Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 31 March 2006

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

About archives

– March 2006

Massive Rewrite Needed

Excerpt from archive

He's not far wrong, though, the article is 50% blatant promotion and 50% hyperbole. And I speak as a massive fan of alternative transportation. Surely we can make this article better than it is now? Just zis Guy you know? 17:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a very messy article, and could use substantial revision. However, this is virtually impossible to focus on while fending off a barrage of vandalism, which is what 99% of Avidor's edits were. As for your charge that the article is "blatant promotion" and "hyperbole" -- I'm sorry, but I believe that you're wrong. Reporting the claims of PRT proponents -- provided they're portrayed as "the claims of PRT proponents" and not "facts" -- is neither promotion nor hyperbole: it is, in fact, good NPOV reporting. If you can find anywhere where such claims are misrepresented as facts, however, I would absolutely welcome any fixes that you would care to make. Of course, there are also such things as actual non-subjective facts about PRT, as established by various current and historical attempts to implement it, and I believe the article does a reasonably good job of sourcing those facts. Again, if you find anywhere where a factual claim is either innaccurate or un-sourced, please fix it. Really, I mean it. I would be desperately happy if a hitherto-uninvolved party went over this article with a critical, rational, fine-toothed comb. Unfortunately, simply labeling the whole thing as "promotion" and "hyperbole" doesn't accomplish anything at all, as it is both untrue and un-actionable. Skybum 18:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Skybum: I agree completely. We really want to make this better, but it's tough not knowing specific, actionable items to work on.

To "Just zis Guy": Read this talk page. When he's raised valid, specific concerns, we've addressed them immediately. The problem is he seems to be intentionally vague so the article remains under dispute. He seems to want the article to remain in dispute.

If you see specific issues, maybe you can help us to make it better. Can you give examples of hyperbole or promotion? I should point out that Louis Demery (a vocal anti-PRT transit professional) has made a significant contribution (in the "Cons" section) that has not been touched by anyone here -- because it's accurate and fairly presented. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is not achieved by merely placing the opposing views adjacent to each other, though, is it? Anyway, I will be more specific, I will try to go through it line by line this evening. Incidentally, if Avidar does edit-war I will stop him. Just zis Guy you know? 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it! Skybum 18:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the statement that "neutrality is not achieved by merely placing the opposing views adjacent to each other". But this approach was taken at the suggestion of the cabal mediator! I was of the opinion that arguments should be interspersed, but with Avidor around it turned into a turf war (i.e. "You can't edit my Cons section!") and the mediator seemed to encourage that.

BTW, I also appreciate you examining this article with a neutral eye. If the article can be improved I'm all for it. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

End excerpt

Okay, it seems that all sides (to wit: pro-PRT, anti-PRT, PRT-neutral, sane, and "other") agree that the PRT page is a mess, and needs substantial revision. I agree. Most problematic, it seems to me, is the article's overall structure. For example, many of the technical aspects of PRT -- braking, speed, et cetera -- are filed under the heading of "Capacity Utilization". While all these things certainly do affect capacity utilization, they affect many other aspects of PRT system design as well. This kind of hierarchy seems rather arbitrary, and leads to a lot of redundancy in the article.

Therefore, I would like to propose that the article be fundamentally restructured into the following sections:

1. Overview (basic description &comparison with other transit modes)
2. History (needs attention, but is already roughly appropriate, category-wise)
3. PRT system design (technical aspects, noting disuputes & variances between different systems where appropriate)
   1. Vehicle characteristics (size, features, propulsion, safety features, et cetera)
   2. Guideway characteristics (supported vs. suspended, rubber-on-concrete vs. steel-on-steel vs. linear induction levitation, et cetera)
   3. Operational characteristcs (speed, headway distances, control algorithms, passenger security, et cetera)
   4. Cost characteristics (historical & estimated)
   5. Urban Integration characteristics (public acceptance, aesthetics, sociological & urban planning impacts, compatibility and/or competition with other transit modes, et cetera)
4. The PRT Debate (aspects of the PRT debate which are NOT about the technical minutiae detailed above; ie the politics of PRT support and opposition.)

Organized, the article would probably be much less redundant (and hence a lot shorter) than it presently is. Currently, the "pro" and the "con" aspects are in monolithic and essentially non-interacting blocks of text. Shown this way, it is difficult for one to get a sense of how those arguments actually relate to the particular details that they are addressing. By bringing the pro-and-con aspects down to the level of those details, their arguments will be much more contextualized and comprehensible. What do you folks think? Skybum 03:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's been a couple of minutes now, and nobody has responded yet. That, and I've got actual work that I ought to be doing, and am thus desperately seeking a way to procrastinate. Therefore, I shall "be bold". I have reorganized the article -- everything except for the "pro" and "con" section -- roughly into the hierarchy described above. I haven't attempt to synthesize the text at all; it was just a rough cut-and-paste hatchet job. So, it's a total jumble now, but honestly, it was a total jumble before. Now at least it's in piles which make some kind of sense, and can hopefully be organized into something better. I hope that you all approve. Skybum 04:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Skybum, I like what you're doing so far. The tentative outline above looks good. And I've just done a quick scan of your recent overhaul, and I think it's an improvement. Maybe if I get time this weekend I'll scan it more thoroughly and see if I can make some improvements. But I think you've done a great job getting this started. That's a tough task, reorganizing an existing article without starting from scratch -- you seem to have gotten the effort off to a flying start.

BTW, I disagree with you that the article was a "mess". Sure, some parts of it were not organized very well, but I thought the individual points in the article were solid and well presented. It just needed someone bold enough to take on the reorg task. :-) A Transportation Enthusiast 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I do think there was a lot of good information there; it just wasn't structured well. This made it very difficult to improve, I think -- it was never obvious exactly where any improvements would fit in. But hopefully my edits have begun to clear that up. I'll keep going later this evening; for the time being, I think that most of what I'll be doing is consolidation and compaction. Skybum 17:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

25 March 2006

I have removed a fair bit of what seemed to be redundant text, some of which was advocacy on one side or the other. The "pro and con" section at the bottom is the next thing to address: it should be redundant anyway, since the substantive issues should be addressed under other heads. Advocacy is in any case likely to be unnecessary; a 'short section on criticism is possibly valid, where that criticism is based on principles rather than factual issues with individual claims. I suspect that all comments on visual impact should be moved here, as it is unquantifiable. Anyone who feels like migrating the rest of the references to {cite web} is welcome. The external links section is large but it's hard to see which should go (probably the advocacy ones on both sides, leaving the links to existing schemes). If Avidor agrees we could comfortably illustrate the criticisms simply by uploading his RKB cartoon - it states the opposition quote nicely without giving it undue weight, and would actually be an elegant solution to the problem of how to cover opposition concisely. What do others think? Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is welcome to upload that comic or quote from my website. I would actually prefer to see this article fact-checked. It does seem to be going in that direction. One suggestion, please verify the status of the Dubai PRT project mentioned in the introduction. According to Jeral Poskey Chairman of ATRA (formerly of Taxi 2000), "PRT is no longer the high profile amenity that it once was. " .

