| Revision as of 21:02, 31 March 2006 editSkybum (talk | contribs)635 edits →Regulatory Concerns← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:30, 7 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,239,243 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Trains}}, {{WikiProject Transport}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | |||
| {{fac}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Trains |Subway=yes |importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Transport |importance=High}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Archives}} | |||
| ==Please do not violate ]== | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: lightgreen;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| | <div align="center">This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to ] when responding to comments on this talk page. ] | |||
| |} | |||
| Article talk pages are for discussion of the article, not for opinions or debates on the subject of the article. This particular article tends to attract much of the latter, which is in violation of ]. Please restrict your comments to discussion of the article. Unsourced and/or irrelevant commentary will be removed. ] (]) 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150px" | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center"|'']'' | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| * ] | |||
| * <!--]--> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| == Hospital Rovisco Pais == | |||
| ==Massive Rewrite Needed== | |||
| Is this system really PRT? It only has two stations, and the pod moves back and forth between the two. Also, it operates on roadways rather than a closed system. There are almost no citations, at least in English. Thoughts? ] (]) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Excerpt from archive'' | |||
| : I've decided to remove this section from the article; listing it here might constitute ], if nothing else. If you have an appropriate reference from an authoritative ] stating that this system is PRT, please re-add it to the article, making appropriate ]. Note that a source need not be in English in order to be considered reliable. Thanks, ] (]) 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with removal for now; not much to go on. Though it's interesting to see another ULTra/2getthere type system being developed. ] (]) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::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? ] 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. ] 18:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Restructure == | |||
| :::::Skybum: I agree completely. We '''really''' want to make this better, but it's tough not knowing specific, actionable items to work on. | |||
| Hello. I would like to propose restructuring the article with the goal of improving the layout for readability and using the MOS as a guideline. ] (]) 12:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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. ] 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. ] 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thank you; I appreciate it! ] 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. ] 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :General comment: the original article was written back in 2004 or 2005, likely well before MOS or the modern reference system existed. Then there was a war for about 2 years, and the content was secondary to the conflict -- we were more worried about compromising on content so style took a back seat. Then, when we reached a point of content where nobody complained anymore, we left it alone, almost in fear that even stylistic changes would restart the war. :-) But that was 2 years ago now, so I think the time is ripe for a good overhaul. I say go for it, be bold. | |||
| ::''End excerpt'' | |||
| :One recent source that might be helpful as a primer is on PRT. It talks about the history, the debate, etc, in very fair terms. I think it can be a good supplementary source for much of the existing material here, and even as primary source for stuff that was written before the strict referencing requirements. | |||
| 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. | |||
| :One other note as to sourcing: the description sections lack ref tags, but much of the technical details can be found in primarily two sources: (1) Fundamentals of Personal Rapid Transit, Jack Irving -- this was the official published report of government-sponsored research in the 1960s and 1970s. It is very comprehensive and lays out much of the fundamental design framework. (2) The books and papers of J.E. Anderson, who founded Taxi2000, aka Skyweb Express, based on his designs. Anderson published much of the design work that went into Taxi2000, and it references "Fundamentals" heavily. | |||
| Therefore, I would like to propose that the article be fundamentally restructured into the following sections: | |||
| :I believe these sources are available online. I will try to track down links. ] (]) 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| # Overview (basic description &comparison with other transit modes) | |||
| # History (needs attention, but is already roughly appropriate, category-wise) | |||
| # PRT system design (technical aspects, noting disuputes & variances between different systems where appropriate) | |||
| ## Vehicle characteristics (size, features, propulsion, safety features, et cetera) | |||
| ## Guideway characteristics (supported vs. suspended, rubber-on-concrete vs. steel-on-steel vs. linear induction levitation, et cetera) | |||
| ## Operational characteristcs (speed, headway distances, control algorithms, passenger security, et cetera) | |||
| ## Cost characteristics (historical & estimated) | |||
| ## Urban Integration characteristics (public acceptance, aesthetics, sociological & urban planning impacts, compatibility and/or competition with other transit modes, et cetera) | |||
| # 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.) | |||
| ::''Fundamentals'' is actually linked from the article: . A collection of some of Anderson's work can be found . ] (]) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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? ] 03:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Article size === | |||
| :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. ] 04:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| At 74,479 bytes, we may want to consider ] detailed sections out into new articles, or not. Readability is very poor at the moment. I find that it helps to read this article with ], pretending to be a general reader who has never heard of the topic before. We need to write to that level, and present the topic accordingly. ] (]) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Heading === | |||
| ::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. | |||
| *''Disambiguation'': "For other uses, see PRT (disambiguation) and PAT (disambiguation)." | |||
