aats cost comp_g tegner_2005!11!06

8/14/2019 AATS Cost Comp_G Tegner_2005!11!06

1/37

PRT Costs Compared to Bus, LRT and

Heavy Rail Some Recent Findings

Paper to be presented at:

AATS European Conference in Bologna 7-8 Nov, 2005

Advanced automated transit systems

designed to out-perform the car

by Gran Tegnr, , M Pol.Sc.

TRANSEK Consultants,

Sundbybergsvgen 1A, SE 171 73 SOLNA, Sweden

[email protected] Mobile phone: +46-707-21 30 74


2/37

PRT Cost Comparison AATS Conf 7-8 Nov, 2005

2 Transek AB


3/37


3 Transek AB

CONTENTS1 ABSTRACT...............................................................................5

2 AIM OF THE STUDY ................................................................5

3 AVAILABLE DATA....................................................................6

3.1 PRT Cost Data..........................................................................6

3.2 Traditional public transport costs ..............................................6

4 A TRANSIT COST MODEL ......................................................7

4.1 Model assumptions...................................................................74.2 Passenger capacitities..............................................................8

4.3 Model results ............................................................................9

4.4 User costs...............................................................................11

4.5 A Comparative Example .........................................................13

4.6 Sensitivity analysis..................................................................15

4.7 PRT compared to traditional transit ........................................17

5 CONCLUSIONS AND REFLEXIONS .....................................19

5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................19

5.2 A personal reflexion ................................................................20

REFERENCES................................................................................22

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................23

APPENDIX 1: PRT COSTS ............................................................24

Capital costs....................................................................................24

PRT Capital cost comparison..........................................................26

PRT Operating Costs ......................................................................27

APPENDIX 2. COST COMPARISON .............................................30

Capital costs for guideway ..............................................................30

Capital costs for vehicles ................................................................31

Economic life time and discount rate ..............................................32

Operating costs ...............................................................................33

APPENDIX 3. OTHER COMPARATIVE COST DATA....................35


4/37


4 Transek AB


5/37


5 Transek AB

1 ABSTRACT

In the EDICT project, a comprehensive social benefit-cost analysis was carried out as regards the

merits of a Personal Rapid Transit System for the Kungens Kurva (Kings Curve) Area in Huddinge,

south-west of Stockholm, Sweden. As a part of this project, the costs of the ULTra PRT system wascompared to a few other prototype PRT systems, such as the Taxi 2000 system (Skyweb Express) and

the Austrans Group Rapid Transit.

In a recent project, financed by the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, we compared Capital and

Operating Costs on a per passenger-kilometre basis between Bus, LRT, Metro and Commuter Rail

services in Stockholm.

In this paper, the cost comparisons have been broadened to include PRT as well. This means that the

cost structure of PRT can be compared to the costs of the Bus, the LRT and the two heavy rail modes.

Consideration has been taken to capacity limits, the economic life time of various components, such asthe guideway, stations and vehicles.

A cost model has been developed in order to make it possible to compare various transport modes in a

consistent way and we have elaborated the cost data from recent studies (see appendices) and applied

in the model.

The major findings are the following ones:

PRT is the cheapest mode of urban public transport in a wide range of passenger demand

The bus mode is the second cheapest mode, but it has a limited capacity

LRT is a cheaper mode than the heavy rail modes up to some 25,000 passengers per day (inboth directions)

Over the full practical range of demand levels, the total capital plus operating costs per

passenger-kilometre for the PRT mode is less than 1/3 of a LRT system and also cheaper than

Bus in the lower range, relevant for the bus mode.

PRT is therefore a most cost-efficient mode of urban transport. This paper will summarize these

results.

2 AIM OF THE STUDY

PRT is a brand new mode of (urban) public transport system, not yet in full operation anywhere. After

some 40 years since it was originally launched in the mid-1960, there are still just a couple of test

tracks for prototype systems. The pretended merit of PRT is always questioned by the transport

authorities almost everywhere.

If it is so fantastic, why hasnt PRT been implemented yet somewhere, is a typical question.


6/37


6 Transek AB

It seems promising, but the costs must be high or at least very uncertain, is another typical question.

The aim of this study is to investigate into the cost of PRT and to compare PRT costs to the costs of

traditional urban public transport, such as the Bus, the LRT, the Metro and the Commuter Rail modes,

respectively. We will examine both the capital cost of the infrastructure, the capital costs for vehicles

and the operating and maintenance costs. However, the costs for traditional transit modes are restrictedto empirical data for the Metropolitan Stockholm Area. All costs are in 2002-2003 price level.

3 AVAILABLE DATA

3.1 PRT Cost Data

PRT cost data is in a sense not quite comparable to the costs of the traditional public transport modes,

such as the bus, LRT and heavy rail modes, as PRT is not yet in full operation anywhere.

Nevertheless, there are many impressive efforts from PRT developers and others that have undertaken

serious attempts to calculate the PRT costs very careful. The data sources used in this brief

comparison are the following ones:

ULTra PRT costs obtained from prof. Marin Lowson at Advanced Transit Systems Ltd.

(investment and operating cost model)

ULTra costs obtained form the EDICT project

ULTra costs from the comparison between calculated PRT costs for Cardiff compared to

tendered PRT costs from two independent building companies (refers to the guideway costs)

Skyweb Express costs obtained from PSrof. Edward J. Andersson at Taxi2000

Austrans costs obtained from Austrans

General PRT Costs obtained from ATRA

As Austrans is a Group Rapid Transit rather than a pure PRT system, Austrans cost would yield an

upper cost boundary for PRT costs.

3.2 Traditional public transport costs

The cost for the traditional urban public transport modes are in general based upon metropolitanStockholm data. The public transport authority in the county if Stockholm, the Greater Stockholm

Transit Company (AB-Stor-Stockholms Lokaltrafik, SL) have excellent records. Investment cost data

are derived from recent LRT and Commuter rail projects in the Stockholm area. Investment costs for

Guided bus are derived from the Zuidtangent project in Amsterdam (42 km). LRT Cost is also

compared to several other European cities.


7/37


7 Transek AB

4 A TRANSIT COST MODEL

In this chapter we present a Transit Cost model, where we use the information presented in earlier

studies, presented in appndices. First the underlying assumptions are briefly presented, and second the

resulting model is presented. In a third section a comparative example is given when PRT and LRT iscompared, with the aim to show how much transit one gets at the same amount of investment capital.

