• Technology Risks - The possibility that such a system cannot be built.
  
  All the individual components of our reference system (Taxi 2000), with the exception of the in-vehicle switch, are proven and used in other systems. Most are available off-the-shelf. The in-vehicle switch is a low tech part requiring no special processes or understanding to construct. The computer software required has been written and used extensively for simulating the systems. All of the elements of the design were tested sucessfuly in Raytheon's PRT 2000 program.

Austin will not be the first city to try PRT. Cardiff, Wales is currently constructing a system using the ULTra technology developed by the University of Bristol, England. Cincinnati may select a system using Taxi 2000 technology, and they would be ahead of Austin by at least a year. We will have the benefit of the knowledge gained from others.

ACPRT also recommends that no construction capital be spent until a working PRT prototype system meets or exceeds requirements for successful operation set by Austin.

• Financial Risks - The potential for unexpected costs increases to significantly impact system construction.
  
  All large capital projects face some level of financial risks. Since PRT doesn't have a long track record it involves more financial risks than more well-understood options. There are aspects of the technology and several methods that can be used to help minimize and manage these additional risks, including:

  Lower projected base costs - While the risks of cost escalation may be higher, the base costs which may be affected is lower. A full-scale PRT system serving the corridor identified in Capital Metros light rail plans might be build for $650 million or less - substantially less than the proposed light rail system. Which would be preferable - A cost escalation of 25% in a $1 billion project or a 25% escalation in a $650 million project?

  Demand a prototype - No capital construction funds should be spent until a working prototype system is demonstrated. This system can then be evaluated with regards to cost BEFORE a larger system is installed in Austin.

  Start small - Austin should select a small, self-sufficient section of the initial PRT network to be constructed and operated first. The downtown circulator segment could be built and evaluated first since it is small (about 12 miles of guideway) and, in the event that a larger PRT network proves unworkable, could provide transportation benefits by serving as a circulator either by itself or in concert with a traditional large-vehicle system.

• Political Risks - The potential for the system to be deemed unacceptable by the citizens of Austin .

  In this respect, PRT should be a better risk than other alternatives. PRT's small size and lower costs make it easier to expand and serve a higher percentage of Austin citizenry. The high service levels should make the system more attractive to automobile commuters than more traditional alternatives.
  
  

PRT Rewards

What are these high potentials of PRT? Below is a short list of the major reasons PRT will outperform other public transit alternatives:

• More access points - PRT will have 4 to 5 times the number of stops (stations) as other systems.

• Higher quality service - No other alternative offers non-stop, private, 24-hour service with little or no waiting.

• Higher ridership - The two previous items will attract more people to ride PRT than other proposals, with commiserate reductions in road use, traffic congestion, and pollutant emissions.

• Lower capital costs - Estimates for PRT systems range from 6 to 10 million dollars per guideway mile. Even with the additional guideways required by the one-way operation of a PRT system, this costs would have to rise 75% (from 10 to 17.5 million/mile) to match the light rail costs of 40 million per mile - and the PRT system would still provide more access and higher service levels and lower operating costs.

• Lower operating costs - The non-stop operation of light (1000 lb.) vehicles lead to operating costs estimates of 15 cents per passenger mile for a small system to 6.5 cents/ mile for a large system. This compares favorably to 42 cents/mile for light rail or 50 cents/mile for bus solutions.