| **This is not needed, since ] now has its own dab page. Remove? ] (]) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ***Done. ] (]) 04:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *''Infobox'': None. | |||
| ::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. :-) ] 05:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I realize that some editors are against infoboxes, but there may be a need for them, such as {{tl|Infobox machine}}. ] (]) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *''Images'': ] and ] | |||
| :::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. ] 17:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Two images in the lead at this time is a bit much. We could create a mosaic image of up to 6 images if needed, but I would like to see it reduced to one for now. ] (]) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 25 March 2006 == | |||
| === Lead === | |||
| 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? ] 12:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I notice the article currently has an "Overview" (which is analogous to an abstract or executive summary) in section 1. I don't know the full history of the article, nor have I had time to scroll through the page history, but I suspect this is an old throwback to the time before ] was fully developed. Unless we are dealing with a series of related topics, overview sections have been mostly deprecated. There are several options available to editors. Looking at other transportation-related articles for comparison, section 1 in ] uses a "Differentiation" subsection which might provide some insight on alternative presentation methods. Could we name it "Comparison with existing transport systems", just like the table? Whenever possible, we want to reserve an overview for the lead. ] (]) 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I think this makes sense. I also think it's a bit verbose in both the lead and the "overview"; perhaps we could trim down the lead and jump right into the technology comparison, and that might help it flow better. ] (]) 02:26, 6 September 2010 (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. " . | |||
| I have trimmed down the lede, removing some mild POV. I think it reads better now. I may try to get to the Overview section this weekend. ] (]) 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. | |||
| ] 13:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Existing and planned networks=== | |||
| ::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. | |||
| Too much data presented to the reader in the beginning of the article without explanatory text. Table presentation needs to be used as a supplement to the text or as an appendix, not as the main body. Good and featured articles use tables carefully. ] (]) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Designs=== | |||
| ::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? ] 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is the third table in a row starting with the overview. Too much, too soon in the article. ] (]) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION - MUST BE ABLE TO LIST ALL CATEGORIES - I.E. NO "?"''' | |||
| :::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. | |||
| I deleted APGM from the list of designs as it appears to be derived from a single study that did not proceed. There doesn't seem to be any clear criteria on why concepts are or are not included in this list. I think having a long list is useful for the uninitiated in indicating how many designs have been tried (and floundered) but I propose that any concepts that cannot complete the categories of the table should be deleted since they are too amorphous and vague. | |||
| ] (]) 08:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===History=== | |||
| :::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: | |||
| This section could be split out into a ] and replaced with a summary style section consisting of three paragraphs summarizing the main points. ] (]) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::---- | |||
| ::::"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. ] 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. ] 17:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I like this. The history takes up a lot of space that can easily be split out. ] (]) 02:57, 6 September 2010 (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. ] 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Opposition and controversy=== | |||
| 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. ] 19:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| A good candidate for splitting or deletion, as there is too much emphasis spent on this subtopic that is out of proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Nine paragraphs spent on criticizing the concept is way, way out of proportion. ] (]) 02:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :That controversy section was part of the compromise between warring factions on this page. There was a strong sentiment that the article was too promotional and that more criticism was needed. So I would prefer not to be the one to handle removing or paring it down, since it may be viewed by others as partisan whitewashing. ] (]) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Okey-dokey, I have now finished a first cut at toning down the article. The old criticism and advocacy section is at ]. 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. | |||
| ::Well, as a neutral editor who has no connection with this topic, I would be happy to help. When you have time, could you very briefly list the main opposition and controversy elements that should be stated upfront? Nine paragraphs is pretty much unheard of, and I have great difficulty believing that this article was ever of a "promotional" nature. ] (]) 03:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :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, ] 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. ] 19:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It was ''mildly'' promotional in its early days, and then it was over-corrected the other way for a while (too critical -- even more than it is now). | |||
| ::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) ] 19:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The main source of criticism is Vukan Vuchic, who is a highly respected transit authority (he's published books on transit) who has pretty much rejected PRT as infeasible. I've read his material and I believe he's dead wrong (his objections seem to be partly due to prejudice -- he is considered one of the pioneers of light rail and considers PRT a distraction from that -- and partly due to misunderstanding) but of course, that's all OR. His opinion is certainly notable. | |||
| :::Vuchic and JE Anderson engaged in a debate a while back, I think that's notable. | |||
