08

Personal Rapid Transit Network Design for the State of New Jersey

ORF 467 Fall 2009Final Project Report

Department of Operations Research and Financial EngineeringPrinceton University

Professor Alain Kornhauser

Project ContributorsAtlantic County Ariel Sternberg and Sun-You ParkBergen County Fletcher Heisler and Alexandre

EkiermanBurlington County Greg StamasCamden County Matt GrabowskiCape May Ariel Sternberg and Sun-You ParkCumberland County

Brandon Englert

Essex County Will Fisher and Michael ChangGloucester County Matthew ConnorHudson County Will Fisher and Michael ChangHunterdon County Nick TagherMercer County Michael WeinbergMiddlesex County Caroline Anastasi and Hannah SachsMonmouth County Brian Berkowitz and Adam NassrMorris County Susan HuOcean County Brian Berkowitz and Adam NassrPassaic County Fletcher Heisler and Alexandre

EkiermanSalem County Shuang YangSomerset County Caroline Anastasi and Hannah SachsSussex County Stephanie LubiakUnion County Will Fisher and Michael ChangWarren County Katherine ChungReport Introduction and Preparation

Daphne Earp and John Valentino

1

Google Earth Coding

John Valentino, Will Peng, Chetan Narain, James Tate, and George Carpeni

2

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................42. PROGRAMMING TEAM REPORT.........................................................113. ATLANTIC COUNTY...........................................................................124. BERGEN COUNTY.............................................................................135. BURLINGTON COUNTY......................................................................146. CAMDEN COUNTY............................................................................157. CAPE MAY COUNTY..........................................................................168. CUMBERLAND COUNTY.....................................................................179. ESSEX COUNTY................................................................................1810. GLOUCESTER COUNTY....................................................................1911. HUDSON COUNTY...........................................................................2012. HUNTERDON COUNTY.....................................................................2113. MERCER COUNTY...........................................................................2214. MIDDLESEX COUNTY......................................................................2315. MONMOUTH COUNTY......................................................................2416. MORRIS COUNTY............................................................................2517. OCEAN COUNTY.............................................................................2618. PASSAIC COUNTY...........................................................................2719. SALEM COUNTY..............................................................................2820. SOMERSET COUNTY........................................................................2921. SUSSEX COUNTY............................................................................3022. UNION COUNTY..............................................................................3123. WARREN COUNTY...........................................................................32

3

1. Executive Summary

Personal Rapid Transit Overview

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is an advanced transportation system that was first conceptualized in the 1960’s and has since gotten increasing amounts of attention as the transportation system of the future. Current designs for PRT systems aim to provide on-demand origin-to-destination service for small groups or individuals. The systems consist of small, automated vehicles traversing a network of exclusive use guideways.1 In order to make the trips continuous, the stations are located off-line, preventing backups of any sort. Operationally, the station-to-station level of service is comparable to and in many cases better than that of an automobile. Experts must now face the challenge of designing systems that efficiently locate the stations within a convenient walking distance from every desired location. The ultimate goal of a well-designed PRT network would be that one no longer needs nor desires a personal automobile.  

PRT could hypothetically offer many advantages over current transportation systems. Unlike most existing modes of public transit, PRT would run 24 hours a day, be available on-demand, and allow the privacy of a personal pod car. Travel time could be significantly reduced because trips require no intermediary stops or transfers. One study estimates that PRT could conceptually achieve between 14 and 65 percent faster average travel speeds than bus, light rail and heavy rail transit.2 Because the system is fully automated, labor costs such as vehicle control and fare collection are also significantly reduced.3 Lastly, the recent push to implement clean transportation technology could benefit from the implementation of a PRT system. PRT would use anywhere from 50% to over 300% less energy than conventional

1 Booz Allen Hamilton and Rutgers University. “Viability of Personal Rapid Transit in New Jersey Study” NJ Department of Transportation Senior Staff Briefing. November 2005. [Presentation, Slide 5]2 Carnegie, Jon A. and Paul S. Hoffman. “Viability of Personal Rapid Transit in New Jersey.” February 2007. Page 66.3 Komerska, Rick. “What is Personal Rapid Transit?” University of Washington. Retrieved online on January 25, 2010 at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRT/Background2.html

Hearthrow PRT, expected to begin operation in the spring of 2010.Source: http://www.ultraprt.com/cms/LHRimagesJuly09.htm

4

public transportation systems as well as have lower noise and pollution impacts on the environment.4

The technology required to build a PRT system is currently available. Over the last couple decades, advances in technology have made PRT an increasingly feasible and attractive option. These new technologies include advanced propulsion systems, lightweight materials, on-board switching and guidance, and high-speed controls and communication. The network is controlled by a central computer system that monitors and controls all of the vehicles by optimizing routes, controlling speeds, and directing switches at interchanges. While the technology exists and is certainly becoming cheaper, implementation cost is still a cause of concern and the high uncertainty and consequent risk associated with building the first ever system has prevented any state or agency from taking on a major project.

