Talk:Personal rapid transit/Archive 4

message: ===Deleting this part===
No archive, check Label: "Deleted 'info from PRT websites' " in history. Avidor, don't clutter this talk page with quotes from other people. At LEAST make paragraphs out of those numerous sentences, instead of stringing line after line into a page of text that should be a small paragraph. Fresheneesz 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info from PRT Websites

message: No archive, check Label: "Deleted 'info from PRT websites' " in history. Avidor, don't clutter this talk page with quotes from other people. At LEAST make paragraphs out of those numerous sentences, instead of stringing line after line into a page of text that should be a small paragraph. Fresheneesz 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting this part

message: NOT archived. Check the history for "Deleted PRT vs LRT in New Zealand". Deleted because the content had no pertinance to this article and was, again, just basically a list of quotes from other websites. Fresheneesz 03:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PRT vs LRT in New Zealand - Deleted=

message: This just in...I just heard that Olson tried to attach an amendment to the Northstar bill for PRT...voted down 26-107.Avidor 17:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watch Olson's PRT Amendment Get Voted Down in Minnesota

message: What gives Fresheneez a right to delete information that makes him uncomfortable?Avidor 11:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No information you could put on here would make me uncomfortable. I deleted stuff that has NO bearing on this article. And place your comments under a related header, not in any header you want. I already wrote why I deleted two (so far) of your random ramblings. I will definately not delete anything you write if I can see that it *somehow* connects to the *writing* of this article. Note that you also have the "right" to put your comments back, but I assume that you value your time much more than I do, so pick your battles wisely. Fresheneesz 05:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Congratulations, it was unclear what the "amendment" was trying to get amended to. I looked up something on dean zimmerman, and the claim of bribery looks pretty thin. Fresheneesz 04:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avidor complaining again

message: moved this to the discussion page noted at the top of this talk page. Fresheneesz 10:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Real world skepticism of Skytran

message: JzG, you reverted my edit of the caption under the LRN picture. Why? I think it should be made clear that both SkyTran's picture and LRN's picture are suporimpositions onto real photographs. What is wrong with doing that? Fresheneesz 10:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert by JzG 

message: JzG, I removed the full quote by Vuchic and replaced it with a summary, you reverted the change with no comment or mention on this talk page. Please tell me why that quote needs to be there when a concise summary with a citation is more than sufficient. You are the one who has actively promoted the idea of conciseness, and yet you revert this change here. Why? A Transportation Enthusiast 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it makes a valid point. Just zis Guy you know? 12:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And my version made the same point in a single line, with a citation so anyone can go and look at the full quote. Why conciceness everywhere and verbosity here? A Transportation Enthusiast 12:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Revert by JzG 

message: The "Ridership Attraction section contains the following paragraph:
:"Against this, the relationship of delays to traffic density for road travel is observed to be non-linear and the congestion delays which give rise to the predicted attraction may be eroded. London's Congestion Charge achieved approximately 20% reduction in private motor traffic, with an immediate and measurable improvement in journey times for all road transport in the City. This was achieved without substantial up-front investment, although revenue raised has been re-invested in additional public transport capacity."
This argument applies to any public transit mode, not just PRT. When auto congestion goes down, autos become less unattractive, thereby reducing the relative attractiveness of any public transit option. This same paragraph could appear verbatim in the light rail article, or any other public transit article. Perhaps this paragraph should be moved to the Public transport article since it is not specific to any particular mode? In any event, I don't think it belongs here because it's not specific to PRT.
:It does, however, impact the supposed ridership attraction.  I would rather that was not in there at all, since it has no verifiable basis in reality. Just zis Guy you know? 12:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A ridership simulation is an analysis tool used by many transit professionals, not just PRT proponents. It's not 100% accurate (no analysis tool is 100% accurate) but it is still considered a useful tool for analyzing the relative ridership of different transit modes based on some basic assumptions about human behavior. To say that simulations "have no verifiable basis in reality" is wrong. Ridership studies do have some correlation with reality, otherwise nobody in the transit industry would bother with them. What about weather forecasting? Does the weather report have "no verifiable basis in reality"? Does the fact that weather forecasting is an inexact science make it completely irrelevant for the purposes of planning your day? A Transportation Enthusiast 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove this paragraph 

message: Hey, I got personal approval from Martin Lowson to have pictures of ULTra on wikipedia:
"Thanks for your enquiry. Nice to hear from you, although could you explain what your relation to the Wikipedia site is? 
In any case you are welcome to use any of the pictures on our website. I also attach a power point with some construction photos in it. 
Thanks for your interest 
Martin"
Fresheneesz 22:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  We should aim to remove the two simulations and source an additional picture of Cabinentaxi. 62.73.137.190 12:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would think it'd be best if we had sort of a photomontage of a bunch of main PRT proposals. The review of this page mentions that it probably needs more pictures. Having a variety of pictures would give the reader a better idea of the range of things PRT can be. Fresheneesz 09:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ULTra pictures 

message: OK, it seems the capacity discussion above has fizzled without a consensus, but there were several good points raised. Fresheneesz made a good point that the capacity calculations seem to be arbitrary, with no discussion as to how they are derived. Now that I've thought about this a few days, and re-read the section several times, I agree. This section needs improvement. I'd like to take a stab at it, with this basic outline:
# Briefly describe how max capacity is typically derived for a transit system: i.e. max passengers per vehicle multiplied by maximum vehicles per hour (service frequency).
# Mention the fact that PRT approaches capacity differently than other public transit modes: PRT is typically small vehicles with high service frequency, whereas buses and trains are large vehicles with lower service frequency.
# Briefly discuss the headway issue, its controversy, and its effect on capacity. Mention that 2-second headways have received regulatory approval, 1-second headways have been tested but never approved, 0.5 second headways have been theorized and simulated, and lower headways have been demonstrated as part of AHS platooning research.
# Discuss the point that, while the theoretical maximum capacity of 4-passenger PRT would be based on the full 4 passengers per vehicle (load factor), most analyses assume a smaller load factor due to the point-to-point nature of PRT. So while buses and trains may simply assume the maximum passengers-per-vehicle, PRT capacity predictions generally assume some number less than the theoretical maximum. This assumed PRT load factor may vary significantly for different scenarios. For the morning commute, it may be as low as 1.2, but for sporting events it may be 2.2 or larger.
# Show a table of maximum PRT capacity for different assumptions: vehicle load factors of 1.2, 2.2, and 4; and headways of 2s, 1s, and 0.5s.
I'd like to take a stab at this in the next few days. Would anybody object if I made these changes right in the article itself? A Transportation Enthusiast 02:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of that seems good to me. One thing, you should have a source in-line for "2-second headways have received regulatory approval". Otherwise it might become the object of dispute later. Same for "1-second headways have been tested". Also, a table might make the capacity section unnessesarily large. I would say that if you want to do a table, make it have something like 3 distinctly different capacity calcuations - to show the range of things that can be calculated. I wonder though, if that enters in upon NOR. Fresheneesz 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacity, Revisited