RailWorld2013BKK_Di_Bona_131021_updated

Extending the Reach and Penetration of
Mass Transit Systems, Increasing the
Level-of-Service and Operators’
Profitability:
The Potential of MISTER
Personal Rapid Transit
Richard F. Di Bona
Independent Transport Planner, Hong Kong, rfdibona@yahoo.com
and Director, LLA Consultancy Ltd, richard@lla.com.hk
Richard F. Di BonaExtending the Reach and Penetration of Mass Transit Systems, Increasing the Level-of-Service and Operators’ Profitability
9th RailWorld Summit 2013, 24-25 October 2013, Bangkok 1
9th RailWorld Summit 2013, Bangkok, Thailand
24-25 October 2013

Contents
1. Typical Issues Faced by Operators
2. Public Transport from the User’s Perspective
3. Time for a New Solution? Introducing PRT
4. First or Second Generation PRT? MISTER
5. Cost-Effectiveness
6. Quick Case Study: Opole
7. Conclusions

Typical Issues Faced by
Operators of Mass Transit

Issues Faced by Mass Transit Operators (1)
 Financial viability, possibly CapEx & OpEx subsidies
• Financial resources getting scarcer: rising interest rates?
 As cities grow:
• Increased network complexity
• Interchange facilities are costly
• Sprawl creates lower densities: poorer cost recovery
• Ever-greater subsidies required, yet resources constrained
 Increased mass transit crowding in city centres?
• Not easy to increase capacity significantly once tunnels,
stations, etc built
• Customers with higher willingness-to-pay likely to switch

Issues Faced by Mass Transit Operators (2)
 Feeder services:
• Caught up in traffic congestion (reduced level-of-service)
• Or elevated and expensive (poor cost recovery)
• Self-owned, can be a drain on operating income
• Third party owned/ controlled: hard to coordinate
 Policy criteria:
• A social need service? – cost focus
• Or: to persuade people out of their cars? – quality focus

Public Transport from the
User’s Perspective

Origin
Destination
Public Transport Trip: Strategic View

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

Walking is Not Always Easy!

Walking is Not Always Easy!
What about:
 The elderly
 Disabled
 Those with young children
 Or with heavy shopping
bags?

Walkways: Safe, Segregated, Accessible, Good Repair

Waiting
• Uncertainty: increases with interchange
• Comfort, safety, security of facilities

Walking & Waiting in The Weather
• 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

Interchange Issues
 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
(more direct route opened in 2012)

Onboard: Comfort, Crowding, etc
• Crowding
• Comfort: getting a seat?
• Temperature
• Security
• Cultural issues regarding strangers
news.bbc.co.uk
www.straitstimes.com news.com.au

Other Critical 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
 Mobility impaired?
 With kids, shopping bags?
 Pricing
www.unblockcambridge.com
Author’s photo

Time for a New Solution?
Introducing Personal Rapid
Transit (PRT)

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

What does PRT Offer the Consumer?
 No travelling with strangers:
• Improved sense of security
 Stations can be spaced far more closely than metro
 Point-to-point journeys:
• No transfers between lines needed
• Mass customisation
 Likely quicker journeys for passengers:
• No intermediate stopping
• Service available on demand, minimal wait

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
(source: company website)
2getthere, Masdar,
Abu Dhabi
(source: company website)
Visual rendering of MISTER
(Second Generation PRT)
(source: MISTER)

First or Second Generation PRT?
Introducing MISTER

e.g. ULTra, Vectus, 2getthere. Rely on heavy, supported
track. Systems can be:
 Wholly elevated (or tunnelled) track & stations: expensive
 Street-running: space-take; pedestrian & road traffic conflict
 Street stops & elevated track: significant space-take (ramps)
Issues with First Generation PRT:
 Constrained by topography (natural and man-made)
 Moderate speeds (up to 40kph)
 Large headways (3 seconds+)
 Have been (justifiably) labelled “low capacity systems”
First Generation PRT

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)
MISTER is based on lightweight, suspended pods:
 Street-level stops with elevated track (size of bus stop)
 Saves space: best of both worlds
 Saves cost
Up to 8 x 5-bay stops per km (staggered on either side
of two-way track):
 Reduces walk-in distances significantly
 Enables improved public transport trip experience
Second Generation PRT

Metropolitan Individual System of
Transportation on Elevated Rail
 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

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
MISTER’s Key Attributes

 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
MISTER’s Key Performance Metrics

 US$5-10m per km of two-way track:
• Includes up to 8 x 5-bay stops (staggered on either side)
• 100 pods per km
 Modular design means track can be installed at about
1km per month per line
• Quicker to install
• Quicker impact on transport
• Quicker financial payback
Track Costs and Installation Time

 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)
Aboard MISTER

 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
• Can have interchanges with multiple exits of key metro stations
MISTER is not a “Low Capacity” Mode

