Transcript No Slide Title

2008 Suburban Silver Bullet:
PRT Shuttle + Digital Mobility for SRP
• Steve Raney, Cities21
– Palo Alto native
– Research & advocacy non-profit
• Not a system builder, not asking for $50M
– 13 person, three-year, 188 pg study
• Advised by Berkeley’s Robert Cervero
• Transportation Research Board / TRR.
[email protected]
• MVPs
Thanks
– 13 person, three-year study
– Cities21 member Joe Kott, EPRI for interviews & 62 surveys
– Stanford Management Company (NOT on-board, but very helpful)
• Valuable Feedback: 200+ meetings
– Constituents: Bern Beecham, Yoriko Kishimoto, College Terrace (Pria Graves,
John Ciccarelli), Gary Fazzino, Joe Simitian's staff, Joint Venture Silicon Valley,
SVMG, Stanford Research Park companies (Roche, EPRI, SAP, Lockheed, HP,
Daimler Chrysler).
– Agencies: Caltrans, Caltrain, VTA, Environmental Protection Agency's Best
Workplaces for Commuters, Mineta Transportation Institute, MTC, Peninsula
Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, RIDES, San Jose Redevelopment Agency,
and University of California PATH, CCIT, and Transportation Center.
– Advocates: Transportation and Land Use Coalition (TALC), BayRail Alliance,
SaveSFBay, California Futures Network, STIR project, Packard Foundation,
California Affordable Housing Law Project.
– Real-estate interests: Palo Alto Housing Corporation, ULI.
[email protected]
California Trends
•
•
•
•
•
•
600,000 new residents per year
Traffic congestion is worsening
Jobs moving to exurbs
Increasing housing costs
Permanent govt fiscal constraints
 “Dumb growth” in Central Valley
– Berkeley “CA at 50M Project”
– Diridon: Merc: “60M S.G. Reasons”
•  Need large scale change
– New solutions for old problems.
[email protected]
Suburban Silver Bullet:
Halve SOV Commutes
• Goals:
– Remove many cars from suburban office parks
• Current: 78% drive alone, 16% shared ride, 3% transit
– Intensify land use / reclaim parking lots
• What works?
– $10/day parking (effective, but unpopular)
– Hypothesis: PRT Shuttle + Digital Mobility
• PRT = Personal Rapid Transit
• No “lifestyle sacrifice”
• Year 2008 scenario.
[email protected]
Customer-Centered Product Research
Literature
Experts
Product Concept
Interviews
Surveys
Validation
Commute
Refined Concept
• Silicon Valley style
• New technology bias
– High touch / community building is natural
– Takes on personality of researching organization
• Start with rough business case in mind and refine.
[email protected]
PRT – Rapid Local Shuttle
• Feeder / Distributor / Circulator
– Similar to a monorail. Video
• High service level, no waiting, faster than a car.
– Non-stop, 30 MPH
– Bypasses intermediate stations
– Ride alone or with 1-2 people you choose
– Convenient stops by buildings (not on street)
– Comfortable, quiet, safe, no exhaust
– 24x7
• 3 companies developing
– MN (60’ track), TX, UK (1km track).
[email protected]
PRT
• 5 mile alignment
[email protected]
Vehicle Storage
Stanford Research Park
•
•
•
•
In Palo Alto, CA
20,000 jobs
Campus-style
Parent of Silicon
Valley
• 50% asphalt
• Commute Shed:
– 47% within 2 miles
of Caltrain
– 49% within 10
miles
• 185 edge cities >
Memphis
[email protected]
Promising Results (62 surveys)
• Promising, but not definitive
• Solo commutes: 89%  45%
– Carpool: 9%  32%, train: 0%  15.5% train
– For 20K people, removes 6,600 autos (roughly)
• @ 350 s.f. per space  50 acres  $326M hsng profit
• 1.32 PRT trips/day/person => 26K trips/day
– PRT: profitable (capital, O&M)
• Huge transit village  land value increase
• Apply to 6M workers in major emp. centers
– 1.98M cars, 12B VMT, 424M gals, 8.4B lbs CO2
• Like Stanford/Exxon $225M Global Climate & Energy Project.