Thanks. Avidor 13:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ken, it would be better if you uploaded it because you can then sign the image as being released into the public domain under GFDL (if that's what you are prepared to do). Re Dubai, if you have a proposal for a neutrally stated revision please make it here. Thanks.

Skybum, I have moved that last comment to the archive. Please understand: I care less than zip what went on in the past. I care about making this a good article. This is not to support one editor or another, actually I think there is both right and wrong on both sides, but you (all) may not make Misplaced Pages a battleground, you (all) may not bring your external conflicts here. OK? Just zis Guy you know? 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm getting angry. This is not an "external conflict" -- I, too, think there is right and wrong on both sides of the PRT debate, and in the real world I have engaged in that debate (from both sides) in a civil fashion. What is going on here is an interal conflict that is based entirely upon a single editor's wanton misbehaviour. I am going leave my documentation of that misbehaviour in the archive, but I encourage anybody who is interested to have a look.

Meanwhile, I also wrote was a specific response to your proposal on this page, and it should not have been removed. I will post it again here:

----

"Even setting my feelings about Mr. Avidor aside, I think there ought to be a better way to handle criticism. As I noted in my comments which were quickly archived, although PRT has worked in theory and in the laboratory, there is an enormous gulf between the laboratory and reality, and PRT has not not successfully bridged that gulf. The negative experiences with CVS, Morgantown, Aramis, Raytheon PRT, et cetera all provide ample material for very some serious, substantial, and specific criticisms of PRT, and I believe we should include those criticisms, presented in the context of a rational, on-going dialog. Mr. Avidor's work fails to do this: it is mere gut-level propaganda; the few "facts" it implies are either unprovable or demonstrably false; and it cannot be considered to be part of a rational dialog, because it is irrational, and no rational response is possible. Misplaced Pages should be able to do much better than this. Skybum 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)"

----

Because this is pertinent to the current proposal, and not predicated upon what has happened here in the past, I respectfully request that you not remove this text again. And please note that I am not acting as a PRT partisan here: I am requesting that the criticism of PRT be more specific, detailed, and comprehensive than what you are proposing. I sincerely believe that this would make for a better article. Skybum 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

(A little while later...) Actually, it looks like you're now putting together the nucleus of exactly the kind of criticims section that I would to see. Excellent, and thank you. Skybum 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

JzG: I like the work you've done so far. It's an improvement, although I think now that the "Pros" section has been removed we should include references to the rebuttals to OKI, Vuchic, etc. in the cons section. And I don't agree with including Avidor's cartoon in the article. A reference to it is more than sufficient; embedding it in the actual article gives it undue weight, as it is essentially a hostile political cartoon that parodies PRT. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I have now finished a first cut at toning down the article. The old criticism and advocacy section is at Personal rapid transit/Pro and con. I suspect that not much form there needs to come back, since a lot of it does appear to be covered adequately elsewhere, but let's not throw it away just yet.

I believe that the overall tone is now about right: I believe it presents this a technology which has some interesting possibilities, but is largely unporoven, which is still being actively pursued (in a way that monorails, for example, probably are not) but which faces some serious technical and regulatory challenges if it is ever to rise above the level of small-scale localised installations. Now, may I suggest that we start from this point and sharpen the text up, removing any unfounded comments, weasel words and so on. Also, convert the refs to standard citation format.

I will work on the external links later as well, since these are in need of a severe pruning.

Specifically in respect of the above, the ""pros" section is gone because it does little other than rehash what went before. We are not here to sell it, we are here to describe it for a general audience. The table at the top is, I think, sufficient to give a lfavour of the claimed advantages.

All constructive criticism is welcome. Please, please do not personalise any issues. Just zis Guy you know? 19:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out in the article that Vuchic is a light rail advocate, and PRT is a potential competitor to LRT. I also think that the entire Vuchic debate should be explicitly referenced (IIRC, there was an article by Vuchic, a set of rebuttals, a response to the rebuttals by Vuchic, and another rebuttal to that response) A Transportation Enthusiast 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat my concern voiced earlier: I disagree with the inclusion of the RKB cartoon on the page. It's filled with blatant propaganda and is basically a campaign poster for Avidor's anti-PRT political campaign. It deserves to be referenced as a criticism, but including it in the page is not appropriate because of its POV. I think we should have a discussion on it before it is included. Perhaps a better place to include it would be the Gadgetbahn article, which documents the anti-PRT (as well as other forms of what they perceive to be "gadget transit") movement. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

May I weigh in on the cartoon? This particular cartoon is notable because, first, it may be Avidor's earliest PRT cartoon, and second, it is demonstrably wrong--and therefore an ideal example of Avidor's anti-PRT efforts. The truth is that good PRT designs make it impossible for the public to initiate riderless trips, by requiring a person push a Go button after the doors close. I have personally called Avidor's attention to this fact, yet he has never modified it.

Therefore if the cartoon is to be included as an example of anti-PRT information, it should be presented as an example of propaganda, insofar as it attempts to instill fear without acknowledging that designers anticipated the potential for misuse and preemptively engineered a solution. Mr Grant 10:56 PST 26 March 2006

It is clearly labelled as a light-earted take on someof the objections raised. Both the objections and the solutions are theoretical until such time as a real scheme is built and running. Of course it's a poster for Avidor's campaign, just as the text from Jerry Schneider and the PRT wiki is a poster for the pro campaign. I'm not making this a point of principle, but it does get the message across without simply rehashing all the arguments again. The reader should be trusted here, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It's not light-hearted. It's a political cartoon intended to belittle the technology. Furthermore, the Schneider and PRT wiki sites are primarily document archives, not political pages, so the comparison to those sites does not apply. Think of it this way: if a pro-highway advocate published a cartoon showing terrorists setting off bombs in train tunnels, would you say it should be displayed in the light rail article? A Transportation Enthusiast 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First cut done

I've gone through the text and now the links as well. I have tried to get down to one link per site, where the page linked is not the root, if there is a better page, feel free to suggest it. I have tried to classify the schemes correctly, and where possible link to the "official" (i.e. manufacturer's or scheme sponsor's) website. This section is harder to work with so feel free to make suggestions.

