Jump to content

Talk:Personal rapid transit/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Disingenuous??

JzG, you imply that I am being disingenuous. Once again, you assume bad faith on my part. I'm not surprised. Nothing's changed. I'm removing the link correctly this time, since we've already discussed this previously. Light Rail Now is already linked once and does not need another link. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the Cyberspace Dream article a "reliable source"?

The image of the simulated Raytheon guideway is from an article by an anonymous author on a competing technology's advocacy site. The article could have been written by anyone (like, perhaps, someone with financial interests in light rail companies). Furthermore it's been challenged by reputable sources, most predominantly J.E. Anderson, who is one of the foremost experts on PRT and a respected researcher.

As an unpublished article, it's not subject to peer review. As an anonymously authored article, the qualifications and/or motivations of its author are unknown. As a posting on a competing technology's advocacy site, it's has no more credibility than a promotional brochure. References to this article do not belong here. The image should not source this article and therefore the reference should either be removed or qualified by the fact that the article's contents have been contested (multiple times) by reputable professionals. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with removing it. Its definately a famous PRT bash (as far as fame for those go). I would definately support labeling it as a discredited report. But now that JzG is here, we'd better get like 3 or 4 more people to agree with us before drawing a consensus. Fresheneesz 10:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
My first choice is to include it and also include the rebuttal links. JzG nixed that months ago using the "one link per site, preferably at the root" rule. But now the Cyberspace Dream article is linked even though it's not at the root, and it's not a reliable source, and there's no indication of its dubious origin or contents. So something has to change. So if JzG allows us to include references from reputable sources that counter Cyberspace Dream..., then I have no problem referencing it, and indeed I prefer this approach (why suppress this debate?); otherwise it should be removed. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG at it again

Here is the latest evidence that JzG is hostile to me and other perceived "proponents":

  • I earlier removed a redundant link to the Light Rail Now site. In the process, I accidentally removed the LRN image. It was an honest mistake, caused by my unfamiliarity with the image and ref tags. JzG reverted with the comment Disingenuous edit summary, ATE. Accusations of disingenuous behavior! So much for [WP:FAITH|assuming good faith]! But why would we expect an admin like him to follow official policy? He's a rogue cop who answers to no one.
  • JzG then made some edits that made no sense. Example: consider the sentence "Prototypes and systems in current development are on a small scale, serving a small number of destinations from a larger number of embarkation points." This makes no sense. What is the difference between "destinations" and "embarkation points"? Every station in a PRT network is both destination and embarkation point, right? How could a prototype have more embarkation points than destinations? I fixed this, and also reworded some stuff and fixed one glaring error ("not free" vs "not impeded"). All good faith edits.

    But once again, soon after, JzG mass reverted all my changes, with no comment about the reverts. Not only that, his edit comment referred to another revert he made in the same edit while making no mention of my reverts! So JzG did the exact same thing I did earlier! He actually revert an entire section without mentioning it in the edit comments!

    Disingenuous edit summary? Only JzG can answer that. But, unlike JzG, I will assume good faith and chalk it up to a busy admin making an honest mistake. I will take the high ground, unlike JzG, who still treats me like I'm a common vandal. In any event, I've reverted JzG's reverts. JzG, I'd be happy to discuss your unexplained reverts here, so we can come to a compromise. I only wish this could happen before you trash all my edits, for the umpteenth time.

A Transportation Enthusiast 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure hes going to make some controversial edits. We need to hold fast and draw a consensus - thats it. With consensus, JzG can't make bogus edits. Fresheneesz 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
JzG reverted my edits again. His comment said "see talk", but the only comment here is about the "key concepts" section, which I didn't touch! He's reverting one thing and discussing something completely different! And this is the second time it's happened today. I've reverted again, because my edits are good -- in fact, I fixed a glaring error and corrected another statement that makes no sense (and yes, JzG continues to revert back to those errors without looking at what he's actually doing). A Transportation Enthusiast 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Key concepts