The closest thing to a PRT system currently in place is a small one in Morgantown, WV that serves the West Virginia University community. The only requirement it does not meet is the ability to use the cars for exclusive individual or group use.5 The Morgantown PRT system, implemented in the 1970’s, is comprised of 8.7 miles of guideway and 5 stations, covering a stretch of about 3.6 miles between the farthest stations. The vehicles can fit 8 people sitting, 13 standing, and reach a top speed of 30 mph.6 Approximately 15 thousand people ride the system every day.7 The final cost of the system was $126 million, four times higher than was initially expected.8 This unexpected cost did little to help reduce fears about the risks of implementing a brand new system. Now, decades after the Morgantown PRT was installed, Heathrow Airport has decided to install a more modern PRT system to carry passengers from car parks to its Terminal 5. The scheme, expected to begin operation in spring of 2010, cost £25 million and is being tested in one terminal before the airport considers extending it further.9

PRT in New JerseyIn 2004, New Jersey passed a bill to evaluate the viability of implementing a

PRT system. The study, done in conjunction with the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University and Booz Allen Hamilton, looked at the current state of PRT technology and the feasibility of implementing PRT in New Jersey. Because a PRT system of the complexity being discussed had never been actually implemented, the researchers guessed that this initial system would require a research and development program costing about $50-100 million over a three-year period.

The report identified four main types of areas that would best be served by PRT systems. The first was areas with high demand for local circulation, such as regional activity centers or campuses. The goal would be to eventually connect 4 Carnegie, Jon A. and Paul S. Hoffman. “Viability of Personal Rapid Transit in New Jersey.” February 2007. Page 60.5 Komerska, Rick. “What is Personal Rapid Transit?” University of Washington. Retrieved online on January 25, 2010 at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRT/Background2.html6 Schneider, Jerry. “Morgantown Group Rapid Transit (GRT) System.” University of Washington. Retrieved online on January 25, 2010 at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/morg.htm.7 “Facts about the PRT.” University of West Virginia. Retrieved online on January 25, 2010 at http://transportation.wvu.edu/prt/facts_about_the_prt.8 Carnegie, Jon A. and Paul S. Hoffman. “Viability of Personal Rapid Transit in New Jersey.” February 2007. Page 67.9 “Driverless Airport Pods Unveiled.” BBC News Online. August 11, 2009. Retrieved online on January 25, 2010 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8194698.stm.

5

these high demand regions to allow fluid transit between all regions and eliminate the need for personal car use. The second use of a PRT system would be to extend the reach of conventional transit services, such as bus terminals or railway stations, into nearby areas. By doing this, the PRT system is also curbing the need for parking space near the large transportation hub. Thirdly, a PRT system can be a very attractive alternative to personal automobile use in congested areas or areas with limited ability to expand roadway capacity. Lastly, as mentioned before, PRT systems eliminate the need for parking and could be very popular in areas where there parking is limited or expensive. Here, the PRT could either replace the automobile or act as an intermediary between the satellite parking location and final destination.10

Unfortunately, though the report itself showed great initiative on behalf of the state, no serious plans are underway to implement PRT in New Jersey. It is the ultimate goal of Professor Kornhauser’s transportation class to create a PRT network for the state of New Jersey that serves the state’s transportation needs in a cost-effective and otherwise reasonable manner, proving that such a system exists and helping push forward efforts to improve current transportation systems.

Project Overview and Results Professor Kornhauser assigned our class the challenge of creating a PRT

system for New Jersey that was capable of serving 90% of the trips currently being made in the state. A trip is considered “served” if its origin and destination are both within one fourth of a mile of a PRT station and a connected PRT network exists between them. The PRT network is meant to complement any commuter bus, light rail, or heavy rail systems already in place, integrating them into the new network and replacing the need to use an automobile, bus, or taxi as access to or from these already existing stations. We decided that stations could be located as far as a quarter mile away from the trip origin or destination as it as assumed that passengers wouldn’t mind walking the difference.