In a fourth section a sensitivity analysis is presented.

4.1 Model assumptions

The following model assumptions form the basis for the comparative cost model:

All capital costs are converted into an annual capital cost, using an annuity formula

The annuity is calculated a 4 % real discount rate and according the expected life time of the

various types of investment (track, vehicle, station, depot etc.)

From the capital cost for the infrastructure, the capital cost for vehicles are deducted. The

remaining capital costs (for tracks and stations) are regarded as fixed and independent of the

number of daily passengers, while the vehicle costs area assumed to be dependent on the level

of ridership.

A minimum and a maximum range for the passenger capacity is calculated for each type of

transit system. For the heavy rail modes it is based on the number of cars per train

A minimum service level of a 15 minute headway is assumed

A maximum service level of 5 minute headway is assumed for the traditional transit modes

such as bus, LRT and the heavy rail modes. The theoretical minimum time between departures

might be somewhat lower, say 2 minutes, but then passenger loading and unloading times at

stations will be restricting the actual practical capacity.

For the separate BusWay a 2,5 minute headway has been allowed

For PRT 2 second headway is assumed to be the maximum service level (and 5 minutes as a

minimum level).

The peak demand is assumed to amount 10 % of the daily demand

At the maximum service level the practical passenger capacity is assumed to amount 85 % of

the total theoretical, due to an uneven distribution of arrivals

All costs (annual capital costs for the guideway and stations, for the vehicles and the operating

and maintenance costs) are calculated at a 10 kilometre standard trip.


8/37


8 Transek AB

4.2 Passenger capacitities

The passenger capacity at minimum and maximum service levels is presented in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Vehicle and daily passenger capacity for various transit modes according to assumptions

Transit modeCap./veh.(seated

& stand)Vehicles pertrain (min)

Vehicles pertrain (max)

Passenger/train (min)

Passenger/train (max)

Daily pass.cap.at min service(2 directions)

Dailypass.cap. at

maxn service(2 directions)

City Bus 119 1 1 119 119 9 520 24 276Bus Way 119 1 1 119 119 9 520 24 276LRT 106 2 6 212 636 16 960 129 744Metro 138 6 9 828 1 242 66 240 253 368

Commuter rail 150 6 8 900 1 200 72 000 244 800AGT 106 2 6 212 636 16 960 129 744

PRT 4 1 1 4 4 57 600 122 400

The daily capacity for the analyzed transit modes is also presented in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Daily passenger capacity for various transit modes at minimum and maximum service levels

Daily passenger capacity at minimum and maximumservice level for various transit modes

-

25 000

50 000

75 000

100 000

125 000

150 000

175 000

200 000

225 000

250 000

275 000

City Bus Bus Way LRT Metro Commuterrail

AGT PRT

Daily pass.cap. at min service (2directions)

Daily pass.cap. at max service (2directions)

The vehicle passenger capacity figures for the traditional transit modes are derived from the Greater

Stockholm Transit (SL) Company. PRT yields a fairly high daily capacity in spite of its small vehicles.

This is due to its extremely high frequency of service.


9/37


9 Transek AB

4.3 Model results

The cost model is calculated in the range from 5,000 and up to 250,000 daily trips.

To summarize the final findings of this research task, one might conclude that PRT is the cheapest

urban public transport mode among the studied ones, such as Bus, LRT, Metro and Commuter rail, see

Figure 2 below:

Figure 2. Annual Investment and O & M costs per passenger-trip (10 km) for various transit modes

Total cost per passenger-journey(10 km) for various transit modes

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000

City Street BusBus WayLRTMetroCommuter railAGTPRT

per Passenger journey (2 directions)

PRT

Street Bus

Bus Way AGT

LRT

Metro

Commuter rail

In Figure 2 above, both investment and operating and maintenance costs are compared. A standardized

urban journey of 10 kilometres has been used for the comparison.

The average cost per passenger is 2,50 for the street bus in its capacity intervall up to 25,000 daily

trips. All other modes show declining average costs as ridership grows

The BusWay mode (run on bus-only lanes) is defined to have a maximum capacity of 50,000

passengers per day and both directions and within this limit, the BusWay mode is the cheapest of all

the traditional modes above a ridership of 10,000 journeys. The overall cost per passenger amounts

about 2,5 per 10-kilometre trip for bus (with a variation from 5,5 down to 2 per 10 km trip for

the BusWay). The main reason for the low bus cost is the lack of infrastructure cost for the guideway.

The only relevant costs are the capital cost for vehicles and the operating and maintenance costs (O &

M costs). Here we assumed that for the urban standard city bus, the road network is already built,


10/37


10 Transek AB

mainly for car traffic. The Bus Way reflects the costs for a bus-only street corridor, such as the

Zuidtangent Bus lane in Amsterdam.

The LRT mode is the second cheapest traditional urban mode up to the same passenger load, 25,000

passengers per day (both directions). The average costs for LRT varies from 7,1 per trip down to

4,12 per trip (the latter at 25,000 passengers). At 25,000 passengers per day, LRT is about 64 % moreexpensive per passenger trip than the city street bus.

The two heavy rail modes, Metro and Commuter rail show a rather similar cost pattern. These two

systems are built to handle high passenger volumes, even much higher than the 50,000 passengers per

day shown in Figure 2 above. At higher loads, say from 25,000 passengers per day, the commuter rail

is 4 % cheaper then the metro system, 4 compared to 4,12 per trip. At even higher loads than

25,000 passengers per day, commuter rail becomes even cheaper than the metro system.

At a load of about 30,000 passenger journeys per day, the metro and commuter rail modes become

cheaper than the LRT-mode. At 50,000 passengers per day, the average cost is 3 for the metro and 2,60 for the commuter rail, compared to 3,75 for the LRT per 10 km trip. Metro and rail is thus 20 %

- 30 % cheaper than LRT at this demand level. The average cost per trip falls sharply for the two

heavy modes, as ridership increases, due to economics of scale. The explanation for this is that the

metro and rail investment costs are very high, while the operating costs are very low per passengers

compared to the LRT mode.

In Figure 3 below a variant of the cost model is shown, with respect to the minimum level of service,

i.e. at least 15 minute headway for all traditional modes, and 5 minute headway for the PRT mode.


