Talk:Ultra (personal rapid transit)/Archive 1

message: Earlier, JzG said, "They claim it is optimised for an urban enviuronment, but (a) it has not been tested in such an environment and (b) it is not being implemented in such an environment. SO I think the claim should come out. The aspiration to be an urban mode is amply covered in the main PRT article."
I disagree with that position and I can find numerous article upon article that fails this and/or the other 5 JzG rules.
First, I think PRT in general was developed as primarily an urban transport, but that should not mean that all PRT designs are optimized so.  The PRT concept may lend itself nicely to other forms of transport, like a parking lot circulator system.  Other transport systems do this also, like buses, which routinely operate as parking lot circulators.  In my opinion, the ULTra design actually appears to be more optimized for small-area, short-haul uses because of its slow speed restrictions.  That translates into small, densely populated, urban environments for general public transit needs, and as a parking lot circulator for airports and places like Disneyland, or for large office and college campuses.  Other PRT designs like UniModal, with its claims of high-speeds are probably more optimal for longer-haul, wide area service, and would probably be ill-suited for airport parking lot duty.  So, to make the claim that the main PRT article "amply" covers the spectrum of PRT aspirations is flat out wrong and does a disservice to everyone who might like to learn more about the various proposals.
Later in the same thread, JzG said, "It's a marketing claim. Leave it to the company's website to make their marketing claims. Why not document the actual applications, rather than the ones the salesmen would like to have one day? What precisely is the problem with this?"
To this I would like to see JzG hold to the same standard every marketing claim made in every article relating to a Microsoft product, Virgin product or service, NASA proposal, and even this claim in the Wikipedia article, "[Wikipedia is] an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."  Unless by "quality", they actually mean "volume of content", this is pure marketing fluff, or the utopian fantasy of the designer.  The reality just doesn't jive with the theory, so it must be sticken.  --JJLatWiki 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part three

message: m is used for metres, but also for millions. And lots of other things listed in the article on m. I think $1M or $1m is pretty unambiguous because of the $ sign. Stephen B Streater 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still looks odd to me. The big M seems less weird just because M isn't used for that much stuff I know of (ie nothing i know of). I also figured that since other dollar numbers have "million", it fit the mold. Fresheneesz 00:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either will do. Here's a real life example of m (see near end):  Stephen B Streater 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :  ) - and they use "bn". hehe is that standard too? Fresheneesz 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hardly use it myself, finding "tn" more useful in everyday life ;-) Stephen B Streater 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For me, these days, it seems like "1/n" is the most useful measurement of all. :-) Skybum 01:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  m 

message: For no particular reason, other than I think Google Earth is one of the coolest free programs ever created, I found the ULTra test site on Google Earth and decided to build an overlay from the aerial photo they have on their web site.  This has nothing to do with the WP or any discussion therein, but you all might find it interesting.  If you have Google Earth, point your browser here: http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=509250 to download the overlay.
After you do, fade the overlay out and wonder how old the satellite image is since it's just an empty lot there.  Maybe the ULTra photo is actually Photoshop'd. ;)  --JJLatWiki 23:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool! I agree with you on Google Earth. Before I discovered Wikipedia, Google Earth was where I wasted most of my free time. :-D  A Transportation Enthusiast 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ULTra from space 

message: Whoa, this is one of the biggest talk pages I've ever seen.
Anyway, this may have already been talked about, but I think a little clarification might be in order. I'm new to this whole PRT thing, so when I began reading the article I was under the impression that this system was already operational and open to the public. But when I went to the main PRT page, it said ULTra would open in 2008. But I'm having a hard time finding that info on this page.
Would it be all right if we changed the head "ULTra ("Urban Light Transport") is a personal rapid transit system" to "ULTra ("Urban Light Transport") is a proposed personal rapid transit system"? And then perhaps put in the opening date? I know it's probably under construction, but a lot can happen in a couple of years, and politicans can bring public transportation projects like this to a halt(it may be unlikely, but it can happen). 
Or am I missing something obvious? Is this page talking about the Test Track and I'm reading it like it's talking about the proposed public system? PerryPlanet 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's more complicated than that. ULTra the system is a reality - the design, the engineering, the test track - but there are no public installations yet. ULTra refers to the system, not to any one installation of it. It's like the Airbus A380 - we speak of it as a completed product even though it's not open to the public yet. ATren 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I re-read the intro, and you are correct, it's a bit confusing. I've moved some stuff around to make it more clear. Does this work better? ATren 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thank you. :) PerryPlanet 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposed System? 

message: Just a quick post for opinions - the costings are in GBP and USD in different paragraphs (specifically the $4M costing). As it is a british system I'd be tempted to stick with GBP, esp as any sources are likely to be quoted in GBP.
:I agree, it should be one or the other consistently, and since it's British it should be GBP first and USD in parenthesis. Go ahead and make the change if you want. ATren 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monetary Units