Cost-Effectiveness

MISTER versus 1st Generation PRT
First Generation
(ULTra, Vectus, 2getthere)
Second Generation
(MISTER PRT)
Guideway Type Heavy, Supported Light, Suspended
Gradients Handled
Shallow Only
(ULTra: up 4.5°; down 2.8°)
45° up or down
(steeper possible)
Typical Cost per km for
two-way track
ULTra: US$6.6-17.3m
(track only)
Source: ULTra website
US$5-10m
(includes stops and
100 pods per km)
Journey Speed ULTra: Maximum 40kph
Maximum 70kph
Typical 55kph
Headway
ULTra: minimum 3 seconds
ULTra: 6.4 seconds at Heathrow
2getthere: 4 seconds
10 metres
(0.65 seconds
@55kph)
Capacity (passengers
per hour per direction)
Assuming 1.5 pax per pod
ULTra: 1,800
(based on 3 second headway)
8,250

MISTER versus Alternatives
Capital Costs
(US$m/km)
Capacity
(passengers/ hour/direction)
Capacity
per US$m
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 1,800 1,800 150
MISTER PRT $5–10m $7.5m 8,250 8,250 1,100
Note: Cheaper LRT and Tram systems are typically at street-level:
 Substantial space-take: with substantial cost (land area taken)
 Likely interference: delays and delayed by road traffic
 Pedestrian severance issues

What does MISTER Offer Operators?
 Cheaper CapEx and OpEx than alternatives
 Quicker to install than other permanent way systems
 More time reliability than street-running feeders
 Cheaper than elevated LRT or monorail
 Better potential market penetration
• Reduced walk-in distances
 Reduces or eliminates subsidy needs
 Enables profitable operations
 MISTER is A transformational stepwise
advance in urban transport

Quick Case Study:
Opole, Poland

Opole
 Provincial capital in southwest Poland
 Population ≈ 146,000, including tertiary students
 MISTER exhibited 1:1 working prototype in 2007
 Approved implementation of MISTER, subject to
MISTER raising finance
 Current modes: commuter rail and bus only
rvsci.us wikipedia.org MISTER

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

Phase One: 8.4km
Phase Two: 9.1km

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

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

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

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

Key Base Case Assumptions
 Certification: US$30m, 18 months
 Depot & control centre: US$15m
• 6 months to build & commission, concurrent with Phase 1
 Track cost US$8m/km (two-way)
• Including stops and pods
 Track built at 1km/month per construction crew
 Allowance made for 50% ramp-up over 6 months
 Occupancy of 1.5 pax per pod
 Deadheading allowance of 20% of pod-km
 Fares: US$1 + US$0.10 per km per passenger
• Slightly higher than current bus and train fares

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

With Phase Two

With Phase Three

With Phase Four

With Phase Five

With Phase Six

 If certification starts in January 2014:
• Phase One opens in February 2016
• Phase Four opens in February 2017
• Phase Six opens in October 2017
 Phases One to Four (Base Case), including certification:
• Total CapEx=US$306m; IRR=19.6%; Payback February 2022
 With Phases One to Six, including certification:
• Total CapEx=US$468m; IRR=18.4%; Payback November 2022
 Shows scope to operate profitably with lower fares
• Yet sensitivity tests showed revenue increases with higher fares
 More details available on request
Opole Preliminary Results

PLN3.40+0.34/km fares
No PRT Phases 1,2,3,4 Phases 1 to 6
Base 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)

Conclusions

Growing burdens:
 Urban sprawl
 Social need issues restraining fares and cost recovery
 Coordination with feeders, e.g. buses and walking
 Overloading in city centres:
• Higher value customers divert away in the face of crowding
Scarcer resources (interest rates likely to rise?):
 But how to attract private capital?
 Or justify significant public capital?
Challenges for Mass Transit

 Improving walk-in/ walk-out conditions
• But not under operators’ control
 Increase the reliability of motorised feeders
• Not always under operators’ control (different firms)
• Can get caught up in congestion
 Find cost-effective ways of extending networks under
mass transit operators’ control:
• Monorail, segregated LRT etc quite expensive
• Demand often insufficient to payback commercially
 Explore Second Generation Personal Rapid Transit
Possible Solutions to Access/ Egress

 Growing risk of compromising service standards
 Especially if new radial routes added
 Relatively limited scope to expand capacity (tunnels,
stations, etc)
 May defeat city-level policy objectives:
• Decongestion, emissions, etc
 Passengers switching from metro, likely those with
higher willingness-to-pay for comfortable alternatives
• Fosters greater dependence on subsidised/ social need users:
potential long-term revenue risk
Metro Operating At/Near Capacity?

But where metro services at/ over capacity, an
opportunity is presented:
 MISTER PRT offers a premium service, quickly and
relatively cheaply implemented
 Relieve some burden on mass transit
 Offer a higher level of comfort, convenience and speed
 In exchange for a higher fare
 Gain rather than lose income from such passengers
 Explore Second Generation Personal Rapid Transit
Market Segmentation: Premium Service

 As a transit service in its own right
• Where there is insufficient demand for metro, etc
 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
• Feeder: Integrated with metro, LRT for connecting journeys
• Premium Service: Higher fares when running parallel to metro
Possible Applications of MISTER

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

RailWorld2013BKK_Di_Bona_131021_updated

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (19)

Ähnlich wie RailWorld2013BKK_Di_Bona_131021_updated

Ähnlich wie RailWorld2013BKK_Di_Bona_131021_updated (20)

Mehr von Richard Di Bona

Mehr von Richard Di Bona (12)

RailWorld2013BKK_Di_Bona_131021_updated