11/37


11 Transek AB

Figure 3. Annual Investment and O & M costs per passenger-trip (10 km) with respect to minimumservice (15 min headway) for various transit modes

Total (producer) cost per passenger-journey

(10 km) for various transit modes

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000

City Street BusBus WayLRTMetroCommuter railAGTPRT

per Passenger journey

PRT

Street Bus

Bus Way AGT

LRT MetroCommuter rail

In this case, the cost per passenger-journey at the lower ridership levels becomes higher, as the

capacity necessary to provide the minimum service will exceed the travel demand. The average cost

functions thus become steeper, especially for the heavy modes metro and rail but also for LRT. In this

case LRT becomes more competitive towards the two heavy rail modes, with lower LRT cost perpassenger-journey up to 45,000 trips per day.

PRT is still the cheapest mode, with about half the cost per passenger-journey compared to the

BusWay at 25,000 passengers per day, and less than 1/3 of the LRT cost.

4.4 User costs

Another aspect of the total cost srructure is the cost per trip, that the traveller beears himself/herself.

These so called user costs, usualy consist of the follwing travel time components and of a fare:

Walking time

Waiting time

In-vehicle time

(and sometimes also: Transfer time)

Fare

Form the Metropolitan Stockholm Area, Table 2 is derived with realistic averages for travel time com-

ponents, headway and fare level:


12/37


12 Transek AB

Table 2. Travel time components and generalized time and cost for traditional and PRT modes inStockholm

Generalized Generalized GeneralizedMode of transport Walk Headway Wait In-vehicle Total time Time, min Cost, /10 km trip

incl. a 2 fareBus 15 30 15 40 100,0 100 12,6LRT 5 10 5 24 44,0 44 6,7

Metro 10 4 2 14 29,6 38 6,0Commuter rail 15 15 7,5 12 49,5 57 8,1PRT 5 < 1 0,5 17 22,2 29 5,0

Travel time weight 2 2 1Travel time value, per hour 6,4

User costs per 10-km trip

Time components in minutes

Source: Stockholm Data and own calculations

The generalized tiome is calculated with the weight of two (2) for walk and wait time, and the

generalized cost is calculated with an average travel time value of 6,40 per hour. A 2 fare per trip

has been assumed equal for all transit modes.

As can be seen from Table 2, the PRT mode shows the lowest user cost per trip of all modes.

Compared to the Bus mode, PRT yields only 60 % of the total generalized cost. The Metro mode has a

19 % higher Generalized Cost compared to the PRT mode. The generalized cost thus includes the

weighted travel time components and the fare. When combining both the producer cost and the user

cost into a total cost per 10 km trip, a quite different picture shows up:

Total (producer & User) cost per passenger-journey(10 km) for various transit modes

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000

City Street Bus

Bus WayLRTMetroCommuter railAGTPRT


PRT

Street Bus

Bus Way

AGT

LRT

Metro

Commuter rail

Compared to the bus mode, the total producer and user cost for PRT is 55 % lower; compared to LRT

PRT is 40 % cheaper, and compared to the heavy rail modes, PRT costs are 50 % and 56 % cheaper

respectively. For the bus mode, user cost is 5 times higher than the producer cost. Fore heavy modes

they are fairly equal, while for LRT, PRT and AGT user costs are between 1.6 and 3.2 times higher

than the producer costs. PRT is the cheapest mode also when the user costs are included.


13/37


13 Transek AB

4.5 A Comparative Example

Assume a budget for public transport investment of 125 mUS$, or 104 m. Let us compare a typical

LRT corridor line with a PRT loop system. What could be obtained for the same amount of investment

money?

A) A LRT System

With a LRT system the optimal station spacing is about 700 meters.

Figure 4. A LRT line for 125 mUS$

A LRT System investment cost 125 mUS$:5 km track & 8 stations:

The main LRT results would be:

An area within 600 meter of walking distance: 9 sq.km

Number of served inhabitants: 23 500

Practical headway: 5 minutes (2-3 minutes theoretical) Average door-to-door speed: 15 km/hour (incl. walk and wait time)

Travel time for a 5 kilometre ride: 20 minutes without road congestion

Hourly passenger capacity at 5 minutes headway: 2 544 pass

B) A PRT system

A PRT would be designed in loops rather in a corridor fashion. For comparative reasons, we have kept

the same station spacing as for the LRT system, to yield the same walking distance.

However, with PRT the optimal stations spacing is rather 250 meters.


14/37


14 Transek AB

Figure 5. A PRT network for 125 mUS$

A PRT-system - Investment cost: 125 mUS$:

20 km track & 33 stations

The main PRT results would be:

An area within 600 meter of walking distance: 37 sq.km

Number of served inhabitants: 97 000

Practical headway: 5 seconds (theoretical: 2 seconds)

Average door-to-door speed:23 km/hour (incl. walk and wait time)

Travel time for a 5 kilometre ride: 13 minutes irrespective of road congestion

Hourly passenger capacity at 5 seconds headway: 2 880 pass


15/37


15 Transek AB

Figure 6. Performance comparison between LRT and PRT.

Performance comparison LRTPRT

20 23,513

97

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Trip time 5 km, min Residents served, 1000's

LRT PRT

The conclusion is therefore, that the served area, and, consequently, the number of served residents,

would be four times higher with PRT compared to the LRT system. Also, the door-to-door travel time

might be roughly only half (or slightly more) with PRT compared to LRT. This is not only due to the

much shorter waiting times, but also attributable to the total absence of necessary deceleration, stand

still and acceleration times at all the intermediate stops en route with the PRT, with its off-line

stations1.

4.6 Sensitivity analysis

How competitive will the PRT mode be compared to the other, more traditional transit modes, if we

change the economic life time for the PRT guideway, stations and vehicles? A PRT is an automatic

light mode, and cheaper in construction compared to the heavier modes, one might argue that the

duration of the fixed and roiling stock equipment might be substantially shorter. As Taxi 2000 does,

let us assume the following life time for the various types of equipments:

1 See M. Lowson, ATS Ltd: Service Effectiveness of PRT vs. Collective Corridor Transport. EDICT,

European Commission,. Technical Note ATS TN 2002-10. Document date: 2002-11-29


16/37


16 Transek AB

Table 3. Assumed Economic Life Time of PRT guideway, stations and vehicles

Type of equipment Economic life time in years

Standard assumption

Economic life time in years

Sensitivity analysis

Guideway 60 30Stations 25 10

Vehicles 25 8

With the shorter economic life time, the capital costs for PRT will rise.

Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis: Cost model comparison for various transit modes, with shorter Life timefor PRT equipment

Sensitivity analyis with shorter life time for PRTTotal cost per passenger-journey

(10 km) for various transit modes

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000

City Street Bus

Bus Way

LRT

Metro

Commuter rail

AGT

PRT


PRT

Street Bus

Bus Way AGT

LRT

Metro

Commuter rail

The total (investment and O & M) costs for the PRT mode now augments by 33 % from 1,19 up to

1,59 per 10 km passenger journey.

Only at the lowest ridership level, 5,000 trips per day, will the ordinary Street Bus and PRT show a

similar cost level. And the level of service will still be very different in terms of waiting and in-vehicletravel time.

Still, at the 25,000 demand level, the PRT cost per passenger-journey will become 25 % cheaper than

the BusWay, 37 % cheaper than the Street Bus and 62 % cheaper than the LRT mode. The LRT mode

is 2,6 times more expensive than PRT.


17/37


17 Transek AB

4.7 PRT compared to traditional transit

The PRT mode is the cheapest mode of all the five compared public transport modes. This is because

the investment costs for both the track and the vehicles are low due to the light weight of these PRT

components, and also that operating costs are low, due to the driverless automation of the PRT system.

PRT costs falls from 2 at very low passengers loads (5,000 trips per day) down to 1,1 per 10 km

trip at the higher loads.

PRT is the cheapest of all traditional public transport modes. Even if the PRT cost would double

compared to todays estimates, if would still become cheaper than both the City Street Bus, the LRT

and the heavy modes, Metro and commuter rail. It is only the Bus Way with its 2 per trip that would

be able to compete with the doubled PRT costs.

Table 4. Total Cost per passenger-journey comparison at 25,000 daily trips

At 25,00 daily trips

Transit mode Average cost per passenger-journeyLRT 4,13 Metro 4,12 Commuter rail 3,97

City Street Bus 2,53 AGT 2,19 Bus Way 2,08 PRT 1,19


18/37


18 Transek AB

Figure 8. Total Cost per passenger-journey comparison at 25,000 daily trips

Average cost per passenger journey at 25,00 daily trips

4,13 4,12 3,97

2,53

2,19 2,08

1,19

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

4,00 4,50

LRT Metro Commuterrail

City StreetBus

AGT Bus Way PRT

Therefore, PRT costs per passenger trip (10 km) is only 78 % of the corresponding bus cost at low

loads, and only 47 % at 25,000 passengers per day. Compared to the other three dedicated rail modes

at a load of 25,000 passengers per day, PRT cost per passenger journey is less than a third (29 % -

30 %) of the corresponding LRT, Metro or Rail cost.


19/37


19 Transek AB

5 CONCLUSIONS AND REFLEXIONS

5.1 Conclusions

In this cost comparison study, the capital costs for the guideway and the vehicles as well as the

operating and maintenance costs have been compared for the following modes of urban transport:

City street bus

Bus Way (on dedicated bus-lane)

Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Metro

Commuter rail

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)

In some cases, also Automated Guided Transit (AGT) and the private car have been included in the

comparisons and all costs are expressed in the 2002-2003 price level. Traditional transit costs reflect

the cost level in the Stockholm Metropolitan area in 2003. PRT costs are derived from several sources.

The cost model is calculated in the range from 5,000 and up to 250,000 daily trips and reflects a

typical 10 km passenger-journey. The following conclusions can be made, on the basis from the

findings of this research:

To summarize the final findings of this research task, one might conclude that PRT is the

cheapest urban public transport mode among the studied ones, such as Bus, LRT, Metro and

Commuter rail

Traditional public transport systems such as Bus, Light rail and Metro is about 70 % more

expensive to operate than the new and innovative transit systems such as PRT.

A Personal Rapid Transit system is more than 40 % cheaper than traditional Light Rail

systems in operating costs.

A Personal Rapid Transit system is three times cheaper than traditional Light Rail systems in

investment cost.

In a sensitivity analysis, with much shorter economic life time for PRT track, vehicles and

stations, the LRT mode is still 2,6 times more expensive than PRT at the 25,000 demand level,

the PRT cost per passenger-journey will become 25 % cheaper than the BusWay, 37 %

cheaper than the Street Bus and 62 % cheaper than the LRT mode.

Compared to the bus mode, the total producer and user cost for PRT is 55 % lower;

compared to LRT PRT is 40 % cheaper, and compared to the heavy rail modes PRT costs are

50 % and 56 % cheaper respectively. For the bus mode, user cost is 5 times higher than the

producer cost. Fore heavy modes they are fairly equal, while for LRT, PRT and AGT user

costs are between 1.6 and 3.2 times higher than the producer costs.

PRT is the cheapest mode also when the user costs are included into the producers costs

In a comparative example a budget for public transport investment of 125 mUS$, or 111 m has been

considered. A typical LRT corridor line with a PRT loop system has then eben compared. What could

be obtained for the same amount of investment money? The conclusion is therefore, that the served


20/37


20 Transek AB

area, and, consequently, the number of served residents, would be four times higher with PRT

compared to the LRT system. Also, the door-to-door travel time might be roughly only half (or

slightly more) with PRT compared to LRT. This is not only due to the much shorter waiting times, but

also attributable to the total absence of necessary deceleration, stand still and acceleration times at all

the intermediate stops en route with the PRT, with its off-line stations.

5.2 A personal reflexion

Another personal reflexion is the following one:

At the time when the final decision should be made as to choose a metro, rail, LRT or a bus solution,

or even a PRT-system, most decision-makers are focusing their attention to the investment costs only,

or at best, including the first year of operations. And then the conclusion often end ups at the lowest

cost alternative, which usually is the street bus (as long as only the traditional modes are considered).

However, regarding the whole economic life time of the fixed equipment, such as the guideway, say

30, 40 or 60 years (in Sweden we calculate the economic life time of the rail track to be 60 years), then

the total cost structure must consider the (real) increase in operating costs as well.

