Talk:Personal rapid transit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. How about a nice cup of tea?
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Please do not violate WP:SOAP

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)

[edit] Doing some general cleanup

I'm looking at the article again for the first time in a long while, and am realizing that it could be improved considerably. I'll be intermittently working on it over the next few weeks. My main aim is to improve its readability and shorten its length, both by tightening up the language and removing unsourced material. I'll avoid touching the more controversial sections until I have time to fight about it here on the talk page. Skybum (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systems and Proposals

I've been thinking about making some radical changes to the "Systems and Proposals". First of all, I think it's necessary to distinguish between PRT platforms (eg., ULTra, Vectus, Skyweb, et cetera), and PRT networks (eg., Heathrow, Al Masdar, et cetera). So far the two have been quite conflated, which is fairly; let's disentangle them and put each in its own section. For now, I'd only like to deal with the latter -- specific network sites -- which I believe should go under the heading of "PRT Networks".

If we're going to document PRT networks, I think it's important to clearly delineate the criterion for inclusion. Anybody who has been paying attention knows that there are plenty of flakey PRT "proposals" out there, which are non-notable and un-encyclopedic. Just because some random person says that there ought to be a PRT network in Timbuktu, and manages to get a story published to this effect, doesn't mean that it's notable enough for inclusion here. Also, I think that there's a world of difference between an operational test track, and an actual open-for-business public system. The former is indicative of the level of development of a given technology, but I don't think that they should be considered as "networks" per se. This means that the tracks at Cardiff and Uppsala should not be included in this list.

I'd like to propose the following categories and criterion for what should be included:

  • Operational -- This is a fully-functional open-for-business commercial/public system. No such system yet exists, unless you count Morgantown, which isn't fully a PRT. Once the public can use the Heathrow network, it will be classified in this category.
  • Under Construction -- This means that the PRT infrastructure is currently being built. Infrastructure of the associated project should not count towards this category. For example: although Al Masdar and the DIFC are both generally under construction, their planned PRT systems are not. I believe that currently, only the Heathrow PRT network would fit under this category.
  • Planned -- This is for systems that will almost certainly be built. Ie, there are unequivocal statements to this effect by the parties that would be building it, a specific network design and implementation plan, and a tender that has either been issued or will be issued shortly. Both Al Masdar and Daventry would fit into this category.
  • Proposed -- This is a risky category, given how many unrealistic and non-noteworthy proposals are floating around out there. However, with strict guidelines for inclusion, I think it would be a worthwhile category nonetheless. Basically, a proposed system would be one in which resources are are being allocated by the end customer itself. So, my Timbuktu example wouldn't count, unless Timbuktu itself decided to fund a study to investigate the notion, and this study came to a positive conclusion. Skytran's proposal to the city of Mesa, for example, wouldn't count -- because the city of Mesa has never put up funds to pursue the idea themselves. On the other hand, Santa Cruz would count, because they've done a study of their own accord, which came to a positive conclusion. There are a number of cities in Sweden that may also fit this criterion. Until their plans become more definitive and concrete, Bawadi would still count as "proposed" rather than "planned"

A couple of other suggested guidelines for keeping this section encyclopedic:

  • We need to be sure that every single piece of information in this section comes from a reliable source.
  • This should not be an archive of historical plans or proposals. If there has been no cite-able information about a network within the last two years, then it should no longer be considered a going concern. (It can still be mentioned in the history section, if appropriate). For example, even though the DIFC issued a tender for a PRT system quite a while ago, nothing has been heard from them for quite a while. Pending confirmation that this project is still on track, I wouldn't include it.

