PRT Pros and Cons Explained

Personal Rapid Transit 1
Personal Rapid Transit:
Pros and Cons
By Jimmy Sanders
November 17th
, 2010

It’s something that has plagued urban transit planners for years, the so-called “first-and-
last-mile problem”, the problem that transit usually takes passengers most of the way, but that
they have no way of getting to their final destination other than walking potentially long
distances, and no way of getting to the transit stop in the first place other than by driving
(GOOD, 2009) . But to the rescue comes a technology that would allow passengers to use public
transit up to points much closer to both their origin and their final destination, and would hence
make the entire public transit network of rail, bus and the like work better. And on top of that, it
looks really cool too, like something out of “The Jetsons.” A little monorail-like car about the
size of golf cart designed to take no more than two passengers directly from one station to
another, bypassing every station along the route. And it’s all automatic.
It’s called Personal Rapid Transit, or PRT, a novel concept that could be the biggest thing to
happen to public transportation since the invention of the bus. Little waiting, direct point-to-point
routing, and a car all to yourself, no bumping and grinding with stranger’s bodies like you would
on a subway train. It sounds like a wonderful thing for a place to have, and while it sounds like a
new, fanciful idea, the concept is not new, and aside from a few exceptions, the idea has yet to
catch on. There are legitimate concerns about the technology; no true PRT has ever been built on
a public scale, hence it is largely unproven in its purest form. Plus, existing systems similar to the
true concept have proven problematic at times. In short, there are few examples of how
something like this would work, and most importantly, there is no real gauge as to how much a
new PRT system would cost. So how close have we come to turning this seemingly utopian
transportation system into a reality? And if somebody does take the plunge and builds a new
PRT, what exactly would it entail?

First, one must understand what PRT is. In 1988, the Advanced Transit Association, or ATA,
listed what constitutes a true PRT system, these include:
 “Fully automated vehicles capable of operation without human drivers;
 vehicles captive to a reserved guideway;
 small vehicles available for exclusive use by an individual or a small group, typically
1 to 6 passengers, traveling together by choice and available 24 hours a day;
 small guideways that can be located aboveground, at ground level or underground;
 vehicles able to use all guideways and stations on a fully coupled PRT network;
 direct origin to destination service, without a necessity to transfer or stop at
intervening stations; and service available on demand rather than on fixed schedules”
(Schneider, 2007).
If that sounds complex, another way to put it is that PRT works like an elevator, only instead
of going up and down between floors, it goes horizontally between stations. It sounds like it’s
within realms of possibility, but as I noted earlier, no system currently operating meets all of
these specifications exactly, and not only that, but very few even meet some of the specifications.
The closest anybody has ever come to building a true, commercial PRT was in 1975, when
the Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit opened (Schneider, Morgantown GRT Infopage, 2010).
The system connects the two campuses of West Virginia University and Downtown
Morgantown. It does have many of the key elements of PRT as defined earlier, such as direct
origin-to-destination, however it does not operate in this manner all of the time. In off-peak
hours, direct, point-to-point service is turned off, and the car will stop at each station (Bell,
2007). In addition, the PRT is shut down entirely every night. This stretches the PRT definition

mentioned above, as it dictates 24-hour operations. The Morgantown system has vehicles that
were manufactured by Boeing’s old transit division which can, according to Schneider, also hold
21 people, 8 seated and 13 standing. This is well more than the 1 to 6 passengers the definition
states. This has PRT purists claiming that the Morgantown system is “Group Rapid Transit”, as
opposed to true Personal Rapid Transit.
But aside from the size of the cars and the hours of service, the Morgantown system operates
within the ATA’s other parameters. So the Morgantown system gives one a pretty good idea of
what a PRT system should look like. For example, it is completely automated, which is
necessary, considering that the cars are still relatively small, much too small for a control panel
up front. That, and with a fleet of 71 vehicles (Raney & Young, 2004), hiring 71 operators would
get pretty expensive. But a PRT must also take passengers directly to their destination without
any stops in between, and here’s how that’s accomplished in Morgantown. First, the passenger
specifies what station they want to go to at the turnstiles. The passenger then goes onto the
platform, which is divided into several gates, and then finds the gate with the vehicle designated
for their destination, which is announced on an electronic display. Once the passenger boards the
vehicle, as well as any other passengers going to the same station, the vehicle departs the origin
station. The car then moves onto the main PRT track. Now, as the vehicle has to go from the
origin to its destination non-stop, it cannot stop at any stations in between. So that’s why the
tracks have a fork at every station, one prong going into the station, the other leading to a bypass
track, usually located under the station platforms. If the vehicle is running non-stop, and it hits an
intervening station, the car will go into the bypass track and will simply pass either under or to
the side of the station continuing on to its final destination. Once it does get to its destination,
however, it will go into the station, and turn on to the platform.

