Transit With All the Advantages of a Car

There is no question that cars cause congestion, pollution and other problems. Yet mass transit hasn’t proved an acceptable alternative to the passenger automobile for most people, particularly for business. What may be needed is transit that’s both public and private.

Urban planners are studying personal rapid transit as an alternative to traditional mass transit. PRT systems would connect single-user transit vehicles with a network of stations and track to attract non-drivers and automobile users.

PRT systems would have small, fully automated vehicles that operate without drivers on guideways reserved for PRT use. The small size of the vehicles means that individuals or small groups could travel alone. Vehicles would be available on an as-needed basis, ordered by the user, rather than on a fixed schedule. Service would be direct from origin to destination without transfers or stops.

Thomas H. Floyd Jr., chairman of the Advanced Transit Assn. in Arlington, Va., says: “These features have some extremely important implications. They imply a public transportation service that would have many of the appealing characteristics of the automobile. You could ride alone or only with passengers of your own choice. You could board a vehicle as soon as you arrive--or after a brief wait--in a small, well-lighted station.”

PRT track and stations, because they’re smaller, would be considerably less expensive than traditional mass transit systems, meaning that a dense network could be developed cost- effectively. With stations clustered around and among office buildings, shopping centers, apartment complexes and other populated areas, users would have short walks to stations and a far greater number of stations available than today’s transit systems provide.

In addition to being a more efficient means for commuters to travel from suburbs to the central city, the system also would be better for business deliveries, office-to-office and suburb-to-suburb travel.

In addition, a PRT system’s hours of operation would be a vast improvement over mass transit systems. “PRT costs little extra to operate during the off-peak hours,” Floyd says. “Cars rest in stations when not in demand. Moreover, each additional rider attracted to the service during off-peak hours generates a financial benefit” since PRT vehicles never operate empty, as buses and subways often do today.

A 1989 report by the Advanced Traffic Assn. noted that:

* PRT systems could be built with current technology.

* Systems could be built and tested in a relatively short time.

* The cost of building a PRT system would likely be unusually low compared to traditional mass transit tracked systems.

The report concluded that “what PRT most needs today is for transit operators, government authorities and industry to begin to take it seriously.”

The idea of personal rapid transit has taken shape over several decades. PRT experiments have been conducted in several countries, but no system has gone into regular use.

In April, 1990, the Regional Transportation Authority of Chicago announced plans to evaluate a PRT system as a means of helping alleviate “suburban traffic gridlock.” It will provide up to $3 million to conduct two preliminary engineering studies, which will be completed within the next three years. Authority Chairman Gayle M. Franzen described the system as “a relatively easy-to-construct, above-ground system featuring small, fully automated cars.”

“PRT is an experiment of necessity,” Franzen said. “Suburban growth, particularly over the past decade, has had a staggering impact on traffic congestion. Present mass transit technologies have not fully met suburban transportation demand. While no one can realistically expect people to stop using their cars, we believe attractive and convenient mass transit alternatives can have a significant impact.”