Synergies Between PRT and Driverless C ars

1. Synergies Between PRT and Driverless Cars Prof. Em. Ingmar Andreasson LogistikCentrumAB

2. Ingmar Andreasson • Bus network planning 1970:ies • Taxi fleet management 1980:ies • Driverless transit since 1990:ies • PRT design and control patents • Professor Traffic simulation KTH • Vice President Advanced Transit Association

3. New transport modes are needed • Use of private cars has decreased • Fewer youngsters take driver’s license • Car industry in crisis • Energy crisis • Climate crisis • Congestion • Lack of space for roads and parking

4. Peak car (Britain)

5. Some development trends • Electric cars • Car-sharing • Co-modal trip planners • Autonomous cars • Driverless transit

6. Google car

7. NHTSA Levels of automation • L1: Function specific (ex: braking) • L2: Combined functions (ACC+lane) • L3: Limited self-driving • Driver can cede control under conditions • Google car, platoons • L4: Self-driving • Can run empty, shared or public • In parking lots, reserved lanes

8. SARTRE project 0.3 sec headway (6 m gap) @ 85 kph in mixed traffic

9. Driverless transit • Vehicles can be small • Short headways • Individual, on demand • Non-stop between transit stops • Reserved right-of-way • Personal Rapid Transit

10. Morgantown PRT since38 years • 73 vehicles • 80 million passengers • No serious accident

11. Modern PRT • Small, light • Short headways

12. Automated Transit Networks (PRT) • Steering, braking, navigating since 1975 • Reserved lanes or separate “roads” • Empty repositioning by demand • Excellent safety • Available to all (age, disabilities, license) • Low energy, no pollution

13. Synergy contributions from cars • Resources for development • Low-cost sensors • Better batteries • Economies of scale • Communication protocols • Acceptance of short headways (0.3 vs 3 secs) • Strong industry lobby

14. Economies of scale 100 000 € 100 000 € 30 000 €

15. Contributions from PRT • 38 years operating experience • Proven safety • Standards and certification • Ride-sharing strategies • Empty vehicle management • Safe and smooth intersection control

16. Ride-sharingpatterns D2 O D1 Same destination Two destinations Two & pick-up (Pick-up & continue)

17. Vehiclesurplus/deficits Vehicles in station – Vehicles allocated to depart + Vehicles (loaded or empty) on way in – Passenger parties waiting – Expected passengers during call time

18. Management ofempties • Call/sendbased on surplus/deficit • Swap destinations so longestwaitingpassenger gets nearest • Sendremainingtolargest deficit

19. Intersection control • Approaching vehicle calls controller • Controller allocates passage time-slot • Notice of passage time sent to vehicle • Vehicle adapts speed to fit slot • Individual greens to pass • = Merge control in asynchronous PRT

20. Dual-Mode Car development • Manual plus Driverless on guideway PRT development • Guideway PRT plus manual control • Convergence of Car and PRT

21. Dual-mode cars

22. Dual-Mode is attractive • Door to door travel • Guideways and access can be widely spaced • Need not be connected to network • Attractive along arterials with queues • Allows gradual implementation • Vehicles private – less public investment • No operator – V2V control • Public system possible on guideways

23. Dual-Mode infrastructure • Guideway = public road • Relieving road congestion • Open for equipped and checked vehicles • For small vehicles only • Less investment than new roads/lanes • Small footprint • Suitable for battery charging and debiting

24. Conclusions • Embrace Driverless Cars and PRT • Developments supporting each other • Both converge into Dual-Mode • Network of reserved roads/lanes/guideways for autonomous vehicles • Private and public transport on same network • Automated taxi – “aTaxi” • Eventually in mixed traffic