Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2008 Suburban Silver Bullet:PRT Shuttle + Digital Mobility for SRP
• Steve Raney, Cities21– Palo Alto native– Research & advocacy non-profit
• Not a system builder, not asking for $50M
– 13 person, three-year, 188 pg study• Advised by Berkeley’s Robert Cervero• Transportation Research Board / TRR.
Thanks• MVPs
– 13 person, three-year study– Cities21 member Joe Kott, EPRI for interviews & 62 surveys– Stanford Management Company (NOT on-board, but very helpful)
• Valuable Feedback: 200+ meetings – Constituents: Bern Beecham, Yoriko Kishimoto, College Terrace (Pria Graves,
John Ciccarelli), Gary Fazzino, Joe Simitian's staff, Joint Venture Silicon Valley, SVMG, Stanford Research Park companies (Roche, EPRI, SAP, Lockheed, HP, Daimler Chrysler).
– Agencies: Caltrans, Caltrain, VTA, Environmental Protection Agency's Best Workplaces for Commuters, Mineta Transportation Institute, MTC, Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, RIDES, San Jose Redevelopment Agency, and University of California PATH, CCIT, and Transportation Center.
– Advocates: Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC), BayRail Alliance, SaveSFBay, California Futures Network, STIR project, Packard Foundation, California Affordable Housing Law Project.
– Real-estate interests: Palo Alto Housing Corporation, ULI.
California Trends• 600,000 new residents per year• Traffic congestion is worsening• Jobs moving to exurbs• Increasing housing costs• Permanent govt fiscal constraints “Dumb growth” in Central Valley
– Berkeley “CA at 50M Project”– Diridon: Merc: “60M S.G. Reasons”
Need large scale change– New solutions for old problems.
Suburban Silver Bullet: Halve SOV Commutes• Goals:
– Remove many cars from suburban office parks• Current: 78% drive alone, 16% shared ride, 3% transit
– Intensify land use / reclaim parking lots
• What works? – $10/day parking (effective, but unpopular)– Hypothesis: PRT Shuttle + Digital Mobility
• PRT = Personal Rapid Transit• No “lifestyle sacrifice”• Year 2008 scenario.
Customer-Centered Product Research
Literature
Product Concept InterviewsExperts
Commute
Refined Concept Surveys Validation
• Silicon Valley style • New technology bias
– High touch / community building is natural– Takes on personality of researching organization
• Start with rough business case in mind and refine.
PRT – Rapid Local Shuttle• Feeder / Distributor / Circulator
– Similar to a monorail. Video
• High service level, no waiting, faster than a car. – Non-stop, 30 MPH– Bypasses intermediate stations– Ride alone or with 1-2 people you choose– Convenient stops by buildings (not on street)– Comfortable, quiet, safe, no exhaust– 24x7
• 3 companies developing– MN (60’ track), TX, UK (1km track).
Stanford Research Park• In Palo Alto, CA• 20,000 jobs• Campus-style• Parent of Silicon
Valley• 50% asphalt• Commute Shed:
– 47% within 2 miles of Caltrain
– 49% within 10 miles
• 185 edge cities > Memphis
Promising Results (62 surveys)• Promising, but not definitive
• Solo commutes: 89% 45% – Carpool: 9% 32%, train: 0% 15.5% train– For 20K people, removes 6,600 autos (roughly)
• @ 350 s.f. per space 50 acres $326M hsng profit
• 1.32 PRT trips/day/person => 26K trips/day– PRT: profitable (capital, O&M)
• Huge transit village land value increase
• Apply to 6M workers in major emp. centers– 1.98M cars, 12B VMT, 424M gals, 8.4B lbs CO2
• Like Stanford/Exxon $225M Global Climate & Energy Project.
Comprehensive, Integrated MobilityDoor to Door
Centralized Cars:share, rent, ride home
Delivery services, Personal activities, Business services
first mile Train
first mile Bus
Walk
Bike, scooter, Segway
(Smart jitney)
•Web/wireless coordination•Supportive policy context•Scale!