| :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 ] article, which documents the anti-PRT (as well as other forms of what they perceive to be "gadget transit") movement. ] 17:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are two other transit professionals who have written negatively about PRT (Michael Setty and Louis Demery) but most of it is unpublished. I believe the article has one report by Demery (which was unpublished, but seemed reasonable enough for inclusion) questioning the regulatory implications of PRT. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| :::Then there is the political/ideological opposition, mainly from a ]. That material is not published and highly unreliable. | |||
| ::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. ] 10:56 PST 26 March 2006 | |||
| :::Note: I am active in forums outside of Misplaced Pages, and I also have a blog, and I have frequently commented on all of these individuals, sometimes highly critically. I just wanted to put that out there so there are no surprises. I don't want to give the impression that I am advocating for or against material this particular section, especially regarding the people I've identified above. ] (]) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::More: there is an oft-cited criticism of PRT called "Cyberspace Dreams Collide with Reality" which claims to debunk PRT. It is basically an attack piece written by an advocacy (and arguably, astroturfing) group for light rail transit, a transit mode which would theoretically be impacted by wide PRT deployment. It was never published, and in fact, it was written anonymously. Several PRT promoters have debunked it point by point. I fought hard to keep links to it out of the article, but if it does appear, the rebuttals should also be there (they are all unpublished, so they should all be out). | |||
| ::::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? ] 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There was also a criticism published by a PRT researcher (Wayne Cottrell), which was more of a "what needs to be done for PRT to succeed" kind of thrust. It identified areas where research was weak and advocated for more government investment to improve those areas. | |||
| == 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. | |||
| :::Scanning the other parts of the criticism section, some of it appears to be not criticism at all, but rather "this has been criticized, but..." followed by reasoning why it's not a valid criticism. The baggage handling section appears to follow this pattern. | |||
| 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. | |||
| :::Let me know if you have any other specific questions on criticism (I'm familiar with pretty much all of it. :-)) ] (]) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Since I have now finished the initial hacking it should be safe for others to edit directly, with due regard to past problems! ] 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The article still seems overly promotional and not neutral to me. I definitely would oppose paring down the criticism section beyond what it is now ]] 01:21, 10 September 2010 (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. ] 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please provide specific examples of promotion and violations of neutrality (bias). Please also explain why you oppose cutting back the criticism section. ] (]) 03:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've reworked the lede to address some concerns, though many others remain in the body. As to why I oppose reduction of the criticism section, I already explained my reasoning, which includes both NPOV and undue weight. Removing more criticism gives undue weight to viewpoint that PRT is some sort of panacea for mass transit. ]] 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've added the discussion of expansion of Morgantown back in with a source, and tweaked the wording on Morgantown. I do agree that the lede had some POV issues (both ways) but I think it's far better now than a few days ago. As for other promotional elements in the article, do you have anything specific? I don't recall the word "panacea" being used anywhere. As far as I know the claims presented are all well supported in reliable sourcing, which includes several books on the topic as well as peer-reviewed research. There are also more recent sources discussing PRT that can be incorporated. Overall, the amount of ''reliable'' criticism of PRT is actually quite small -- there are only 3 transit professionals who have significantly questioned PRT, and only one of them is published (Vuchic). So if we're talking about the weight of reliable sources, the criticism section ''is'' probably too lengthy, though there are certain criticisms I would not remove (i.e. Vuchic is notable -- even though I believe his opposition is based on flawed analysis, and Vuchic's crit should not be presented without JE Anderson's rebuttal). ] (]) 12:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Other concerns=== | |||
| ::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. ] 22:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tagged as unsourced since 2008. Does not require its own section and recommend merge or deletion. Concerns about visual impact, loss of privacy, and policing against terrorism and vandalism applies to very aspect of infrastructure in the modern world. "Some in the business community in Cincinnati" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Based on these nebulous claims lacking proper attribution and reliable sources, I recommend deletion. ] (]) 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===See also=== | |||
| :::On the two points of contention: | |||
| It's a bit odd that ] is only mentioned as a see also, rather than in the appropriate section. ] (]) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::# 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. | |||
| :::# 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. ] 00:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't believe the Duke system is PRT per se (well, it ''is'' PRT, but P stands for patient, not personal). I think it's more of a people mover than a true PRT, at least by the commonly accepted definition of PRT. Having it in "see also" indicates it's similar but not the same as the PRT discussed here. ] (]) 01:49, 6 September 2010 (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. ] 00:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. See also sections are usually used for links that could eventually be moved into the body, but not always; That's how I use them. Can you see this link going into the article somewhere? If not, maybe it belongs in a template footer or navbar? ] (]) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, perhaps if we have a "related technologies" section, this system could go there? There is also another whole class of PRT called "dual mode", commonly abbreviated DM, which is basically a hybrid PRT/automobile, which could go in the related tech section. DM operates on streets (usually under human control) but can also operate on segregated guideways. Because they operate on the street, DM allows for (but doesn't require) private ownership of vehicles, which also distinguishes it from PRT. Not sure if we have a DM section already (searches...) -- actually, we have a short DM ] on DM which can be linked from here. PRT is also somewhat related (technologically) to ]. All of those could potentially be included in a related technologies section. ] (]) 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===External links=== | |||
