Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) New Jersey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) for New Jersey By ORF 467 Transportation Systems Analysis, Fall 2004/05 Princeton University Prof. Alain L. Kornhauser Nkonye Okoh Mathe Y. Mosny Shawn Woodruff Rachel M. Blair Jeffery R Jones James H. Cong Jessica Blankshain Mike Daylamani Diana M. Zakem Darius A Craton Michael R Eber Matthew M Lauria Bradford Lyman M Martin-Easton Robert M Bauer Neset I Pirkul Megan L. Bernard Eugene Gokhvat Nike Lawrence Charles Wiggins Table of Contents: Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction to Personal Rapid Transit .......................................................................................... 3 New Jersey Coastline Summary .................................................................................................... 5 Burlington County (M. Mosney '06) ..............................................................................................6 Monmouth County (M. Bernard '06 & N. Pirkul '05) .....................................................................9 Hunterdon County (S. Woodruff GS .......................................................................................... 24 Mercer County (M. Martin-Easton '05) ........................................................................................31 Union County (B. Chu '05) ...........................................................................................................37 Cape May County (M. Eber '06) …...............................................................................................42 Middlesex County (D. Craton '06) ................................................................................................48 Sussex County (M. Mosney '06 & J. Jones GS) .......................................................................... 55 Warren County (J. Jones GS) ....................................................................................................... 60 Hudson County (J. Cong '05) ....................................................................................................... 64 Morris County (R. Blair '06) ........................................................................................................ 77 Atlantic County (B. Lyman '05) .......... ....................................................................................... 84 Ocean County (D. Zakem '06 & N. Lawrence '06) ...................................................................... 87 Somerset County (M. Daylamani '06) ......................................................................................... 93 Salem County (E Gokhvat '07) .................................................................................................... 99 Essex County (J. Cong '05) ........................................................................................................ 104 Cumberland County (C. Wiggins '05) ....................................................................................... 116 Passaic County (J. Blankshain '06) ............................................................................................ 130 Bergen County (J. Blankshain '06) ............................................................................................ 135 Northern New Jersey Summary ................................................................................................. 143 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 144 Links .......................................................................................................................................... 145 Oral Presentation Slides ................................................................................................... Appendix Executive Summary This report is a study of the feasible implementation of a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system for the state of New Jersey. It was motivated in part by the shortcoming of the Route 1 Corridor Transit Study, which failed to consider PRT as an alternative, despite its ability to provide true personal mobility. This report was the result of a term project completed by the students enrolled in the Transportation Systems Planning and Policy Analysis course (ORF467) offered by Princeton University’s Operations Research and Financial Engineering Department in the fall of 2004. The study was organized by dividing the class into four sections, and assigning each group a region of contiguous counties accounting for the entire state of New Jersey. Each student was responsible for researching their county, including the current transportation system, major trip producers and attractors (residential areas, employers, etc.), general land use, and other characteristics pertinent to transportation. This research guided the creation of PRT networks for each county, with the goal of providing a “ubiquity of access” with the minimum number of stations and interchanges. The PRT-Editor, a version of the CoPilot software modified by Kate Doliwa was used to create and merge the networks. The final network consisted of nearly 11,000 stations and about 10,000 miles of track. On the low end, estimating $500,000 per mile of track and $500,000 per station, the project amounts to about $10 billion US. Since this is only a rough estimate of the cost for the network, the actual cost might vary from $5 billion to $30 billion. Although this number might appear large, it is a small price to pay to provide personal transportation to the entire state of New Jersey. County Number of PRT Stations Miles of PRT Track Atlantic 1,063 791 Bergen 396 298 Burlington 232 549 Camden 68 55 Cape May 811 488 Cumberland 1,590 609 Essex 766 327 Glauchester 448 302 Hudson 259 118 Hunterdon 353 380 Mercer 586 369 Middlesex 283 436 Monmouth 533 1,149 Morris 451 539 Ocean 1,358 974 Passaic 296 244 Salem 280 382 Somerset 564 658 Sussex 362 462 Union 252 183 Total 10,951 9,313 Page 2 of 147 What is PRT? The modern concept of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) surfaced in the late 1960’s after being introduced and endorsed in a report by Housing and Urban Development. The paper, in effect, lead to several efforts in academia and both the private and public sectors that would form the quantitative framework for the PRT network of today. Collaborating with the United States, Japan, France, and West Germany also helped in developing the logistics of PRT networks. Particularly in the last decade, there has been a resurgence in both the interest and the efforts to incorporate PRT into mass transit systems in the country today. PRT exists as a network of one-way tracks allowing passengers to commute from station to station via individual pods. Unlike the transportation systems of today, the user of PRT can individually select her destination station and be transported non-stop. Direction changes and forks in travel routes are accommodated by interchanges within the PRT track. A central computer system optimizes the flow of traffic along the track and into/out of each station. The entire network operates seamlessly to provide the passenger with efficient point to point travel access. There exists a strong belief among many scholars, politicians, and businessmen that PRT will in the future be able to solve most transportation problems (congestion, pollution, etc) with moderate to low cost. On the other hand, some critics are quick to label any proposed PRT system as being inefficient and overly-expensive. These critics often declare the size of the PRT vehicles and system are ill-equipped to handle high density travel areas and would be difficult to either build around existing structures and facilities, or to incorporate into modern cities. Over the last few decades, many improvements to proposed networks have dispelled fears regarding PRT and silenced disbelievers. The vast improvements of computer technology have increased the reliability of proposed systems and allowed for more detailed and intricate PRT networks. As the computing power of microchips has increased exponentially since the 1960’s, the cost of these microchips has also decreased exponentially due to private competition and the general availability of materials. Simple changes like automated fare collection and GPS have now greatly reduced labor cost, dropping the long-term marginal cost of PRT operation to nearly zero. With this in mind, PRT has been transformed into a realistic and efficient method of transportation. Some believe that PRT would be unable to legitimately compete with traditional forms of mass transit. On the contrary, PRT exists as an on-demand service and would provide a more efficient method of transportation than do the busses, trains, and subways of today. The on- demand nature of PRT prevents the gathering of large groups in stations, the largest bottleneck in today’s mass transit systems. Since PRT stations will be spaced from five to ten miles apart on average, passengers will be afforded several departure and arrival locations for each trip. Most important, however, is the fact that PRT is not subject to traffic, weather, peak hours, or accidents. Page 3 of 147 History of PRT “One after another, the various federally funded PRT showcases either fizzled or bombed terribly, exceeding budgets, and exhibiting an array of unforeseen technical problems – some of which seemed to be inherent in the concept.” (Light Rail Now! Publication Team) In the late