Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Richard Di Bona
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 1
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 2
1. Challenges for
Public Transport
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 3
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)
5
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 6
Public Transport Trip: Strategic View
Origin
Destination
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 7
Journey Broken Down into Stages
Origin
Destination
9
PT User Issues: Waiting
• Uncertainty: increases with interchange
• Comfort, safety, security of facilities
10
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)
11
PT User Issues: Comfort, Crowding
• Crowding
• Comfort: getting a seat?
• Temperature
• Security
news.bbc.co.uk
www.straitstimes.com news.com.au
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 12
PT User Issues: The Weather
• Too hot or sunny? Too cold?
• Too humid or wet? Too windy?
13
Other PT User Issues
Journey time reliability
• Street-running services caught up in congestion?
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 14
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 15
2. What is Personal Rapid
Transit?
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 16
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 17
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)
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 18
3. What is METRINO
Personal Rapid Transit?
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 19
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 20
Aboard METRINO
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
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
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)
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 22
Key Performance Metrics (2)
US$5-10m per km of two-way track:
• Includes up to 8 x 5-bay stops (staggered on either side); and
• 100 pods per km
Mainline capacity:
• approx. 8,250 passengers per hour per direction
• 1.5 pax/pod; 10-metre spacing, 55kph: higher possible
• Can have >1 tracks running parallel for less cost than LRT
Boarding & alighting capacity:
• 1km of track: 2,700 boardings + 2,700 alightings per km per hour
• 1km grid: 5,400 boardings + 5,400 alightings per km2 per hour
• 500m grid: 10,800 boardings + 10,800 alightings per km2 per hour
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 23
METRINO versus Alternatives
Capital Costs Capacity (passengers/ Capacity Performance
(US$m/km) hour/direction) per US$m Relative to
System Range Say (A) Range Say (B) (B) ÷ (A) METRINO
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 24
Comparison of Energy Efficiency
Energy Consumption per Pax-km
Mode kwH 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
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)
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 25
4. Case Study of Opole:
Demand and Viability
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 26
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
rvsci.us wikipedia.org METRINO
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 27
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)
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 28
Opole Layout
mapa.zumi.pl 29
Opole Network (without METRINO)
30
Opole Network (without METRINO)
31
Opole Network (Phase 1: 8.4km)
32
Opole Network (Phase 2: 9.1km)
33
Opole Network (Phase 3: 9.0km)
34
Opole Network (Phase 4: 6.2km)
METRINO METRINO
Case Speed Fare Bus & Train Fares
Central Case 55kph PLN3.40 Current fares retained
Lower Bound 50kph +0.34/km Bus: PLN2.60 /3.30 (1 or 2+boardings)
Upper Bound 60kph (US$1+0.1) Train: PLN3.57 (allowing for season tickets)
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 38
Opole Modelling Data Sources
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)
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 39
Key Financial Assumptions
Costs Timeframes (months)
Track per km Depot Track
(2-way plus Stops (concurrent (per km per
Case Certification Depot & Pods) Certification with Phase 1) 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
Ramp-Up Ramp-Up Annualisation Assumed Staffing Dead-
Case Amplitude Duration Factor Occupancy Levels heading
Central Case 40% 6 months 320 days 1.5 20 +5/km
20% of
Lower Bound 50% 12 months 310 days passengers @ PLN70k
pod-km
Upper Bound 30% 3 months 320 days per pod p.a.
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 47
Public 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
9.0 4.8 -47% 4.3 -52%
(minutes)
Average Waiting Time
3.0 1.5 -48% 1.2 -58%
(minutes)
Average In-Vehicle Time
7.2 3.7 -48% 3.6 -49%
(minutes)
Average Total Trip Time
19.1 10.0 -48% 9.2 -52%
(minutes)
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 48
Financial Internal Rate of Return: Unleveraged
PLN3.40 + 0.34 per km Fares Internal Rate of Return (%) by Case
(US$1.00+0.10 per km) 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%
Based on equity-financing: does not consider boosting IRR with debt-finance
Excludes any sales/ profit taxes and revenue sharing with city authorities
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 49
5. Commentary on Things to
(Re-)Consider when
Modelling PRT
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 50
Zoning
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 51
Zoning: Opole
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 52
Issues with Car Modelling
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 53
Regarding PRT Itself (1)
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”
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 54
Regarding PRT Itself (2)
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 55
Regarding PRT Itself (3)
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 56
Regarding PRT Itself (4)
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
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 57
Thank You
Any queries? Feel free to contact me:
rfdibona@yahoo.com
richard@lla.com.hk
Thank You!
Demand, Impact and Feasibility Estimation for a Proposed Personal Rapid Transit System in Opole, Poland 58