Short carpool pick up
first mileLong carpool
•Improved match-making•Shared parking
PRT shuttle system LAST MILE mid-day trips
Marketing: D2D Mobility• Door to door mobility & errands in-between!
• Same convenience & flexibility as driving alone
• Commute alternatives partnership
• Transit agencies, City of Palo Alto, Stanford, employers, cellular operator, taxi; car sharing, car rental, bike coalition, ridesharing
• Delivery services: meals, groceries, dry cleaning, photos, produce, shoe repair, etc..
Cellular Solutions
• Marauder’s Map (GPS)– Transit, rideshare connections– Get home safe (Big Sister is watching)
• RF / WiFi / Bluetooth ID– Identify yourself to transit fare gate, parking
lot gate, car sharing– Credit card transactions
• Cell phone: high IQ smartcard– Display, keypad, interactivity, network.
Old transit village 20 acres
Jobs
Jobs
“New Suburbanist” Transit Village
New retail
New housing
Train Station
PRT shuttle system
Extended T.O.D. 1280 acres
Reduced auto dependence: < 50% SOV trips (for workers, residents, & shoppers.) Child/Senior mobility!
Business Services: Banks, PC store, copies, FedEx, legal, accounting, etc.
Personal Activities: Quality schools, day care, hiking, parks, movies, grocery, banks, restaurants, cafes, bars, grocery, gym, massage, yoga, dentist, etc.
Efficient: transit node + vibrant place, shared parking, lower living cost, less car ownership, more time. A new choice! (versus buying beyond the greenbelt).
Jobs/Housing Re-balance: workforce housing
Literature + Interviews + Surveys• Large solo driving reduction is hard • Last mile problem is very important
– Mid-day trips: 2X value of time– Workers are unhappy with bus shuttles
• Each commuter: basket of objections– PRT last mile is important, but not sufficient
• 30% time penalty: OK• Carpool psychology is complex:
– Matchmaking: anonymous, superficial rejection (web dating)– Sleep, uncertainty stress, and safety are important
• Short Caltrain or carpool with PRT: OK• Customer support: eliminate nightmares• Stranding: want “no penalty” emergency ride home• Good commute: “time went fast.”
THE END
• Less traffic
• More affordable housing
• More vibrant city
• Less pollution & greenhouse gas
• No cost to taxpayers
• Political “ask”: Palo Alto adopt franchising strategy (like electric trolleys in 1888)– Private sector takes financial risk– Long list of constituent conditions.
Quantum Innovation / Public Policy• Innovations produce winners & losers
• Political subsystems favor incremental change– ag, defense, energy, transit, healthcare, edu, etc.– “analysis is politics by other means”– Auto/highway subsystem trumps transit
• Public sector: huge penalty for failure
• Media stifles innovation, accentuates conflict
• Macropolitical system can impose quantum change – earmarks, etc.
JFK, Nixon, Wright Brothers• “... we choose to go to the moon in this
decade, and do other things ... not because they are easy, but because they are hard…” – John F. Kennedy
• “If we can send three men to the moon 200,000 miles away, we should be able to move 200,000 people to work three miles away.”– Richard M. Nixon
• Wright Brothers were not the first attempt– Wrong Brothers– Many smart people said man will never fly.
PA Franchise Strategy• City of Palo Alto statement of intent. $1/yr franchise.
– City: egress, right-of-way, general plan, zoning
• Workforce preference housing (motivates employers)• Conditions
– New housing ONLY IF car count decreases– Constituent votes: neighborhoods, retailers, all PA citizens, Stanford– Employers form Transportation Mgmt Assoc. (TMA)
• Car sharing, ride home, 511-style support, marketing, CULTURE
– EIR: noise, visual, school. Staff neighborhood analysis.– Transit union support (more jobs, housing preference)– “Tear down” insurance, operating insurance
• PRT developer captures part of real-estate upside– “Super-normal” profits necessary to attract investment
• Electricity: 1.8MW 8AM peak no new capacity.