This is what primarily differentiates a Personal Rapid Transit system from a conventional
automated tram, the ability to go directly to ones destination non-stop, with little waiting to
board and small, automated vehicles. And while it sounds a bit more complex than an automated
tram, it seems like the benefits are enough to put in the extra work and money. However,
governments and developers have been reluctant to build anything similar to the Morgantown
system, and who can blame them? The Morgantown PRT was well over budget when it was
finally completed. According to Raney & Young, the system was projected to cost no more than
$20,000,000 when construction began in the early 1970’s. However, this was coupled with the
Nixon administration wanting the system to be finished as quickly as possible, as the feds were
footing the bulk of the PRT’s cost. In addition, nothing like this has ever been built before and
many unproven technologies were being used. As a result, the system was not ready nearly as
fast as the feds had hoped. In addition, the kinks typically seen in prototypes, as well as the
rushed schedule of completion, eventually the cost ballooned to about $130,000,000, or about
$380,000,000 in today’s dollars (Friedman), about $46,000,000 per mile. Naturally, this kind of
cost overrun turned many governments off of PRT technology, especially considering this is a
system that only carries about 15,000 passengers a day. And even today, the system has been the
subject of frustration. PRT breakdowns are frequent; in fact, the PRT had shut down at least five
times the week of October 25th, 2010 (WVU Transportation & Parking, 2010). The breakdowns
have occurred so much that WVU has set up a Twitter page notifying riders of problems. And
another recent incident involved electrical problems that, according to eyewitness accounts,
caused a fire in one car, and in a separate incident, an explosion on the track, though WVU
representatives deny all of it (The Daily Athenaeum, 2010).

There was one more ambitious German project at the time called Cabinentaxi that was tested
successfully in the late 70’s (Schneider, cabintaxi infopage, 2010). It was ambitious It featured
innovative features, most notably a track in which trains can run both on and suspended under.
This allowed for bi-directional traffic on a single guideway, which saves space and, presumably,
capital costs. However, the project largely ended after the German government ceased funding,
and a commitment for a Cabinentaxi system in Hamburg was dropped. However, a man in
Detroit has since bought the patents, and is trying to sell the technology today. But despite the
fascination with PRT that was seen in the 1970’s, much of it waned when lower oil prices came
in the 80’s and 90’s. This created an all-around apathy toward public transit as a whole and as a
result, PRT seemed dead in the water. Just another overambitious vision lumped in with such
follies as jet packs and flying cars.
But just as it did in the early 70’s, oil prices started shooting up again at the beginning of the
21st century, and just like in the early 70’s, the high prices renewed interest in public
transportation, including Personal Rapid Transit. Several companies around the world are
currently pitching their own proprietary PRT technologies, and there have been several proposals
from cities around the world to build their own systems. Most are just that, proposals, but a few
companies have taken their technologies much further, building test tracks, and in the case of one
company, almost getting their technology up and running in a real life setting.
The ULTra system has probably come farther along than any of the many PRT
technologies that have come along over the years. It’s hard to argue with such a statement, since
the ULTra technology is being used to build the first PRT system in the world since Morgantown
opened, and the first ever to meet all of the definitions of a PRT, which Morgantown does not.
It’s being used at London’s Heathrow airport to connect two remote parking lots with the

airport’s newest terminal (ULTra, 2010). Granted the line isn’t very long, it runs about 1.2 miles,
but it provides a great example of PRT technology in its purest form.
The ULTra concept began like many of the other pie-in-the-sky proposals that have
come. But like the other PRT proposals I have mentioned, ULTra was propped up after it got
money from the government, the British government to be exact. A test track was soon built, like
Cabinentaxi before it. But unlike Cabinentaxi, ULTra got a breakthrough, in the form of a
contract from BAA, the company that operates Heathrow Airport. BAA had done a study that
concluded that traditional transit technologies, such as buses and higher capacity trams, did not
meet their needs as well as PRT did. So BAA made a deal to get the ULTra system installed at
Heathrow. Ground was broken in January of 2007, and the system was technically completed in
July 2009. However, the system is still undergoing testing at the time of this writing, and has yet
to open to the general public for regular service, nor has there been a steadfast timetable set for
its grand opening.
The ULTra system is designed to work with minimal infrastructure to support it. For
example, ULTra cars operate completely off of an on-board battery. The batteries are
automatically charged by electric contacts located at stations. This means that the guideways do
not require a third rail or anything like that, which keeps both capital costs and operating costs
down. The cars also need no rails for guidance as they have laser sensors to see where it is going;
it only needs concrete curbs to determine its steering path. The only inputs the cars receive are at
the station, where it is fed a clear path to its destination.
As you may have deduced, the tracks do not require much for construction. All that is
required is a smooth running surface, and curbs for guidance. No third rails or overhead wires,