[email protected]
Comprehensive, Integrated Mobility
Door to Door
Train
first mile
Walk
Centralized Cars:
first mile
Bus
share, rent, ride home
Delivery services,
Personal activities,
Business services
•Web/wireless coordination
•Supportive policy context
•Scale!
[email protected]
Bike, scooter, Segway
(Smart jitney)
Short carpool pick up
•Improved match-making
•Shared parking
Long carpool
PRT shuttle system
LAST MILE
mid-day trips
first mile
Marketing: D2D Mobility
• Door to door mobility & errands in-between!
• Same convenience & flexibility as driving
alone
• Commute alternatives partnership
• Transit agencies, City of Palo Alto, Stanford,
employers, cellular operator, taxi; car sharing,
car rental, bike coalition, ridesharing
• Delivery services: meals, groceries, dry
cleaning, photos, produce, shoe repair, etc..
[email protected]
Cellular Solutions
• Marauder’s Map (GPS)
– Transit, rideshare connections
– Get home safe (Big Sister is watching)
• RF / WiFi / Bluetooth ID
– Identify yourself to transit fare gate, parking
lot gate, car sharing
– Credit card transactions
• Cell phone: high IQ smartcard
– Display, keypad, interactivity, network.
[email protected]
“New Suburbanist” Transit Village
Reduced auto dependence: < 50% SOV
trips (for workers, residents, & shoppers.)
Child/Senior mobility!
Efficient: transit node + vibrant place, shared
parking, lower living cost, less car ownership,
more time. A new choice! (versus buying
beyond the greenbelt).
Jobs/Housing Re-balance: workforce
housing
Personal Activities: Quality schools, day
care, hiking, parks, movies, grocery, banks,
restaurants, cafes, bars, grocery, gym,
massage, yoga, dentist, etc.
Business Services: Banks, PC store,
copies, FedEx, legal, accounting, etc.
[email protected]
Train Station
Old transit village
20 acres
New retail
Jobs
New housing
Jobs
Extended T.O.D.
1280 acres
PRT shuttle system
Literature + Interviews + Surveys
• Large solo driving reduction is hard
• Last mile problem is very important
– Mid-day trips: 2X value of time
– Workers are unhappy with bus shuttles
• Each commuter: basket of objections
– PRT last mile is important, but not sufficient
• 30% time penalty: OK
• Carpool psychology is complex:
– Matchmaking: anonymous, superficial rejection (web dating)
– Sleep, uncertainty stress, and safety are important
•
•
•
•
Short Caltrain or carpool with PRT: OK
Customer support: eliminate nightmares
Stranding: want “no penalty” emergency ride home
Good commute: “time went fast.”
[email protected]
THE END
•
•
•
•
•
•
Less traffic
More affordable housing
More vibrant city
Less pollution & greenhouse gas
No cost to taxpayers
Political “ask”: Palo Alto adopt franchising
strategy (like electric trolleys in 1888)
– Private sector takes financial risk
– Long list of constituent conditions.
[email protected]
Quantum Innovation / Public Policy
• Innovations produce winners & losers
• Political subsystems favor incremental change
– ag, defense, energy, transit, healthcare, edu, etc.
– “analysis is politics by other means”
– Auto/highway subsystem trumps transit
• Public sector: huge penalty for failure
• Media stifles innovation, accentuates conflict
• Macropolitical system can impose quantum
change – earmarks, etc.
[email protected]
JFK, Nixon, Wright Brothers
• “... we choose to go to the moon in this
decade, and do other things ... not because
they are easy, but because they are hard…”
– John F. Kennedy
• “If we can send three men to the moon
200,000 miles away, we should be able to
move 200,000 people to work three miles
away.”
– Richard M. Nixon
• Wright Brothers were not the first attempt
– Wrong Brothers
– Many smart people said man will never fly.
[email protected]
PA Franchise Strategy
• City of Palo Alto statement of intent. $1/yr franchise.
– City: egress, right-of-way, general plan, zoning
• Workforce preference housing (motivates employers)
• Conditions
– New housing ONLY IF car count decreases
– Constituent votes: neighborhoods, retailers, all PA citizens, Stanford
– Employers form Transportation Mgmt Assoc. (TMA)
• Car sharing, ride home, 511-style support, marketing, CULTURE
– EIR: noise, visual, school. Staff neighborhood analysis.
