Talk:Personal rapid transit
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
Gravities vs. m/s^2
I think gravities are more meaningful for an average person, and this is an encyclopedia. So, I plan to put the gravities as the primary unit, with m/s^2 in parenthesis.
misc
Reverted away from copyrighted text from www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_prt_2005-01.htm
Braking
P1
The reason that PRT guideways can sustain much higher traffic rate has absolutely nothing to do with stopping distance; in fact, their stopping distance is generally longer than an automobile's. Rather, it is their computer-controlled reaction time which is the critical factor. This is why the DMV recommends a 2-second separation between street vehicles (also known as the headway distance); not because a car traveling at 65 mph can stop in two seconds, but because that's the reaction time of the average driver. Once the driver reacts, they can apply the brakes and presumably match the deceleration rate of whatever is in front of them. Because PRT vehicles are computer-controlled, their reaction time is measured in milliseconds instead of seconds. This allows for much shorter headway distances, and much higher traffic flows.
The accellerations originally in the article would still be fatal for most people (except in the case of instantaneous accellerations lasting a few milliseconds at most, which is not pertinent to the current discussion). Moreover, braking does not effect route capacity in any substantial way -- reaction time is essentially the only important factor here. If ATRA has reviewed and approved this text, then I'm frankly dissapointed in them; these sort of physically-impossible claims are precisely the sort of thing which causes conventional-transit advocates to disparage PRT. There's an excellent paper discussing precisely this subject, which is linked from the Innovative Transportation Technologies website; I just need to go through the work of finding it and summarizing it. I'll try to have that done by sometime tomorrow. Skybum 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Read the following PDF: Safe Design of Personal Rapid Transit Systems. On the subject of braking, and headway, it has this to say on pages 6 & 7, after first giving the somewhat complex equation for safe minimum headway distances (emphasis mine):
Tmin = (L/V) + tc + k(V/2)(1/ae - 1/af)
- The first term is the time required for a vehicle of length L travelling at a velocity V to travel one vehicle length. It is the minimum possible headway. The second term tc is the time required to detect the malfunction and apply the brakes. The third term is proportional to the available stopping distance after the brakes are fully applied divided by the cruising speed V. ae is the emergency braking rate and af is the failure braking rate. k is a dimensionless number included to increase safety.
- To appreciate the fundamentals of the question of minimum headway, consider some numerical values. For the Taxi 2000 vehicle, L = 3 m and V = 48 kph. Therefore
L/V = 0.224 sec.
- Consider tc. It is the sum of the time interval between failure occurrence and braking initiation, and the time required to fully apply the brakes. In an automobile, the time to react to an emergency depends on human reaction time. Under automation, the time interval needed to detect the failure and to begin applying the brakes depends on the characteristics of the control system. In a PRT system designed for maximum throughput, it is necessary for the zone controller to be able to sense the position of each vehicle at any point, i. e., vehicle-position data must be continuously available. The first part of tc is about 0.1 sec plus the much smaller time for the computer to react. The second part of tc must be as short as practical with current technology. With electromagnetic braking, this time is the inductive time constant of the motor, which is of the order of 10 msec. For a state-of-the-art PRT system, I therefore estimate
tc = 0.12 sec.
- Consider the third term in equation (1). [ ... ] The term ae must be as high as practical. If all passengers are seated, simple experiments show that a 0.5g deceleration will not throw a passenger out of the seat. If passengers are standing, even half this acceleration is too much, so one of the requirements of PRT safety is that the vehicle be designed for all passengers seated.
- This passage makes it clear that the reaction time (tc) is the dominant factor in the determination of headway distances. Moreover, it makes it clear that the emergency braking accleration (ae), while desireable to be as possible, is acceptable around a level of 0.5g. These values can be found repeated throughout the web, such as here (emphasis mine):
- The usual acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle is 1/4 g, or 8 feet/sec^2. In an emergency, the Taxi 2000 system would stop using 4/10 g, or 12.8 feet/sec^2. [ In ] a system that would go 25 mph (37 feet per second) [ ... ] the safe following distance to avoid any possible collisions becomes (37 fps) / 2*(12.8 fpss) = 1.445 seconds, plus the .004 seconds of reaction time, for a total of 1.45 seconds.
- Finally, my point about the harm that these kind of false claims (of PRT requiring, or benefiting from, high deceleration rates) can cause was not theoretical. Check out here, or here, which alas uses our PRT page as a source for its criticism.
- I believe that this should be the final word on the topic. Unless anybody has some further arguments, I will be heavily revising this info on the main PRT page tomorrow. -- Skybum 04:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank-you very much for the excellent work. User:Ray Van De Walker
P2
Why is braking distance so important? When one drives a car, one certainly can not stop in the distance between cars. What am I missing? pstudier 22:18, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
- I at least, am a more cautious driver than the people in your area. Some of us might say we're willing to take the risk, but some people who say they are willing to take the risk might change their minds after they have an accident. So, in most places, safety laws require public transit vehicles to keep a full stopping distance between themselves and anything they could hit. This lowers the number of vehicles that can fit on the road or guideway or whatever. In turn, this reduces the rate at which the road or guideway can be depreciated. This in turn increases the fares or public costs substantially, because the roads or guideways are the most expensive part of a transport system. User:Ray Van De Walker
Excuse me, but breaking distance is DEFINITELY a factor because the faster a car can break, the closer they can be together. Why is this the case? It is because the law says it is the case. Public transportation vehicles are required to travel far enough behind the vehicle in front of them so that it could stop IN THAT DISTANCE. For example, if the vehicle in front of a public transportation vehicle stopped at infinite deceleration (immediately), the public vehicle would still be able to break in time. Thus, to comply with regulations, cars must be able to stop quickly enough - and the more cars that fit on the track, the larger the track capacity can be. This is a HUGE factor in this sort of thing. The normal road system is failing in large and midsized cities now because of lack of capacity. If PRT wants to solve that, capacity is going to be a main issue. Fresheneesz 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Did you read my comments in the rest of this section? They decisively answer the braking question. You are correct that capacity is the main issue, but braking distance is absolutely not what determines capacity. To recap what I've said above, this is because the only thing you'll need to brake to avoid is the vehicle ahead of you, which will either be A.) Gradually braking, or B.) Coasting to a stop. Those are the only two possibilities. Therefore, all that a vehicle needs to do is 1.) Notice that it needs to brake (this is the critical factor: reaction time), then 2.) Match the rate of deceleration of the vehicle ahead of it. As you can hopefully see, the velocity at which you brake is not a factor, so long as it matches the velocity of whatever is in front of you.
- Automobiles are different, because they have to deal with cross-traffic. This can create scenarios where there is essentially a "brick wall" in front of the vehicle, and the closer you can get to instantaneous deceleration, the better. PRT doesn't have to deal with this scenario, however. PRT is more akin to a freeway, where the recommend 2-second following distance is absolutely not determined by braking speed (at highway speeds, cars require 6-10 seconds to brake). 1-2 seconds is a typical human reaction time, allowing drivers to notice and match the deceleration of whatever is in front of them. This is essentially the same as PRT. However, in PRT, the reaction time is computer-based rather than human-awareness-based, and this -- and not braking -- is what allows for much closer following distances (as close as a few milliseconds under the most optimistic scenarios), and much greater route capacities. Skybum 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well... you *did* read all of what I wrote right? Because the issue is not saftey here, it is public transit *laws*. Of course, to avoid collision, a vehicle must only decelerate about as quickly as the vehicle in front of it. However, the law states otherwise - and *that* is the problem. But I do see what you're saying, however I think that both breaking time and reaction time are large factors. Another thing to consider is the semantics of the situation - personally I consider "breaking" to include reaction time in the case of PRT - because it is automatic, integral to breaking, and invariant. For example, in the Skytran system, the vehicles can decelerate in 1/2 second in an emergency, which I think you can agree contributes to the stopping distance slightly more than the decreased reaction time. Fresheneesz 08:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, the laws aren't the problem, because the laws for every transportation mode are different, and there are no laws that currently apply to PRT. Trains and busses, for example, can require as much as 30 seconds to come to a full stop when travelling at full speed (because anything much quicker than that would kill their unbelted passengers). They are still allowed to operate. Skybum 17:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- They are allowed to operate because they put enough distance between themselves and another train to stop in that distance. Do you think that PRT will be allowed to be built without regulation? Most likely, legislators will be the *same* or *more strict* requirements on safety issues, such as breaking distance, compared to trains, busses or other forms of transportation. There are no laws about PRT now, because it is a minuscule part of our society if anything. Fresheneesz 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, legislators will, and should, regulate PRT. It is in everybody's interest to make sure that PRT is as safe as possible. However, it is also important that people not equate safety (or headway distances) with braking speed, because on a closed-track off-grade system, they are almost unrelated. In fact, higher braking speeds can lead to decreases in safetey. Consider a city bus travelling at, say, 45mph. For the sake of its unbelted passengers, it cannot brake at any faster than 1/4g, which means a stopping time of about 8.5 seconds. If it stops much faster than this, passengers will be thrown from their seats and across the bus, severely injuring and possibly even killing them. Thus there is no safety advantage to having a bus stop any more quickly than this (and indeed, they can't do so). Yet busses are allowed to operate at 2-second following distances, because it is the reaction time of the driver which is the important factor. As long as the bus can reliably brake at 1/4g, it does not need to brake any faster.
- This principle is universally recognized by transportation planners -- except for those coming from the rail industry. This is because its traffic models have to account for massive frieght trains that have a stopping distance of literally miles -- in other words, beyond the perception & reaction time of the train driver, and reliant upon the signaling system and the stopping distance of the train itself. Because of this, the following distance for trains is determined by its braking speed, and even this is somewhat archaic, given the advent or modern real-time signaling systems. No other land-based transportation system works this way, or should. I have no fear that PRT will be regulated like this, even if the assholes at LightRailNow can't grok the concept.
- Anyhow, it is almost certain that PRT headways will be determined in the same fashion that car and bus headways are -- reaction-time-based rather than braking-distance-based. Because regulators are intrinsically conservative, they'll probably start with the same two-second rule that autos use, and gradually reduce this as the system proves itself to be safe and reliable. That's how PRT will achieve a high route capacity. Meanwhile, making claims about its supposedly superior braking velocities is in fact harmful to the PRT cause. This is because if PRT vehicles were to brake more quickly than other vehicles, they would soon begin throwing their occupants through the windshield, in the service of avoiding a collision. That's not an effective safety technique, and isn't in any case how PRT works, so there's no point in talking about it -- except perhaps to dispell the myths surrounding the subject.
