Talk:People mover

message: Although some of the earliest APMs created one-way loops in theme parks and the infamous downtown Detroit "Mover", this configuration is by no means the majority. Thus the term APM to the informed does NOT imply a one-way loop. More typically, they are two way corridors of different scale with 3-20 stations. To those envisioning PRT, they are flexible networks of one-way links that can be configured and reconfigured to serve an array of destinations. For a complete listing of APMs, visit http://www.airfront.us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.232.57 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest APMs 

message: The Detroit People Mover is defined by APTA as an automated guideway transit system, and these are NOT light rail
>People movers can use light rail technology and systems, however not all people movers are light rail and not all light rail sytems are people movers (although they do move people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.203.140 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A People Mover is NOT Light Rail 

message: We have what the website calls a 'tram' at Huntsville Hospital  in Huntsville, AL but it is more like a "people mover" - so should I add it to this article? It has about 1600 feet of track, though it doesn't seem like you have to have a specific amount to qualify. It is one of the first people movers in the state of Alabama, and the second hospital to use such a thing. For now I will place this under the Other category unless someone wants to move it to Hospitals--Travlr23 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huntsville, AL 

message: This is a good start.
The most important improvement to make is to define terms much more carefully.  Is "People Mover" a proper or common noun?  For example, what is the relationship with AGTs, PRTs, and LRTs?  Is an APM an "Automated People Mover"?  What makes something a "Downtown People Mover"?
Finally, I strongly urge moving the "Different Meanings" section to the top, perhaps as a pseudo-disambiguation block.
Mdotley 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work 

message: I think a clear difference should be made between PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) and APM (Automated People Mover). While PRT systems have a separate and specificly made guideway, APM's like the ParkShuttle at Schipoll Airport, are capable of using the existing road infrastructure, detecting and avoiding obstacles, using flexible routing. Even if some segregation is necessary between these kind of APM, infrastructure must not be elevated, which is a great advantage compared to PRT's visually intrusive and theoretically cheap infrastructure. Even though PRT uses automated vehicles, it cannot be qualified of APM because of it's need of specific infrastructure and therefore it's dependance on it. That's, PRT cannot exist without the specific infractructure being built, while APM systems can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.93.62.248 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  APM versus PRT 

message: # They are not basically the same thing. The term people mover describes an application of transit technology; as the article itself says the term does not imply any particular technology, and a people mover may use technologies such as monorail, duorail, automated guideway transit or maglev. Whilst automated guideway technology is a specific piece of technology, in which rubber-tired vehicles are guided, usually by horizontally running guide wheels, on a guideway. Not all AGTs are people movers; not all people movers are AGTs. -- Chris j wood 12:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against

message: The term "People Mover" was, at one time, a trademarked term for a transit system which was produced by Westinghouse.  It is not a generic term, and certainly does imply a certain technology despite the claims of this article.  The trademark associated with the term has fallen to de facto (if not de jure) expiration, as of course Westinghouse is no longer able to protect its trademarks.  Still, I think this article should recognize this fact.  -- JeffBillman 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People Mover is NOT a generic term! 

message: I think whoever created the list of people movers in France forgot to read the article first. They have listed every tramway and metro system in France; even including Caen's GLT guided bus. Here is the list as it currently appears:
*Laon Lille Lyon Marseille Paris Rennes Toulouse
*Bordeaux Grenoble Le Mans Lille Lyon Marseille Montpellier Mulhouse Nantes Nice Orléans Paris Rouen Saint-Étienne Strasbourg Valenciennes
* Caen
Most of these fail at the first hurdle. The article says:
:A people mover or automated people mover (APM) is a fully automated, grade-separated mass transit system.
The tramways (and GLT) are neither automated nor grade-separated. The Paris, Lyon and Marseille metros are grade-separated but not fully automated. They use fairly traditional metro technology, albeit with the use of rubber tyres. Then it gets a bit more difficult; we have to consider the following from the article:
:The term is generally used only to describe systems serving relatively small areas such as airports, downtown districts or theme parks, but is sometimes applied to considerably more complex automated systems.
and
:Other complex APMs have similar characteristics to mass transit systems, and there is no clear cut distinction between a complex APM of this type and an automated mass transit system.
I think the Laon system pretty clearly is a people mover. Not so sure about the VAL systems in Lille, Rennes and Tolouse. I personally think that the very fact they describe themselves as metros should rule them out as people movers, but I'm not certain enough about this to pull them. So I'm going to edit the above list to:
*Laon
*Lille
*Rennes
*Toulouse
-- Starbois (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In slightly different format. If somebody wants to pull Lille, Rennes and Toulouse, I certainly shall not object. -- Starbois (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, the article was so busy listing systems that wern't people movers that it missed two that were (Orlyval and CDGVAL). Now added. -- Starbois (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange list for France 

