If you think they will fail, then why do you spend your time criticizing them, as you did with ULTra in your “I don’t trust aluminum” thrust? Why not just wait 6 months when (if you’re right) PRT will be out of your hair forever?

Really, please answer that question Mr. Setty. I would think you would sit back quietly and wait for these systems, built on foreign lands with private money, to fail as you’ve been predicting for many years now. If they don’t fail, we can all rejoice at having a new tool in our transit workbench; if they do fail, not a dime of public money was lost and you can be known as the prophet who can say “I told you so”. You have nothing to lose.

So why the new anti-PRT thrust now, M Setty? Do you WANT it to fail?

If they don’t fail, then what will be your next line of defense?

You’ve never answered that question.

The question is irrelevant. The two PRT systems at Heathrow and Masdar will rise, or fall, on their ability to stay in regular daily, reliable, economic, and punctual service. Nothing Avidor or I says will make any difference (unless it unnerves the developers, I suppose). Of course, I think they will fail due to various technical and economic factors that I’ve outlined on my own blog, and for reasons that the denizens who read the Google “Transport-Innovators” group already know.

You’ve never answered that question.

The comments end with the PRT guys bashing LRT.

Keep it klassy PRT guys!

Of course! Most PRT proponents agree completely. The problem is with people who won’t even allow the system to “walk”. Consider this: Ken Avidor is currently campaigning heavily against Heathrow Airport and Masdar City, two privately funded PRT systems in Europe and Asia!

What possible objection could Ken Avidor have to privately-funded systems on remote continents? Not a single dime of US tax money will be spent, and not a single shovel of US soil will be moved, but Ken Avidor is still railing against these two “walk before you run” efforts. Ask yourself why he would be SO opposed to these private efforts. And then ask yourself whether you would support Ken’s relentless efforts to kill PRT wherever it appears, even in the Arabian desert.

Note that PRT proponents did not take the argument here, PRT opponents did. No PRT proponent is suggesting PRT replace subways, and few PRT proponents want to see rail fail. That’s just what Ken Avidor wants you to think, because he wants to see PRT fail.

What if instead we built a system for even lighter transit at a fraction of the cost that didn’t interfere with pedestrians, cyclists, or uptown/downtown auto traffic? Then pedestrians and cyclists would have more room and not have to worry about being hit by a small train (and there would even be more room available for street vendors, performers, or just more tables and benches), riders would have faster and more scenic trips, and ambulances would be able to cross 42nd street without being blocked by a slow-moving train. The money saved could be used to help pay for the pedestrianization, or for expanding the city’s bike lane and greenway system.

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

See, even slow versions with unnecessarily ginormous headways are popular!

And that’s why 95% of trips in America are made by light rail.

Oh, wait…

The problem is that most people don’t ride transit for the experience. They ride it to get from one place to another. Moreover, they want to do so as cheaply and as quickly as possible. People flock to transit in NYC because the roads are congested and parking is expensive. People flock to the highways in the suburbs and exurbs because transit is slow, inconvenient, or nonexistent, while land and parking is cheap and abundant (or at least it used to be). It’s not because city people are transit lovers and suburban people are car lovers; it’s because people do what they have to do to survive.

So regardless of how much romance remains about trains, things have to change if we want more people to ride transit. There are still plenty of horse lovers in America, but the majority of them don’t ride their horse to work every day. Cyclists are an exception, but not everyone can bike, and for longer journeys cycling isn’t an option for most. People don’t drive cars because they hate trains or bikes; they drive cars because they have to. If we can make it so that they don’t have to drive to achieve the type of mobility they want or need, we’ve done a good and necessary thing. And if they still long for the experience of a train ride, that option will still be available to them. They’ll just have other options, too.