What kind of High Speed Rail should we have?

[txlibdem]

Ray LaHood has outlined a vision of High Speed Rail linking the nation:
http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html

I know there's a lot of infrastructure built already and some people want to take the easy way out and use that. The problem is that most of the rail systems in America are owned by the freight companies and they will not allow speeds greater than 90 mph on their tracks -- plus a passenger train would have to always be dodging freight trains as it made its way across the nation. That's no solution. A high speed rail line needs its own right of way --- its own track. This is how they do it in Japan (the bullet train is a blast to ride!!!), ditto in Germany and France for their high speed rail.

So it looks like we'll have to start from scratch anyway so what kind of trains should we build?

1. Tubular Rail -- top speed 241 km/h (150 mph+)
http://www.tubularrail.com/
http://www.tubularrail.com/questions_answers.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cShtEadkEc&NR=1
-- yes, it can turn corners and switch tracks: http://www.tubularrail.com/video.htm

2. MagLev Trains -- top speed 3,500 km/h (2174 mph)
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Summer03/maglev2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIwbrZ4knpg&feature=related

3. Standard Rails -- usual speeds 354 km/h 220 mph, highest achieved is over 400 km/h
http://topics.sfgate.com/topics/California_High-Speed_Rail
http://www.midwesthsr.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTn7d4KJqx8

4. Dual-mode Personal Rapid Transit -- top speed 130 mph, cost to taxpayers = 0
http://www.innov8transport.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYNMRnrgVQQ
==> greatest benefit: you ride in your own car and at your destination you just drive away

What do you think. Take the time to look through the links or at least watch all the videos. Which one do you think would be best for America?

[Vogon_Glory]

1. Standard Rail--It Works

I would strongly suggest standard rail for high speed passenger rail, standard rail on its own separate right-of-way for most of its routes. Standard-rail is a proven, workable technology already in existence that wouldn't require re-inventing the wheel. Considering the continuing presence of so-called "conservative" thought in American political discourse, the LAST thing government-backed high speed rail builders need is carping about the tens of billions of dollars needed to build an experimental technology that might not work outside of laboratory and test track and out in the real world.

Mag-Lev sounds sexy--but so did monorail; I don't see any long distance mag-lev systems being built, and none have the longevity and continuous reliability of either the Japanese high speed rail or the French TGV lines. As for monorail, the only place it has any long-term track record is Disneyland, and it doesn't go faster than 30 miles per hour.

[happyslug]

2. None of them, economics will force us to use existing rail system

What people tend to forget is that while the US passenger rail system is decades behind the European Passenger train system, our FREIGHT system is as advance over Europe's Fright. The reason this is both historical AND geographical.

The geographical reason is clear, while Europe is half the size of the US (If you exclude the former USSR), it has over twice the coast lines and thus a massive sea port system. This is supported by a massive River/Canal system. In simple terms, what we ship by rail, Europe ships by barge. When railroads were first built in Europe and the United States it was to connect River/Canal systems with each other (The various "Portages" in both areas). In many ways it is easier to ship cargoes by barge between Italy and Germany rather then take it over the Alps.

Now, after the introduction of the automobiles, the US embraced the automobile as its primary means of movement, but even in the US most American families did not own a car till the late 1940s or early 1950s (It was only in 1954 that the US auto industry (Both new and used) started to sell more replacements for people who already had a car as opposed to selling cars to new buyers who NEVER owned a car before. in Europe that occurred about 30 years later). Thus Urban Streetcars held their own in the 1920s, 1930s and WWII, but went into rapid decline after WWII as more and more Americans opt for Automobiles as their primary means of transportation (Rural Streetcars went into decline in the 1920s as American farmers embraced the Automobiles, but most American urban residents did not embrace the Automobile till after WWII).

Europe, on the other hand, had faced massive oil shortages during WWII, and was then hit with the First Arab Oil Embargo in 1956 (The US was a net oil exporter till 1969, so the US missed the first two oil embargoes) and then hit again in 1967 with the Second Arab Oil Embargo. These reinforced Europe's desire to minimize imports of oil but minimizing their dependence on oil.

One way Europe could minimize its dependence on oil was to stay with Steam and coal. Thus after WWII Europe rebuilt its old railroad system that had been destroyed during the War. While Western Europe uses 4'8 1/2" (1435mm). To pay for this, Europe raised taxes on gasoline (This tax had the secondary affect of reducing gasoline usage do to the subsequent high cost of gasoline). Starting in the 1950s Europe started (or I should say re-started, most railroads in the world started to convert to electrical power in around 1900, even in the US, thus Europe embrace of electrical trains was more a re-start then a new start).