– Transit union support (more jobs, housing preference)
– “Tear down” insurance, operating insurance
• PRT developer captures part of real-estate upside
– “Super-normal” profits necessary to attract investment
• Electricity: 1.8MW 8AM peak  no new capacity.
[email protected]
PRT Political Viability / Palo Alto
• Mature democracy + entrenched capitalism makes
first system extremely difficult
– Quantum change versus incremental change
• Stamps, trolley (utilities & R.E. speculators, not horse cart), chatting
on the phone, naval continuous-aim firing
– Systems 2 thru 100 are easy
– Cities, SVMG, Sierra can’t fund $300K due diligence studies
• Palo Alto
– Credibility: better data, biz case, get published, conspirators
– Present to Planning Commission
• Ask: franchise strategy: no risk, no taxpayer cost, huge upside
• Enable a private sector project (more upside for early investors)
– Stanford President Hennessy (MIPS) – can say “yes”
• Visit SkyWeb MN or ULTra UK
• 10 other efforts worldwide.
[email protected]
PRT Investor Due Diligence
• The Team – entrepreneurial cost control, etc.
– IBM vs. IBM skunk works
• Control system design (architect spends 1/3 of time
writing documentation)
• Control system safety certification
– Public utilities commission?
– Each SW “version” requires painful re-certification
• Annual operating costs
– Video surveillance, etc.
– Insurance for the first system will be high
• Switch reliability (1 fail out of 2M trips  50 days)
• Performance degrades near capacity (wave-offs).
[email protected]
PRT control system technology
• “Trains”
–
–
–
–
–
Morgantown GRT since 1974
BART / NYC Automated Train Control
4M automated trips/day
SFO automated people mover, etc.
Frog navigation (ULTRA, park shuttle)
• Cars: Platooning, precision docking, lane keeping
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
TRW’s $1.5M ULTra / AHS control system project (sensors, etc)
Governor’s film “The Sixth Day” uses GM OnStar “autopilot”
DARPA grand robotic vehicle challenge: $35K Golem Group
U.C. PATH: Automated highways, automated BRT (radar – adaptive
cruise control, lidar, WiFi, cheap magnets, diff. GPS coming)
Daimler Chrysler: Chauffeur II truck control project (electronic tow-bar,
infrared imaging, drive-by-wire)
Toyota IMTS bus, self-parking Prius
Adaptive cruise control, Vehicle Infrastructure Initiative
CVHAS: 2xCA, MN, FL. BRT consortium: Vegas, Eugene, Hartford.
Japan AHSRA consortium, South Korean project.
[email protected]
PRT Visual Impact
• Important issue
– Big parking lots are more inviting to PRT than downtowns
• Visual vocabulary
– Freeway overpasses versus roller coasters
– Visarc.com
– Chalmers U. study: blend in w/ historic downtown
• Portable full scale model
– Walk underneath it. Human visual perception sys.
• 3D VR simulation
• Survey: How will ULTra look in cities?
– 80% say good or excellent.
[email protected]
PRT+D2D Economics
COSTS
PRT capital costs, 5 mi
Shared, automated parking
Annual PRT O&M
Pedestrian landscaping
ROW acquisition
[email protected]
$M
50.0
4.9
3.0
?
0.0
ANNUAL REVENUE
PRT farebox
Caltrain increment
Ads - personal + wraps
6,600 parking sp. reduction
Eliminate bus shuttles
$0.50 daily smart parking
Use guideway for utilities
total
$M/year
4.9
2.7
3.5
4.0
0.3
1.3
0.3
16.9
OTHER REVENUE
50 acre housing profit
-1% job turnover/yr
Worker hsng preference
35% retail sales increase
cellular carrier preference
Exclusive delivery franchises
$M
326.3
20.0
?
?
?
?
PRT Capital Cost Defense
• The development team is very important
• PRT developers can defend their costs
– SkyWeb’s independent cost scrub #2
• Key: private sector incentives, not “cost plus”
– Roller coaster / gondola project mgmt, not APM /
LRT. (See Andrew Jakes article “Why APMs are
so expensive.”)
• BART GRT study independent costing
– $10M to $15M per mile for 5 miles
• Clarian People Mover: $14.2M/mile.