I've started putting together a rough version of what I think this should look like, which you can see here. What do people think? Skybum (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In general, I like it. The table in your user page is a nice, concise summary. I might add Mist-er to the list - they have a committment from Opole, Poland to build a prototype [1] and they've demonstrated a prototype vehicle there. There seem to be a few third sources for this, but they are in Polish, unfortunately. The project has full support from the city and a prototype is scheduled, but they still must get funding (it will be 100% privately financed, Opole just provides the city :-)).
I say, keep plowing ahead. The article is already better. ATren (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I keep working on it then, and merge it into the article when I've got something worthwhile. One thing, however, is that I would be cautious about MISTER. So far, there is very little corroborating information coming from anywhere outside their website. (The one article I could find, badly translated from the Polish, comes across as quite disheartening). Moreover, I'm aware of quite a few cities that have stated that they would be happy to host PRT systems, as long as they don't particularly have to do anything themselves -- and it never adds up to a network being built. So to avoid the crystal ball, I would generally stay away from such claims. If a city isn't participating financially, then i think that they need to have at least agreed expedite or minimize R.O.W acquisition costs, planning and zoning permission, utilities hookups, et cetera -- and there need to be accounts from multiple credible sources (not just the PRT company) saying that they have done so. From what I've seen, I don't think that MISTER meets that criteria yet.
In the case of a PRT company that is wholly going it alone (without any particular assistance from the city), then I would consider it to be "proposed" when they have submitted all of the requisite planning documents to the city, and "planned" when they have successfully completed all the requisite reviews, and received full permission to build. This process should generate a fair amount of press -- and hundreds of pages of publicly-available documents -- so it should be quite obvious when it takes place. I know I'm proposing an extremely strict and conservative standard for notability, but I think it will keep the page as reliable and non-controversial as possible. Skybum (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point. That article certainly seems critical of the Mist-er effort, as far as I can tell through the translation artifacts. I've studied the Mist-er design and I like several aspects of it, and I was impressed by the photos and video of the prototype vehicle, but you are correct in that there is almost no third party validation other than that committment from Opole (which is really not much of a committment).
In my view, though, I would not completely omit Mister and SkyTran, because they have received press attention as PRT systems. Perhaps a simple one sentence statement like "Other efforts exist in various stages of development, including SkyTran (California) and Mist-er (Poland)." That's completely verifiable, and IMO it's more appropriate to include a simple mention like this than omitting them completely. But again, only for those which have received some level of press attention. ATren (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on what I know of them, I think the place to mention these two is in the "systems" list rather than "networks" list. These are actual companies with actual designs (of varying and not-always-easy-ascertain stages of development) that are actively marketing their systems -- all of this is easy enough to source reliably. Also, there's nothing intrinsically unusual about new-technology companies like that, so I think we can get by with merely ordinary attention to notability and verifiability and such. On the other hand, when it comes to actual operational pubic networks, the problem is that we're writing in the context of a history of many false starts and disappointments. Due to this, it becomes one of those subjects where "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If we can come up with a really ironclad, explicit, bulletproof rationale for the inclusion of material there, I think that will go a long way towards making sure that there aren't further outbreaks of drama here. Skybum (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - they would go in "systems", not "networks". And, I would almost prefer that section be named "designs" rather than "systems" to avoid the implication that they have been fully implemented. ATren (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Sections in the article

There is a LOT of information in this article, and it isn't necessarily presented in the most comprehensible format. I think that this can be improved by changing the order of the information -- going from the most current / concrete to the most historical / abstract. I would propose that the order of sections go something like this:

  1. Overview (tightened up considerably from what it is now.)
  2. Networks (see above for what this would be.)
  3. PRT Systems (this would be a list of on-the-market PRT technologies, largely replacing the "See Also," "Pilots and Prototypes," and "Proposals" section. We should establish some clear criterion for notability before working on this section.)
  4. Principals of PRT System Design
  5. Opposition and Controversy
  6. History (may be worth giving its own page someday -- it's a long section in a too-long article.)

Thoughts? Skybum (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks good except that I might put Principles ahead of networks and systems. I'd like to say what it is before saying where it is, but it's a minor objection - putting the design stuff later is OK too. ATren (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we need to cover what PRT generally is, before going into specific sites or systems -- but I think we should try to do that in the overview section, in as concise a manner as possible. My reasoning is that the detailed "Principles of PRT System Design" necessarily gets into a lot of abstractions -- sometimes quite contentious and theoretical. These things are worth covering in depth, but it seems to me that they should come after certitudes. So, we can be black-and-white certain that networks are being built at Heathrow and planned at Al Masdar, and certain that such-and-such companies are offering these specific systems. But we must be much more qualified in our language when talking about issues such as the optimal guideway configuration, practicable headway distances, theoretical ridership attraction, costs at economies of scale, and so forth. Currently the best that can be done on these topics is to cite the conjecture of various experts, because there are not yet any certainties when it comes to such things.
So basically, I'd like to go from the certain to the uncertain, in much the same way that the physics article goes from classical mechanics to quantum physics. Even though the latter arguably underlies the former, it's just too darned confusing to start off with. Skybum (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that now, that makes sense. As long as a basic description is in the overview, that sounds good. ATren (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Side note: do you think we should add a blurb about dual-mode? There's very little coverage of dual mode even though it's a significant branch of the PRT concept. Perhaps a single paragraph discussing the differences? ATren (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! There's been a lot of interesting material produced about dual-mode lately, which I admit that I haven't been able to devote much attention to. So feel free to give it a go, if you like. Skybum (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PRT Designs

