Talk:Personal rapid transit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Fresheneesz (talk | contribs) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Trains}}, {{WikiProject Transport}}. Tag: |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|||
{{fac-contested}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Trains |Subway=yes |importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Transport |importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archives}} |
|||
==Please do not violate [[WP:SOAP]]== |
|||
==Gravities vs. m/s^2== |
|||
I think gravities are more meaningful for an average person, and this is an encyclopedia. |
|||
So, I plan to put the gravities as the primary unit, with m/s^2 in parenthesis. |
|||
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. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==misc== |
|||
Reverted away from copyrighted text from www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_prt_2005-01.htm |
|||
-------------------------------- |
|||
==Braking== |
|||
=====P1===== |
|||
The reason that PRT guideways can sustain much higher traffic rate has absolutely nothing to do with stopping distance; in fact, their stopping distance is generally longer than an automobile's. Rather, it is their computer-controlled ''reaction time'' which is the critical factor. This is why the DMV recommends a 2-second separation between street vehicles (also known as the ''headway distance''); ''not'' because a car traveling at 65 mph can stop in two seconds, but because that's the reaction time of the average driver. Once the driver reacts, they can apply the brakes and presumably match the deceleration rate of whatever is in front of them. Because PRT vehicles are computer-controlled, their reaction time is measured in milliseconds instead of seconds. This allows for much shorter headway distances, and much higher traffic flows. |
|||
== Hospital Rovisco Pais == |
|||
The accellerations originally in the article would still be fatal for most people (except in the case of ''instantaneous accellerations'' lasting a few milliseconds at most, which is not pertinent to the current discussion). Moreover, braking does not effect route capacity in any substantial way -- reaction time is essentially the ''only'' important factor here. If ATRA has reviewed and approved this text, then I'm frankly dissapointed in them; these sort of physically-impossible claims are precisely the sort of thing which causes conventional-transit advocates to disparage PRT. There's an excellent paper discussing precisely this subject, which is linked from the Innovative Transportation Technologies website; I just need to go through the work of finding it and summarizing it. I'll try to have that done by sometime tomorrow. [[User:Skybum|Skybum]] 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
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? [[User:Vectro|Vectro]] ([[User talk:Vectro|talk]]) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Read the following PDF: [http://www.skywebexpress.com/pdf_files/150k_additional/Safedesn.pdf Safe Design of Personal Rapid Transit Systems]. On the subject of braking, and headway, it has this to say on pages 6 & 7, after first giving the somewhat complex equation for safe minimum headway distances (emphasis mine): |
|||
: I've decided to remove this section from the article; listing it here might constitute [[WP:OR|original research]], if nothing else. If you have an appropriate reference from an authoritative [[WP:RS|reliable source]] stating that this system is PRT, please re-add it to the article, making appropriate [[WP:CITE|citations]]. Note that a source need not be in English in order to be considered reliable. Thanks, [[User:Vectro|Vectro]] ([[User talk:Vectro|talk]]) 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with removal for now; not much to go on. Though it's interesting to see another ULTra/2getthere type system being developed. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:<center>''T<sub>min</sub> = (L/V) + t<sub>c</sub> + k(V/2)(1/a<sub>e</sub> - 1/a<sub>f</sub>)''</center> |
|||
== Restructure == |
|||
:The first term is the time required for a vehicle of length ''L'' travelling at a velocity ''V'' to travel one vehicle length. It is the minimum possible headway. The second term ''t<sub>c</sub>'' is the time required to detect the malfunction and apply the brakes. The third term is proportional to the available stopping distance after the brakes are fully applied divided by the cruising speed ''V''. ''a<sub>e</sub>'' is the emergency braking rate and af is the failure braking rate. ''k'' is a dimensionless number included to increase safety. |
|||
Hello. I would like to propose restructuring the article with the goal of improving the layout for readability and using the MOS as a guideline. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 12:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:General comment: the original article was written back in 2004 or 2005, likely well before MOS or the modern reference system existed. Then there was a war for about 2 years, and the content was secondary to the conflict -- we were more worried about compromising on content so style took a back seat. Then, when we reached a point of content where nobody complained anymore, we left it alone, almost in fear that even stylistic changes would restart the war. :-) But that was 2 years ago now, so I think the time is ripe for a good overhaul. I say go for it, be bold. |
|||
:To appreciate the fundamentals of the question of minimum headway, consider some numerical values. For the Taxi 2000 vehicle, ''L'' = 3 m and ''V'' = 48 kph. Therefore |
|||
:One recent source that might be helpful as a primer is [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/04/invasion_of_the_pod_car/ this Boston Globe article] on PRT. It talks about the history, the debate, etc, in very fair terms. I think it can be a good supplementary source for much of the existing material here, and even as primary source for stuff that was written before the strict referencing requirements. |
|||
:<center>''L/V'' = 0.224 sec.</center> |
|||