[email protected]
Security / Terrorism / Safety
• Reduce world’s hate for U.S., oil dependence
• Permission based parking & PRT access
– Can even run FBI background checks on folks
• PRT video surveillance
• PRT algorithmic detection
– Flag station entry without boarding
– Left a package in empty vehicle
• HomeSafe prevents carpool assaults.
[email protected]
Big Sister / Privacy
• Opt-in versus “no-opt”
• HomeSafe deters assaults for carpools
amongst strangers
• TrakRide increases courteous behavior
• Consent required for each personal data “use”
– Boss can’t track you
• Use data protection best practices
– Independent data protection audits
– Two people w/ two different passwords.
[email protected]
CA Ave Caltrain: PRT design
Up stream storage
• Little things like open doors before stopping
[email protected]
TDM Effectiveness
• TDM (transportation demand management)
programs are crucial, yet few shift more than
15% net.
• EPA Best Workplaces for Commuters 41 case
studies:
– 25%: Paid parking / transportation allowance.
Reductions: 16, 25, 28, 20, 16, 25, 34, 25%.
[email protected]
Social Entrepreneurism
•
•
•
•
micro-credit, India street kids, AIDs education
Act local (small $), strive 4 widespread impact
Government is not the solution (resistant)
S. E. characteristics:
– Boring at dinner parties
– Driven, stamina, undeterred
– “Ends" oriented
• Will change/refine tactics
– Listener (behavioral)
– Cross-disciplinary, practical.
[email protected]
David Bornstein
Toxic Releases
• Accidental releases
• “Sensitive Receptors”
– Kids
– Seniors
– green
• “Risk Contour”
– Where in the air?
– Red
• A “desk study”
– New housing & biotech
– See SVMG policy paper
• Balance in-fill & biotech.
[email protected]
Large Research Project
• 10 Multidisciplinary projects
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
GIS map 8,200 employee addresses
Full scale PRT model
3D virtual city & micro simulation
13 one-hour interviews (lit review)
 62 surveys, 40 minutes per
Cellular SW design (patent pending)
Smart parking design
Economics / greenhouse gas
Urban planning:
• Local workforce housing preference
• Housing in SRP: toxic releases
• Affordable hsng project: 2787 Park Blvd.
[email protected]
New Mobility
• ITS to compete with driving alone
– “… pairing clusters of smart technologies with
existing transportation options to create a
coordinated, intermodel transportation system
that could substitute for the traditional auto.” –
Susan Shaheen, U.C. Senior Researcher
• GPS Wi-Fi phones improve reliability of train
and carpool connections
– Key: SOV is a “no brainer.”
[email protected]
• Technology
curve
[email protected]
Wireless Commute Assistant
Big Sister knows where & who you are
GPS: tracking
NextTrain
TrakRide for carpools
Customer support
QuickCar, < 5 minutes
HomeSafe, SpyKids
Trip planning, travel advisory
NextSpace for parking
Order a PRT vehicle
Shared parking entry, QuickCar key
Wi-Fi payment
Easy PRT ticketing
Improved indoor reception
[email protected]
7:20AM: on time
A
B
C
TrakRide
AM pickup
A: 10 min
B: 7 min
C: 3 min
7:25AM: 2 min late
A
B
C
pick up
pick up
SMS nudge to
A at 7:10, 7:15
7:29AM: 2 min late
A
A departs OK
B is 2 min late
C delays 2 min
7:32AM: arrival
A
B
C
pick up
[email protected]
Encourages
punctuality,
courtesy.
Eliminates
uncertainty.
B
C
pick up
TM
6:25
RC
TR
LV
MP
6:30
6:35
UNIV
CA
NextTrain
• When to leave desk
• Race to train station
– Worker must “win”
• PRT wait = fcn(demand)
• Slack
Time: 6:24PM
2nd train arrives 6:50PM
• TR: 6:35PM train is on time
• Every 30 sec, recalculate
TM
6:25
6:30
UNIV
TR
6:35
CA
E-shuttle
Time: 6:31PM, 2:00 minutes slack
2nd train arrives 6:51PM
[email protected]
– TTAT: time to access train = 1
min walk + 1 min wait + 4 min
PRT + 1 min walk + 2 min slack
– LV = TR - TTAT
– TM: current time
• Small beep @ 5, 2 min to LV
• NextTrain orders PRT
vehicle 2 min before LV
“Hands-free” PRT ticketing
•
•
•
•
•
WiFi phone  traveler ID to gate (context!)