At the same time the canals and rivers were updated and trucks became the normal means of transport of Fright from the barges to where ever the cargo was to go. In many ways, today, Trucks and Barges are the main means to transport fright in Europe (Trucks replaced horse drawn wagons for such shipments starting in the 1920s, but as late as the 1950s horses were still competitive in Europe, almost 20 years after horses stopped being used as fright haulers in the US in urban areas). I have read stores that such use of horse survived well into the 1960s, but I have NOT have any confirmation of that report (I just can NOT trust some of my old school books I read in the 1970s that said horses were still being used in urban areas in Europe).

Thus by the 1960s, Fright had become the domain of trucks in Europe. Fright railroads were squeezed by the wider use of Barges in the seas surrounding Europe, In the rivers(The Rhine, the Danube, the Elbe, the Seine, the Ruhr and the Rhone among others) and the Canals connecting those rivers.

Map of the Water ways of Europe:

http://www.worldcanals.com/vev/uk/canaux_carte.htm

Another map with more details can be found here:
http://www.worldcanals.com/english/contentseurope.html

Now, the squeezing of the fright railways had two affect, first it open those routes for other uses, (Mostly motorways and passenger service) and also open those routes up for exclusive passenger trains (Not so much on the exact same line, but permitted building such exclusive passenger usage rail lines with minimal purchasing of new lands, such lands still had to be bought to smooth out the curves but by staying close to the old line such purchases could be minimized).

Side note, now many of the old canals are no longer cost effective as fright hauling devices, but the larger and more important are and that is more point. I bring this up for the above site mentions some of these canals are no longer used for fright. That is true to a large degree, replaced by trucks not rail, but even the smallest ones are still used to haul fright but to a minimal degree.

Trucks transportation is so bad in Europe that the Swiss voted to pay for a new Railroad tunnel to haul items from Italy to Germany rather then see those same items go by truck through Switzerland.

For more details see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

Now, the US fright line are some of the most up date in the world. Mostly do to the need to haul coal from the Coal fields, and the need to connect the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts with the Pacific. While New Orleans and the surrounding area of Louisiana and Texas dominates the bulk good trade (Coal going out, wheat going out, oil coming in), high value items enter the US via the port of Los Angels, take the Southern Pacific to the Mississippi River, then takes the Norfolk and Southern to New Jersey or Philadelphia or the C&O to the Chesapeake bay to be re-shipped to Europe. It is quicker and cheaper then waiting to go through the Panama Canal. This traffic is is mostly Automobiles and containers which is shipped to Europe which is then loaded or a barge or directly on a truck for final delivery. This is where the US Fright Railroads are making their money. Thus not only do you have American Bound containers on such trains, but you have European bound containers and automobiles on such trains. The Panama Canal is that busy that it is quicker to unload the cargo in Los Angles and reload in on the Atlantic Seaboard then it is to wait for a spot to go through the Panama Canal.

More on Container shipments (including comparisons between the US inter-model system that is up to 70% capable of "double stacking" while Europe has one railroad that can double stack.

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

As one dives into the differences between how fright is moved in the US and Europe, you quickly see how it was so much easier for Europe to expand its passenger rail system, by simply replacing its freight rail system with a high speed passenger system. To do the same in the US would be a huge expense (Even the US HIGH SPEED RAIL ASSOCIATION assume sit will cost 1/2 a trillion dollars). I suspect it will be higher as people refuse to sell their land for the high speed rail line.

I just do NOT see the US committing itself to a 1/2 a Trillion Dollar project while we are fighting two wars AND running a huge deficient. For that reason I prefer to update the existing rail system to permit not only faster speeds but more frequent service. The biggest complaint people have with rail in the US today is NOT that it takes so much longer the a plane or a car, but that, outside the North East Corridor, most train only run once a day (and on some routes only three times a week). Europe high speed rail came about while its slower predecessors were still in business (and many still are).