:One other note as to sourcing: the description sections lack ref tags, but much of the technical details can be found in primarily two sources: (1) Fundamentals of Personal Rapid Transit, Jack Irving -- this was the official published report of government-sponsored research in the 1960s and 1970s. It is very comprehensive and lays out much of the fundamental design framework. (2) The books and papers of J.E. Anderson, who founded Taxi2000, aka Skyweb Express, based on his designs. Anderson published much of the design work that went into Taxi2000, and it references "Fundamentals" heavily. |
|||
:Consider ''t<sub>c</sub>''. It is the sum of the time interval between failure occurrence and braking initiation, and the time required to fully apply the brakes. '''In an automobile, the time to react to an emergency depends on human reaction time.''' Under automation, the time interval needed to detect the failure and to begin applying the brakes depends on the characteristics of the control system. In a PRT system designed for maximum throughput, it is necessary for the zone controller to be able to sense the position of each vehicle at any point, i. e., vehicle-position data must be continuously available. The first part of ''t<sub>c</sub>'' is about 0.1 sec plus the much smaller time for the computer to react. '''The second part of ''t<sub>c</sub>'' must be as short as practical with current technology.''' With electromagnetic braking, this time is the inductive time constant of the motor, which is of the order of 10 msec. For a state-of-the-art PRT system, I therefore estimate |
|||
:I believe these sources are available online. I will try to track down links. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:<center>''t<sub>c</sub>'' = 0.12 sec.</center> |
|||
::''Fundamentals'' is actually linked from the article: [http://www.advancedtransit.net/content/fundamentals-personal-rapid-transit-book]. A collection of some of Anderson's work can be found [http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html#idx8 here]. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Consider the third term in equation (1). [ ... ] The term a<sub>e</sub> must be as high as practical. '''If all passengers are seated, simple experiments show that a 0.5g deceleration will not throw a passenger out of the seat. If passengers are standing, even half this acceleration is too much, so one of the requirements of PRT safety is that the vehicle be designed for all passengers seated.''' |
|||
=== Article size === |
|||
:This passage makes it clear that the reaction time (''t<sub>c</sub>'') is the dominant factor in the determination of headway distances. Moreover, it makes it clear that the emergency braking accleration (''a<sub>e</sub>''), while ''desireable'' to be as possible, is ''acceptable'' around a level of 0.5g. These values can be found repeated throughout the web, such as [http://steveanderson.org/prt/LightRailNow.htm here] (emphasis mine): |
|||
At 74,479 bytes, we may want to consider [[Wikipedia:Splitting|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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== Heading === |
|||
:'''The usual acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle is 1/4 g, or 8 feet/sec^2. In an emergency, the Taxi 2000 system would stop using 4/10 g, or 12.8 feet/sec^2.''' [ In ] a system that would go 25 mph (37 feet per second) [ ... ] the safe following distance to avoid any possible collisions becomes (37 fps) / 2*(12.8 fpss) = 1.445 seconds, plus the .004 seconds of reaction time, for a total of 1.45 seconds. |
|||
*''Disambiguation'': "For other uses, see PRT (disambiguation) and PAT (disambiguation)." |
|||
**This is not needed, since [[PRT]] now has its own dab page. Remove? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***Done. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 04:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*''Infobox'': None. |
|||
:Finally, my point about the harm that these kind of false claims (of PRT requiring, or benefiting from, high deceleration rates) can cause was not theoretical. Check out [http://www.kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/seecontext.html here], or [http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRT-Wikipedia.html here], which alas uses our PRT page as a source for its criticism. |
|||
**I realize that some editors are against infoboxes, but there may be a need for them, such as {{tl|Infobox machine}}. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*''Images'': [[:File:ULTra_001.jpg]] and [[:File:Morgantown PRT - Beechurst Station.jpg]] |
|||
:I believe that ''this'' should be the final word on the topic. Unless anybody has some further arguments, I will be heavily revising this info on the main PRT page tomorrow. -- [[User:Skybum|Skybum]] 04:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
**Two images in the lead at this time is a bit much. We could create a mosaic image of up to 6 images if needed, but I would like to see it reduced to one for now. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== Lead === |
|||
::Thank-you very much for the excellent work. [[User:Ray Van De Walker]] |
|||
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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 02:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=====P2===== |
|||
I have trimmed down the lede, removing some mild POV. I think it reads better now. I may try to get to the Overview section this weekend. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Why is braking distance so important? When one drives a car, one certainly can not stop in the distance between cars. What am I missing? [[User:Pstudier|pstudier]] 22:18, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC) |
|||
:I at least, am a more cautious driver than the people in your area. Some of us might say we're willing to take the risk, but some people who say they are willing to take the risk might change their minds after they have an accident. So, in most places, safety laws require public transit vehicles to keep a full stopping distance between themselves and anything they could hit. This lowers the number of vehicles that can fit on the road or guideway or whatever. In turn, this reduces the rate at which the road or guideway can be depreciated. This in turn increases the fares or public costs substantially, because the roads or guideways are the most expensive part of a transport system. [[User:Ray Van De Walker]] |
|||
===Existing and planned networks=== |
|||