no wires to tell it where to go. Most of the infrastructure is located only at the station, which is
where the car’s batteries are charged and where the car’s path is fed. In addition, the car’s light
weight allows elevated portions to be built with minimal structural support, which cuts capital
costs even more.
In addition, there is another technology being sold that uses some more traditional
technology. Vectus is Swedish/Korean system that, unlike ULTra, runs on traditional steel rails,
not unlike that of a roller coaster (Vectus, 2009). Also unlike ULTra, Vectus vehicles do not run
on a battery, but by either a third rail or by a so-called “linear motors”. Both of these increase the
amount of infrastructure, and hence increase the cost. However these are also much more proven
technologies for transportation than, say, laser guidance systems. Like ULTra, Vectus is far
enough along that it has built a test track. However, it has not gone any further than that, possibly
due to the higher amount of infrastructure involved. But if more PRT systems start popping up,
ULTra might need a viable competitor in the field.
These technologies, along with the fact that one has been installed for eventual
commercial use at a major international airport, have apparently reenergized the PRT movement.
With the numerous advances in necessary computer technology that have come along since the
Morgantown system has opened, it finally seems like a viable transit option again. So where else
is PRT being proposed? Well, not in many large scale settings, to be sure. Most proposals are
only a few miles in length, and are only intended to serve individual neighborhoods, districts,
and developments, often as a circulator for passengers of larger, traditional transit methods, such
as subways and light rail. For example, according to the ULTra website, there is a proposal to
build a 6.4 mile Personal Rapid Transit system in Hillboro, Oregon, a suburb of Portland. The
system would link a MAX light rail station with several office parks, apartment complexes, and

shopping centers in the area. This is nothing large, just a small system taking people to and from
a light rail stop.
However it’s not just being proposed to connect sprawling suburban developments, PRT
is also being touted for city centers of various sizes. One organization, for example, wants a PRT
built in the small, seaside college town of Santa Cruz. They want a system that will connect the
University of California at Santa Cruz with the center of town and the Pacific Ocean. Advocates
of the Santa Cruz system say that traffic in the city is a serious problem owing to the university’s
hilltop location and the access problems coming as a result (Santa Cruz PRT , 2009). They also
say that the ensuing traffic is driving tourists away. They think a solar-powered PRT system
would be the most cost-effective way to alleviate those problems, but then again, that’s all just
rhetoric.
Of course if one really wants to hear glowing, almost Orwellian rhetoric, one only needs
to go to the website of Citizens for Personal Transit, an organization advocating a PRT system
for Minneapolis. The organization claims that PRT can take you to the mall, can take kids to
school and then to soccer practice, seemingly anywhere at all (Citizens for Personal Rapid
Transit, 2010). Of course that would mean you would have to build tracks everywhere, but that’s
another story for another time. The organization has gotten the PRT concept legs in the state
though, with the Minnesota Department of Transportation holding workshops and symposiums
about the project. And Republican Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty has recently allocated an
additional $150,000 to study additional PRT systems around the state (Citypages, 2010).
There are seemingly a lot of upsides of PRT, but what about the downsides? Certainly the
cost overruns of the Morgantown project certainly didn’t help, as I alluded to earlier. But the

Heathrow system has its own examples of problems, namely, it still hasn’t been opened despite
the fact that it has technically been completed. It was initially slated to open in late 2009
(publictransit.us, 2009), but it is now late 2010, and as I mentioned earlier it has yet to open, and
nobody is quite sure when it will. And no reason has been given why these delays have taken
place, but evokes the delays that took place before the Morgantown system finally opened, and
that is certainly something that does not bode well for PRT proponents.
The second big question is how much would a system like this cost? The ULTra
company claims that the price of such a system can run anywhere between $7,000,000 and
$15,000,000 per mile, however they say that doesn’t include right-of-way acquisition. So right
off the bat that ups the cost, potentially dramatically. Second, the price given assumes that you
are using ULTra’s minimalist plan for elevated tracks. Such a construction may not be allowed
under the building codes of particular area seeing that these light structures will carry people.
And speaking of elevated structures, few people need to be told that they rarely tend to be
aesthetically pleasing. In fact, one anti-PRT blog has a picture of a large and intrusive guideway
dominating a suburban intersection with the caption “Say No To Ugly PRT!” (Avidor, 2010),
which is a big contrast to the utopian vision laid out by PRT proponents with guideways in
perfect aesthetic harmony and stations located right on the inside of buildings. Of course the
latter construction scheme would also likely cost a lot more than $15,000,000 per mile, so there’s
another wrinkle to the cost of this system.
And perhaps the biggest thing keeping PRT from catching on is the fact that many people
already have their own personal transit systems, their car. It’s very hard to sell public mass
transit as it is in a proudly automobile-dependent culture, but when you take the word “mass” out
of it and are just selling what is essentially an automatic car, it seems kind of pointless