This much higher level of service permitted people to be flexible as to when meetings and other get-together can occur. I give a personal example, I live on Johnstown Pa on the Mainline of the Old Pennsylvania Railroad (Now Norfolk and Southern). It takes about as long to drive to Pittsburgh as it is to take the train, thus the speed of he train is NOT a problem. The problem is if I want to go to Pittsburgh I have to leave at 6:00 pm, arrive in Pittsburgh about 7:30 pm, when nothing is open in Downtown Pittsburgh. Then some how get back to the train 7:20 am the next morning to get back to Johnstown. If I drove, I can schedule to do anything I want to do in Pittsburgh on the same day, and then drive back home. If I take the train I have to stay at least one night in a Hotel. Given that choice, the Car wins almost every time (I do take the train occasionally if I am staying over night or other reasons). On the other hand if the trains would arrive and leave at various times in the day, then I could take the train in and then back out the same day. This is what a lot of people do in the North East Corridor. Vice President Biden did it when he was a Senator from Delaware.

My point is before we go to 200 plus high speed rail, we have to address the other problem of increasing frequency of service. That can be done easily and quickly without the need for expensive exclusive new rail lines (Mixing high speed rail and low speed fright is a feature the Europeans avoid in their Rail system, but they do mix low speed passenger and fright traffic). US Rail Car can build single Diesel units that can run on fright lines and as such increase the frequency of service on most of Amtrak's existing lines.

A double deck rail car:


A single deck rail car:


http://www.usrailcar.com/dmu-specs.php

Each of the above Units can also pull three additional units if needed.

With the above units you could increase the frequency and with that increase frequency of use the demand for higher speeds will build. As the old saying goes, we need to crawl before we can walk, thus we need to increase frequency of service via the above types Passenger rail cars before we can install high speed rail. We have to show people will take the train, if frequency of operation is improved before we can commit to exclusive right of ways for high speed rail.

Thus in my opinion, none of the above options are viable, what is needed is increase frequency of service more then any increase in speed of the train.

[txlibdem]

10. "economics:" light rail is reducing their schedules in many parts of the country

Since light rail and buses generally never work for more than 5% of any given population yet soak up tax dollars like they're going out of style I don't see any logic to using an economic argument in favor of light rail. Current mass transit is a bottomless pit for our tax dollars.

Please do not look into PRT, which will cover its operating expenses fully by fares alone --requires zero tax dollars after the system it's up and running.

[elleng]

3. PRT, cost to taxpayers 0?

Someone's clamoring to do this? Please explain. Thx

[txlibdem]

4. There is some debate about that, thanks for bringing it up

For years now I've been hearing that the capital costs and operating costs would be paid off by the fares from users of the system. Only within the last year or so have I heard that the more accurate truth is that the capital costs, costs of constructing the PRT rails, vehicles, stations, necessary support infrastructure, would not be fully paid off by the fares; only the ongoing operating and maintenance costs would be covered by fares. But every PRT system will be profitable also so that is two things that PRT does better than conventional mass transit.

Buses and light rail (even Amtrak if I recall correctly) are not profitable. They share the rails with the freight trains so they have pretty low capital costs... yet they still aren't profitable! This I just cannot fathom.

Now, the PRT systems have the cost structure quite well understood by now and have published figures for costs so we can do a little comparison.
1. Dart - right in my own area Dallas/Fort Worth
2. Taxi2000/Sky Loop (aka Sky Loop)

"DART's light rail system has a daily ridership of 57,700 average trips per weekday.<3>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit

"DART's total average ridership for the 1st quarter of 2010 was 194,700 average trips per day.<3> DART's 1st quarter of 1998 had 211,000 average trips per day.<16> More people were using DART in 1998 than in 2010. Supporters of DART, however, argue that as the gas prices increase over the next few years, ridership will accelerate aided by a more connected light rail system."

Some of that may be due to the $1 Billion in new rail line construction funds that were mishandled, but I think it is because DART has a habit of changing the Bus lines around every 4 to 6 months, you never know if you are going to be able to actually rely on the bus service to get you to work. It happened to me twice and I had to totally redo my schedule, leave 1 hour earlier, what a pain!

"In December 2007, DART revealed that it was facing a $1 billion shortfall in funds earmarked for the Blue Line light rail service to Rowlett, Irving, and DFW Airport. In January 2008, DART announced that it would divert monies from rail lines being built in Dallas. When Dallas officials protested, DART president and executive director Gary Thomas—who had known about the shortfall for at least eight months—announced that the agency would borrow more money instead.

