On this Web-page we will focus our interest on the public transit systems in urban areas. All over the world, the public traffic systems are losing ground to the road traffic. Only temporarily and locally is it possible to find exceptions to this rule. In these instances, it is almost always because the city planners have decided to invest in new traffic lines and cars.

Three cases in point:

San Francisco's new streetcar system has done exceptionally well in its first year (1996). Strasbourg's old streetcar system from 1872 was dismantled in 1962 after a losing battle to the cars. A new system was inaugurated in 1994, and has become quite popular.

Stockholm, Sweden abolished all of its innercity streetcars in connection with Sweden´s switch to right-side driving in 1967. Buses were deemed to be more efficient. In 1999 a newly constructed streetcar line was brought into operation, it was extended in 2002 and further extensions are planned.

On the TrainWeb website is detailed some incidents in USA where railbound traffic, by design, has been crowded out by highways and motor vehicles. But as a rule, there are several reasons why the public transportation systems cannot hold their own ground:

	Public transport is tedious to use		1. The heavier public transport vehicles (such as buses and streetcars) follow their predetermined routes in accordance with a timetable. To change from one route to another requires waiting and constantly keeping track of the time, which certainly is not popular. Since private car drivers don't have to change vehicle, keeping time and waiting, the private car naturally wins in popularity.		Only a traffic system which can be adapted to varying demands in time and space (such as beam traffic), can compete with the cars in this respect. This traffic can be made to run whenever the commuters want, directly to the place they want to go. No waiting nor changing!

	The need for drivers add to the expense of public transport		2.Today's public transport vehicles are manually driven. The driver represents a considerable part of the traveler's expense. When it comes to buses, between half and two-thirds of the ticket costs goes to paying the driver. This means that you need big vehicles with many passengers in order to press the costs per passenger.		Only a traffic system without drivers (such as the beam traffic) can make it possible to reduce the size of the vehicles without increasing the cost to the passenger. The beam-carried traffic can have vehicles as small as two or even one passenger. It makes for improved economy, if you can avoid running vehicles with a lot of empty seats. The competitive edge over both collective traffic and the private cars is thus considerable!

	Taking roundabout routes, and stopping at designated places along the route takes time.		3. Along the routes, today's buses and streetcars travel mostly without using reserved lanes or embankments. They are thus crowding (and being crowded by) other kinds of traffic in the streets, and have to adjust their speed to this traffic, and beeing subject to traffic lights. Every now and then they have to halt at assigned stops to let passengers mount and dismount. As a consequeence, the average speed of streetbound collective traffic is quite low. The travel time with public transports will often come to about twice that for the private cars. This is of course a strong incentive to use the private car.		Only a traffic system with separate embankments or lanes and using small vehicles (such as the beam-carried traffic), which does not have to stop so often, can provide shorter travel times than the private car and thus compete effectively.

	Long walking distances to the nearest stop		4. With many stops at short intervals, the mean speed will be even lower. That's why the distance between the stops tend to be large. This means that the commuters, on the average will have longer walking distances. These walking distances add to the total travel time and lowers the comfort. This provides yet another reason for people to take the car.		Only a traffic system with small vehicles (such as the beam-carried traffic) can have stops at close intervals. With fewer passengers, the vehicles only need to stop where somebody wants to get off or on. The likelyhood for having to stop at a certain stop decreases as the number of passengers in the car decreases. With a booking system, the cars could be made to travel directly to the destination without stopping on the way, and thus also to the quickest route.

	Public transport systems contribute to creating slums where it´s uncomfortable to walk		5. With long distances between the stops (such as is the case with underground railways and local trains) and a need for a big throughput of commuters at the stops, in order to get a good return for the invested money, the city planners have to exploit the land close to the trainstops to a high degree, often resulting in high-rise buildings. As soon as people's personal finances will allow it, they will move away from these areas, out into the suburbs. This is a prevalent trend in the Western World, and can nowadays also be noted in countries like India. The reason for moving to the suburbs is that people find a higher quality of life when living in their own house, with a turf of land of their own. Only people who are down on their luck will stay in the central city, thus creating slum areas. Since these people have low incomes, or none at all, the tax basis for the inner cities will erode. One can thus argue, that today's public transport systems is the cause of much of the segregation taking place in big cities!		Only traffic systems with short distances between stops and low costs for operation and maintenance (such as the beam-carried traffic) can counteract this trend towards high exploitation of land and increased segregation among people.