JzG deleted the new key concepts section. I didn't seen anything wrong with it, and I don't agree with JzGs edit comment about it. However, I haven't read the section and I think it deserves some discussion here, between JzG, whoever created the section, and anyone else interested. I'll contribute when I have time to read it. Fresheneesz 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do none of the protypes or runing systems exhibit these "key" concepts? Not that I'm surprised that hyperbole is creeping back in, it's normal in articles on political concepts, but there is no policy reason for allowing the asseriton that features no exhiobited by any real system are in some way inherent in systems which do not have them. Just zis Guy you know? 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not a political concept. It's a transportation system. What the heck does politics have to do with technology? You're being obtuse. Furthermore, you once again reverted my edits, which I discussed above. What exactly is your problem, JzG?
I'm re-implementing my changes, because the article is incorrect as it reads right now. You keep referring to "key concepts", but you just reverted my edit again, and my edit does not contain the words "key" or "concepts". You are reverting blindly. AGAIN.
All: I'm thinking of asking for help here. JzG continues to assume bad faith and mass-revert our edits. He calls himself a rouge admin, but I think it's more like rogue. His actions continue to be terribly irresponsible for an admin. What do you all think?
A Transportation Enthusiast 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The "key concepts" section was well-written and accurate. It should be re-inserted into the article. JzG, ALL of the prototypes and running systems DO exhibit these "key concepts," including ULTra, which is fully funded for installation at Heathrow next year. Would you care to elaborate the ways in which ULTra does not demonstrate small vehicles, grade/right-of-way separation, off-line stations, point-to-point routing, et cetera? Because it does, as do all PRT concepts. Those ARE the key concepts, and they should be explained clearly as such. Skybum 00:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, I quite agree that JzG is continuing to act inappropriately as an admin. I fully support any external intervention that we wish to bring in. Skybum 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see any instance of JzG using his admin powers in this content dispute. Therefore you should probably stop flinging around accusations of admin abuse. -lethe talk + 01:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to say that everyone should keep a cool head: please exhibit patience. If JzG is good at one thing, it is exhibiting patience. We will not get anywhere if we loose our cool (this means you ATE). JzG can vandalize all he wants, after all he is an admin. But we will keep him in check by being patient, and assuming good faith. Please take appropriate steps to correct errors and bad edits, but remember that if this comes down to a formal dispute, yelling and shouting will only reflect poorly on those that oppose JzG (ie all of us).
Also, I agree with Lethe. JzG has not (in a while) abused his administrator powers. Hes just abusing wikipedia. And so refrain from calling JzG names, and accusing him of too many things. Stick to the point, and please keep it cool. Fresheneesz 01:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Granted, he has not threatened to ban anyone or freeze the article in some time. It was a clear abuse of admin-ship when he did so previously, but now I guess it would be more appropriate to say that he is a problematic user. Skybum 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of JzG's transgressions:
  • Threatens to lock down the page based on his own mis-reading of a single word in an edit by Skybum. He actually threatened to lock it twice, even though we all repeatedly asked him to re-read the word he mis-read.
  • Repeated assumptions of bad faith on the part of Skybum, Fresheneesz, and me. One of his edit comments actually implied that Skybum's change was invalid because he was a perceived "proponent". Just today accused me of "a disingenuous edit comment" because I accidentally removed an extra line in an edit. I can provide more examples if you like.
  • Many, many cases of mass reverts of good faith edits, when it's obvious he hasn't even reviewed the change. This happened again today -- twice! I fixed several errors in the article, and he reverted them en-masse. I re-inserted them, assuming he made a mistake, and he reverted again with a comment that had nothing to do with my change! He obviously didn't even read my edit or comment -- twice. I can provide more examples.
When an ordinary user commits these offenses, it's a small problem that can be corrected. When it's a respected admin, its a slightly larger problem. When it's a respected admin who refuses to read your edits or comments, it's a serious problem. When a respected admin who refuses to read your edits or comments and assumes bad faith, it's critical. When a respected admin who refuses to read your edits or comments and assumes bad faith and has threatened to lock down the page based on his own mis-readings, well then it's time to seek help from a higher authority.
I've repeatedly attempted to work with JzG on this page. He refuses to cooperate. And every time he misinterprets yet another good-faith edit, I wonder if he's going to lose his temper again and lock down the page. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverting is any editor's right, not just the admin's. However, I was unaware that he threatened to lock the page. That is solely the admin's right, so I withdraw my comment. -lethe talk + 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I missed most of the contoversy about locking down the article, but my impression is that there was an edit war brewing between people who thought PRT was a good idea and people who didn't like it. JzG locked down the article while he was fixing up the most extreme unsupported and POV text, before unlocking it. JzG took many comments on board during the discussion. Now the main sceptic has left, JzG is trying to ensure a NPOV here. I'm sure he would welcome extra input from other experienced Wikipedians. Stephen B Streater 09:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
There was never "extreme unsupported and POV text". Not much content was removed, JzG just reworded much of it and removed anything which he considered to be unsupported (even if there was support but it wasn't cited -- he didn't bother to ask, just wiped it clean). We all supported his work initially, because he truly is a gifted editor who can spot subtle POV and squash it. It was only later when we tried to reinsert some valid content that he had removed that he got hostile. And by the way, JzG never locked, he just threatened to lock. It was well after he'd completed his initial work on the article. The issue is not that he threatened to lock, but that he did so for no reason other than he assumed Skybum was acting in bad faith and he misread a single word. That's why we're so concerned now about his recent unexplained reverts of good edits - we can't get him to read our comments or this talk page, and yet he continues to revert our valid changes. At what point will his misunderstandings result in threats of bans and lockdowns? We're walking on eggshells here even as we make good, solid edits. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
On a very side note: I would appreciate anyone else just glancing over at UniModal, and checking the history. I can't handle JzG on my own. " This is a fantasy project, large articles on fantasy projects violate WP:NPOV"-JzG Fresheneesz 09:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about personal transit devices, which is why I haven't said anything despite seeing this stuff on my watchlist for months, but JzG's argument seems reasonable to me. A device that's not yet in the planning stages probably shouldn't have its own article. Why not just give it a paragraph in the main article? -lethe talk + 13:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
One reason is that JzG thinks PRT is a fantasy (a "Quixotic dream" in his words) so the article must not get too large. He purged a lot of the descriptions of and links to individual systems based on this view. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a reason not to give it a paragraph in a main article rather than its own article. Rather it sounds like a reason to do so. -lethe talk + 13:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And that's why JzG also tried to delete the Skytran article - he views PRT as a fantasy. But it's his view that is not supported by the facts. PRT as a technology is very real (much engineering and research has been done, and there are fully functioning prototypes of some designs - it only lacks commercial application, which is pending). But JzG doesn't believe it will ever be built, so he truncates this article and deletes Skytran based on that belief. My view on Skytran is that it deserves a small article of its own, because the proposal has been around for quite a while and there are some novel design elements, and because this article is already a nice size and I'd prefer not to clutter it with descriptions of every system. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, theres a lot of people that think that small topics don't deserve their own articles. But I'm a little confused as to why some (JzG) are so adement about removing articles on small topics. Hes cited NPOV, but.. time and time again, I see nothing about the issue of making pages for small topics being against NPOV policy. Also, I do think that the small amount of information JzG has allowed on the UniModal page is just a bit too much to merge into this article. I'm fine with keeping the UniModal article small, but I know that if I came to wikipedia and searched for that article, I would expect/want more information. Fresheneesz 23:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm adamant on removing articles on topics which are insignificant, or whose significance is restricted to a small group aggressively pushing a point of view. Your ascribing of false motives aside, UniModal is the right size for the amount of verifiable, neutral information we have on it. If PRT as described in this article is so real, which city has a system I can travel on? Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Destinations" vs. "Embarkation points"