PRT Political Viability / Palo Alto• Mature democracy + entrenched capitalism makes
first system extremely difficult– Quantum change versus incremental change
• Stamps, trolley (utilities & R.E. speculators, not horse cart), chatting on the phone, naval continuous-aim firing
– Systems 2 thru 100 are easy– Cities, SVMG, Sierra can’t fund $300K due diligence studies
• Palo Alto– Credibility: better data, biz case, get published, conspirators– Present to Planning Commission
• Ask: franchise strategy: no risk, no taxpayer cost, huge upside• Enable a private sector project (more upside for early investors)
– Stanford President Hennessy (MIPS) – can say “yes”• Visit SkyWeb MN or ULTra UK
• 10 other efforts worldwide.
PRT Investor Due Diligence• The Team – entrepreneurial cost control, etc.
– IBM vs. IBM skunk works
• Control system design (architect spends 1/3 of time writing documentation)
• Control system safety certification– Public utilities commission?– Each SW “version” requires painful re-certification
• Annual operating costs– Video surveillance, etc. – Insurance for the first system will be high
• Switch reliability (1 fail out of 2M trips 50 days)• Performance degrades near capacity (wave-offs).
PRT control system technology• “Trains”
– Morgantown GRT since 1974– BART / NYC Automated Train Control– 4M automated trips/day– SFO automated people mover, etc. – Frog navigation (ULTRA, park shuttle)
• Cars: Platooning, precision docking, lane keeping– TRW’s $1.5M ULTra / AHS control system project (sensors, etc)– Governor’s film “The Sixth Day” uses GM OnStar “autopilot”– DARPA grand robotic vehicle challenge: $35K Golem Group– U.C. PATH: Automated highways, automated BRT (radar – adaptive cruise
control, lidar, WiFi, cheap magnets, diff. GPS coming)– Daimler Chrysler: Chauffeur II truck control project (electronic tow-bar,
infrared imaging, drive-by-wire)– Toyota IMTS bus, self-parking Prius– Adaptive cruise control, Vehicle Infrastructure Initiative– CVHAS: 2xCA, MN, FL. BRT consortium: Vegas, Eugene, Hartford. – Japan AHSRA consortium, South Korean project.
PRT Visual Impact• Important issue
– Big parking lots are more inviting to PRT than downtowns
• Visual vocabulary– Freeway overpasses versus roller coasters– Visarc.com– Chalmers U. study: blend in w/ historic downtown
• Portable full scale model– Walk underneath it. Human visual perception sys.
• 3D VR simulation• Survey: How will ULTra look in cities?
– 80% say good or excellent.
PRT+D2D EconomicsANNUAL REVENUE $M/yearPRT farebox 4.9Caltrain increment 2.7Ads - personal + wraps 3.56,600 parking sp. reduction 4.0Eliminate bus shuttles 0.3$0.50 daily smart parking 1.3Use guideway for utilities 0.3 total 16.9
OTHER REVENUE $M50 acre housing profit 326.3-1% job turnover/yr 20.0Worker hsng preference ?35% retail sales increase ?cellular carrier preference ?Exclusive delivery franchises ?
COSTS $MPRT capital costs, 5 mi 50.0Shared, automated parking 4.9Annual PRT O&M 3.0Pedestrian landscaping ?ROW acquisition 0.0
PRT Capital Cost Defense• The development team is very important• PRT developers can defend their costs
– SkyWeb’s independent cost scrub #2
• Key: private sector incentives, not “cost plus”– Roller coaster / gondola project mgmt, not APM /
LRT. (See Andrew Jakes article “Why APMs are so expensive.”)
• BART GRT study independent costing– $10M to $15M per mile for 5 miles
• Clarian People Mover: $14.2M/mile.
