Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology · Assessment of PRT and Other New Systems.This...

Impact of Advanced Group Rapid TransitTechnology

January 1980

NTIS order #PB80-153323

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-600001

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003 -00736-3

Foreword

This assessment of advanced group rapid transit (AGRT) was made in response toa request of the House Committee on Appropriations to evaluate the need for thistechnology and its relationship to national mass transportation goals

In 1975, OTA published a major study, Automated Guideway Transit, AnAssessment of PRT and Other New Systems. This current study of AGRT represents apartial update of the earlier report.

Increases in traffic congestion, petroleum shortages, and decreasing mobility forthe transit-dependent reflect a growing need for more efficient and effective transpor-tation options. This report examines the need for further advances in automated guide-way transit (AGT) technology and evaluates their potential impacts on various stake-holder groups.

Members of the advisory panel and public participation working group con-tributed a great deal of valuable information and guidance throughout the course ofthis assessment. In addition, OTA is grateful for the assistance of numerous Depart-ment of Transportation officials representing both the Office of the Secretary and theUrban Mass Transportation Administration. Several cities were visited to evaluate theoperation of existing AGT systems and to obtain the views of transit operators, plan-ners, system suppliers, and consumers. Additional documents and data obtained fromvarious domestic and foreign sources are referenced in this report.

ill

Advanced Group Rapid TransitProject Advisory Panel

Michael A. Powills, Jr., ChairmanSenior Vice PresidentBartan-Aschman Associates, Inc.

J. Edward AndersonDirector of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota

Robert A. BurcoPresidentPublic Policy Research Associates

Catherine BurkeSchool of Public AdministrationUniversity of Southern California

Lawrence DallamDirector of Transportation PlanningTwin Cities Metropolitan Council

Julie H. HooverManager of the Planning DivisionParsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas

George KramblesExecutive DirectorChicago Transit Authority

Robert A. MakofskiApplied Physics LaboratoryThe Johns Hopkins University

Public Participation Working Group

Olivia Cammack Alvin Frost Lena LupicaMia Choumenkovitch Mark Horowitz Larry NewlinDel Dobbins William B. Lindsay Gerald C. Sasser

Advanced Group Rapid TransitProject Staff

Eric H. Willis, Assistant DirectorScience, information, and Transportation Division

Robert L. Maxwell, Transportation Program ManagerJoe] Miller, Co-Project Leader

Richard Willow, Co-Project Leader

Contractors

Public Policy Research Associates-Robert Burco

SC Associates-Frank Spielberg

Technology Research and Analysis Corp.—A. M. Yen

Publishing Office

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

Kathie S. Boss Joanne Heming

v

Contents

I.

H.

III.

Iv.

v.

VI.

Summary—Issues and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Issue I: The Need For More Advanced Automated SystemsIssue 2: Prototype Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Issue 3: Government/Industry Relationships. . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R&D: The Search for More Competitive Transit Options . . . . .

Automated Guideway Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .History of AGRT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Issues Addressed in the Assessment of AGRT . . . . . . .

Urban Transportation Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Goals for Our Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Goals for Urban Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transportation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Currently Available Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mixed Traffic Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Exclusive Guideway Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Comparison of Mode Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Desirable Future Service Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Future Technology Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Implementing Technologies for Service Improvements

Impacts of Advanced Group RapidQuality of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . .The Auto User. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ridership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Special User Groups . . . . . . . . . . .Safety and Security. . . . . . . . . . . .Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . .Energy and Environment. . . . . . . .Economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Employment and Productivity . . .Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Government/Industry RelationshipsinTechnology Development . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Barriers toInnovation. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

Technology. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . ,.

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Advanced Group Rapid. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .Foreign Competition and Trade . . . . .

Long-Range Objectives—An Intermediate RecipientSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII. Market Scenarios—Innovation in the Public Sector.AGRT Implementation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . 3

. . . . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . . . 6

. . . . . . . . . . . 6

. . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . 11

. . . . . . . . . . . 13

. . . . . . . . . . . 13

. . . . . . . . . . . 15

. . . . . . . . . . . 17

. . . . . . . . . . . 19

. . . . . . . . . . . 19

. . . . . . . . . . . 20

. . . . . . . . . . . 23

. . . . . . . . . . . 23

. . . . . . . . . . . 23

. . . . . . . . . . . 25

. . . . . . . . . . . 26

. . . . . . . . . . . 27

. . . . . . . . . . . 28

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Transit. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . 30

. . . . . 31

. . . . . 31

. . . . . 32

. . . . . 33

. . . . . 33

. . . . . 34

. . . . . 35

. . . . . 36

. . . . . 39

. . . . . 40

. . . . . 41

. . . . . 43

. . . . . 43

. . . . . 44

. . . . . 45

. . . . . 47

. . . . . 48

. . . . . 49

. . . . . 49

— . . .

Contents—continued

Chapter Page

Downtown People Mover Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......49Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......50

VIII. Options for Automated Guideway Transit Research and Development. . . . ..51Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......51Program Options for Advanced Technology Development . . . . . . . . .......52

Option I: Emphasize the Upgrading of Existing Technologies . . .......52Option 2: Emphasize Critical Subsystems Development. . . . . . . .......53Option 3: Validate Subsystems in a Systems Environment . . . . . .......53Option 4: Develop and Validate Technology on Prototype Systems. ....53

Number of Prototypes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..54Magnetic Levitation Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......56Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......56Goods Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....57Non-Automated Guideway Transit Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....58Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......58

LIST OF TABLES

Tab/eNo. Page

1. Administrative Commitments by Fiscal Year and UMTA Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122. AGRT Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....173. AGRT Engineering Prototype Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......174. Issues Requiring Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .525. Typical Features of Advanced AGT Systems. . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .536. R&D Options for Achieving AGT Technologies—Pros and Cons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .547, Principal Arguments in Favor of Retaining Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..558. Estimated Funding Levels for Advanced AGT Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......56

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No. Page

1, U.S. Urban Mass Transit Trends (1940-78) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....112. Classes of Automated Guideway Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143. Summary of AGRT Technology Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......164. Characteristics of Exclusive Guideway Systems. . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

.,.Vlll

‘ ‘As a matter of fact, one of our tribe conceivedthe Idea of the wheel quite some time ago, but we

reasoned that the speed of the outer circumferencewould be so much greater than the speed of the Innercircumference that the whole thing would fly apart.

so we abandoned It ‘‘

‘‘Do you realize. sir, that If your invention should gain popularacceptance–which I do not for one moment believe it will–we should

have to provide paved roads, throughout the length and breadth ofthe country, thousands of pumping stations to supply ready accessto fuel, and innumerable vacant lots In every city In which to park

the vehicles? Take my advice and forget this folly, Henry ‘‘

Chapter I

SUMMARY–ISSUES AND OPTIONS

Current transit options, conceived 50 or moreyears ago, are unable to serve efficiently thedispersed travel patterns in today’s low-densityurban areas. This growing mismatch betweenavailable transit services and trip demandslargely explains why transit serves only 12 per-cent of the work trips and 2.5 percent of totalurban trips (see table below). Transit’s marketshare would need to increase dramatically tobring about a major reduction in traffic conges-tion and energy consumption.

Urban transportation problems do not lendthemselves to a single all-encompassing solu-tion. Several near- and long-term options havebeen identified, however, which offer the rea-sonable prospect of making these problems

Major Mode of Transportation to Work for 21 StandardMetropolitan Statistical Areas: 1975

NumberMode (thousands) Percent a

Workers using vehicles . . . . . . . . . . 11,650 100

Auto or truck . . . . . .Drives aloneCarpool

Public transportation .Bus or streetcarSubway or elevatedR a i l r o a d

. . . . . . . . . . . 10,0407,8772,100

. . . . . . . . . . . 1,4321,018

177224

866818

12922

Other (motorcycles and bicycles). . . . 179 2

aper cent Of workers using vehiclesNOTE F(gures do not add due 10 roundingSOURCE Dala from the Travel to Work Supplement 10 (he Annual Houslrrg Survey

more manageable. These options include ex-panded use of carpools and vanpools, transpor-tation system management techniques, land usepolicies, near-term transit product improve-ments, and new transit technologies offeringservice levels more competitive with the auto-mobile.

Automated guideway transit (AGT)—consist-ing of driverless vehicles operating on their ownguideway—is widely regarded as a promisingnew option that cities should have the oppor-tunity to select in addition to buses, subways,and trolleys. A wide variety of automated tran-sit systems are undergoing development in theUnited States, Europe, and Japan. The simplestform, called shuttle-loop transit (SLT), has op-erated successfully for several years in shoppingcenters, airports, and amusement parks. SLTsystems typically consist of single vehicles or ve-hicles in trains operating on short segments oflinear or circular guideways with few stations,little or no vehicle switching, and at least 1-minute spacing or “headway” between vehicles.Most installations have been on elevated guide-ways, but some also operate at ground level orin tunnels. These types of systems are com-monly referred to as horizontal elevators. TheUrban Mass Transportation Administration(UMTA) has provided some research and devel-opment funding for SLT systems over the pastdecade and is now supporting planning activi-ties in 10 cities for the installation of SLT sys-tems in the downtown areas. This downtownpeople mover (DPM) program was created to

3

4 ● Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology

test the viability of existing AGT systems as cir-culators in city centers.

A second generation of AGT systems calledgroup rapid transit (GRT) is operating in Mor-gantown, W.Va., and at the Dallas-Fort Worth,Tex., airport. Both of these systems receivedFederal support. Compared to SLT systems,GRTs can operate at shorter headways (down to3 seconds) on more extensive guideway net-works and make much more extensive use ofswitching. GRT stations can be located onsidings called offline stations, which permit ve-hicles to bypass other vehicles that have stoppedto accept or discharge passengers.

The most complex form of guideway transit iscalled personal rapid transit (PRT). These sys-tems are characterized by small, one- to six-pas-senger vehicles, capable of operating at one-halfto 3-second headways and offering nonstop ori-gin-to-destination service on extensive, narrowguideways. As in the private automobile, PRTriders would not be required to share their vehi-cle with strangers. PRT has been under develop-ment in France, West Germany, and Japan, butno system has been deployed in cities.

A federally funded program is currently un-derway to develop a third generation of auto-mated systems called advanced group rapidtransit (AGRT). The largely arbitrary systemspecifications, as defined by UMTA, placeAGRT on the dividing line between GRT andPRT systems. These specifications call for 40-mph, 12-passenger, all-seated vehicles operatingwith 3-second headways and offline stations.Three designs were selected including a rubber-tired vehicle with propulsion through thewheels, and two systems propelled by linear in-duction motors, one supported by an air cush-ion and the other magnetically levitated, Thetechnologies under development in the AGRTprogram could be applied to all forms of ex-clusive guideway transit ranging from large-vehicle urban rail systems to small-vehicle PRTsystems.

OTA was asked by the Transportation Sub-committee of the House Appropriations Com-mittee to evaluate recently proposed changes inthe scope and cost of the AGRT program. Thisassessment addressed three major issues.

Issue 1: The Need For More Advanced Automated Systems

Will AGRT offer significantly lower cost and superior service than other types of urban transit?

There is considerable support at the locallevel for continuing work on AGT technologies,both among transit users and public officials.Users and nonusers alike are critical of theamenities, frequency of service, reliability,crowding, and inconvenience characteristic oftransit services currently available in mostcities. Technological innovations encompassedin the AGRT program include new electroniccontrol systems, linear induction motors,magnetic levitation systems, high-speed switch-ing, and emergency braking for short headwayoperations. These advances in technology offerseveral potential benefits to transit operatorsand users:

● service flexibility comparable to vans ortaxis coupled with the carrying capacity ofa trolley car system or a multilane freeway,

Photo crecflt U S Department of Energy

Old technology—changing needs

Ch. l—Summary ● 5

● lower cost per mile of guideway than forheavy-rail transit systems thus permittingthe construction of more extensive guide-way networks for a fixed capital invest-ment,

. rapid origin-to-destination service with fewor no intermediate stops and no transfers,and

● substantially increased frequency of non-rush hour service.

Systems incorporating these technologiescould transport people and goods into activitycenters as well as provide circulation withindowntown and suburban activity centers. Whilethere is widespread agreement that thesechanges in service levels would be beneficial,several potential problems have been identifiedthat

●

●

c

●

●

●

need to be more fully addressed:

reliability of new technology;community acceptance of elevated guide-way designs;evacuation of passengers stranded on nar-row elevated guideways;operating problems in ice and snow;public resistance to riding small, automatedvehicles in the company of strangers; andverification of 1ifecycle cost estimates.

UMTA has sponsored studies that comparethe capital and operating costs of AGRT withother transit options. The results show thatthere are great variations in cost from system tosystem which make generalized cost compari-sons virtually meaningless. For example, opera-tions and maintenance (O&M) costs per vehicle-mile for the 10 existing AGT systems range from$0.49 to $6.55. Average O&M costs per passen-ger-mile for AGT ($0.17) compare very favor-ably with trolleys ($0.44), buses ($0.49), andrail rapid transit ($0.58). However, the O&Mcosts per passenger-mile for AGT ranges from$0.09 to $1.01. Consequently, comparisons ofaverage costs across broad categories of systemstend to be misleading. There are also wide vari-ations in the capital costs of these systems whichreflect site-specific differences in topography,guideway design, local labor rates, and systemdesign requirements. More reliable comparisonsneed to be made through analysis of individualcommunity requirements.

AGT

Light rail

Heavy ra!l

SOURCES Thomas K Dyer Inc Rad flapd Transd Cost Wdy March 1977 N O Lea &Associates Inc Summary of Capital and Operallng and Maintenance Cost Experlence ot Automated Guldeway Transit Systems June 1978

No reliable techniques exist for estimating rid-ership on such systems because they embodyservice characteristics presently unavailable onpublic transit. Until some actual operating ex-perience is accumulated, claims about costs perpassenger-mile on AGRT systems cannot beverified. Surveys show that the service attri-butes made possible by AGRT technologies areregarded favorably by the public. However,survey data is not always a reliable indication offuture behavior. A limited test of these newservice levels will be required to verify the sur-vey findings.


In summary, we find that:

●

●

AGRT technologies appear capable of pro-viding service levels that the public wantsbut cannot get with currently available

●

transit technologies.Capital and operating cost estimates forAGRT compare favorably with the costs ofinstalling and operating heavy-rail systemson exclusive guideways. However, thereare large variations in capital and operatingcosts among the 10 operational automated

Issue 2: Prototype Development

guideway systems. Precise comparisonswith other transit technologies will requirefurther testing of AGRT systems and real-world experience.Additional system optimization studies areneeded to determine the preferred vehiclesize, seating capacity, guideway configura-tion, headway; and line speed of futureAGT systems. The views of transit opera-tors and the public should play a centralrole in this analysis.

Do the benefits to be gained from building more than one prototype technologyjustify the additional cost?

The original AGRT project plan called forthree manufacturers to submit competing de-signs, followed by the selection of a single sys-tem for prototype development. This plan waslater changed to provide for prototype develop-ment of both the air-cushion and the wheeled-vehicle systems. In the revised plan, work wasalso to continue on magnetic levitation technol-ogy, but at a lower level than for the other twosystems. These changes, together with inflationadjustments, increased the program costs from$43.5 million to $111 million.

AGT technology is currently at a stage of de-velopment analogous to automobile technologyshortly after the turn of the century. In the earlyyears automobile technology was very diverseand a single-design concept did not emerge untilafter an extended period of testing in the mar-

ketplace. AGT is still in the early stages of itsdevelopment cycle and it is too soon to predictwhich technology will prove superior in mostapplications.


●

●

Money invested in alternative AGRT tech-nologies during the early phases of theR&D program can provide relatively inex-pensive insurance against the risk of pick-ing an inferior design.

At this early stage in the development cy-cle, there is no sound technical basis for dis-continuing work or providing any promis-ing technology with significantly less fund-ing. Magnetic levitation is a particularlypromising option because of its low noiseand high reliability potential.

Issue 3: Government/Industry Relationships

What role should Government and industry play in the development of advanced AGT?

Federal programs established to foster the in- Potential transit system suppliers find it in-troduction of new transit technologies have con- creasingly difficult to justify major corporate in-sistently underestimated the complex institu- vestments in transit innovation, given a historytional, economic, and technical barriers to in- of uncertain Federal support, unrealisticallynovation. Neither transit operators nor local tight development timetables, complex institu-public officials are anxious to volunteer their tional barriers, and the lack of established stablecommunities as laboratories for transit exper- markets. Unlike the automotive industry whichiments unless the Federal Government is pre- caters to millions of customers, or the aircraftpared to underwrite the financial risks of manufacturers who have established long-termfailure. relationships with scores of airlines worldwide,


Federal Government Spending Allocated toResearch and Development–1979

5 9%

5

oAll Federal programs Urban mass transportation

SOURCES OftIce of Management and Budget U S Department of TransDor!allon Urban MassT ransporlatlon Admfmstral(on

the fate of would-be transit equipment suppliersis increasingly bound up with one customer—the Federal Government. Suppliers regard thisas an inherently unstable and risky arrange-ment.