Excuse me, but breaking distance is DEFINATELY a factor because the faster a car can break, the closer they can be together. Why is this the case? It is because the ''law'' says it is the case. Public transportation vehicals are '''required''' to travel far enough behind the vehical in front of it so that it could stop IN THAT DISTANCE. For example, if the vehical in front of a public transportation vehical stopped at infinite deccelleration (immediately), the public vehical would still be able to break in time. Thus, to comply with regulations, cars must be able to stop quickly enough - and the more cars that fit on the track, the larger the track capacity can be. This is a HUGE factor in this sort of thing. The normal road system is failing in large and midsized cities now because of lack of capacity. If PRT wants to solve that, capacity is going to be a main issue. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Designs=== |
|||
::Did you read my comments in the rest of this section? They decisively answer the braking question. You are correct that capacity is the main issue, but braking distance is absolutely '''not''' what determines capacity. To recap what I've said above, this is because the only thing you'll need to brake to avoid is the vehicle ahead of you, which will either be A.) Gradually braking, or B.) Coasting to a stop. Those are the only two possibilities. Therefore, all that a vehicle needs to do is 1.) '''Notice''' that it needs to brake (this is the critical factor: reaction time), then 2.) '''Match''' the rate of decelleration of the vehicle ahead of it. As you can hopefully see, the '''velocity''' at which you brake is not a factor, so long as it matches the velocity of whatever is in front of you. |
|||
This is the third table in a row starting with the overview. Too much, too soon in the article. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
'''SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION - MUST BE ABLE TO LIST ALL CATEGORIES - I.E. NO "?"''' |
|||
::Automobiles are different, because they have to deal with cross-traffic. This can create scenarios where there is essentially a "brick wall" in front of the vehicle, and the closer you can get to instantaneous decelleration, the better. PRT doesn't has to deal with this scenario, however. PRT is more akin to a freeway, where the recommend 2-second following distance is '''absolutely not''' determined by braking speed (at highway speeds, cars require 6-10 seconds to brake). 1-2 seconds is a typical human reaction time, allowing drivers to notice and match the deceleration of whatever is in front of them. This is essentially the same as PRT. However, in PRT, the reaction time is computer-based rather than human-awareness-based, and '''this''' -- and '''not braking''' -- is what allows for much closer following distances (as close as a few milliseconds under the most optimistic scenarios), and much greater route capacities. [[User:Skybum|Skybum]] 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I deleted APGM from the list of designs as it appears to be derived from a single study that did not proceed. There doesn't seem to be any clear criteria on why concepts are or are not included in this list. I think having a long list is useful for the uninitiated in indicating how many designs have been tried (and floundered) but I propose that any concepts that cannot complete the categories of the table should be deleted since they are too amorphous and vague. |
|||
[[User:Tjej|Tjej]] ([[User talk:Tjej|talk]]) 08:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===History=== |
|||
:::Well... you *did* read all of what I wrote right? Because the issue is not saftey here, it is public transit *laws*. Of course, to avoid collision, a vehical must only decellerate about as quickly as the vehical in front of it. However, the law states otherwise - and *that* is the problem. But I do see what you're saying, however I think that both breaking time and reaction time are large factors. Another thing to consider is the semantics of the situation - personally I consider "breaking" to include reaction time in the case of PRT - beacuse it is automatic, integral to breaking, and invariant. For example, in the Skytran system, the vehicals can deccellerate in 1/2 second in an emergency, which I think you can agree contributes to the stopping distance slightly more than the decreased reaction time. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 08:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I like this. The history takes up a lot of space that can easily be split out. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 02:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::No, the laws aren't the problem, because the laws for every transportation mode are different, and there are no laws that currently apply to PRT. Trains and busses, for example, can require as much as 30 seconds to come to a full stop when travelling at full speed (because anything much quicker than that would kill their unbelted passengers). They are still allowed to operate. [[User:Skybum|Skybum]] 17:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Opposition and controversy=== |
|||
:::::They are allowed to operate because they put enough distance between themselves and another train to stop in that distance. Do you think that PRT will be allowed to be built without regulation? Most likely, legislators will be the *same* or *more strict* requirements on safety issues, such as breaking distance, compared to trains, busses or other forms of transportation. There are no laws about PRT now, because it is a miniscule part of our society if anything. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|||