considering most people already have a car, albeit manually driven. Plus many people already
use their cars as a method of reaching transit through station park-and-rides. But what if you
don’t have a car?
That leads all the way back to the GOOD article cited at the top. That article also noted
several other methods that don’t require an additional, complex transit system, such as letting
people rent smaller cars for short journeys to transit through car sharing programs, like Zipcar.
Granted, this requires commuters to pay a periodical fee that may seem expensive to potential
customers. But it’s still cheaper than buying a car or even leasing one. Another method that has
been done for years is to build transit-oriented developments that are built within walking
distance of train stations and bus hubs, making transit convenient for residents, workers,
shoppers, or a combination therein, depending on the nature of the development.
As oil prices seem destined to stay high, increasing public transportation options will
remain a popular option for city governments, though the problem will likely remain of how to
transport people to public transportation. And PRT will likely remain an option as a way of
retrofitting non-transit oriented areas to make them better served by transit. It will also be pitched
as an alternative to traditional automatic trams in settings like airports and downtowns. But the
potentially prohibitive costs, the perceived newness of the concept, numerous problems with the
few that have been built, and the fact that there are cheaper alternatives out there will make PRT
a tough sell for years to come. So new transit initiatives will likely involve traditional modes like
buses, light rail, commuter rail, and subways. It will probably have to take a few brave souls to
actually build a PRT system for the technology to really prove itself, and make it a truly viable
transit option.

Avidor, K. (2010, October 5). The Personal Rapid Transit Boondoggle. Retrieved
November 2, 2010, from http://prtboondoggle.blogspot.com/
Bell, J. (2007, September 18). Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). Retrieved
October 26, 2010, from Jon Bell's (Mostly) Rail Transit Pages:
http://web.presby.edu/~jtbell/transit/Morgantown/
Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit. (2010). Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit.
Retrieved November 3, 2010, from Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit:
http://www.cprt.org/CPRT/Home.html
Citypages. (2010, October 4). Tim Pawlenty keeps spending money on personal rapid
transit - Minneapolis / St. Paul News - The Blotter. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from
Citypages: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/10/tim_pawlenty_or.php
Friedman, S. M. (n.d.). The Inflation Calculator. Retrieved October 31, 2010, from
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
GOOD. (2009, April 16). Convenience Is King - Transportation - GOOD. Retrieved
November 3, 2010, from GOOD: http://www.good.is/post/convenience-is-king/
publictransit.us. (2009, August 24). Publictransit.us - Heathrow PRT Project Delayed
Another Year into 2010. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from publictransit.us:
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemid=1
Raney, S., & Young, S. (2004, November 15). Morgantown People Mover - Update
Description. Retrieved October 28, 2010, from
http://www.cities21.org/morgantown_TRB_111504.pdf

Santa Cruz PRT . (2009). Santa Cruz PRT. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from Santa
Cruz PRT: http://santacruzprt.com/whyprt-in-SC-c.htm
Schneider, J. (2010, October 26). cabintaxi infopage. Retrieved October 31, 2010, from
Innovative Transportation Technologies : http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/cabin.htm
Schneider, J. (2010, 18 September). Morgantown GRT Infopage. Retrieved 26 October,
2010, from Innovative Transportation Technologies:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/morg.htm
Schneider, J. (2007, June 19). PRT Background. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from
Innovative Transportation Technologies:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRT/Background.html
The Daily Athenaeum. (2010, February 28). Two fires on PRT last week causes trouble
for students - The Daily Athenaeum - News. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from The Daily
Athenaeum: http://www.thedaonline.com/news/two-fires-on-prt-last-week-causes-trouble-for-
students-1.1178521
ULTra. (2010). ULTra - ULTra at London Heathrow Airport. Retrieved November 1,
2010, from ULTra Sustainable Personal Transit: http://www.ultraprt.com/
Vectus. (2009). VECTUS Intelligent Transit. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from
VECTUS Intelligent Transit: http://www.vectusprt.com/index.php
WVU Transportation & Parking. (2010). WVU Trans & Parking (WVUDOT) on Twitter.
Retrieved November 3, 2010, from Twitter: http://twitter.com/WVUDOT

PRT Pros and Cons Explained

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to PRT Pros and Cons Explained

Similar to PRT Pros and Cons Explained (20)

PRT Pros and Cons Explained