| ::::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. ] 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Pilots and prototypes, conferences, proposals, advocacy, and PRT skepticism and criticism. All of this can be discussed as text and linked appropriately inline. Don't really see a need for it as external links. ] (]) 01:40, 6 September 2010 (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. ] 03:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't sure if my editing on the citations in the first few paragraphs were included in this, I didn't really see why the links were in the line but please correct me if I'm wrong, sorry.] (]) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Lede rewording == | |||
| ::::Delete the cartoon. It's nothing but POV mudslinging. ] 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Do you prefer this one?] 03:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That doesn't even mention PRT. ] 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Good job Atren on rewording my first pass on the lede; it is significantly improved and much more balanced. ]] 12:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 28 March 2006 == | |||
| Keep the Road Kill Bill Cartoon and the Light Rail Now article. Eva Young | |||
| == SkyTaxi == | |||
| 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 | |||
| You are wrong about the external link (SkyTaxi) you've deleted. This link complies with the guidelines for external links. I don't add this link, but recover it after the attacks of a vandal. It's a very valuable link. You can ask the famous expert Professor Emeritus Jerry Schneider (jbsATpeakDOTorg) about this link. His website http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ knows every enthusiast of PRT. ] (]) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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 | |||
| :The page being added is simply an advert linkspam which fails both ] and ]. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Critical Move == | |||
| :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 ] (to quote one of the best bits of Scottish law). ] 18:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I removed "Critical Move" from the page, since it's not clear to me that the system is PRT at all (it seems more just like an outdoor people mover) and there were no citations to that effect. If Critical Move is in fact PRT, please restore it to the list, making appropriate ] to ]. Thanks. ] (]) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (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. | |||
| ==File:PRT-FornebuOsloProject2000-3.TIF Nominated for Deletion== | |||
| ::Regarding the Light Rail Now article, I propose the following: in the spirit of "one link per site", how about the following: | |||
| {| | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| | An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests November 2011'' | |||
| ;What should I do? | |||
| ''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. | |||
| * If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) | |||
| * If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used. | |||
| ''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: - 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? ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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, ] 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 ] or ], for example, fully-functional PRT prototypes have been demonstrated. And there is ''certainly'' no prohibition on discussing ''non''-theoretical arguments in detail. ] 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? ] 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? ] 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. ] 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?] 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. ] 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 ] 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 . 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. ] 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 ]. Here are Professor Vuchic's qualifications What are Anderson's qualifications in the transportation field?] 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.] 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] (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. ] 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 . 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 ] 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 ] 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."] 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 (). 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 ]. 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 16:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll have to take your words for it for now. Have fun fixing it up : ) ] 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::] 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?] 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? ] 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?] 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. ] 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...?] 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Several links listed . ] 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. ] 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:] 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. ] 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: | |||
| # Whether or not it is an empirical claim or a non-empirical claim. | |||
| # Whether or not it is an objective claim or a subjective claim (this is different from #1!) | |||
| # 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. ] 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.] 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. ] 14:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed merge with ] == | |||