I've added a table with several well-known PRT designs. I think I got most of the major ones, but there are probably a few I missed. It also could use citations, but this is a starting point. The table is based on Skybum's table for networks. I think it's a nice summary of the major features, organized by development state (green = most developed, red = least developed) ATren (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The New Tables of Would-Be PRT Vendors Are Full of Errors

Just a few; "The company Frog/2getthere went into bankruptcy several months ago. The company is considering/trying to do a restart at a moderate size to prevent the total loss of the specialist knowledge and experience with guided systems.' - [2]... also Taxi 2000/Skyweb Express is located in Fridley, MN not Minneapolis. Taxi 2000 has been anything but "active' since the company sued its founder and former CEO J. Edward Anderson in 2005... and what does "active" mean? ... also, if the table includes failed concepts like Aramis, why exclude other failed PRT concepts like Ford's Levacar- [3], the Carveyor [4] and Emory Bundy's Pathfinder?- [5] - more about Pathfinder:

PATHFINDER SYSTEMS, INC. UBI Number 601 506 329 Category Regular Corporation Profit/Nonprofit Profit Active/Inactive Inactive State of Incorporation WA Date of Incorporation 01/14/1986 License Expiration Date 01/31/2003 Registered Agent Information Agent Name EMORY BUNDY City SEATTLE State WA ZIP 98112...

Avidor (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • 2getthere: "2getthere has become an independent company after a recent restructering process of Frog Navigation Systems. After operating for several years as a subsidiary, 2getthere will now independently continue the development and marketing of the Automated People Mover concepts CyberCab (PRT) and ParkShuttle (GRT)." August 20, 2007.
  • Taxi2000: I changed it to "Minnesota"
  • "active" - still actively seeking funding and/or contracts.
  • Ford Levacar - appears to be an early concept (1959) for an air-supported vehicle, unrelated to modern PRT.
  • Carveyor - appears to be a belt-based people mover from the 1960s - again, unrelated to modern PRT.
  • Pathfinder - I have no objection to including this. ATren (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a list of PRT and "quasi- PRT" projects - [6] What is the criteria for including or excluding the 100-plus PRT and "quasi-PRT" systems in this table? And there are other PRT systems Why, for instance isn't Hallitubes or this PRT project included in these tables?....Avidor (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, that is a list of "Emerging Innovative Transportation Technologies", many of which are not PRT. Hallitubes bears little relation to PRT - it is not automated, has no "stations", and appears to be aimed solely at long-distance commuting. The only resemblence to PRT is the small vehicles. PRT Project is closer to PRT, but is not grade separated and seems to be more of an automobile replacement. Also, PRT project has no prototype and has received little or no media attention. Still, I would have less objection to PRT project than Hallitubes, which has little resemblence to PRT. As for the others on that page, many are not PRT and are therefore irrelevant for this page ATren (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the criteria for deciding whether a concept is PRT or "quasi-PRT?" ATren says that the Ford Levacar and the Carveyor are not PRT, but the UC Berkeley site lists them as "Personal Rapid Transit"... Is there a more notable source than UC Berkeley that says the Ford Levacar or the Carveyor are not PRT or "quasi-PRT"?...Avidor (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

By the modern definition of PRT, those systems are nothing like PRT. Those systems are from the 1950's and early 1960's, before modern PRT was even invented. The Morgantown system started off as PRT, and ended up something very closely resembling PRT. That is a completely different issue than these completely unrelated systems. If you want to argue that they belong in this article based on a single historical link, go ahead and file an RFC, I'm no longer going to debate the issue.
I'll also add, Avidor has, to this point, found one single error in the table: that Minneapolis was used when it was actually a suburb of Minneapolis. Yes, indeed, that certainly qualifies as a table "full of errors". ;-) ATren (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Author James Howard Kunstler on PRT