Security / Terrorism / Safety
• Reduce world’s hate for U.S., oil dependence
• Permission based parking & PRT access– Can even run FBI background checks on folks
• PRT video surveillance
• PRT algorithmic detection– Flag station entry without boarding– Left a package in empty vehicle
• HomeSafe prevents carpool assaults.
Big Sister / Privacy
• Opt-in versus “no-opt”
• HomeSafe deters assaults for carpools amongst strangers
• TrakRide increases courteous behavior
• Consent required for each personal data “use”– Boss can’t track you
• Use data protection best practices– Independent data protection audits– Two people w/ two different passwords.
CA Ave Caltrain: PRT design
• Little things like open doors before stopping
Up stream storage
TDM Effectiveness• TDM (transportation demand management)
programs are crucial, yet few shift more than 15% net.
• EPA Best Workplaces for Commuters 41 case studies: – 25%: Paid parking / transportation allowance.
Reductions: 16, 25, 28, 20, 16, 25, 34, 25%.
Social Entrepreneurism• micro-credit, India street kids, AIDs education• Act local (small $), strive 4 widespread impact• Government is not the solution (resistant)• S. E. characteristics:
– Boring at dinner parties– Driven, stamina, undeterred– “Ends" oriented
• Will change/refine tactics
– Listener (behavioral)– Cross-disciplinary, practical.
David Bornstein
Toxic Releases• Accidental releases• “Sensitive Receptors”
– Kids– Seniors– green
• “Risk Contour”– Where in the air?– Red
• A “desk study”– New housing & biotech– See SVMG policy paper
• Balance in-fill & biotech.
Large Research Project• 10 Multidisciplinary projects
– GIS map 8,200 employee addresses– Full scale PRT model– 3D virtual city & micro simulation– 13 one-hour interviews (lit review) 62 surveys, 40 minutes per– Cellular SW design (patent pending)– Smart parking design– Economics / greenhouse gas– Urban planning:
• Local workforce housing preference• Housing in SRP: toxic releases• Affordable hsng project: 2787 Park Blvd.
New Mobility• ITS to compete with driving alone
– “… pairing clusters of smart technologies with existing transportation options to create a coordinated, intermodel transportation system that could substitute for the traditional auto.” – Susan Shaheen, U.C. Senior Researcher
• GPS Wi-Fi phones improve reliability of train and carpool connections– Key: SOV is a “no brainer.”
Wireless Commute AssistantBig Sister knows where & who you are
Wi-Fi payment
Customer support
QuickCar, < 5 minutes
Trip planning, travel advisory
Order a PRT vehicle
Shared parking entry, QuickCar key
Easy PRT ticketing
Improved indoor reception
NextTrain
TrakRide for carpools
HomeSafe, SpyKids
NextSpace for parking
GPS: tracking
A
pick up
B
C
7:20AM: on time
A
pick up
B
C
7:29AM: 2 min late
A
pick up
B
C
7:25AM: 2 min late
A
pick up
B
C
7:32AM: arrival
TrakRideAM pickupA: 10 minB: 7 minC: 3 min
SMS nudge toA at 7:10, 7:15
A departs OKB is 2 min lateC delays 2 min
Encouragespunctuality,courtesy.Eliminatesuncertainty.
NextTrainTR
6:356:306:25
LVTM
RC MP UNIV CA• When to leave desk• Race to train station
– Worker must “win”
• PRT wait = fcn(demand)• Slack
• TR: 6:35PM train is on time• Every 30 sec, recalculate
– TTAT: time to access train = 1 min walk + 1 min wait + 4 min PRT + 1 min walk + 2 min slack
– LV = TR - TTAT – TM: current time
• Small beep @ 5, 2 min to LV• NextTrain orders PRT
vehicle 2 min before LV
Time: 6:24PM2nd train arrives 6:50PM
TR
6:356:306:25
TM
UNIV CA
Time: 6:31PM, 2:00 minutes slack2nd train arrives 6:51PM
E-shuttle
“Hands-free” PRT ticketing• WiFi phone traveler ID to gate (context!)• Gate displays likely destination• Traveler boards (or “pick a station” UI)• Automatic credit card debit• Example: Jim uses 5 of 19 stations:
– If @ Caltrain {5AM-11AM} EPRI (job)– If @ EPRI {10AM-2PM} [4 luncheon stations]– If @ [lunch station] {10AM-3PM} EPRI– If @ EPRI {3PM-7PM} Caltrain.
