There is limited impetus for funding increased transit as the majority of the systems riders are minorities with larger portions of white folk using the rail sections.

Pretty much the classic case describe in the blog posting. Now the real question is how do you convince a white suburban population to fund a transit system for the urban poor… perhaps it should start with serving white suburban population better so as to “sell” them on the idea of transit. It’s definitely not just… the real need for transit is in the poor neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the political capital of the region lies in the rich just like everywhere in world. You must get white folks onto transit if you expect them to fund it.

I too am surprised that SEPTA workers top out so quickly and at a relatively low wage. However, while I think it’s silly that people 20 years on the job could earn the same as a person 4 years on the job, I also find it ridiculous what happens in Boston. At the MBTA there are drivers who make six figure salaries, which you can check out at the Boston Herald. I do agree though that you need to keep in mind what cities they are working in as workers in San Francisco should make more than those in Philly just as those in Houston should make less than those in Chicago, just based on cost of living.

“BART says it already pays average wages of $64,428 a year for members of its two largest unions, the Service Employees International Union 790 and the Amalgamated Transit Union 1555. Workers in those unions, which represent 2,300 of the district’s nearly 3,000 employees, also receive an average benefits package of $29,750.”

But then again, you can buy a three-bedroom house in a nice neighborhood in Philly for around 200K. In the SF Bay Area, for 200K you can get a studio in a bad neighborhood. So I guess it evens out.

This makes it sound as if the next step in development after PRT might be bus or light rail. But in fact, the PRT experience is much superior to bus or light rail, the cost to construct PRT is much less than light rail, and the cost to operate PRT (per passenger mile) is close to that of buses.

In many situations, having a PRT system would eliminate the need and the demand for a bus or light-rail system. If the PRT system were installed BEFORE bus or light rail, the latter might not even be contemplated. Keep in mind that the average speed of SF’s Bay Area RAPID Transit is only around 35 mph, whereas the average speed of a PRT system can be the same, even if the pods themselves travel no faster than 35-40 mph, given the non-stop nature of podcar trips. If podcars can get you from A to B as fast as BART (or the DC Metro, or the NYC Subway, or the Boston T, e.g.) why build BART? Why deploy a fleet of buses? In places where light/heavy rail or buses are already operating, it may be necessary to integrate PRT with the existing forms of transit. But in places where those don’t already exist, putting in PRT first may be the smartest move for satisfying transportation needs for many decades to come.