The transit procurement process continues tobe administered at the local level. However, theamount of funding available to each city, thekinds of equipment that are eligible for pur-chase, and the procurement procedures them-selves are largely determined at the Federallevel. The supplier industry is generally skep-tical that the Federal Government will either de-control the transit procurement process or pro-vide what they regard as sufficient funding tocreate a stable market for innovative transittechnologies. Several firms are willing to partic-ipate in federally funded R&D programs that re-quire no major corporate investments, but it isunlikely that production commitments will bemade unless industry is reasonably confident ofa favorable return on investment, even if Gov-ernment agencies promise support for such amarket.

Transit operators and local public officials areexpressing growing concern that the products ofthese federally sponsored R&D programs fail tosatisfy their transportation needs at reasonablecosts. Denver, Cleveland, Houston, and St.Paul were all selected by the Federal Govern-

ment as demonstration sites for an AGT system.All four cities have reportedly withdrawn fromthe program even though UMTA had agreed topay 80 percent of the system acquisition costs.While many other cities have expressed an in-terest in deploying AGT, it remains to be seenhow many will decide to implement their plans.

In West Germany and Japan the developmentof advanced AGT technologies has been sup-ported through special agencies established topromote the development of products that arecompetitive in international markets. In thiscountry, the transit R&D function is managedby the same agency that regulates and fundsurban transportation systems. Although foreigncountries lack the depth of operating experiencewith AGT that has been accumulated in theUnited States, they have been more successful inresisting pressures to rush new technologies intoservice before they are thoroughly tested, andthey have followed a more orderly developmentprocess.

The West German Cabintaxi system, withcharacteristics very similar to the current AGRTdesign goals, is expected to be carrying passen-gers in a Hamburg demonstration by 1981. Thecurrent development timetable for U.S. AGRTsystems suggest that they will not begin to carrypassengers before 1990 even if development anddeployment hurdles are overcome. If the Cabin-taxi demonstration is successful, it would be aclear signal that technological leadership hasshifted overseas. The trade implications of sucha development will depend on future U.S. Gov-ernment policy toward advanced transit devel-opment and deployment.


●

●

Introduction of innovative transit systemsis constrained not only by the need to moreadequately develop the technology, but bymajor institutional and economic barriersas well.Recent experience suggests that the promiseof 80-percent Federal funding is no longersufficient inducement for cities to accepttransit technologies if there is a questionrelative to whether they will meet localneeds at a reasonable cost.

8 . Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology

●

●

Both West Germany and Japan have fos-tered a cooperative relationship betweenGovernment and industry that has helpedensure an orderly program of long-rangetransit innovation. Further consideration isneeded of alternative institutional arrange-ments for managing transit R&D in theUnited States.The potential of broad international leader-ship in the transit technology field is nolonger a credible prospect for U.S. indus-try. However, component or system lead-ership in AGT is possible if pursued moreeffectively than in the past.

Photo credit DEMAG Fordertechnik

West German AGRT to enter service in 1981—9 years aheadof U.S. version

Policy Options

Four options for continued research on AGToptions are as follows:

have been identified. These

1.

2.

3.

4.

emphasize short= run product improvements in operating shuttle-loopand group rapid transit systems;

—

continue long-range development of critical new subsystems capableof providing major cost and service improvements;validate new subsystems in a system environment to ensure that theyperform acceptably as part of an integrated package; anddevelop prototype systems that incorporate major new technologiesleading to early deployment in cities.

These options could be adopted either singly system could be expected to fall in the range ofor in combination. For example, the first option $2 million to $7 mill ion. The major advantageemphasizes incremental improvements in shut- of this option is that improvements are availabletie-loop and group rapid transit systems that are to cities in the near-term. But if short-term ob-already in operation. Examples of product im- jectives are pursued to the exclusion of long-provements might include higher line speeds, range R&D options, major cost and service levellarger motors, and more reliable door mech- improvements would be indefinitely postponedanisms. This upgrading of operational systems and the AGRT contractors would discontinuecould be pursued as a short-range R&D objec- work on advanced systems.tive alongside longer range transit innovationssuch as those encompassed in the AGRT pro- Options 2 and 3 would continue developmentgram. Depending on the scope of a given prod- of technologies associated with the AGRT pro-uct improvement program, the cost for each gram but incorporate more flexibility in the


selection of system design and performancespecifications. To achieve the advances in serv-ice levels specified in the AGRT program eachof the new subsystems needs to be developed inparallel and tested in a systems environment. Itwould be of little value, for example, to increasea vehicle’s line speed to 40 mph unless it couldbe simultaneously demonstrated that the vehiclecan be safely switched at these speeds, that theemergency braking systems are effective, andthat the control systems are capable of main-taining safe stopping distances. It is not neces-sary, however to build full production proto-types to verify that the technology meets itsdesign goals. Deferring development of produc-tion prototypes, however, will delay the deploy-ment of these new technologies. Pursuing bothOptions 2 and 3 would cost in the range of $60million to $80 million.

Option 4 would proceed immediately with thedesign and development of production proto-types. This was essentially the AGRT programas requested by UMTA in the FY 1979 budget ata cost of $111 million. Early in 1979, UMTAscaled down these plans. While work is to con-tinue on the wheeled vehicle and air suspensionsystems together with a lower level effort onmagnetic levitation, a decision to develop pro-totypes has been deferred. This option involvesthe highest cost and technological risk. Its major

strength is that it aims at achieving the AGRTprogram goals in less time than it will takeunder Options 2 and 3.


●

●

●

Updating existing technologies (Option 1)should be a continuing objective of short-range transit R&D programs. But a short-range program is not a substitute for along-range program aimed at achieving sig-nificant improvements in performance,cost , and service levels—beyond thoseachievable through incremental improve-ments in existing transit systems.

Continued work on critical AGRT subsys-tems and their validation in a systems envi-ronment (Options 2 and 3) should help en-sure the orderly development of new transitsystems with improved operating charac-teristics. Emphasis on these two options ap-pears to be most appropriate at this time.

A decision to proceed immediately to de-velop one or more production prototypesystems (Option 4) presupposes a base ofknowledge about the relative merits of thetechnological options and their marketabil-ity which does not currently exist, Selectingspecific prototype designs at this timewould appear to be premature.

56-518 - 0 - 80 - 3

Chapter II

INTRODUCTION

I / -. i

-2

-1

0

+119io 19’50 1960 1970 1978

SOURCE Amer,can PutXIc Transll Assoctahon

c-0==nf A

(n=vzu

In hindsight, decline in the use of public tran-sit is not only understandable but appears tohave been an inevitable consequence of thechanging growth patterns of U.S. cities. SinceWorld War II, suburban areas have been grow-ing nearly four times faster than central cities.Jobs and activities have followed people to thesesuburbs, decentralizing the functions once large-ly confined to a single central business district.

Conventional transit—fixed-route bus, trol-ley, elevated, or subway—was introduced 80 ormore years ago when most of the urban popula-tion lived in the high-density central city, wherenearly all employment, shopping, and other ac-tivities were carried on. This basic fixed-routetransit, running to and from the central businessdistrict, is becoming less compatible with thespatial distributions of modern cities with largemulticentered suburbs and diffuse trip patterns.

Transit systems show very marked economiesof scale. As the number of riders per mile de-creases, the cost per rider increases—very rapid-ly. As cities have changed, the automobile hasreplaced transit as the basic urban transporta-tion system. Although the decline in the totaltransit ridership bottomed out in 1972 and somegrowth has occurred since, costs have risen in-exorably.

The goal of improved urban transportation isto make the urban area a better place to live;transportation attributes per se are importantonly as they contribute to this larger goal. Theautomobile is not space-efficient. Downtownareas, high-density suburban developments,and the principal arterials connecting them arechoked throughout large parts of the day withautomobile traffic. If existing cities are to be-come more pleasing places in which to work andlive, more space-efficient modes of transporta-tion must be developed both for circulation

11


within high-density areas and along arterials.This may require a combination of some restric-tions on automobile use at certain times or incertain areas and sufficiently attractive trans-portation alternatives to make such restrictionsacceptable to the public.

By the early 1960’s it became apparent thatwithout immediate Federal intervention, a greatmany transit systems would have been unableto renew their equipment or maintain servicelevels. To deal with this rapidly deterioratingsituation, Congress enacted the Urban MassTransportation Act of 1964 for the purpose of:1) improving transit equipment and services,2) encouraging long-range planning, and 3) pro-viding funds to acquire and preserve services.

Two of the three goals of the 1964 Act havebeen largely achieved. Federal funds have en-abled local public agencies to provide support totroubled transit systems, thus preserving at leasta minimum level of service for the captive rider.In addition, the quality of local transportationplanning has improved significantly as a resultof Federal support. Since 1964 a Federal invest-ment of over $12 billion has gone into the pur-

chase of equipment and extension of services.Although ridership continued to decline after1964, it bottomed in 1972 and has shown an in-crease in each year since then. Ridership todayis roughly equivalent to 1970 levels. Althoughthe 1973-74 energy crisis is identified as havingcaused this reversal, other factors have un-doubtedly contributed as well—the better serv-ice and equipment coming online as a result ofthe Urban Mass Transportation Administra-tion’s (UMTA) programs, subsidized fares, in-creasing urban congestion, and the decline in ur-ban freeway construction, overall urban areagrowth, and central area rejuvenation. Transit’sshare of total urban travel, however, has notkept pace with the growth in urban populationand person-trips.

Over the past 18 years, Federal funding forurban mass transportation has totaled $16.7 bil-lion. As shown in table 1, 96 percent of thesefunds have been spent in the past 10 years.

Barring a major energy crisis which woulddramatically curtail automobile usage, transit’smarket share is likely to drop further over thenext 20 years. By the year 2000, urban auto-

Table 1.–Administrative Commitments by Fiscal Year and UMTA Activity (in millions of dollars)

– Unlverslty Interstate i x ‘- Commuter Non-Technical Managerial research & and urban free rail urbanizedstudies tralnlng trainng systems demon- operaflng formulagrants grants grants grants strations subsidies . grants Total—— —..

Capitalfacilitiesgrants

$ 10 5–

Fiscalyear

1962196319641 9 6 519661 9 6 7196819691970197119721 9 7 3197419751976T Q197719781979

Total

Formulagrants——

RD&D— — — .$ 02

1933 98 94 75 56 5

1831633 9 56 1 471 56 6 74 6 84 7 71775 8 96816 4 0

—— —— $ 107—— 193

3 9596

11391297132 1

—— 1733—— 1600

3980—— 5994—— 9716—— 1,0728—— 1,5162—— 1,9070

5672—— 2,3918

3,0139$750 3,4970—-

—— —— ————————————

——————

—— —— —— ————

507109212101220148313273407510086378703

1,19661,092.2

24701,25001,39881,2250

‘~~,{8~i

—— —— —— ———— —— —— ———— —— ——

—— ———— ——

$ 31 $0136 ––50 ––80 ––

144 0 4250 0.5335 0 4376 0 3371 0 538 t 0,49 6 0 3

432 0 5550 0 3550 0 5—

————

————$1.7

3.03 02 52 52.32.20 7142 02 02 0

——————

—————— ——

—— ————$ 95.6

81433762154409466677000—

——$ 1516

390.3521

62167424

1,3000

$3,2580

————

$03 $ 2340 7 5 5—— 8060 5 750

$6259 $3682 $42 $253 $2,5061 $15 $1845 $750 $16,7374

~O~E FY 19b2 lhro(;qh FY 1977 r~lecl ad-m! mslrallve commtlrnenls FY 1978 and FY 1979-rellecl obllgal(ons— — .

S O U R C E D e p a r t m e n t of T(dIMpOddllOfl Ufbdll Mdss Trdnsporlahon Admlnlstratlon Jdn 22 1979

mobile vehicle-miles are expected to increase byover 80 percent, which would mean a more thantwofold increase in traffic congestion and re-duced mobility. ’ Meanwhile,deficits may soon exceed $3and could continue to c1imb.3

transit operatingbillion annually,

Ch. 11—Introduct/on ● 13.- .- — — —

Clearly, the vast majority of the travelingpublic prefers the amenities offered by the auto-mobile, and they are prepared to pay a heavypremium to retain these features. Continued de-ployment of bus and rail systems meeting cur-rent service standards shows little promise ofbeing able to persuade significant numbers toabandon their automobiles in favor of publictransit.

R&D: The Search for More Competitive Transit Options

Section 6 of the UrbanAct of 1964 authorized adevelopment, and demonspursue three goals:

1. assist in the reductiontation needs,

Mass Transportationprogram of research,

ration projects to

of urban transpor-

2. improve mass transit service, and3. minimize cost.

The proportion of the UMTA budget devotedto the search for more competitive transit sys-tems and services remains low in relation to theoverall rate of Federal R&D spending. In FY1979, 5.9 percent of the total Federal budget wasallocated to R&D while only 1.8 percent of theUMTA budget was earmarked for the develop-ment of new and improved transit systems. Inthe defense sector, where the development ofcompetitive products is given a high priority, 10percent of the budget is set aside for R&D. Be-tween 1975 and 1979, the total UMTA budgetincreased 133 percent while funding for R&Dgrew only 37 percent.

Currently UMTA devotes roughly two-thirdsof its R&D funds to near-term product improve-ments and one-third to new systems develop-ment. Virtually all of the work on new systemsis focused on the development of automatedguideway transit. Almost no attention has beenpaid to one of the three objectives of R&D asspelled out in the authorizing legislation whichis to explore ways to reduce the need to travel,such as through the use of telecommunicationsor land use policy changes.

Automated Guideway Transit

Automated guideway transit (AGT) is a classof transportation systems in which unmannedvehicles are operated on fixed guideways alonga fixed right-of-way. About 20 such systems ex-ist in the United States today, almost all of themin airports, zoos, or amusement parks. The var-ious AGT classes are described more fully inOTA’S previous report on AGT’ and are illus-trated in figure 2. While the different types ofAGT often are regarded as being distinct sys-tems, they should be regarded as only discretepoints in a multidimensional option space ofsystem characteristics. UMTA is currently in theprocess of deploying demonstration automatedguideway systems in the downtown sector ofseveral cities to determine their public accept-ability in general urban transit service.

Concurrently with the downtown peoplemover (DPM) demonstrations, UMTA is fund-ing the development of a new AGT technol-ogy known as advanced group rapid transit(AGRT). The AGRT program, as defined byUMTA, encompasses several advances in tech-nology including magnetic levitation, high-speed switching, and new command and controlcapabilities to permit short-headway operations

‘U, S. Congress, Ott ice (~t Technology Aswssmen t, AI/ f(I))ILitLvfGuufmwy Trawt, OTA-T-8 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Govern-ment Prlntlng Ottice, lune 1Q75 }.


Figure 2.–Classes of Automated Guideway Transit

Shuttle-Loop Transit

● simplest technology● vehicle size varies● little or no switching long headway—60

seconds or more

Passenger Shuttle–Tampa International Airport

Group Rapid Transit

● more than six riders● switching to shorten en route

delays● Intermediate headway—3 to

60 seconds

Alrtrans– Dallas/Ft, Worth Airport

Personal Rapid Transit

● one to six riders. no en route delays or transfers● short headway—less than 3 seconds

Cabintaxl–Hagen, W, Germany

SOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment, Auromafed Gu/deway Translf, June 1975

in complex networks. The design goals estab-lished by UMTA5 specify the following features:

● automated driverless vehicles,● guaranteed seating,● full climate-control,● 5-minute maximum wait time for vehicles,● no transfers n e c e s s a ry on the s y s t e m ,

‘U.S. Department ot Transportation, Urban Mass Transporta-tion Administration, “Request tor Proposal (RFP) DOT-UT-30014High performance Personal Rapid Transit (HPPRT) System, ” Feb. .