Smart Parking• Accurate real-time car count
– Proves unused spaces for in-fill
• Drivers can park in any available lot– Carpools can park at office park edge
• Drivers directed to available lots • Permission based solution:
– Cellular WiFi ID & license plate recognition – Gated entrance– Tight security: authorized entry only– Special policy for retail areas– $0.50 per day parking charge.
GPS / Location Tracking for Cellular• FCC E-9-1-1 requirement• Nextel network / Motorola handset
– $149 color GPS handset, $50 grayscale– Network tells handset which satellites to scan for– Walkie-Talkie– $10/mo additional data charge– Apps: auto navigation, fleet tracking / job dispatch.
Operator Mkt LBS Tech. API?AT&T/Cingular 28% TDOA 120m NoVerizon 21 SnapTrack aGPS 3-20m '05 trial w/ BREW 2Sprint PCS 11 SnapTrack aGPS 3-20m Summer '04 J2MENextel 7 Motorola/SiRF 8-20m J2ME 1.0 & 2.0T-Mobile 6 TDOA 120m No
Anti-PRT Hobbyist Opinion Papers• Silver Bullet via private sector obliterates 90% of arguments• Randall O’Toole, MN: lightrailnow.org
– Authors have something to lose if PRT succeeds. Not neutral• Empathy for ROT: congestion pricing, kill public transit & smart growth. PRT
forestalls. Contrarianism closed minded (as coping strategy)• Empathy for LRN: LRT projects take 5+ years of advocacy, PRT competes. This is
a common phenomenon
– Scholarship: no peer review, no empirical research– “mixed metaphors” / damn present using unrelated past– Confusion over the PRT concept
• Hate it. Read about it. Imagine bizarre implications
– Lack of insider knowledge, relevant background, technical insight• versus Cybertran control system design, only U.S. citizen at ULTra test track, 500+
hours with Taxi2000, rare Morgantown research, BART GRT study, rare Austrans presentation, U.C. PATH exposure, TRB experience
• Due diligence is necessary before investing in PRT– Many issues– Opinion papers focus on the wrong issues.
Survey: Logistics
• 2 year relationship with EPRI
• 10 minutes with C.O.O. Ric Rudman permission to “swarm” the company for a day– Get EPRI to take some ownership
• Negotiate with– Cafeteria for $8 lunches– Facilities for putting up the PRT model– IT for web access, scheduling 66 people, 2 x 15– HR for e-mail invitations every day.
Survey protocol• ~2 people every 15 min
• Rob or Jeral greets them
• Education: full size model
• Clipboard: current commute
• Education: Movie, virtual city, benefits, survey
• Commute comparison e-mailed
• Participant takes survey (25 minutes)– Print out last page for free $8 lunch
• We spend about 40 minutes for participant.
Large Research Project• 10 Multidisciplinary projects
– GIS map 8,200 employee addresses• P&TC presentation March ‘03
– Full scale PRT model– 3D virtual city & micro simulation– 13 one-hour interviews (lit review) 62 surveys, 40 minutes per– Cellular SW design (patent pending)– Smart parking design– Economics / greenhouse gas– Urban planning:
• Local workforce housing preference• Housing in SRP: toxic releases.
Demand Analysis Problem
• Forecast commute mode split & PRT ridership
• Service doesn’t exist– Pick the “least worst” methodology– Significant educational component
• New tech product research (Silicon Valley)– Iteratively listen to customers & design solutions.
