Do roads pay for themselves? Well, no

[marmar]

from Grist:




Do roads pay for themselves? Well, no

by Sarah Goodyear
4 Jan 2011 7:35 AM


Highway users, self-sufficiently paying their own way as they motor down the nation's roads. Transit users, always asking for a government handout so that they can ride their subways and buses.

It's an old stereotype that's been used to starve transit and fatten roads for generations. And it just isn't true.

Now it's time for a thorough debunking. Tanya Snyder reports on Streetsblog Capitol Hill:

The myth of the self-financed road meets its match today in the form of a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group: "Do Roads Pay For Themselves?" The answer is a resounding "no." All told, the authors calculate that road construction has sucked $600 billion out of America's public purse since the dawn of the interstate system.

U.S. PIRG's report takes down the "self-financed roads" canard point by point. It makes it clear that user fees do not pay for new roads ("user fees paid for only 51 percent of highway costs, down 10 percent over the course of a single decade"). And it takes a hard look at the external costs of driving, from environmental pollution and related health impacts to the myriad negative effects of the sprawl that all these roads enable.

As Snyder writes, the report comes out at a crucial time:

With a Republican majority in the House, the myth that roads pay for themselves will be again be enlisted to prioritize highways over transit, as the GOP begins shaping a transportation agenda around "getting back to basics" and cutting spending, especially for transit.

"We want to make sure that those falsehoods are not a part of this debate," said (U.S. PIRG's Dan) Smith. "People will think twice before saying roads pay for themselves when the numbers say they don't."

There are some conservatives speaking out about these facts as well. Last year, I interviewed William Lind, director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation, who told me that he is dedicated to educating his fellow Republicans on the truth about road subsidies versus transit subsidies. Here's what Lind told me then:

(It is to us) a bizarre notion that we hear from so many Republican candidates and officeholders, that says public transportation, particularly rail, is somehow left-wing, and if you're a conservative you want highways. These are not ideological issues. They're technical issues, and they need to be dealt with as such. ...

We try to point out to (Republicans) that this isn't just for someone else, but good public transit is something that the people who vote for them use and want and increasingly need. This kind of political lag, of course, is not uncommon. I am, in the short term, not optimistic, because again a lot of the incoming Republicans will have bought the libertarian line, that transit is subsidized and highways are not. Factually, that couldn't be more wrong.

Factually is the key word here. We'll soon find out if the new Congress thinks that way at all.


http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-04-do-roads-pay-for-themselves-well-no

[txlibdem]

1. If you want transportation that pays for itself you have to go PRT --Personal Rapid Transit

That is the only transportation system that becomes profitable once completed.

[happyslug]

2. PRT is an attempt to make Mass Transit more "Car like" and tends to fail for that reason

Wikipedia has a good overview of PRT (Through tends to minimize the problems with a PRT System):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

Some quotes from the Wikipedia piece:

As it stands, PRT remains a potential rather than a proven reality. A city-wide deployment with many lines and closely-spaced stations, as envisioned by proponents, has yet to be constructed. Past projects have failed because of financing, cost overruns, regulatory conflicts, political issues, misapplied technology, and flaws in design, engineering or review.

Vukan R. Vuchic, Professor of Transportation Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a proponent of traditional forms of transit, has stated his belief that the combination of small vehicles and expensive guideway makes it highly impractical in both cities (not enough capacity) and suburbs (guideway too expensive). According to Vuchic: "...the PRT concept combines two mutually incompatible elements of these two systems: very small vehicles with complicated guideways and stations. Thus, in central cities, where heavy travel volumes could justify investment in guideways, vehicles would be far too small to meet the demand. In suburbs, where small vehicles would be ideal, the extensive infrastructure would be economically unfeasible and environmentally unacceptable.

