Talk:Personal rapid transit/Archive 5

message: JzG, you imply that I am being disingenuous. Once again, you assume bad faith on my part. I'm not surprised. Nothing's changed. I'm removing the link correctly this time, since we've already discussed this previously. Light Rail Now is already linked once and does not need another link. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disingenuous??

message: The image of the simulated Raytheon guideway is from an article by an anonymous author on a competing technology's advocacy site. The article could have been written by anyone (like, perhaps, someone with financial interests in light rail companies). Furthermore it's been challenged by reputable sources, most predominantly J.E. Anderson, who is one of the foremost experts on PRT and a respected researcher.
As an unpublished article, it's not subject to peer review. As an anonymously authored article, the qualifications and/or motivations of its author are unknown. As a posting on a competing technology's advocacy site, it's has no more credibility than a promotional brochure. References to this article do not belong here. The image should not source this article and therefore the reference should either be removed or qualified by the fact that the article's contents have been contested (multiple times) by reputable professionals. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure I agree with removing it. Its definately a famous PRT bash (as far as fame for those go). I would definately support labeling it as a discredited report. But now that JzG is here, we'd better get like 3 or 4 more people to agree with us before drawing a consensus. Fresheneesz 10:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My first choice is to include it and also include the rebuttal links. JzG nixed that months ago using the "one link per site, preferably at the root" rule. But now the Cyberspace Dream article is linked even though it's not at the root, and it's not a reliable source, and there's no indication of its dubious origin or contents. So something has to change. So if JzG allows us to include references from reputable sources that counter Cyberspace Dream..., then I have no problem referencing it, and indeed I prefer this approach (why suppress this debate?); otherwise it should be removed. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Cyberspace Dream article a "reliable source"?

message: Here is the latest evidence that JzG is hostile to me and other perceived "proponents":
* I earlier removed a redundant link to the Light Rail Now site. In the process, I accidentally removed the LRN image. It was an honest mistake, caused by my unfamiliarity with the image and ref tags. JzG reverted with the comment Disingenuous edit summary, ATE. Accusations of disingenuous behavior! So much for [WP:FAITH|assuming good faith]! But why would we expect an admin like him to follow official policy? He's a rogue cop who answers to no one.
* JzG then made some edits that made no sense. Example: consider the sentence "Prototypes and systems in current development are on a small scale, serving a small number of destinations from a larger number of embarkation points." This makes no sense. What is the difference between "destinations" and "embarkation points"? Every station in a PRT network is both destination and embarkation point, right? How could a prototype have more embarkation points than destinations? I fixed this, and also reworded some stuff and fixed one glaring error ("not free" vs "not impeded"). All good faith edits.<BR><BR>But once again, soon after, JzG mass reverted all my changes, with no comment about the reverts. Not only that, his edit comment referred to another revert he made in the same edit while making no mention of my reverts! So JzG did the exact same thing I did earlier! He actually revert an entire section without mentioning it in the edit comments!<BR><BR>Disingenuous edit summary? Only JzG can answer that. But, unlike JzG, I will assume good faith and chalk it up to a busy admin making an honest mistake. I will take the high ground, unlike JzG, who still treats me like I'm a common vandal. In any event, I've reverted JzG's reverts. JzG, I'd be happy to discuss your unexplained reverts here, so we can come to a compromise. I only wish this could happen before you trash all my edits, for the umpteenth time.
A Transportation Enthusiast 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure hes going to make some controversial edits. We need to hold fast and draw a consensus - thats it. With consensus, JzG can't make bogus edits. Fresheneesz 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JzG reverted my edits again. His comment said "see talk", but the only comment here is about the "key concepts" section, which I didn't touch! He's reverting one thing and discussing something completely different! And this is the second time it's happened today. I've reverted again, because my edits are good -- in fact, I fixed a glaring error and corrected another statement that makes no sense (and yes, JzG continues to revert back to those errors without looking at what he's actually doing). A Transportation Enthusiast 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: JzG at it again

