DiBonaModelCityHKG160624OpolePRT

Demand, Impact and Feasibility
Estimation for a Proposed
Personal Rapid Transit System
in Opole, Poland
Richard Di Bona
Director, LLA Consultancy Ltd.
rfdibona@yahoo.com, richard@lla.com.hk
1
Model City Seminar, Hong Kong, 24th June 2016
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland

Contents
1. Challenges for Public Transport
2. What is Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)?
3. What is METRINO Personal Rapid Transit?
4. Case Study of Opole: Demand and Viability
5. Commentary on Things to (Re-)Consider
when Modelling PRT
2Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland

1. 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

5
Worsening Traffic
Congestion
Increased Delays for
Buses
Worsening Service and
Cost Recovery
More Passengers shift to
Using Cars

Issues for Public Transport Users
 Accessibility to and within/ around stations & bus stops
 Waiting, not just time: uncertainty, comfort, security
 Interchange is a hassle
• How direct are routeing options?
• As cities expand more interchanges likely
 Comfort aboard vehicles: seating, safety, temperature
 Journey time reliability
• Street-running services caught up in congestion?
 Safety and security:
• Onboard and getting to and from public transport
 Weather
 With kids, shopping bags, mobility impaired?
 Pricing

Origin
Destination
Public Transport Trip: Strategic View

Journey Broken Down into Stages
Origin
Destination
Which is the weakest link? (may vary by city/ area)
Do not overlook any stage!

PT User Issues: Accessibility
9

PT User Issues: Waiting
10
• Uncertainty: increases with interchange
• Comfort, safety, security of facilities

PT User Issues: Interchange
 How direct are routeing options?
 As cities expand more interchanges likely
11
Kuala Lumpur Sentral Station: 400
metres, not counting in-station
distance, one highway crossing
(direct route implemented 2012)

PT User Issues: Comfort, Crowding
12
• Crowding
• Comfort: getting a seat?
• Temperature
• Security
news.bbc.co.uk
www.straitstimes.com news.com.au

PT User Issues: The Weather
13
• Too hot or sunny? Too cold?
• Too humid or wet? Too windy?
own photo www.telegraph.co.uk
E-teachme.blogspot.com www.telegraph.co.uk

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
 With kids, shopping bags, mobility impaired?
 Pricing
14
www.unblockcambridge.com

Issues for Public Transport Operators
 Financial viability, possibly CapEx & OpEx subsidies
• Financial resources getting scarcer: rising interest rates?
 As cities grow or sprawl
• 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

2. What is Personal Rapid
Transit?

What is Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)?
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is:
 Automated guideway transit
system
 Vehicles for an individual or small
group (family or friends)
travelling together
 On a segregated network
 Trips are non-stop without
transfers
 All stations are on bypasses
• No interference with mainline
traffic

What does PRT Offer?
 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)

3. What is METRINO
Personal Rapid Transit?

METRINO
(formerly : 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

 Capacity for five people, or two with bicycles, those with
shopping bags, pushchairs, wheelchairs (level boarding)
 Cornering: swivel suspension means that no super-
elevation (cost) of track is required
 Freight pods available (max 400kg)
21
Aboard METRINO

 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
 METRINO can handle hilly and other constrained
environments:
• METRINO has a 3 metre turning radius
• Can handle gradients up to 45 degrees (up or down)
22
Key Performance Metrics (1)

 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. 8,250 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
23
Key Performance Metrics (2)

24
METRINO versus Alternatives
Typical ranges used, based upon the following data sources:
Scholtz-Knobloch, O. (2012)"Organizing new light rail projects", Banekonference, Copenhagen 2012;
Montassar DRAIEF-SYSTRA, cited in World Bank / Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility “Alternatives Analysis”
www.advancedtransit.org/advanced-transit/comparison/prt-characteristics
www.ultraglobalprt.com/how-it-works/qa
METRINO
Capital Costs
(US$m/km)
Capacity (passengers/
hour/direction)
Capacity
per US$m
Performance
Relative to
METRINOSystem Range Say (A) Range Say (B) (B) ÷ (A)
Heavy Metro 52-260 160 30-90,000 60,000 375 1/3
Light Metro 39-91 70 10-40,000 25,000 357 1/3
LRT 13-91 50 5-40,000 23,000 460 1/2
Tram 7-33 20 2.5-20,000 11,000 550 1/2
Monorail 35-100 70 1-15,000 8,000 114 1/10
Ultra PRT 7-17 12 1,800 1,800 150 1/7
METRINO PRT 5-10 7.5 8,250 8,250 1,100 1

25
Comparison of Energy Efficiency
USA data from: Davis, Stacy C.; Susan W. Diegel; Robert G. Boundy (2011). Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
30. US Department of Energy. pp. Table 2.12. ORNL-6986 (Edition 30 of ORNL-5198). Retrieved 2012-02-22. Ultra data
from Ultra website (citing 0.229 kWh per vehicle km)
Mode kwH per Pax-km
Energy Consumption per Pax-km
as Multiple of METRINO
Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 0.458 7.6
Rail (Commuter) 0.512 8.4
Buses (Transit) 0.773 12.7
Personal Trucks 0.667 11.0
Cars 0.644 10.6
Motorcycles 0.447 7.4
Ultra PRT 0.153 2.5
METRINO PRT 0.061 1