- By the way, I like the edits that you've been doing. Keep up the good work! Skybum 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! And I agree, breaking speeds has little to do with safety on a basically isolated linear system like PRT systems are. And I hope you're right about future legislation. What does the lightrail now people have against PRT anyway - it's not like *they're* making any more money off light rail than anyone else. Anyone smart enough would put their money in a good PRT system rather than pushing it back down. But in any case, I think *this* discussion (I mean a very very consolidated version of it) should be put in the article - rather than skirting the subject entirely. Fresheneesz 06:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would love to see a condensed, accurate version of the braking facts in the article as well. User:Ray Van De Walker
WHOA !! : All the above appears to assume isolated, individual PRT vehicles. That will not be the case in any economically practical implementation. Anti-collision, guidance and individual join/leave-platoon will be autonomous-local in a platoon of many individual PRT vehicles, electronically coupled, in both position, speed, acceleration and function, with little or no gap between. The sole neighborhood-located control function will be local routing, average speed control and ON-GRADE crossing control. Central control will handle metro-wide traffic-routing and overall speed supervision. Forget central detailed control of individual vehicles or even of platoons. Your autonomous-chauffeur will be VERY skilled !
- " little or no gap between" - perhaps eventually, but thats not a necessity of PRT, and shouldn't appear in the article. Not only that, PRT will most likely *not* be so implemented because of paranoid concerns of legislators and the idiot public. About central control, I agree. Fresheneesz 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- "The law": I don't think all countries where this page is available have the same laws. Pysa, 217.118.41.215 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
WVU PRT separate article?
WVU PRT should be seperate article? wikiveterans please advise Codeczero 16:29 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
- Hi, welcome! As it is, WVU PRT fits well in this article: it is on-topic, and only when an article gets very long we need to split it. - Patrick 20:26 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)
good info in here but it reads like someones PRO PRT lobbying piece still.. Triptych 02:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not anymore. There are quite a lot of disadvantages listed, and I just put in the guideway choice issue and the dual mode versus single mode debate. Now, the problem is to get the article organized a bit more. Too many of the points mentioned (as advantages or disadvantages or as specs) apply only to one type of guideway but not to another or to a single mode system but not a dual mode system, and this is not made clear.
I wrote the original article, and I'm still one of the biggest contributors (I often fail to log in). I started off pretty ignorant, and very neutral on the topic. I have experience with biomedical software and safety engineering. So I read up on the topic. Unfortunately, most of the people who write books about this thing, and really understand it are enthusiasts (of course). Most of the people who debunk it are clearly doing the capitalization and overhead math wrong. Some of the older advocates say this is happening on purpose to persuade the politicians to buy the wrong transit stuff. User:Ray Van De Walker 2004-01-27 09:20Z
I am always amazed at the naivete of alas too many PRT enthusiasts (and here I am not refering to those who have edited this article, for they seem a level headed lot) and sympathisers . No, PRT systems are not singled out specifically for destruction, yes they will get destroyed mercilessly if they are not nimble. The transit market is all too often a "dog eat dog" world of rather fierce competition between competing kinds of systems, competing companies within the same systems and local financial interests striving for attention. PRT projects get caught in the crossfire most of the time, or brushed aside with a slight shove because of their fragility. Entrenched transit technologies in traditional transport establishments can react in a very brutal way to menacing innovations, and this has happened to much stronger and well prepared projects than what PRT systems are offering. One example is the air cushion aerotrain developped by Jean Bertin in France. It went as far as full scale prototypes and a long test track several kilometers long. The development of the TGV, the Train Grande Vitesse (ultra high speed train) by France's national railways, the SNCF was an effort meant to crush the aerotrain, which it considered as a dangerous competitor. Hundeds of millions of Euros were spent in R and D by the SNCF, dwarfing the aerotrain research budget. Even greater sums were spent on the new dedicated infrastructure for the TGV. The SNCF was successful. Companies which sell trams, buses or commuter wagons cannot be expected to lie down and say . "OK you have the right stuff and we have the wrong stuff." They can be expected to try every trick in the book to wipe any PRT proposal off the map, as they wipe out other competitors in the traditional bus and tram domain. The only potential allies are car companies, which stand to gain as much by making myriads of PRT vehicles as they are making cars, if personal vehicles are allowed (in single mode as well as in dual modes personal vehicles are possible, though they are rarely discussed) but there is no reason for them to leave the status quo. One should note though that Ford research labs proposed a new PRT system called PRISM, in December 2003.
NO ALLIES - Auto manufacturers will NOT EVER be allies, because PRT vehicles will be like DC-3s -- good for over 50 years, at least the mechanical part.
Some sort of PRT planned in Finland
I can remember reading an article about some sort of a trial of a PRT system being planned in Finland. If I can remember right, it would (at first) be a line from Helsinki-Vantaa airport to some points in Helsinki (or well, they called it a high speed "driverless taxi" moving on a predesigned route, as far as I can remember, but isn't that a PRT system then..). Would anyone have any more info on this, as I couldn't find anything from Google? It would be an interesting addition to the article.--HJV 20:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Portal-Portal Evolutionary PRT
A successful version of PRT will eventually 1) Offer PORTAL-PORTAL transportation (ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL), regardless of the distance without changing one's seat; 2) Require NO GUIDEWAYS whatever : Optical, computer and control technology are already sufficient to meet that challenge; 3) Evolve from systems serving only small areas from which manually-operated transportation (auto traffic) has been absolutely barred -- The user whose destination is within must park his auto and continue on PPPRT. The areas served by PPPRT will gradually expand until autos are universally no longer operable in urban areas; 4) In their final form, offer very high speed operation on longer trips ("Guidetube", Group-Mode, 500 MPH+).
- What do you mean no guideways? A guideway is the support of the vehical, its the "road" on which the "car" travels. Explain you're alternate definition of "guideway". And, what is the difference between normal PRT and PPPRT (portal to portal PRT) ? I thought normal PRT *was* portal to portal... Finally, whats the point of this explanation? Fresheneesz 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm scratching my head on this one too. If there is supporting third-party material that can document... er, whatever the hypothesis is here, then that'd be great. Otherwise, I suspect that this would fall under the "Wikipedia is not the place for original research" policy, and leave it at that. Skybum 05:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
A "guideway" is any arrangement in which the steering function, normally provided by the operator of a conventional automotive vehicle, is instead provided by the path of travel, such as a rail, monorail or the like. Another variation is where the steering function is provided by magnetic , optical or other such features embedded in the surface of the "guideway". Thus, the device providing the guidance does not necessarily support the vertical or horizontal thrusts of the vehicle.
Please provide directions to information concerning a "normal PRT" which IS in fact operated "portal-to-portal" (door-to-door), without designated stops and without designated paths of travel (routes). 162.42.87.107 16:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did not write the above, but I do not find it confusing, either. The DARPA Grand Challenge has successfully developed autonomous vehicles. Make them cabs, summoned by cellphone, and we have portal-to-portal PRT without guideways or new infrastructure. It -is- research, but it's pretty obvious research. Also, no government investment is required. Some regulatory changes might be needed to permit robot drivers. User:Ray Van De Walker
- PRT is a guided system by definition. Otherwise you're looking at an Automated highway system, which is a Dual mode transit system derived from current automobiles, Smart car, or Driverless car. Ken MacLeod 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Really? Well, anyway, I think if we got driverless electric taxicabs, we'd have most of the utility of PRT. It wouldn't be quite as safe, I believe, because the taxis wouldn't be on a separated grade. It might also have higher maintenance and energy costs, but the gross functionality is very similar. User:Ray Van De Walker
Who is the cartoonist mentioned here?
"One cartoonist says that PRT studies are a "stalking horse" for the highway industry to direct work on transit to unproductive areas."
- Appears to be User:Avidor, who has recently edited the article and talk page. See [1]. User:Avidor, please correct me if the cartoonist is someone else. pstudier 04:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is totally biased and inaccurate
Except for the few links to skeptics at the end of the article, there is nothing here that gives any indication how controversial PRT really is.
This article is a candidate for a warning about about its neutrality and objectivity.
One obvious problem with this article is it has so few links. there are entire passages without links. The links it has are to web sites that are run by the cult-like PRT proponents, many who were involved in the writing of this silly article.
It would be a waste of time to edit this mess.
One example of bias is the use of the widespread use of the present tense to describe a system that does not operate anywhere in the world.
The inclusion of Skyloop is typical of how silly this article is. Skyloop, the proposed PRT system for Cincinatti. If you follow the link to the Skyloop site and click on "News", you'll find the last news item was posted in 2001 when Skyloop was rejected!!!
(And the link on the page to Skyloop doesn't work... it should be www.skyloop.org not skyloop.com.)
I ask that this page on PRT be brought into compliance with the form and style of a neutral and objective Wikipedia page.
"A web page from Lightrailnow.org, a pro-light rail advocacy group opposed to PRT and other "gadget" transit systems. This report has been highly disputed, and its content decried as being riddled with incorrect information and blatant propaganda."
Yeah, that sounds reeeeeeal neutral. Avidor 00:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Better to fix than bitch. pstudier 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Fix what? The article's premise that PRT exists is flawed. If I fixed that, the PRT cultists would change it back. It's like correcting an article on "Intelligent Design" written by creationist Kool-Aid drinkers from the Discovery Institute (DI also fools around with PRT).
It would be like bailing out the Titanic with a Dixie cup.
Leave it the way it is so people can see its like everything else the PRT cult puts on the web... a crackpot anti-LRT screed. Avidor 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Guys, the intro documents the controversy, the history documents the failures (no advocate article would leave the Aramis and Raytheon fiascos in the history!!!), and the pros/cons etc. at the end documents the main arguments for & against. I think your accusations of NPOV are groundless. The rest of the article is necessarily about PRT and how it works (or tries to work). That is, it's an encyclopedia article about PRT. If you have more facts, including especially more failure stories, or more information about how the PRT costing is nuts, please add them to the article, and give links. I've heard references to a failure in Colorado(?) but I haven't found any info. I understand that you may simply dislike PRT, and prefer LRT, but really, that's POV. For the reasons above, I'm going to revert the NPOV marker. Ray Van De Walker 18:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I concur, 100% Skybum 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The article is still a mess. Full of bias and innacuracies. You can keep it the way it is with the NPOV or redo the entire article. Avidor
- If you object so strongly, why don't you just fix it and let the community decide if your changes have merit? I don't think anyone here wants a biased article, so if you see bias, then correct it. The longer you throw out these vague complaints, the less credibility you have. User:A Transportation Enthusiast
- Vague? The article is vague. What the heck does this sentence mean?:
- "PRT has been reinvented many times because it optimizes standard mathematical models used by transit-planners."
- or this one?:
- "PRT's theoretical advantages are diluted, perhaps to nonexistence, when it is operated as part of a network of scheduled public transit systems."
- My major and very specific complaint is that PRT does not exist, therefore the present tense, which is used throughout this article is false and misleading. PRT is a concept, not an actual, operating system.
- You can see demonstration models of gee-whiz concept cars at the auto show...but you can't buy them at your local auto dealer... same thing here. The few laboratory-scale models of PRT are not anything you can compare to conventional transit which operates all over the world with very real track records.