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

It

limit of two or three intermediate stops,40-mph top speed,12-passenger vehicles,single- or two-car trains,elevated guideway,3-second headway,14,400 seats/hour/lane (theoretical), andelectrical power.

should be noted that these are UMTA’S20, 1974. design goals and should be subject to modifica-

Ch. 11 IntrodLJctio/7 ● 15

tion to meet the specific needs of particular ap-plications. A city could, as an example, con-clude that its needs are best met by an AGRTsystem with lower line speeds, longer head-ways, and smaller vehicles, These kinds of mod-ifications would not involve major changes intechnology. Potential applications for systemsincorporating AGRT capabilities include activi-ty center circulation, radial trunklines, outlyingcollection/distribution, and regional networks.

History of AGRTThe AGRT program was conceived in the

wake of TRANSPO ’72, a Depar tment o fTransportation (DOT) sponsored transporta-tion exhibition held at Dunes Airport. Pro-moted as a showcase for new transportationtechnology, four AGT concepts were displayedunder UMTA sponsorship. The AGRT pro-gram, as announced in February 1974, was toconsist of two phases—a 7-month preliminarydesign phase followed by a 36- to 40-month pro-totype development phase. The entire projectwas scheduled to be completed in 1978.

Three contractors, Boeing, Otis, and Rohrwere selected during the Phase I competition toprepare preliminary designs. Proposals forPhase 11 work were submitted in September1975 following completion of the preliminarydesigns. Figure 3 lists the technologies that eachof the contractors proposed to meet the systemspecifications.

At this juncture, the program underwent thefirst of several major modifications. Respond-ing to recommendations contained in the FY1976 DOT Appropriations Conference Report,UMTA restructured the program. Instead of se-lecting one of the three contractors to proceedwith a test track development, a decision wasmade to split Phase II into two parts, thus ex-tending the completion date to the first part of1981.

All three contractors were invited to continuedesign refinements and laboratory testing of keycomponents during an 18-month Phase 11A.This work got underway in June 1976. As a partof Phase IIB, a single design was to be chosenfor full-scale prototype testing at the DOT testcenter near Pueblo, Colo. During the fall of1977, as Phase 11A was nearing completion, atask force was formed within DOT’s Office of

the Secretary, once again to review the AGRTprogram and to chart a course of further activ-ity. The DOT review led to the following rec-ommended program redirection:

●

●

●

●

●

maintain competition by funding both theOtis air-cushion and Boeing wheeled-vehi-cle technologies in Phase IIB;continue technology development on theRomag magnetic levitation system but at alower level than the other two systems;fund Boeing and Otis to conduct a facilitycommonality study with the aim of achiev-ing a common test track at Pueblo;continue study and development of operat-ing vehicles in trains; andconduct a departmental review of propos-als for construction of the test facility atPueblo following the detailed design activi-ty period.

As a result of these recommended changesand adjustments for inflation, the total cost ofthe AGRT program increased from $43.5 mil-lion to $110.9 million. Tables 2 and 3 provide a

Table 2.–AGRT Funding (in millions of dollars)

Budget proposal. Submission to Congress– FY 1979 cost

Prime contractorsAGRT development? $800Trained system design 4 0Romag development 5 0

Prime contractor tolal 8 9 0

Technical support

Total

Prior expendituresPhase I planningPhase I

Prime contractorsSupport

Total Phase I

Phase 11A PlanningPhase 11A

Prime contractorsS u p p o r t

Total Phase 11A

Phase IIB InltlatlonPrime contractorsS u p p o r t

Total Phase IIB

7 9

969– “—

9

154

2 8

Total expenditures (through 3/31 /79) 140

GRAND TOTAL $110.9— .aSee table 3 for bre~kdown

.

SOURCE Urban Mass Transportation Adol(n($trdllon


Figure 3.–Summary of AGRT Technology Options

Contractor: Boeing.Suspension: Wheeled, rubber tires.Propulsion: d,c. electric motorsGuideway: 8-ft. wide, bottom-supported U channel,Command & control: Moving block, colllslon avoidance radar,Switching. High speed, on vehicle,

Contractor: Otis.Suspension: Alr Ievltatlon,Propulsion. Linear Induction motors.Guldeway: 8-ft. wide, bottom-supported channel guldewayCommand & control: Mowng block.Switching. High speed, on vehicle

Contractor, Boeing (formerly Rohr),Suspension. Magnetic Iewtatlon,Propulsion Linear InductIon motorsGuldeway 4-ft. wide, top-supported monorail beamCommand & control: Moving block.Swdchlng High speed, on vehicle

Pholo credits U S Department 01 Transportation

Ch. 11—introduction ● 17

Table 3.–AGRT Engineering Prototype Development(cost per contractor in millions of dollars)

Command & Gu!dewayVehicles control stations Total

Englneenng design $3 $ 6 $4 $13F a b r i c a t l o n 3 5 4 12I n t e g r a t i o n — 3 – 3T e s t — 4 — 4

Totals $6 $18 $8 32Englneerlng prototype

u p g r a d i n g — — — 8

T o t a l — — — $40

SOURCE Urban Mass Transportallon Adm[mstrat!on

listing of projected program costs broken downby category of activity. The program then tookanother turn, when in early 1979 UMTA scaleddown the scope of Phase IIB work. Instead oftesting prototypes of the Boeing wheeled-vehicleand Otis air-cushion system at the DOT test fa-cility near Pueblo, Colo., the test is now to becarried out at each of the contractor’s plants,using engineering vehicles. Program coststhrough Phase IIB now total approximately $73mill ion.

Following completion of the Phase 11A con-tract, Rohr decided to abandon work on urbantransit systems and on February 3, 1978, signeda licensing agreement with Boeing for rights tothe Romag technology. Numerous Phase IIBproposals were being submitted by the two re-maining contractors in response to changingUMTA requirements, but contracts were notsigned until June 1979. A lapse of 18 months oc-curred between the time Phase 11A work wascompleted and Phase IIB contracts were signed.These frequent alterations in the program, cou-pled with the lack of continuity in funding, haveled the contractors to question the depth ofUMTA commitment to advanced systems devel-opment.

Issues Addressed in the Assessment of AGRT

The House Appropriations Committee reporton the FY 1979 Department of TransportationAppropriations Bill states in part:

. . . as a result of a departmental reevaluation,the number of (AGRT) systems to be developedhas been increased from one to two or more andthe total estimated cost of the project has in-creased from $43,.500,000 to approximately$110,000,000. In view of this substantial cost in-crease, the committee intends to request an Of-fice of Technology Assessment review of theproject.

In a letter dated July 17, 1978, the Committeerequested that the Technology AssessmentBoard authorize an assessment of this project to“determine the project’s feasibility as well as itsrelationship to the overall goals of the Depart-ment’s mass transportation program. ” In No-vember 1978, OTA initiated a preliminary issue

analysis pending Board approval to proceedwith technology assessment.

Three principal issues were addressed in thisreport:

1.

2.

3.

Will AGRT offer significantly lower costand superior service than other types ofurban transit?

Do the benefits to be gained from buildingmore than one prototype technologyjustify the additional costs?

What role should Government and indus-try play in the development of advancedAGT?

This study partially updates a major assess-ment of “Automated Guideway Transit” pub-lished by OTA in June 1975. During the courseof the current study, OTA staff members visited

56-518 - 0 - 80 - 4


the Otis and Boeing testsystems at the Miami,

facilities as well as AGT Both the AGRT contractors and numerous of fi-Seattle-Tacoma, Hous- cials in DOT cooperated fully in providing use-

ton, and Dallas-Fort Worth airports and theWedway system at Disneyland. Public partici-pation meetings were held in eight cities:Baltimore, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Jackson-ville, Los Angeles, Miami, and Seattle. Meetingswere also held with transportation planners inseveral cities where AGT deployments havebeen or are currently under consideration. Anadvisory panel and a separate public participa-tion working group have met throughout thecourse of this project to assist in the studydesign and to comment ori the work in progress.

ful background information.

In succeeding chapters the potential impactsof AGRT are examined in the light of urbantransportation needs and currently availabletransit options. Alternative patterns of Govern-ment/ industry relations are explored, with par-ticular attention paid to practices in Europe andJapan. The concluding chapter outlines severaloptions for future AGT development, analyzesthe pros and cons of each option, and provides arange of costs for each approach.

Chapter Ill

URBAN TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

There would be a basic logic in saying thatproviding access is the purpose of a city; it ag-gregates individuals and activities so that mu-tual access is possible. The specific spatial ar-rangement of this aggregation depends on thecharacterof the transportation available. Acen-turyago when urban travel was largely on foot,effective access depended heavily on proximity.Homes had to be near work, and stores nearhomes. Densities were high, streets were nar-row, and travel distances short. This pattern ispreserved and observable in those parts of ourcities that grew up before introduction of trolleycars and proliferation of the automobile.

The mobility provided by the automobile hasbeen a major factor permitting the majority ofthe U.S. population to achieve personally de-sired housing and lifestyle goals. It has alsobecome for most the preferred means of travel.Yet, it has become increasingly apparent thatthere are substantial problems in reliance on theautomobile as the predominant urban travelmode. These problems include increasing con-

Goals for

Transportation systems not only provide forpersonal mobility, but also influence the long-term spatial evolution of cities. Therefore, thesefacilities should be designed to meet social andeconomic objectives such as:

gestion, pollution, and energy consumpt ion.While some of the problems can, in the longrun, be cured or greatly alleviated, there are a tleast two that cannot.

First, the automobile is unavailable to manyurban residents—the poor, elderly, young, andhandicapped. The dispersed development en-gendered by the automobile makes it difficult toprovide efficient public transit service to meetthe travel needs of these groups.

Second, the car is very inefficient in its use ofspace. The transportation capacity needed in thehigher density portions of the city cannot beprovided by automobiles; a more space-efficientmode of travel is needed.

Transportation does influence the way citiesevolve and function. We would like to be able tomatch transportation to the needs of the city. Itbecomes, therefore, appropriate to directly con-sider the alternate, and sometimes conflicting,goals that cities might choose to adopt.

Our Cities

● housing for all residents offering choices ofprice, location, and lifestyle;

● jobs for all residents wishing to work;● services—social, medical, cultural, recrea-

tional, and commercial; and

19


● a transportation system that permits citi-zens of urban areas to reach housing, jobs,medical, cultural, and recreational facilitieswith a minimum expenditure of time,money, and energy resources.

Little progress has been made toward fashioningstrategies for physical development to achievethese goals.

For most of this century, metropolitan areagrowth has tended toward lower density resi-dential development based first on streetcar andthen on automobile transportation. While somesigns of a trend toward reurbanization havebeen noted recently, a return to the highly con-centrated turn-of-the-century city is not fore-seen. Change in urbanization occurs veryslowly. Were a concerted effort toward reur-banization to be undertaken today, significantand visible change would not appear until thenext century.

A step toward higher densities is often viewedas desirable by urban planners since concentra-tion permits greater use of transit or walking tosatisfy activity needs. Yet, the same high levelsof concentration that promote transit use alsoattract high levels of auto traffic to activitycenters. So long as increased activity density islimited to only one end of the trip (e.g., the loca-tion of jobs or shopping facilities) the auto willremain the desired and most convenient modefor most trips. If cities are to be pleasant placesto live and work,fer from the autohigh-density area

an easy and convenient trans-to the mode serving inside thewill be absolutely essential.

The economics of urban activities also play amajor role in the shaping of cities. While manyfunctions can be efficiently conducted in high-rise, high-density structures, it is unlikely thatindustrial processes will ever again be con-ducted in multistory inner city buildings. Theeconomics of transportation, industrial, andwarehousing processes dictate that land-inten-sive structures be located in low-density areaswhere space can be obtained cheaply.

Central business districts may, in some cases,evolve into high-density centers encompassing amixture of activities and dwellings catering tothose who prefer the metropolitan life. Otherdwelling and activity center nodes are likely tobe located throughout the suburban region,sometimes in conjunction with major retail cen-ters. Residential areas of somewhat higher den-sity may evolve but the mature, low-density,suburban residential areas will remain and new,low-density, exurban development may con-tinue to be developed. Many factors will influ-ence these trends including land cost / travel costtradeoffs and tax and fiscal /monetary policy.

There is no unanimity of tastes and prefer-ences as to what cities should look 1ike, and notall cities will evolve the same way. Some urbanareas may choose to revitalize and encouragehigh-density growth. Some may choose toshrink their central business districts and en-courage the growth of suburban activity cen-ters, Others may leave development programsentirely to market forces. Transit R&D pro-grams should expand the options that cities canselect to support locally determined urbanforms.

Goals for Urban Transportation

Although current experience in urban areasshows that people will tolerate many inconven-iences in traveling, the desired system for per-sona] transport is one that:

●

●

permits the traveler to make trips at con-venient times, rather than on the scheduleof a specific vehicle;provides a comfortable trip—not overlycrowded, seats available, few transfers, lit-tle waiting, and a place to store packages;

●

●

●

allows travelers to reach activities within areasonable time (e. g., no more than 30 to40 minutes for work travel);permits travel at a cost commensurate withthe value of the trip and the quality of serv-ice provided; andis compatible with the structure of the areabeing served.

The automobile meets these goals for manytypes of travel in urban areas, but it is unsatis-

Ch. Ill—Urban Transportation Needs ● 21

factory in high-density areas and on arterials ●

leading to them. Here, mtore space-efficienttransportation is needed. AGRT systems areclaimed to reduce congestion-related problemsby providing the following features to attract ●

people out of their cars:

extensive coverage —stops within walkingdistance of large numbers of central cityresidents;

frequent service—service headways suffi-ciently short so that it is not necessary to

DEMAG

Assured seat ing impor tant to consumer

22 ● Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology— ——

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

consult a schedule in order to avoid longwaits;service to major activity locations in themetropolitan area-Central business districtwork places, work and retaill activity nodes,and lower density industrial workplaces;r-eliable and dependable service;climate controlled vehiclesassured wating for all users;perception of safety and security;direct service between most or all stationsto minimize transfers; andr ivacy .

Features such as climate control and security.can be provided with conventional systems.Other features such as no transfers, 24-hourservice, and assured seating are either techno-logically infeasible or uneconomical using con-ventional bus or rail hardware,

It is technologically feasible to provide a serv-ice with the characteristics stated above. Auto-mation may be a key factor in making small-vehicle large-network systems, offerin g i m -proved service levels, more economically feasi-ble.

As service and economic considerations war-rant attention, so too does architectural and es-

thetic acceptabi instances havei t y. In only rarefacilities for automobile transportation beenadequately blended into the urban environment.The bulky, smelly, noisy, diesel bus, does littlebetter. Subways remove often obtrusive vehiclesystems from the cityscape, but also deprive therider of the enjoyment of light and air and theexcitement of observing city activity. Small-vehicle transit systems, even if elevated, will beless obtrusive and more amenable to integrationinto the city structure. The small, lighter weightguideways should provide more opportunitiesfor architectural creativity, and could also beenclosed within new or existing structures,much like the Minneapolis skyway system.

The Urban Mass Transportation Administra-tion’s AGRT development program should beevaluated in comparison with other technolog-ical and operational options that could be devel-oped for the future. It is not certain at this timewhat solutions will be needed in the future. Justas the changing character of cities and lifestyleswas often a primary factor in the decline of con-ventional public transportation, so are futurechanges going to be key determinants of futuretransportation choices.

———

Chapter IV

TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

Availablevialed into

Currently Available Options

transportation options can be di-two classes— those operating in

mixed traffic (i. e., on public roadways) andthose operating on their own exclusive rights-of-way or guideways. A few options, such asstreetcars and dual-mode vehicles, can operateeither in mixed traffic or on exclusive guide-ways.

Mixed Traffic Modes

There are several distinct categories of pas-senger transportation now operating on publicstreets in mixed traffic:

● automobiles,● taxis,● vanpools,● buses, and● streetcars (or light-rail vehicles).

Automobiles—Over 90 percent of urban tripsare made with the automobile, which attests tothe fact that its advantages heavily outweigh its

disadvantages. The automobile’s advantagesover other forms of transportation include: I

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

a direct ride from origin to destination,available for use at all times,travel in any direction at the whim of thedriver,no need to stop and pick up other pas-sengers,privacy and reasonable safeguards againstannoyance of other people,constant cost for any group size,a seat for each rider, andfreedom to choose individual taste andcomfort preferences.

The disadvantages ofuser include:

● cost of operationeluding insurance,

the automobile to

and maintenance

the

in-

● high depreciation rate,● cost of parking,

‘Richard Willow, “Factors Influencing Consumer Choice in Ur-ban Transportation, ” paper presented at the international Syn-posium ot~ Traffic ad Trans,uortat/o)~ Technologies H a m b u r g ,West Germany, June 18-20, 1979.

23

—


●

●

●

congestion on nonexclusive rights-of-way,risk of accidents and reliance on drivingskills of others, andpoor dependability under adverse weatherconditions.