message: The "key points" thing now says "There are 3 critical aspects of PRT". I think a better word would be "crucial", "defining" or even "key". "defining" I think works best, and "critical" implies something pressing, or impending. These aspects are more part of a definition of PRT than anything else. I guess the only reason i'm even commenting on this is because the wording has changed a couple times. Fresheneesz 08:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "defining" A Transportation Enthusiast 12:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  small point - "critical" 

message: that we have got back toi the situation where the initialism PRT appears at least once in most paragraphs.  It makes it very irritating to read... Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just so easy to type, we can't resist! :-P A Transportation Enthusiast 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I wouldn't say in most paragraphs, but theres definately an average of more than 1 mention of PRT in each paragraph. I went through every one, and theres like 50 or 60 mentions. It could definately be reduced. Fresheneesz 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - it's usually obvious from the context. Shorter text is usually easier to understand too. Stephen B Streater 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just wanted to note that it is not always "obvious from the context", and we should be careful not to remove too many "PRT"s from the text. (in some cases, the page compares PRT to something else - those are good times to make good use of "PRT"). Fresheneesz 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could I just say... 

message: As per my arguments earlier (uncontested) I've removed the Light Rail Now image because it is from an unreliable source. I've preserved the link to the Light Rail Now article index as an external link, so the content is still accessible, but it doesn't have the weight of an article reference. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that balances the speculative UniMOdal picture, we'll be removing that as well, yes?  The two sources are of comparable reliability, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer the new PRT route diagram to both of these speculative images, and we don't need hundreds of images. As it happens, you can still see the Unimodal in that article, where it fits in well. Stephen B Streater 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed image

message: Just to let everyone know, I started a page on ULTra at ULTra (PRT). My version focuses on specs and the test track - so you guys can give me some input, or edit it yourself. Fresheneesz 06:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already noticed :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ULTra 

message: Hi folks -- Just to let you know, I'm going to once again try to improve this page, and will be making ongoing edits on a daily basis.  Most of them will be minor; when they are not, I will note them on the talk page.  For the time being, I will be focusing on the "history" section, which really needs to become less fragmented.  In the first paragraph, I have a couple of questions/statements:
#Saying that it was invented by "some" inventors in 1950 is not very helpful.  Who?  To what effect?  And what's the source?  Without answers to these questions, we might want to delete this claim.
#What exactly was proposed by that HUD study?  And I'm not sure how the sentence afterwards is connected with anything else.
#I've removed the following sentence:
 Today, the concept of PAT (Personal Automated Transport) is 
 often used to describe automated personal transportation systems for
 both passengers and freights.
As far as I can tell, "PAT" is only used by two PRT design groups: Microrail and Higherway.  The term pulls less than 700 hits in Google.  So it's defninitely inappropriate to say "often" here, and in any case, term definitions like this aren't suited for the "history" section. Skybum 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps we should note somewhere else the term as being used by a "few groups including Microrail and Higherway"? Fresheneesz 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've put a briefer version of it back into the intro.  Does that work for you?  Also, I've improved the info about that HUD study.  But I'd still like to know who these "some" inventors in the 1950s were, and what they had to do with anything. Skybum 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article mentions no inventors, but gives a specific year, 1953, that PRT was thought of more seriously than half-baked ideas in the previous century. I've found a better source that mentions that Don Fichter started research on PRT in 1953. So many sources cite 1953, but leave the actual significance of that date out.. I've cited a source that doesn't leave it hanging. Fresheneesz 02:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "PAT" claim, & other of my recent edits 