| :::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.] 14:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Subject lacks sufficient notability for a stand alone article. Propose merge or delete. ] (]) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (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? ] 14:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That is like saying Apple should be merged with personal computers. JPods and the Town of Secaucus have signed a Letter of Intent to deploy the world's first solar-powered mobility network. ] (]) 02:45, 28 Feburary 2014 (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. ] 15:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Closing discussion''' Result was don't merge. -] (]) 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Group Rapid Transit (GRT)? == | |||
| ::::: 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 ] (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. ] 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. | |||
| The article has a distinction between PRT and GRT. There are a few references to GRT, but no explanation as to what it is. No references on what GRT is. Does anyone know what GRT suppose to be? ] (]) 15:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::None of this is valid justification for suppressing one side of an academic debate. ] 16:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :GRT uses similar technology to PRT: Automation, separated grades, tracks, etc. However, PRT is like an automated cab service, while GRT is an automated bus, trolley or train. It's obvious to me that it will capture trips at a rate similar to existing bus lines, at high capital expense: Vehicles are heavier than PRT, with more-expensive tracks, run on scheduled routes, rather than point-to-point, have intermediate stops to let passengers off and on, etc. They therefore have low ridership, poor capital depreciation, slower trips, longer waits for passengers, less safety, etc. Buses, trolleys and trains already do all this, so many transit theorists consider GRT a non-starter, or even just a minor alternative terminology for automated trolleys. Hope that helps. ] (]) 23:49, 18 August 2017 (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" ] 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == No concept only designs in the text == | |||
| == Regulatory Concerns == | |||
| I deleted the following reference from the ==PRT vs. autonomous vehicles== section. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://buschbacher.at|title=2-wheel Personal Rapid Transit}}</ref>. By its own admission this is a concept-only design. | |||
| Except for the "List of ATN suppliers" under the label 'Concepts' there shouldn't be any references to new PRT concept only designs. One only has to look at ] to see how many of these have been created. IMO the significance threshold should be a test track. There are more than enough of these to exemplify the various aspects, negative and positive, of PRT. ] (]) 00:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| == Suppliers == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Please add Metrino to Mockups] (]) 09:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == personal rapid transit/guideway == | |||
| :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. ] 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Metrino has 300kg vehicles that are half the weight of Ultra because they are suspended] (]) 09:30, 4 December 2018 (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. ] 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| They are said to be less visible because the guideway is then lighter and 10m high, able to be above street trees.] (]) 09:30, 4 December 2018 (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.] 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. | |||
| == uSky test track in Abu Dhabi == | |||
| ::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? ] 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This was featured on CNN, looks like it could be a PRT system, but I can't find any more information about it. | |||
| == JzG's Recent Edits == | |||
| https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/08/tech/usky-pod-sharjah-uae-spc-intl/index.html | |||
| --] (]) 14:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| : It is a new name for ]. The design requires switching of the guideway in a similar way to other monorails. The latency of the switching movement makes it unsuitable for genuine PRT. The primary "technology" is a pre-stressed guideway between anchor points suits long, straight routes over medium to long distances. Perhaps it would have been useful in something like the Vectus Suncheon system but the Vectus design can be implemented as a PRT (offline stations, vehicle switching) whereas uSky cannot.] (]) 07:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:30, 7 February 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
Please do not violate WP:SOAP
Article talk pages are for discussion of the article, not for opinions or debates on the subject of the article. This particular article tends to attract much of the latter, which is in violation of WP:SOAP. Please restrict your comments to discussion of the article. Unsourced and/or irrelevant commentary will be removed. ATren (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hospital Rovisco Pais
Is this system really PRT? It only has two stations, and the pod moves back and forth between the two. Also, it operates on roadways rather than a closed system. There are almost no citations, at least in English. Thoughts? Vectro (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've decided to remove this section from the article; listing it here might constitute original research, if nothing else. If you have an appropriate reference from an authoritative reliable source stating that this system is PRT, please re-add it to the article, making appropriate citations. Note that a source need not be in English in order to be considered reliable. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with removal for now; not much to go on. Though it's interesting to see another ULTra/2getthere type system being developed. ATren (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Restructure
Hello. I would like to propose restructuring the article with the goal of improving the layout for readability and using the MOS as a guideline. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- General comment: the original article was written back in 2004 or 2005, likely well before MOS or the modern reference system existed. Then there was a war for about 2 years, and the content was secondary to the conflict -- we were more worried about compromising on content so style took a back seat. Then, when we reached a point of content where nobody complained anymore, we left it alone, almost in fear that even stylistic changes would restart the war. :-) But that was 2 years ago now, so I think the time is ripe for a good overhaul. I say go for it, be bold.
- One recent source that might be helpful as a primer is this Boston Globe article on PRT. It talks about the history, the debate, etc, in very fair terms. I think it can be a good supplementary source for much of the existing material here, and even as primary source for stuff that was written before the strict referencing requirements.