A good candidate for splitting or deletion, as there is too much emphasis spent on this subtopic that is out of proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Nine paragraphs spent on criticizing the concept is way, way out of proportion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:That controversy section was part of the compromise between warring factions on this page. There was a strong sentiment that the article was too promotional and that more criticism was needed. So I would prefer not to be the one to handle removing or paring it down, since it may be viewed by others as partisan whitewashing. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, legislators will, and should, regulate PRT. It is in everybody's interest to make sure that PRT is as safe as possible. However, it is also important that people not equate safety (or headway distances) with braking speed, because on a closed-track off-grade system, they are almost unrelated. In fact, higher braking speeds can lead to decreases in safetey. Consider a city bus travelling at, say, 45mph. For the sake of its unbelted passengers, it cannot brake at any faster than 1/4g, which means a stopping time of about 8.5 seconds. If it stops much faster than this, passengers will be thrown from their seats and across the bus, severely injuring and possibly even killing them. Thus there is no safety advantage to having a bus stop any more quickly than this (and indeed, they can't do so). Yet busses are allowed to operate at 2-second following distances, because it is the ''reaction time of the driver'' which is the important factor. As long as the bus can reliably brake at 1/4g, it does not need to brake any faster. |
|||
::Well, as a neutral editor who has no connection with this topic, I would be happy to help. When you have time, could you very briefly list the main opposition and controversy elements that should be stated upfront? Nine paragraphs is pretty much unheard of, and I have great difficulty believing that this article was ever of a "promotional" nature. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 03:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::It was ''mildly'' promotional in its early days, and then it was over-corrected the other way for a while (too critical -- even more than it is now). |
|||
::::::This principle is universally recognized by transportation planners -- except for those coming from the rail industry. This is because its traffic models have to account for massive frieght trains that have a stopping distance of literally ''miles'' -- in other words, beyond the perception & reaction time of the train driver, and reliant upon the signaling system and the stopping distance of the train itself. Because of this, the following distance for trains is determined by its braking speed, and even this is somewhat archaic, given the advent or modern real-time signaling systems. No other land-based transportation system works this way, or should. I have no fear that PRT will be regulated like this, even if the assholes at LightRailNow can't grok the concept. |
|||
:::The main source of criticism is Vukan Vuchic, who is a highly respected transit authority (he's published books on transit) who has pretty much rejected PRT as infeasible. I've read his material and I believe he's dead wrong (his objections seem to be partly due to prejudice -- he is considered one of the pioneers of light rail and considers PRT a distraction from that -- and partly due to misunderstanding) but of course, that's all OR. His opinion is certainly notable. |
|||
::::::Anyhow, it is almost certain that PRT headways will be determined in the same fashion that car and bus headways are -- reaction-time-based rather than braking-distance-based. Because regulators are intrinsically conservative, they'll probably start with the same two-second rule that autos use, and gradually reduce this as the system proves itself to be safe and reliable. That's how PRT will achieve a high route capacity. Meanwhile, making claims about its supposedly superior braking velocities is in fact harmful to the PRT cause. This is because if PRT vehicles ''were'' to brake more quickly than other vehicles, they would soon begin throwing their occupants through the windshield, in the service of avoiding a collision. That's not an effective safety technique, and isn't in any case how PRT works, so there's no point in talking about it -- except perhaps to dispell the myths surrounding the subject. |
|||
:::Vuchic and JE Anderson engaged in a debate a while back, I think that's notable. |
|||
::::::By the way, I like the edits that you've been doing. Keep up the good work! [[User:Skybum|Skybum]] 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are two other transit professionals who have written negatively about PRT (Michael Setty and Louis Demery) but most of it is unpublished. I believe the article has one report by Demery (which was unpublished, but seemed reasonable enough for inclusion) questioning the regulatory implications of PRT. |
|||
::: Thanks! And I agree, breaking speeds has little to do with safety on a basically isolated linear system like PRT systems are. And I hope you're right about future legislation. What does the lightrail now people have against PRT anyway - its not like *they're* making any more money off light rail than anyone else. Anyone smart enough would put their money in a good PRT system rather than pushing it back down. But in any case, I think *this* discussion (i mean a very very consolodated version of it) should be put in the article - rather than skirting the subject entirely. [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 06:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Then there is the political/ideological opposition, mainly from a [[User:Avidor|single individual]]. That material is not published and highly unreliable. |
|||
::: I would love to see a condensed, accurate version of the braking facts in the article as well. [[User:Ray Van De Walker]] |
|||
:::Note: I am active in forums outside of Wikipedia, and I also have a blog, and I have frequently commented on all of these individuals, sometimes highly critically. I just wanted to put that out there so there are no surprises. I don't want to give the impression that I am advocating for or against material this particular section, especially regarding the people I've identified above. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==WVU PRT separate article?== |
|||
WVU PRT should be seperate article? |
|||
wikiveterans please advise [[User:Codeczero|Codeczero]] 16:29 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
:::More: there is an oft-cited criticism of PRT called "Cyberspace Dreams Collide with Reality" which claims to debunk PRT. It is basically an attack piece written by an advocacy (and arguably, astroturfing) group for light rail transit, a transit mode which would theoretically be impacted by wide PRT deployment. It was never published, and in fact, it was written anonymously. Several PRT promoters have debunked it point by point. I fought hard to keep links to it out of the article, but if it does appear, the rebuttals should also be there (they are all unpublished, so they should all be out). |
