: 14.2km Phase Four: 6.2km Phase Six: 6.0km The Personal Richard F. Di Bona Total One-Four:ThePotential of MISTERSymposiumRapid Transit to Sustain the MobilityUniversity of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 32.6km Grand Total: Generation Infrastructure, and Development of Modern Communities 52.8km Ollie Mikosza First International on Next 53
  49. 49. 7.12 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Opole Modelling Assumptions Population (incl. Tertiary Students) Case Base Conservative Optimistic 2020 147,000 145,000 149,000 Case Base MISTER Speed 55kph Conservative Optimistic 50kph 60kph Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza 2050 144,000 135,000 156,000 MISTER Fare Average Annual GDP Growth over Period 2013-2020 2020-2030 2030-2050 2.39% 2.90% 1.71% 1.79% 2.17% 1.28% 2.98% 3.62% 2.13% Bus & Train Fares PLN3.40 Current fares retained +0.34/km Bus: PLN2.60 /3.30 (1 or 2+boardings) (US$1+0.1) Train: PLN3.57 (allowing for season tickets) The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 54
  50. 50. 7.14 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Key Financial Assumptions Costs Case Certification Depot Base Conservative Optimistic US$30m US$30m US$30m US$15m US$15m US$15m Case Base Conservative Optimistic Case Base Conservative Richard F. Di Bona Optimistic Ollie Mikosza Track per km Timeframes (months) Depot Track (2-way plus Stops (concurrent (per km per Certification with Phase 1) crew) & Pods) US$8m US$9m US$7m 18 24 12 Ramp-Up Ramp-Up Annualisation Assumed Amplitude Duration Factor Occupancy 50% 50% 40% Phase 1 6 months 12 months 3 months 320 days 300 days 330 days 6 6 6 1 1.5 1 Staffing Levels Deadheading 1.5 20 +5/km passengers @ PLN70k per pod p.a. Construction Phasing (After Certification) Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 20% of pod-km Phase 6 1-7 8-12 13-16 17-19 20-24 25-27 1-11 12-18 19-23 24-27 28-35 36-39 The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities 56 1-7 8-12 13-16 17-19 20-24 The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 25-27
  51. 51. 7.15 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows With Phase One Passengers per Day on Link Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza approx. 90,000 passenger-km/ day 8.4km network length The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 57
  52. 52. 7.16 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows With Phase Two Passengers per Day on Link Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza approx. 190,000 passenger-km/ day 17.4km network length The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 58
  53. 53. 7.17 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows With Phase Three Passengers per Day on Link Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza approx. 325,000 passenger-km/ day 26.5km network length The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 59
  54. 54. 7.18 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows With Phase Four Passengers per Day on Link Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza approx. 405,000 passenger-km/ day 32.6km network length The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 60
  55. 55. 7.19 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows With Phase Five Passengers per Day on Link Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza approx. 585,000 passenger-km/ day 46.8km network length The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 61
  56. 56. 7.20 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Year 2020 Base Case Daily Flows With Phase Six Passengers per Day on Link Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza approx. 625,000 passenger-km/ day 52.8km network length The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 62
  57. 57. 7.21 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Summary of Transport Impacts (2020) PLN3.40+0.34/km fares Base Case Phases 1,2,3,4 Forecast Forecast Phases 1 to 6 Impact Forecast Impact Car Average Journey Time (minutes) 82% 62% -20% 52% -30% Non-Car Mode Share (%) 18% 38% +20% 48% +30% Car 14.5 12.6 -1.9 11.3 -3.2 Non-Car 19.1 10.0 -9.1 9.2 -9.9 All Passengers 15.3 11.7 -24% 10.3 -33% 438 347 -21% 291 -33% 258 190 -26% 153 -41% Car Vehicle-km (million p.a.) Car Fuel Costs (million PLN p.a.) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza No PRT The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 63
  58. 58. 7.22 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Public Transport Impacts (2020) PLN3.40+0.34/km fares Base Case Phases 1,2,3,4 Phases 1 to 6 Forecast Average Fare Paid (PLN) Average Walk Time (minutes) Average Waiting Time (minutes) Average In-Vehicle Time (minutes) Average Total Trip Time (minutes) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza No PRT Forecast Impact Forecast Impact 5.85 4.62 -21% 4.55 -22% 9.0 4.8 -47% 4.3 -52% 3.0 1.5 -48% 1.2 -58% 7.2 3.7 -48% 3.6 -49% 19.1 10.0 -48% 9.2 -52% The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 64