- One other note as to sourcing: the description sections lack ref tags, but much of the technical details can be found in primarily two sources: (1) Fundamentals of Personal Rapid Transit, Jack Irving -- this was the official published report of government-sponsored research in the 1960s and 1970s. It is very comprehensive and lays out much of the fundamental design framework. (2) The books and papers of J.E. Anderson, who founded Taxi2000, aka Skyweb Express, based on his designs. Anderson published much of the design work that went into Taxi2000, and it references "Fundamentals" heavily.
- I believe these sources are available online. I will try to track down links. ATren (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fundamentals is actually linked from the article: . A collection of some of Anderson's work can be found here. ATren (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Article size
At 74,479 bytes, we may want to consider splitting detailed sections out into new articles, or not. Readability is very poor at the moment. I find that it helps to read this article with beginner's mind, pretending to be a general reader who has never heard of the topic before. We need to write to that level, and present the topic accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Heading
- Disambiguation: "For other uses, see PRT (disambiguation) and PAT (disambiguation)."
- This is not needed, since PRT now has its own dab page. Remove? Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done. ATren (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is not needed, since PRT now has its own dab page. Remove? Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Infobox: None.
- I realize that some editors are against infoboxes, but there may be a need for them, such as {{Infobox machine}}. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Images: File:ULTra_001.jpg and File:Morgantown PRT - Beechurst Station.jpg
- Two images in the lead at this time is a bit much. We could create a mosaic image of up to 6 images if needed, but I would like to see it reduced to one for now. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Lead
I notice the article currently has an "Overview" (which is analogous to an abstract or executive summary) in section 1. I don't know the full history of the article, nor have I had time to scroll through the page history, but I suspect this is an old throwback to the time before WP:LEAD was fully developed. Unless we are dealing with a series of related topics, overview sections have been mostly deprecated. There are several options available to editors. Looking at other transportation-related articles for comparison, section 1 in monorail uses a "Differentiation" subsection which might provide some insight on alternative presentation methods. Could we name it "Comparison with existing transport systems", just like the table? Whenever possible, we want to reserve an overview for the lead. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think this makes sense. I also think it's a bit verbose in both the lead and the "overview"; perhaps we could trim down the lead and jump right into the technology comparison, and that might help it flow better. ATren (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have trimmed down the lede, removing some mild POV. I think it reads better now. I may try to get to the Overview section this weekend. ATren (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Existing and planned networks
Too much data presented to the reader in the beginning of the article without explanatory text. Table presentation needs to be used as a supplement to the text or as an appendix, not as the main body. Good and featured articles use tables carefully. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Designs
This is the third table in a row starting with the overview. Too much, too soon in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION - MUST BE ABLE TO LIST ALL CATEGORIES - I.E. NO "?" I deleted APGM from the list of designs as it appears to be derived from a single study that did not proceed. There doesn't seem to be any clear criteria on why concepts are or are not included in this list. I think having a long list is useful for the uninitiated in indicating how many designs have been tried (and floundered) but I propose that any concepts that cannot complete the categories of the table should be deleted since they are too amorphous and vague. Tjej (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
History
This section could be split out into a history of personal rapid transit and replaced with a summary style section consisting of three paragraphs summarizing the main points. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I like this. The history takes up a lot of space that can easily be split out. ATren (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Opposition and controversy
A good candidate for splitting or deletion, as there is too much emphasis spent on this subtopic that is out of proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Nine paragraphs spent on criticizing the concept is way, way out of proportion. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- That controversy section was part of the compromise between warring factions on this page. There was a strong sentiment that the article was too promotional and that more criticism was needed. So I would prefer not to be the one to handle removing or paring it down, since it may be viewed by others as partisan whitewashing. ATren (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as a neutral editor who has no connection with this topic, I would be happy to help. When you have time, could you very briefly list the main opposition and controversy elements that should be stated upfront? Nine paragraphs is pretty much unheard of, and I have great difficulty believing that this article was ever of a "promotional" nature. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was mildly promotional in its early days, and then it was over-corrected the other way for a while (too critical -- even more than it is now).
- The main source of criticism is Vukan Vuchic, who is a highly respected transit authority (he's published books on transit) who has pretty much rejected PRT as infeasible. I've read his material and I believe he's dead wrong (his objections seem to be partly due to prejudice -- he is considered one of the pioneers of light rail and considers PRT a distraction from that -- and partly due to misunderstanding) but of course, that's all OR. His opinion is certainly notable.
- Vuchic and JE Anderson engaged in a debate a while back, I think that's notable.