Time advantage for people who prefer train to drive alone
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Door to Door Drive Alone Time (minutes)
Tim
e A
dv
an
tag
e (
min
ute
s)
• SOV preferrers face same time advantage• VTA’s model: 30% time penalty => high ridership• Interviewees stated willingness to incur 50% or higher time penalty
Survey
• Problem/solution pairs– #12 compatibility– Gap analysis
• Educational questions• Discourage alternatives
P e rso n a l S u pp o rt
R e lia b ility
C o m p a tib ility
P ro x im ity
P e rso na l T im e
C h it-ch a t
Carpool
P e rso na l T im e
R e lia b ility
E xp erie n ce
Train
P e rso na l T im e
R e lia b ility
E xp erie n ce
Bus
P e rso n a l S u pp o rt
E xp erie n ce
S a fe ty
W e ath e r/S u n lig h t
S tren u ou sne ss
Bike/Walk
C o m m u te A lte rn a tive?
e -m a il ad d re ss
F re e lu n ch !
T im e tra de o ff
C o m m u te m o d e sp lit
E le c tric S h u tt le R ide s p er W e ek
P e rso n a l S to ra ge
D a y E n d A c tiv it ies
S tra nd ing
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Chit-chat / silence
Personal support + web chat
Private time / productive time
Proximity / 20K candidates
Compatibility / dating service
Reliability / GPS cell apps
Results: Carpool preference: Gap analysis effectiveness
importance
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Trunk storage / duffle
Day end activity / ?
Stranding / loaner + ridehome
Alternative preference: combined gaps Effectiveness
Importance
Criticisms
• Need more participants, need computer workers• Year 2008 assumptions• Bias of survey team• No control group• Self selection• Social desirability effect• Inaccurate commute comparisons
– Need more peak hour traffic adjustment, etc. – BART to Caltrain transfer was understated
• Details to add: – Climbing stairs, HomeSafe
• Some folks needed two alternatives• Bike/ped: insufficient folks• Undercount: Novelty, “bad” alternatives, over-thinking,
tipping point
Results: carpool time advantageTime advantage: prefer carpool to drive alone
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Door-to-Door Drive Alone Time (minutes)
Tim
e ad
van
tag
e (m
inu
tes)
Results: Biking• Casual biker theory
– Hard core: rain suit, bike in dark, sweat, expensive bike, bike next to fast cars, problem solver
– Casual: the opposite. Bike on tree-lined residential streets. Use PRT to traverse unpleasant section & for mid-day trips
• Switched ½ to casual biking:– 12 min, 4 mile SOV to 32 min bike + PRT
• Casual biker theory worked once. • Both were “too far” away
– & switched 25 min, 9 mi SOV to 55 min bike + PRT
Why Stanford / SRP?• South bay commute trip reduction leader• Marguerite bus shuttle• Workforce-oriented housing (natl policy innovator)• Much less "auto-accommodating," parking is a hassle• General Use Permit I & II: no new net trips• Leading techno university: GCEP (Global Climate and Energy
Project), micro sensors, B-school, etc. • Entrepreneurial President Hennessey: MIPS (microprocessors)
founder, major Google shareholder• Leland Stanford Sr. – Continental RR – single biggest techno
change. Created world's 7th largest economy• SRP: historical template for sprawling office parks, parent of
Silicon Valley• HP & Engineering Dean Terman created cooperative
competition atmosphere.
Full Scale Model• Fake guideway: lightweight, portable, shippable
– Tent truss with ribs (& sock) on sonotube + base– Design challenge – tradeshow booth
• Visual impact: (squelches freeway overpass) – See visarc.com
• Scrounge machine shop time• SideFX: advocacy, context study• IDEO charrette.
3D Animation• Virtual city: 180 buildings, streets, trees, parking,
sidewalks, 200 PRT vehicles + guideway
• $5/day animators in China vs. $40/hr in S.F.
• Full PRT simulation with empty vehicle mangement
• Real-time flythru: pick source, dest, then go– Optimized like a game, not a movie: VRML/DirectX
• Legwork: facades, aerials, topology, etc..
