Foreword
At the end of 1995, the Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation was assigned by the Stockholm County Council to study the possibilities to carry through a pilot project with PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) in co-operation with the state and other parties. A preliminary study was published in the spring of 1997. This report focuses on some critical issues regarding PRT which were not fully answered in the preliminary study. The report concentrates mainly on demand and economic evaluation, and on possible model areas for a possible pilot project.
The task has been organised with a political control group and a task force with representatives from the Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation, its political board and in co-operation with the cities of Haninge, Huddinge, Jarfalla, Nacka, Sigtuna, Solna, Stockholm, Sodertalje and Upplands-Vasby and also AB Stockholm Metropolitan Public Transport. The project leader has been Ann-Charlotte Alvehag and project secretary has been Thomas Ney, who has also written the final report. Analysis of a pilot PRT system, its market and economy has been assigned by the Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation, and with financial support from the Board of Transportation and Communication Research, to Transek AB with
Goran Tegnér as project leader.
Stockholm, December 1998.
(signed Bo Malmsten)
Bo Malmsten, Regional Planning Director. |
Summary
PRT is a driverless transportation system with demand-controlled transportation for individual trips. The idea with PRT is to offer a competitive transit alternative to the private car. PRT has been developed to offer some of the advantages of the car: departure any time without time-tables, fastest route to destination without intermediate stop or interchanges, individual trip or in the company of your own choice. At the same time some of the disadvantages with the car can be avoided, such as noise and pollution, crowding and accidents and also the need for space.
PRT constitutes a compromise between the individual benefits of the car and system benefits of public transit. Complementary to current guideway systems (e.g underground, light rail and commuter trains) PRT can offer an attractive alternative for travelling on short distances where competitiveness of public transit is weak. And where the growth of car travelling is expected to increase.
PRT consists of small vehicles on their own guideway, mainly elevated. There are about ten concepts for PRT solutions in different stages of development. This study presents three of them: PRT2000, FLYWAY® and SkyCab. FLYWAY® and SkyCab are two Swedish concepts. |
Market preconditions
Travelling by motorcar grows faster than travelling by public transit. PRT, with a network which covers the hole county, would reduce the growth of car travelling and generate large travel-time benefits for transit
travelers. The number of travelers by public transit would increase substantially and a large portion of the increase would consist of journeys which otherwise not have taken place. The impacts on car travelling would be limited, considered the extensive development of the transit system. Travelling by car would though decrease to such an extent that investments in the road network might be postponed. Travelling by car will continue to grow, even if a PRT network is developed but at a slower rate. PRT is therefore not an alternative to the private car.
From the simulation of PRT for the Stockholm region we ca conclude that the best market conditions for larger networks are in the central areas of the region, in the corridor Jarfalla-Akalla/Kista-Sollentuna and in the surroundings of regional centres and larger city centres.
The theoretical case study of PRT in Kista shows that smaller networks must be connected to the regional guideway systems to attract a sufficient number of
travelers. The case study also shows that a substantial increase in travel time standard, as PRT as feeder system involve, might lead to fewer regional journeys by car.
The possibilities to integrate PRT with mass transit systems are good. At most commuter train stations commuters can board a PRT and depart within reasonable time with limited investments in PRT station constructions.
Security and safety issues are of importance for public transit in general but not dependent whether there is a driver or not. Security and safety issues can not be regarded as critical for a possible implementation of PRT or other driverless systems. |
The economy
PRT is, like all guideway systems, expensive but can be motivated when alternative solutions also are expensive. To be able to motivate high investments a substantial number of
travelers is demanded. PRT is therefore most suitable in densely built-up areas and where elevated guideways can decrease travel time for both transit and car. PRT is always more expensive than bus but can be comparable to investment in other local guideway systems. Financing is a critical issue due to high investment cost and give occasion to study if alternative solutions can result in equivalent effect but at a lower cost.
The case study in Kista shows that a PRT network with 28 kilometers guideway can be socially profitable in spite of a limited number of
travelers and high investment costs. The profitability quotient amounts to 0,7 - 1,5 including development costs.
A pilot project ( about 7 kilometers) will not reach social profitability in the case study area because of development costs and a small network but might for a developed technique with mass production reach profitability for somewhat larger networks. This implies that a pilot project should be conducted as an industry and technological development project. In studied model areas a pilot system might attract a larger amount of
travelers than in the case study area. This implies that travel time benefits might be larger and that it is possible that profitability ca be achieved.
The costs for a pilot system comprising 7 kilometers can be estimated to SEK 500 million (equals about Euro 55 million) and SEK 500 million for development costs. High development costs for a pilot project makes financing a critical issue.
 |
Model area
There are several possible model areas for a pilot system. The local support for a pilot system is important for a possible implementation. The areas considered in this study - Arlanda Airport, Barkarby, Handen, Kungens Kurva, Kvarnholmen, Flemingsberg, Solna, Sodertalje Syd and Upplands-Vasby - have been chosen by proposal from the cities in question. The areas have been tried regarding the possibilities for evaluation, transportation preconditions and regional development.
Regarding the purpose of the project evaluation possibilities have been given priority as basis for choice of area. Both evaluation possibilities and transportation preconditions seem sufficient in Barkarby, Solna and Upplands-Vasby. Of these areas a pilot system in Barkarby supports the intentions of the regional plan to a larger extent than in other areas. If transportation preconditions were to be given priority Arlanda and Kungens Kurva would be the most interesting areas for a possible implementation of PRT.
 
|
Conclusions
Within the framework of this assignment preconditions and possibilities for carrying through a pilot project with PRT in the Stockholm region have been analysed. With this report the assignment is concluded. The results of the study, which have been presented in a preliminary study and in this report, will be handed over to the Board of Transportation and Communication Research and have recourse to interested cities, organisations and companies. The results can be summarized as follow:
- PRT might, provided that the theoretical judgements can be confirmed in practice, be a part of a future transportation system in the region. At the moment, there are no experiences of PRT in commercial operation.
- Financing is a critical issue for the possibilities to carry through a pilot project. High development costs presuppose that a possible pilot project can be conducted as an industrial and technological development project but at present there is no interest.
- There are several areas in the region which offer good possibilities to evaluate a pilot project with PRT.
|
