This demonstration was successful and led to a further development project in 1970, which expanded several times and eventually produced a large test track outside of Tokyo.
However, in 1978, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport declined to grant CVS a license under existing safety regulations, citing issues with the short headway distances.
Existing systems, heavy rail and subways, required major infrastructure and had high capital costs that limited their use to only the densest urban areas.
Buses could run on existing roadways, but were thus subject to traffic problems and could not offer the high-speed services that made subways so attractive to riders.
In 1964, Fichter published a book,[1] which proposed an automated public transit system for areas of medium to low population density.
The publication of the reports in 1968 as Tomorrow's Transportation sparked off a wave of developments around the world, as it appeared PRT was going to be "the next big thing".
[5] This meant the guideway system could be built in a fashion much more similar to conventional roadways, without the need to separate tracks at crossing points, or building offline stations.
Although these types of infrastructure would improve performance of the system, in areas of less demand or traffic they could be eliminated to save on capital costs.
[5] Following the successful demonstration at the Tokyo Motor Show, MITI provided funding for development of a full-sized version of the same system at Higashimurayama, built on top of an existing car test track and former racetrack.
Since the emergency braking was extremely powerful, passengers were seated facing to the rear, and Japanese law already precluded standing in automated vehicles.
This version allowed potential customers to purchase a vehicle and drive it like a normal car for short distances at low speeds using battery power.
[5] Expo also hosted a larger group rapid transit system from Kobe Steel, which was a licensed version of the Alden staRRcar being built by Boeing Vertol.
Phase II testing completed in 1978 and the consortium started looking for deployment opportunities, developing a serious proposal for an installation in Baltimore.
For example, the California Public Utilities Commission states that its rail regulations apply to PRT, and these require railway-sized headways.
J. Edward Anderson, a long-time PRT advocate and critic, noted that the guideway was very large and had a major visual impact.
[12] CVS vehicles were built like contemporary vans, with a chassis holding the mechanical systems with a metal monocoque body placed on top.
[16] This placed CVS right in the middle of the PRT/GRT spectrum, between busses that normally deliver about 3,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphph) and conventional subways which operate around 50,000 pphpd.