- The possiblity that PRT might work in theory is presented as "fact" that it indeed works. Cold fusion may in theory work, but has to date not lived up to the claims of its proponents.
- When discussing an unproven concept, careful and equal attention must be paid to the skeptics. In this article skeptics are treated with contempt and derision.
- The facts are that PRT has never passed peer review. The 2001 OKI report was prepared by transportation engineers. The taxpayers paid $625,000 for that report and the OKI report said that PRT had too many problems to be considered a feasible transportation mode. On the basis of that report Skyloop was rejected (although you wouldn't know that reading this article).
- Professor Vukan Vuchic has also dismissed PRT as infeasible.
- I have personally talked with transportation engineers, all think PRT is not ready for prime time.
- I have talked to people who lived in the community that PRT promoter Dean Zimmermann wanted to make ground zero for his PRT plan. None of them were happy about having half the trees cut down on their streets for a monorail with a clear view into their bedroom windows.
- Transit for Livable Communities has a resolution against public funding of PRT and the Sierra Club Northstar has a similar resolution.
- No PRT vendor, neither Taxi 2000 or AST have a viable product ready to sell that can be described as PRT. ULTra's little earth-bound golf-cart has a top speed of 12 mph (maybe 20mph).... hardly "rapid".
- Those are some of my specific compaints...I have more.
- I will continue to put the NPOV symbol up until all bias is removed from this article.
- I just added some links on my user page to help you write this article...good luck. Avidor 17:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Vagueness is not bias. The lines you quote are quite clear to me.
- As for the use of present tense, I don't see any quote that uses present tense in a way that would imply that PRT already exists in production form. There are many examples of future and/or subjective tense: "it will provide", "PRT should solve", "PRT systems could absorb", "should be", "is said to be", "are said to fail", "should reduce costs"...
- Honestly, I'm neutral on this topic, I just don't see the bias, even after reading your complaints here. Most of paragraph 3 could have been taken right off of a skeptics page, and there is more skepticism throughout. The article is very clear that this technology is controversial and that there are many detractors. It also clearly indicates that no PRT systems currently exist. So it seems pretty neutral to me.
- It is a bit frustrating that, despite your authority on this topic, you have still not modified one line of the article text. You claim you don't want to waste time editing the article, and yet you have written several pages in this discussion section, when that time could have been spent fixing the article itself.
- I'll ask again: you seem to be an authority, and you claim to have information that would prove bias, so why don't you just modify the article and let everyone else decide for themselves? Otherwise, I see no reason why the NPOV symbol should be here.
If I wrote the article it would say that PRT is a hoax and an anti-transit scam... which it is.
Prove that it isn't and back your claims up with LINKS to FACTS not conjecture, not opinion, not wishfull thinking.
Avidor 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, now we're making progress.
- Your assertion is: "PRT is a hoax and an anti-transit scam". If you can back this up with hard facts, then add it to the article with links to references (factual, verifyable references) that prove your assertions.
- If you cannot back this up with facts, you may still add the following: "There are detractors who believe that PRT is a hoax and an anti-transit scam", and include a link back to your own page. This statement is an irrefutable fact, and I can almost guarantee that nobody will dispute the validity of it (one need only look at this discussion page to prove its veracity).
- You then write: "Prove that it isn't and back your claims up with LINKS to FACTS not conjecture, not opinion, not wishfull thinking."
- First, I make no claims about PRT. I only vouch for the neutrality of the article.
- So, I assume by "your claims", you are referring to the claims made in the article. I didn't write it, so I can't speak to the motivations of people who did. But I can say this: the original author (User:Ray Van De Walker) is a regular contributer to Wikipedia, and he himself indicated (on this page) that any original bias was unintentional. In fact, several minor fixes have been made by Ray and others to correct any perceived bias. Therefore, I have no reason to believe Ray (or any of the other contributers) has a hidden agenda here.
- But, I am a person who believes in checking my own facts. So I checked much of it out myself. I followed almost all of the links on this page, and they seem to validate every major point in the article. PRT is a largely unproven technology. People have been working on it for decades. Several projects have ended in spectacular failure, and one was a very limited success (Morgantown, by virtue of it still running today). People are still working on it, at several locations in several nations. Projects are still in development. As far as I can tell, the theory is mathematically sound, and the pros and cons are accurately represented.
- These are all hard, verifyable facts, whether you happen to agree with them or not. I still have not seen one shred of evidence to dispute any specific fact in the entire article.
- So, for the third time I will make a very simple request: edit the article and correct any factual and/or neutrality problems you find. You're the only one who can do this, because you are the only one who seems to know what the problems are. So, please, fix the article so we can all evaluate your arguments objectively.
- Until then, I am removing the NPOV marker again.
Here's another howler:
"The Taxi2000 system remains under study by Chicago."
Chicago's RTA lost $22 Million on the Rosemount Raytheon PRT project.
A year or two ago the Daily Herald reported that the RTA was buying buses for Rosemount.
Here's another howler:
"Tube-enclosed systems can be enclosed in special "biolung" greenery, with zero visibility of moving vehicles."
Where's the link for that nonsense? No link, of course.
Maybe it's from this wacky gadgetbahn site:
[[2]]
Hey, who is that cartoonist who said PRT was a "stalking horse"? Got a link for that?
Avidor 23:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have addressed these concerns and removed the NPOV
Still no links to unsubstatiated claims like this:
"Transit using similar automated technologies is in regular operation, with some systems dating back to 1974. Systems include West Virginia University and Schiphol Airport. These are said to prove the viability of small-scale projects in dense, high traffic applications such as universities and airports. Some proponents say that these developments prove feasibility."
"These are said"....who said?
And you removed the word "controversial".
Until you describe in plain English what PRT is (not what it might be in some perfect universe) using plain English with lots of links, this article is biased and not neutral.
Avidor 14:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting:
[[3]]
No controversy? No bias? Yeah right!!!!
Avidor 16:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't find this anywhere in the article. Please clarify.
- User:A Transportation Enthusiast
- So, let me get this straight: you are now applying the NPOV tag because of one word, "controversy" (even though the controversy is well documented throughout the article) and because Shiopol and WVU don't have links? That's what you consider bias?
- A few days ago, you ironically wrote: "If I fixed that, the PRT cultists would change it back. It's like correcting an article on 'Intelligent Design' written by creationist Kool-Aid drinkers from the Discovery Institute". Now I ask you, Avidor, who is acting like a cultist? Who is the one that is obsessively reapplying this NPOV tag even though people like me and others have continually addressed your increasingly petty concerns?
- Who is acting like a cultist, Avidor? Who is acting like a fundamentalist creationist whose only means of argument is slandering proven fact over and over again?
- My basic problem with you, Avidor, is this: I care very little about PRT, but I do care very much about Wikipedia. This is not a political blog, it's an encyclopedia. It's not about cartoons and accusations, it's about facts. Every time you aggressively reapply the NPOV with little or no justification, you belittle the very concept of Wikipedia, and all of the people who have worked so hard to make it what it is today.
- So, continue your little game, and reapply the NPOV tag for petty little technicalities. But don't expect us to allow you to turn Wikipedia into your own political blog, because it's not going to happen.
- I find it amazing that, for someone who claims to have so much knowledge of PRT, you still have not modified one single line of the article text. So, in response to your complaints, I have now made several changes to the article (since you refuse to) that address every one of your documented concerns, and I've once again removed NPOV.
- Why don't you play nice now, and make the changes to the article yourself, or at least, document what you perceive as problems here, so the community can address them before you apply the NPOV label implying the entire article is flawed?
Sorry.
You are cherry-picking my concerns.
This article still has too few links and too many unattributed claims to be considered a neutral article.
For instance:
"One cartoonist says that PRT studies are a " stalking horse " for the highway industry to direct work on transit to unproductive areas."
Why not use an attributed quote and link it?
Mr. Gow and Google can help you with the "stalking horse" link here:
[[4]]
Again, this PRT article has too few links to fit the definition of a true [wiki]:
"Wikis are a true hypertext medium, with non-linear navigational structures. Each page typically contains a large number of links to other pages..."
For example, look at how this Wikipedia page deals with another controversial topic [Intelligent Design].
Speaking of the Darwin-challenged Discovery Institute...
[[5]]
Hmmmmm.......
Avidor 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, we have our answer. You are a fundamentalist, not interested in reasoned discussion. I've addressed every complaint that you've clearly documented. I still have no idea why you complain about the stalking horse quote, yet you still complain about it without fixing it.
- But it's not in your interest to be clear about your concerns, because then we could just fix the problems and remove the NPOV. No, your goal is to label the article biased, period, without reasoned discussion. You are no different than the religious fundamentalists you revile.
Insults are not arguments... NPOV goes back up.
Avidor 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of faith-based PRT, you guys forgot to include this:
[[6]]
This guy also made the rapture-ready "Savior-cycle"
[[7]]
Avidor 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I found the following post by Avidor on the external blog page he refers to above ([8]):
- That Wikipedia page on PRT was written mostly by PRT proponents. It now carries a warning about its disputed neutrality:
- The PRT proponents, much like their fellow faith-based crackpots the creationists work real hard to bamboozle people.
- Nowhere in this post does Avidor indicate that he is the one who questioned neutrality! It is now quite apparent to me that Avidor has no intention in trying to improve the article. He would much rather keep it in dispute, because then he can link to it as part of his activist campaign. He wants the NPOV marker to stay, so he can point to it as proof positive that "PRT crackpots" have infiltrated Wikipedia.
- This, in addition to the fact that he is an extremely vocal critic of PRT, leads me to believe that his accusations of bias are groundless, and are in fact a result of his own inherent bias.
- So, I will continue to remove the NPOV tag as long as he applies it. If he has legitimate concerns, he may document them here, but I will continue to remove any NPOV he applies without solid factual foundation.
You bet I'm biased against PRT...it's a hoax and a scam.
Avidor 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- User avidor has admitted bias. I see no reason to keep his NPOV markers here or on the main page. Furthermore, see his activity from 2005 for examples of him deleting the entire article and replacing it with a completely biased political message. Avidor is obviously not a neutral party in this dispute and should not be permitted to alter this page.
I'm not neutral and neither is the article.
Question: Is Hallitubes PRT? [[9]]
Avidor 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- You admit you're not neutral, and yet you continue to slander, reapplying the NPOV label every time I remove it. Do you have any argument based in solid fact? Do you really know anything about PRT, or is this just a personal vendetta?
Why don't you e-mail and complain to Jimmy Wales? Tell him that Avidor won't let you and your anti-transit CETA pals do to LRT what was done to John Seigenthaler Senior.
[[10]]
Don't forget to sign your real name.
Avidor 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's always a conspiracy with you, isn't it?
- Once again, I've removed Avidor's unexplained NPOV. Still waiting for clarification or description of perceived bias, (or even better, actual article changes!) even though I've reversed NPOV about a dozen times now.