|||
:Hi, welcome! As it is, WVU PRT fits well in this article: it is on-topic, and only when an article gets very long we need to split it. - [[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 20:26 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC) |
|||
:::There was also a criticism published by a PRT researcher (Wayne Cottrell), which was more of a "what needs to be done for PRT to succeed" kind of thrust. It identified areas where research was weak and advocated for more government investment to improve those areas. |
|||
good info in here but it reads like someones PRO PRT lobbying piece still.. |
|||
[[User:Triptych|Triptych]] 02:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:::Scanning the other parts of the criticism section, some of it appears to be not criticism at all, but rather "this has been criticized, but..." followed by reasoning why it's not a valid criticism. The baggage handling section appears to follow this pattern. |
|||
Not anymore. There are quite a lot of disadvantages listed, and I just put in the guideway choice issue and the dual mode versus single mode debate. Now, the problem is to get the article organized a bit more. Too many of the points mentioned (as advantages or disadvantages or as specs) apply only to one type of guideway but not to another or to a single mode system but not a dual mode system, and this is not made clear. |
|||
:::Let me know if you have any other specific questions on criticism (I'm familiar with pretty much all of it. :-)) [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I wrote the original article, and I'm still one of the biggest contributors (I often fail to log in). I started off pretty ignorant, and very neutral on the topic. I have experience with biomedical software and safety engineering. So I read up on the topic. Unfortunately, most of the people who write books about this thing, and ''really understand'' it are enthusiasts (of course). Most of the people who debunk it are clearly doing the capitalization and overhead math wrong. Some of the older advocates say this is happening ''on purpose'' to persuade the politicians to buy the wrong transit stuff. |
|||
[[User:Ray Van De Walker]] 2004-01-27 09:20Z |
|||
The article still seems overly promotional and not neutral to me. I definitely would oppose paring down the criticism section beyond what it is now [[User:FellGleaming|<span style="color:darkmagenta;">Fell Gleaming</span>]][[User talk:FellGleaming|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I am always amazed at the naivete of alas too many PRT enthusiasts (and here I am not refering to those who have edited this article, for they seem a level headed lot) and sympathisers . No, PRT systems are not singled out specifically for destruction, yes they will get destroyed mercilessly if they are not nimble. The transit market is all too often a "dog eat dog" world of rather fierce competition between competing kinds of systems, competing companies within the same systems and local financial interests striving for attention. PRT projects get caught in the crossfire most of the time, or brushed aside with a slight shove because of their fragility. Entrenched transit technologies in traditional transport establishments can react in a very brutal way to menacing innovations, and this has happened to much stronger and well prepared projects than what PRT systems are offering. One example is the air cushion aerotrain developped by Jean Bertin in France. It went as far as full scale prototypes and a long test track several kilometers long. The development of the TGV, the Train Grande Vitesse (ultra high speed train) by France's national railways, the SNCF was an effort meant to crush the aerotrain, which it considered as a dangerous competitor. Hundeds of millions of Euros were spent in R and D by the SNCF, dwarfing the aerotrain research budget. Even greater sums were spent on the new dedicated infrastructure for the TGV. The SNCF was successful. Companies which sell trams, buses or or commuter wagons cannot be expected to lie down and say . "OK you have the right stuff and we have the wrong stuff." They can be expected to try every trick in the book to wipe any PRT proposal off the map, as they wipe out other competitors in the traditional bus and tram domain. The only potential allies are car companies, which stand to gain as much by making myriads of PRT vehicles as they are making cars, if personal vehicles are allowed (in single mode as well as in dual modes personal vehicles are possible, though they are rarely discussed) but there is no reason for them to leave the status quo. One should note though that Ford research labs proposed a new PRT system called PRISM, in December 2003. |
|||
:Please provide specific examples of promotion and violations of neutrality (bias). Please also explain why you oppose cutting back the criticism section. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 03:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: I've reworked the lede to address some concerns, though many others remain in the body. As to why I oppose reduction of the criticism section, I already explained my reasoning, which includes both NPOV and undue weight. Removing more criticism gives undue weight to viewpoint that PRT is some sort of panacea for mass transit. [[User:FellGleaming|<span style="color:darkmagenta;">Fell Gleaming</span>]][[User talk:FellGleaming|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've added the discussion of expansion of Morgantown back in with a source, and tweaked the wording on Morgantown. I do agree that the lede had some POV issues (both ways) but I think it's far better now than a few days ago. As for other promotional elements in the article, do you have anything specific? I don't recall the word "panacea" being used anywhere. As far as I know the claims presented are all well supported in reliable sourcing, which includes several books on the topic as well as peer-reviewed research. There are also more recent sources discussing PRT that can be incorporated. Overall, the amount of ''reliable'' criticism of PRT is actually quite small -- there are only 3 transit professionals who have significantly questioned PRT, and only one of them is published (Vuchic). So if we're talking about the weight of reliable sources, the criticism section ''is'' probably too lengthy, though there are certain criticisms I would not remove (i.e. Vuchic is notable -- even though I believe his opposition is based on flawed analysis, and Vuchic's crit should not be presented without JE Anderson's rebuttal). [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 12:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Other concerns=== |