Now, for the bus mode, for example, some 60 % of the total operating costs are made up by driver

wages. Usually, at normal GDP per-capita growth rates, such as 2.5-3 per cent annually, operating

costs might augment by some 1.5 to 1.8 per annum. Over a 60 year period, this means that the

operating cost would increase by a factor of two to three times. This, in turn, will shift the relationship

between capital and operating costs, substantially, over time in favour toward more capital oriented

modes of transport. To my view, this aspect is often highly neglected.

The Figure 9 could serve as an illustrative example of this statement:


21/37


21 Transek AB

Figure 9. Cost increase of operating cost per seat-kilometre between 2000 and 2003 in real terms forvarious transit modes in Stockholm, Sweden

Development of operating costsper seat-kilometre 2000-2003 in Stockholm

-3%

-1%

5%

12%

18%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Commuter rail Metro All Publ. Trp.Modes

LRT Bus

Percent change in /seat-km at fixed price level

As can be seen from Figure 9 the Bus mode becomes much more expensive even in such a short

period of time. One reason for the negative operating cost development for commuter rail was a new

procurement in 2000. This aspect is also a strong argument for PRT as a driverless mode of transport.


22/37


22 Transek AB

6 REFERENCES

1 Cost estimates obtained from www.taxi2000.com ; www.atsltd.co.uk; and www.austrans.com

2. Dunning, B. and Ford, I (ed): The ATRA Report: Personal Automated Transportation - Status and

Potential of Personal Rapid Transit; Advanced Transit Association. September 2002.

3 European Commission, DG Research, 5th Framework Programme, Key Action: City of Tomorrow and

Cultural Heritage, EDICT Final Report, Deliverable 10, December 2004

4 European Commission, DG Research, 5th Framework Programme, Key Action: City of Tomorrow and

Cultural Heritage, EDICT Huddinge Site Assessment Report, June 2004 (Ed: G Tegnr, I. Andrasson,

N.E. Selin)

5 Fabian, L.: Data-base. Trans 21

6 Lowson, M.. Service Effectiveness of PRT vs. Collective Corridor Transport. ATS Ltd, Nov 2002

7 Stockholm Chamber of Commerce: On the Track- Prosperous Public Tansport Projects in Stockholm.

Report from Transek Consultants. February 2005

8 Storstockholms Lokaltrafik Annual Report 2003

9 Tegnr, G. and Andrasson, I: Personal Automated Transit for Kungens Kurva, Sweden - a PRT system

evaluation within the EDICT project. 9th APM 2003 Conference, Singapore, Sept. 2003

10 Tegnr, G.: EDICT Comparison of costs between bus, PRT, LRT and metro/rail. Transek, February

2003

11 Tegnr, G.: Ridership Analysis; in: Personal Automated Transportation- Status and Potential of Personal

Rapid Transit. The Advanced Transit Association, January 2003. (ATRA).

http://www.ianford.com/prt/ridership.pdf

12 Tegnr, G.: Comparison of Transit Modes for Kungens Kurva, Huddinge, Sweden; 8th APM Conference

in San Francisco, July 2001.

13 Tegnr, G.: Benefits and Costs of a PRT system for Stockholm. 7th

APM Conference. Copenhagen, May1999.

14 Tegnr, G., Market Demand and Social Benefits of a PRT System: A Model Evaluation for the City of

Ume, Sweden. Infrastructure, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 27-32, 1997, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

15 Yoder, S. Capital Costs and Ridership Estimates of Personal Rapid Transit. Jan 2000.

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/yoder.htm


23/37


23 Transek AB

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been possible to carry out thanks to an original Consultancy work, commissioned to

Transek Consultants by the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in December 2004-January 2005.

I would also like to thank Tech Dr. Jan-Erik Nowacki at Swede Track Systems AB and at the Royal

Institute of Technolgy, Stockholm, who has kindly assisted me in the early phase of constructing the

cost model.

I am also very grateful to my fellow and college, Mr. Christian Nilsson, a Transek Consultants, who

brilliantly completed the cost model work in early 2005 in close collaboration together with the author.

Finally, I would like yo thank Mr. Jan Johanson, of Ecomitech AB, who kindly assisted me in editing

this paperand cheched all figures.

For all potential mistakes, I am solely responsible.


24/37


24 Transek AB

APPENDIX 1: PRT COSTSThe PRT costs are divided into capital costs and operating costs.

Capital costs

For the capital costs, we start our overview with the summary cost statement made by ATRA 2 a few

years ago in their excellent PRT Report3. Thereafter follows a brief summary of the costs for the three

PRT systems: Taxi2000, ULTra and Austrans.

ATRA cost estimate

Capital cost of 10-km system (system-independent)

A customer could reasonably expect to procure PRT at the rates listed below, or could use these for

urban planning purposes. The customer could multiply the final result for a 20-km system, 30-km, etc.

For a very informal method of costing PRT. The table is listed for 10-km, which is the distance of allthe network segments added up.

Table 5. ATRAs capital cost etstimate for PRT

Component Unit Cost Number Total (k$)

Guideway straight 2,300 k$/km 8 18,400

Guideway curved 3,400 k$/km 2 6,800

Vehicle 38 k$ each 100 3,800

Stations @ 2/km 250 k$ each 20 5,000

TOTAL 34,000

Therefore capital costs might be around $34 M for a 10-km network. (for preliminary planning

purposes)

Thats $3.4 M per km, or a little over $5 M per mile.

Cited from the ATRA report op.cit.

Taxi 2000

Professor J. Edward Anderson the at Taxi 2000 has kindly provided me with detailed cost estimates

for varios PRT networks over the years. The Taxi 2000 costs were specified at a very detailed level,

not only per track, station and vehicle, but also including:

Depot cost for 400 vehicles

Control & communication system costs per km

2 ATRA, i.e. the Advanced Transit Association3 PAT- Personal Automated Transportation - Status and Potential of Personal Rapid Transit. Executive Summary. January 2003


25/37


25 Transek AB

Electric supply & distribution per km

Maintenance, cleaning, control eqiupment, admin per km

Engineering, assurance, marketing costs per km

ULTra

Professor Martin Lowson at ATS Ltd has kindly provided me with ULTra capital and operating cost

data. The capital costs are given as a formula that depends on:

A fixed cost per track.-km

The rate of elevation

The number of passengers per year (utilization rate)

Cost calculations have been made for many potential sites such as Cardiff in Wales, Kings Curve,

Huddinge in Sweden and several sites in United Kingdom.