In late January 2008, DART Board chair Lynn Flint Shaw, who was also treasurer of Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert's "Friends of Tom Leppert" fund-raising committee, resigned from her DART post. In February, she surrendered to the police on charges of forgery. On March 10, Shaw and her husband, political analyst Rufus Shaw, were found dead in their home in what turned out to be a murder suicide.<17><18>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Area_Rapid_Transit#Financial_scandal

With the exception of the murder suicide, this is Light Rail and Bus Service par for the course --cost overruns, mismanagement, poor route planning, etc. Light Rail is a money loser and (based on my personal experience here in Dallas) not a business I'd want to deal with.

Dart capital costs are hard to find, but here's this

At $100 million a mile for light rail, I see little additional 'conventional light rail' in DART's future.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20100427-Money-woes-will-force-DART-to-1740.ece

From this, it looks like the annual Capital and Operating budget for Dart is about $1 Billion:

"For 10 years, sales tax receipts have been essentially flat, Leininger said, and demographic changes in DART's 13 member cities, especially those in Dallas County, mean sales-tax revenue will probably grow slowly even when the economy recovers.

Dallas County's population used to be younger, richer and better educated than the national average. By all of those measures, that's no longer the case, he said.

The new forecasts reduce the agency's sales tax receipts by $2.7 billion over the next 20 years. But the real impact on DART's spending will be much higher because those tax receipts would have been used to borrow nearly $4 billion more and to secure about $1.4 billion in anticipated federal grants.

DART will no longer be able to count on any of that money. As a result, it will spend nearly $7.9 billion less by 2030 than the $27.2 billion its 20-year plan calls for now. That's a reduction of about 29 percent."

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20100427-Money-woes-will-force-DART-to-1740.ece

Although that $1 Billion annually may in fact be the Capital budget, depending on how you read that.

Here is what DART says about the Capital costs on its new Green Line:

"DART Rail Green Line creates new connections, completes nation's longest light rail construction project

View the DART Rail System Map effective December 6 in a new window Just over four years after the first front loader of dirt was turned, the 28-mile, 20-station, $1.8 billion Green Line will be complete on December 6, when it opens 24 miles and 15 stations creating new light rail connections for Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) customers from Pleasant Grove in the southeast to Farmers Branch and Carrollton in the northwest. This is the longest single-day opening of electric light rail in the United States since 1990."

http://www.dart.org/news/news.asp?ID=938

That looks more like $64 Million per mile than $100 Million. Still $64 Million is not chump change!

Here's a more succinct statement of the Light Rail costs for DART:

"September 28, 2010

Board approves budget, financial plan to fund operations, DART Rail expansion

The $1.25 billion FY 2011 budget and updated 20-year financial plan approved by the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Board of directors supports the doubling of DART Rail to 90 miles. The FY 2010 budget was $1.6 billion. The decrease is primarily due to a lower capital budget, largely the result of the completion of the Green Line this December.

The budget and financial plans were approved September 28. There are three components to the budget:
Operating Budget: $422 million
Capital Budget: $707.1 million
Debt Service Budget: $127.4 million
TOTAL FY 2011: $1.25 billion

The heart of the expansion from 48 miles to 90 miles by 2014 is the December 6 opening of the final 24 miles of the Green Line light rail. The full 28-mile, $1.8 billion project connects Southeast Dallas with Downtown, Northwest Dallas, Farmers Branch and Carrollton. DART also will open the Lake Highlands Station on the Blue Line between White Rock and LBJ/Skillman stations on December 6."

http://www.dart.org/news/news.asp?ID=928

============= Compare that to PRT ====================
The owner of the PRT company JPODS states that his company will pay for all the capital costs and that he will be profitable even after doing so. I believe the key is the design of the system and the space age materials of the auto taxis (they weigh only 350 lbs).

The Vectus company states that their system will be profitable from fares.

The Sky Loop (formerly taxi2000) company states that they will be profitable from fares.

Back in the day, there were some companies that were promising the moon and the stars but hadn't done any studies, had no test tracks, hadn't worked out the control software, etc. This is not the case for JPODS, Vectus and Sky Loop.

The Heahtrow Airport PRT is based on the ULTRA system and only serves one of their many parking lots, taking passengers from the parking area (#5 if memory serves) to the terminal and back. I don't know if they can possibly be profitable in that situation but the jury is still out on that.

============= Cost comparison, PRT vs DART ====================
The Green Line and Orange Line in Dallas were the two that lost $1 Billion (that doesn't mean that was the total expense of construction... that was the $1 Billion that was just plain --LOST--.