The automobile is most frequently cited forits negative impacts on the community and onsociety:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

the internal combustion engine consumesdwindling petroleum supplies;emissions contribute substantially to urbanair quality problems;space is wasted because of unoccupied seatsand because most autos are larger thantheir function requires;garaging costs must be added to costs ofland, homes, and buildings;major urban core highway improvementsare very costly and bring additional trafficinto downtown streets;major improvements in roads and parkingfacilities require valuable urban land andadd to urban environmental blight;accidents resulting in injuries and death im-pose high public costs for police, rescuesquads, hospitals, and rehabilitation facili-ties;onstreet parking adds to urban roadwaycosts and visual blight; andthe automobile is not a satisfactory modefor the transportation disadvantaged whomust be provided with public systems toensure their mobility and accessibility tourban services.

Despite its negative features, the automobile hasbecome the dominant urban mode and it sets thestandard against which other travel options aremeasured.

Taxis—Like the private auto, taxis can traveleverywhere in the city and are available at vir-tually all times of day. They are not immedi-ately available like one’s own car but are muchmore convenient than scheduled transit service.To some, the lack of privacy may seem undesir-able. Shared-ride taxis can be significantly moreproductive in costs per mile and line capacitythan private automobiles. They can also pro-vide a high level of service to the transportation

disadvantaged, especially if used in conjunctionwith a subsidy program. Shared riding may besomewhat more time consuming because of theneed to serve other riders at the same time.

Vanpools—Vanpools operate at speeds com-parable to those of private automobiles or taxis.In terms of energy and economic efficiency theyare superior to most other surface modes. z

However, vanpools must take more roundaboutroutes to pick up and drop off all riders and aretherefore not well-suited to short trips. Vanpoolriders usually have to share a common destina-tion or origin in addition to a shared schedule.

Buses—The greatest benefits of buses onmixed streets are their low capital costs and highlane capacities. But the low average speeds andthe limitations imposed by fixed schedules andfixed routes are disadvantages compared tomore personal transportation forms, Buses canalso be uncomfortable. They lack privacy anddo not offer assured seating. Unlike the auto-mobile, the price of travel increases with groupsize.

FIhofo credit U S L3eparfmenf of Traflsportat/ofl

Buses in mixed traffic

Streetcars—Streetcars have larger capacitiesthan most buses but are less maneuverable.When a rail vehicle becomes disabled, followingvehicles are delayed, creating a nuisance to theflow of all traffic. Energy-wise, streetcars may

‘Richard L. Gustatson, H. N. Curd, and T. F. Gt)lob, “SurveyData: Measurement of User Preferences for a Demand-Respc~nsiveTransportation System, ” General Motors Research PublicationGMR-1057, 1971.

Ch. IV— Transportation Options ● 25

be advantageous where low-cost electricity isavailable. Maintenance costs are also higher be-cause of the added burden of track and power-line upkeep.

All transportation options operating in mixedtraffic experience a severe decline in service lev-els as congestion increases. Exclusive guidewayalternatives, on the other hand, move faster andmore reliably.

Exclusive Guideway Modes

There are six broad categories of systems thatoperate on exclusive guideways (or rights-of-way):

●

●

●

●

●

●

busways,heavy-rail transit (HRT),light-rail transit (LRT),shuttle-loop transit (SLT),group rapid transit (GRT), andpersonal rapid transit (PRT).

These six types of systems can be designed, in-stalled, and operated to suit a broad range oftransit requirements. Major system characteris-tics include vehicle and line capacity, number oftransfers, flexibility of routes, station spacing,number of stations, degree of automation, andfrequency of service.

The six broad categories of systems distributethemselves along a common continuum for sev-eral of these characteristics (see figure 4). Someof these characteristics are of maximum value atthe PRT end of the continuum. Others are ofmaximum value in the reverse direction. That

HRT ● LRT s

larger

larger

more

less

longer

less

less

s c h e d u l e d

is, any given characteristic of maximum valuefor HRT will be of minimum value for PRT, andvice versa. Busways should perform similar toLRT lines.

Systems at the HRT end of the continuumoffer high-capacity line-haul service in high-density corridors. Large distances can be cov-ered because the average speed is high enough tomake trip times acceptably short. However, sta-tion spacings are quite large, and transfers fromline to line maybe required.

l?wto credlf Chicago Trans(t AufhorIfy

Heavy-rail transit vehicle serving Chicago

At the PRT end of the continuum the line-haul capacity is lower, but shorter station spac-ing and direct origin-to-destination service ispossible. Currently, vehicles at this end of the–spectrum are incapable of achieving the higheraverage speeds of the larger vehicle but suchcapabilities could be developed. At the presenttime practical maximum trip distances for these

Figure 4.–Characteristics of Exclusive Guideway Systems

Buswav SLT ●

0

GRT ●

smal Ier

smal Ier

less

more

shorter

more

more

n demand

PRT

1

SOURCE Otflce of Technology Assessment

5 6 - 5 1 8 - 0 - 80 - 5


systems are shorter than for rail systems. Traveltime comparisons between PRT and HRT areanalogous to the fabled race between the tor-toise and the hare. Like the hare, HRT achieveshigh top speeds but is slowed by many stopsalong the way. PRT systems, operating withoffline stations that eliminate intermediatestops, proceed more slowly but, like the tor-toise, they achieve average speeds that are veryclose to their line speed. Thus, HRT and PRTcould achieve comparable trip times, despitelarge differences in top speed.

All-weather capability is sensitive to vehiclesize, as well as to running surface type (rail v.road). Rail has an inherent advantage in snowbecause of the elevation of the narrow runningsurfaces and because the very high contact pres-sures at the wheel-rail interface crush or liquefyice and snow. Special care is generally necessaryonly at switches where heaters may be needed tomelt ice and snow accumulations. Power railsand wires are susceptible to ice build-up, whichmust be removed with heaters, chemical solu-tions, or special scrapers.

Because good adhesion is critical to achievingsafe stopping distances, snow build-up on close-headway rubber-tired automated systems can-not be tolerated. The current practice for pre-venting snow accumulation is to heat the guide-way surfaces with imbedded electrical heaters orfluid-carrying pipes. To control ice on powerrails, special scrapers, heated glycol sprays, andheated power rails are currently used.

To date PRT, GRT, SLT, and HRT haveachieved the highest degree of automation. LRTis not currently at that level, but there is no in-herent reason that LRT on a dedicated right-of-way could not be fully automated. Automationis independent of vehicle form, as long as thelongitudinal control is properly matched to per-formance characteristics.

Buses on busways are still totally nonauto-mated in the United States. With the driver onthe vehicle, there is little incentive to automatethe busway portion of the trip, However, thereis no inherent reason to prevent buses from run-

ning manually in mixed traffic and automati-cally on a guideway. This concept, known asthe dual model bus, has been studied at theUrban Mass Transportation Administration(UMTA).

Comparison of Mode Classes

Modes in the mixed-traffic class offer severaladvantages:

. utilization of existin g roadway system;

● freedom of route selection;● high level of direct routing (for auto, van-

pools, and taxis); and● easy access for user-owned vehicles.

The exclusive-guideway modes sacrifice some ofthese advantages and must absorb the cost ofthe guideway. But their inherent advantagesmake them very desirable:

less subject to congestion delays, more predictable travel time,. more easily understood routes,● better potential for automation, and● less need for land.

It is interesting to note that streetcars (andtrolley buses) are limited in route selection likeguideway vehicles and also are subject to trafficdelays. Thus, they suffer from the disadvan-tages of both classes. This strongly suggests thatlight-rail vehicles should be provided with theirown right-of-way whenever possible.

Each of these categories has evolved to suit amarket need. The size range of conventionalsystems extends from large-capacity HRT sys-tems through buses, with a conspicuous gap, toauto-like transportation. A need exists to pro-vide transportation service that provides moreof the social, psychological, and convenienceneeds satisfied by the auto, but without thedrawbacks of congestion and parking. A part ofthe motivation for the development of small-vehicle automated guideway systems derivesfrom this need.

—

Ch. IV— Transportation Options ● 27

Desirable Future Service Options

The decline in market share for transit overthe past several decades indicates that currentlydeployed transit services do not satisfy the mo-bility needs of most people. Although it is stillnot entirely clear which service attributes aremost important to consumers, recent studiessuggest that in addition to cost and trip timemany factors such as assured seating, privacy,reliability, safety, and availability weigh heavi-ly in the choice of travel mode. -3 45 ‘

An important goal of transit R&D is to iden-tify important service attributes and improvetechnology so that it can better satisfy travel,psychological, and social needs at a reasonablecost. Development and validation of these newforms of transit service will give transit oper-ators a wider range of options and more flexibil-ity to satisfy locally defined urban transporta-tion needs.

Transit service could become more competi-tive with the automobile if improvements wereachieved in the following areas:

reduction of wait time and travel time byproviding service with limited transfers andwith few or no intermediate stops,areawide 24-hour service,group fares,high dependability and a minimum of serv-ice interruptions,guaranteed seating and a sense of privacy,andguaranteed service through commitment toa guideway.

Reduction of wait time and travel time.—Theautomobile provides service on demand and

I with relatively short travel times. Future transitoptions should more closely approximate theseservice levels. Trip time on transit can be re-

‘WI11OW, op. Clt‘Gustatson, c~p.clt.51<icha ret L. Gustatson and F. P. D. Nav in, “User Preferences for

Dial-A-Bus: A Comparison of Two Cities” (prepared (or presenta-tion at the Third A)I)IL{uI Demand Resp(lwue TrwrIsIt C-otlteretlce.Ann Arbor, Mich., June 1972).

“Joe] Miller, “Identification and Definition of the Mobility Re-quirements ot the Handicapped and the Elderly” ( unpublished doc-tt~r’s dlssertatlon, Northwestern Unlverwty, 1975).

duced by providing a vehicle on demand and or-igin-to-destination service with few or no in-termediate stops. Conventional systems couldprovide these service levels but the costs wouldbe prohibitive.

Areawide 24-hour service.—Because of cost,transit service does not operate at the same levelat all times of day. Some locations are served inthe peak periods only. At other times of day,service is much less frequent. As a result, it isvery difficult in many cases to make transferconnections or even reach a desired destination.Late-night service, if it does exist, may be per-ceived as unsafe to use because of the extendedwaiting time and because of the walking dis-tance from the system station or stop to theuser’s origin or destination. Guideway systemsare usually limited in extent because of the highinstallation costs of conventional designs. Auto-mation enables 24-hour service to be on callwithout having large numbers of operators onduty during slack periods.

Group fares.—For a family or a medium-sized group, round trip fares by conventionaltransit could cost significantly more than byauto, even when parking charges are included.Transit service charge could be by the vehicleinstead of by the rider. PRT and AGRT operat-ing in the demand-responsive mode could offerthis benefit.

High service dependability .—The reliabilityof the system and the ability to recover quicklyfrom failures are very important service attri :

butes. Because the most reliable of equipmentstill fails occasionally, an effective failure re-covery strategy is mandatory to contain the ef-fects of failures. Dependability also reducesmaintenance costs.

Guaranteed seating and privacy .—Studiessponsored by UMTA and others show that usersplace a high value on privacy and being assuredof a seat. The desire for adequate personal spaceis also related to the need for security. Some in-dividuals may prefer a vehicle in which they areguaranteed to be alone (PRT); others may preferlarge groups; still others may like a small group.


Photo credjt Japanese M/nistry of /nternattona/ Trade and /ndusfry

Automobile-sized transit vehicles offerprivacy and assured seating

System operational policies ultimately deter-mine whether or not seating and adequate spaceare provided. New options will need to be devel-

oped that offer privacy, security, and guaran-teed seating at a reasonable cost.

Guaranteed service through commitment to aguideway.—Both developers and consumers aremore likely to make locational decisions basedon a committed fixed guideway transit systemthan on bus service which could be here todayand gone tomorrow. Consumer choice of work,shopping, and housing location can, in turn, in-fluence the density of an urban area, althoughthese changes will come about slowly.

If a decision is made to deploy a heavy-railsystem (HRT), development will tend to concen-trate around the relatively few stations on thesystem. If AGT is deployed widely throughout ametropolitan area, development nodes will tendto be smaller and more dispersed than for HRTdue to the larger number of stations. But eitherform of exclusive guideway transit should en-courage higher density development than wouldsystems that operate in mixed traffic.

Future Technology Options

The research on exclusive guideway transitsystems could lead to many technological im-provements common to all AGT, includingAGRT. Improvements include:

●

●

●

●

●

reducing headways (thus increasing lanecapacity) via modernized controls, colli-sion avoidance systems, and improvedbraking;minimizing guideway intrusion and assur-ing all-weather operation through innova-tive design;improving emergency evacuation;integrating stations into existing commer-cial buildings to allow easy access, reduceconstruction costs, and stimulate business;increasing system capacity and efficiencythrough automatic vehicle coupling and bi-directional capability;

●

●

reducing travel and wait time and provid-ing point-to-point service by means of com-puterized vehicle management, offline sta-tions, and high-speed switching; andusing levitation principles to lift the vehicleoff the guideway for more efficient propul-sion.

Reduction of headways.—Traditional transitsystems use fixed-block controls to maintain ve-hicle separation. This scheme evolved from therailroads, where a stretch of track is dividedinto sections (blocks) with a minimum of at leastone open block between trains.

Modern technology allows the block to movewith the vehicle. The size of the moving blockvaries in relation to vehicle acceleration speedand braking capability. These moving blocks

Ch. IV— Transportation Options “ 29

can be adjusted automatically to shorten un-necessary vehicle separations and to achievehigher guideway occupancy without compro-mising safety.

Such a system appears to offer a level of relia-bility equal to that of the fixed-block system;however, the initial application of moving-block controls may raise questions of institu-tional liability. Improved braking is also neces-sary at closer headways. An early validation ofthis technology is warranted.

Guideway design.—While exclusive guide-ways allow vehicles to move unhampered byother traffic, they are perceived by some as anintrusion into the urban environment. Recentlyproposed guideways use lighter materials to re-duce their bulky appearance and to offer moreeye-pleasing architectural designs that willblend better into the surrounding cityscape. Ingeneral, narrow deep-beam guideways shouldcost less per unit length. Further study is neededto determine which guideway designs offer themost cost-effective operation in ice and snowconditions.

Emergency evacuation.—New systems mustallow for safe evacuation in cases such as colli-sion, fire, and snowbound vehicles. This prob-lem presents special difficulties in the case ofnarrow guideways and suspended vehicleswhich prevent the user from escaping on foot.

Station/building integration.—It is expectedthat future AGT stations can be integrated intonew or existing buildings. The degree to whichmerchants and developers will cooperate inachieving this integration, however, has notbeen established.

Automatic vehicle coupling.—Operations offixed guideway systems could be made more ef-ficient if vehicles could be automatically cou-pled into trains during periods of peak demandand uncoupled when the demand is light. Join-ing two or more cars togetherhile in motioninvolves a controlled collision similar in princi-ple to the docking procedure in spacecraft.

Reducing trip time.—Other promising tech-nological evolutions in control systems will fur-ther enhance and expand the capability of auto-mated guideway systems. The forecasted im-provements include higher average speeds (30 to60 mph), computerized vehicle management forpossible point-to-point service without trans-fers, and high-speed switching.

Track design for conventional railroads re-quires that a section of rail several feet longchange positions to direct trains onto alternativepaths. High-speed switches are usually con-structed by having a small component move onthe vehicle rather than in the guideway. Thisfeature allows vehicles to pass through switchesat very close spacing and facilitates the use ofoffline stations. These improvements can helpachieve assured seating, ride comfort, and pri-vacy. Comparable improvements are possiblefor conventional systems but the cost of thisservice has inhibited its introduction.

Levitation.—Some automated guideway sys-tem designs now use air or magnetic vehicle lev-itation in place of wheels for vehicle support.An advantage of contactless support is less wearon both the guideway and vehicle components.Although the guideways for levitated systemsmust initially be fabricated as accurately as forrolling vehicles, it is expected that reduced me-chanical wear will lead to savings in guidewaymaintenance. Even more significant is the po-tential total savings in maintenance of solid-state electronics in magnetic levitated systemsversus mechanical parts in wheeled systems.Levitated systems may also generate less noisethan mechanically suspended systems.

Both air and magnetic levitated vehicles re-quire energy for levitation in addition to the en-ergy required for propulsion. The longitudinalresistance of levitated vehicles, however, islower than that of wheeled vehicles. Develop-ment work is needed to improve sensing andcontrol to maintain the correct amount of levi-tation.