Exerpt from the EDICT-report about ULTra cost in Cardiff:

At this early stage of the project, estimates of the costs of the system are unavoidably preliminary,

and will require more detailed engineering studies to refine them. Nevertheless, the mean costs of the

infrastructure are based on detailed engineering estimates, and confidence in them is engendered by

the fact that construction of the test track was achieved within these costs. Moreover, two experienced

construction contractors have estimated the costs of constructing the infrastructure for a larger 19.8km

network extending beyond the case study network. One contractor estimated 33.2M, the other

43.9M, compared with the ULTra Consultants estimate of 67.9M. The Contractors estimates do

not include the cost of mechanical and electrical equipment and track electrical/ control installations,

which add about 13 % of the cost, whereas the Consultants costs include this, and there was an

increase in steel prices between the lower and higher Contractors estimates. The Consultants

estimate is very conservative because of concerns that building above existing streets might increase

costs, but the costing used in this assessment adds a further 15 % contingency to the Consultants

estimates, and in relation to the Contractors estimates they offer a total contingency margin of some

70 %. Thus even though the scheme is innovative, the costing seem very robust indeed.4

This means that instead of the calculated 67.9M (or 5.7 M per track-km) the Contractors bid price

is around 3.7 M per track-km, or 36 % lower.

4 Source: EDICT, European Commission: Cardiff Site Assessment Report. Deliverable 6-2. Version 1.5. April

2004. Authors: Advanced Transport Systems (ATS), Ove Arup and Partners International Ltd (ARUP), The

County Council of the City and County of Cardiff (CCC), Transport & Travel Research Ltd (TTR)


26/37


26 Transek AB

AUSTRANS

Form Director Phillip Robinson of Austrans, I received in 2003 some cost estimates for Austrans

potential application sin Singapore and in Leipzig, Germany. On example is presented below for a 20

km GRT track:

Table 6. Austrans GRT cost estimate

Austrans GRT 20 km track, 40 stations

m/km

Investment cost 9 per track.km

Operating cost 0,08 per pass.km

PRT Capital cost comparison

An attempt to compare the three PRT suppliers cost estimates is presented in Table 7 below

Table 7. Authors own cost comparison of PRT capital costs based on suppliers data

PRT system Taxi 2000 ULTra Austrans ATRA average # of unitsUnit cost m $ m $ m $ m $ for a 10 km track

track per km 1,5-4,2 1,5 5,4 2,75 10per Station 0,26 2,7 incl other 1,2 0,25 20per vehicle 0,03 0,05 0,1 0,038 100

Other costs included included included includedTotal cost for a10 km PRT system, m $ 23,1-53,6 51,4 91 34

From Taxi 2000 cost estimates have varied a bit over the past 5 year period. The comparison is

presented for a 10 km PRT track. To achieve the same passenger level-of-service, I have assumed the

same amount of vehicles and stations for the three systems. Austrans vehicle carries 9 seated

passengers, while ULTra carries 4 and Taxi 2000 3 passengers. Austrans vehicle fleet thus gets an

over-capacity compared to the two other suppliers.

The total PRT capital cost varies between 23 and 51 M $ per 10-km track. The Ultra application for

Kings Curve in Sweden amounts to 69 M $ (with 100 % elevation). This can be compared with the

ATRA average for a true PRT system amounts 34 M $.

One might conclude that the capital cost for a PRT network is quite uncertain as regards its magnitude,

as there is not any real market for mass production of PRT-system, yet. However, most of the careful

concept studies, that have been carried out so far, indicate a cost range from 2.3 to 9.1 M $ per track-

km, with an average of 5,8 M $/km. In the cost model I have used 6 M$/track-km.


27/37


27 Transek AB

PRT Operating Costs

The operating cost experiences stem from the Greater Stockholm Transit Company; AB Stor-

Stockholms Lokaltrafik, Annual Report 2001. The PRT Operating costs have been obtained from

each supplier in January-February 2003. The American experiences are from the Trans 21 Database

(Lawrence Fabians database). The following results that were found also include some other modes

of transport, in order to broaden the comparison:

Figure 10. Operating & maintenance cost per passenger-km comparisons, 10 cases

As can be seen from the figure above, PRT systems perform very well also from the operating cost

point-of-view. Most LRT-systems, both in the US and in Stockholm, cost around 0.20 Euro perpassenger-kilometre and the bus network (9 153 km; 1 674 buses) in Stockholm costs 0.18

Euro/passkm.

The ULTra PRT cost figure (calculated for the first phase network at Kungens Kurva) show a lower

cost, 0.16 Euro per passenger-km, which is the same level as for the Stockholm Metro system (108

km; 800 metro-cars). The average operating costs for the 22 Automated Guided systems in USA cost

0.12 Euro per passenger-km and the Commuter rail network in Stockholm (186 km: 292 vehicles) cost

0.10 /passkm.

Both the Austrans and the Taxi 200 PRT systems are even cheaper in operation with 0.08 and 0.06

Euro per passenger-kilometre respectively.

An average of the three PRT systems yields an operating (and maintenance) cost of 0.10 Euro per

passenger-kilometre. The average operating & maintenance costs for all the other systems (AGT/LRT;

Bus, Metro and Commuter rail systems) are 70 % more expensive to operate than for the PRT system.

O & M Cost/passenger-km in Euro

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,16

0,16

0,18

0,21

0,21

0,21

0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25

PRT - Taxi 2000

PRT - Austrans

Commuter rail-Stockholm

22 Automated Guided Systems in USA

Metro-Stockholm

PRT - ULTra

Bus-Stockholm

LRT-Sthlm: Gullmarsplan-Alvik

Suburban Train+Tramway-Sthlm

12 LRT-systems in USA


28/37


28 Transek AB

The Operating & maintenance costs comparison is summarised in the figure below:

Figure 11. Operating & maintenance cost per passenger-km comparisons, 2 cases

O & M Cost in Euro/passenger-km

0,17

0,10

00,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,1

0,12

0,14

0,160,18

39 LRT/AGT or Bus systems 3 PRT systems


29/37


29 Transek AB

Figure 12. Comparison of Operating Costs in Stockholm traditional modes vs. PRT

Comparison of Operating costs per trip in Stockholm: PRT andtraditional public transport modes

0,79

1,15

0,93

1,14

1,79 1,89

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2,00

PRT-KungensKurva

Average trad.PT in

Stockholm

Metro Bus LRT Commuter rail

In Stockholm, only the commuter rail system has such low operating costs as PRT. This is presented

in Figure 12 above.


