User talk:Skybum

Streetcar

Putting the protected template on doesn't actually protect anything; it has to be protected by an administrator. The articles were unprotected by another administrator, as administrators aren't supposed to protect pages they're involved in conflicts on. I suggest that you at least remove the protected template, as it's misleading to have it on a non-protected page. --SPUI (talk) 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I'm still figuring out how things work around here. I do think, however, that we should refrain from either merging the streetcar article or even stating that it should be merged, until we've reached concensus on talk:streetcar Skybum 22:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks by the way for the discussion on Talk:Streetcar; I hadn't even thought of it as what vehicles run along it, since that can easily change, while the tracks and other infrastructure are more permanent. --SPUI (talk) 22:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please be civil

This [1] is not good. Please do not refer to other Wikipedians' comments as "ranting" - even if they are. Please remain calm, and let's see if we can't make the article better without resorting to acrimony. I have archived the Talk page and I suggest we all draw a line under what is past. Thanks, Just zis Guy you know? 11:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must take things in context. As I explained, Avidor has called me and other editors on the PRT page "fanatical anti-transit cultists" who "hate trains" and are promoting a "hoax," "joke," "fraud," and "scam," that is a covert "stalking horse for the highway industry". I'm sorry, but that is ranting, by any and every definition, and the majority of his edits have been straight-forward vandalism. The block of text which I called "ranting" and removed consisted of largely of specious and paranoid slights on the characters of other Wikipedians. Yet you do not chastise him. Why? Skybum 15:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right?" But the point is this: I don't care what went on in the past. Not at all. I have asked Ken to calm down, as you will see from his talk page. I have asked everyone' to calm down. We are not going to resolve this by going back over ancient history inna he-said-she-said stylee are we? Let's all just take a deep breath, send Mr. Ego to the timeout bench and concentrate on the article itself, eh? Leave me to deal with the foolishness, I do have the necessary Super Powers^TM, and don't worry I will not tolerate attacks by anyone on anyone else. I understand your view, and I do not think Ken's comments were right either, but let's just take it one step at a time. Things will get fixed, I assure you. Just zis Guy you know? 16:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Avidor's talk page. It may have been a Wikipedia glitch, or I may have somehow missed it, but at the time I didn't see your comments there. Thank you for making them, but I confess that I am having difficulty letting go of the past. Ken Avidor's abuses here have been egregious; I have seen permanent bans on Wikipedia users for far less obnoxious behaviour than his. It thoroughly rankles me that he is still allowed to have any part in this process. Skybum 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skybum: hate to nitpick on spelling, but it's "independent". And the adjective is "dependent" (only the noun should be spelled "dependant"). You're using these words a lot so I thought I'd let you know... :-) A Transportation Enthusiast 06:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... we all have our spelling blind spots! A Transportation Enthusiast 06:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave

Skybum: I just read your post on the PRT talk page. I had forgotten about that whole ordeal. You left out an important detail: that just 1 hour before JzG threatened to lock the article, Avidor asked him to do just that on JzG's talk page. This, to me, is compelling evidence that JzG was acting at the behest of Avidor without checking the facts himself.

Anyway, I've had my own battles with JzG recently, but I'm willing to see this through. There is no question that his actions here have been incorrect, even assuming good faith on his part (which I do -- his mistake is he's just too overworked to do his own research, and has relied too heavily on Avidor as his trusted source). I've done a lot of reading in the past few months, and the verifiable literature supports almost everything that JzG has had issues with. It's just a matter of adding references everywhere, and this time doing it the right way -- citing the original published sources as footnoted references. Jerry Schneider's website has a wealth of reprinted articles that we can use, and beyond that there are many other published sources we can refer to.

As for JzG, I'm willing to pursue official action against him, if he continues to treat us the way he's treated us in the past. But I say, let's give him a chance to correct his previous missteps. He's on bereavement leave right now, so I'm waiting to execute some changes to the article until he gets back, out of respect for him and his current situation. But once he comes back, I'd like to start aggressively improving the problems in the current version of the article (and there are several, starting with the quite naive capacity comparison to light rail that speaks nothing of the vast differences in calculating LRT vs PRT capacity). It'd be great if you worked with me on this, because you seem to have a pretty good knowledge on the topic. Fresheneesz and pstudier have been involved in various capacities, and Stephen Streater has been helping to moderate. Perhaps we can get other people involved to provide info on sources.