Here is what Sky Loop estimates its capital and operating costs at (at 37,000 daily ridership)

"The assumed daily trips were 37,100 and the assumed vehicles per mile was 55. More detail on the proposed PRT network and other attributes can be found at the Sky Loop website.
........... Capital Costs ..............

........... Operating and Maintenance Costs ................

So, we have:
Dart, 57,000 daily ridership, $100 Million per mile, 48 miles
Sky Loop PRT, 37,000 daily ridership, $5 Million per mile, 12.84 miles

Dart, $422 Million annual operating expenses (not including debt servicing)
Sky Loop PRT, $9 Million annual operating expenses not incl debt servicing

Normalizing for cost per ridership should not be too difficult:
57000/37000 = 154% greater for DART

So, in order to equal the DART ridership, Sky Loop would need about $13,860,000 annual operating expenses.

DART does with $422 Million what Sky Loop could accomplish with $14 Million. Wow!

[elleng]

5. Public transit systems are not profitable, generally.

Real costs per rider are not, probably will not and cannot be covered by fares, imo.

As to PRT, systems have to be built initially, and it seems to me that would entail very large public investments.

Thanks for the info, txlib.

[txlibdem]

6. If it were always full then I think light rail would be at least closer to profitable

Don't get me wrong, I have ridden the light rail here in Dallas a lot, used to commute by rail before I got disabled. It's a great system and I'm generally happy with it (except that the connections from buses to train do not work well -- you sometimes wait up to 45 minutes or more to catch the train, it's almost that bad waiting for a bus connection as well.

No wonder that only 3.5% of the population rides mass transit. And that is why PRT is so important, costs so much lower that you can have an entire network of elevated track instead of a single line as most light rail projects are designed. More destinations means more ridership and more frequent riding.

[txlibdem]

7. The bus and the train are almost always empty

Only during "rush hour" are there more than a handful of riders on any of the buses or the trains here in the DFW area.

I usually have a train car all to myself (it's supposed to seat 50 or 60 and well over 100 if you include those who have to stand.

And I sit all by my lonesome. Sometimes there are between 1 and 5 people on each train car, sometimes I see only about 3 or 4 people on the entire train (to their credit, they decouple train cars and leave them somewhere so there isn't always the same number of cars on the train -- so instead of having 4 to 6 cars there are only 2 or 3, but still empty). And the same goes for buses, although it's rare that I am the only one riding (most often there are 2 to 6 other people on the bus) -- a bus built for 40 passengers with another 15 to 20 possible standing.

That is why PRT is far superior to light rail and buses. The PRT auto taxis never run unless there are passengers or freight to carry. The PRT system operates only as many auto taxis as are needed, with some being pre-positioned to avoid waiting at a later time --such as in preparation for rush hour, thousands of auto taxis would be moved to the downtown area, fill in the busiest stations so they are ready for the number of requests they know they'll have in a bit. That adds a little extra energy usage but makes for happy customers. Win, win, because with PRT you don't wait for the bus or the train, the auto taxi waits for you (and then it takes you directly to where you want to go without stopping for someone else --unless you've made the request that it do so).

[happyslug]

8. Not in my local system, the trains and buses are always full

But then I take the bus or LRV in an area where it is faster to go by bus or LRV then by Car (Especially if you take into consideration looking for parking). Now, the buses and the LRVs are sometime empty when going against the movement of people such as during rush hours, but all those buses and cars are doing is heading out of town (in the morning Rush Hours) to pick up more passengers to take into town OR are going back into town during the evening Rush Hour, to pick up more passengers to take back to their homes outside of town.

I had relatives who did used the West Virginia System, they were NOT impressed, when it was most needed it was packed (The cars were to small) and took as long to load and unload as a Streetcar (and Should I say also went slower then a Streetcar). It is a very interesting toy, but never intended to move a large number of people in a short time period WHICH IS WHAT MOST URBAN TRANSIT SYSTEM REQUIRE.