|||
==Some sort of PRT planned in Finland== |
|||
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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===See also=== |
|||
I can remember reading an article about some sort of a trial of a PRT system being planned in Finland. If I can remember right, it would (at first) be a line from Helsinki-Vantaa airport to some points in Helsinki (or well, they called it a high speed "driverless taxi" moving on a predesigned route, as far as I can remember, but isnt that a PRT system then..). Would anyone have any more info on this, as I couldnt find anything from Google? It would be an interesting addition to the article.--[[User:HJV|HJV]] 20:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 01:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Portal-Portal Evolutionary PRT== |
|||
::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? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::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 [[Dual-mode_transit|article]] on DM which can be linked from here. PRT is also somewhat related (technologically) to [[Automated_highway_system|intelligent highway systems]]. All of those could potentially be included in a related technologies section. [[User:ATren|ATren]] ([[User talk:ATren|talk]]) 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===External links=== |
|||
A successful version of PRT will eventually 1) Offer PORTAL-PORTAL transportation (ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL), regardless of the distance without changing one's seat; 2) Require NO GUIDEWAYS whatever : Optical, computer and control technology are already sufficient to meet that challenge; 3) Evolve from systems serving only small areas from which manually-operated transportation (auto traffic) has been absolutely barred -- The user whose destination is within must park his auto and continue on PPPRT. The areas served by PPPRT will gradually expand until autos are universally no longer operable in urban areas; 4) In their final form, offer very high speed operation on longer trips ("Guidetube", Group-Mode, 500 MPH+). |
|||
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. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 01:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: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.[[User:Wildman496|Alex]] ([[User talk:Wildman496|talk]]) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Lede rewording == |
|||
:What do you mean no guideways? A guideway is the support of the vehical, its the "road" on which the "car" travels. Explain you're alternate definition of "guideway". And, what is the difference between normal PRT and PPPRT (portal to portal PRT) ? I thought normal PRT *was* portal to portal... Finally, whats the point of this explanation? [[User:Fresheneesz|Fresheneesz]] 03:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Good job Atren on rewording my first pass on the lede; it is significantly improved and much more balanced. [[User:FellGleaming|<span style="color:darkmagenta;">Fell Gleaming</span>]][[User talk:FellGleaming|<sup style="color:black;">talk</sup>]] 12:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== SkyTaxi == |
|||
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. [[Special:Contributions/91.78.245.121|91.78.245.121]] ([[User talk:91.78.245.121|talk]]) 17:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The page being added is simply an advert linkspam which fails both [[WP:ELNO]] and [[WP:RS]]. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 17:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Critical Move == |
|||
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 [[WP:CITE|citations]] to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Thanks. [[User:Vectro|Vectro]] ([[User talk:Vectro|talk]]) 15:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==File:PRT-FornebuOsloProject2000-3.TIF Nominated for Deletion== |
|||
{| |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]] |
|||
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:PRT-FornebuOsloProject2000-3.TIF|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 [[WP:NFCC|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 [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|||
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
== Proposed merge with [[JPods]] == |
|||
Subject lacks sufficient notability for a stand alone article. Propose merge or delete. [[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
That is like saying Apple should be merged with personal computers. JPods and the Town of Secaucus have signed a Letter of Intent to deploy the world's first solar-powered mobility network. [[User:BillJamesMN|BillJamesMN]] ([[User talk:BillJamesMN|talk]]) 02:45, 28 Feburary 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Closing discussion''' Result was don't merge. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Group Rapid Transit (GRT)? == |
|||
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? [[User:Z22|Z22]] ([[User talk:Z22|talk]]) 15:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: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. [[User:Ray Van De Walker|Ray Van De Walker]] ([[User talk:Ray Van De Walker|talk]]) 23:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== No concept only designs in the text == |
|||
I deleted the following reference from the ==PRT vs. autonomous vehicles== section. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://buschbacher.at|title=2-wheel Personal Rapid Transit}}</ref>. 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. [[User:Tjej|Tjej]] ([[User talk:Tjej|talk]]) 00:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
== Suppliers == |
|||
Please add Metrino to Mockups[[User:John cleeland|John cleeland]] ([[User talk:John cleeland|talk]]) 09:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== personal rapid transit/guideway == |