Implementing Technologies for Service Improvements

Development and introduction of improvedtransit systems and services are difficult andpainstaking processes. Unlike some applicationsof advanced technology such as the Apollospace program where a mission of short dura-tion is carried out in a controlled environment,transit technology must perform its mission forseveral years in a complex institutional, physi-cal, and social environment. Facile comparisonsbetween a successful space program and con-tinuing urban transportation problems havetended to overlook the complex operating andinstitutional environment confronting urbantransit.

In order to become viable transit options, newtransit technologies, such as AGRT, must beable to demonstrate high reliability in a real en-vironment that is acceptable to operators.

The service and technology options presentedin this chapter, although desirable, may not beachieved or implemented in a single action.These advanced technologies could be intro-duced through a technology evolution processwhereby a staged implementation would be car-ried out emphasizing the following steps:

● implementing automated guideway tech-nology in short segments to accumulate op-erating experience, leading to design im-provements in subsequent deployments,

● implementing automation to increase pro-ductivity,

● introducing system or subsystem technolo-gies where short wait time, travel time, andother service options may be provided atreasonable cost by modern control tech-niques, and

. introducing network technologies for pro-viding a full range of service options de-sired by users.

Unresolved Issues

●

●

●

●

●

acceptability of integrating stations intoprivately owned structures,maintenance of correct air gap in levitatedsystems,emergency evacuation procedures,all-weather operation, andliability questions concerning the use ofmoving-block controls.

Chapter V

IMPACTS OF ADVANCED GROUP RAPID TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY

Quality of Service

The advantages of AGRT over other transitmodes are due to:

1. its unique ability to provide station-to-station service with no transfers and fewstops on its own right-of-way, and

2. its high availability at all times of day dueto automation.

It can also provide high-capacity service byrunning multicar trains over fixed routes onfixed schedules.

The Urban Mass Transportation Administra-tion (UMTA) has yet to perform importantcomputer simulations and other studies thatwould indicate the congestion impacts causedby large numbers of people trying to use the sys-tem and that would indicate the tradeoffsamong vehicle size, system configuration, trippatterns, and other design and operating deci-sions.

The quality of service offered by a transpor-tation mode is measured by such variabIes astime, cost, comfort, convenience, reliability y,availability y, and coverage. Assuming thatAGRT would be operated and managed as wellas existing transit systems, its inherent ad-vantages are its potential for station-to-stationservice with no transfers and few stops and its

availability at all times of day. While it couldonly provide the same amount of coverage as abus system at appreciable cost, it would providesuperior service on all other variables (assumingthe security and emergency evacuation ques-tions can be adequately addressed). The guaran-tee of a seat, the possibility of on-demand serv-ice, and the prospect of fewer transfers couldgive AGRT a distinct advantage over othergrade-separated modes as well.

The flexibility of AGRT will allow it to re-spond to changing demand levels. At periods oflow utilization, the service would be “demand-responsive, ” with vehicles being routed to sta-tions as service requests are generated. Suchtrips would involve minimal stops and no trans-fers. During periods of higher demand, the vehi-cles can be operated in trains on fixed schedules,over prescribed routes, serving small clusters ofstations. In this latter case, service would besimilar to that of a conventional rail system. *

● In this manner it has been claimed that ACRT could be adapt-able to share the transit burden in relievlng a “fuel crisis, ” beingable to offer the same line-haul capacity as heavy-rail systems.Wh]le existing ~uideways would be adequate within a given cover-age area, stations would have tc~ be enlarged and addlt iona] vehi-cles and attendant Iacillties acqu]red.

31

—

32 Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology

Phofo credl( OTA s/a// photo

Wide-elevated guideways create visual blight but easieremergency evacuation

There are other amenities that can be pro-vided to make transit travel comfortable andconvenient. Some of these, such as air-condi-tioning, barrier-free access, seat comfort, sounddeadening, and simplified fare collection, arenot inherently unique to AGRT. Decisions to

implement AGRT rather than other optionsshould not be based on these factors.

UMTA material indicates that AGRT has acapacity of 14,400 persons per lane per hour forits AGRT systems. ] In practice it is virtually im-possible to achieve these capacities with single12-passenger vehicles operating individually at3-second headways. Guideways and stations,like highways, are subject to congestion thatwould severely impair service levels, i.e., time,convenience, comfort, reliability. AGRT vehi-cles operated in tandem could actually achievemuch higher capacities. Detailed computer sim-ulations to show the various tradeoffs of cost,travel time, capacity, and other factors areneeded to shed more light on this critical issue.

Unresolved issue:

the relationship between service levels, pas-senger trip demands, and other factors.

‘U. S. Ikpartm(’nt (JI Tran\p(~rtatl(~n,tl(~n Acimlnlstr.~tltJn, l<cqut’st torU“T-300 14, tfllgh l’t,rtormdn;c l’~,rw~ndlSy\t(>m, “ Feb. 20, 1974.

The Auto User

If provided with sufficient capacity, and if available at allshould be a more attractive alternative to the automobile thantransit modes.

times, AGRTconventional

The major rationale for AGRT is that it willhelp to reduce auto usage and all the attendantnegative impacts the auto has on the urban envi-ronment and on national energy policy. Inmany areas auto disincentives are being pro-posed to help deter people from driving, par-ticularly when they drive alone, in congestedcity districts, or during peak periods. However,for these disincentives (such as auto-restrictedzones or increased tolls or parking charges) tobe effective at instigating a shift to a transitalternative, the transit systems must possess twoimportant attributes:

1. capacity (to handle the influx) and2. a level of service close to that of the auto-

mobile.

For AGRT to truly be an effective alternativeto the auto, sufficient capacity must be providedto serve the new riders abandoning their auto-mobiles. In this respect AGRT is no differentthan any other transit mode. But where AGRTcan truly be an advantage over automobileusage is with some of the service attributes dis-cussed above under “Quality of Service. ” AGRTwould certainly be more attractive than buses inmixed traffic. Because of its ability to providemore stations at a fixed cost than light- andheavy-rail guideway systems and to offer non-stop non-transfer service, AGRT should, inmost instances, appear at least as attractive asconventional fixed guideway systems. Anothervery important factor is that AGRT would beavailable at all times of day, 7 days a week, a

.

Ch V—impacts of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology ● 33— — — — . —

feature absent from most transit systems today. terred from continuing to drive, AGRT shouldThus, for those auto users who would wish to be more attractive than conventional modes iftravel by transit or who might otherwise be de- capacity can be provided to meet demand.

Ridership

The service attributes of AGRT should enable it to attract significantlymore riders than ordinary bus service and at least as many riders as otherguideway modes. But additional studies are needed to determine consumerreactions and the magnitude of ridership impacts.

The service potential for an AGRT system issimilar to an automated shared-ride taxi takinga rider from origin to destination with only asmall number of stops. In theory, any systemcould be operated in this manner. In practice,only a small-vehicle system can efficiently pro-vide point-to-point (or, in this case, station-to-station) service without having either excess ca-pacity or a large number of stops.

On an overall basis when AGRT is comparedwith transit modes operating in mixed traffic, itwill attract higher ridership in the general areascovered because of its superior speed, comfort,and reliability. It will also benefit from allowingmost passengers to complete the AGRT portionof their trip without transferring. *

AGRT has no inherent speed advantage overconventional rail systems, but could attract

*W’lth h(’~vy rlder~h]p preliminary analy~l~ ha~ Indicated that Itmay lx more ett Icaceou\ t (~ opera te AC; RT WI t h a ~er]e> (~t (~ver-Iapplng tlxtd routes on tlxtd t requencle~, In thl~ manner some pas-w’nxc~r< m~ y ha V(I to t t-a nsier. l-or on-demand +er~’ ice, I t appearsthat all rlder~ would rect’lve a dlrc’c ( rldc

higher ridership due to its better coverage (for agiven construction budget) and reduced transferpotential. Not enough is known about how con-sumers would react toward UMTA’s AGRTconcept, versus a well-managed modern railsystem with guaranteed seating. It is likely thatthe choice between these two options would bebased on local factors in addition to ridershipforecasts, although AGRT should prove rela-tively more cost-effective for lower volumegrade-separated installations. As noted in theprevious section, AGRT could be spoiled by itsown success—with higher volumes congestingthe system, lowering service levels, and necessi-tating additional capital facilities.

Unresolved issues:

● consumer reaction t. advanced automated

systems versus other grade-separated tech-nology and

● the congestion impacts caused by a largenumber of people trying to use the system.

Special User Groups

Because of its potential for providing broad geographic coverage andstation-to-station nontransfer service, AGRT can provide significant serviceimprovements for special user groups.

In every urban area there are large numbers tions is of utmost importance if they are to haveof people whose mobility needs require special a P1ace in the mainstream of American life.attention in planning and designing public Other groups requiring special attention aretransportation services. For the poor, the cost women and the young.and availability of public transportation arecritical variables; for the handicapped and el- As a new mode, AGRT vehicles and stationsderly, physical accessibility to vehicles and sta- would be designed to be in compliance with ac-


cessibility regulations of section 16(b)2 of theUrban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (asamended)2 and section 504 of the RehabilitationAct of 1974.3 However, any other federally as-sisted new mode or new facilities (fixed or roll-ing) must also meet these requirements. The in-herent characteristics of AGRT do appear to of-fer some advantages to these special usergroups.

For all user groups, automated guideway sys-tems would be superior to nonautomated transitmodes because of their availability at all timesof day and night. Because of automation, serv-ice levels do not have to be sharply lowered inoffpeak hours to save the costs of operators orattendants. The transit-dependent, particularlylow-income shift workers, would benefit fromthis. Women, in particular, would benefit fromthe absence of long waits at isolated unprotectedbus stops after dark. The handicapped and el-derly would benefit from shorter waits for serv-ice, in contrast to long waits and unreliableservice frequently experienced with buses oper-ating on local streets, The absence of transferson fixed guideway systems (whether automatedor not) would also make travel easier. (On anall-bus system many of the handicapped are re-alistically limited to traveling to destinations ly -

‘Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Public Law 88-365, 78Stat. 302, U.S. C. vol. 49, sec. 1601 et seq. (as amended), sec. 16(b)2.

‘Rehabilitation Act ot 1974.

ing along only those bus routes passing veryclose to their residences. )

If AGRT can meet its construction cost goals,then more extensive coverage can be providedthan with other fixed guideway systems (forsimilar construction budgets). If such coveragewas provided in suburban areas, inner cityworkers would have better accessibility tooutlying job opportunities than they wouldhave with conventional fixed-rail systems.

There are two potential disadvantages toAGRT. First, if AGRT is provided in place oflocal bus service there will be fewer accesspoints to the system. Second, satisfactory solu-tions for emergency evacuation need to befound that meet the requirements for the handi-capped and elderly, particularly when sus-pended or narrow guideway systems are beingconsidered.

Wider doorways to stations and vehicles aswell as escalators and/or elevators for levelchanges would be an asset for all transit riders.But most particularly they would benefit thehandicapped and elderly in comparison to whatconventional alternatives provide. However,there is little reason to believe that the same ac-commodations cannot be provided on conven-tional systems. Thus, decisions to proceed withAGRT development to aid special user groupsshould consider the aspects of geographic cover-age and transfers.

Safety and Security

Automation enhances the safety (collision avoidance) of guideway tran-sit systems.

Passenger security is perceived as a problem when the ride must beshared with strangers, particularly on small vehicles with infrequent stops.

Methods to provide security in unattended vehicles and user response tosuch methods, remain as unresolved issues.

Wide= guideway bottom-supported systems offer the most satisfactoryopportunities for emergency evacuation procedures. Narrow guideway sys-terns are potentially less costly, less obtrusive, and less subject to winterweather operating problems; but no satisfactory emergency evacuationstrategy has been developed for them.

— . —

Ch, V—impacts of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology ● 35

Automation can enhance safety by eliminat-ing accidents due to human error and equipmentfailure. Those AGT systems already in opera-tion have exhibited superior safety performancesince they first began operation in 1971. ~

Security issues arise from uncertainties re-garding public acceptance of unattended sta-tions and vehicles. Unattended platforms arecommon in many transit systems and all busstops are, in fact unattended stations. The morelimited number of waiting points in AGRTwould appear easier to monitor and control.(Similarly, a heavy-rail system with yet fewerstations might offer a further advantage. ) Re-search has shown that crime rates at transit sta-tions parallel those of adjacent neighborhoods. s

Design guidelines are being prepared whichstress adequate lighting and unobstructed visi-

Photo credll L TVAC PR&A

Automated systems have proven safe in nonurban settings

‘The N1lTRE C(~rporatl(Jn, L/r/Jti/~ App/IcutI[~~Is ot A(iIIdtIci>cf

Croup RujIILi ~t’L?)151f A) I A/f[~rt~aflt~es AIIuIv515 Study, September1978, p. 140.

‘Ib]d., p. 144.

bility. Such treatment should reduce station se-curity problems for AGRT and other systems toa minimum.

There is little experience from which to assesssecurity in unattended vehicles. Currently de-ployed systems in Morgantown, W. Va.; in theDallas-Fort Worth Airport; and in numerousother airports, theme parks, and zoos have hadfew problems; but none of these systems operatein a typical urban environment.

Fire presents a very difficult problem for alltransit modes. Vehicles are vulnerable to fire inthe passenger compartments, in undervehicleequipment, and on nearby property. In-vehiclefires can be controlled with a more judiciouschoice of materials, a solution available to allmodes. However, should fire occur on or undera vehicle, the location of the vehicle will becrucial. Vehicles on the surface have the bestchance of being evacuated; passengers can walkaway from fires in tunnels if they are not over-come by smoke. Vehicles supported on wideguideway elevated structures can utilize thebuilt-in walkways; however, no generally ac-ceptable solutions are yet available for narrowguideways and suspended vehicles. Convention-ally powered AGRT, with a proliferation oftraction and control units, has a greater proba-bility of failure and delay than larger vehiclesystems. On existing elevated systems it is alsocommon practice to close sections of guidewaywhen fire occurs on adjacent property. Most ofthe concerns over fire also apply to the need foremergency evacuation of accident victims.

Unresolved issues:

● methods to provide security in unattendedvehicles (and user response to such sys-tems) and

emergency evacuation procedures.

Urban Development

Fixed guideway systems that provide not only line=haul service but alsocirculation and distribution within activity centers may enhance urban devel-opment potentials of the area served.

Urban development tends to occur in areas hance accessibility in station areas and thus sup-having high accessibility. Transit systems en- port development and redevelopment when car-

—


ried out in conjunction with other positive de-velopment policies such as zoning changes andeconomic incentives.

AGRT systems, by providing many small sta-tions rather than a few large stations, should en-courage medium-density development at manynodes, as opposed to higher densities at a fewconcentrated points. By combining line-hauland distribution service, AGRT systems shouldbe able to effectively serve dispersed activitycenters designed for automobile access. This lat-ter attribute suggests that AGRT systems mayprove more effective than existing transit modesin enabling central-city residents to obtain ac-cess to jobs in lower density suburban locations.

Many existing Federal programs influence ur-ban development patterns: housing, highways,water supply, waste treatment, and economicdevelopment to name a few. The AGRT pro-gram goals should be made consistent with acommon set of Federal policy goals.

Unresolved issues:

● the effects of AGRT systems on land use de-velopment patterns and

● the relationship of AGRT and its potentialurban applications to the programs andpolicies of the Department of Housing andUrban Development, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and other relevantagencies.

Energy and Environment

To the degree that the service characteristics of AGRT systems attracttravelers to use transit rather than the private low-occupancy auto, electri-cally powered systems should make a positive contribution to petroleum con=servation and maintenance of environmental quality.

For highly concentrated large travel demands,large-vehicle systems will be more energy-effi-cient. For periods of low demand, small vehiclesoperated as needed, without the requirement toprovide scheduled service, will permit energysavings by tailoring supply to demand. Selec-tion of an optimum vehicle size would have tofollow an analysis of local 24-hour serviceneeds.

Noise impacts of guideway systems will de-pend partially on the technology utilized. Rub-ber-tired vehicles would probably be similar tovans or panel trucks in noise impact. Air cush-ion systems, as in the proposed Otis vehicle, ap-pear to be fairly quiet. Magnetic levitation andlinear motor technology with no moving partsfor propulsion or suspension should be veryquiet.

The visual impacts of elevated guideways area very localized and subjective matter. In thecity of Miami, for example, both the rapid railand downtown people mover (DPM) systemswill be elevated. This form is apparently accept-able to the public in both residential areas andscenic areas such as Biscayne Boulevard. Miami

Beach, however, rejected the area’s elevatedrapid rail alternative because of the elevatedprofile. In Denver the elevated guideway issuewas also polarizing. From the rider’s point ofview, elevated travel may be more pleasing thanat-grade or underground service.