Quote critics instead of paraphrasing critics and links, links, links.
Avidor 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Too vague. You are the expert. Fix it.
If you can't link to a reputable source, it's an opinion. That's not "wiki".
There are huge parts of this article without relevant links.
Un-linked claims should be removed by the authors.
Avidor 13:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"It's always a conspiracy with you, isn't it?"
Oh really...no CETA/PRT connection?
Here's a lesson on how to link to back up a claim:
How many PRT proponents can you spot on the CETA website?:
[[11]]
Avidor 15:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just what exactly are you claiming? CETA/PRT connection? What does that mean? I honestly don't know what you are trying to say.
- You also write:
There are huge parts of this article without relevant links.
- There is a very real difference between (a) factual information presented neutrally, but without links, vs (b) factual information presented with a non-neutral slant, vs (c) non-factual information (opinion, or just plain lies).
- If it's (a) then the article may be improved by adding the missing links, but the NPOV label does not apply unless there is evidence that it's (b) or (c). In other words, missing links do not automatically imply bias.
- So, I'm still trying to understand what you are saying:
- Do you dispute the factual accuracy of these unspecified "huge parts"? If so, then you should detail which specific facts are in dispute ("the entire article" is not specific enough), and why you dispute them. That would be a start.
- Do you acknowledge the factuality but dispute the POV? Then, again, document your specific complaints here along with your reasons why you think they are biased.
- I might also add, it is well known that your POV is very non neutral. You admitted this above, and everyone knows you run an activist anti-PRT cartoon site. You have also vandalized this page in the past, replacing it en masse with a political anti-PRT essay.
- Therefore, given your extreme bias, I believe the burden of proof on you to show detailed examples of your concerns. Certainly, the original authors do not appear to be activists (as you are), not to mention the fact that you seem to be the only user who disputes POV.
- So, please, once again, I implore you, clearly document your specific concerns so that we may address them on a point by point basis.
"I believe the burden of proof on you to show detailed examples of your concerns."
I did... go back and read them.
As for "...factual information presented neutrally, but without links..."
How does the reader know that the information is neutral and factual without a link?
Is the reader supposed to just trust you... an anonymous source?
That's not wiki.
This article isn't wiki.
Oh... and CETA is an anti-LRT organization. To understand why that's relevant to this discussion, Google Emory Bundy and PRT [[12]]
PRT is a stalking horse for LRT-haters... and you can quote me on that.
Avidor 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- "I believe the burden of proof on you to show detailed examples of your concerns."
- I did... go back and read them.
- I've read and re-read them repeatedly. Most of your complaints are vague and non specific. When you've provided detail, I've made an attempt to correct problems (e.g. the Chicago "still investigating" claim indeed seemed outdated so I removed it).
- How does the reader know that the information is neutral and factual without a link?
- So, why don't you, a supposed anti-PRT expert, provide links disproving these assertions? I didn't write the original article so I don't know specifically the source of every last claim.
- Let me reiterate: you claim to be the expert here! I'm certainly not qualified; before a month ago I didn't know the first thing about PRT. For the umpteenth time, I beg you: show us why these facts are in error!
- Is the reader supposed to just trust you... an anonymous source?
- Um, I don't know whether you're intentionally being difficult or you're not just paying attention, but, I didn't write the article! The only changes I've made were in response to your complaints!
- {more stuff about CETA}
- What relevance does CETA have in this discussion?
- PRT is a stalking horse for LRT-haters... and you can quote me on that.
- You have been quoted! Have you even read the article? I quote directly from the article:
- One cartoonist says that PRT studies are a "stalking horse" for the highway industry to direct work on transit to unproductive areas.
- This quote has a direct link back to your page! What, exactly, are you complaining about here?
- This is just more evidence that your goal is not to improve, but to keep this article under dispute so that you may point to it as more evidence of "PRT cultists". I know your game, and I will not allow you to play it.
"...You have been quoted! Have you even read the article? I quote directly from the article.."
No you didn't. No quote. No attribution. You linked to my website, not the Seattle PI op ed where the quote comes from.
It should read "Ken Avidor", not "a cartoonist"...unless you have another cartoonist in mind who says PRT is a stalking horse for the highway builders.
This is the link:
[[13]]
This is the complete quote:
"Basically, PRT is a stalking horse for the highway construction industry. PRT proponents can say things that the highway boosters could never say, such as "People don't like to ride with strangers." This anti-transit propaganda divides and conquers the opposition to highway projects."
And TE, if you don't know much about PRT, I suggest you spend some time reading the links on my page... especially the Light Rail Now "Cyberspace" article.
Avidor 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have made changes including your name, the link you requested, and some text about your history of objections to this article. Since you don't list any other detailed problems, I hope this is the end of the dispute.
- Yes, I've read the lightrailnow Cyberspace article, and I've analyzed it in depth. There are some valid points, but the article has significant flaws in some of its basic assumptions. I can prove this.
- Since it was written by a light rail advocate, I assume that the flaws are due to either (a) some fundamental gaps in understanding of PRT, or (b) outright bias. And since I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature, my assumption is that it is (a).
- Note: before you start calling me gadget-whatever and accuse me of being in a cult, let me assure you that my analysis is purely my own. I still have significant questions about PRT, but I have seen nothing that would prove it is theoretically or technologically impossible, or even infeasible.
- And, for the record, I am still waiting for a single technical argument from you, a self-proclaimed expert, as to its fundamental infeasibility. The only thing I've heard from you is a history lesson on previous failures (which, in itself, proves nothing about future feasibility) and conspiracy theories (which, to this point, appear to be almost completely based on some vague references to some Republicans supporting PRT).
- You claim PRT is junk, a fraud, a hoax, and yet I've never seen any technological proof of infeasibility other than references to (a) the lightrailnow article, which I know is flawed (see above), and (b) a one-page analysis by Professor Vuchic, which makes various assertions without any detailed justification presented (meaning, that I cannot evaluate Professor Vuchic's analysis myself)
- Maybe your idea of "proof" (past failures and alleged conspiracies) is enough to sway the masses who read your cartoons, but I am an engineer. I demand more proof. Until I get solid proof of infeasibility, from you or someone else, I will continue to keep an open mind. This is known as a neutral point of view.
You didn't quote me, TE... You paraphrased me. Of course you had to put your pro-PRT, anti-Avidor slant on it.
What kind of an engineer are you anyway, TE? (Of course, its silly to ask since you are anonymous.)
I welcome mediation. Avidor 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have inserted the direct quote.
- It's not "pro-PRT, anti-Avidor", it's fact. You have passionately disputed this article, haven't you? I would think you would be happy that your continued disapproval of the article is documented right there on the front page.
- My Bachelor's is in Electrical Engineering. My Master's is in Computer Engineering, with a focus in network analysis and simulation.
- I am still waiting for your technological arguments against PRT.
"Electrical Engineering" and "Computer Engineering"...and you're more of an expert than the transportation engineers who did the 2001 OKI Report and Professor Vuchic who is a professor of transportation at Penn State who has written and published a bunch of peeer-reviewed books...
...right.
Avidor 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
...No answer for that...
S'funny how many of these PRTers turn out to be computer software engineers who think they can re-invent transit to be like the internet...that's why they write stuff like "optimizes standard mathematical models" ..what the heck does that mean?
Nope, they are smarter than the people who write about, design, build and operate stuff that works.
Nevermind that conventional transit like buses and LRT are used by millions of paying passengers a day.
After thirty years and millions of dollars down the drain, how many paying PRT passengers?
Avidor 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is a discussion about the 2001 OKI Report at http://www.skyloop.org/cals/cals-ending.htm
- The analysis shows several unfortunate events in the project and proposals, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
- So, now, instead of answering the requests for proof of your claims about PRT, you are attacking "A Transportation Enthusiast" personally? How does this help your arguments? If your goal was to debate about the technology, you would probably have given some technical argument by now, but you just revert to attacking people. What qualifications do you have to compare with Dr. J.E. Anderson or Jerry Schneider or other PRT visionaries?
Non-poster 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is all Avidor knows: attacks. Look at his web page: political rants and Photoshop hacks. His argument has no substance, so he does the only thing he can do: attacks his opponents with all the virtiol he can muster.
- But recognize the particular naivete in his latest rant: he is attacking my engineering credentials! I mean, nobody values artistic expression more than I do, even when that expression is purely vindictive in nature. But come on! If you were a cartoonist debating an engineering topic, would you be attacking the credentials of an actual engineer?
- It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
- No, Avidor, I'm not revealing myself to you, because in no time I'd find my head floating next to a PRT car on your website, with some ridiculous tabloid-style headline like "SOFTWARE ENGINEER JOINS GOBBLEGADGETBUNKER CULT!"
- No, in my case, you have nothing to attack but the facts. I have no personal attachment to PRT, and the only things you know about me are the words I've written here.
- So, once again, I ask you Avidor, are you ready to debate the facts, or do you want to continue to hurl attacks?
- How about this: I'll start with a simple one: headway. Tell me, Avidor, what are your ideas about minimum headway, and its impact rider safety? Let's start a real debate here.
- Now, let's all just sit and wait for his response. What will he attack next? Will it be the Republicans? Or maybe software engineers? Or PRT cultists? Or the gaggleknockers? The goopaloapers? How about the gigglegangsters?
Have you read the OKI report? if not, you can get a PDF copy here:
As for your PRT "visionaries"...
Ed Anderson? last I read he was running his PRT company out of his house. Haven't heard much about him since the Taxi 2000 lawsuit. Is there anything new?
Jerry Schneider? Check out the movie of the toy monorail Schneider thinks is worth putting on his wacky gadgetbahn website: [[14]]
Some visionaries!!!
My idea of a transportation visionary is somebody like the late George Isaacs: [[15]]
Avidor 00:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Did you read the rebuttal to the OKI decision on the skyloop site I mentioned above? Apparently not. Every time you mention OKI, someone should mention this analysis, so others can learn of what really happened.
"I'll start with a simple one: headway."
Simple? You PRTers seem to have a lot of disagreements about headway: [[16]] Have you come to any agreement yet?
Of course, you could run a computer simulation of a full-scale, urban PRT system and test whether running the pods with close headways is possible under all conditions. You could publish the results in a peer-reviewed transportation engineering journal with the methodology etc.
That would solve the matter, wouldn't it?
Avidor 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- HA! I never would have guessed it! It was Anderson's and Schneider's turn to be slammed by Avidor!
- How about this one, resident PRT expert:
- What is the absolutely minimum headway that can be achieved at assuming vehicle size of , total braking response time of , maximum deceleration of , and brick-wall stopping of the lead vehicle? From that, what is the maximum capacity of a PRT line with these constraints?
![[7]](http://home.pacifier.com/~winiecki/Higherway/safercycle.gif){kind=link}
- Hint, clues for solving this appear earlier in this article.