message: The "Examples" section, needs to be better organized to differentiate  between true "Urban Transit", "Airport", and other lines that serve locales like resorts and hospitals. Currently, there seems to be too much bleed over in these categories. Perhaps, separate articles listing these systems are in order, as is currently only the case with airport systems. In my opinion, more care must also be taken to delineate complex full metro networks from simpler people mover systems, when deciding what is included in this listing (i.e. the Kelana Jaya Line vs. the Miami Metro Mover or CDGVAL).
Enfiladekh1 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples Section Clean Up 

message: These systems seem to be more like automated rapid transit systems than a simple people-mover. Very few folks in the Toronto Metro area and Vancouver would refer to these systems as a "people-mover” systems. G. Capo (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SkyTrain & Scarborough RT are People Movers? 

message: Added this whilst logged out, but the bot (working as designed) reverted.
* Archive Footage of the Never Stop Railway at [[You Tube] courtsey of British Pathe
Appropriate or not? given that it seems to be authorised footage...
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Appropriate link 

message: PIT has an automated subway train between the landside and airside terminals. 208.103.112.69 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIT Pittsburgh International Airport 

message: I deleted the redundant "fully automated" from the definition in the lead. For a start, it's not necessary to use the word "automated" twice in the same sentence. The second sentence clearly allows for some systems to be automated. And a number of the systems listed cannot be said to be fully, or even partially, automated.--Shantavira|feed me 10:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automation 

message: Mentions of ExpressTram, The Plane Train, and a picture of DFW Skylink were removed the summary .  , would you be able to expand on your thoughts about why this helps the article? —Sladen (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is Urban Transit with the airport section below that. The ExpressTram, The Plane Train, and DFW Skylink are not really Urban Transit, considering they exist solely at the airport and only link inside security. They are mentioned in the List of airport people mover systems linked in the Airport section of the article. Also, I only blank my user talk after the issues are resolved and have been for awhile. Elisfkc (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, Hogwarts Express is not urban transit. I moved it down to the Other section, where Disney's PeopleMover and Tomorrowland Transit Authority are located. Elisfkc (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airside people mover removal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on People mover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925161043/http://timesonline.typepad.com/environment/2009/09/orbital-rail-the-solution-to-city-congestion.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/environment/2009/09/orbital-rail-the-solution-to-city-congestion.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added  to the "The following are monorails which are considered as people movers also" as the ones with only have one station are little different from the other gentle rides in an amusement park.
Surely a people mover has to have at least two stations?  If it only has one the rider may move for a while but ultimately must they end up in the same place.
Of the list there only the following seem to qualify on the two station criteria.
* Anaheim, California - Amusement park monorail at Disneyland Monorail System
* Bay Lake, Florida - Amusement park monorail at Walt Disney World Monorail System
* Aiea, Hawaii - Pearlridge Center. Connects the Uptown part of the mall to the Downtown part of the mall. It is the only monorail system in Hawaii.
* Fairfield, Ohio - Jungle Jim's International Market monorail in Fairfield
* Memphis, Tennessee - A short suspended monorail connects Mud Island in the Mississippi River to Memphis
I propose to delete the others. 
Tjej (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, go ahead. You might also delete the remaining Disney two as they also seem to qualify only as amusement park rides. The three remaining could then be moved back to the main US list. Bazza (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made those changed and removed the references to the Disney parks' "people movers".  Maybe a note should be added about them because they have a role in popular consciousness?  They are a kind of demonstration of a people mover and the same technology was used in the Subway_(George_Bush_Intercontinental_Airport). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjej (talk • contribs) 11:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "considered as people movers" by whom?  

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: People mover →  – The proper industry term for this type of transport is "automated people mover" (or APM).  This term is used by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Transportation Research Board, in addition to APM manufacturers such as Siemens and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.  The term "people mover" is a bit generic and can refer to other types of transport such as a moving walkway, an elevator (e.g. the Schmid Peoplemover) or buses (e.g. People Mover (Anchorage) or Niagara Parks Commission People Mover). –Dream out loud (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 April 2024