Why is it that trains are always proposed as the alternative to cars? I, for one, really want PRT to succeed. It seems to be the best middle ground between efficiency and convinience.

The worrying thing here is the assumption that we can choose...

The world has 2 billions individual cars. Lithium extraction rate may not be sufficient to make 2 billions cars by 2030... and that's assuming we don't need lithium for computers, smartphones, but also not for batteries for the grid (because no solar cell works at night and wind farms are not on demand erther), and... not for electric trucks! Then comes the question of the other metals: copper, nickel, cobalt, ...

Trains will not work everywhere for everyone, but not deploying them now and fast will be a severe issue for North America when resources will get scarce.

We need a smart mix of trains, buses, subways, tramways, shared vehicles, bikes, everything but one individual car per person. That era will come to an end because we're closer to the bottom of our planet's natural resources stock than the beginning.

There's not even a real option of keeping gas cars a little while more, as cheap oil is also coming to an end.

The difference between accepting this and "choosing" individual cars is how ready countries will be when resources will get scarce. It may get ugly...

Trains, busses subways and trams with room for bikes. Bike and walking infrastructure along roads and in cities. Secure bike parking both publicly and at home. Frequent and flexible busses. And a wide variety of easily avaliable rental cars.

Because public transport is for dirty poors,, obviously /s

because in lots of countries there is effectively no public transport culture existing, and car companies take advantage of that. it's really just about car culture and taking advantage of people in my opinion