- Go ahead, Avidor, show us what you know.
Check out the Vectus links. Vectus is a spinoff of Posco. Posco is a substantial company, with 17 billion dollar market capitalization. Vectus is now building a 40 million dollar prototype in Sweden. I will admit that several companies have wacky ideas, and most are just concept companies, but Vectus has the potential for the breakthrough.
As for headroom, most auto safety experts recommend 2 seconds. In southern California, I often observe 0.5 second following times. Vectus assumes 2.5 seconds, which is very conservative.
pstudier 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys are always arguing about safe headway, see ;[[17]]
This is from the Seattle PRT Yahoo list [[18]]
"We are faced with another one of those mass Internet phenomenas. I could have
guessed that "reversion wars" would happen...."
" It seems to me that that a PRT's emergency stop must decelerate substantially more than a train, or PRT is as
impractical as some of its opponents allege."
...and safe headways for what system? ULTra, Skyweb, Skyloop, Vectus, Cabintaxi, Higherway, Hallitube?
Everything on this Wikipedia page is supposed to apply for ALL the PRT systems?
You PRTers can't agreee on anything...except bashing real-world transit on PRT websites and message boards. Avidor 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- What do you have to say about headways, Avidor? What is your expert conclusion on the subject? Or are you only capable of quoting others?
- Come on Avidor: give us one original thought!
- Answer my minimum safe headway query above. Go ahead, expert.
Everything on this Wikipedia page is supposed to apply for ALL the PRT systems? Why? Different companies have different approaches, just as the auto companies make different types of car. pstudier 02:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
____
No links to anything real... just true believers in a lost cause following crackpot "visionaries".
Yep, the PRT cult is in firm control of this Wikipedia page.
Avidor 04:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's called reason and debate -- foreign concepts in your cartoonish view of reality.
- Remarkable: all this time, and not a single objective argument. Not a single comment on technical feasibility. Not a single comment on headway. Just idiotic links and slander.
- You have nothing to offer but destructive, deceptive political propaganda.
Aren't we talking about the concept of PRT? Who cares about specific implementations?
Still no offering of proof from Avidor about the problems with PRT or what his credentials are that gives him the reasonable ability to be more knowledgeable then the experts in the field. Non-poster 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's because Avidor has neither the desire nor the credentials to debate the topic on technological grounds. Really, the only tools at his disposal are evangelism, personal attacks, half truths, and propaganda. We've seen all of that here.
Hey, check out TE's meltdown on the Seattle PI message Board:[[19]]
Avidor 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
my concerns
I am a mediator, but I am not visiting here as part of medcabal.
I worry that Avidor has some important points here. I am not a partisan of either PRT or L(?)RT, but sentences like:
- PRT has been reinvented many times because it optimizes standard mathematical models used by transit-planners.
make me cringe. What does this mean? I confess that as a scientist such a remark sounds very much like pseudoscience: it has both vagueness and appeal to authority (PRT is praised for satisfying "math"; the models are not described, except to say that experts use them a lot.)
The next sentence gets even worse:
- Because it is mathematically optimal, PRT developers and advocates say that it will provide more convenient service than cars...
This is much stronger than what is said in the previous sentence! Previously we learned that PRT satisfies some mathematical models. Now we are told that PRT satisfies all the relevant mathematical models (i.e., that standard models are the only ones.) Calling a very wide range of designs "mathematically optimal" also sounds like pseudoscience to me: there's no explaination of what that might mean.
Indeed, for all that unsourced chat at the intro about how mathematics "proves" that PRT is the best form of transit, there is no discussion -- either quantative or qualitative -- anywhere in the article about what (mathematical) function might be maximized or minimized by PRT, nor any discussion of how other methods compare.
I have put a "references" tag on this (IMO it really deserves also an NPOV one becuase this math model stuff sounds like it's from a brochure), and I am going to wait a few hours or so to hear from someone about this, then I'll be bold and start removing this kind of weird boosterism. Sdedeo (tips) 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you, in that the particular wording makes me cringe, and that this article in general needs substantial improvement. Would that I had the time to devote to it. However, I disagree that the article is POV. Simulating transportation networks is part science, and part art, but it is by no means simply gobbledegook or boosterism. These sorts of simulations are used extensively in planning bus and train routes, freeway alignments, and so forth. And it is true that when PRT is simulated using these techniques, it generally predicts a transit method with the highest vehicle utilization, the fastest end-to-end transit speed, the lowest wait times, the lowest energy consumption per passenger mile, and oftentimes the lowest costs. That's what "mathematically optimal" means. Probably there's a better way to say it, and surely more citations would be helpful. However a detailed discussion of transit modelling techniques is far beyond the scope of this article, because it is applicable to every other modality in addition to PRT. Skybum 18:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, well, I'll go and remove the cringe stuff on "optimizing models" at the beginning, and the tag; let's put a "cleanup" on it as well. Sdedeo (tips) 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding those particular phrases, the first seems to be embellished from an article by Ed Anderson where he says, "PRT is a natural idea that has been invented and reinvented to my knowledge at least a half dozen times and quite likely many more. Quite often I hear from a person who claims to have conceived the major ideas and was surprised to learn that others had been thinking along similar lines." He then procedes to list several independently published systems/reports. That's how I came to learn about PRT, by first "inventing" it, then discovering the idea's been around a long time. If someone knows how to write that well... Ken MacLeod 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! This is exactly the kind of constructive criticism that we've asked Avidor for. I've read some other literature on PRT, and from my engineering perspective, I understand the intent of the "mathematically optimal" statement. So it didn't strike me as problematic.
- Maybe the original author(s) could provide references to an online (or offline) description of that analysis?
- For now, I will remove the offending statements and reword it into something less "brochure-like". Would that be acceptable?
- Do you see any other problems with the article?
Hee hee, I got the jump on you, and taken out the couple of words that bothered me. I know very little about PRT, except for my own PRT modality, but I suggest you convince Skybum to come and help you out! My guess is the original authors of the nonsensical "optimized models" (can one optimize a model? surely one optimizes a function!) are long gone and didn't know what they were talking about. Looking over the article briefly, what we need here are some more sources. Sdedeo (tips) 19:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank's again for your assistance.
- --A Transportation Enthusiast 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to mediate this page.
I have put up the NPOV label again.
This Wikipedia page has a long way to go before it should be removed.
I would start by doing something about this:
"Web site owned by a non-cartoonist supportive of PRT."
I don't expect this article to read like what I've written about PRT. I am a critic of PRT. I'm not sure I want to have a part in writing this PRT Wikipedia page.
Contributors are welcome to quote and link to anything I've written about PRT.
Wikipedia contributors do not have my permission to twist my words. It is okay to describe me as "a cartoonist", but it may be more informative to readers to mention that I am a transit advocate and that I have written about transportation for several publications. I am also the Transportation Editor for the new Twin Cities Daily Planet: [[20]]
I do expect that every claim be linked to relevent web sites so that readers can see for themselves if the claim is backed up by the facts.
I want to see plain, easy to understand language used in the introduction.
I expect that that opinion be labled as such.
If critics are mentioned, I want to see them treated with respect. Quotes and links. There can be no good reason to mention me and not Professor Vukan Vuchic who is a professor of transportation at Penn State. If you Google PRT and Vukan Vuchic, you'll get plenty of material. I would also suggest taking a look at his book "Transportation for Livable Communities" for a good description of PRT for the intro.
Information should be as up-to-date as possible. Skyloop for instance was rejected by Cincinatti back in 2001. Ford's "Prism" is also history.
PRT is an unproven concept... I would like to see the present tense removed..."it may", "it could" instead of "it is".
Most of all I want it to look like a wiki, lots of links...links...links.
Thanks,
Ken Avidor Avidor 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
remarks and then bowing out
I have too much on my plate right now to mediate this properly; KC is in charge. But I strongly suggest that people involved read the "tips" after my signature. I have found that following them religiously leads to solutions.
Ken, if you feel the wikipedia page is POV, I strongly suggest that you start editing it. Be sure you understand WP:NPOV and WP:CITE; as I've said above, the most valuable thing right now would be to start putting in sources and removing material that is contradicted by reputable sources (newspapers, government studies, academic webpages.)
Your debate here is spiraling out of control. One of your (both your) major problems here is that you are debating PRT on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a place to discuss your personal opinions or theories about articles. The only use of a talk page is to discuss the mechanics of an article. Leave your personal opinions (and theories) aside, and get to work writing a tertiary source article about PRT.
Short of a formal mediation, the only way to solve a problem with another editor is to be polite, reasonable and very very calm. I suggest that people begin again. Sdedeo (tips) 07:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, forget it. I'm done. I asked him at least 10 times to either fix the article or be clear about what was wrong (look at the logs). He chose to propagandize. You can't reason with a evangelical know-nothing propagandist.
- And so, I asked for mediation to deal with this fundamentalist idealogue. But instead of real mediation, I got "Why can't we all just get along?" That's enough for me. Wikipedia's just not my thing.
- I don't care about this page anymore. I never really cared about PRT to begin with; I just objected to the idea that an extremist nut could go into a well-written and well-intentioned page and butcher it for his own purposes. Now I realize that the real loser here is not PRT, but Wikipedia. What good is an encyclopedia if it can be so easily turned into a tool of deceit and propaganda?
- To the others who have worked so hard on the article, my suggestion to you is: move it to a secure server somewhere and work on it there. As long as a moron like Weiner Avidor is allowed to roam free this article will always be under attack.
- SEE YA!
Further Mediation
After hearing from both parties, I have the following comments to make, Transportation Enthusiast's withdrawal notwithstanding:
First of all, we shouldn't worry so much about the NPOV tag. It's not going to hurt much if it either gets left up or taken down against either editor's wishes. I would like to see it remain up until this dispute is settled, and will add it back if it hasn't been added already. I advise everyone to just leave it alone until we figure this out.
Remember, we are here to create an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view that, if we are dealing with a touchy subject like this one, must allow equal access to equal points of view. In several places, the article states as unequivocably true both criticism and praise of PRT. The language throughout needs to be toned down. Avidor does have a valid point in saying that much of PRT is hypothetical and language needs to be introduced in the vein of "is" vs. "might be" and so forth. From what I can see, this is already being done to the article. Further, there are critiques posted at the bottom of the page that are also stated as unequivocable truth and must also be toned down.
Avidor also makes a valid point in saying that "Opinion should be labeled as such." This should apply to both unconfirmed pro-PRT" viewpoints as well as PRT criticisms. It is far from a surety that highway projects use PRT as a distraction, for instance, most of the critiques are stated as fact rather than explained as opinion.