4. Case Study of Opole:
Demand and Viability

Opole Case Study
 Provincial capital in southwest Poland
 Population ≈ 146,000, including tertiary students
 METRINO (as MISTER) exhibited 1:1 working prototype
in 2007
 Opole approved implementation of METRINO, subject
to METRINO raising finance
27
rvsci.us wikipedia.org METRINO

Opole Modelling
 917-zone EMME model: for closely-spaced stops
 Model developed on 2013 conditions
 Forecasts for 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050
• Central Case, Lower Bound and Upper Bound Cases
 METRINO Network:
• Core project of 4 phases, totalling 32.6km
• Two further phases also tested (extra 20.2km)

Opole Network (without METRINO)
30

Opole Network (without METRINO)
31

Phase One: 8.4km
Opole Network (Phase 1: 8.4km)
32

Phase One: 8.4km
Phase Two: 9.1km
33

Phase One: 8.4km
Phase Two: 9.1km
Phase Three: 9.0km
34

Phase One: 8.4km
Phase Two: 9.1km
Phase Three: 9.0km
Phase Four: 6.2km
Total One-Four: 32.6km
35

Phase One: 8.4km
Phase Two: 9.1km
Phase Three: 9.0km
Phase Four: 6.2km
36
Phase Five: 14.2km

Phase One: 8.4km
Phase Two: 9.1km
Phase Three: 9.0km
Phase Four: 6.2km
37
Phase Five: 14.2km
Phase Six: 6.0km
Grand Total: 52.8km

Population
(incl. Tertiary Students)
Average Annual GDP Growth
over Period
Case 2020 2050 2013-2020 2020-2030 2030-2050
Central Case 147,000 144,000 2.39% 2.90% 1.71%
Lower Bound 145,000 135,000 1.79% 2.17% 1.28%
Upper Bound 149,000 156,000 2.98% 3.62% 2.13%
Opole Modelling Assumptions
38
Case
METRINO
Speed
METRINO
Fare Bus & Train Fares
Central Case 55kph PLN3.40
+0.34/km
(US$1+0.1)
Current fares retained
Bus: PLN2.60 /3.30 (1 or 2+boardings)
Train: PLN3.57 (allowing for season tickets)
Lower Bound 50kph
Upper Bound 60kph

Opole Modelling Data Sources
39
Central Intelligence Agency (2013) The World Factbook, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-
world-factbook.
Central Statistical Office of Poland (2012) Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland 2012,
Warsaw
Eurostat (2013) European Commission Eurostat Database. Retrieved May 2013.
Fouquet, R. (2012) Trends in Income and Price Elasticities of Transport Demand (1850-2010)
Jastrzębski, W. (1994) A Traffic Model of Warsaw, 3rd European EMME/2 Users’ Conference,
Stockholm, 25 May 1994
MZK (2013) Online Bus Timetable, www.mzkopole.pl Retrieved May 2013 (Opole Bus Operator)
Opole City, Via Regus Plus Project & European Union European Regional Development Fund
(2011) Analysis of Demographic Change Effects with Special Focus on the Labour Market in
Opole until 2020 (Summary), Opole
Ortúzar, J.d.D. and Willumsen, L.G. (1994) Modelling Transport, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons
PKP (2013) Online Route Planner, rozklad-pkp.pl Retrieved May 2013 (Polish National Railways)

Construction Phasing (After Certification)
Case Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6
Central Case 1-7 8-12 13-16 17-19 20-24 25-27
Lower Bound 1-7 8-12 13-16 17-19 20-24 25-27
Upper Bound 1-7 8-12 13-16 17-19 20-24 25-27
Key Financial Assumptions
40
Costs Timeframes (months)
Case Certification Depot
Track per km
(2-way plus Stops
& Pods) Certification
Depot
(concurrent
with Phase 1)
Track
(per km per
crew)
Central Case US$30m US$15m US$7.5m 18 6 1
Lower Bound US$30m US$15m US$8.0m 18 6 1
Upper Bound US$30m US$15m US$7.0m 18 6 1
Case
Ramp-Up
Amplitude
Ramp-Up
Duration
Annualisation
Factor
Assumed
Occupancy
Staffing
Levels
Dead-
heading
Central Case 40% 6 months 320 days 1.5
passengers
per pod
20 +5/km
@ PLN70k
p.a.
20% of
pod-km
Lower Bound 50% 12 months 310 days
Upper Bound 30% 3 months 320 days

Year 2020 Central Case Daily Flows
41
Passengers per Day on Link
With Phase One
approx. 90,000 passenger-km/ day
8.4km network length