30/37


30 Transek AB

APPENDIX 2. COST COMPARISON

Capital costs for guideway

The investment or capital costs for traditional modes are divided into capital costs for the fixedequipment, i.e. the track and stations and for the rolling stock, i.e. the vehicles.

The capital costs for the infrastructure are derived from recent new investment schemes for LRT,

Metro and Commuter rail projects in the Metropolitan Stockholm Area.

Figure 13. Capital cost per track-kilometre in million Euro

Capital cost (excl. vehicles) per track km, M

111,1

46,0

28,0

15,8 15,4

4,0 3,00

20

40

60

80

100

120

City Highway(tunnel)

Metro Commuterrail

22 AGTsystems

LRT 3 PRTsystems

BusWayAmsterdam

Traditonal public transport = Stockholm data

In Figure 13 the capital costs per track-km for the three Stockholm rail modes: LRT, Metro and

Commuter rail are compared also with:

22 International AGT systems (AGT= Automated Guided Systems)

3 PRT systems (Taxi2000, ULTra and Austrans)

A separate Busway in Amsterdam (the Zuidtangent bus corridor)

The average PRT track cost amounts 4 M/km excluding vehicles, which is roughly in the same

magnitude as for the Busway in Amsterdam; but only one-fourth of the Stockholm LRT- project

Tvrbanan, phases 1 and 2, now in operation. The capital cost for rail is more than 7 times higher

than for PRT, and the metro track cost (including stations) is eleven times higher than for PRT per

kilometre. A city highway in tunnel (as the Southern Link) opened last year in Stockholm, costs more


31/37


31 Transek AB

than 110 million Euro per kilometre, or 28 times higher than PRT. (Of course there is also a difference

in passenger capacity, see section 4.1 below).

Capital costs for vehicles

Following the assumptions above we end up with the results presented in Table 8 below:

Table 8. Vehicle capital costs and capital cost per passenger-kilometre for seven modes of transport

Key indicators Citybus

LRT

(2 cars)

Metro car

2000

Com-muter

rail

("Regina") AGT PRT

Passen-

ger car

Capital cost/vehicle, m 0,31 2,22 3,33 5,00 2,78 0,05 0,02

Economic life time, years 18 25 25 25 25 8 10

Discount rate 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

Annuity factor 0,078 0,063 0,063 0,063 0,063 0,146 0,121

Annual captal cost, m 0,024 0,141 0,211 0,316 0,176 0,007 0,003

Operating hours/year 3000 3500 3700 4000 5600 7000 525Days/year 350 350 350 350 350 350 350

Operating hours/day 9 10 11 11 16 20 1,5

Average speed, km/h 15 25 44 50 50 36 36

Vehicle-kms/year 0,045 0,088 0,163 0,200 0,280 0,071 0,019

Capital cost/vehicle-km, cent 53 161 130 158 63 10 14

Seats/vehicle 46 78 126 100 78 4 5

Capital cost/set-km, cent 1,15 2,06 1,03 1,58 0,80 2,57 2,85

Load factor: person/seat 0,269 0,232 0,366 0,279 0,366 0,370 0,320

Capital cost/pass.km, cent 4,28 8,86 2,81 5,66 2,20 6,94 8,92

The operating figures (vehicle-hours and kilometres, seating capacity) and the vehicle capital costs

for the traditional modes are derived from Stockholm experiences. The AGT capital vehicle cost data

was obtained from Lawrence Fabians (at Trans21) Data Base. The capital vehicle cost per passenger-

kilometre is presented in Figure 14 below:


32/37


32 Transek AB

Figure 14. Capital vehicle cost per passenger-kilometre

Capital vehicle cost in Euro-Cents/passenger-km

8,9 8,9

5,7

4,33,7

2,82,2

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

Passengercar

LRT Commuterrail

Citybus PRT Metro car2000

AGT

The private car and the Light Rail Transit (LRT) vehicle costs are of equal magnitude, around 9 cents

per passenger-kilometre. Commuter rail vehicle cost is about 6 cents, and the metro less than 3 cents.

The City bus and the PRT vehicle have roughly the same size of the capital vehicle cost, around 4

cents. The AGT vehicle comes out with about half that amount, 2 cents. The metro car seems to get a

lower vehicle cost per passenger-kilometre (around 3 cents/pass.km), probably due its very high

passenger-loads.

In this respect, vehicle capital cost per passenger-kilometre, PRT does not get the lowest cost. The

corresponding PRT costs will be more elaborated in chapter0 above.

Economic life time and discount rate

In order to be able to compare investment oriented transport systems, as heavy rail, with operating

cost-oriented systems as the urban bus in a common framework, we consider the economic life timesof each system as well as the discount rate.

In Sweden a common practice for social cost-benefit analyses is to use a 4 % discount rate.

The economic life times are assumed to the following ones:

Figure 15. Assumed economic life times for various modes of transport- track and vehicles


33/37


33 Transek AB

Capital cost (excl. Vehicles)/track km, M

111

46

28

16 15

4 30

20

40

60

80

100

120

City Highway(tunnel)

Metro Commuterrail

22 AGTsystems

LRT 3 PRTsystems

BusWayAmsterdam

Traditonal public transport = Stockholm data

The economic life time of the various vehicle types can always be discussed and questioned. Maybe

the automatic systems, such as AGT and PRT, will have shorter life times in reality, than has assumed

here. The corresponding PRT costs will be more elaborated in chapter 0 below. In section 4.6 we

present some sensitivity tests

Operating costs

The operating costs are dependent on a broad variety of factors, such as the level-of service, labour

unit costs, efficiency and the technology of the public transport mode in question. For the traditional

public transport modes, Stockholm data from 2002 has been used. The BusWay operating cost is

calculated to be 28 per cent lower compared to the city bus due to its higher speed on its own, separate

right-of-way. The AGT operating cost was obtained from Lawrence Fabians (at Trans21) Data Base.

The PRT operating costs are obviously a bit more uncertain, due to the lack of real life experiences

from PRT operations. This estimate is based on cost judgements made by the three potential suppliers,

Taxi2000, ULTra and Austrans.