I belive the article is now a more concise and encyclopaedic treatment of the subject, the next step is to polish the text and ensure that the tone is consistent and the subject developed in a logical manner through the article.

Since I have now finished the initial hacking it should be safe for others to edit directly, with due regard to past problems! Just zis Guy you know? 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

JzG: I really like most of your changes, however, there are two things I disagree with: (1) the inclusion of a political cartoon with a very strong POV (discussion above) and (2) removal of the Light Rail Now rebuttal links. There are serious questions about the POV of that report (it's posted anonymously on a pro-light-rail web site). It is perhaps the most controversial PRT document in existence, the subject of at least 4 public rebuttals, and yet none of that controversy is reflected in the latest article. I think that (a) the word "controversial" should be added -- this is not a commentary, since it's been one of the most hotly contested documents in the PRT debate; (b) it should be explicitly noted that it is written by a light rail advocate; and (c) the rebuttal links should be included. In my view, (c) is the most critical point, as those rebuttals correct several critical mistakes in the original article. Those rebuttals should be listed if the Light Rail Now report is listed. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well now, I think the cartoon is amusing and not excessively harsh - it is a lighthearted look at some of the arguments. But I'm not saying it has to stay, I just think it illustrates the opposition in an accessible way. As to the rebuttal to light rail now, why? We link to the root of the site which carries the rebuttal, we link to several sites which are uncritically favourable, and we link to the light rail article in a section and with a summary which make any misunderstanding about neutrality of that source unlikely. Part of the problem of the article in recent times has been a tendency to develop the argument rather than simply present the opposing sides of the debate. There are a lot of uncritically pro sources in this article, and the tone is broadly accepting of the premise, at least as a concept. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

On the two points of contention:

1. How can a cartoon depicting a terrorist attack be considered lighthearted? In this age, depicting a terrorist attack is the antithesis of lighthearted. This is a blatantly unfair scare tactic meant to terrify people away from PRT, and, as such, it expresses a very extreme POV that does not belong in the article.
2. With regards to the Light Rail Now article, this should not be about balancing viewpoints. The rebuttals are out there, they should be linked explicitly. They shouldn't be suppressed just because there happen to be other favorable PRT links. If the author of the Light Rail Now report decides to write his/her own response to the rebuttals, then that can be linked too. But at this point, it seems incredibly unbalanced to link to an article as controversial as that one, without linking to its rebuttals. I believe this is a very glaring omission, for the following reason: the Light Rail Now report presents arguments that seem very compelling and convincing, until you realize that many of them are wrong -- i.e. the technical arguments presented are fundamentally flawed. In some cases, the flawed arguments reflect a basic misunderstanding of PRT designs, in other cases, they're just basic physics errors. But once you are made aware of the errors, the Light Rail Now arguments are much less compelling. There is still some relevance to the LRN article (a few valid points are raised) and hence it should be linked. But the rebuttals should be linked too. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No response to these two concerns. I'll give it another day or so and if there are no objections, I'm going to make these two changes. A Transportation Enthusiast 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep it as it is... the comic is a visual balance to the Taxi 2000 promotional graphic. I think we can trust readers to make up their own minds about the comic and the LRN article. Avidor 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Taxi 2000 picture is just a photo of an actual vehicle, even though it is a promotional photo. As such, it doesn't express a POV. If it were more explicit in its promotion of Taxi 2000, I might agree, but there's very little there except the vehicle and some people to give it some dimension. Not even a logo, as far as I can tell, about as non-POV as you can get in a promotional photo. A Transportation Enthusiast 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete the cartoon. It's nothing but POV mudslinging. pstudier 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you prefer this one?Avidor 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't even mention PRT. A Transportation Enthusiast 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

28 March 2006

Keep the Road Kill Bill Cartoon and the Light Rail Now article. Eva Young

Hey what happened to all the opposition references to the Denver Airport luggage handler (PRT for suitcases)a huge failure of PRT tech that cost hundreds of millions to the public, and why get rid of a cartoon? It is certainly as real as any fake "pod" pix. The "con" section seems to be getting pretty small for the number of PRT failures, cost overruns, and PRT scams out there. - Joe Sixpack

I think it's also fair to keep the cartoon in. I think it's clear from the present treatment that it's a subjective and is just as controversial as PRT itself. - Randall Ghent

It's like this: I think the cartoon is a lighthearted take on the whole thing. Some others - pro and con - seem to take it altogether too seriously. So I am now reconsidering. I still think it's good, as an example of "anti" spin in the same way the fake pod picture at the top is an example of "pro" spin, but I need to think about it a bit more.

The Light Rail Now article stays in, definitely, as it is a well written critique. I am not going to start getting into the rebuttals, because (a) they are linked from at least one of the cited sources and (b) that way lies the same he-said-she-said nonsense which led to the original mess. So either all the pro and con links go, or they stay very much as they are, less a couple if I can decide which of the pro ones are least good, since the article is still a bit weighted towards pro, and the consensus seems to be not proven (to quote one of the best bits of Scottish law). Just zis Guy you know? 18:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the picture of the pod is a point of contention. I don't agree with the assertion that the pod is "fake" (it's an actual photo of a prototype vehicle), but others disagree, so I've removed it. I don't think it adds too much to the article anyway, and if it raises concerns then maybe it should be gone.

Regarding the Light Rail Now article, I propose the following: in the spirit of "one link per site", how about the following:

Monorail, PRT, AGT, and "Gadget Transit" Analyses - Several Light Rail Now articles skeptical of PRT

This is a more general link that actually provides access to a wider set of critical articles and doesn't give undue weight to the Cyberspace Dream article. I think it balances nicely with the links to PRT document collections in the Advocacy section. What do you all think? A Transportation Enthusiast 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(in response to JzG's latest changes) JzG: How can you remove all responses to criticism? This is a debate, and you are turning it into a "he said" with the "she said" removed! I absolutely disagree with this and I will go to formal arbitration if I have to. I've seen other examples of Misplaced Pages articles that showed both sides of the debate in the critical analysis section. This is reasoned debate that is being suppressed and it's inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. I strongly oppose. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Easily: 90% of the article is responses to criticism, and the criticism section is criticism; if it was supposed to rehash the argument we'd call it "rehashing the argument". We are not supposed to play he-said-she-said or get into special pleading. It's sufficient to state the criticisms which have been made, and let the reader judge. All the rebuttals are in other cited sources. Just zis Guy you know? 22:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, 90% of article is presentation of fact -- presented in an NPOV way. The other 10% is criticism. How can you present only half the debate, criticism without response? Other controversial articles intersperse responses to criticism in with the criticism itself. Or, sometimes there is a separate section for each side of the debate. Either is acceptable. Presenting one without the other is not. A third option: intersperse the "pro" arguments back into the 90% where they've been removed. I hate this, but it's better than the current one-sided critical presentation. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point that by stating the facts about this subject we are already supporting the statement that it is a real technology rather than an unproven and contentious technology. We include several links advocating the technology, including ones which have reubttals. We are not here to rehash the argument. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. There is no debate as to whether this is a real technology. There is 40 years of scientific analysis, design, engineering, and prototypes to support it. PRT has a history -- nothing "pro" about that; nothing "pro" about listing the design elements either. There is no disputing any of the information presented in the history and system design sections. It doesn't advocate a position, it only states facts.