Students were assigned counties for which they were in charge of developing PRT networks. To do this they first created a database of the underlying trips ends of trips currently taken throughout their county. The trip ends were assumed to fall into one of six categories: home, work, school, recreation, patronage, or already-existing bus or rail stations. For home-based trip ends, the database included the longitude and latitude of the centroid of every census block in New Jersey, as well as the block’s corresponding population. It also included the precise geo-coded address of every major employer in the state as well as its corresponding number of employees (source: ReferenceUSA), all schools and their estimated number of students and employees, and all recreation areas, major and minor shopping, dinning, entertainment and sports venues with estimated daily patronage. Lastly, the database stored the precise location of every rail transit station in New Jersey, obtained with the aid of Google Earth, with the best available typical daily patronage. Though imprecise, this database served as the basis for which the county PRT networks were created.

Each of these pinpoint land uses was assumed to generate trip ends at the rate listed in Table 1.1.

10 Carnegie, Jon A. and Paul S. Hoffman. “Viability of Personal Rapid Transit in New Jersey.” February 2007. Page 65.

6

Table 1.1

This resulted in the total number of trip ends by landuse type to be as contained in Table 1.2. Home trip ends represent about a third of the total while patron trip ends are 45%. Looking at the number of transit trip ends/day, it is obvious that not every county incorporated current bus and train systems into their networks. Next year, it will be important to clarify what sources and assumptions students should use for these six categories.

Table 1.2

PRT mode split on the final network was taken to be proportional to the square of the percentage of trip-ends-served statewide. To determine fleet size, we first assumed that about 15% of all trips were made during peak hours, during which one vehicle could served about 10 of the trips (likely with an occupancy above the average of two). We added an extra 10% to this number of vehicles, assuming that maintenance would require that not all be working at one time. Below in Tables 1.3 and 1.4, we can see the summary of the system infrastructure and number of trips served in the entire network.

7

Table 1.3

Table 1.4

To

8

estimate the cost of implementing our PRT system, several assumptions had to be made. To build the network, we assumed that a station cost $2M to build, a mile of guideway cost $5M, and one vehicle cost $100K. The network was financed with bonds that had an 8% interest rate. Annual maintenance was 2% of the capital costs. To calculate annual operating costs, we assume that vehicle-operating cost was $0.20 per mile, average occupancy in the vehicles was two people, average trip length was five miles, and the annualization rate we used to final total trips served per year was 300. The yearly cost of the system was the sum of the cost of capital and the maintenance and operating costs.

There were two sources of revenue for the system: fares and station leasing and naming rights. We charged a $3 fare for every trip, which seemed reasonable given that a New York City subway ride costs $2.25. Each station makes $3000/month in leasing and naming rights. Profit (or loss) was determined by subtracting annual costs from annual revenue. While several counties lost money from their PRT system, the state as a whole made $8.65B/year based on the assumptions we made. Table 1.5 has the financials of the entire system.

Table 1.5

9

Future RecommendationsIt is clear from the results of this PRT system that the students experienced

much difficulty in scrubbing data to create a somewhat accurate representation of the number and types of trip ends in their county. It would serve the class well to come up with a uniform method of determining trips ends of every type, and making sure that everyone is using data from the same source and year. This is more easily done with home, school, work, and transit trip ends. For recreation and patronage trip ends, the definition should be clarified and a clear method for determining numbers should be agreed upon by the class.

Our many assumptions for the financials are key as they determine the feasibility of implementing the project. Next year, the class might want to split all the variables for the entire project among the different groups and spend a week researching them and writing a small paragraph on their final assumption choice and reasoning behind it. By sharing this information with the class, everyone has a better understanding of which assumptions being made and the background information going into each of them. Perhaps with a more complete understanding of all the different variables being considered as we create our network, the class will come up with more accurate or unique ways to finance and create a PRT system for New Jersey.

10

2. Programming Team Report

Link to Programming Team Report

11

3. Atlantic County

Link to Atlantic County Report

12

4. Bergen County

Link to Bergen County Report

13

5. Burlington County

Link to Burlington County Report

14

6. Camden County

Link to Camden County Report

15

7. Cape May County

Link to Cape May County Report

16

8. Cumberland County

Link to Cumberland County Report

17

9. Essex County

Link to Essex County Report

18

10. Gloucester County

Link to Gloucester County Report

19

11. Hudson County

Link to Hudson County Report

20

12. Hunterdon County

Link to Hunterdon County Report

21

13. Mercer County

Link to Mercer County Report

22

14. Middlesex County

Link to Middlesex County Report

23

15. Monmouth County

Link to Monmouth County Report

24

16. Morris County

Link to Morris County Report

25

17. Ocean County

Link to Ocean County Report

26

18. Passaic County

Link to Passaic County Report

27

19. Salem County

Link to Salem County Report

28

20. Somerset County

Link to Somerset County Report

29

21. Sussex County

Link to Sussex County Report

30

22. Union County

Link to Union County Report

31

23. Warren County

Link to Warren County Report

32