Gate displays likely destination
Traveler boards (or “pick a station” UI)
Automatic credit card debit
Example: Jim uses 5 of 19 stations:
– If @ Caltrain {5AM-11AM}  EPRI (job)
– If @ EPRI {10AM-2PM}  [4 luncheon stations]
– If @ [lunch station] {10AM-3PM}  EPRI
– If @ EPRI {3PM-7PM}  Caltrain.
[email protected]
Smart Parking
• Accurate real-time car count
– Proves unused spaces for in-fill
• Drivers can park in any available lot
– Carpools can park at office park edge
• Drivers directed to available lots
• Permission based solution:
– Cellular WiFi ID & license plate recognition
– Gated entrance
– Tight security: authorized entry only
– Special policy for retail areas
– $0.50 per day parking charge.
[email protected]
GPS / Location Tracking for Cellular
• FCC E-9-1-1 requirement
• Nextel network / Motorola handset
– $149 color GPS handset, $50 grayscale
– Network tells handset which satellites to scan for
– Walkie-Talkie
– $10/mo additional data charge
– Apps: auto navigation, fleet tracking / job dispatch.
Operator
AT&T/Cingular
Verizon
Sprint PCS
Nextel
T-Mobile
[email protected]
Mkt
28%
21
11
7
6
LBS Tech.
API?
TDOA
120m No
SnapTrack aGPS 3-20m '05 trial w/ BREW 2
SnapTrack aGPS 3-20m Summer '04 J2ME
Motorola/SiRF
8-20m J2ME 1.0 & 2.0
TDOA
120m No
Anti-PRT Hobbyist Opinion Papers
• Silver Bullet via private sector obliterates 90% of arguments
• Randall O’Toole, MN: lightrailnow.org
– Authors have something to lose if PRT succeeds. Not neutral
• Empathy for ROT: congestion pricing, kill public transit & smart growth.
PRT forestalls. Contrarianism  closed minded (as coping strategy)
• Empathy for LRN: LRT projects take 5+ years of advocacy, PRT
competes. This is a common phenomenon
– Scholarship: no peer review, no empirical research
– “mixed metaphors” / damn present using unrelated past
– Confusion over the PRT concept
• Hate it. Read about it. Imagine bizarre implications
– Lack of insider knowledge, relevant background, technical insight
• versus Cybertran control system design, only U.S. citizen at ULTra test
track, 500+ hours with Taxi2000, rare Morgantown research, BART GRT
study, rare Austrans presentation, U.C. PATH exposure, TRB experience
• Due diligence is necessary before investing in PRT
– Many issues
– Opinion papers focus on the wrong issues.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Survey: Logistics
• 2 year relationship with EPRI
• 10 minutes with C.O.O. Ric Rudman
–  permission to “swarm” the company for a day
– Get EPRI to take some ownership
• Negotiate with
– Cafeteria for $8 lunches
– Facilities for putting up the PRT model
– IT for web access, scheduling 66 people, 2 x 15
– HR for e-mail invitations every day.
[email protected]
Survey protocol
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~2 people every 15 min
Rob or Jeral greets them
Education: full size model
Clipboard: current commute
Education: Movie, virtual city, benefits, survey
Commute comparison e-mailed
Participant takes survey (25 minutes)
– Print out last page for free $8 lunch
• We spend about 40 minutes for participant.
[email protected]
Large Research Project
• 10 Multidisciplinary projects
– GIS map 8,200 employee addresses
• P&TC presentation March ‘03
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Full scale PRT model
3D virtual city & micro simulation
13 one-hour interviews (lit review)
 62 surveys, 40 minutes per
Cellular SW design (patent pending)
Smart parking design
Economics / greenhouse gas
Urban planning:
• Local workforce housing preference
• Housing in SRP: toxic releases.
[email protected]
Demand Analysis Problem
• Forecast commute mode split & PRT ridership
• Service doesn’t exist
– Pick the “least worst” methodology
– Significant educational component
• New tech product research (Silicon Valley)
– Iteratively listen to customers & design solutions.