The debate is not whether designs exist, this is unassailable fact. The debate is whether these designs are practical, whether they are applicable to typical city environments, whether they would be accepted by the community. These are the positions for which there would be "pro" and "con" arguments, and as of now, the "pro" side of this debate is completely unrepresented. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Designs exist for spaceships propelled by detonation of nuclear devices (a patent has even been found). We don't have an article on these. I see no pressing reason to rehash the acrimonious exchanges between proponents and opponents; the proponents' case is stated, their websites are linked, the opponents' case is stated, their websites are linked, the body of the article is stated as neutrally as I could make it (and I'm sure it has scope for improvement). Leave the balance to the reader. Just zis Guy you know? 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Designs exist for spaceships propelled by detonation of nuclear devices (a patent has even been found). We don't have an article on these." -- Excellent point, becuase yes, we absolutely do. Actually, Project Orion has a much more detailed article than Personal Rapid Transit currently does. There is no prohibition in Misplaced Pages on discussing the theoretical arguments in detail. And even if there was such a prohibition, PRT is not just theoretical. Unlike Project Orion or Fusion Power, for example, fully-functional PRT prototypes have been demonstrated. And there is certainly no prohibition on discussing non-theoretical arguments in detail. Skybum 04:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So we're intentionally suppressing this factual information on a relevant debate, and the reason given is that there's no article on nuclear-detonated spacecraft? How arbitrary is this? Go back and look at what I had added to the criticism section. Tell me what was "acrimonoious" about it. It was a neutral presentation of rational, civil debate between two professionals (Vuchic and Anderson). The Skyloop response I added was a one-sentence summary of why they objected, with a reference. What exactly is the problem with this? Why are we intentionally suppressing factual information here? A Transportation Enthusiast 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to instead discuss the difference between facts and claims that can be shown to be false. The former deserve to be presented in a neutral fashion. The latter may be presented, but in the interest of Truth they need to be identified as being misconceptions, and how they arose. Merely presenting (known) erroneous claims at face value helps them attain mythic status--perceived to be true or having a kernel of truth, when there is none.

I agree with the gist of this, but in the case of the Vuchic argument, it's basically just an expert opinion that is very difficult to prove or disprove. He doesn't present any mathematical proof of his claims, so the bast you can do is present a reasoned rebuttal -- which has been done. This is why I feel that the Vuchic and Anderson positions in this debate needed to be presented as equals: they obviously both have strong (and compelling) opinions on this issue, so why present only one and give the impression that Vuchic's statements are factual? A Transportation Enthusiast 14:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vuchic, being a reasonable academic, was not who I had in mind. Rather, the ultimate question is what is the Wiki standard of accuracy? Is something allowed to stand as a Fact just because someone says it? Because in most people's view, a claim that is shown to be false is an opinion, not a fact. But the direction we seem to be headed in is, Avidor could state that "PRT is a quadruped that lives in the Amazon," and, by virtue of it having been stated, it could stay in the article.

I wasn't aware that we did quote Ken Avidor. We certainly don't quote him by name. Nor do we assert as fact what Vuchic states - we offer it as his interpretation, identified as such. That is not at all the same as saying that it is fact, just one informed opinion which is not otherwise represented. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the link should be restored to the Light Rail Now article as it was. The "Cyberspace" article was specific to PRT unlike the new link. Both would be okay, but if there needs to be a choice shouldn't we go with the specific link?Avidor 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, as long as the rebuttals are also listed specifically in the advocacy section. So I've converted the gettherefast link in the advocacy section to point to the rebuttals page. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Proposed cost overuns"? Aramis, Raytheon and Morgantown went way over cost estimates. It should read "cost overuns" period...and Dubai should be removed-unless somebody can prove it is still happening Avidor 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It reads "concerns about potential cost overruns." Potential, not proposed. Keep the line as-is.

The Dubai PRT tender is still listed. Let's assume it's still going to happen until we hear otherwise, facts don't necessarily have a freshness date. It takes a long time to plan and build any transit system, PRT will be no different.

A Vuchic quote, but no Anderson quote?

Vukan Vuchic has never taken more than a cursory look at PRT. Anderson has studied it his whole life. Vuchic published one paper in which he made a very generic, high level argument against PRT. Anderson has published books detailing every aspect of PRT design in excruciating detail, and has been the leading authority on PRT for 30 years.

Does it strike anybody as incredibly unbalanced that this Misplaced Pages article has a full paragraph quote from Vuchic, that basically summarized the only public statement he has ever made on PRT, while Anderson is barely even mentioned in the article, let alone quoted?!

Tell me how this can be. Would an article on evolution have only a passing mention of Darwin and a full paragraph quote from Pat Robertson?

This is the kind of inequity that I feel must be dealt with before this article can be considered truly NPOV. Certainly, it's come a long way just in the last week. JzG, your changes to the factual portions of the article have improved them tremendously. Your expert guidance is exactly what was needed on those sections. But I still disagree strongly with what you are doing with the criticism section. It is absurd to have an article on PRT that gives more weight to the arguments of Vuchic than to those of Anderson.

I would like to address this by making the criticism section a full-fledged debate section, where the pro and con arguments can be presented in an NPOV way. In other words, show both sides of the debate on the feasibility and practicality of PRT. But if this is absolutely not an option (and I've seen other articles do it, so it seems that it would be, but if for some reason it can't be done on this page), then I suggest we prune the criticism down to some very brief statements with links to references to both sides of the debate. This is the only fair way to represent a two-sided debate. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

While I applaud your spirit, this may be venturing down a long and annoying path resulting in the rehash we wish to avoid. Before JZG decides on direction, I suggest zis guy review pre-existing debates and critiques. They shouldn't be too hard to Google. It might be sufficient to have a set of Debate Links at the end, instead of a full-fledged Point-Counterpoint.