Thus the problem with PRT is that it is an attempt to use car size transit vehicles on its own separate right of way. Unless you can use such a system on the public street (and work around the issue of bicyclist and pedestrians using those same streets) the cost to build such a system will exceed the numbers of users (i.e. those who can not use a car on those same streets). The alternatives, Light Rail Vehicles (which can operate on streets and their own right of way), buses, and even heavy rail (On their own right of way) all have substantial savings in construction (i.e. no private right of way) OR can move masses of people quickly between several points (Heavy rail and Light Rail on its own right of way).

Do to the need for each car in a PRT system to be able to bypass stops, it can in theory go faster then mass transit, but that theory dies a quick death if the only Right of Way is blocked by other cars stopping at those stops and the car you are on NOT being able to go forward till that car empties and/or fills will passengers.

The Wikeipedia mentions Morgan town PRT System, but Morgan town is less a PRT system then a rubber tired electrically operated transit system (Which can be done with Light Rail IF it has its own exclusive right of way).

PRT sounds good for a person who wants the privacy of a car but not the obligation of a car once they arrived where they want to go. For anyone who has taken Mass Transit on a regular basis, it is to expensive a replacement for buses with minimal improvement in travel time. Most of the improvement in travel time, in most proposed PRT Systems, had less to do with the PRT system itself but more to do with any mass transit system built independent of public roads (Auto Traffic slows down mass transit more then the stops to pick up and leave off passengers).

Sorry, PRT is one of those dream systems that will NEVER live up to its dream even if built, and the cost of building the infrastructure for such a system would be better off spent on a Light Rail system on its own right of way and maybe even operated by remote control instead of by a driver.

Now, I have to admit I may be prejudice against the PRT concept. Sounds like the Skybus proposal in Allegheny County (County Seat: Pittsburgh PA) in the 1960s. It was a slightly larger vehicle then most PRT proposals but ran on an elevated concrete guideway and operated without a driver. A demonstration unit was built in the Allegheny County Park of South Park in the 1960s and ran every county Fair from the late 1960s till the year the Fair closed in 1972. Smooth ride, no operator, the demo had only two stops. If you go to almost any airport today you see its successor in any of the various people movers used in Airports.

The problem was it was being offered to the Citizens of Allegheny County as a replacement for the last two Streetcar Lines in the County. The Port Authority of Allegheny County (Which provides Mass Transit for Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh from 1964 to today) had adopted a policy of replacing all of its Streetcars with Buses. The problem was the last two lines if buses replaced Streetcars you were looking at a double in the time of transportation. The reason for this was these two lines used a Tunnel to get to Downtown Pittsburgh and after entering the tunnel under Mt Washington as the Streetcar left downtown Pittsburgh, it then went on its own right of ways. One exclusively on its own Right of Way to Library and Drake terminals of the Streetcar Line. The other a short right of way, then on Broadway Avenue through the Pittsburgh Neighborhood of Beechview, then on its own right of way through The Borough of Dormont, then on US 19 till its termination at what was called the Clearview loop in the Business district of MT Lebanon Township (There was a connection line between the Clearview loop and the other Streetcar line, but only used rarely in the 1960s).

During Rush Hour, you could NOT beat either streetcar to town (A Local Paper did run a car against the Streetcar and the car did beat the Streetcar to downtown Pittsburgh by about two minutes, that is before the car had to look for a parking place AND then walk back to downtown Pittsburgh, the person on the Streetcar was already where that person had to be).

Worse, to road the Library and Drake Streetcar ran along was a two lane (one lane in each direction) road, which could NOT be expanded without spending billions (it still has NOT been expanded to four lanes). To expand that road (PA 88) would not only require buying houses on both sides of the road, but spending money to secure the road from sinking, the road and the area by the road has all been undermined over the last 150 years.