[email protected]
Time advantage for people who prefer train to drive alone
5
0
Time Advantage (minutes)
0
10
20
30
40
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Door to Door Drive Alone Time (minutes)
•
•
•
SOV preferrers face same time advantage
VTA’s model: 30% time penalty => high ridership
Interviewees stated willingness to incur 50% or higher time penalty
[email protected]
50
60
e-mail address
Survey
Commute Alternative?
Carpool
Train
Bus
Bike/Walk
Chit-chat
Experience
Experience
Strenuousness
Personal Time
Reliability
Reliability
Weather/Sunlight
Proximity
Personal Time
Personal Time
Safety
Compatibility
Experience
Reliability
Personal Support
Personal Support
Stranding
• Problem/solution pairs
– #12 compatibility
– Gap analysis
• Educational questions
• Discourage alternatives
Day End Activities
Personal Storage
Electric Shuttle Rides per Week
Commute mode split
Time tradeoff
[email protected]
Free lunch!
effectiveness
importance
Results: Carpool preference: Gap analysis
Reliability / GPS cell apps
Compatibility / dating service
Proximity / 20K candidates
Private time / productive time
Personal support + web chat
Chit-chat / silence
0%
[email protected]
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Effectiveness
Importance
Alternative preference: combined gaps
Stranding / loaner + ride
home
Day end activity / ?
Trunk storage / duffle
0%
[email protected]
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need more participants, need computer workers
Year 2008 assumptions
Bias of survey team
No control group
Self selection
Social desirability effect
Inaccurate commute comparisons
Criticisms
– Need more peak hour traffic adjustment, etc.
– BART to Caltrain transfer was understated
• Details to add:
– Climbing stairs, HomeSafe
• Some folks needed two alternatives
• Bike/ped: insufficient folks
• Undercount: Novelty, “bad” alternatives, over-thinking,
tipping point
[email protected]
Results: carpool time advantage
Time advantage: prefer carpool to drive alone
Time advantage (minutes)
10
5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
-5
-10
-15
-20
Door-to-Door Drive Alone Time (minutes)
[email protected]
60
70
Results: Biking
• Casual biker theory
– Hard core: rain suit, bike in dark, sweat, expensive
bike, bike next to fast cars, problem solver
– Casual: the opposite. Bike on tree-lined residential
streets. Use PRT to traverse unpleasant section &
for mid-day trips
• Switched ½ to casual biking:
– 12 min, 4 mile SOV to 32 min bike + PRT
• Casual biker theory worked once.
• Both were “too far” away
– & switched 25 min, 9 mi SOV to 55 min bike + PRT
[email protected]
Why Stanford / SRP?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
South bay commute trip reduction leader
Marguerite bus shuttle
Workforce-oriented housing (natl policy innovator)
Much less "auto-accommodating," parking is a hassle
General Use Permit I & II: no new net trips
Leading techno university: GCEP (Global Climate and Energy
Project), micro sensors, B-school, etc.
Entrepreneurial President Hennessey: MIPS (microprocessors)
founder, major Google shareholder
Leland Stanford Sr. – Continental RR – single biggest techno
change. Created world's 7th largest economy
SRP: historical template for sprawling office parks, parent of
Silicon Valley
HP & Engineering Dean Terman created cooperative
competition atmosphere.
[email protected]
Full Scale Model
• Fake guideway: lightweight, portable, shippable
– Tent truss with ribs (& sock) on sonotube + base
– Design challenge – tradeshow booth
• Visual impact: (squelches freeway overpass)
– See visarc.com
• Scrounge machine shop time
• SideFX: advocacy, context study
• IDEO charrette.
[email protected]
Full Scale Model – TRB ‘03
[email protected]
U.C. Transportation Conference
[email protected]
Eugene, OR
[email protected]
@ Berkeley
[email protected]
[email protected]
3D Animation
• Virtual city: 180 buildings, streets, trees, parking,
sidewalks, 200 PRT vehicles + guideway
• $5/day animators in China vs. $40/hr in S.F.