On the whole, I think the article is very well-written, and would not like to see any of the major thought already there removed. PRT, if not exactly the world's foremost form of transport, is nevertheless a viable idea that deserves an article of this depth. I think the best solution to "balance out" Avidor's POV concerns is not to alter what he sees as the current "pro-PRT" bias (other than language edits indicating opinion), but instead to add a section near the end titled "Critiques of PRT" or something, which would contain a lot of cited sentences beginning with "Critics say that..." Anti-PRT sources besides Avidor's own work should be used if possible, but given the breadth of PRT criticism, this shouldn't be a problem. Maintaining two sections for two viewpoints is a lot better than fighting over one section via constant edit wars.
- I honestly thought there already were such sections; the advantages/disadvantages and pro/cons. These were originally formulated in two parts, a pro/con format, in order to address the controversy. Also, the intro has a pro/con discussion in two paragraphs. User:Ray Van De Walker
Before making sweeping changes to this article, please post them on this talk page. Usually one can hash something out with the other editor if you're just willing to talk about it here.
Finally, remember WP:NPA, and try not to get too heated at the other editors regardless of what they do to a page. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- If folks need more room to sort out citations, you can use the PRT Wiki. However, due to too much spam/not enough editors I currently have it set to invite-only -- email me at [21] for a login. Ken MacLeod
- I see no operating PRT in existence, this page should be about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. How is this page a neutral point of view when the True Believers of PRT constantly burn at the stake any crtitical evaluation?
- Above someone mentioned a "failure" in Colorado and asked where the reference came from. That is probably a reference to the decommissioned luggage system of the Denver Airport widely compared to PRT as "PRT for suitcases", a computerized set of carts that was supposed to deliver luggage from various points to various points. It was finally shut down completely after massive cost overruns (10s of millions USD) and years of lost and mangled bags.
I agree with KrazyCaley's terms. I was reluctant to contribute, but with mediation, this might work. In the next day or two, I will submit a new "con" section and redo the "skeptic" links.
The Colorado PRT was not the airport baggage system. This is the only link to the Denver PRT I've found on the web--[[22]] Avidor 04:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like things are back on the right track. I'll be in and out of here to see what's going on, feel free to leave a note on my talk page in the meantime. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 06:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the "Cons" section and re-written the Skeptic links.
I've also taken out the "Disadvantages" section because with the improved "Cons". it was redundant (as well as subjective, poorly written and un-sourced).
The Intro is much better, although I question the use of the word "excellent". If it isn't backed up by a source, I think it should be removed.
Ken Avidor Avidor 05:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
How about this for the current dispute: It seems pretty clear to me that SkyLoop would be likely to disagree with any dismissal of its tech, and we already have a link to SkyLoop itself. For the purposes of the encyclopedia, all we need to mention is that SkyLoop disagreed with the decision. We don't need to provide a link to every step of the argument, just the important ones. The SkyLoop response seems to be more or less a restatement of PRT's potentialities and blow-by-blow responses to the critiques.
Instead of providing a link, let's just say "blah blah blah OKI report criticizes, although SkyLoop continues to assert their program's feasibility. Or some other language like that. Let me know what you think.
Oh, and in the future, let's just keep it rolling on this talk page rather than my talk page, unless you want to contact me directly. I'll check in here every day. It's just a pain to go notify everybody concerned that there's new stuff up here. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 08:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, let me see if I have this straight, because I may be a little bit confused:
- You are suggesting that we intentionally remove a link to a 45-page technical rebuttal to the OKI study????
- Is that really what I'm reading here, that we intentionally remove a relevant link as a compromise in a POV dispute???
- The OKI study is the centerpiece of the anti-PRT argument, because it is an (apparently) neutral assessment and rejection of Sky Loop. The rebuttal is a point by point, reasoned, scientific response to every single assertion in the OKI study. After all the talk about how this page needed more links, why on earth would we want to suppress an extremely relevant link?
Again, the present tense is important here... to argue that Skyloop "continues to assert" when the news page on the Skyloop site hasn't had anythng new [since September, 2001, http://www.skyloop.org/news.htm] is inacurate and irrelevant.
But the issue is the mediator offered a very fair solution. I complied and the proponents didn't. I stayed on my side of the fence and they didn't.
I just want to make this point:
Public and private decisions to invest in PRT projects were made with information similar to this Wikipedia page....millions of dollars and countless hours of public officials and ordinary citizens like me were poured down the drain. I think its highly irresponsible in light of that fact for Wikipedia to allow PRT proponents so much control over content...especially when there is widespread consensus among transportation professionals and transit advocates that PRT is only a myth... ["Putting the PRT myth to rest for good." http://thirdrail.smorgasblog.com/archives/002396.html].
I really don't have time to continue playing Sisyphus.... I'm outah here. Avidor 18:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- My original text on the Sky Loop response (which you removed) was this:
- The Sky Loop Committee and Taxi 2000 disagree with the analysis and conclusions of the Parsons Brinckerhoff study.
- Where do you see the words "continue to assert"?
- "But the issue is the mediator offered a very fair solution. I complied and the proponents didn't. I stayed on my side of the fence and they didn't."
- Must everything be a battle? You've been the aggressor throughout this entire debate, and now you act like a wounded animal?
- "I think its highly irresponsible in light of that fact for Wikipedia to allow PRT proponents so much control over content..."
- Control? Anybody can make changes to Wikipedia! We asked you a dozen times to change the stuff you disputed, but you never did until just now. Could it be, Avidor, that you cannot dispute facts? Could that be it?
- "...especially when there is widespread consensus among transportation professionals and transit advocates that PRT is only a myth..."
- This is complete garbage. Widespread consensus? If so, why didn't you include more expert links other than Vuchic, Setty, and Demery? Three experts? That's widespread consensus? So you're saying that there are only FIVE total transportation experts in the world (3/5 = consensus)?
No need to get right back into the war over PRT itself. We're talking about the SkyLoop response. If it's extremely important that the SkyLoop study be in the article somewhere, let's put it somewhere appropriate in the pro-section. Compromise, people. Editing Wikipedia is not a zero sum game. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Is this an encyclopedia article or a political platform? Why must we compromize facts in order to appease people who object to those facts? This is an absolute mockery! I really can't believe this is what Wikipedia is all about!
- It's ridiculous. The SkyLoop response belongs in the discussion about SkyLoop. But because some political extremist has turned this article into a turf war, it has to be put in a completely different section. Political correctness run amok.
- Is this the Wikipedia vision? What a joke.
- OK, I'll put the response somewhere else, lest I be accused of being part of the grand f***ing conspiracy against transit.
The Skyloop Committee explains on their site that their project, the Loop study, is concluded, that is why the site has nothing recent. However I think you'll find the group stands by its findings, and therefore their documents can be seen to be a current, continuing statement of those conclusions.
What do we do about this passage--
"PRT proponents can say things that the highway boosters could never say, such as "People don't like to ride with strangers."[15]."
This is the form in which it appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. However, if you follow the referencing link, we find that "People don't like to ride with strangers" is not an accurate quotation. The accurate quote is:
"Personal security is greater than with a bus or train since passengers are not forced to ride with strangers and do not have to wait long on station platforms."
But it would not be proper for us to change what appeared in the P-I. I would ask that Avidor remove the P-I reference, and rewrite this section so as to make whatever point he was trying to make, while reflecting the actual quote.
Avidor 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The quote "People don't like to ride with strangers" does not appear in that page either. Something it does contain is:
"Although passengers can share a ride with anyone they like, no one has to ride with other passengers."[24]
This is part of an explanatory passage introduced by the header "Passengers don't ride with strangers," which states a fact of PRT operation. 'People don't like to...' etc. etc. implies the passage is making a negative social statement, which does not appear to be so.
Besides, a reading of the PRT service concept will reveal that requiring riders to wait in stations in order to travel in groups is counter to the On-Demand service feature. So it appears that traveling by yourself is a byproduct of PRT (that is, it's a result of On-Demand) and not a social goal. To take this aspect and use it to hypothesize whatever it is you are trying to claim about PRT is a weak linkage, to say the least.
Please do consider how to revise.
[i]"PRT systems provide a private ride in a public vehicle. A rider will NEVER be forced to share a vehicle with anyone if they do not wish to. There are no stops at multiple stations to let others on. There will be no stopping to let others off. The vehicle is yours for the duration of your trip."
"There are no strangers in your vehicle to harass you."[i] Avidor 00:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What you've linked to reads like marketing. It lists PRT features that they think people will like, including Access, Wait Time, Speed, No Standing, etc. Each of these characteristics are important to some segment of the public, but not all equally. Speed is #1 for some people, while for others wait time is #1; others hate standing up. It so happens that these are also byproducts of the features On-Demand, Distance Between Stations, Small Vehicle, and Off-Line Stations, just as Private Ride is a byproduct of On-Demand (and Small Vehicle).
I know some people, not all, who are claustrophobic. Others only mind crowds sometimes. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable for PRT to include Privacy as a feature to attract those demographics. Just as there are some people who don't like waiting for transit at night, for whom the Personal Safety byproduct of On-Demand would be appealing.
Even the new page[26] you've linked says "A rider will NEVER be forced to share a vehicle with anyone if they do not wish to," meaning people CAN share PRT rides with strangers if they wish to. Again, this reads like a way to offer more choices to transit riders.
Once again, what precisely is the point you are trying to make? If you're going the direction I think you're going, you want 'People don't like to ride with strangers' to mean something like regular transit is scary, ride PRT instead. That's a believable interpretation, so you should say it. But it's your interpretation, and not provable insofar as you have yet to prove it without misquoting the original flyer.[27]
![[27]](http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRTflyer.jpg){kind=link}
Unless you can prove that this anti-social view is shared by most PRT supporters (and I'll settle for preponderance of evidence, not shadow-of-a-doubt), you should revise or remove, and call it a day.
Not unless the same strict literalism is applied to the rest of the article... quotes and links.
'Nuff said. Avidor 01:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine, then somebody else will. Clearly, the quote misrepresents the intent of the original article and that should be mentioned.
Okay peeps, I've done a reordering of the Cons section. I think it reads better this way. Avidor's Seattle newspaper excerpt is retained, but it contains a 'sic' in order to make it accurate, at least in an editorial sense! This graf should be rewritten, taken out of the 'Avidor said such-and-such in the Seattle newspaper' context. Avidor should say what he wants to say, instead of quoting himself. And he should make whatever point he wants to make while accurately quoting his sources.
Congrats, you've done a heckuva hatchet job on the "cons" Now, it reads like the rest of this bizarre article... hey, for more laffs read what your one of your "peeps" wrote to the mediators:
Avidor 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- In all fairness Avidor, you call proponents nuts, fanatics and wacky. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Anyway, you're avoiding the issue: correcting your quote that "misrepresents the intent of the original article."
What's the problem? The changes look pretty good to me. Organizes it a lot better.
You may want to add this item to the news section:[32]
Avidor 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with revising the paragraph containing "People don't like to ride with strangers"? There is nothing relevant to anything under discussion. The speculative Inside Politics material added by you might mean something to people in Minneapolis, but no one else knows what you're talking about.
