True Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), in concept and technology, is considerably advanced over PRT as proposed in the 1960s and 1970s. It is one of the few advanced transit concepts-perhaps the only one-that offers a prospect of overcoming the continued serious deficiencies of conventional transit systems. Past criticisms of PRT were often invalid, but even those questions that deserved to be taken seriously then no longer justify a postponement of serious PRT testing. Conventional transit, in spite of over two decades of considerable governmental support, is proving unable to satisfy major transportation needs of American urban areas, which are increasingly dispersed and multi-centered. There is no indication that conventional transit can overcome sufficiently its performance and economic deficiencies. If PRT is not given a chance to be tested, local public officials will continue to be faced with too limited options as between auto-dominated transportation services and high subsidies for inadequate transit solutions.For over two decades 1 have worked in "urban mass transportation''-Transit-marketing buses, locomotives, heavy and light rail cars and components, equipment for transit stations and "wayside", and complete automated people mover systems. In addition, 1 have sometimes marketed consulting services for transportation planning and engineering.During these two decades I have supported all proposed capital and operational subsidies for transit that revealed the slightest hint of justification. If in doubt about their justification, I must concede that I faithfully tilted toward support instead of toward neutrality or opposition. You might say that I have been a "true be1iever"in transit. Even though my business interests were often served by this support of more money for transit, 1 advocated transit primarily because of a conviction that transit benefited urban life.

No abstract