|||
Metrino has 300kg vehicles that are half the weight of Ultra because they are suspended[[Special:Contributions/114.76.3.49|114.76.3.49]] ([[User talk:114.76.3.49|talk]]) 09:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
They are said to be less visible because the guideway is then lighter and 10m high, able to be above street trees.[[Special:Contributions/114.76.3.49|114.76.3.49]] ([[User talk:114.76.3.49|talk]]) 09:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== uSky test track in Abu Dhabi == |
|||
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 |
|||
--[[Special:Contributions/78.82.228.158|78.82.228.158]] ([[User talk:78.82.228.158|talk]]) 14:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: 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.[[User:Tjej|Tjej]] ([[User talk:Tjej|talk]]) 07:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 11:30, 7 February 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||
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)
Hospital Rovisco Pais
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
Restructure
[edit]Hello. I would like to propose restructuring the article with the goal of improving the layout for readability and using the MOS as a guideline. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- General comment: the original article was written back in 2004 or 2005, likely well before MOS or the modern reference system existed. Then there was a war for about 2 years, and the content was secondary to the conflict -- we were more worried about compromising on content so style took a back seat. Then, when we reached a point of content where nobody complained anymore, we left it alone, almost in fear that even stylistic changes would restart the war. :-) But that was 2 years ago now, so I think the time is ripe for a good overhaul. I say go for it, be bold.
- One recent source that might be helpful as a primer is this Boston Globe article on PRT. It talks about the history, the debate, etc, in very fair terms. I think it can be a good supplementary source for much of the existing material here, and even as primary source for stuff that was written before the strict referencing requirements.
- One other note as to sourcing: the description sections lack ref tags, but much of the technical details can be found in primarily two sources: (1) Fundamentals of Personal Rapid Transit, Jack Irving -- this was the official published report of government-sponsored research in the 1960s and 1970s. It is very comprehensive and lays out much of the fundamental design framework. (2) The books and papers of J.E. Anderson, who founded Taxi2000, aka Skyweb Express, based on his designs. Anderson published much of the design work that went into Taxi2000, and it references "Fundamentals" heavily.
- I believe these sources are available online. I will try to track down links. ATren (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fundamentals is actually linked from the article: [1]. A collection of some of Anderson's work can be found here. ATren (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Article size
[edit]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)
Heading
[edit]- 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)
- Done. ATren (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is not needed, since PRT now has its own dab page. Remove? Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Infobox: None.
- I realize that some editors are against infoboxes, but there may be a need for them, such as {{Infobox machine}}. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Images: File:ULTra_001.jpg and File:Morgantown PRT - Beechurst Station.jpg
- Two images in the lead at this time is a bit much. We could create a mosaic image of up to 6 images if needed, but I would like to see it reduced to one for now. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]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)
- 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)
I have trimmed down the lede, removing some mild POV. I think it reads better now. I may try to get to the Overview section this weekend. ATren (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Existing and planned networks
[edit]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)
Designs
[edit]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)
SUGGESTED CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION - MUST BE ABLE TO LIST ALL CATEGORIES - I.E. NO "?" I deleted APGM from the list of designs as it appears to be derived from a single study that did not proceed. There doesn't seem to be any clear criteria on why concepts are or are not included in this list. I think having a long list is useful for the uninitiated in indicating how many designs have been tried (and floundered) but I propose that any concepts that cannot complete the categories of the table should be deleted since they are too amorphous and vague. Tjej (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
History
[edit]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)
- 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)
Opposition and controversy
[edit]A good candidate for splitting or deletion, as there is too much emphasis spent on this subtopic that is out of proportion to its coverage in reliable sources. Nine paragraphs spent on criticizing the concept is way, way out of proportion. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- That controversy section was part of the compromise between warring factions on this page. There was a strong sentiment that the article was too promotional and that more criticism was needed. So I would prefer not to be the one to handle removing or paring it down, since it may be viewed by others as partisan whitewashing. ATren (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, as a neutral editor who has no connection with this topic, I would be happy to help. When you have time, could you very briefly list the main opposition and controversy elements that should be stated upfront? Nine paragraphs is pretty much unheard of, and I have great difficulty believing that this article was ever of a "promotional" nature. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was mildly promotional in its early days, and then it was over-corrected the other way for a while (too critical -- even more than it is now).