Any conversion to buses would double travel time and worse, cause people to use their cars to get to downtown Pittsburgh, further backing up traffic on PA 88 and the road it ran into before getting to Downtown Pittsburgh, PA 51. Thus it was clear you could NOT replace the above streetcars with buses. Westinghouse offered Skybus as a replacement. It was to be elevated, operated by remote control etc just like a PRT system. The problem was HOW this was going to be done. Beechview was to have two stops instead of its Seven Stops (And one of the stops was to be a mile from the present Streetcar system so to get traffic from PA 51). Buses were to connect these two buses for those people who could NOT walk to those two stations. Dormont would have a Station, Mt Lebanon would have A Station. Castle Shannon (On the Drake and Library line) would have a Station. What is called Washington Junction would have a Station and the last Station would be opposite South Hills Village Mall (The first inside Mall in the Pittsburgh Area). The Library line would be converted to a bus line to haul people its entire length to the Washington Junction Stop.

As you can see the people of Beechview and Bethel Park (The township the Library line went through) revolted at the above (Mt Lebanon and South Hills Village Area supported Skybus). The fight ran from the mid 1960s when Skybus was proposed, to the mid 1970s when the Federal Government stepped in and force the Port Authority to actual do a study on the best way to handle transit in the above transit corridors.

No Study had ever been done, Skybus had taken off on its own by a board of directors that saw its duty as ending Streetcar operations no matter the cost. The Study was extensive and concluded that the system that would provide the most transit for the least cost would be an updated Streetcar System (This was the first time I heard the term "Light Rail System"). People who reviewed the study in detailed notice that there was nothing new in the study, had one been done in 1964 it would have come out the same way. Unless you are willing to provide 100% separation of transit, Light Rail is your best offer in any high density location (Can go on its own right of way at choke points, including using tunnels for LRVs are electric driven and thus less concern about fumes from the motors of the LRV compared to a bus). In low area of population density buses do the best job (No right of way to maintain and traffic is light).

I bring up Skybus for it may be prejudicing me, but I think it is also a classic example of what is wrong with the PRT concept. To make a PRT system work it must be extensive. Had Skybus been able to go to Library and Drake AND keep the number of stops the Streetcars had, the opposition to Skybus would have been minimal. The problem is to make the PRT extensive on its own right of way increases the cost of providing the PRT. Sooner or later you have to draw a line on costs. In Skybus an attempt was made to contain costs but left an unsatisfactory product. The people who would be using it said it was worse then the system it was replacing (By 1970 was using 20 year old streetcars, on bridges 65 to 110 years old, it needed replaced but was doing a better job of providing service then what Skybus was offering in service).

My point is PRT is like Skybus, much promise, but to provide that promise means spending more money then any other alternative would cost. i.e. the alternatives (including doing nothing) all all more cost effective. That is what is dooming PRT and will continue to doom PRT.

[nxylas]

3. Monorail! Monorail!! Monorail!!!

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), the main company promoting PRT has yet to demonstrate even a working model. Their website relies on a CGI animated simulation to demonstrate the potential of PRT.

[happyslug]

5. Allegheny County Skybus and the Morgantown WV system are often cited as PRT

But BOTH were built as MASS TRANSIT Vehicles in high population density areas. If you ignore the fact that you have to build bypasses on most stops to get the service PRT advocates claim (And the cost of those bypasses), and the low number of people per car, each car is capable of, it is a variable system. The problem once you address those two problems, light rail beats it out in high population density areas, AND buses beat it out in low population density areas (When you consider COST of infrastructure along with the cost of the actual service).

Here is a 1970 promotional film on Skybus that addresses these problems, but as rubber tired operated Light Rail Vehicle (i.e. like a light rail vehicle but with rubber tires):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aaEYK7Bh-s

[happyslug]

6. My sister, in high school, had a Science Project in the 1990s on Mag-lift and Monorails came up

My Sister's report of Mag-lift included an attempt to built a mag lift system. We did NOT want to do an actual Mag Lift system but something to catch people's eyes (This was in the 1990s and Pittsburgh had developed a Mag Lift mania, so we tried to cash in on that mania in the Science Project).