message: I removed this rather long note:
*"Direct extrapolations from mass transit systems such as buses and trains or from private automobile usage may be inaccurate due to the different properties of a PRT system.  Nevertheless, some designers use private automobiles as an analog to estimate potential PRT ridership. "
I don't think this argument is justified. It makes sense to me that such extrapolation would *over*estimate the average group-size, since people can carpool with cars, which is a significantly large percentage of travel in some cities (40% 11% for SF - 20% of all car trips and probably around 30% of all passanger-trips in SF) - but PRT can't do carpooling, only take groups of people that are already very close. But of course, we can't take my word for it, I think the size of this qualification needs a source. Fresheneesz 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was added by JzG a while back, because he believed the assumption needed to be further qualified (even though the previous version clearly identified the car comparison as an assumption). I think it's wordy and confusing, but it's relatively low on my list of concerns. As for carpooling, I do know that some researchers have studied the possibility of adding "ridesharing" to PRT control systems; i.e. during vehicle loading, a display would identify the destination of the current passenger so that others travelling to (or near) that destination could share the ride. I recently added a sentence about ridesharing (with source), in which the researchers simulated a ridesharing algorithm that could potentially double the vehicle group size during busy periods. I don't know of any current system design that has anything like this. A Transportation Enthusiast 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume ridersharing offers some economic insentives to riders? Fresheneesz 06:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend on the system I guess. I would think there would have to be some sort of incentive though. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, remove the whole lot as speculation then.  No data, state no data, leave it at that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not speculation, it's research. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to a point, Lord Copper.  Until there is a real system to base it on, it's speculation.  And in as much as it is research, it appears to be original research.  Cite the reliable secondary sources (engineering journals etc.) which have discussed these figures and their value. Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong -- it's not original research. It's from a published journal. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many people have used cars as an analog for this, i'm pretty sure its been published in a bunch of places. All we have to do is cite some.. or one. And research is research whether the thing you're researching has been in use for decades, or if it hasn't been used ever. No difference. Fresheneesz 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  extrapolation from cars 

message: I removed the fragment:
*"; U.S. federal data shows that O&M costs are nearly constant per seat for a wide variety of systems: buses, trains, aircraft and private automobiles. "
It seems pretty ridiculous that someone would find that operation and maintenance for planes, busses and cars is the same per seat. Must I argue further? This needs a citation before its readded. Fresheneesz 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found that line perplexing. And what do they mean "per seat"? Shouldn't it be per passenger mile or something else that takes the amount of usage into account? Maybe I just don't understand the term "per seat". A Transportation Enthusiast 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this interesting precisely because it is counter-intuitive. I wrote this, and I seem to remember that the quote's from J.E. Anderson's discussion of O&M in his article about recent trends in PRT, if you can find it.  The link seems to have died when his company's site removed a bunch of his white-papers. Ray Van De Walker 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  O&M costs plane=bus? 

message: I wonder at the utility of mentioning that some people have objected to PRT "on the grounds that it distracts from more proven modes of transit". That sort of thinking could be used to discourage any sort of research in any field - it discourages science and discovery. Such a claim can be 1000% true, but says nothing about the failing of the idea of PRT. It seems like a pity technique. Fresheneesz 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not agree more.  It's almost axiomatic for all development.  Leather-soled shoes, metal alloys, rifling, railroads, internal combustion engines, flying machines, electric lightbulbs, plastic, nuclear power plants, VOIP, and countless others.  All of them distracted from more proven technology and often siphoned development funds away from competing technologies.  It's a hollow argument because it's practically self-evident and universal.  --JJLatWiki 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the latest cited source in the article says that there is opposition form more established modes.  Well well. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The very reason I didn't remove the text. Its true, and its interesting. Fresheneesz 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  To which cited source are you referring?  Beside, I did not imply that there is no opposition from more established modes, because I know for a fact that there is.  I assert that it is pointless to include such an argument in the article because it is a self-evident, fact of life, and only reasonable from a political point of view.  Trains and busses distract from roads for private automobiles, HOV lanes distract from normal traffic lanes, planes distract from trains, bridges distract from ferries, Service Pack 3 development distracts from generic XP development, AJAX distracts from Java.  Aside from a political interest in either side, what is the significance of distraction?  --JJLatWiki 18:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said that it is interesting because of the fact that such an argument is totally ridiculous. My personal opinion is to keep it as trivia. But of course, if I were JzG - trivia would be out like a shot. Fresheneesz 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  JzG, I'm still hoping you will tell me which "latest" source you're citing that says there is opposition from more establish modes.  --JJLatWiki 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRT distracts 