42
With Phase Two

43
With Phase Three

44
With Phase Four

45
With Phase Five

46
With Phase Six

PLN3.40+0.34/km fares
No PRT Phases 1,2,3,4 Phases 1 to 6
Central Case
Forecast Forecast Impact Forecast Impact
Mode Share
(%)
Car 82% 62% -20% 52% -30%
Non-Car 18% 38% +20% 48% +30%
Average
Journey Time
(minutes)
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%
Car Vehicle-km
(million p.a.)
438 347 -21% 291 -33%
Car Fuel Costs
(million PLN p.a.)
258 190 -26% 153 -41%
Summary of Transport Impacts (2020)

PLN3.40+0.34/km fares
No PRT Phases 1,2,3,4 Phases 1 to 6
Central Case
Forecast Forecast Impact Forecast Impact
Average Fare Paid (PLN) 5.85 4.62 -21% 4.55 -22%
Average Walk Time
(minutes)
9.0 4.8 -47% 4.3 -52%
Average Waiting Time
(minutes)
3.0 1.5 -48% 1.2 -58%
Average In-Vehicle Time
(minutes)
7.2 3.7 -48% 3.6 -49%
Average Total Trip Time
(minutes)
19.1 10.0 -48% 9.2 -52%
Public Transport Impacts (2020)

PLN3.40 + 0.34 per km Fares
(US$1.00+0.10 per km)
Internal Rate of Return (%) by Case
Including System Certification
Phases Total Length Lower Bound Central Case Upper Bound
1 8.4 km 6.8% 14.8% 25.5%
1,2 17.4 km 10.8% 19.6% 31.3%
1,2,3 26.5 km 13.4% 22.6% 34.7%
1,2,3,4 32.6 km 14.4% 23.3% 34.7%
1,2,3,4,5 46.8 km 14.1% 22.9% 34.1%
1,2,3,4,5,6 52.8 km 13.5% 22.0% 32.9%
Phases Total Length Excluding System Certification
1,2,3,4 32.6 km 15.0% 25.3% 39.6%
1,2,3,4,5,6 52.8 km 13.5% 23.0% 36.0%
Financial Internal Rate of Return: Unleveraged
Based on equity-financing: does not consider boosting IRR with debt-finance
Excludes any sales/ profit taxes and revenue sharing with city authorities

5. Commentary on Things to
(Re-)Consider when
Modelling PRT

Particularly in strategic models (with mode choice
modelling), zones can be relatively large:
 Numerous bus stops on a route in a zone
 A lot of approximation of walk-in distances
However, with PRT stops perhaps only a few hundred
metres apart, such “large” zones would likely:
 Over-estimate walk-in distances
 Not provide information on where people are likely
to want to board or alight
51
Zoning

52
Zoning: Opole

Models usually include parking fees but may exclude:
 Parking search time and uncertainty of finding a space
 Walk time between car park and office/ shops
Junction delays stemming from public transport priority
often but not always properly accounted for in models
 As PRT does not interfere with traffic, omitting this may
bias results against PRT and towards traditional PT
 A lot of approximation of walk-in distances
“Stress” of traffic congestion often ignored, as “stresses”/
discomfort associated with public transport use often
greater
 But PRT might(?) remove some of these stresses
53
Issues with Car Modelling

 With an on-demand service, no or minimal waiting
 Can board and alight on the correct side of the street
in both directions of journey (with bus, it’s only 50%
of the time)
 No crowding and no strangers on-board vehicles
 Climate control, controlled by the passenger
 Wholly segregated mode, so not caught up in traffic
(eliminates journey time uncertainty)
 The vehicle switches lines, the passenger does not
interchange, so no “missed connections”
54
Regarding PRT Itself (1)

 Walk-in distances far shorter than for most PT modes
to/from the PRT stop
 Minimal walking within the stop (unlike large metro
stations)
 As stops smaller and can be fitted in more easily than
say metro stops (and in many places more easily
than bus stops), initial forecasts can be prepared
without worrying too much about exactly where
stops would be located
55

 To reiterate, it is on demand, without timetables, and
with vehicles switching between tracks, so in EMME:
 Metrino coded as high-speed auxiliary transit
 Remember no need to slow/ stop at intermediate
stops: they are on bypasses
 But a one-minute boarding penalty was applied
in Opole on system entry and on system exit
56

 For mode choice:
 In-vehicle time weight more like private car or
taxi than traditional public transport
 Should be much more attractive than
“traditional” public transport
 PRT could be used:
 As a mode in its own right, with walking
 As part of a public transport journey (auxiliary transit)
 As a Park-and-Ride mode
57

Thank You
Any queries? Feel free to contact me:
rfdibona@yahoo.com
richard@lla.com.hk
Thank You!

DiBonaModelCityHKG160624OpolePRT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to DiBonaModelCityHKG160624OpolePRT

Similar to DiBonaModelCityHKG160624OpolePRT (20)

More from Richard Di Bona

More from Richard Di Bona (16)

DiBonaModelCityHKG160624OpolePRT