Anyway, we ran across a problem right away, the problem MOST non-rail system run across, how do you do better and cheaper than rail, given rail is a well established technology? We purchased a HO scale model of a Rail Car and some track as our "Control" and then tried to come up with a Mag lift system using magnets. We finally was able to come up with a "working" system using the magnets but at a cost way above buying the HO car and track.

We also did some research on mag lift and the more we researched the more problems we encountered. The Mag Lifts that have been built subsequent were shit down do to lack of parts (all parts had to be custom built), thus the actual built Mag Lifts had the same problem we ran across, customizing making parts to make the system work, while high speed rail used regular rail (Through installed in concrete to be held stronger then conventional wood ties).

When Compared to Mag Lift (and other non-rail systems such as monorail) Rail can be quickly repaired AND the Wheels on the Rail Cars quickly repair with readily available parts. Now, some of the rapid repairs are more in the nature of a patch (Which requires the rail to go slow over the patch till real repairs are done) then a true repair but such patches minimizes the down time of the system.

Monorail, suffers from many of the same problem as Mag Lift, the need to custom made parts. Now Monorail is NOT as dependent on custom parts as Mag Lift (Most Monorails use some sort of generally available steel rail or rubber tires on Concrete as the actual mechanism to hold the Monorail down from its "rail) but has the problem of NOT being "standard" and as not "Standard" increase cost to buy and install. It is for this reason most Monorails have either been tourist attractions (Disney's Monorail for example) or short distance custom made jobs of limited use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn

Monorail Society:
http://www.monorails.org/index.html

The biggest problem with monorails is the inability to interact with other means of transportation. For example a Light Rail Vehicle could be hauled on its rails on any standard Gage railway. Monorails can not, they must be lifted onto the bed of a truck or rail car and transported (and I grew up in the city of Pittsburgh, where the Streetcar used Five Foot Two inch wide rails instead of Standard Gage of four foot eight and one half inches, thus Streetcars for Pittsburgh had to be transported on the bed of rail cars not on the rail tracks themselves).

A good example of the advantage of using Standard Gage was the infamous accident in 1916 on the Southern Cambria Railway Streetcar system. A Streetcar going down Allegheny Mountain lost its brakes and hit a car coming up the mountain. 28 people lost their lives. Bonds were issued to pay for the injuries and when those bonds became due to 1926, the Southern Cambria could NOT pay them so closed down.

Anyway, in the accident itself The Pennsylvania Railroad sent an emergency train to the site to help with the injured. The reason the Pennsylvania Railroad could do so was the Southern Cambria was Standard Gage and thus a quick connection was all that was needed to get the emergency train to the Streetcar Wreck site (Which to this day is in the deep forests of Allegheny Mountain).

More on the 1916 Accident:
http://books.google.com/books?id=J2zH-zcuU-MC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Southern+Cambria+Railway+Accident&source=bl&ots=9U-qwFF3pr&sig=HB35d7sLA4ZZVS0qx2sYzUgVU-Q&hl=en&ei=hCIuTaaRL8Sp8Aa_l8GKCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Southern%20Cambria%20Railway%20Accident&f=false

Now, most monorail, if they are adopted, will operate in urban areas with decent roads, so getting to a Monorail on a mountain in the deep woods will probably never occur, but I mentioned it to show the advantages of using something standard.

Yes, no one has ever been killed on a modern Monorail (In 1878 Five died on an early monorail), mostly because they are so few and by their nature on their own right of way (and generally on flat surfaces). Pittsburgh old Incline system had a similar low fatality rate for the same reason, few stops, no intersections with other traffic, isolated from things that may cause an accident).

Report of the early. pre-1900 Monorails and their accidents, like the Streetcar accidents of the time period more a product of how transportation was done at that time then anything wrong with the basic technology:
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/History.html

My point is Monorails do not have anywhere near the problems of Mag-lift, but they main problem remains having to many unique customs parts (the lack of any puts the system out of order) AND lack of interconnection with more traditional rail systems (Through given modern containerization technology, not the limitation it was prior to the 1960s and the massive switch to containerization).