• Full PRT simulation with empty vehicle
mangement
• Real-time flythru: pick source, dest, then go
– Optimized like a game, not a movie: VRML/DirectX
• Legwork: facades, aerials, topology, etc..
[email protected]
Massive Five Project Thesis
• Effort
– 13 people spent 20+ hours
– 2,500 hours total
– Consultants estimated $325K
• 5 multidisciplinary projects
–
–
–
–
–
8,200 geocoded addresses
Full scale PRT model
3D virtual city
13 one-hour interviews
 62 surveys, 40 minutes per
• Advisor: Cervero
– Like Shaheen’s car sharing dissertation.
[email protected]
TRASH
SLIDES
FOLLOW
[email protected]
Advanced Corridor Sweep
Line Haul
First Mile
Walk, bike, push scooter
22 lbs. $350 folding E-Scooter
Lockers at bus stops
Neighborhood jitney/taxi
Kiss ‘n ride
Park ‘n ride w/ space mgmt
Segway w/ rain shield
[email protected]
148th & 156th
Bus: 15 min, guaranteed service
- BRT coming to 156th
Digital hitchiking at bus stops
-Dynamic ridematch, NextRide
(ETA & tracking), reputation rating,
cellular mug shots, background
checks, ArriveSafe
-Bike racks on vehicles
Last Mile
Walk, bike, scooter
High Level Of Service Shuttle
PRT
On campus: carsharing w/ BMWs,
hybrids, etc.; guaranteed ride
home, etc.
Q&A Menu
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
JFK & Nixon re “can it be done?”
Quantum Change
Visual Impact
Noise (picture of electric vehicle)
Terrorism / Safety
Economics
PRT cost / transportation cost overruns
Technology risk
Big Sister / Privacy
Smart parking
What’s original
New mobility priorities / survey validation
Why Stanford?
ULTRA, Morgantown
[email protected]
Housing Moral Imperative
• Parents bought nice house in midtown in 1964
• Adjusting for Consumer Price Index, house should
now cost $139,400.
[email protected]
PRT – Rapid Local Shuttle
• Feeder / Distributor
• Solves last mile problem. Alignment. CamSys
• High service level, no waiting, faster than a car.
– Non-stop, 30 MPH, Video
– Ride alone or with 1-2 people you choose
– Convenient stops by buildings (not on street)
– Comfortable, quiet, safe, no exhaust
• Services mid-day trips effectively
• Improves other modes
[email protected]
TrakRide
[email protected]
Planning Vision: Improved Edge City
• Improved suburban TOD. Typical, tiny 64 acre transit
village increases to 1,280 acres.
–
–
–
–
–
Increase real-estate values
Reduce parking requirements  reclaim parking
Add new housing by jobs (duh!)
Unsubsidized PRT system
Will spread like the electric trolley in 1888
• Reduce cost of car ownership
• Improve job access
• Augment lifeline transit network
– (swing + graveyard shift)
• Increase child/senior mobility
[email protected]
Suburban mode split
Home
80% SOV, 14% carpool, 5% transit
Office
Slow, inconvenient transit
No activities
Free parking
Suburb
¼ mi radius
Transit share > SOV share
CBD
Fast commuter rail
Mixed activities
Paid parking
Home
CBD-like
Station
Fast transit
Activities
Office
Feeder
Scale!
[email protected]
How PRT Works
•
•
•
•
•
Stations on sidings / off-line
Elevated 16’
Driverless
Built like a roller coaster
Thin columns, shallow footings.
[email protected]
xMetholodogy: Interview findings
• Improved ridesharing matchmaking
– Like anonymous web dating
• Increased “productive” time:
– sleep is productive!
• Existing bus shuttles are loathed
• Interviews write the survey.
• Personal Support
– Web chat “commute community” + knowledge base
– Responsive customer support
– Eliminate “nightmare” transit experiences. Reliable backup.
• Effective car loaners / ride home
• Short SOV commutes CAN be changed.