- Revise or remove.
How's this PRT project coming along?:
Avidor 00:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- This plan looks like an idea. You could make this relevant to the Political/Philosophical subsection by posing and answering questions such as
- Has any serious engineering been done on this idea?
- How many dollars have been diverted to this particular idea from light rail and buses?
- "People don't like to ride with strangers"
- Revise or remove
Looks like things are doing ok here, albeit a bit tense. Avidor's suggestion that everything be better sourced, anti-PRT arguments as well as the "regular" parts of the article, seems a good one. Until then, let's try not to edit war over the POV tag.
Let's also try to avoid deleting stuff unless it's obviously unencyclopedic or in violation of WP:NPA. Seek a clear consensus to delete something on this page first, and if no objection is heard, then delete it. More likely, someone WILL revise parts that might be found objectionable. This isn't a battle; each viewpoint can work on making the content of the other viewpoint better. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 08:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The middle third of the "On grounds of aesthetics" subsection has always been redundant of the material in the first third. I propose this rewrite:
- "These views were echoed by Cincinnati engineering director John Deatrick and architect Michael Shuster, in an article announcing OKI rejection of PRT on a 14-8 vote, "OKI rejects 'Sky Loop' Elevated Rail System" (9/26/01).[18]"
I have removed the references to Michael D. Setty and myself for several reasons. First, our primary position has been substantially misrepresented. As we have stated repeatedly on www.publictransit.us: there are, at most, several dozen U.S. urban-suburban corridors with passenger traffic density sufficient to justify the investment required for "light rail" development. By contrast, there are at least several hundred urban corridors with sufficient traffic density to justify some level of investment for improved bus service. Second, we are not the only professional transit consultants who are not interested in PRT development; i.e. check the Institute of Transportation Engineers list of "transportation consultants" (http://www.ite.org/directories/consultants.asp) and count the number of firms advertising "PRT." Third, we have provided significant details regarding PRT safety standards, most recently from the California Public Utilities Commission and earlier research on the application of "uniform" safety standards for "trackguided" vehicles in Japan from the mid-1970s led to abandonment of major PRT plans in Tokyo. Yes we are PRT skeptics, but we are not the only ones with this POV.
[user: ldemery]
- Point 1: misrepresentation of your position:
- How can your position be misrepresented when we quoted directly from your own website?
- Point 2: few other professionals promote PRT:
- There is a large distinction between not promoting PRT, and actively speaking out against the technology. You fall into the latter category, and therefore your views are fair game for critical analysis.
- Point 3: details on your PRT skepticism:
- If you have such details, then add them to the article so that they may be shared by all. I searched your web site and the Internet, but found no detail on your PRT position other than the references I posted in the article.
- Honestly, I don't see how any of this text can be suppressed. It's 100% factual and backed by links to your own site. If you have links that better define your position, then please provide them, otherwise I am going to put the text back in.
- ----
- I checked out the references you listed (California Public Utilities Commission letter and the report on AGT in Japan). I still see no PRT safety analysis by you or Setty. In both cases, the analysis is of regulations that would currently apply to PRT by virtue of being rail bound vehicles. Two points:
- These represent local regulations for the state of California and the country of Japan. Therefore, the only argument made in these references is that PRT would not be certified under current regulatory law in these two places. It says nothing about whether it would be certified safe in other states/countries, or even whether the California/Japan regulations might change in the future to reflect advancements in technology.
- As far as I know, you and Mr. Setty have never publicly responded to the claims of PRT safety with a technical rebuttal. For example, the "Cyber Dreams" paper was written anonymously by a light rail advocate, and has been disputed by at least three separate rebuttals, but you cite the original article with no comment on the rebuttals.
- You and Mr. Setty have every right to be skeptical of PRT. However, when you take such a strong stand against a technology without presenting any technical justification, then people are going to challenge your conclusions. That's exactly what PRT advocates have done. The article text reflected this accurately and factually. I see no problem with including that text back in.
". . . If you have links that better define your position, then please provide them, otherwise I am going to put the text back in."
If you replace the text as you had it, then I shall remove it. "Cherry-picking" of links to support one's position (even if "quoted directly") should not be acceptable on "Wikipedia."
1.) There are, at most, several dozen U.S. urban-suburban corridors with passenger traffic density sufficient to justify the investment required for "light rail" development. By contrast, there are at least several hundred urban corridors with sufficient traffic density to justify some level of investment for improved bus service.
We have stated this point repeatedly; you might wish to read "Beware of LRT Oversell" on www.publictransit.us.
2.) I assert that you have included Michael Setty and myself among your betes-noir only because we have chosen to speak out against your preferred technology "per se.". We have made clear our reason for doing so. We believe that "alternative" transportation technologies - such as PRT - have only limited scope in the U.S. because U.S. transportation problems are almost always sociopolitical and economic�not technical�in nature. You might wish to read "Conventional Rail vs. 'Gadgetbahnen'� on www.publictransit.us.
You do not state that the views of the other X000 transportation professionals in the U.S. are not known. Instead, you lash out at us without bothering to represent our viewpoint accurately (which, once again, is that U.S. transportation problems are almost always sociapolitical and economic - not technical - in nature).
3.) I have no intention of engaging in a PRT "safety analysis" because I have no intention of second-guessing either the California Public Utilities Commission or Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport - nor other jurisdictions which might follow the examples of California or Japan. Yes, the rules might change but that is a moot point because it is self-evident.
". . . PRT would not be certified under current regulatory law in [Japan and California]."
You need to include the above to "follow" the theoretical discussion of PRT safety issues - and I urge the mediators to take note of this in particular. In fact, you also need to mention that Japan did not certify PRT during the mid-1970s.
user: ldemery
- Do you really believe that the current regulatory environment is all that needs to be said regarding PRT safety? No technical arguments, no engineering analysis, just: "the rules forbid it, so it can never happen"?
- You know perfectly well that regulations are based on analysis of known systems. To say that existing regulations supercede real analysis of new systems is irresposible and unethical, especially coming from a transportation consultant such as yourself.
- It's like arguing that an airport can't be built because planes exceed vehicular speed limits on runways!
- Laws change to reflect changes in society, and regulations change to reflect advancements in technology. You should know that, and the mere fact that you are advancing this argument is an indicator that you would rather suppress this technology than evaluate it.
- In any event, I did notice that you removed yourself from the Cons section (which had been added by user Avidor, aka PRTskeptic) as well as from the Pros section. The only reason I added the text about you to the Pros section was because I believed that Avidor's paragraph about you was misleading, since he included nothing about your admitted bias against PRT. It was Avidor who was "cherry picking" your views, not I; my text just filled in the blanks left by Avidor.
- So, now that I realize that you also removed Avidor's Cons text, I have no problem keeping the Pros text out.
"Do you really believe that the current regulatory environment is all that needs to be said regarding PRT safety? No technical arguments, no engineering analysis, just: "the rules forbid it, so it can never happen"?"
I did not say that, and please don't put words in my mouth. Your emotional POV regarding changes in laws to reflect changes in technology tends to suggest that you wish to suppress the (apparent) facts about the current regulatory climate rather than confront the facts.
Once again, I urge the mediators to take note of the following - which needs to follow the "theoretical" discussion of PRT safety issues.
". . . PRT would not be certified under current regulatory law in [Japan and California]."
("Apparantly" appears a reasonable choice of words re. California, if not for Japan.)
You will also need to mention that Japan did not certify PRT during the mid-1970s.
user: ldemery
- "I did not say that, and please don't put words in my mouth. Your emotional POV regarding changes in laws to reflect changes in technology tends to suggest that you wish to suppress the (apparent) facts about the current regulatory climate rather than confront the facts."
- OK, just to be clear then: you are saying that current regulatory law does not imply anything about the safety of PRT (or lack thereof), and that those regulations are likely to change if PRT is shown to be safe after engineering analysis and testing?
- I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm just attempting to understand your exact position on PRT. Honestly, even after reading your website, it's difficult to understand exactly why you have taken such a strong position against this technology. Even when you speak against it, you talk more about monorails and maglev than PRT, which is fundamentally different from those other modes.
- You've pointed out your article on the problem being sociopolitical and economic in nature (I assume you mean this but correct me if I am wrong). Yes, I've read that article, but it still says very little about your PRT position, other than that you are against it.
- PRT is only mentioned in passing in that article. You discuss monorails, maglev, even BRT, but barely touch PRT. I quote: "In our view, it is a big waste of time advocating such "gee-whiz" options, given the severe limits of monorails and similar technologies such as PRT." The clear implication here is that PRT is dismissed solely on the basis of being "similar to monorails" when in fact monorails are much more like light rail than PRT.
- If you do have a more extensive argument against PRT, I am very interested in seeing it. But, dismissing it solely on the basis of its presumed similarity to monorails is vague at best, misleading at worst. PRT is nothing like monorails or maglev trains.
- By the way, feel free to add the text about Japan and California yourself. That's what Wikipedia is all about.
"Having editors to act as gatekeepers and take responsibility for errors is vital, said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota's journalism school.
"There's this great espousing of the idea that there is an ultimate truth, and we on the Internet have it," Kirtley said. "And yet there's a very casual acceptance of slander and falsehoods: 'Let a thousand errors bloom, and maybe somebody will find it and get around to correcting it eventually.' "[34]
Avidor 16:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Translation: if I can't twist a medium for my own propaganda purposes, then I will bash the medium itself.
"Wikipedia is a joke."-Transportation Enthusiast [35]
Avidor 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- When it stands back and lets propagandists like you abuse it, then yes, absolutely, it is. It's up to people like me to defend it from people like you.
- Go ahead, Avidor. Link to every single word I've written on this page. I stand by all of it.
Why have the PRT proponents become anonymous? Is 72.65.19.184 the same as "Transportation Enthusiast"?
Avidor 21:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- What's wrong with being anonymous? Your whole anti-PRT campaign is based on the anonymously written "Cyber Dream" hack job, isn't it?
No, I've opposed PRT before that well-researched article was written. Hey, what happened to the Washington State PRT bill (SB 6707 -)? Also, Don't you think this Wikipedia article should have an entire chapter on Dean Zimmermann? [36] How will his recent legal problems effect his Minneapolis 68 station PRT plan?[37] Also, what happened to that PRT plan to build a test track in Falcon Heights?
Avidor 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here we go again.
This page is even longer, more poorly written and more confusing than before. Here's a suggestion to fix the page. Start all over using the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of Personal Rapid Transit:[38]
Avidor 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I also suggest this addition to the history of PRT: "Henryk Bakuta invented Personal Rapid Transit." Read all about Henryk Bakuta here: [39]
Avidor 16:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- It does not surprise me that, instead of adding to descriptive or technical information about PRT, Avidor has posted teasers for more conspiracy theories. And spelled 'Batuta' wrong.
Do you have proof that Henryk Batuta didn't invent the PRT system?