One last comment, how most monorails are built, the differences between monorails and the people movers like Allegheny County's Skybus are minor at best. Both use some physical mechanism to stay on the "Guide-path", in early monorails this is a rail the monorail hangs on and is propelled on. The connection is direct and fixed. In later systems you have rubber tires of steel rails that "surround" the monorail and holds the car rigid to the guide-rail. Skybus ran on four rubber tires but then and another four tires running on the inside opening of the Guide rail to hold it in place. In Modern monorails, the four tires holding the vehicle onto the guide-path is on the outside of the guide-rail running on the monorail while the car;s weight is carried to the monorail by a single Steel rail or rubber tire in the middle of the Vehicle.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. A Skybus type four wheels on dual concrete guide-rail has the advantage of being able have a low middle, i.e. no rail or wheel in the middle of the car that the design has to work around, the wheels to carry the weight of the car and passengers are on the side of the car, leaving the middle open for passengers.

Monorails, while having to work around the center wheel that carried the weight of the Car and the Passenger to the "Monorail" only need to have one concrete "Rail" unlike the dual a people mover/Skybus system requires. Thus the cars on such a system must be taller.

The second type of Monorail, where the car is BELOW the Guide-rail, has the problem of designing stations that work around the fact it is hanging from above. You have to have doors that keep people in the station till a car arrives so that they just do not walk into the open area and fall to the ground, 20-50 feet below. In above guide rail system the concrete Guide-rail can act as a catch for such people and this appears to be why most modern system uses above guide-ways monorails instead of below guide-ways monorails system (As secondary reason is people can NOT view the area above a guide-way as an open space, but in a hanging monorail system such open area have been known to be viewed as "open area" by people who did not know the below guide way monorail operated in that area.

[happyslug]

7. Some more comments on Monorails. People Movers and Light Rail Vehicles

My point is there is not much difference between a Monorail and a people mover/Skybus type system. More a difference is "Gage" then anything real (Does the wheels keeping the Vehicle on the guide-rail, go on both outside of the one concrete Guide-rail or does the wheels holding the vehicle onto the Guide-rail go on the inside of TWO Concrete Guide-rails).

In realty more ascetic differences then anything real (Through the wheels being on the side of the car NOT in the middle makes a non-monorail/Skybus/people mover system lower to the ground, the biggest single difference between the two designs).

The big advantages of Light Rail is its ability to go on public Street AND its own right of way (which can include elevated guide-rails for the Steel Tracks can act as Guilde-rails and underground for LRVs, like people movers/Skybus and Monorails are electrically operated and thus minimal fumes in tunnels unlike buses and automobiles) along with LRVs ability to use conventional rails to bypass traffic choke-points. It is for these two reasons LRVs have tended to win almost any LRV vs Monorail/People Mover/Skybus fight. Ideally a Monorail/People Mover/Skybus system can feed into a LRV system, enhancing both systems. Rail can handle the larger crowds, monorails can move them out of those stations quickly.

In the Skybus video of 1970 points out, something Skybus or a monorail works best in areas where you can NOT justify a LRV system AND it is to many people for buses, roughly 1000-5000 riders a day. Above 5000 you are better off with a dedicated light rail system (or even a heavy rail system), less then 1000 stay with buses. Thus Monorails/People Movers/Skybus works best with rail.