34/37


34 Transek AB

Figure 16. Operating and maintenance costs per passenger-kilometre

O & M Cost, /passenger-km

0,25

0,21

0,160,15

0,120,11

0,07

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

LRT City Bus Metro BusWay AGT Commuterrail

PRT

Light Rail Transit - indeed not very light, but a rather heavy mode of public transport is the most

expensive system in terms of O &M costs per passenger-kilometre. The difference to the second most

expensive mode to operate, the City bus, is not that big, 0,25 and 0,21 per passenger-km,

respectively. The BusWay (like the Zuidtangent BusWay in Amstersdam) has a similar cost level for

operations comparable to the Metro, i.e. rather cost efficient with its 0,15-0,16 per pass.km.

Commuter rail is even more cost-efficient, mostly due to long train lengths with many cars in thetrains, and very few crew members per passenger-journey.

AGT and Commuter rail has less than half the operating cost level per passenger-kilometre compared

to the LRT system, 0,11 compared to 0,25 /pass.km

PRT is even more cost-efficient, with its estimated 0,07 in operating cost per pass.km. This is less

than a third of the O & M cost for LRT.


35/37


35 Transek AB

APPENDIX 3. OTHER COMPARATIVE COST DATA

Transeks investment cost comparison

The total investment costs for guideway, vehicles and stations are compared to ten different systems:

Investment Cost in M Euro per track-km

3,4

5,9

6,0

7,2

8,0

8,0

14,4

14,4

16,0

17,2

19,3

19,8

20,7

21,8

0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0

PRT - Taxi 2000

PRT - ULTra

Busway in Amsterdam -Zuidtangent

Trolley bus in Orlans

Phileas Bus in Eindhoven

PRT - Austrans

LRT Sthlm: Gullmarsplan-Sickla

Rubber-tyre LRT, Caen

LRT in Barcelona

22 st Automated Guided Systems in USA

LRT Sthlm:Alvik-Gullmarsplan

LRT in Orleans

LRT Syd Flemingsberg-lvsj

LRT Line 2 in Montpellier, 19,5 km

Bars in blue colour are Stockholm systems, in green are PRT systems and in brown are other systems.

The Three Stockholm LRT system costs around 15-20 M Euro per track-kilometre5. The new LRT

Line 2 in Montpellier costs approx. 22 M Euro per km. A summary of 22 Automated Guided systems

in the US have an average cost of 17M Euro per track-km6.

All three PRT systems show a lower investment cost than the studied LRT systems. With Austrans at

9 M, ULTra at 5,6 M and Taxi 2000 at 3.4 M per kilometre7. An average of the three PRT

systems yields an investment cost of 6M per track-kilometre8. This is the same cost as for the

newly opened Zuidtangent Busway outside Amsterdam and even lower than the Trolley bus in

Orlans, France.

The average investment costs for all the other systems (AGT, LRT and Busway/Trolleybus route) aremore than three (3!) times higher than for the PRT system.

5 Source: AB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik6 Source: Data-base collected by Lawrence Fabian, Trans21.7 Sources: Cost estimates from the Suppliers8 We used this average value in our benefit-cost analysis for Kungens Kurva in the EDICT-project.


36/37


36 Transek AB

Conclusion: A Personal Rapid Transit system is three times cheaper than traditional Light Rail

systems in investment cost.

A simplified comparison between 29 various LRT/AGT or Bus systems (se page above) with the 3

PRT systems, show the following investment cost differences:

PRT is therefore a low-cost system from the investors pint-of-view.

The Orlans Cost study

In the Orlans Cost Study the following costs were identified for the modes: Bus, Trolley Bus, Rail

Bus, Rubber tyre LRT and Tramway:

Cost Study Orlans Key factsSource: Rail & Transport, 3rd July 2002Line length in km 22,7Stops 34Vehicles 25

m TOTAL COST various modes m Euro Investment cost/km

Tramway 321 14,1Rubber tyre LRT 290 12,8Rail Bus 175 7,7Trolley Bus 165 7,3Bus 125 5,5

This Study reveals that Rail and Trolley bus cost about half as much as Tramway in investment per

kilometre and that Bus cost half as much as Rubber tyre LRT. The cost level can be compared with

the figures presented in Figure 15 above.

Investment cost per track-km in M Euro

19,7

6,0

0

5

10

15

20

25

29 LRT/AGT or Bus systems 3 PRT systems


37/37


The PHILEAS BusWay in Eindhoven

The Phileas Automated Guided Bus, (AGB) in Eindhoven consists of a 15 km BusWay with 20 stops

and 12 buses. It has a capacity that ranges from 48 to 24 passengers. The investment costs were:

Infrastructure: 70 M

Vehicles: 40 M

Control system: 10 M

The total capital costs were therefore 120 M, or 8 M per Busway kilometre. This is mote than the

estimated PRT Capital cost at 6 M/track kilometre.

Capital Costs and Ridership Estimates of Personal Rapid Transit

In an in-depth study on PRT Costs, Supin Yoder at Wilbur Smith, presented a study on Capital costs

and Ridership of PRT for the projected PRT system in Rosemont, Chicago in 2000.

A method was developed to compare PRT system components (versus the entire system) with the

components of existing automated-guideway transit (AGT) and automated people mover (APM)

systems were examined (1) guideways; (2) stations; (3) maintenance and control facilities; (4) power

and utility systems; (5) vehicles; (6) command, control, and communications systems; and (7)

engineering and project management.

Three analysis techniques were used (1) statistically significant regression analysis; (2) measurement

of a central tendency for "comparable" systems; and (3) statistics from all AGT systems. The results

show that the combination of the three techniques worked well for component-level studies and show

promise for use in other cost analyses involving new technologies or application of existing

technologies on a scale outside the bounds of previous experience. In addition to the cost study, a PRT

ridership forecasting approach and projections were evaluated, providing another key element of

decision support for potential PRT deployment in Rosemont.

Her conclusion were:

The PRT-comparable cost range tends to be on the lower side of the cost ranges for the 17

AGT systems.

Raytheons cost projections for five of the seven components are comfortably in the

comparable component cost range.

From the system cost perspective, Raytheons projection is in the range of PRT-comparable

AGT system cost. If initial PRT deployment or nonrecurring costs are excluded, Raytheons

PRT unit cost projection is significantly lower than the comparable AGT unit cost.

Even this Cost study indicates that PRT capital costs are lower than the corresponding AGT costs.

aats cost comp_g tegner_2005!11!06

Documents