For all of the billions that the government has poured into the NEC over fourty years, they’ve only managed to shave less than two hours over times from the ’50s. This entire corridor is a black hole, sucking money into it, and giving almost nothing back. The entire project is just welfare for the Serious People. (The East Coast political elite that determine what is a serious topic for discussion in American politics, and what topics make one a non serious Radical)

If Amtrak ever gets the money, this will be the third government rebuild of the line. Any person not driven by either idealogy, or by a desire to not be eclisped in greatness by other countries would have long ago given up on high speed rail. The serious people have it all wrong. We had high speed rail in this country, as the Antiplanner documents on his other blog. Read about the kind of speeds and travel times that the railroads were getting in the thirties, even Amtrak’s fastest train on the NEC is barely competitive over the same kinds of distances. The problem with high speed rail in this country is that everyone but the serious people decided long ago (As far back as the thirties) that the car, and plane were easier, cheaper and faster. The impending death of the car is as it always will be, just wishfull thinking on behalf of the serious people.

Me thinks rail can learn a lot on funding projects from Aviation so as not to make them so “non-user” dependent.

I’m puzzled as to why people like you think it’s acceptable to spend $7 billion on revamping a single train station. This is the problem inherent in rail. Unlike airports, where terminal construction is self funded and as a result has a financial limitation (never mind the private sector airlines to keep them in check), rail programs seem to have no limits on financial stupidity. If an airport were to propose a $7 billion terminal the airlines would chew up the management team and vomit them out into the middle of the town square for sport.

But the market is for larger vehicles – take a look out of your window. Even in the UK, the home of the small cars with our high petrol prices, the Smart car is a rarity.

“or, well, you don’t want to know.”

It’s a great game, multiplying big values together. For example, if you change the way PRT works from merge to signalised, you can have a marked increase in capacity with (if coordinated) a very small increase in delay. Each pod 2m long, one metre between pods. Unlike your scheme, PRT uses smaller and cheaper infrastructure, and doesn’t require people to buy a new car. But it’s not exactly, popular, is it?

“No one. Like Avis, you have their debit card and as per the standard rental agreement, they pay for (above normal) cleanup and/or damages.”

But you want to travel right now, yes? Not after the cleaners have turned up and sorted it out.

“I say “What…?!” ”

That’s my line. Every new idea has a price which is pitched low – nothing new. But every time the price goes up. Monorails for example, we are assured, are cheap, because all you have to do is put up some pre-cast pillars, put the pre-cast top sections on by crane, and you’re done. Except that the Las Vegas monorail cost $88m/mile. It keeps going into and out of bankruptcy proceedings.

““Ugly”? Holy cow, Francis, what do you call a freeway…beautiful? Goodness!”

I’m referring to the artists impression of a junction on the web-site that you provided. An artists impression that, by the way, did not show the drip pans or evacuation routes required by law – so you can add those to the rat’s nest. This is one of things that cause problems for PRT. The narrow routes in the PRT concept diagrams also do not contain these obligatory features.

““Noisy”? Have you ever stood by an expressway and listened. They spend millions erecting noise barriers.”

Cars make noise. Usually this is absorbed by the local buildings. When you elevate a route you then broadcast the noise all over the area. Which is another reason why elevated infrastructure is not popular.

“Me: That’s where we differ. You’re happy to have your neighbor (or Uncle Sam) pimp your ride.”

No, I’m not. Subsidy is nature’s way of telling the service provider that they’ve got it wrong. But transit can be profitable, if they get the offer right. Of course, when taxpayer’s money can be summoned up at the click of a finger, why bother?

On the other hand, I’m struggling to see how your concept is marketable. Everyone has to buy new special cars, of a type that they don’t want. You’ve got to put up the structures everywhere, and get an income from it some how, when most people’s cars don’t fit. You’ve got to get the scheme past people who don’t like your scheme for environmental grounds. Park and Ride seems to me to be a better buy. You can start with a small car park and buses, and increase the size and capacity as is required by customer demand. It pays for itself. All that is required is a small congestion charge to stop people mindlessly driving past the site.If they have good reasons for driving into town in their car, then that’s fine, but they’ve got to pay for it.