Synergies Between PRT and Driverless Cars Prof. Em. Ingmar Andreasson LogistikCentrum AB

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

ATRA Industry Group  Not-for-profit professional association  Subgroup of Advanced Transit Association  Industries with proven record in PRT  Suppliers with full-scale systems  Consultants with PRT experience  Universities with PRT research

Outline Why we need innovative transit Automation of cars and transit Contributions from driverless Cars Contributions from PRT Dual-Mode

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

Peak car (Britain)

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

Autonomous cars Self-driving Less accidents Private or shared or public Mixed traffic or separated Autonomous taxi – “aTaxi”

Google car

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

SARTRE project 0.3 sec headway (6 m 85 kph in mixed traffic

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

Morgantown PRT since 38 years 73 vehicles 80 million passengers No serious accident

Modern PRT Small, light Short headways

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

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

Economies of scale € € €

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

Ride-sharing patterns O D1 D2 Same destination Two destinations Two & pick-up (Pick-up & continue)

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

Management of empties 1.Call/send based on surplus/deficit 2.Swap destinations so longest waiting passenger gets nearest 3.Send remaining to largest deficit

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

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

Dual-mode cars

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

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

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