Talk:Personal rapid transit

message: 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)
thread_title: Please do not violate [[WP:SOAP]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hospital Rovisco Pais 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Heading 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
thread_title: Existing and planned networks

message: 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)
thread_title: Designs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: Other concerns

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: See also

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links

message: Good job Atren on rewording my first pass on the lede; it is significantly improved and much more balanced.  Fell Gleamingtalk 12:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede rewording 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SkyTaxi 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critical Move 

message: 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 
;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 non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PRT-FornebuOsloProject2000-3.TIF Nominated for Deletion

message: Subject lacks sufficient notability for a stand alone article. Propose merge or delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing discussion Result was don't merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[JPods]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Group Rapid Transit (GRT)? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No concept only designs in the text 

message: Please add Metrino to MockupsJohn cleeland (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppliers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  personal rapid transit/guideway 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  uSky test track in Abu Dhabi