- The main source of criticism is Vukan Vuchic, who is a highly respected transit authority (he's published books on transit) who has pretty much rejected PRT as infeasible. I've read his material and I believe he's dead wrong (his objections seem to be partly due to prejudice -- he is considered one of the pioneers of light rail and considers PRT a distraction from that -- and partly due to misunderstanding) but of course, that's all OR. His opinion is certainly notable.
- Vuchic and JE Anderson engaged in a debate a while back, I think that's notable.
- There are two other transit professionals who have written negatively about PRT (Michael Setty and Louis Demery) but most of it is unpublished. I believe the article has one report by Demery (which was unpublished, but seemed reasonable enough for inclusion) questioning the regulatory implications of PRT.
- Then there is the political/ideological opposition, mainly from a single individual. That material is not published and highly unreliable.
- Note: I am active in forums outside of Wikipedia, and I also have a blog, and I have frequently commented on all of these individuals, sometimes highly critically. I just wanted to put that out there so there are no surprises. I don't want to give the impression that I am advocating for or against material this particular section, especially regarding the people I've identified above. ATren (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- More: there is an oft-cited criticism of PRT called "Cyberspace Dreams Collide with Reality" which claims to debunk PRT. It is basically an attack piece written by an advocacy (and arguably, astroturfing) group for light rail transit, a transit mode which would theoretically be impacted by wide PRT deployment. It was never published, and in fact, it was written anonymously. Several PRT promoters have debunked it point by point. I fought hard to keep links to it out of the article, but if it does appear, the rebuttals should also be there (they are all unpublished, so they should all be out).
- There was also a criticism published by a PRT researcher (Wayne Cottrell), which was more of a "what needs to be done for PRT to succeed" kind of thrust. It identified areas where research was weak and advocated for more government investment to improve those areas.
- Scanning the other parts of the criticism section, some of it appears to be not criticism at all, but rather "this has been criticized, but..." followed by reasoning why it's not a valid criticism. The baggage handling section appears to follow this pattern.
- Let me know if you have any other specific questions on criticism (I'm familiar with pretty much all of it. :-)) ATren (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The article still seems overly promotional and not neutral to me. I definitely would oppose paring down the criticism section beyond what it is now Fell Gleamingtalk 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide specific examples of promotion and violations of neutrality (bias). Please also explain why you oppose cutting back the criticism section. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've reworked the lede to address some concerns, though many others remain in the body. As to why I oppose reduction of the criticism section, I already explained my reasoning, which includes both NPOV and undue weight. Removing more criticism gives undue weight to viewpoint that PRT is some sort of panacea for mass transit. Fell Gleamingtalk 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the discussion of expansion of Morgantown back in with a source, and tweaked the wording on Morgantown. I do agree that the lede had some POV issues (both ways) but I think it's far better now than a few days ago. As for other promotional elements in the article, do you have anything specific? I don't recall the word "panacea" being used anywhere. As far as I know the claims presented are all well supported in reliable sourcing, which includes several books on the topic as well as peer-reviewed research. There are also more recent sources discussing PRT that can be incorporated. Overall, the amount of reliable criticism of PRT is actually quite small -- there are only 3 transit professionals who have significantly questioned PRT, and only one of them is published (Vuchic). So if we're talking about the weight of reliable sources, the criticism section is probably too lengthy, though there are certain criticisms I would not remove (i.e. Vuchic is notable -- even though I believe his opposition is based on flawed analysis, and Vuchic's crit should not be presented without JE Anderson's rebuttal). ATren (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've reworked the lede to address some concerns, though many others remain in the body. As to why I oppose reduction of the criticism section, I already explained my reasoning, which includes both NPOV and undue weight. Removing more criticism gives undue weight to viewpoint that PRT is some sort of panacea for mass transit. Fell Gleamingtalk 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Other concerns
[edit]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)
See also
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
External links
[edit]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)
- 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)
Lede rewording
[edit]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)
SkyTaxi
[edit]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)
- 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)
Critical Move
[edit]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)
File:PRT-FornebuOsloProject2000-3.TIF Nominated for Deletion
[edit]
|
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC) |
Subject lacks sufficient notability for a stand alone article. Propose merge or delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That is like saying Apple should be merged with personal computers. JPods and the Town of Secaucus have signed a Letter of Intent to deploy the world's first solar-powered mobility network. BillJamesMN (talk) 02:45, 28 Feburary 2014 (UTC)
- Closing discussion Result was don't merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Group Rapid Transit (GRT)?
[edit]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)
- 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)
No concept only designs in the text
[edit]I deleted the following reference from the ==PRT vs. autonomous vehicles== section. [1]. 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)
References
Suppliers
[edit]Please add Metrino to MockupsJohn cleeland (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
personal rapid transit/guideway
[edit]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) They are said to be less visible because the guideway is then lighter and 10m high, able to be above street trees.114.76.3.49 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
uSky test track in Abu Dhabi
[edit]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)
- 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)