	People move to the suburbs, which leads to longer travel distances		6. Since underground railways and local trains require a high volume of commuter throughput in order to be economical, railways will only stop at stations in densely populated areas. They also tend to operate in a radial fashion, from the city and out towards the suburbs, like the spokes on a bike wheel. This leads to a further increase of the cost of real estate in the central areas of a city. In the end, ordinary people cannot afford to live there. This is another reason for them to move away. Only prosperous enterprizes, banks and government agencies will stay on.		Only a traffic system which also can handle small traffic flows economically and just as easily can travel directly between suburbs, in a spiderweb fashion (such as the beam-carried traffic), can effectively oppose this trend. At the same time, this kind of traffic can oppose the tendency to take the private car whenever the need to travel occurs. This tendency will otherwise increase, as people move out into the suburbs and discover that their means of public communication is not as good as it was in the city.

	Public transport is usually heavily subsidized with tax money. Public savings thus lead to poor service		7. It is a fact that buses and streetcars don't pay their real costs, insofar as the travelers do not have to pay the real price of the ride. The public transport system in generally is subsidized with taxes. Next time you take a trip with a taxicab, note the price difference! The private car owners usually pay more in proportion, although road maintenance relies heavily on taxes in most countries. If the public transport systems would suddenly be required to pay their way in full their economy would collapse.		Only a traffic system that only requires a minimum of public space (such as the beam-carried traffic) opens possibilities for pedestrians, bikers, parks and the like to reclaim the areas which rightfully should be theirs and to make the cities more liveable.

	Public transport systems intrude upon the environment		8. Local trains and underground railways when out in the open, together with buses and streetcars are usually obnoxious ingredients in the urban environment, because of their noise, barrier effects and high demand on real estate. As these transport systems are expanded to keep up with demand from an increasing population, they intrude upon parks, living areas and seashores, etc. And often people will have to move away from areas where they have lived all their lives, because these areas have been degraded, and are no longer the cozy neighborhoods they used to be.		Only a traffic system with insignificant needs of real estate, practically no noise and no barrier effects (such as the beam-carried traffic), can be built and later on expanded, without these adverse effects. The increase in costs if the traffic has to go into buildings and underground will be considerable less than in all other alternatives, much thanks to the small and light vehicles being used.

	Today´s public transport systems are not meant to handle freight		9. In most traffic systems, the total costs will be dominated by the investment and operation of the system. It is often essential that these costs can be paid for by commuters and freight, as well as from public taxes. Today's public transport systems cannot handle freight at all. This considerably increases the costs for the other two sources mentioned.		Only a traffic system which can also handle all kinds of freight (such as cars and the beam-carried traffic), can have a good economic base and be really competitive.

	Inefficient use adds to the cost of keeping a good service level		10. Since the public transport systems have to maintain a good level of service, even at times with few passengers, a lot of mostly empty cars have to circulate along the routes. This increases the cost per passenger and kilometer at those hours. Since ticket prices are usually not jacked up, the operating costs will have to be absorbed by the public taxes. Or, the ticket prices are increased. In this case, the private car will become more competitive.		Only a traffic system that can attract more passengers through shorter travel times, higher comfort, better safety and lower costs (such as the beam-carried traffic), can compete with both private cars and today's public transport systems.

	Public transport systems cannot keep good service during hours of low demand		11. The high public subsidies and wages to the drivers results in traffic being considerably reduced outside of ordinary working hours. In evenings, weekends and at nights the buses, stretcars and subway trains are few and far between. Thus another incentive to take the car when there is going to be an evening on the town. How else would you get home at 2 O'Clock in the morning? There is another problem here; The poor guy who has attended a party, and then has to drive the car home at night cannot participate in the round of drinks the others are sharing. Of course, one can always get a cab. But that's not cheap! Generally speaking, once you invest in a car of your own, you will rarely use the public transport system. You will, of course, use your car as often as is convenient.		Only a traffic system that can maintain (and increase) the availability in evenings, weekends and at nights (such as the beam-carried traffic), and can keep the added costs beneath that of the car, can persuade people to sell their cars and nor buy new ones. This goal might not sit well with the car manufacturers, but in that case they are very shortsighted. They could make inroads in the growing market for beam-carried cars.

	Subsidized traffic companies have no incentive to maintain good service		12. With today's public transport systems, an increase in the number of passengers that only pay (say) half of the operating cost will lead to ever heavier public subsidies. The companies that operate this traffic have no real incentive to think along new lines, since the running of the public transport system is usually a political matter.		Only a traffic system which provides increased profits with every additional passenger (or piece of freight) (such as the beam-carried traffic), can give the traffic companies the needed incentives to make the traffic better and more attractive.