Comparing Professor Vuchic to Robertson is outrageous. Especially since PRT has been promoted by the Discovery Institute. Here are Professor Vuchic's qualifications What are Anderson's qualifications in the transportation field?Avidor 09:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert the link to the LRN "Cyberspace" article. The PRT promoters don't like the fact that this article ranks high on a Google search for PRT. They think that removing links will lower the article's ranking.Avidor 10:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The LRN link should be to the article list, it's a more useful link (links to multiple articles). Unless they have a subject specific list which includes all and only the articles on PRT?

If the LRN article is linked, at least one rebuttal should be linked, since that would frame the Point-Counterpoint, helping readers to decide for themselves. The Get There Fast rebuttal is the better one for this, since it contains side-by-side comparisons to LRN's content.

Vuchic is quoted as a reputable academic source in the Criticism section. It's a statement of the opposition view. The pro view is well represented and does not need ot be stated in the form of a personal view. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It comes back to this: should the neutral statement of facts be considered "the pro view?" You say yes, I still say no. The point I made earlier is, the Vuchuc quote is not debating the facts or the history, he's debating technical feasibility in the real world. Anderson responds to this feasibility question. By presenting only Vuchic's position, you are suppressing one side of that debate (there is no section presenting the arguments that support feasibility anywhere in the article).

But, aside from the POV question, I have a more fundamental question here: why are we suppressing factual information? The facts of this debate are indisputable. It's a reasoned debate between two experts at polar opposite positions on the issue. How can the inclusion of such a debate be against policy, especially when it introduces no POV? To me it's just suppression of information in order to achieve some artificial balance of views, and I can't believe that's the right thing to do. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also available in the linked sources. Following that line was what led to the mess before - it's a bit like elections; we list what the major issues were, but we don't include the transcript of the candiates' debate.

I am neither for nor against PRT, I do have a degree in Electrical Engineering so I can understand at least some of the technical issues, and I have a friend who was on the civil engineering team of DLR (a system I have travelled on as well) so I also understand a fair bit of the potential of automated rapid transit. My specialisation at University was control systems and I have been a real-time control systems programmer, so I also understand the challenges of controlling this type of system. I am also an enthuisiast for anything which reduces the reliance of society on private motor transport. And I've spent some time reading through the links and what sources are available online. I have taken some trouble to try to understand the proposition and why it is contentious.

In describing the proposed advantages of the system, as we do in the box at the top, we imply that we think it could work. We describe the schemes as tried, in satisfactorily neutral terms. We link to articles on these where such exist. Vuchic's comment, in a section clearly identgified as opposition and controversy, is autoritative and neutrally stated. It states an objection which is not made clear elsewhere, and as such it has a valid and defensible place in the article. We acknowledge that there is debate on this issue, the debate is in the linked sources, I do not see that we need to go any further. If we tried, we would probably shed more heat than light on the subject. Just zis Guy you know? 15:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article also glosses over the overriding concern: COST. The article impies that PRT systems are not only feasible from an engineering standpoint, but that they are feasible from a cost standpoint as well. That is, PRT will reduce congestion and move people at least as well as competing public transit modes (rail, bus), but will do so in ways that are roughly cost-equivalent, if not in fact substantially cheaper. But the only hard cost figures provided are for guideway construction, while the more speculative operational and rolling-stock costs are dismissed with assumptions that they "should" be "low". Compared to what? Obviously, the implicit comparison is to rail - light rail, specifically. But why should the PRT claims be true? There is no way to evaluate or make the comparison without specifying what is being compared: heavy rail, on-street light rail, elevated or grade-separated light rail, etc.

I agree that "are feasible from a cost standpoint" should be changed. The point should be that transportation construction costs tend to be directly related to the complexity and amount of materials used per unit length. So it would be better to say that PRT ought to be cheaper than conventional rail, all things being equal. See this page at Electric-Bikes. In addition, the British project had a $10M/mile target and they say they achieved that. Unknown is whether costs of R&D and manufacturing start-up are being included. The BAA Heathrow implementation may validate all this.

As for right-of-ways, the article says that light rail requires 100-300ft rights of way - which is absurd. On-street non-separated rail requires NO dedicated right-of-way; even grade-separated rail requires little more space than a similar auto lane, perhaps 30 feet for two tracks. Rail stations may take up more space, but 300ft-wide stations would only include the parking lots and bus-lanes of a suburban commuter station (I'm thinking BART), which is not the "highest density and most expensive part" of the system. Yet PRT also needs stations, and presumably some would offer the ability to transfer to buses - why not include these in the PRT right-of-way? The article does not make clear that it is refering to rail station parking lots - it appears to be comparing the narrow right-of-way for an elevated PRT guideway to some hypotheical maximum-sized inter-modal transit center. Again, apples and oranges here. -- Transit Guest 71.252.109.175 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The ROW width reference should be corrected, but consider that elevated and at grade LRT would occupy continuous ROW, no matter the width. The space used by PRT would be that needed for support posts spaced 60-90 ft apart, depending on the system. A PRT station would be analagous to an elevator lobby, sized according to the number of berths. An intermodal station would be larger as required by the modes sharing it with PRT.

Not to open a new can of worms here, but the "saftey statistics" are deceptive, for two reasons. First, while the Morgantown system may not have caused any accidents, is Morgantown PRT? Most experts consider it to be an Automated Guideway System, or AGT, and the US Dept. of Transportation reports that between 1992 and 2000, AGT systems (nationwide) experienced higher injury rates than any other mode of rail transportation. See: http://lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00022.htm

Secondly, the idea that "transit kills more" is only true when ordinary buses are included in the definition of "transit". But most of the debate about PRT centers on comparisons to rail - including buses is a false comparison. -- Transit Guest 71.252.109.175 15:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

M-PRT, as it is known, should probably be considered an AGT that offers a PRT mode. It is likely too linear and lacking sufficient number of vehicles to offer PRT 24/7. Its safety record of no serious accidents or injuries therefore means it is a very safe AGT with very safe PRT operation. Question: how do you think the USDOT injury rate figures reflect on Morgantown? Does M-PRT's design say something about how all AGTs should be designed, or do you think M-PRT just hasn't had its serious accidents yet (even after 35 years)? Would one accident in 35 years make it too dangerous? What about our widely used transit modes that have accidents?

Here is some anecdotal evidence that Morgantown may not be as safe as they claim " So, our PRT car goes from 40 mph to a dead stop in under 1 second. I was immediately reminded of physics class; objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. I was standing up at the time. Fortunately, the outside force acting upon me was the soft and squishy back of the person in front of me. The people sitting in the front had the less pleasant experience of having their faces acted upon at 40 mph by the front plexiglass window."Avidor 17:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is how anecdotal the above "evidence" is: M-PRT can't go 40, the top speed is 44 ft/sec, or THIRTY mph (www.cities21.org/morgantown_TRB_111504.pdf). Braking deceleration is 0.062g normal / 0.45g emergency (9.9 mph/sec). 30 to Zero at 9.9 mph/sec takes 54-ish feet. Can that distance be traversed in under a second while decelerating?