- There are two other transit professionals who have written negatively about PRT (Michael Setty and Louis Demery) but most of it is unpublished. I believe the article has one report by Demery (which was unpublished, but seemed reasonable enough for inclusion) questioning the regulatory implications of PRT.
- Then there is the political/ideological opposition, mainly from a single individual. That material is not published and highly unreliable.
- Note: I am active in forums outside of Misplaced Pages, and I also have a blog, and I have frequently commented on all of these individuals, sometimes highly critically. I just wanted to put that out there so there are no surprises. I don't want to give the impression that I am advocating for or against material this particular section, especially regarding the people I've identified above. ATren (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- More: there is an oft-cited criticism of PRT called "Cyberspace Dreams Collide with Reality" which claims to debunk PRT. It is basically an attack piece written by an advocacy (and arguably, astroturfing) group for light rail transit, a transit mode which would theoretically be impacted by wide PRT deployment. It was never published, and in fact, it was written anonymously. Several PRT promoters have debunked it point by point. I fought hard to keep links to it out of the article, but if it does appear, the rebuttals should also be there (they are all unpublished, so they should all be out).
- There was also a criticism published by a PRT researcher (Wayne Cottrell), which was more of a "what needs to be done for PRT to succeed" kind of thrust. It identified areas where research was weak and advocated for more government investment to improve those areas.
- Scanning the other parts of the criticism section, some of it appears to be not criticism at all, but rather "this has been criticized, but..." followed by reasoning why it's not a valid criticism. The baggage handling section appears to follow this pattern.
- Let me know if you have any other specific questions on criticism (I'm familiar with pretty much all of it. :-)) ATren (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The article still seems overly promotional and not neutral to me. I definitely would oppose paring down the criticism section beyond what it is now Fell Gleaming 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide specific examples of promotion and violations of neutrality (bias). Please also explain why you oppose cutting back the criticism section. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've reworked the lede to address some concerns, though many others remain in the body. As to why I oppose reduction of the criticism section, I already explained my reasoning, which includes both NPOV and undue weight. Removing more criticism gives undue weight to viewpoint that PRT is some sort of panacea for mass transit. Fell Gleaming 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the discussion of expansion of Morgantown back in with a source, and tweaked the wording on Morgantown. I do agree that the lede had some POV issues (both ways) but I think it's far better now than a few days ago. As for other promotional elements in the article, do you have anything specific? I don't recall the word "panacea" being used anywhere. As far as I know the claims presented are all well supported in reliable sourcing, which includes several books on the topic as well as peer-reviewed research. There are also more recent sources discussing PRT that can be incorporated. Overall, the amount of reliable criticism of PRT is actually quite small -- there are only 3 transit professionals who have significantly questioned PRT, and only one of them is published (Vuchic). So if we're talking about the weight of reliable sources, the criticism section is probably too lengthy, though there are certain criticisms I would not remove (i.e. Vuchic is notable -- even though I believe his opposition is based on flawed analysis, and Vuchic's crit should not be presented without JE Anderson's rebuttal). ATren (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've reworked the lede to address some concerns, though many others remain in the body. As to why I oppose reduction of the criticism section, I already explained my reasoning, which includes both NPOV and undue weight. Removing more criticism gives undue weight to viewpoint that PRT is some sort of panacea for mass transit. Fell Gleaming 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Other concerns
Tagged as unsourced since 2008. Does not require its own section and recommend merge or deletion. Concerns about visual impact, loss of privacy, and policing against terrorism and vandalism applies to very aspect of infrastructure in the modern world. "Some in the business community in Cincinnati" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Based on these nebulous claims lacking proper attribution and reliable sources, I recommend deletion. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
See also
It's a bit odd that Duke University Medical Center Patient Rapid Transit is only mentioned as a see also, rather than in the appropriate section. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe the Duke system is PRT per se (well, it is PRT, but P stands for patient, not personal). I think it's more of a people mover than a true PRT, at least by the commonly accepted definition of PRT. Having it in "see also" indicates it's similar but not the same as the PRT discussed here. ATren (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. See also sections are usually used for links that could eventually be moved into the body, but not always; That's how I use them. Can you see this link going into the article somewhere? If not, maybe it belongs in a template footer or navbar? Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps if we have a "related technologies" section, this system could go there? There is also another whole class of PRT called "dual mode", commonly abbreviated DM, which is basically a hybrid PRT/automobile, which could go in the related tech section. DM operates on streets (usually under human control) but can also operate on segregated guideways. Because they operate on the street, DM allows for (but doesn't require) private ownership of vehicles, which also distinguishes it from PRT. Not sure if we have a DM section already (searches...) -- actually, we have a short DM article on DM which can be linked from here. PRT is also somewhat related (technologically) to intelligent highway systems. All of those could potentially be included in a related technologies section. ATren (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. See also sections are usually used for links that could eventually be moved into the body, but not always; That's how I use them. Can you see this link going into the article somewhere? If not, maybe it belongs in a template footer or navbar? Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