Author James Howard Kunstler talks about Personal Rapid Transit - (podcast #13) [7]MP3 download - [8]... Should James Howard Kunstler's comments should be included in the "criticism" section?...Avidor (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add that, we should also add that Kunstler's New Urbanism peers, Peter Calthorpe and Sir Peter Hall, have both made statements in support of PRT. Personally, I'd rather avoid the "he said, she said", especially for Kunstler who admits he doesn't "get it". ATren (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Where's the direct quote of Peter Calthorpe saying he supported PRT?....Avidor (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Here. ATren (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a direct quote. In that Planetizen opinion piece, PRT promoter and ATS principal consultant Steve Raney [9]. Steve Raney links to this article [10] where Calthorpe mentions BRT or Bus Rapid Transit... no mention of PRT... Is there another, more direct source for the claim that Peter Calthorpe supports PRT?...Avidor (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote apparently comes from a speech Calthorpe made at a conference, which is not available online. Is there a reason to distrust this author or Planetizen in general? I find it odd that you now distrust Planetizen; they are the ones who did the Kunstler interview, and they also have one of your favorite anti-PRT commentaries ([11]). Is Planetizen only reliable for commentaries you happen to agree with?
Also, BTW, Calthorpe has apparently supported PRT in Urban Land Magazine (March 2008) in the article "Riding on the Future" - though I am not a member of ULI so I can't see the article directly. Do you deny all this evidence that Calthorpe has come out in support of PRT?
And then there's Sir Peter Hall. From this transcript of a speech he gave: "And I think we may also in the future be looking to technological advances in public transportation to create new kinds of personal rapid transit. We had a big breakthrough announced only a week ago that a British system called, literally, PRT, Personal Rapid Transit, is going to be adapted for Heathrow Airport progressively over the next ten years. And when you drive your car into Heathrow to one of the parking lots, you will get your own personal vehicle and program it to go to your terminal, or vice versa. And if this is as successful as I think it will be, this could be a big breakthrough in developing new kinds of totally personalized rapid transit, which could transform our cities in ways that we can't yet see." Do you dispute that too? Is there anything ambiguous about "this could be a big breakthrough... which can transform our cities in ways that we can't yet see"? ATren (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Now having established that Calthorpe and Hall have supported PRT, do you still want to add a he-said-she-said section on the perspectives of these three New Urbanists? I don't think it's necessary, but if the consensus is to add them to the article, I won't object. ATren (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, having slept on this, I think maybe we should include the new urbanist perspective here. We have 3 new urbanists (Kunstler, Hall and Calthorpe) who have expressed opinions on PRT, so I think we should include their perspective. We already have Calthorpe's and Hall's views , and I've transcribed Kunster's PRT quote here:

“ I've gotten a lot of letters from the PRT guys and I've run into them at conferences. They seem to be a particular kind of crank. And, you know, I just don't get it because it requires so much infrastructure; you have to build these sort of trestle systems. It's basically a monorail with your own personal car-pod in it, and you know, are they going to build trestles everywhere? You know, I don't really get the whole idea. If we're going to replace the car why do it with something that's not only like the car, but not really as good as the car? It just seems crazy. You know, the whole point really ought to be that you need walkable cities, walkable towns, walkable neighborhoods and to just invent another machine system for schlepping people around is nuts. And this one just requires so much built infrastructure; I just don't see how it has a chance. These guys have just come up to me time and time again with their schemes and their booklets and their diagrams and you know, I just think they're crazy. It seems basically like a railroad that only carries one person per carriage, and you know, so where's that at? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. ”

On the Segway versus PRT:

“ Well the Segway was a very interesting kind of analog to that, another personal transportation device that costs a huge amount of money, like you know, $3000 or something, or more maybe, and, you know, was it better than a bicycle? And also, you know the Segway was a good idea for people who are disabled, let's say, for some reason or another, you know, too old. But the idea that "normal" people need a prosthetic extension for walking around, you know, that was also kind of nuts. ”

I am going to create a section in the criticism area that includes Kunstler's criticism along with Calthorpe's and Hall's endorsements. ATren (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)