The same sudden-braking-while-standing thing happened to me yesterday! The bus driver started to accelerate to enter an intersection, when the light went yellow and he slammed on his brakes. I was stopped by the "soft and squishy" in front of me. Why is this OK for a bus, but "may not be as safe" in PRT--where riders will always be seated? And belted-in, if that is desired by the operating agency.

"...political interference in the design requirements"- I read in the affidavits of the Taxi 2000 lawsuit against Ed Anderson that Taxi 2000 has no patents for PRT (except possibly a software simulation program). That would explain why Raytheon and the OKI Parsons Brinkerhoff engineers had to invent their own versions of PRT. I've heard that Parsons Brinkerhoff had no choice but to do Ed Anderson's engineering homework for him. There is no evidence, as this statement implies, that there was some conspiracy to screw up the enginneering of Raytheon's PRT project or the simaler charge that the OKI engineers schemed to make PRT look bad. The transportation engineers I've talked to privately ridicule PRT while treating PRT proponents with courtesy and respect. This claim of "political interference" in the engineering of failed PRT projects needs to be documented or removed from the text. Avidor 18:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing: that "Taxi 2000 has no patents" is true, because its patents have expired. They are now in the public domain, which means other PRT developers can benefit from Taxi's and Anderson's work. The most well-known component is the in-vehicle switch, and has often been referred to as "patented." Saying there are no patents, while failing to mention there once were patents, is disingenuous.

As for conspiracies and "simaler" charges, that is a quick and easy dismissal that does a disservice to Skyloop Committee's extremely detailed dissent to the OKI report.

That evidence is provided in sources that have recently been removed from this article (because they were "superfluous"). Briefly, there was well-documented political interference in the Morgantown project in the form of the required October 1972 opening date -- Nixon's administration hoped to use it to advantage in the November 1972 election. Because this left only 22 months to design & implement the system, the guideway had to be built while the vehicle design was in progress. Among numerous other SNAFU situations, the guideway contractor was told to engineer for "typical transit vehicles", which meant that the elevated guideways and stations were designed to support heavy trains rather than small, lightweight vehicles. Naturally the cost and difficulty multiplied accordingly. In the case of the Raytheon (Rosemont, IL) PRT, the contracting government agencies put in a requirement that all vehicle components had to have been previously "transit certified". Since the smallest such vehicles were busses, this meant that the tiny vehicle had to use a 30-inch wheelbase (IIRC), rather than the 10 to 12-inch wheelbase which it should have used. And yet again with the cost, et cetera.

We seem to be stuck in a rather nasty feedback loop whereby sources and supporting information are removed for being "too detailed"; then sources are demanded for any and all information that remains. Absent that, the information is deleted, and if the sourcing is actually provided, then the article becomes cluttered and the cycle starts all over again. This has got to stop. Skybum 05:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of commenting on patents, engineering and politics, I instead ask: I thought we weren't going to get into another he said/she said rehash. Because that's where this is going if we start talking again about Morgantown anectdotes and OKI.

Where did this article go?

Ok, the last time I was here, this article seemed decent. Now I noticed that huge HUGE portions have been cut out, including the pros and cons sections. I don't have time to look over every detailed change, but this looks very wrong to me. What gives?

Also, I noticed Avidor is back, and his edits and comments have been very productive so far. I agree with him, keep the LRN article specific. Fresheneesz 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is now more like what it should be: a statement of the facts as understood. The pro and con section was merely a rehashing of the argument, much of it violating WP:NOR. This is now a much simpler article, which still (hopefully) contains enough information for a reader to make up their own mind. It is, on balance, sceptical since the concept is, on balance, unproven. Just zis Guy you know? 11:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Take the evolution article as an example. By your logic above, the evolution article should be, on balance, skeptical since the concept is, on balance, unproven. Evolution is a theory with mounds of scientific evidence to support it... but still a theory. PRT is a concept with mounds of scientific evidence to support it... but still not real-world proven. If the evolution article were constructed like this one, it would contain a NPOV discussion of evolutionary theory, followed by unanswered criticism from creationists and ID proponents. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fresheneesz: Other than the concerns I've outlined above, I think the changes are good. If you step through them edit by edit, you can see the improvement on a point-by-point basis. I still don't agree with the criticism section (and the lack of a "pros") and that debate continues, but the rest of the changes seem to be for the better. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to take your words for it for now. Have fun fixing it up : ) Fresheneesz 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words are creeping back into the text. What and where are these "simulations" that prove that PRT is better than other modes? Are they peer reviewed?Avidor 22:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Simulation" is not a weasel word. It's an accepted method of analysis.

Is the OKI report peer reviewed? A Transportation Enthusiast 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The OKI Report was a study paid for by the goverment and prepared by professional transportation engineers. It was an evaluation, not a simulation. Where are the simulations you refer to and who initiated them and paid for them? Were they prepared by professional transportation engineers?Avidor 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The OKI report includes a ridership simulation in which PRT achieved much higher ridership than the other options, even despite conservative assumptions. That's what I was referring to. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But you have disputed the OKI report's other findings-that's cherry picking. Either you accept findings of the entire OKI Report or you don't...and the other simulations you referred to are...?Avidor 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Several links listed here. A Transportation Enthusiast 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Graphic

Too bad you can't use the Taxi 2000 graphic anymore. When did Jeral Poskey upload that? I think the article needs another one for balance ..and it's copyright free, unlike the one that's there now. Avidor 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's balance you seek, a better choice would be that animation from your web page of the wino throwing up on people. It's pretty much the mirror of any image created by a PRT company.

That new graphic is one of the silliest PRT graphics I ever saw...I hope it stays... how are those hanging pods supposed to operate on a windy day?

That would be a problem. If the pods were connected to the guideway with free-swinging hinges.

Check out the "station"... real ADA compliant. A flash animation like the wino cartoon would be good here... In light of recent news, perhaps this one would be better:Avidor 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have some concerns about this graphic. Skytran is a less-than-representative PRT system in several respects. As opposed to the systems which have been seriously prototyped (CVS, Cabintaxi, Aramis, Taxi 2000) or present systems that have a serious degree of prototyping and/or funding (Skyweb, Skycab, Vectus, ULTra), Skytran differs in the following respects:

• It uses much smaller vehicles than any of these systems. PRT vehicles are supposed to be small, but Skytran is the extreme rather than the norm.
• It is suspended rather than elevated; with the exception of Cabintaxi, where half of the vehicles were suspended, all of the above-mentioned systems are elevated.
• As Avidor points out, the Skytran designers largely dismissed accessibility concerns, whereas it is paramount in all of the above designs.