I admit I am prejudice against the whole concept of Personal Rapid Transit, but then I grew up on a Streetcar line that was and is faster to go from one end to the other then if you took your car. That was the result of being on its own right of way for most of its length. I have seen what good mass transit can do. I was also involved in the 1970s in the fight over Skybus, Westinghouse Electrics attempt to do something like a PRT, except it made an effort to be able to move a lot of people quickly. When Skybus was proposed to replace the last Streetcar lines in Allegheny County, the two communities most affected revolted. Beechview where Skybus was to have two stops, replacing eight of the streetcar (and one of the two stops was no where near where people took the streetcar, they were hoping to get traffic from the Parkway West and Banksville Road to exit and take that stop to go into town. Bethel Park, where the Library line is the fastest way to Downtown Pittsburgh, would have been reduced to a bus lane to haul people to the Skybus station as it headed to South Hills Village (where the old Drake Streetcar line went). Part of this was the technology of the time period, computers could NOT do to many stops, if I remember right it was to have only eight stops, so that the cars would NOT slow each other down as their pick up and discharged passengers. When Skybus was proposed both Beechview and Bethel Park rose in revolt, for all they saw was a decline in service. The County tried to ignore both areas, but that turned off people who did NOT live along the proposed line i.e. "why should I vote for something the people who are to benefit from the improvement OPPOSED the improvement". Between these two voting blocks the Federal Government finally stepped in and demand that an actual study be done, and that study, like almost all such studies, recommended LRVs as the most cost effective way to maintain present service. The Combination of bus and Skybus was not that cost effective.

At the same time Skybus was being proposed, West Virginia funded its Mass Transit system, as a way to get its students from its old Campus in Downtown Morgantown to in New Campus outside of town. Since West Virginia only planned to have a small number of students to remand in its old campus, they did NOT have to worry about "Crush loads" and thus went with the smaller cars. The problem with the smaller cars is once they filled up, you have to wait for the next one.

I remember climbing the Stairs at the Old Allegheny County Fair to take a ride in Skybus. The problem was everyone else wanted to do the same and the cars only had two stops (Four Cars, but two stops). Given they small size, i.e. about 20 people per car, they were quick to fill, but I have seem old PCC streetcars load up and unload twice as many people in about the same time (And that included having to walk up three steps into the PCC, Skybus was a direct walk in no steps). It was easy to see if could NOT handle crush loads and crush loads are what you design Mass transit for.

As my father said, four to five stops between Downtown Pittsburgh and the Oakland section of town, Skybus made more sense then picking up people in suburbia to take them to downtown Pittsburgh. Presently this is handled by special high capacity buses (i.e. extra long that included the ability to bend in the middle). PAT has always shown the LRV lines, the East Bus Way and the Pittsburgh to Oakland routes as always profitable. Some of the other high Capacity lines are also profitable, but business want bus service to all of suburbia and those are all low volume lost leaders. In the recent budget cuts, the main attack has been on these suburban routes. PRT can NOT be any help on those routes, for the volume is to low to justify building anything (The bus can NOT make money do to the low volume of passengers, how can you justify building an automated system that will need constant maintenance with that low a volume of paying customers? AND LRVs beat out PRTs in high volume areas do to the superior ability of LRVs to carry more passengers then any LRV system. PRT is a solution looking for a problem to solve, a problem that does not exists, mass transit users who want an expensive method of transportation from their suburban home to the inner city. Such people either drive all the way into town, or stop at the first mass transit park and ride they run across. The later wants something he or she can get on and off quickly so he or she can get on with her business, riding in a private car is generally off their Radar Screen (and if it is, they stay in their cars).

http://www.brooklineconnection.com/history/Facts/Skybus.html
http://darnnews.blogspot.com/2007/12/genuine-bona-fide-electrified.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpS5ess9VNc
http://www.pittsburghtransit.info/skybus.html
http://www.wikio.com/video/pittsburgh-skybus-1967-2437983

[txlibdem]

9. Trains and buses are *always* full? I doubt it.

I think you must only ride your local mass transit during rush hour. The facts do not agree with you. Buses and trains are basically empty 80% of the day. Many transit authorities shut down from midnight until about 5am or so, Dallas does this. That is because the costs are fixed with the system and there are "almost" no riders. That is the failure of light rail and buses on display for all to see. A true PRT will operate 24/7 and will be available for passengers anytime and freight will mostly take advantage of low rates at night. You cite Skybus which was Group Rapid Transit -- glorified trolley cars--, and the WVU system is technically GRT as well. These GRT systems fail because they use vehicles that are far too large and heavy, thus the infrastructure must be built to support large and heavy vehicles, thus the cost per mile goes through the roof. PRT uses small vehicles, able to carry 3 or 4 passengers only, which are small and light weight and, thus, the track is cheaper to build and maintain. The biggest difference between PRT and light rail/buses is that PRT is profitable whereas light rail is never profitable --it relies on subsidies in the multi-billions each year. Your trip down memory lane was very fascinating (and appreciated) but has no bearing on a discussion of PRT.