Electrically powered transit systems can helpreduce air pollution to the extent that personscan be attracted out of private autos. However,the overall effect of any benefits will depend onthe environmental characteristics of the powersource.

Snow and ice present particularly perplexingproblems for transit. Elevated guideway sys-tems could cause an environmental nuisance ifsnow and ice fall or drip on passers-by. Remov-ing them can entail great costs in energy andmanpower, if a complete shutdown is not forcedaltogether. During the harsh winter of 1976-77,more money was spent on the Morgantown sys-tem for natural gas to heat the guideway thanfor electricity during the full 12-month period. ’

Ch. V—Impacts of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology ● 3 7

credit

Photo

Suspended vehicles are less bothered by ice and snow. Narrow guideways are less obtrusive,but emergency evacuation is a problem


An I-beam (monorail) .design would accumulate Unresolved issues:less snow than some proposed U-shaped designs ●

that actually trap it. (The latter probably would ●

permit less dripping. ) Keeping the power railsfree from ice, snow, and frost is also an impor-tant consideration in assuring service depend- ●

ability.

esthetics of elevated guideways,an energy-efficient solution to maintainingoperations during ice and snow conditions,andoptimum vehicle size and speed for energyefficiency.

Electric-powered transit can help reduce air pollution

.

Ch V—Impacts of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology ● 39

Economics

Advanced AGT systems offer the potential to reduce the cost of publictransit. However, wide variations in estimates of capital and operating costs,for both automated guideway and existing systems, do not permit definitivecost comparisons to be made at this time.

Local site conditions and preferences may be more important factors insystem selection than the inherent economic characteristics of AGRT.

Although claims have been made that AGRTcan reduce the costs of urban transit operation,the data are not available to substantiate thesegeneralized claims. As recommended in OTA’s1975 report on AGT, UMTA undertook a pro-gram of socioeconomic research in conjunctionwith the new systems development program.Two studies on this topic have been completed,and

●

●

●

●

The

two more are underway.

The MITRE Corporation, Urban Applica-tion of Advanced Group Rapid Transit:An Alternative Analysis Study, September1978.N. D. Lea & Associates, Inc., Summary ofCapital and Operations and MaintenanceCost Experience of Automated GuidewayTransit Systems, June 1978.Cambridge Systematic, Inc., “AGT Mar-kets Study” (in progress).Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., “GenericAlternatives Study” (in progress).

MITRE study indicated that AGRT couldimprove transit ridership but the findings onsystem economics cannot be generalized. TheN. D. Lea study summarized the cost experienceof 10 existing systems, mostly in airports andtheme parks. Generally, these systems are verylimited in mileage and the results of their operat-ing experience are not directly applicable toAGRT. Cambridge Systematic and Barton-Aschman are doing further research on AGTmarkets with added emphasis on the “image” ofthese systems. The first study is investigatingAGT in general; the second is comparing AGRTwith 28 other modes or modal combinations.

One of the major decisions in urban transit iswhether or not to invest in the high costs of ex-

‘U. S Congress, Ottlce ot Technology Assessment Aut(>matwfGUIJWVJY Trtitwt OTA-T-8 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Govern-ment I>rlntlng Otflce, February 1975).

elusive rights-of-way and grade separations fortransit vehicles, be they bus, light rail, heavyrail, or AGT. Such guideways free transit fromthe constraints and problems of mixed trafficoperations and provide significantly betterlevels of service. However, it is not clear thatcertain operating economies made possible byan exclusive right-of-way will lower operatingcosts sufficiently to recover fully the investmentin guideway and stations.

When AGRT is compared to conventionaltransportation modes on a lifecycle-cost’ basisthere is too much variability and uncertainty inthe available data to come to any generalizedfindings. There are many tradeoffs involved andwide ranges of parameter values within anygiven mode. When the AGRT technology isavailable for urban deployments, local site con-ditions and preferences may be more importantfactors in system selection than the inherenteconomic characteristics of AGRT.

Because UMTA’s program has centered on adiscrete set of AGRT specifications, data are notavailable on other size vehicles or other systemconfigurations. It may be desirable to conductsystem optimization studies to determine the at-tributes of a broad range of AGT configurationsfor different applications before prototype sys-tems are designed.

A critical element of AGT costs is the designof the guideway. Narrow deep cross-sectionsare most efficient from a structural point ofview and may also be less obtrusive. Suspendedsystems, such as Romag, are usually of such adesign, but supported systems can also be de-signed as efficiently. U-shaped cross-sections are

‘Lllecycle costs Include c~perating and maintenance c~~sts tmgether with the c(w.t (Jt capital structures and equipment over thelife {~t the facility.

-.


much less efficient and in addition collect more ●

snow and ice in adverse weather environments.

Unresolved issues:

● the attainability of operating and main- ●

tenance cost goals,

the uncertainty of capital costs for variousconfigurations and the extent to whichthese may be reduced by improved guide-way design, andoptimum vehicle and operating proceduresfor various applications.

Employment and Productivity

The data are not available to determine the extent to which AGRT mightbe more labor-productive than other transit modes. UMTA should investigatethe potential reduction of jobs for unskilled persons brought about by sub=stituting automated systems for manually operated systems.

Several questions have arisen concerning thesize and mix of labor skills required to operateand maintain AGT systems:

1.

2.

3.

Will deployment of automated systemssignificantly increase or decrease the totalsize of the transit labor force?What skill mix of workers will be re-quired?Over what time frame would any changesoccur?

There are no clear-cut answers to these ques-tions.

Impact of AGRT on size of labor force

Automated guideway vehicles will operatewithout attendants and it is presumed stationswould be unattended. However, automatedguideway systems have a long list of labor cate-gories to fill: mechanics, machinists, electri-cians, cleaners, maintainers for all major sys-tems (guideway, power distribution, substa-tions), technicians (for fare-collection machin-ery, elevators, escalators, and communicationsequipment), and police, as well as engineers,planners, and administrative personnel. In itsstudy of 10 existing systems N. D. Lea stated,d, labor is generally the largest single. . .(operations and maintenance) cost compo-nent . . . “~

If an advanced automated guideway systemwere compared with a modern rail system withthe same size vehicles, requirements for main-tenance personnel would appear to be similar.

Although the automated system might requireadditional programmers and control room per-sonnel, the large savings in vehicle operators(and stations) should yield it a large labor ad-vantage. However, if the automated vehicle issmall and a large number of vehicles are neces-sary (as with the proposed AGRT vehicle) main-tenance requirements could be considerablylarger than for a conventional system. When anautomated system is compared with a bus sys-tem of comparable size, the labor tradeoff is inthe number of bus operators versus the numberof persons required to maintain vehicles andguideways. OTA has found no definitive studieson this issue and finds that further study is nec-essary.

Labor skill mix

Many of the jobs in a bus operation are re-garded as “unskilled’ ’-drivers, cleaners, andmany of the shop functions. Were an automatedsystem to replace all or a portion of a bus fleet,it is possible that many of these unskilled jobswould disappear. While a few more highlytrained technicians would be required for vehi-cle and system maintenance, the required skillmix for new systems is not well-understood.

Timing of labor impacts

UMTA’s scenario for automated guidewaysystems envisions small deployments in a fewcities beginning with the DPM demonstrations.“Advanced” technologies would then be im-plemented starting in the late-1980’s. If currentcapital funding policies are followed, these ad-vanced systems would be implemented in “oper-

Ch. V—Impacts of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology ● 41

able segments. ”9 Under such circumstances it isunlikely that any single urban area could have asubstantial automated guideway network inoperation before the mid-1990’s. At that timesocietal attitudes toward the substitution ofautomation may have changed. In any case therate of implementation would be gradual andexisting Federal law would ensure that no exist-ing employees were displaced. 10 Provisions ofexisting labor agreements also need review andrevision where necessary to be consonant withthe nature of AGRT operations.

Although it has been argued that AGRTwould be more labor-productive than othertransit modes, supporting data are not avail-able. However, labor relations and the potentialreduction of unskilled labor positions are im-portant social issues deserving serious con-sideration by UMTA.

Unresolved issues:

●

●

●

Summary

AGRT possesses several inherent advantageswhich give it great potential as an urban transitmode:

a less costly guideway that allows coverageto be increased (beyond that of conven-tional designs) for each dollar invested,

a guaranteed seat,● station-to-station service without the neces-

sit y to transfer, and● a high level of service at all times of day.

These characteristics can be provided on anymode. However, i t is the technological advancesof AGRT that make them more economicallyfeasible. In addition, the lighter less-obtrusiveguideway should make AGRT more estheticallyacceptable to the community.

Although AGRT appears to be a strong candi-date in local alternatives analysis, its suitability

will

the size and nature of the labor force re-quired for advanced AGT systems,the impact of existing labor agreements onthe deployment of regional automated sys-tems, andsocial impacts from the potential reductionin transit jobs for unskilled persons.

largelv be determined bv local site-specificconditions. The purpose of UMTA’s AGRT pro-gram is not to develop a universally best-suitedmode, but to make available to cities a new setof options, which, with adequate funding, willbe preferred in many applications.

The most serious deficiency of AGRT plan-ning is a satisfactory procedure for evacuatingpassengers in a hurry. The best approach is todesign in such a way as to minimize the numberof instances in which evacuation is required.Failure to resolve this issue will severely limitthe range of opportunities for AGRT deploy-ment. Two other areas need more serious con-siderations by UMTA: labor issues and the sys-tem optimization studies.

.

Chapter VI

GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS IN ADVANCEDGROUP RAPID TRANSIT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Results of these investigations show:

● that there are substantial national differ-ences in R&D policies,

● that Government should become involvedin only those specific technologies whichsupport national policy objectives,

● that there are major policy options betweenpromoting R&D or supporting Govern-ment procurement of innovative technol-ogies, and

. that technology development and technol-ogy demonstration ought not to be con-

.1 U.S. C[>ngress, C)ttlce c~t Tec-hnt>logy Assessment, Go~wrtlme~rt

/JIZT(l/ZTenic}~t 1)1 t/itJ /tItIc>z1[~tJ(lII Pr(~c(’ss OTA-R-73 (Washington,11. C U.S. G(~vernmcnt I’rlntlng Ottice, August 1978).

‘U.S. Cc~ngres\, OttIce (>} Techn(~l(lgy Assessment, T/~c Rt)/c o/[){’))lo)~strafl(l)ls J) I Fdcra/ R<. 1) P()/Icy OTA-R-70 (U’ashington,[>. (_ : U.S. G(}vernment I’r}ntlng OttIce, July 1978).

‘U. S. Department of Commerce, “Domestic Poltcy Review ofIndustrial Innovati~~n, ” b$’ork Plan, Sept. 18, 1978, Washington,D.C.

4AdVISC~ry Subcomrnlttee t]n Ecc~n(>mlc and Trade Pc}llcy ol theAdvlw~ry ~f~mmlttee t~n Indu\tr]al lnnt~vatlon, “Dratt Report onEc(~n(~mlc and Trade P(~lIc y, Dec 20, IW8, Washington, D.C. –An advls~~ry c(lmmlttee c(~nvenecf b}’ and reporting to the Secre-tary (lt Ct~mmerce.

fused when moving innovation through thedifficult transitions from concept to de-ployment.

They further indicate a growing concern in theUnited States and several other mature industri-alized societies that industrial productivity isdeclining or stagnating and that incentives forstimulating innovations which might reversethis trend are either lacking or not workingproperly. Much of the emphasis in some coun-tries, most notably Japan, has been on innova-tion that would make those nation’s industrialbase more competitive in international markets.

5Advisory Subcomrnlt tee (>n I’r~>curement and Direct Suppc>rt otResearch and Develc~pment c~t the Aciv]sor-y Comrnlttee on Inciu\-trial Innovation, “Draft Report on Federal Procurement I’ol]cy, ‘Dec. 22, 1978, Washington, D.C. —An advisory c(~mmlttee c(~n-vened by and reporting to the Secretary ot C“[~mmerce.

“Organization for Economic Cc~operation and Development,Policies for the Stitt~u/titio/? of lt~dustriul ltI)IozIatIL)tI, V(>lume 1—Analytical Report; Volume 11- 1—Country Reports Canada-France-West Germany -ltaly-Japan-Unl ted States-United Klngciom;Volume 11-2—Country Reports Australla-Austria-Denmark-F]n-land-Ireland-Netherlands-Norway-Spain-Swecie n, Paris, 1Q78.Available in English or French versions.

43

— . — — .


Photo cred/f Japan M/n/s try of /nternafiona/ Trade and Industry

Japan develops advanced transportation technologiesto penetrate international markets

Among the reasons that the question of Gov-ernment/ industry relations is important is thenear demise of the U.S. transit vehicle industry*at a time when “Buy America” is a stated policyof the Urban Mass Transportation Administra-tion (UMTA) and other Federal agencies. As of

● At least that segment (~t the Industry wl]ling to market veh]cleswhich meet the cri terla t{~r Fedcra 1 assistance.

this writing there are no American-owned man-ufacturers of light- and heavy-rail passengercars and only two reluctant domestic manufac-turers of full-size transit buses. The factors thatinfluenced this decline need to be identified toensure that advanced group rapid transit(AGRT) does not suffer a similar fate. The dis-integration of U.S. industrial capability in thetransit industry has coincided with an era ofsubstantially increased Federal involvement inthe planning, funding, and management of tran-sit. Shifting Government procurement policies,with unrealistic design standards and leadtime,have accounted in part for the demise of thetransit supplier industry. Future policies on de-velopment of AGRT and other advanced tech-nologies in urban transit should be looked atwith these industry impacts in mind.

Each of the remaining three sections of thischapter considers an important justification forGovernment involvement in developing publictransit technologies. The three justifications are:

●

●

●

to reduce barriers to innovation caused byunique problems of developing technol-ogies for public sector clients,to deal with issues of foreign competitionand trade, andto support other long-range national policyobjectives.

Barriers to Innovation

The complex institutional and regulatory process surrounding the pro-curement of urban transit systems inhibits private suppliers from developingthe innovative technologies necessary to meet today’s transit needs.

The complexity of the public institutional ar- rather than a current problem, often find no po-rangements and decisionmaking processes that tential client agency present at all to deal withinfluence deployment of new technologies in ur- the long-range future.ban settings is perhaps the biggest barrier to in-novation which the private sector faces in devel-oping new technologies. Since established sys- For these reasons private sector firms oftenterns, procedures, and expectations are difficult fail to show interest in developing products forto change, incremental improvements are often such difficult and uncertain markets. One majorpreferred to significant departures from tradi- response that Government could take would betion. System suppliers are reluctant to develop to guarantee a market for innovative products,unique innovative systems when competition is rather than to provide R&D grants to get therequired for governmental procurement. And technology developed. Market guarantees areproblem-solving technologies aimed at a future, considered further in chapter VIII.

Ch. VI—Government/lndustry Relationships in Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology Development 45

Another barrier to innovation comes from areluctance on the part of major corporations tobecome involved in potentially risky ventures.Unsuccessful attempts to meet rigid perform-ance and reliability requirements serve to dis-credit the supplier more often than those respon-sible for creating unrealistic specifications. Thehigh visibility of transit systems contributes toan atmosphere of confrontation between suppli-ers and their public clients, making resolution ofproblems more difficult than in private sectorcommercial transactions.

The lack of markets for publicly supportednew technology also limits involvement. Boeingwas awarded the Morgan town contract in 1970,but has yet to garner another automated guide-way deployment contract. Otis, the otherAGRT contractor, still has only its single de-ployment at Duke University, a nonpublic cli-ent. Boeing-Vertol, with UMTA assistance, de-signed and built the standard light-rail vehicle, atechnology which will probably not see servicebeyond Boston and San Francisco. Three do-mestic bus manufacturers (General Motors, AMGeneral, and Grumman Flexible) have alsoclaimed that the brief run of recently developedfull-size transit buses will not allow them torecoup their investment in design and tooling.All declined to submit bids for the first attemptat a transbus procurement on May 2, 1979.

While local governments supposedly havecontrol over technology selection through thealternatives analysis process, automated guide-way systems are rarely given serious considera-tion. Federal regulations for capital grants re-strict system considerations to “operable seg-

ments”7 whereas the strongest market for AGRTappears to be in regional or multicorridor de-ployments.