For these reasons, I would suggest trying to find another graphic. My personal preference would be something from ULTra, given that it is both more typical and less speculative. I will contact ATS ltd. to see if we may use any of their materials. Skybum 10:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Different Kinds of Claims

I think that there is some confusion here regarding the nature of various different claims. When looking at a claim, it is useful to consider the following factors:

1. Whether or not it is an empirical claim or a non-empirical claim.
2. Whether or not it is an objective claim or a subjective claim (this is different from #1!)
3. Last and often least: who is making the claim.

Consider the following claims, for example: "Cabintaxi built a test track with six off-line stations and dozens of vehicles. It tested this prototype system for approximately 400,000 vehicle miles, with headway distances between 1 and 3 seconds, and was approved for passenger transportation by the German government", or "The Morgantown "PRT" system has operated for 110 million passenger-miles without any fatalities or serious injuries."

Such claims are something that can be (and often are) used by PRT proponents, leading some people here to classify them as "pro-PRT" claims requiring at least a modicum of balance from "anti-PRT" crowd. Who uses the claims is immaterial, however, because the claims are verifiable, empirical, incontestable facts. Empirical facts can certainly be presented in a slanted fashion, and this should of course be avoided, but empirical facts are intrinsically not able to be "pro" or "anti"-anything. To present this information in a slant-free fashion is one thing, but to attempt "temper" or "balance" it is to do violence to the truth, nothing more or less.

Now, consider this claim: "Simulations have shown that PRT would attract much higher ridership levels than other forms of public transport". It may be empirically true that simulations have in fact been conducted, and did in fact show what this claim says they showed — but this is beside the point, because the prediction of a simulation (which is what we're interested in here) cannot be emperically true. It may be objectively true, in the sense that it can be proven or disproven, but it because it cannot be verified with one's own senses -- or indeed, without knowing and accepting the parameters of the simulation -- it cannot be emperically true. In this situation, it becomes important to look at who is making the claim. If it is coming from a pro-PRT partisan, then this would count as a pro-PRT argument, even if it is an objective one. This is because, unlike emperical reality, the parameters of a simulation could potentially be varied to produce a contrary result. In this case, it would be appropriate to provide an opposing claim, if such exists, for balance. I would also suggest that it is worthwhile looking at such claims in as much detail as possible, becuase objective claims such as this become more interesting when examined thoroughly.

For the record, I would consider any claims of installation costs, operational costs, ridership attraction, et cetera, as far as any proposed system is concerned, to be in the realm of "objective but partisan" claims, which should be well-documented from both pro- and con- perspectives.

Lastly, there are subjective claims, such as "PRT guideways would create ugly visually clutter.". Well, personally, and since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I disagree. I think PRT guideways and vehicles would be nifty-looking, particularly in contrast to what they would replace. But there's really no point in belaboring the subject, because no amount of verbiage will resolve a difference of subjective opinion. Such claims should be made very briefly, alongside their opposing claims, and left at that.

I suspect that in an ideal world, this article would consist of about 50% emperical claims, 40% objective claims, and 10% subjective claims. Skybum 13:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll make it simpler...When any salesman makes a claim, it should always be treated with skepticism. In the case of PRT, the salesmen's claims are all we got. Frankly, I think used car salesmen are more believable than the stuff I've heard PRT proponents say. Listen to Dean Zimmermann at the Minnesota Capitol. When Zimmermann and Olson pitched PRT to the Mpls City Council, I was sitting next to a city engineer who worked on right-of-way for the city. I thought he was going to explode when Zimmermann said a PRT company could erect a block-long PRT guideway section every day. Remember, these guys have asked for and gotten taxpayers' and investors' dollars and they want more. An encyclopedia has a responsibility to report verifiable facts and only facts when so much is at stake.Avidor 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, "salesman's claims" are not "all we got". We also have operational prototype sytems, about which empirical statements can be made. We also have operational systems that are in one way or another analogous to PRT, about which empirical statements can be made. You can not simply ignore this reality, as you have consistently attempted to do. As stated above, I agree that when proponents make non-verifiable claims about proposed systems, those claims should be analyzed as rigourously and objectively as possible. In the case of Zimmerman's claim that you cite, it would certainly be fair to say that it was an unproven statement by a proponent. But to state that those kinds of claims are "all we got" is completely false, and you need to stop approaching the subject in this fashion. Skybum 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should we give the supposed PRT vendors a different standard of proof than than other salesmen? The would-be vendors of PRT need to prove their claims before an encyclopedia can report the claims as facts. Most of the claims the PRT proponents make, such as headway, capacity, network, structural integrity could be proved or disproved with peer-reviewed computer models... to date they have not done this. Instead they spend their time and money on promotion..including this article...and along with the promotion comes a good dollop of LRT-bashing. I looked at the online Encyclopedia Britannica and it doesn't even have a page on PRT.Avidor 14:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What the Britannica does or doesn't have in it is irrelevant. I am saying that we must use exactly the same standard of proof for the claims of PRT proponents as for the claims of anyone else, and I have proposed a reasonable and impartial framework for doing so. Such as: empirical claims are empirical claims, regardless of who makes them. This applies as much to you as to them. Are you completely incapable of comprehending this? Skybum 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may interject: let's all take a deep breath before another war starts here. Skybum and Avidor: you disagree, leave it at that. I'll weigh in and say that, while there are always claims made by salesmen and marketers, much of what is in this article today (other than the criticism section) is based on proven fact. The underlying theory comes from the Aerospace Corporation work of the 1970s, which is certainly not marketing material. Dr. Anderson has documented much of his Taxi2000 designs and engineering, and this is certainly much more detailed (and verifiable) than the typical marketing fluff. And there are the functioning prototypes: Cabintaxi and ULTra. To say that "the salesmen's claims are all we got" is just plain wrong. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The equivalent to the null hypothesis in this case is scepticism. We should reflect that. It's an interesting but unproven idea, there are credible criticisms of it and there are (despite over four decades passing since the invention of the concept) no actual systems in operation which prove the claims re system capacity and mode switching. We reflect that, too. I do not suggest that it is pseudoscience (wow! that is a huge category!), but it is most important that we accurately reflect the fact that this is a barrow which is being pushed up a very steep hill. Just zis Guy you know? 15:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please consider that there is also a big difference between a neutral form of skepticism, and skepticism like Avidor's that has a stated agenda. His goal is not to perform a scientific inquiry of PRT, but rather to stop it. Some might call that bias, not skepticism.