And if JzG continues to be hostile, we can take it up with the authorities. Certainly the evidence is there (you've documented it again on the PRT talk page) and I have at least 2 or 3 examples in my dealings with JzG. So I think we have a case, should it come to that point. But with Stephen Streater involved (a more friendly neutral party who seems to be less trigger-happy than JzG) and a consensus among us, and reliable sources, I'm hoping we can avoid another fight.

So what I would suggest is: check in on the PRT page every few days, and contribute where you see fit as I and others try to work on some of the problems JzG introduced. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Diagramatic PRT layout.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Diagramatic PRT layout.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PRT image(s)

Hey, I was wondering if you could "upload new pictures" - overwriting the current one, if you are updating a picture. Pictures have history in the same way articles do, and its much easier to keep track of one page with one history, rather than 2, 3, or more pages. I told this to JJLatWiki as well. I'll add links to the previous pictures on the current picture's page. Fresheneesz 05:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I will definitely do that in the future. Skybum 06:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UniModal

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that UniModal is now a real page. However, JzG feels like blanket delting of most of its content without discussion. I was wondering if you could help make a civil debate out of what I hope won't become another battle. Do you still think the article doesn't deserve its own page? Fresheneesz 23:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freshenesz! I need to get back to Real Life soon, but here's my take on it. There are roughly four qualities which contribute to the notability of something like this. From most to least notable, they are 1.) a real-world public installation, 2.) a working prototype, 3.) significant funding (ie, in the millions of dollars), and 4.) significant third-party press coverage (ie, more than just reprints of press releases). As far as I can tell, Skytran only ever achieved the latter level of notability, and under the guise of Unimodal, it hasn't achieved any of them. I'll rescind my comment that it doesn't deserve its own page, however, because the short version of its page seems to be okay. And really, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with the longer version of the page (especially given the fact that virtually any individual Simpsons episode has an article of similar length), but I feel that, given a hostile user like JzG, it's a matter of choosing one's battles. One would be better off improving the articles of PRT systems that are more notable (including previous systems). I'd much rather see the effort put into developing better pages for ULTra, Vectus, Skyweb, Taxi 2000, RUF, Cabintaxi, Morgantown PRT, Aramis, and others which I believe rank higher on my personal "notabilitiy" scale than Unimodal presently does. And of course, if Unimodal ever achieved any of the other signs of notability, I would fully support expanding its article accordingly. Skybum 01:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the choosing one's battles thing. And I'm surprised that ULTra doesn't have an article at all yet! Maybe I'll stub one and let you know. But yes, I simply don't see why UniModal *must* be a small article. Its just an idea that I'm interested in much more than others. And I don't think it needs to be a battle, as long as we work toward consensus rather than edit warring. Fresheneesz 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it didn't have to be a battle, but I'm afraid with JzG around, it will be. So, I'm planning my involvement accordingly. I would be very interested in helping with an ULTra article, however (and also Vectus -- I'd like the excuse to do some more research on them!). As for Unimodal, I think that the core technology is quite interesting (it was actually Skytran that got me noticing PRT in the first place), but that their actual system design is fatally flawed. Their proposition that they don't need to provide handicapped access because it would be cheaper to use vans to get people around is, well, just plain wrong. Here in Portland, for example, the LIFT handicapped shuttle service costs the city about $19.00 per ride -- around $20 million per year. If you use a 20-year ROI as a baseline for comparison (which is rapid for transit infrastructure, actually), there's no way that handicapped accessibility would add an extra $400 million to build into a city-wide system. And even if it did, the level of service provided by the shuttles would be so obviously unequal and inferior that it would never, and I mean never, make it past the ADA lawyers. (Trust me, I know. I'm an architect, and can tell you firsthand what it means to run afoul of the ADA.) So, because of this (and a handful of other less serious flaws), I'm just not particularly interested in Unimodal. But I don't think that should bar somebody who is interested in them from writing a decent article about them. Skybum 21:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an interesting point about the handicapped thing. Adding support for handicapped people would be a smallish one-time cost, and wouldn't need to affect the per-year cost (the most important benefit of such a system). The only modifications would have to be ramps at portals instead of stairs, and slide-back seats in the pods (plus some sort of more complicated seatbelt situation). Fresheneesz 23:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although.. it might be akward for wheelchaired people to get in a pod.. How did Taxi 2000 try to make that possible? Fresheneesz 23:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It requires a bigger vehicle than Unimodal provides. Here is what Taxi 2000 said on p.10 of their rebuttal to the Skyloop report:

