It’s pretty unlikely that Cincinnati or Sacramento are ever going to become New York or Chicago.

And even New York & Chicago have to subsidize their train systems.

But I can tell you how the “Light” Rail system works in Sacramento, since I live there – about two miles from a Light Rail station.

First, I have to wait for a Bus to take me from the stop (about two hundred yards from my front door) to the train station. Buses run every 15 minutes during rush, every 30 minutes otherwise, except Saturday & Sunday when they run every hour. It’s a 15 minute ride the two miles to the Light rail station because of all the stops.

Once I get to the Light Rail station, I buy a ticket at the vending machine & wait about 10 minutes for the train, at rush – longer off-peak. Then it’s a 30 minute ride downtown & a 10 minute walk to my final destination (I could wait for a bus, but I get there quicker if I walk).

During the summer, I arrive sweating like a pig because the temps outside are in the high 90′s/low 100′s. Total travel time, door to door, just under an hour & 15 minutes.

If I drive – 20 minutes to travel, 10 minutes to park.

If the bus stops were replaced by PRT stops, two hundred yard walk to board, 1 min wait for a pod. Non-stop downtown, no more than a 1/4 mile walk to my final destination.

Me – no car payment, no insurance payment, no gas, no parking = one happy camper.

The infrastructure maintenance would be unaffordable on a larger scale. We can’t even pay to keep our roads in good shape and we use them more than anything else.

When all factors are considered, PRT is currently viable and cost effective as a transit option in smaller cities. And they are actually more efficient (in cost and energy use) than trains would be, because they are lightweight, have no driver, and operate only when needed. These factors offset the apparent efficiencies of trains, which must run big heavy trains even when demand is low in order to provide non-peak service.

Larger cities still need trains, and that’s not likely to change in the near future. But PRT is a viable option for small cities.

The basic problem is cost per rider. While it’s true it would be cheaper to build in terms of material dollars, the idea of having stations and a large web of overhead tracks all for individuals means that the cost per person would skyrocket. Building a train line and stations makes sense because they can carry many many people. Cars work to fill the gap. PRT just seems like trying to take the best of both worlds to create something that ends up not accomplishing anything.

If anyone wishes to see a rational discussion of PRT from someone who doesn’t have an irrational fear of change, see this Boston Globe article:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/04/invasion_of_the_pod_car/