Massive Five Project Thesis
• Effort– 13 people spent 20+ hours– 2,500 hours total– Consultants estimated $325K
• 5 multidisciplinary projects– 8,200 geocoded addresses – Full scale PRT model– 3D virtual city– 13 one-hour interviews 62 surveys, 40 minutes per
• Advisor: Cervero– Like Shaheen’s car sharing dissertation.
Advanced Corridor Sweep
First MileLine Haul148th & 156th Last Mile
Walk, bike, push scooter22 lbs. $350 folding E-ScooterLockers at bus stopsNeighborhood jitney/taxiKiss ‘n ridePark ‘n ride w/ space mgmtSegway w/ rain shield
Bus: 15 min, guaranteed service - BRT coming to 156thDigital hitchiking at bus stops-Dynamic ridematch, NextRide (ETA & tracking), reputation rating, cellular mug shots, background checks, ArriveSafe-Bike racks on vehicles
Walk, bike, scooterHigh Level Of Service ShuttlePRTOn campus: carsharing w/ BMWs, hybrids, etc.; guaranteed ride home, etc.
Q&A Menu• JFK & Nixon re “can it be done?”• Quantum Change• Visual Impact• Noise (picture of electric vehicle)• Terrorism / Safety• Economics• PRT cost / transportation cost overruns• Technology risk• Big Sister / Privacy• Smart parking• What’s original• New mobility priorities / survey validation• Why Stanford?• ULTRA, Morgantown
Housing Moral Imperative• Parents bought nice house in midtown in 1964• Adjusting for Consumer Price Index, house should
now cost $139,400.
PRT – Rapid Local Shuttle• Feeder / Distributor
• Solves last mile problem. Alignment. CamSys
• High service level, no waiting, faster than a car. – Non-stop, 30 MPH, Video– Ride alone or with 1-2 people you choose– Convenient stops by buildings (not on street)– Comfortable, quiet, safe, no exhaust
• Services mid-day trips effectively
• Improves other modes
Planning Vision: Improved Edge City• Improved suburban TOD. Typical, tiny 64 acre transit
village increases to 1,280 acres. – Increase real-estate values– Reduce parking requirements reclaim parking– Add new housing by jobs (duh!)– Unsubsidized PRT system – Will spread like the electric trolley in 1888
• Reduce cost of car ownership• Improve job access• Augment lifeline transit network
– (swing + graveyard shift)
• Increase child/senior mobility
Suburban mode split
SuburbCBD
¼ mi radiusFast commuter rail
Transit share > SOV share
Mixed activities
Paid parking
HomeOffice
Slow, inconvenient transit
80% SOV, 14% carpool, 5% transit
No activities
Free parking
HomeOffice
Fast transit
CBD-like
Activities
StationFeeder
Scale!
How PRT Works
• Stations on sidings / off-line
• Elevated 16’
• Driverless
• Built like a roller coaster
• Thin columns, shallow footings.
xMetholodogy: Interview findings• Improved ridesharing matchmaking
– Like anonymous web dating
• Increased “productive” time: – sleep is productive!
• Existing bus shuttles are loathed• Interviews write the survey.• Personal Support
– Web chat “commute community” + knowledge base– Responsive customer support– Eliminate “nightmare” transit experiences. Reliable backup.
• Effective car loaners / ride home• Short SOV commutes CAN be changed.
xDemand Analysis: Attitudes
• Rich literature on attitudes• CamSys: surveys to segment market (samTrans)
– I would change my form of travel to get more productive time– I don’t mind traveling with people who are different than me– I don’t mind if the train or bus runs behind schedule– I need to have flexibility to make trips during the day– I would switch modes if it would help the environment
• Propose a door to door service that addresses these problems– First use interviews to define the service– Then use surveys to validate that the service will succeed
• Validate importance of specific features (gap analysis)• Prof. Cervero: “sweat the details”
– Cambridge Systematics agrees re “last mile problem”• Commuter rail improvements less important
xImplications• Reducing Drive Alone share is hard
– technically feasible, but politically challenging
• PRT shuttles are not solutions, need much more– New mobility, TMA, etc.