External links
Pilots and prototypes, conferences, proposals, advocacy, and PRT skepticism and criticism. All of this can be discussed as text and linked appropriately inline. Don't really see a need for it as external links. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure if my editing on the citations in the first few paragraphs were included in this, I didn't really see why the links were in the line but please correct me if I'm wrong, sorry.Alex (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Lede rewording
Good job Atren on rewording my first pass on the lede; it is significantly improved and much more balanced. Fell Gleaming 12:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
SkyTaxi
You are wrong about the external link (SkyTaxi) you've deleted. This link complies with the guidelines for external links. I don't add this link, but recover it after the attacks of a vandal. It's a very valuable link. You can ask the famous expert Professor Emeritus Jerry Schneider (jbsATpeakDOTorg) about this link. His website http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ knows every enthusiast of PRT. 91.78.245.121 (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- The page being added is simply an advert linkspam which fails both WP:ELNO and WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Critical Move
I removed "Critical Move" from the page, since it's not clear to me that the system is PRT at all (it seems more just like an outdoor people mover) and there were no citations to that effect. If Critical Move is in fact PRT, please restore it to the list, making appropriate citations to reliable sources. Thanks. Vectro (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
File:PRT-FornebuOsloProject2000-3.TIF Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:PRT-FornebuOsloProject2000-3.TIF, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
Proposed merge with JPods
Subject lacks sufficient notability for a stand alone article. Propose merge or delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That is like saying Apple should be merged with personal computers. JPods and the Town of Secaucus have signed a Letter of Intent to deploy the world's first solar-powered mobility network. BillJamesMN (talk) 02:45, 28 Feburary 2014 (UTC)
- Closing discussion Result was don't merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Group Rapid Transit (GRT)?
The article has a distinction between PRT and GRT. There are a few references to GRT, but no explanation as to what it is. No references on what GRT is. Does anyone know what GRT suppose to be? Z22 (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- GRT uses similar technology to PRT: Automation, separated grades, tracks, etc. However, PRT is like an automated cab service, while GRT is an automated bus, trolley or train. It's obvious to me that it will capture trips at a rate similar to existing bus lines, at high capital expense: Vehicles are heavier than PRT, with more-expensive tracks, run on scheduled routes, rather than point-to-point, have intermediate stops to let passengers off and on, etc. They therefore have low ridership, poor capital depreciation, slower trips, longer waits for passengers, less safety, etc. Buses, trolleys and trains already do all this, so many transit theorists consider GRT a non-starter, or even just a minor alternative terminology for automated trolleys. Hope that helps. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
No concept only designs in the text
I deleted the following reference from the ==PRT vs. autonomous vehicles== section. . By its own admission this is a concept-only design.
Except for the "List of ATN suppliers" under the label 'Concepts' there shouldn't be any references to new PRT concept only designs. One only has to look at List of automated transit networks suppliers to see how many of these have been created. IMO the significance threshold should be a test track. There are more than enough of these to exemplify the various aspects, negative and positive, of PRT. Tjej (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Suppliers
Please add Metrino to MockupsJohn cleeland (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
personal rapid transit/guideway
Metrino has 300kg vehicles that are half the weight of Ultra because they are suspended114.76.3.49 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC) They are said to be less visible because the guideway is then lighter and 10m high, able to be above street trees.114.76.3.49 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
uSky test track in Abu Dhabi
This was featured on CNN, looks like it could be a PRT system, but I can't find any more information about it. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/08/tech/usky-pod-sharjah-uae-spc-intl/index.html --78.82.228.158 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is a new name for SkyWay Group. The design requires switching of the guideway in a similar way to other monorails. The latency of the switching movement makes it unsuitable for genuine PRT. The primary "technology" is a pre-stressed guideway between anchor points suits long, straight routes over medium to long distances. Perhaps it would have been useful in something like the Vectus Suncheon system but the Vectus design can be implemented as a PRT (offline stations, vehicle switching) whereas uSky cannot.Tjej (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)