Should we quote the Britannica.com description of PRT?
More controversy about Wikipedia:[40]
Avidor 18:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- What is the Britannica quote you would like to excerpt? Write it, and we all can provide comments.
- See, he wants us to go to the Brittanica page and discover there is no page on PRT. Ha ha, very funny, we get it Avidor.
- He's grasping now. Obviously he cannot challenge facts, he's run out of propaganda, his vandalism attempts have been thwarted, so now he's just throwing stuff at the wall in the hopes that something will stick. So maybe we should all just ignore him and let him finish his latest cycle of rants. It's just a matter of time before he goes away.
- Well ha, ha, ha. It looks like EB doesn't have an entry for "can opener" either. The cats are going to be annoyed.
- Hey, Avidor: say whatever the heck you want here, but do not vandalize this talk page again.
- What did he remove? It's not obvious.
- See this history entry. Basically, he purged everything before this section ("Further Mediation").
"See, he wants us to go to the Brittanica page and discover there is no page on PRT.
BINGO!!!!!
Why waste a page on something that doesn't exist and never will? Avidor 01:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, T.E. is still ranting about PRT on the Seattle PI forum... [41] T.E.'s one heckuva Wikipedia editor, I hope he has a spittle-guard on his computer.
Avidor 19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
":He's grasping now. Obviously he cannot challenge facts, he's run out of propaganda, his vandalism attempts have been thwarted, so now he's just throwing stuff at the wall in the hopes that something will stick. So maybe we should all just ignore him and let him finish his latest cycle of rants. It's just a matter of time before he goes away.[42] Avidor 02:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Another anonymous PRT "expert"?:
Avidor 05:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
To the mediators or moderators: Avidor is once again playing games with this page. He won't "fix" it himself. He won't give specific aguments why he feels the article is flawed, or he just makes the global statement "PRT is a hoax and a fraud". He was concerned about the lack of links, and we've added links where possible (but, since much of the theory is documented in textbooks, it's often impossible to document with links). But it's not good enough for him. It should be clear by now that his motivation is not to make the article better.
On the contrary, his goal is not to fix this article, but rather to keep this it under dispute, because he is an extremist, obssessive anti-PRT activist. He is using this dispute to advance his political agenda (also [44]). He obsessively writes the same letter to dozens of newspapers because he is obsessed with killing this technology. He keeps applying and re-applying the NPOV label, not because he's concerned about the accuracy of the article, but only so he can point back to this article as another piece of evidence in his crusade!
Is anything going to be done about this? I quote from the NPOV dispute article: "For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy." Has there ever been a better example of an idealogue than Avidor?
The fact is PRT exists only as a concept. This Wikipedia article muddles that fact by pretending that there actual PRT systems being developed... the truth is only the battery-powered, magnet-guided ULTra (really not a true PRT system) is in development... for an airport parking lot. Skyweb/Taxi 2000, Skyloop and all the rest are as alive as the parrot in that Monty Python sketch that's nailed to its perch.
The political uses of the bogus PRT techno-hoax are more interesting than the hyped jargon about split-second headways and other techno-mumbo-jumbo. For instance, why do so many PRT websites bash existing transit modes such as rail transit and buses? Why are pro-highway, anti-transit politicians like Michele Bachmann proponents of PRT?
Transportation professionals (the ones who bother to waste time on the subject) say PRT is infeasible and a waste of time.
Again, there are very few links to neutral, authoritative sites to back the dubious claims in this article.
Also, too many anonymous contributers and editors.
Avidor 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- "The political uses of the bogus PRT techno-hoax are more interesting than the hyped jargon about split-second headways and other techno-mumbo-jumbo."
- Translation: All of this proven, scientific "mumbo-jumbo" is getting in the way of my political campaign!!
Mr. Avidor,
I am going to give you one last response as though you are a sane and rational being, before going through the process of having you banned from Wikipedia. Here is my response:
1.) Yes, PRT is, as of yet, a theoretical concept. The article, as it stands right now, makes this fact abundantly clear. It is absolutely appropriate' to document theoretical concepts on Wikipedia. Otherwise there could be no articles on fusion power or terraforming for example -- both of which are far more theoretical than PRT.
2.) The effectiveness of PRT in a real-world application has yet to be proven one way or the other. No real-world application has ever even been attempted. Therefore, any claims in this regard should be highly qualified with "may"s and "could"s, as you suggest. From what I can see, this is already the case. If you find any place in the article where this isn't the case, you are free to fix it yourself. What is not appropriate is for you to vandalise the article, or bitch exhaustively about it when you could fix it yourself with a fraction of the effort.
3.) Even though the real-world application of PRT is yet to be proven (same as with fusion power or terraforming), PRT theory can be discussed in terms of facts. For example, it is a fact that PRT theory states that guidway mass and visual impact scale with vehicle weight. It is a fact that PRT theory states that line capacity scales with headway times, et cetera. These kind of statement do not need to be qualified, because they are absolutely true statements about PRT theory.
4.) There are in fact many PRT prototypes in development besides ULTra (which is, in fact, true PRT). Vectus is probably the best example. Furthermore, there are many past PRT prototypes to point to, with Cabintaxi being the best example. These projects can be discussed as prototype projects without needing qualification. Their existence is a fact.
5.) Your whack-job conspiracy theories about the motives of PRT proponents are entirely original research, and have no place in a factually-based article such as this one. Skybum 02:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As invited, I have described the "certification" or "licensing" issue making specific reference to Japan and California. I have put this under "cons" because, as outlined, the technical feasibility of PRT is a separate issue from whether regulatory agencies would approve (license) such a system to carry passengers. Ldemery 22:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- This looks good to me. You might want to link to your research document about CVS in the section about Japan.
Skybum: "I am going to give you one last response as though you are a sane and rational being, before going through the process of having you banned from Wikipedia."
Avidor: Go ahead, I welcomed mediation the last time and I welcome it again. I followed the advice of the mediator, rewrote the "Cons" section.... and what happened?. The PRT proponents badgered and bullied the mediators and trashed what I wrote. This PRT article still has way too many un-linked and and un-sourced claims. Everything I wrote was linked to an authoritative site such as newspapers and peer-reviewed studies. As far as conspiracy theories go, I simply state fact, backed up by links that prominent PRT proponents such as Emory Bundy, Sheffer Lang, David Morris, Dean Zimmermann, Senator Bachmann, Rep, Mark Olson and more are also anti-LRT...that's a fact. It's also a fact that PRT is not endorsed by traditional transit-advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club Northstar and Transit for Livable Communities... in fact, TLC has a resolution that specifically OPPOSES public funding of PRT projects.[45]"
- "Interest in PRT has increased following its display at the 2003 State Fair and proposals to build systems in Duluth and Minneapolis. During the 2004 Legislative session, State Rep. Mark Olson (R) of Big Lake sponsored a bill to provide $10 million in state general obligation bonding to help construct a test track facility, and a variety of bills were filed to permit local bonding and exempt construction from sales taxes. TLC is studying the idea of PRT, but because the proposed technology has never been built anywhere in the world, there is no real engineering data to create reliable estimates of costs and benefits. Due to these concerns and the scarcity of public funding for established transit, the TLC board passed a resolution in April opposing state funding for PRT at this time."
Get that? "No real engineering data." And that's the truth.
Avidor 14:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between engineering and science? Do you understand the difference between scientific fact and politics? Do you understand that technological (or economic, or political) failures do not necessarily invalidate underlying scientific theory? Do you understand that a decision made by a political body does not imply anything about the validity of the science?
- Even going along with your "no engineering data" argument, do you realize that two systems have now been engineered to market-readiness (Cabintaxi and ULTra)? Do you realize that your "no engineering" argument was made in a political context and only applies to the one system that they considered?
- You've applied the "original research" tag again, and I've removed it. I'll keep playing this game as long as you want. Go to your local library and check out the books by Irving and Anderson, then tell me which portions of the article are original research.
Is that you, TE?....There are too few links and the few that are there are to pro-PRT sites. Speaking of links.... Here's a link in the article to a government study of PRT ...from 1968!!!
The cartoons of PRT are hilarious:[46]
Avidor 15:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you go to the history logs and find out for yourself who I am? I have nothing to hide.
- For the record: I've removed original research tag again. First he wants links, so we provide links. Now he complains that the links are "pro-PRT". His demands are vague and constantly changing. As I've been saying for weeks now, his goal is to keep this article under dispute, so that he may point to it to support his political campaign.
PRT is all about politics.... why else would anti-LRT politicians like Dean Zimmermann, Mark Olson and Michele Bachmann promote PRT?
Avidor 18:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, I've reverted Avidor's original research tag. I refuse to let him use this article as a political prop.
As invited, I have added a link to my Japan Automated Guideway Transit paper (as explained therein, Japanese AGT has a strong PRT heritage), and to the statement from the California Public Utilities Commission. Without attempting to second-guess CPUC (because no PRT system operator has yet applied for CPUC certification), I think it reasonable to point out the uncertainty about the degree to which CPUC would hold PRT to "light rail" and "rail fixed guideway" safety standards.
I have simply added the following sentence:
"The degree to which CPUC would hold PRT to "light rail" and "rail fixed guideway" safety standards as a condition for safety certification is not clear."
Ldemery 22:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Demery: Your points about regulatory concerns are very fairly presented. I apologize if I appeared hostile to your concerns earlier -- things have been a little tense around here lately.
The introduction is much improved, however I think that "under construction" regarding Heathrow and Dubai is inacurrate.
I've read here that the PRT project in Dubai has been delayed:
I'm certain if construction were underway at Heathrow or Dubai, there would be plenty on the PRT websites about it.
Avidor 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Skybum wrote a simple, clear, balanced introduction. I only have trouble with the "under construction" for Dubai and Heathrow. There are no facts to back up this claim.
Here's the BAA Press Release:[48]
"The initial £1.1m investment will be used by ATS to commercialise their prototype vehicles and develop software for BAA. On successful completion of all the milestones a year long pilot scheme will be introduced at Heathrow airport in 2008."
There's no mention of construction in the press release. Unless there is other official information about Heathrow and Dubai being "under construction", I will remove that sentence. I would be happy with "being developed" for Heathrow and "proposed" or "under consideration" for Dubai.
Avidor 15:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Avidor, I find it amazing how you unashamedly change your tone as soon as someone with authority asserts himself on this page. It happened with the mediators earlier, and it's happening with Skybum now. A week ago you were saying the entire page should be scrapped; now that Skybum is watching you find only one or two very minor issues.
- You're like that kid in school who kisses up to the teacher all day -- until she turns her back and you start heaving spit balls across the room.
- Anyway, I've changed the "under construction" line, which you've indicated was your only remaining concern. So, based on that, I assume the matter is now closed. If you have other valid concerns, document them here or just change the article directly.
- Now, was that so difficult? Do you think we can continue this level of civility even when the mediators are not watching?