• Improve bus shuttles• Improve ridesharing matchmaking• Cellular geolocation apps
– SW is easy, generating carrier profit is tricky
• Casual biker theory deserves more study– Theory seems correct, but too little data
• Try/promote remedies for bus motion sickness.
5 Demand Analysis Projects
Consultant Bid VolunteersCommute Shed $50K 2+3D Animation $75K 6+Full Scale Model $50K 5+Interviews 2+Web Survey $150K 3+
$325K
• $20,000 out-of-pocket + volunteer labor
• Cervero: “pioneering demand methodology”
PRT• Rapid local shuttle
• Feeder / Distributor– 5 mile alignment
• Faster than a car.
Vehicle Storage
Next Steps• TrakRide SW development• Advocacy
– Stanford “no” flanking maneuvers– John Hennessy, Daimler, Lockheed, HP, housing advocates,
“willingness to franchise”, TMA, real-estate interests– Presentations, PR
• Target: wealthy tech innovators (who played with trains as kids)
– Planning study federal earmark via political hierarchy
• Template for other cities– Lengthy effort– 15 pg & 188 pg reports: http://www.cities21.org/silver_bullet.htm
– ? 400 person forecast.
Bay Area Trends Change
• 149% traffic congestion increase (2020)
• 40% population increase
• Latino 2010 majority (vs. Palo Alto 4.6%)
• Palo Alto Housing Element challenges
• Current smart growth paradigm minimal impact.
xMethodology: Interviews• 13 one hour interviews:
– What is your commute day like?• Likes, dislikes• Experience with commute alternatives
– Respond to custom PRT / new mobility scenario
• Challenges– SOV folks don’t know problems with alternatives.
Advanced Corridor SweepFirst Mile Line Haul Last Mile
Walk, bike, push scooter22 lbs. $350 folding E-ScooterLockers at bus stopsNeighborhood jitney/taxiKiss ‘n ridePark ‘n ride w/ space mgmtSegway w/ rain shield
Bus: 15 min, guaranteed serviceDigital hitchiking at bus stops-Dynamic ridematch, NextRide (ETA & tracking), reputation rating, cellular mug shots, background checks, ArriveSafe-Bike racks on vehicles
Walk, bike, scooterHigh Level of Service shuttlePRTOn campus: carsharing, guaranteed ride home, etc.
Halving Solo Driving• Futuristic (none of this works yet!)
• 1) Big suburban office parks: 20K workers– PRT Shuttle + Digital Mobility
• 2) MS Arterial Sweep for short commutes– Casual carpooling, Electric bikes, Wireless
• Hope ideas spur variations & out of box ideas
• Steve Raney, Cities21.
TDM Effectiveness - old• TDM (transportation demand management) programs
are crucial, yet few shift more than 15% net. • EPA Best Workplaces for Commuters 41 cases:
– 40%: Georgia Power ’97 to ‘99, solo: 90% to 50%, 3K jobs. Via 1) $65/mo subsidy, 2) Every 10 min MARTA shuttle service. Fishy numbers. Shuttle served ~220 out of 3K jobs. Why discontinued?
– 25%: Paid parking / transportation allowance. Reductions: 16, 25, 28, 20, 16, 25, 34, 25%.
– 19%: Portland's CBD TMA: solo from 72% to 53%. Extensive pgm w/ cultural shift. Hartford Steam Boiler (CBD): 18%
– 15% Bishop Ranch, questionable control group.
![Vo20 - [Jimmy Raney]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/577c797b1a28abe05492ce96/vo20-jimmy-raney.jpg)
![Vol 29 - [Play Duets With Jimmy Raney]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/55cf8cba5503462b138f5256/vol-29-play-duets-with-jimmy-raney.jpg)