  59. 59. 7.23 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Financial Internal Rate of Return PLN3.40 + 0.34 per km Fares (US$1.00+0.10 per km); Base Case Internal Rate of Return (%) by Case Including System Certification Phases Total Length Conservative Base Optimistic 1 8.4 km 4.6% 12.7% 23.6% 1,2 17.4 km 7.7% 16.6% 28.9% 1,2,3 26.5 km 9.7% 19.2% 32.0% 1,2,3,4 32.6 km 10.4% 19.6% 31.9% 1,2,3,4,5 46.8 km 10.1% 19.2% 31.2% 1,2,3,4,5,6 52.8 km 9.7% 18.4% 30.0% Phases Total Length 1,2,3,4 32.6 km 13.8% 28.1% 48.6% 1,2,3,4,5,6 52.8 km 11.6% 23.0% 39.6% Excluding System Certification Based on equity-financing: does not consider boosting IRR with debt-finance Excludes any sales/ profit taxes and revenue sharing with city authorities Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 65
  60. 60. 7.24 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Cumulative Cashflow Forecast (PLNm) 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 Base Case with Fare: PLN3.40+0.34/km Total CapEx = PLN1,040m (US$306m) Cumulative Net Cashflow=PLN7,800m (US$2,295m) Phases 1 to 4; Including Certification Payback in February 2022 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 2050 2045 2040 2035 2030 2025 2020 -1,000 2014 0 -2,000 Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 66
  61. 61. 7.25 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Financial IRR by Fare Level Base Case Network Scenario Phases 1,2,3,4 Phases 1 to 6 Fare per Boarding + Fare per km (US$1≈PLN3.40) PLN1.70 Certification +0.17/km PLN3.40 +0.34/km PLN5.10 +0.51/km PLN6.80 +0.68/km Included 11.7% 19.6% 20.8% 16.8% Excluded 16.7% 28.1% 28.9% 21.9% Included 10.3% 18.4% 20.3% 17.4% Excluded 12.9% 23.0% 24.9% 20.4%  Shows that there is financial scope to increase fares Based on equity-financing: does not consider boosting IRR with debt-finance Excludes any sales/ profit taxes and revenue sharing with city authorities Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 67
  62. 62. 7.26 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Notes on Financial IRR  Financial IRR only considers the financial scheme returns from an investor-operator perspective  Does not include wider economic benefits, such as: • Journey time savings for cars, trucks, PT passengers • Fuel and other vehicle operating costs savings (but do include MISTER PRT operating and overhead costs) • Reduction in vehicle emissions • Impacts on property values from improved accessibility • Value of landspace freed-up from providing car parks  Assumes 100% equity financing • IRR could be boosted by debt-financing  Excludes sales/profit tax & revenue-sharing with city Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 68
  63. 63. 7.27 Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability Elasticity Analysis: Base Case 2020: Phases 1 to 4 Fare 3.40+0.34/km 1.70+0.17/km 5.10+0.51/km 6.80+0.68/km (vs.5.10+0.51/km) 2020: Phases 1 to 6 Fare 3.40+0.34/km 1.70+0.17/km 5.10+0.51/km 6.80+0.68/km (vs.5.10+0.51/km) Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza Pax-km 403,017 496,196 293,170 173,103 Pax-km 626,283 756,101 473,245 306,142 Daily Forecasts Boardings Revenue (PLN) 168,543 710,071 215,177 450,155 116,008 741,159 65,055 560,083 Daily Forecasts Boardings Revenue (PLN) 230,166 995,502 286,162 615,013 164,214 1,078,845 99,311 883,494 Elasticities Pax-km Boardings -0.46 -0.55 -0.55 -0.62 -1.23 -1.32 Elasticities Pax-km Boardings -0.41 -0.49 -0.49 -0.57 -1.06 -1.19 The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 69
  64. 64. 8. Conclusions Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 72
  65. 65. 8.1 Conclusions MISTER Meeting NGI’s Challenges  Offers improved mobility for all  Versus traditional permanent way systems and First Generation PRT: • • • • Less space-take Cheaper (CapEx and OpEx) Convenient access No interference with road traffic or pedestrian severance  Financially viable: just requires Right Of Way  Substantial environmental benefits  Transformational, meeting the challenges for NGI Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 73
  66. 66. 8.2 Conclusions MISTER Qualifies as Transformational MISTER:  Offers better outcomes than incremental improvements to existing public transport  Lower costs (fixed and variable) • Reduced CapEx and OpEx  Higher benefits • Better level-of-service and potential market penetration  Better externalities than pre-existing solutions • More (or greater) positive externalities Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 74
  67. 67. 8.3 Conclusions Thank You Any other queries? Feel free to contact me: rfdibona@yahoo.com Thank You! Richard F. Di Bona Ollie Mikosza The Potential of MISTER Personal Rapid Transit to Sustain the Mobility and Development of Modern Communities The First International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, 1-3 October 2013 75

×