If the institutional structure itself is notenough to constrain the enthusiasm of systemsuppliers, then the lack of enthusiasm on thepart of system purchasers may be the tellingblow. Transit operators, conservative by na-ture, and a cautious public are re!uctant to takea chance on unproven systems given the adversepublicity generated by recent Federal demon-strations and deployments of new technologies.In several cities visited by the OTA staff for thisassessment, the main operator reaction was adesire for additional buses to relieve currentovercrowded conditions. Pressed with such im-mediate problems, they show little interest insolutions that will not be available for another10 years.

Government involvement is no guarantee ofsuccess in developing new technologies. Asidefrom the controversy surrounding several newU.S. technologies, two important foreign ven-tures were also unsuccessful. The transurbantechnology of Kraus-Maffei sponsored by theProvince of Ontario was abandoned after severetechnical problems developed. Japan’s CVS sys-tem, although successfully demonstrated on anextensive test track, has not yet been deployed.Moving a complex public technology from lab-oratory to deployment is a difficult process withthe potential for great financial risk and politicalembarrassment.

‘U.S. Dc’partment c~t Transpt~rtati(~n, Urban hlas~ Transp[}rta-tion Admlnistrati{>n, “Maj(~r U r b a n Mas\ Tran\p(~rtatl(ln Invest-ments: Statement c~f I’c)l]cy, ‘ Fdcral Rcglsfcr, vol, 41, N(). 185,Sept. 22, 1976, p. 41513.

Foreign Competition and Trade

The potential of broad international leadership in the transit technologyfield is not a credible prospect for U.S. industry. However, the possibility ofcomponent or system leadership in automated guideway transit remains ifpursued more deliberately than in the past.

While the United States is carrying out its terns that may enter the international marketown programs of advancing transit technology perhaps well ahead of U.S. technology. A morethrough development of downtown people immediate concern to those interested in ques-mover (DPM) and AGRT system development, tions of technological leadership and trade bal-foreign industries are making progress on sys- ances, however, is the near demise of U.S. pro-

— —


ductive capacity in more traditional transit tech-nology. Both in the areas of light- and heavy-rail car production, U.S. firms have left the fieldafter losing out to foreign suppliers on the lim-ited procurement activities in this country. Thepotential of broad international leadership inthe transit technology field is not a credibleprospect for U.S. industry given both themakeup of the existing supply industry and thegeographic dispersion of the transit system re-placement demand concentrated in Europeancountries. However, the possibilities of compo-nent, product, or system leadership may remainin certain niches of the transit spectrum if theyare aggressively pursued in a more systematicmanner. Whether or not the rewards of such arestricted development strategy are worth thecosts is a major question, however, given boththe softness of the U.S. market for such ad-vanced technologies and the foreign competitionunder development.

The status of various forms of group rapidtransit and personal rapid transit abroad as of1975 was well-documented in the previous OTAassessment, Automated Guideway Transit, 8

The programs which are proceeding abroad thatseem to have relevance to the AGRT programhere in the United States are the Cabintaxi andH-Bahn systems in West Germany, two Japa-nese systems under development in the Kobeand Osaka port districts, and the French Aramissystem. The Cabintaxi system which has hadtest track demonstrations in Hagenf West Ger-many is now being deployed in an outlying sub-urban portion of Hamburg. The system, underthe sponsorship of the industrial consortium ofMesserschmidt-Bolkow-Blohm and DEMAGand the Federal Ministry of Science and Tech-nology, has performance characteristics veryclose to the specifications UMTA has set forAGRT. The initial development costs are shared80 percent by the West German Federal Govern-

“U.S. Congress, Office ot Technology Assessment, AutomatedGuldeu)ay Tram/t, (XA-T-8 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, February 197s),

ment and 20 percent by industry, although thesystem originated as an industrial initiative. Asit enters the demonstration stage, local govern-ment and the Federal transportation ministrywill begin cost-sharing with the system devel-oper.

Japanese systems under development are per-haps more modest technologically than theWest German system, but they are proceedingwith considerable active support by localgovernments in Kobe and Osaka.

In France, the Aramis system, under develop-ment by Engins MATRA, has gone through sev-eral test track demonstrations near Paris, buthas not emerged to a point of major develop-ment. The VAL shuttle-loop system is being in-stalled in Line. Studies involving the RATP, orParis Metro Authority, have been done for sub-urban installations linking the regional trans-portation system, but no final decision on a de-ployment has been made.

A summary of prospective foreign competi-tion indicates an interesting contrast. Techno-logically, foreign developers appear to be on apar with accomplishments in the United States.A limited number of systems have been de-ployed in the benign operating environments ofamusement and activity centers, and more ad-vanced technologies have been investigated ontest tracks. However, only the West GermanCabintaxi system appears technologically ad-vanced over anything tested to date in this coun-try. On the other hand, only the U.S. systemshave operating experience akin to what mightbe encountered in real urban settings. TheMorgantown and Airtrans systems are the twomost complex and extensive systems in dailyoperation anywhere in the world today. Foreigncompetitors, therefore, would appear to trail inthat important step of technology and servicedemonstration. However, if the HamburgCabintaxi demonstration succeeds, technologi-cal leadership could shift overseas.

Ch. VI—Government/lndustry Relationships in Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology Development ● 47

Long-Range Objectives— An Intermediate Recipient

To overcome the absence of interest in Iong-range solutions by publicagencies, an intermediate recipient for technological innovation could be cre-ated similar to those developed in West Germany and Japan to stimulate in-dustry over the long term.

AGRT technology and even more advancedperformance system concepts might continue tobe funded and programed by UMTA or theymight find a better institutional home elsewherein Government. One of the critical issues raisedin the OTA report on Government involvementin the innovation process 9 is whether or notCongress should provide direct support for non-mission-oriented technology. Mission-orientedtechnology is that directly relevant to the mis-sion of the agency conducting the research ortechnological development. It appears thatUMTA’s involvement with AGRT might be adirect mission-oriented portion of its urbantransit role. But the foreign experiences leadingto development of advanced forms of transittechnology have almost all been examples ofnon-mission-oriented agencies taking the lead.

In Japan, the Ministry of International Tradeand Industry took the lead in encouraging thedevelopment of CVS, not for the express pur-pose of improving urban transit, but instead forthe promotion of numerous facets of Japan’ssteel, electronics, computer, and other indus-tries seeking new product developments andnew markets. The Ministries of Transportationand of Construction did not take an active rolein this now dormant program. In West Germa-ny, the lead in supporting the development anddemonstration of the Cabintaxi system is againin the Federal Ministry of Research and Tech-nology and not the Ministry of Transportation.Similar cases exist in the United Kingdom,France, and Canada where the initial effortsaimed at creating a small-vehicle automatedtransit system were championed by special non-mission agencies interested in technological in-novation for industry’s sake and incidentally fortransportation mission outputs.

In the United States no such agency existswith the exception of the Federal laboratories

and the National Science Foundation. However,as stated in a recent OTA report, the conceptmay be advantageous:

This policy [of having only mission-orientedtechnology] differs markedly from the practicesand procedures of other technologically ad-vanced nations, notably Japan, in which theGovernments support technological innovationwith no other goal than the general economicone of helping particular sectors of industry togrow and to compete in international markets.

Increased attention has recently been focusedwithin the Government on ways in which, in co-operation with the private sector, it might seekto stimulate and encourage technological in-novation through programs of direct support ofsome kind. There are three basic reasons for theheightened interest in such programs. First, theUnited States is facing increasingly stiff competi-tion in technology-based products from othernations that have programs for the domesticsupport of technological innovation for purelyeconomic purposes.

In addition, the social returns on technologi-cal innovation are often greater than any reason-able expected private return, due to the inappro-priability of some of the benefits, which make aFederal sponsorship role appropriate. Lastly,there are purely social reasons for supporting in-novation. An example of these is the general de-sirability of creating employment. 10

Other such R&D programs exist, albeit withdifferent missions and host mission-orientedagencies. They may face the same troubles oftiming, lack of constituencies, and risk-sharingthat AGRT does. Perhaps out of the Presidentialinitiatives on industrial innovation or out of thecongressional oversight and review of them,some multiagency approach to improved Gov-ernment/industry relations could be developedthat would benefit the long-range prospects forAGRT and other urban or institutionally com-plex public technologies.

‘“Ibid.


SummaryAGRT technology should be viewed in the

context of broad national policy with regard toGovernment/industry relations and to the dem-onstration of public technologies in real-worldsettings. Much experience has been accumulatedin recent years on both of these subjects, ex-perience that is highly relevant to the questionsof timing, cost, and fundamental approach tothe development, demonstration, and ultimatedeployment of technologically advanced formsof public transit.

Significant barriers inhibit transit innovationin American cities:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

the complexity of the local transit decision-making process;insufficient markets, which are too limitedfor the competition;Government-subsidized foreign competi-tion;risks of technological failure and poor sys-tem management;risk of adverse publicity, cost overrun, andpolitical embarrassment;the cautious approach to innovation oflocal operators and decisionmakers;the overriding concern at the local level forsolving immediate problems versus long-run planning;

adverse procurement regulations that dis-courage innovation; andfrequent changes in Federal regulations thatmay not give suppliers large enough pro-duction runs to justify their investment indesign and tooling.

The examination of foreign competition inautomated guideway technology reveals thatpractical operating experience rather than tech-nological issues should maintain a domesticpreference for American systems over the nextfew years. However, this may change as claimsfor the West German Cabintaxi become verifiedin actual operations.

Rather than have UMTA justify to its constit-uency of transit operators, urban mayors, andcurrent users the long-range benefits of develop-ing AGRT or of the related technologies, it maybe more advantageous for an agency such as theNational Science Foundation, or other high-technology agency, to make the arguments forfinancial support and bear the responsibility forfailure or success. A second option would be todecentralize responsibility for transit R&D.These and other options deserve further study.

MARKET SCENARIOS–INNOVATION

——

Chapter Vll

IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

AGRT Implementation ScenariosIntroduction of a public technology into the

real world is a complex and poorly understoodprocess. Innovative urban transit technologiessuch as AGRT share much in common with thatclass of technologies found most likely to fail inOTA’s recent study of Federal demonstrations.These failures result from: 1) technology that isnot operationally reliable and 2) the complexityof the urban institutional environment.2 Thesefactors should be thoroughly evaluated before adecision is made to deploy AGRT systems.

Chapter V contains an assessment of howwell AGRT might function in daily urban tran-sit service. But it is also necessary to sketch outimplementation scenarios that trace the path ofthe technology from development through pro-totypes to demonstration, deployment, andconsumer acceptance. Major transit investmentssuch as the downtown people mover (DPM)proposals or possible AGRT installations areregarded as demonstrations by the Urban Mass

‘Cathc’rln~ Burke, l)~~li)~’uflt)t[ Itl P[(h/It- PCJIIC.V TIIII CL~st~ L)I Pt~r-+,)tIIJI KL/lIIt/ Tt[J)I+It ( Lexlngt[)n, hl~~s. : D. C. Heath & C(],, 1979).

-U S C{~ngress, Ottlce ~~t Tt’chn(>l~~gy A\w’s\mt>nt, ~l~c l<olc oj/~(7})/~J/j+ltfjf{~>}/~ })1 ~d(7r~~/ l<<? l) p(>~jcv, OTA-1<-70 (Washingt(>n,[~ C, U S [;(lvernment I’rlntlng ottlce, ]UIV 1978), pp. 31 -41 .

Downtown People

OTA’s 1975 report on AGT systems recom-mended that UMTA undertake an urban dem-onstration of shuttle-loop transit (SLT) technol-ogy. ’ UMTA chose central business districts as

‘U S. C(}ngres\, Ott Ice ~~t Tec hn(~l(~gy A\ws\ment, AI(t(IItILIt[ufGl(l(i(’uwu Tr”[?)l$lt OTA-T-8 ( W.~shlngttJn, D. C,: U. S, C(Jv-t’rnmen t J>nn tlng 0}1]( t’, February I Q75 ~, p. 7.

Transportation Administration (UMTA), butare expected by local authorities to be provensystems capable of reliable daily operation.Thus, all automated guideway transit (AGT)deployments over the next few years will be sub-ject to intense international scrutiny of their reli-ability, cost, and service characteristics. In thiscountry the institutional complexity of the tran-sit implementation process will ensure that thesepaths are not trouble-free.

While large-sized cities already committed tolight- or heavy-rail systems might be in a posi-tion to accept new automated guideway tech-nologies only in limited applications as dis-tributor systems, more modest-sized communi-ties without existing rail systems might prefermodest scale applications that could be ex-panded incrementally into corridor or regionalsystems. This is quite likely to be the reaction oftransit operators, elected officials, and the com-munity-at-large, as well as being pragmatic forcapital spending purposes. This incremental ap-proach of applying proven technology in meas-ured doses is suggested by recent literature ondemonstration programs.3

‘lbId., p. 48.

Mover Deploymentsthe application site for these demonstrations,and opened up the eligibility criteria to includeany proven AGT technology, be it SLT, grouprapid transit, or personal rapid transit. * In fact,

49

——— —


UMTA has called for the first three deployments terest groups. Thus, the implementation processto use different technologies. To direct primary as well as the actual system operations arefocus on the social and economic impacts, worth observing and monitoring to guide theUMTA decided that technological risk should AGRT development and implementation pro-be minimized. gram. As several of the R&D options discussed

While UMTA regards these ventures as dem-onstrations, the cities themselves are treatingthem as deployments. Because the impacts arereal and long-lasting, the local decisionmakingprocess reflects the concerns of the various in-

in the next chapter indicate, AGRT technologydevelopment could continue during this process,but with a goal toward subsystems developmentrather than toward the completion of produc-tion prototypes.

Summary

The scenario for implementation of advancedof gradual technical improvement and deploymentable segments. The DPM program and the foreignvaluable information that will be useful in guidingway technology development.

AGT technologies is oneof systems in short oper-deployments will providefurther automated guide-

Chapter Vlll

OPTIONS FOR AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSITRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Federal Government can bring about ad-vances in AGT technology by supporting effortsto improve existing technologies or by guaran-teeing eventual procurements to motivate tech-nical discoveries.

The approach of market guarantees raises arange of issues touched on in several of the re-ports cited in chapter VI. In particular, OTA’sreport on industrial innovation stated:

Most Federal programs intended to affecttechnological innovation have historically beenconcerned with the supply of new technologies.Accordingly, they have attempted to increasethis supply by, for example, reducing the cost ofdevelopment, undertaking research in publiclysupported laboratories, increasing the rewardsof innovation, etc. This policy emphasis has re-sulted in part from a widely held, but overlysimple, view of the innovation process whichsees R&D as the overridingly important aspect.In contrast, recent research emphasizes the com-plex interconnectedness of various stages in theinnovation process and recognizes that marketdemands are often a more important motivatorof innovation than technical discoveries.

Evidence suggests that policies which workthrough influences on demand may often bemore effective than those which concentrate onincreasing supply. One way of influencing de-mand is by Government procurement. Evidencepresented earlier in the report shows that anassured Government market for new productscan be an effective stimulus co innovation. This

Introductionconclusion is strongly supported by the foreignexperience.

The downtown people mover (DPM) pro-gram sought to provide that assured market,but the apparent withdrawal of Cleveland, St.

Photo cred~l Of Is E/evafor

Downtown People Movers being planned inseveral U.S. cities

51


Paul, and Houston from the program demon- weigh the benefits. The cities must be convincedstrates how difficult it is to guarantee a market. that new technologies will help solve significantEven when the Urban Mass Transportation Ad- transportation problems at reasonable cost.ministration (UMTA) offers to pay 80 percent of There is growing doubt at the local level thatthe capital cost there is no assurance that cities federally sponsored transit R&D will providewill cooperate, if they conclude the risks out- workable solutions at an affordable cost.

Program Options for Advanced Technology Development

This section describes four specific supplyside options that would lead to the availabilityof advanced automated guideway technologiesin the late 1980’s. The first two options wouldfocus on laboratory improvements. The lattertwo would proceed to test track settings for vali-dation of the existing advanced group rapidtransit (AGRT) technology as an integrated sys-tem.

Option 1:Emphasize the Upgrading ofExisting Technologies

The first objective of this option is to upgradeexisting AGT technologies to the point wherethey will be able to provide viable urban transitservice. None of the existing AGT systems havebeen subjected to the rigors and high expec-tations of the urban travel market. They areoperating in much more benign environments—amusement parks, shopping centers, and air-ports. To become more viable options for urbandevelopment, they need improvements in reli-ability, durability, speed, capacity, security,and cold weather availability. The lack of astable market for urban automated guidewaytechnology precludes existing suppliers from up-grading their own technologies for such a mar-ket. At the present time UMTA is supporting alimited amount of such development with foursystem suppliers.