message: The wording "a category of proposed public transportation systems" was recently changed to "a proposed category of public transportation systems" - which I think isn't correct. The systems are proposed, not the category. The category simply is. Fresheneesz 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Stephen B Streater 06:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  small question 

message: First, there is no demonstration vehicle and no letters of intent.  The vehicle is a mockup, not a demonstration.  No aspect of the vehicle seems operational and it seems to bear no resemblence to the computer renditions.  And none of the letters that I could actually view said or implied what a "Letter of Intent" implies.  They were letters expressing a personal "interest" in JPods or PRT in general.  Two VERY different animals.
Not that official letters or demonstrations are necessarily prerequisites for an encyclopedia entry, but to me, this whole concept is too meagerly developed to yet warrant even a mention in the main PRT article, much less its own article.  --JJLatWiki 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. I am always open to new evidence, but other systems here appear to have had more work done on them. Stephen B Streater 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jpods removal 

message: It says "In 2005, the two most advanced projects were: ULTra at Heathrow Airport in London [1], which is scheduled to be the PRT system to open, and one at the Dubai International Financial Center in Dubai.[2] Both are scheduled to come into operation in 2008"
There seems to be a word missing/omitted, I am guessing probably the word 'first' or the word 'second', between "scheduled to be the" and "PRT system".
Knotwork 07:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, two words were lost. Stephen B Streater 11:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heathrow: first? Second? Etc 

message: JzG: I posted this question above but you didn't answer:
In your rejection of Dunning's paper, you indicated that isolated academic papers that do not have support among others should be avoided. My question is: then why is Cottrell's paper in the intro? His was a conference paper in the same conference as Dunning's, and I've seen nobody else support his view. Shouldn't Cottrell's assertion be removed as well? It seems as if you are again applying a higher standard for acceptance for favorable material than for critical material. Please explain to me the difference between Cottrell and Dunning, both of whom published conference papers in the same conference, covering topics that do not seem to have widespread support in the literature.
Note: I am not arguing against the inclusion of Cottrell: rather I am arguing that the inclusion of Cottrell coupled with the exclusion of Dunning is an apparent double standard; if Cottrell's article is represented, why not Dunning's? ATren 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about sources 

message: Why we cite as a source an advocate's non-peer-reviewed rebuttal to a report we don't cite as a source for anything?  If we're going to have the special pleading we should at least have the OKI report] as well, not least because it (unlike the rebuttal) comes from a third-party consultancy working on behalf of a governmental group which has a degree of accountability, so is probably a formally reliable source.  Guy (Help!) 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, maybe it's because the OKI is cited? ATren 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OKI Report is the definitive study of PRT. The report cost the the taxpayers $625,000.  The OKI Report was the work of transportation engineers (Parsons Brinkerhoff). If there is to be a Wikipedia article on Personal Rapid Transit, it should be based on the research and conclusions of the OKI Report. Avidor 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is an article on PRT Avidor. Get with the times..... Fresheneesz 10:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: PB is a very big company with a lot of subsidiaries.  Still, the corporate ethical culture at portions of PB seems to be deficient, at least from some points of view and not only from the point of view of PRT advocates: http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A6483.  That article was written before the latest "Big Dig" fiasco, (the death of a motorist due to concrete falling from the ceiling: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0712/p03s03-usgn.html).  Perhaps this reflects on the reliability of the OKI Report.  Certainly PB was not a disinterested party at OKI.  Organizations that hire PB are generally looking for a Light Rail Transit solution.  I would be content to dispense with both the OKI report and the rebuttal, were it not that it speaks volumes about why PRT has been delayed so long. Bob 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please explain... 

message: Please look to the discussion page Talk:Personal_rapid_transit/discussion to discuss PRT in general. If your comments are arguments for or against PRT please post them there. If your comments are to help improve the page - by all means post them here. Thanks.
*Page has since been deleted.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Personal rapid transit/discussion.  --Phirazo 22:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SEPARATE PAGE FOR DISCUSSION OF PRT IN GENERAL