As my father told me in the early 1970s, Skybus was a great system, but NOT where the Pittsburgh area transit authority wanted to put it. The three largest transit stops in Pennsylvania are Downtown Philadelphia, Downtown Pittsburgh and the Oakland area of Pittsburgh. Connecting Oakland with Downtown Pittsburgh with something other then buses was needed in the 1970s and needed today, but that is NOT where Allegheny County wanted to put Skybus (Conventional buses was good enough for Oakland), instead Skybus was planed to replace the last streetcar line in Allegheny County for buses could not. The County wanted Streetcars gone at all cost, and they saw Skybus as the best way to do so. Skybus was NOT put where it could do the most good, Downtown Pittsburgh to Oakland, but where it would replace a more effective light rail system for the county wanted the streetcar/light rail system gone. Had the county planned to built Skybus between Downtown Pittsburgh and Oakland, most opposition to Skybus would have died away, instead the county caused a voters revolt do to a desire that went against what the people wanted (And needed).

The Skybus Debacle is a good example of putting the wrong system in the wrong place, something we all have to watch for when planning any mass transit system

[txlibdem]

8. They built their test track in Sweden

And if you count the PRT version that runs on rubber tires then there is a working system at Heathrow Airport, London as well as a working test fleet in Masdar City in the UAE. PRT is the most efficient and most cost effective transportation system in the world and given systems such as Vectus it would also be the safest as well as the most reliable in all kinds of weather. So what is stopping it?

PRT has a lot of rich, powerful enemies. With the billions of dollars that the light rail industry stands to lose, the billions of dollars that city bus manufacturers and operators stand to lose, the billions of dollars that the auto companies stand to lose, the only way PRT will stand a chance in this country is by strong leadership in a medium-sized city or larger. We need leadership that does the right thing, not merely the things that no rich or powerful interests oppose.

[txlibdem]

9. Henry Ford had no working model of his first car, till he built it

But, in this instance there are 3 working models of PRT in operation today. Heathrow Airport, Masdar City, and Uppsala, Sweden. Is three working models not as good as only one? I kinda thought it's a little better than one.

The CGI animated simulation is a software demonstration. It is the software and the computer controls that will make PRT a success, make it far safer than driving, and make it fast and efficient. That's why they need to demonstrate the software. You can go to their headquarters and see the software running on their servers as well.

============================

One interesting thing about PRT as compared to light rail or other public transit schemes? The PRT company JPODS will pay for all the installation costs, will handle all the paperwork for federal funds, basically hands the city a turnkey system.

Try to get a light rail company to pay for everything. Light rail soaks up billions in federal subsidies each year and they don't pick up a shovel till they have a big fat check deposited in their bank. Light rail soaks up dollars from day one until the end of time -- IT NEVER BECOMES PROFITABLE!!!. PRT is profitable as soon as it's completed.

Profitable (PRT), versus leaching off the tax payers and the "gubmint" (light rail)? I'll choose PRT, thank you.

[nxylas]

10. OK, I stand corrected. Sort of.

My comment about the working model was based on outdated information. But I've been reading more about PRT and it only seems to work in certain situations. The system in Uppsala was a test track. Masdar City was a new, relatively small and dense settlement that was designed with PRT in mind. Heathrow is an airport, ie an enclosed system. In a regular city, however, PRT would be little more than a very expensive taxi service/car share scheme. To try and install it over the area covered by a bus or rail network would be prohibitively expensive, which is why no-one has ever attempted it. My hometown of Bristol, England was talking about installing one in its central business district some years ago, but it never came to anything.

[txlibdem]

12. See comment #11, but to your point that PRT only works in limited situations

I don't see a limit, what you describe shows the success of PRT to fill a number of roles.

It works in a closed system (like an airport) where the alternative is taxis, bus or rail --all of which I've seen at airports (PS, fly into Seattle/Tacoma Int'l and ride the tram! It's a blast!). Another closed system: Disneyland --I love the monorail, rode it in Tokyo and California, want to go to Florida some day.

It works in a support role as a feeder network to light rail or bus service. PRT costs far less per mile than light rail and far, far less than subways. Buses are always stuck in traffic, just like cars, they burn fossil fuels, they stop a million times before getting you to your destination; in short, buses suck. But a PRT feeder web would greatly expand ridership for both light rail and bus service (which never exceeds 5% except in cities with the highest population density --I love, love, love the Tokyo subway system!).

