2008 Suburban Silver Bullet: PRT Shuttle + Digital Mobility for SRP

1. 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.

2. Thanks MVPs 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Customer-Centered Product Research Literature • 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. Interviews Experts Product Concept Commute Refined Concept Validation Surveys

6. 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).

7. PRT Vehicle Storage • 5 mile alignment

8. 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

9. 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.

10. Train first mile Walk Bike, scooter, Segway Bus (Smart jitney) first mile Short carpool pick up • Improved match-making • Shared parking Long carpool first mile PRT shuttle system LAST MILE mid-day trips Comprehensive, Integrated MobilityDoor to Door Centralized Cars: share, rent, ride home Delivery services, Personal activities, Business services • Web/wireless coordination • Supportive policy context • Scale!

11. 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..

12. 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.

13. Old transit village 20 acres New retail Jobs New housing Personal Activities: Quality schools, day care, hiking, parks, movies, grocery, banks, restaurants, cafes, bars, grocery, gym, massage, yoga, dentist, etc. Jobs Business Services: Banks, PC store, copies, FedEx, legal, accounting, etc. PRT shuttle system “New Suburbanist” Transit Village Reduced auto dependence: <50% SOV trips (for workers, residents, & shoppers.) Child/Senior mobility! Train Station 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 Extended T.O.D. 1280 acres

14. 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.”

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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).

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. PRT+D2D Economics

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. CA Ave Caltrain: PRT design Little things like open doors before stopping Up stream storage

28. 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%.

29. 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. David Bornstein

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.”

33. Technology curve

34. Wireless Commute AssistantBig Sister knows where & who you are GPS: tracking Customer support QuickCar, < 5 minutes Trip planning, travel advisory Order a PRT vehicle NextTrain TrakRide for carpools HomeSafe, SpyKids NextSpace for parking Shared parking entry, QuickCar key Easy PRT ticketing Improved indoor reception Wi-Fi payment

35. AM pickup A: 10 min B: 7 min C: 3 min SMS nudge to A at 7:10, 7:15 A departs OK B is 2 min late C delays 2 min Encourages punctuality, courtesy. Eliminates uncertainty. TrakRide 7:25AM: 2 min late 7:20AM: on time A A B B C C pick up pick up 7:32AM: arrival 7:29AM: 2 min late A A B B C C pick up pick up

36. NextTrain When to leave desk Race to train station Worker must “win” PRT wait = fcn(demand) Slack TR: 6:35PM train is on time Every 30 sec, recalculate 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 TR TM LV 6:30 6:25 6:35 MP UNIV RC CA Time: 6:24PM 2nd train arrives 6:50PM TR TM 6:30 6:25 6:35 UNIV CA E-shuttle Time: 6:31PM, 2:00 minutes slack 2nd train arrives 6:51PM

37. “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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. SOV preferrers face same time advantage • VTA’s model: 30% time penalty => high ridership • Interviewees stated willingness to incur 50% or higher time penalty

47. Survey • Problem/solution pairs • #12 compatibility • Gap analysis • Educational questions • Discourage alternatives

48. Pool gaps

49. Combined Gaps

50. Criticisms • Need more participants, need computer workers • Year 2008 assumptions • Bias of survey team • No control group • Self selection • Social desirability effect • Inaccurate commute comparisons • 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