[email protected]
xDemand Analysis: Attitudes
• Rich literature on attitudes
• CamSys: surveys to segment market (samTrans)
–
–
–
–
–
I would change my form of travel to get more productive time
I don’t mind traveling with people who are different than me
I don’t mind if the train or bus runs behind schedule
I need to have flexibility to make trips during the day
I would switch modes if it would help the environment
• Propose a door to door service that addresses these problems
– First use interviews to define the service
– Then use surveys to validate that the service will succeed
• Validate importance of specific features (gap analysis)
• Prof. Cervero: “sweat the details”
– Cambridge Systematics agrees re “last mile problem”
• Commuter rail improvements less important
[email protected]
xImplications
• Reducing Drive Alone share is hard
– technically feasible, but politically challenging
• PRT shuttles are not solutions, need much more
– New mobility, TMA, etc.
• Improve bus shuttles
• Improve ridesharing matchmaking
• Cellular geolocation apps
– SW is easy, generating carrier profit is tricky
• Casual biker theory deserves more study
– Theory seems correct, but too little data
• Try/promote remedies for bus motion sickness.
[email protected]
5 Demand Analysis Projects
• $20,000 out-of-pocket + volunteer labor
• Cervero: “pioneering demand methodology”
Commute Shed
3D Animation
Full Scale Model
Interviews
Web Survey
[email protected]
Consultant Bid
$50K
$75K
$50K
$150K
$325K
Volunteers
2+
6+
5+
2+
3+
PRT
• Rapid local shuttle
• Feeder / Distributor
– 5 mile alignment
• Faster than a car.
[email protected]
Vehicle Storage
Next Steps
• TrakRide SW development
• Advocacy
– Stanford “no”  flanking maneuvers
– John Hennessy, Daimler, Lockheed, HP, housing advocates,
“willingness to franchise”, TMA, real-estate interests
– Presentations, PR
• Target: wealthy tech innovators (who played with trains as kids)
– Planning study federal earmark via political hierarchy
• Template for other cities
– Lengthy effort
– 15 pg & 188 pg reports: http://www.cities21.org/silver_bullet.htm
– ? 400 person forecast.
[email protected]
Bay Area Trends  Change
•
•
•
•
•
149% traffic congestion increase (2020)
40% population increase
Latino 2010 majority (vs. Palo Alto 4.6%)
Palo Alto Housing Element challenges
Current smart growth paradigm  minimal
impact.
[email protected]
xMethodology: Interviews
• 13 one hour interviews:
– What is your commute day like?
• Likes, dislikes
• Experience with commute alternatives
– Respond to custom PRT / new mobility scenario
• Challenges
– SOV folks don’t know problems with alternatives.
[email protected]
Advanced Corridor Sweep
First Mile
Walk, bike, push scooter
22 lbs. $350 folding E-Scooter
Lockers at bus stops
Neighborhood jitney/taxi
Kiss ‘n ride
Park ‘n ride w/ space mgmt
Segway w/ rain shield
[email protected]
Line Haul
Bus: 15 min, guaranteed service
Digital hitchiking at bus stops
-Dynamic ridematch, NextRide
(ETA & tracking), reputation rating,
cellular mug shots, background
checks, ArriveSafe
-Bike racks on vehicles
Last Mile
Walk, bike, scooter
High Level of Service shuttle
PRT
On campus: carsharing,
guaranteed ride home, etc.
Employee Smart Jitney
Arterial
[email protected]
Halving Solo Driving
• Futuristic (none of this works yet!)
• 1) Big suburban office parks: 20K workers
– PRT Shuttle + Digital Mobility
• 2) MS Arterial Sweep for short commutes
– Casual carpooling, Electric bikes, Wireless
• Hope ideas spur variations & out of box ideas
• Steve Raney, Cities21.
[email protected]
TDM Effectiveness - old
• TDM (transportation demand management) programs
are crucial, yet few shift more than 15% net.
• EPA Best Workplaces for Commuters 41 cases:
– 40%: Georgia Power ’97 to ‘99, solo: 90% to 50%, 3K jobs.
Via 1) $65/mo subsidy, 2) Every 10 min MARTA shuttle
service. Fishy numbers. Shuttle served ~220 out of 3K
jobs. Why discontinued?
– 25%: Paid parking / transportation allowance. Reductions:
16, 25, 28, 20, 16, 25, 34, 25%.
– 19%: Portland's CBD TMA: solo from 72% to 53%.
Extensive pgm w/ cultural shift. Hartford Steam Boiler
(CBD): 18%
– 15% Bishop Ranch, questionable control group.
[email protected]