None of this is valid justification for suppressing one side of an academic debate. A Transportation Enthusiast 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add: why are we making the judgement as to how it is "reflected"? Shouldn't we be listing all the relevant information in an NPOV and let readers decide? Why are we suppressing information here? Do you not think it is more dangerous to suppress information in the name of "balancing an article", than it would be to include the infomation in a neutral way even if it might tip some artificially imposed balance one way or the other? Really, I find it hard to believe that Misplaced Pages policy would support suppression of information for such a vague and subjective goal as "balance" A Transportation Enthusiast 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regulatory Concerns

This section needs some help. I've heard that regulatory concerns played a role in the demise of Japan's CVS system (tested during the 60s and 70s), where regulators were unwilling to accept anything less than then the standard 15-second minimum headway for rail vehicles. However I'm not presently able to dig up a good citation for this, and I think we should say more about it. Also, as far as disability access goes, there are a handful of systems (Skytran, Unimodal) that would clearly clash with the ADA. We ought to document this better. We should also make it clear that the accessibility concerns do not apply to most systems, becuase it is true (in the case of the OKI study, for example, the accessibility concerns were based on a flat-out incorrect reading of the ADA, as can be verified by anyone). In the meantime, the section where we have the most detail is:

For example, the California Public Utilities Commission states that its 
"Safety Rules and Regulations Governing Light Rail Transit" (General Order
143-B) and "Rules and Regulations Governing State Safety Oversight of Rail
Fixed Guideway Systems" (General Order 164-C) are applicable to PRT .
Both documents are available online . 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.

I've just looked through both those documents, and aside from clauses relating to "vehicle operators" (which the CPUC already is clearly willing to make exceptions for, where they regulate other APM systems), there is not a single item which would in any way contraindicate PRT. Most of those regulations are about keeping proper vehicle and guideway inspection logs, specifying that vehicles "shall be operated at all times within the maximum speed profiles established for the system," and so forth. As they say in California (where I've been stranded all night in an airport): like, duh. Nothing about minimum headway distances, or anything else that might conflict with PRT. Therefore, citing this as a "regulatory concern" seems to be incorrect. If nobody has any substantial objections, I'd like to remove it. Skybum 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Skybum, your recent edits are not sufficiently neutral. We do not, for example, say that a document "has been reviewed many times since then". How many? Many by what standards? More or less than a comparable article on other technologies? Revoewed by whom? In what context? And so on. Please do not make large scale edits without discussing here first, or I will be forced to lock the article temporarily. We are not going to go into the level of detail you suggest above, because that is what got us in trouble in the first place. Less is more. Just zis Guy you know? 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I've looked at your recent edits, and I have issue with some of them. Perhaps you should also discuss changes here before implementing. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Taxi 2000 prospectus; Risk Factors: "Federal and State safety regulation of automated transit systems can make PRT systems unworkable" As for ADA compliance..PRT won't get it. Without ADA compliance, there will be no funding from the Feds. Without funding from the Feds no city in America is going to build PRT. more regulations PRT won't ever get past--Historic Preservation Districts, zoning overlay districts, parks and recreation areas etc....good luck trying to build an elevated guideway through Greenwich Village or Central Park.Avidor 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"As for ADA compliance..PRT won't get it." That's a tremendous leap, unsupported by any facts. PRT (other than the exceptions noted elsewhere, e.g. Unimodal) would treat all riders equally. No special lifts or ramps will be required for those with physical challenges.

JzG, details re: your latest edits:

• "There is also opposition from advocates of other, more proven transport modes." I had removed "more proven" because it's vague. You put it back in. What modes are proven? By what standard are they proven? Autos are proven in ridership, not in safety or efficiency. Light rail has been proven safer, but lack ridership. This is an inherently subjective statement that introduces POV. The more accurate statement is "more traditional" transit modes.
• "Stops can be along sidings, allowing thru traffic to bypass stations unimpeded." - Skybum changed "can be" to "are always", because offline stations are inherent to PRT. If stations are online, it's not PRT by every definition of PRT since the 1970s. I don't think this can be disputed. "are always" is appropriate here.
• "Offset against this, trains have much greater seating capacity. As a result, in order to achieve equivalent capacity, most PRT models require much shorter headway distances than are permitted by rail regulators." - First, the degree to which rail regulations would apply to PRT is hazy at best. Second, which rail regulators? US? Japanese? Swedish? British? The rail regulation argument, while somewhat relevant in the criticism section, is inappropriate here where the technical aspects are discussed.

I would also like to say, I am surprised at the threat to lock the article. We have all been cooperating here since you arrived. Skybum made some edits that he thought were appropriate. You reverted them. Why the threats to lock? A Transportation Enthusiast 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

JzG's Recent Edits

(Just making this a topic unto itself, since the above thread is getting rather confused.)

JzG, please review what I actually wrote; much of your distress is based upon a mis-reading. I wrote that PRT had been reinvented numerous times, not reviewed numerous time (which I agree would have been a problem). That it has been reinvented is a well-documented fact, which is well-supported by various sources that, having recently been removed from the article, I am not inclined to dig up again. Anyhow, the fact that it has been reinvented is factual, relavent, and strictly NPOV. As are my other edits. Please do not revert them en masse, tell me to "cool it," and threaten to lock down the article. That is starting to look like a dangerously biased thing for an administrator to do, particularly when an self-admittedly biased editor like Avidor, who you have expressed admiration for, appears to be getting carte blanch.

As for any other issues that you may have had, the fact that stops are always located along sidings in PRT design has been adequately addressed above. As has the issue of political interference in the design requirements. I also changed references from the Docklands Light Railway to Automated People Movers in general, because PRT does have some similarities to APMs in general, but there is nothing in particular about the Docklands APM that makes it worthy of note. The only APMs which would be worth singling out as particularly PRT-like would be the Morgantown system and the FROG system, both of which use much smaller vehicles and quasi-direct routing, unlike the Docklands APM.

My remaining edits were mostly just tightening up the verbiage. If you have any other specific concerns about my edits, please bring them up with me here. Skybum 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I read each edit in the history, including the comment "and has been reviewed many times since" against the 1960s study. History indicates that proponents of a given technology are less likely to be neutral than disinterested third party admins called in to stop edit wars. Now, please don't make me protect the article; during a mediation process changes from the prior editors should be discussed first, not argued about afterwards. I don't intend making any further edits myself unless there is ocnsensus here. Just zis Guy you know? 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)