Personal Rapid Transit Network Design for the
State of New Jersey
ORF 467 Fall 2009
Final Project Report
Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering
Princeton University
Professor Alain Kornhauser
Atlantic County
Bergen County
Burlington County
Camden County
Cape May
Cumberland County
Essex County
Gloucester County
Hudson County
Hunterdon County
Mercer County
Middlesex County
Monmouth County
Morris County
Ocean County
Passaic County
Salem County
Somerset County
Sussex County
Union County
Warren County
Report Introduction
and Preparation
Google Earth Coding
Project Contributors
Ariel Sternberg and Sun-You Park
Fletcher Heisler and Alexandre Ekierman
Greg Stamas
Matt Grabowski
Ariel Sternberg and Sun-You Park
Brandon Englert
Will Fisher and Michael Chang
Matthew Connor
Will Fisher and Michael Chang
Nick Tagher
Michael Weinberg
Caroline Anastasi and Hannah Sachs
Brian Berkowitz and Adam Nassr
Susan Hu
Brian Berkowitz and Adam Nassr
Fletcher Heisler and Alexandre Ekierman
Shuang Yang
Caroline Anastasi and Hannah Sachs
Stephanie Lubiak
Will Fisher and Michael Chang
Katherine Chung
Daphne Earp and John Valentino
John Valentino, Will Peng, Chetan Narain,
James Tate, and George Carpeni
1
2
Table of Contents
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 4
2.
PROGRAMMING TEAM REPORT ............................................................................ 11
3.
ATLANTIC COUNTY .................................................................................................... 12
4.
BERGEN COUNTY ....................................................................................................... 14
5.
BURLINGTON COUNTY ............................................................................................. 16
6.
CAMDEN COUNTY....................................................................................................... 18
7.
CAPE MAY COUNTY.................................................................................................... 20
8.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY............................................................................................ 22
9.
ESSEX COUNTY ........................................................................................................... 24
10.
GLOUCESTER COUNTY ........................................................................................... 26
11.
HUDSON COUNTY ..................................................................................................... 28
12.
HUNTERDON COUNTY ............................................................................................ 30
13.
MERCER COUNTY ..................................................................................................... 32
14.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY .............................................................................................. 34
15.
MONMOUTH COUNTY .............................................................................................. 36
16.
MORRIS COUNTY ...................................................................................................... 38
17.
OCEAN COUNTY ........................................................................................................ 40
18.
PASSAIC COUNTY ..................................................................................................... 42
19.
SALEM COUNTY ........................................................................................................ 44
20.
SOMERSET COUNTY ................................................................................................ 46
21.
SUSSEX COUNTY ....................................................................................................... 48
22.
UNION COUNTY......................................................................................................... 50
23.
WARREN COUNTY .................................................................................................... 52
3
1. Executive Summary
Personal Rapid Transit Overview
Hearthrow PRT, expected to begin operation in the spring of 2010.
Source: http://www.ultraprt.com/cms/LHRimagesJuly09.htm
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 ondemand 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
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
1
4
over 300% less energy than conventional 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 Jersey
In 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 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
Carnegie, Jon A. and Paul S. Hoffman. “Viability of Personal Rapid Transit in New Jersey.” February 2007. Page 60.
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
6
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.
4
5
5
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.
Table 1.1
Carnegie, Jon A. and Paul S. Hoffman. “Viability of Personal Rapid Transit in New Jersey.”
February 2007. Page 65.
10
6
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
8
To 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 Recommendations
It 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
12
Link to Atlantic County Report
13
4. Bergen County
14
Link to Bergen County Report
15
5. Burlington County
16
Link to Burlington County Report
17
6. Camden County
18
Link to Camden County Report
19
7. Cape May County
20
Link to Cape May County Report
21
8. Cumberland County
22
Link to Cumberland County Report
23
9.
Essex County
24
Link to Essex County Report
25
10. Gloucester County
26
Link to Gloucester County Report
27
11. Hudson County
28
Link to Hudson County Report
29
12. Hunterdon County
30
Link to Hunterdon County Report
31
13. Mercer County
32
Link to Mercer County Report
33
14. Middlesex County
34
Link to Middlesex County Report
35
15. Monmouth County
36
Link to Monmouth County Report
37
16. Morris County
38
Link to Morris County Report
39
17. Ocean County
40
Link to Ocean County Report
41
18. Passaic County
42
Link to Passaic County Report
43
19. Salem County
44
Link to Salem County Report
45
20. Somerset County
46
Link to Somerset County Report
47
21. Sussex County
48
Link to Sussex County Report
49
22. Union County
50
Link to Union County Report
51
23. Warren County
52
Link to Warren County Report
53