The document which applies is the “Code of Federal Regulations: Title 49-Transportation, 
Part 38-Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Specifications For Transpor- 
tation Vehicles” (49CFR38).  Per 49CFR38, wheelchairs or mobility aids must be posi- 
tioned in areas having a minimum clear space of 48 inches by 30 inches – see Attach- 
ments 4. The Taxi 2000 vehicle design satisfies this requirement with a 50-inch by 32- 
inch space.  We have corresponded with Dennis Cannon, Accessibility Specialist with 
the Access Board and primary author of the ADA regulations applicable to public transit 
vehicles.  He confirmed our understanding that there is no requirement in the CFR for 
wheelchairs to face forward, except in buses and vans, or to be able to execute a 360- 
degree turn.

So basically, the wheelchair enters head-in, passing through a 32-inch-wide portal, rides sideways, and backs straight out again on exit. In my mind, this isn't necessarily the optimal configuration -- I can think of one, for example, that would enter at a diagonal and ride forward facing; the vehicle could be narrower this way, although it would have to have a wider entrance (around 48 inches) to admit part of the standard 60-inch "turning diameter" circle. But in any case, there is no way to fit a wheelchair in a vehicle as small as what Unimodal proposes.

I don't think that this is a bad thing, actually. Although a sizable majority of vehicles are single-occupant, something like 87% of Americans still by 4-5 person vehicles, instead of motorcycles or Segways. This is because they like to have the option to travel in groups of that size, even if it costs more to do so. How would a family with several small children use Unimodal? They couldn't -- so that (and other) segment of the market is completely unserved by Unimodal's design.

I have other thoughs about this, but no time to express them. And I don't mean to put you off in your enthusiasm for Unimodal; I'd like to think of myself as a critic rather than a naysayer, you know? Skybum 03:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ULTra?

Skybum, there is currently no page on ULTra. I think it merits a small article that lists basic features and the Heathrow project. It's perhaps the most notable PRT system in existence these days, being that they are moving towards installation of a real system, so I don't think there will be any resistance to creating one. Cabintaxi has a short article, as well as the now infamous UniModal. I might give it a shot. What do you think? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! If I can find the time, I'll definitely help. By my own personal criteria (explained in the thread above), ULTra is certainly the most notable PRT project currently in existence. Accordingly, I would actually support giving it a relatively substantial article, if the information is available to do so. Skybum 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trans, cats, conflict

Hey there - your comment on the Arcology page alerted me to the Personal rapid transit. Interesting - I'd been thinking there should be an article on Austrans, but now i know about the broader concept (and have created Austrans as a redirect).

I hope the Personal rapid transit conflicts aren't causing you too much grief at the moment - recent edits don't look hostile, but I haven't looked in detail. If you need another perspective/voice on it in future, feel free to ask me. Not that I'm promising to support a particular view, but I do believe in civility and so forth.

I think the category merge (sustainable urban planning into environmental design) was the right thing, but let me know if you disagree.

--Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your interest. You're correct that the recent edits at Personal Rapid Transit are largely uncontentious -- this is because User:JzG, who is a hostile admin, has created such a climate of fear and intimidation that most of the page's editors are afraid to touch it. Currently, most of that conflict has moved over ULTra (PRT) -- check out its talk page if you want to see some real insanity.

Meanwhile, I'd like to know more about the rationale for your category merge. In the professional and academic field, at least as far as I'm aware of it (and I'm an architect, so I guess I'd better be aware of it! :-)), I've generally seen "Environmental Design" used as a blanket term meaning "design of the built environment". It doesn't necessarily mean "Environmentalist Design" or "design with respect to the natural environment". (Again, this is just my understanding of it, but if I'm wrong then I've been misinformed since my undergraduate days...). So, again at first blush, I'd have to say that it doesn't make sense to merge these two categories, but I'm quite willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

Thanks for taking a look at the PRT page by the way, and I would absolutely welcome any additional perspectives in that whole nasty morass. Also, if you have enough info / interest in Austrans to start a page of its own, that would be a welcome development -- I'm quite curious about it, and know very little. Skybum 17:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]