PRT can easily be built in existing cities --that is the whole idea. The footprint is only a 5' square every 60 to 90 feet, to sink the pylons and support pillars for the raised track --and is still cheaper than light rail on a per mile basis. The PRT stations can be as small or as large as you want and can even be built inside buildings, shopping malls, etc. PRT can also be built underground (increases the cost but will work just as well as the raised track). Or PRT can be built on ground level, the supports and track get buried in the roads just like streetcars in San Francisco.

PRT will make any city a more pedestrian friendly and less polluted city.

Masdar City was designed with energy efficiency, renewable energy, pedestrian friendliness, and PRT in mind. That much you are correct in. But the follow-on question is: is that a bad thing? If you could start over, rebuild Bristol, would you honestly make it 50% roads and parking lots? Honestly? Would there be smog in Bristol if you designed it? Would it get its power from clean renewable energy sources or dirty fossil fuels?

Why has nobody attempted it? Hello?!? The system at Heathrow Airport is in operation today, will be 30 miles of track within the next two years. Not only has it been attempted but it has already proven itself and is being expanded! But the real answer to why Bristol has no PRT is contained in post #11: opposition by a failed industry that survives solely on government subsidies.

[txlibdem]

13. DART is a good example of how to finance transportation

There are 13 suburbs included in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit organization. Each city has added 1% to its sales tax which goes to DART to cover construction and operations. The DART board is fraught with corruption and mismanagement, just two years ago "lost" over $900 million in cost overruns and poor construction decisions --yet it's still in the black due to government subsidies. But the idea of a 1% sales tax for all communities that want to join is a great idea for how to get PRT in any area.

I recommend you start bugging your elected leaders in Bristol to stop subsidizing rail and bus service and put those funds into PRT instead. Make the suggestion of a limited duration 1% added sales tax (you call it VAT?) to build PRT. Once a PRT system is completed it becomes profitable.

The most interesting thing to me is that JPODS company is willing to pay all the construction costs and do all the work to get federal matching funds, I've never in my life heard of a light rail or bus company making such an offer. That tells me who knows their system will be profitable.

[txlibdem]

11. Here's yet another working model

Darn it all! Another perfectly good anti-PRT argument bites the dust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_z2nr12T7k --the demonstration of the working model begins at around 00:50 in the video

That makes 4 working models of PRT so far...

Opposition to PRT? Pretty much only the light rail industry is against it. Why? Because light rail is never profitable and PRT is always profitable. They know a superior technology when they see one.

It's like the hay vendors of New York City opposing the automobile: they make their living off of selling hay for the horses, the automobile makes their industry obsolete.

Comparison, Light Rail versus PRT
Light Rail

• only goes to a few places
  
• constantly stopping and starting to pick up or drop off other passengers, you have to wait for them
  
• light rail runs on its schedule -- you have to wait for the train
  
• you have to share the ride with other people, whether you want to or not
  
• costs huge amounts of money for construction
  
• is never profitable, relies on government subsidies
  
• some systems burn fossil fuels in the trains
  
• a stopped train blocks the path, nobody can go around it
  
• ...therefore no express (non-stop) service is possible
  
• did I mention it sucks up government subsidies, would go out of business without handouts from us taxpayers

PRT

• takes you wherever you need to go
  
• direct service from Point A to Point B with no stops in between
  
• waits for you, you don't wait for someone else to get on or off
  
• ride alone if you want, or share the ride with friends -- you decide
  
• PRT is profitable
  
• never uses oil, it's always all electric
  
• stations are off the main line so nobody blocks the way or forces you to stop (until you reach your destination)
  
• one PRT company will pay all the costs of construction and operation and will be profitable from the fares
  
• ride in comfort and safety
  
• PRT needs NO GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES at all --ever.

[marmar]

4. Selfdelete

nt