The second objective of this option would beto put improved systems into service as early aspossible. For example, these technologies, as im-proved, could be used in the DPM demonstra-tions, or existing AGT installations could beretrofitted. This approach will provide morenear-term results than the more advanced tech-nology options that will not be production

Photo credit L TVAC PR&A

Near-term option—upgrade airport systems for use in cities

ready following current schedules before thelate 1980’s at the earliest.

The third objective of this approach, if pur-sued to the exclusion of other options, is to de-lay work on advanced technologies until manyof the unresolved issues identified in chapter V(see table 4) are further analyzed.

Table 4.–issues Requiring Further Analysis*

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Guldeway and station congestion ImpactsConsumer reaction to advanced automated guideway systemsMethods to provide security in unattended vehiclesEmergency evacuation proceduresEffects on land use development patternsRelationship to other Federal programs and policlesAcceptability of the esthetic Impacts of elevated guldewaysImpacts of snow accumulation and options for solutlonOptimum vehicle size and speed for energy efficiencyAttainabllity of AGRT operating and maintenance cost goalsOptimum guldeway shapeOptimum vehicle and operating procedures for various appilcatlonsSize and nature of required labor forcePotential reduction In jobs for unskilled personsImpact of existing labor agreements

‘This IISI IS a summary of the unresolved issues listed at the end 01 each of [he secltons m ch VSOURCE Off Ice of Technology Assessment

Ch. Vlll—Options for Automated Guideway Transit Research and Development “ 53

Photo credlf O(IS Elevator

AGRT must be able to operate in ice and snow

Option 2:Emphasize CriticalSubsystems Development

The Federal Government would support ac-tivities related to the development of sub-systems or components that comprise the newtechnologies in AGRT (see table 5). The even-tual goal of this form of the program would beto combine these subsystems into a working sys-tem (or family of systems). This program wouldthen differ from UMTA’s automated guidewaytransit technology (AGTT) program which isworking on more general problems such assafety and security and cold weather reliability.As with Option 1, the results of this program asthey come online could also be applied to exist-ing new systems. In some cases they could alsobe applied to conventional bus and rail as wellas to automated technologies. Decisions on thefinal shape(s) of AGRT would be deferred.

A shortcoming of this approach is that a real-istic systems environment is needed to verify in-tegrated component operations.

Table 5.–Typical Features of Advanced AGT Systems

● Linear induction motors ● Automatic training● Air-cushion suspension ● High-speed swltchlng. Magnetic Ievitatlon c Goods handllng● Mowng-block controls ● All-weather operation● Colllslon avoidance radar ● Safety and security systemsc Minimum guldeway cross-section Emergency braking

SOURCE Off Ice 01 Technology Assessment

Option 3:Validate Subsystems in aSystems Environment

This option would provide the realistic sys-tems environment necessary to test the interact-ing relationships of components but defer theadditional costs of full-scale prototype develop-ment. A sample test configuration would in-clude a small number of breadboard vehicles, amodest amount of guideway, and perhaps twoor three switches. The validation programwould be designed: 1 ) to verify that the testedcomponents perform as expected (command andcontrol, vehicle operations) and 2) to producereliable cost estimates for decisions on furtherprogram direction.

Option 4:Develop and ValidateTechnology on PrototypeSystems

Complete prototype systems would be de-veloped for one, two, or three of the technol-ogies and engineering validation completedyielding production-ready systems. The proto-types would adhere to the UMTA AGRT speci-fications, although actual urban deploymentsneed not adhere in all respects to the same de-sign. As an example, a complete prototype vali-dation would include multiple vehicles and suf-ficient guideway to test high-speed operationand switching. This testing would verify suchfunctions as merging, longitudinal control,headway maintenance, and collision avoidance.Those functions that cannot be verified on thetest track would be simulated in the laboratory,using computer analysis as required. UMTA hasestimated this process as taking about 6 0months.

The advantages and disadvantages of thesefour options are summarized in table 6. Theseoptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.Option I could be carried out along with any ofthe other three. And OTA does not imply thatthere are clear-cut distinctions between Options2, 3, and 4. In fact, there is a natural evolu-tionary process. The real distinctions among the


options are in the amount of commitment that budget considerations and the need for furtherCongress wishes to make at this time given information.

Table 6.–R&D Options for Achieving AGT Technologies–Pros and Cons

Option Pros Cons1. Emphasize the upgrading ● Much to offer from existing AGTs, ● Slowest option for achieving deployable advanced technologies.

of existing AGT technology ● Improves marketability of exlstlng AGTs, ● Yields modest AGT technology and service improvements.(le., DPM) ● Lowest level of technological risk ● Risk of Boeing and Otis leaving program.

● Allows time for other studies, ● Increasing technology gap with foreign systems.● Defers major technological commitments,● Benefits many suppliers and technologies.● Incremental Innovation widely supported,● Does not outpace market for urban AGTs.● Least costly in short run.

2. Emphasize critical ● New subsystems immediately deployable, ● Slow option for achieving deployable technologies.subsystems development c Low technological risk, ● Major subsystems require a systems environment for engineering

● Allows time for other studies. verlflcatlon● Defers major technological commitments, ● Risk of Boeing and Otis Ieawng program,● Benefits other suppllers,● Supports Incremental Innovation.● Low short-run costs,● Can also Include Option 1,

3 Validate subsystems in ● Avoids costs of full prototypes. ● Involves a technological commitment,a systems environment ● Provides a realistlc environment for subsystems ● Forecloses other technologies,

verlflcatlon● Provides cost estimates.● Malntalns supplier interest (Boeing and Otis),● Includes Option 2, can Include Option 1.

4. Develop and validate ● Fastest option to achieve program goals. ● Highest technological risk,technology on prototype ● Maintains continuity and stability of program, ● Forecloses other technologies,systems ● Maintains suppller interest (Boeing and Otis), ● Marketabdity unsure,

● Includes OptIons 2 and 3; can Include OptIon 1. ● Highest cost In short run.● Reduces technology gap with foreign systems

SOURCE OTA staff analysls

Number of Prototypes

Competition would create incentives to encourage economy and auster-ity in both system design and development and satisfy local requirements forcompetitive bidding.

Money spent on the development of alternative systems can be relativelyinexpensive insurance against the possibility of picking an inferior alter=native.

A subsidiary question related to Options 3and 4 concerns the number of prototype systemsto be funded at this time should either of theseoptions be selected. The OTA findings in thisregard are derived from the conceptual stanceoutlined in chapter 111 that AGRT is but onepotential configuration within a multidimen-sional option space. Other developmental pro-grams within UMTA are more broadly based.The AGTT program, for example, is working

on a number of problems (i. e., safety andsecurity, cold-weather operation, guidewayconfiguration) with wide applicability to auto-mated systems, both existing and advanced.The DPM program, designed to demonstrateoff-the-shelf automated guideway technologies,is open to a wide variety of offerings includingvarious size vehicles, monorails, and suspendedtechnologies.

— —

Ch. Vlll—Options for Automated Guideway Transit Research and Development ● 55

Evaluation of R&D program options shouldconsider the recommendations of the Commis-sion on Government Procurement and theguidelines on procurement subsequently issuedby the Office of Management and Budget asspelled out in Circular A-109. The essence ofthis policy is to maintain competition betweensimilar or differing designs as long as mainte-nance of such competition is economically feasi-ble. Some of the principal arguments in favor of

concepts, particularly with respect to commandand control, suspension, and propulsion sys-tems. The cost of preserving these options, atleast through the technology verification stage,is small in comparison with the cost of a singledeployment. The retention of multiple suppliersis also consistent with Federal and local procure-ment requirements which favor a competitivebidding process. Critics of this approach claimUMTA is paying twice to solve the same mis-

retaining competition are listed in table 7. sion and that ‘other

There is a substantial degree of technological preaches to the urban

diversity offered by the three AGRT system also be considered.

missions or other ap-transit dilemma should

Table 7.–Principal Arguments in Favor of Retaining Competition

Arguments In favorof competition Tradttlonal procurement process Competltwe acquisition process

Provides flexibility for—There IS no hedge against tallure

dealing with technologicaluncertainty

Allows for greater Innovation

Provides for greater controlover costs

Allows for performance asas well as pricecomparisons

Since Government has made the design declslons about thebest approach to meet a need, private sector contractorscompete for the development and production of a ‘ ‘requiredsystem’ and do not offer their own best solutions at thewlowest costs. Consequently, there IS Ilmlted opportunity forcontractor Innovation and technical competition, contractorsfind it easier to promise the customer what he wants, ratherthan to Innovate and demonstrate new products

Large firms tend to acquire a technical base based on theirexperience with successful products and their customers’tastes Although smaller firms are likely to have more mltla-twe and to be more Innovative, they are usually discouragedfrom competing because the competition begins late In theprocess, when the costs are highest

With only a single organized effort underway to meet a need,system performance and scheduling sllppages have to beaccommodated by additional funding. As a result of thismonopoly sltuatlon, costly and burdensome controls andregulations must be applled to a greater extent than In com-petitive procurement to prowde public accountability.

There are no standards to measure the efficiency of a singleundertaking and no competition to ald In choosing the bestsystem. Source selections have depended less on technicaldifferences between proposals and more on contractor pre-dicted costs at a time of great technical uncertainty about thechosen system In relying on these cost predictions for Inltlalsystem procurement, Insufficlent weight has been given tosystem performance and to the costs that are eventually tobe paid for operating, supporting, and maintaining the sys-tem

Money spent on the development of alternative systems canbe relatively inexpensive Insurance against the posslbllltythat a premature choice of one approach may later prove tobe a poor and costly one

Competltlon would reinstate a challenge to Industry to use awider span of technologies for system solutions that are oflower cost and simpler design

Competition would create Incentwes to encourage economyand austerity In both system design and development

Competitve exploration of technical approaches should pro-duce dlstlngulshably different system performance charac-teristics Technical differences would then become moreImportant crlterla for choosing systems and contractorsthan In the past when differences mainly Involved designdetail and an uncertain cost

SOURCE Report of /he CommIssIorI on Government Procurement VOI 2 1972


Magnetic Levitation Technology

At this early stage in the development cycle there is no sound technicalbasis for discontinuing work or providing any promising technology withsignificantly less funding. Magnetic levitation is a particularly promising op-tion because of its low noise and high reliability potential.

The suspended Romag technology (see figure ● through the use of 1inear induction motors3), originally developed by Rohr, and licensed and magnetic levitation, the propulsionto Boeing in 1978, has several features of par- and suspension systems have no movingticular merit: parts and hence, more reliable operating

●

●

it is believed more suitable for wintercharacteristics.

operations; Although its development is currently receivingthe guideway shape is closer to a structural less funding than the other two AGRT technol-optimum, reducing costs and guideway ob- ogies, Romag exhibits highly desirable charac-trusiveness; and teristics as an alternative.

FundingThe program proposed by the Department of

Transportation in early 1978 raised the totalcost of the AGRT development program to $111million (see table 2) which included the esti-mated effect of inflation through to an antici-pated completion date in early 1984. This planwould spend $40 million each on the Boeing(wheeled) and Otis (air cushion) technologieswith $5 million being devoted to Romag. Thislevel of effort corresponds to Option 4. Ac-cording to data from UMTA, $14 million of the$111 million had been spent through April 1979.

Early in 1979 UMTA scaled down these plans,Contracts recently negotiated with Boeing andOtis provide approximately $25 million to eachcontractor for further work on the wheeled-vehicle and air-cushioned systems. Boeing willalso receive $9 million to continue developmentof magnetic levitation technology. Cost of therevised plan including prior expenditures totals$73 million. A decision to develop productionprototypes has been deferred.

Possible funding levels for Options 1, 2, or 3(table 8) acknowledge that the optimum devel-opment course to advanced AGT systems is notclear at this time and that technological optionsshould be kept open as long as possible. Using arecent grant to upgrade Airtrans as a guide, thefirst option could entail costs of up to $5 millionto $7 million per technology. As a guide to costs

Table 8.–Estimated Funding Levels for Advanced AGT Options

Near-term programOptIon cost (millions)

1 Emphasize upgrad!ng of exlstlng AGT technology $15-30”2 Emphasize crltlcal subsystems development $20-40”3 Validate subsystems In a system environment $60-80”4, Develop and valldate technology on prototype

systems (UMTAFY 1979 proposal) $97

“OTA siafl estimatesSOURCE Olflce of technology Assessment

for Option 2, UMTA proposes to spend $13million on engineering alone for the Boeing(wheeled) and Otis (air cushion) technologies,were complete prototypes to be planned for atthis time (table 3). Additional manufacturerscould be included adding to costs or some syner-gism introduced among the AGRT technologiesto reduce costs.

Creation of a limited systems environment(Option 3) would have to include most of the

full-system engineering costs, but only a portionof the fabrication costs. Savings could thusamount to up to $8 million to $10 million pertechnology. Assuming the two Boeing technol-ogies would use a common command and con-trol system, the requirements for Option 3would be on the order of $60 million to $80 mil-lion.

Table 8 shows $97 million as the cost-to-com-plete of Option 4, based on the current plan of

Ch V///— Options for Automated Guideway Transit Research and Developmenf . 57

two full prototypes, and about $5 million for for system validation so that additional re-Romag. It is possible, however, to reduce the sources could be diverted to accelerate the de-amount of prototype guideway and structures velopment of magnetic levitation technology.

Goods Movement

A study should be undertaken to determine the extent to whichautomated systems could be used to transport some kinds of goods in urbanareas, thus reducing road congestion and spreading the cost of automatedguideway system construction.

Joint use of transportation facilities to moveboth people and goods is a historic practice, per-mitting the required capital investment to bespread over a greater number of users. The pre-dominance of trucks for urban goods movementis a result of the ubiquity of the highway sys-tem, the ability of users to operate trucks sizedto their specific needs, and the control of the in-dustry over the timing of shipments.

The possibility that an automated systemcould be used for shipment t~f a substantial por-tion of goods in urban areas deserves considera-tion. Not all commodities could realistically beserved. The most likely applications would befor goods moving in large volume to or fromcommon supply or collection points such asmail or waste. Retail outlets might be included ifenough of them are close enough to guideways

credit OTA

An AGRT system capable of carrying goods as well as people could reduce costs


to provide short inexpensive sidings. In any ur- Unresolved issue:ban application the type and volume of goods-handling potential will depend on the character-

. the potential markets that could use AGTfacilities for goods movement.

istics of the local economy and the locations ofthe system.

Nonautomated Guideway Transit Options

AGRT is but one option to improve urbantransportation. Its development should not pre-clude continuing investigations into a number of ●

other promising areas for the future:

●

●

●

transportation systems management forbetter utilization of existing passenger vehi- ●

cles and rights-of-way;dual-mode buses or cars that can operate in ●

mixed traffic under manual control and inan automated mode on a guideway;automated roadways to free the motorist ofthe responsibilities of vehicle control and to

Summary

provide safer operation free of human errorand erratic behavior;personal rapid transit, an automated guide-way mode (see figure 2) with separate smallvehicles for each traveler or group of per-sons traveling together;telecommunications research to find waysto reduce the need to travel; andalternative land use policies which, in thelong run, could affect the need to travel, thelength of travel, and the mode of travel bychanging the relative proximities and den-sities of activity centers.

AGRT is being developed as an additionaltechnology to help cities meet their needs forpublic transportation. As an alternative toAGRT, Option 1 would upgrade and deploy ex-isting automated guideway technologies for ur-ban use in the near term. The second optionwould continue further studies while also begin-ning work on those subsystems that would ulti-mately be required for an advanced AGT tech-nology. The third option would add to the sec-ond by providing a realistic systems environ-ment in which to test these subsystems in in-tegrated operations. The fourth option, repre-senting essentially the program proposed byUMTA in 1978 and subsequently revised wouldproceed directly with the construction and test-

ing of prototype systems leading to a produc-tion-ready technology by the mid-1980’s.

This assessment has identified several criticalinformation gaps. The selection of one or moreof the first three options would allow more timefor analysis of these issues, which could impactmany of the design decisions for advanced auto-mated guideway systems. There is also a need todetermine further what significant differencesexist among the AGRT technologies. For thisreason and for reasons of system competition itwould seem desirable that development shouldcontinue on all technologies until better in-formation becomes available on which to basethe selection of preferred alternatives.

o

Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology · Assessment of PRT and Other New Systems.This...

Documents

Transcript of Impact of Advanced Group Rapid Transit Technology · Assessment of PRT and Other New Systems.This...