I think it's fair to note that the upcoming systesms will not be large-scale applications, at least initially. (Although I know that ULTra does have further plans for Heathrow and its environs, beyond what is currently funded). However the distinction between "a small number of destinations" and "a larger number of embarkation points" is inaccurate. PRT is a bi-directional system; all destinations are also embarkation points, and vice versa. Skybum 08:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to say "small-scale" rather than "few destinations" or "few embarkation points". Fresheneesz 10:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
First, in my view, there is no reason why the statement about prototypes must be in that paragraph. I had moved it down below in a separate paragraph and reworded it, but JzG reverted 3 times now. Second: I agree about embarkation vs destination. I've made this point in my edit comment and here on the talk page above. JzG still insists on including that statement without explaining it. If someone else wants to revert it now, go ahead, but I've already reverted it twice and JzG refuses to leave it out. So if someone else wants to make the edit, I will support it, but I'm not going to risk a 3-revert ban. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think the prototypes thing is slightly misleading. It seems to instill the idea that these prototypes are actually *serving* people. When I don't think they are, are they? I thought they were just test sites. Fresheneesz 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Proto means "first" or "first formed." I can see how you might think this means "first system serving the public," but I don't think that applies here. The article makes it clear there is not yet a PRT system in operation, aside from Morgantown. In this context prototype would seem to mean prototype test or demonstration systems (such as ULTra/Cardiff) or functional complete elements (such as the Skyweb vehicle). I suppose operational scale models (Aerospace Corp. or Vectus "scaled track") could be considered prototypes also. Although physical simulations must be considered mockups. 15Jun06, 15:57 CDT previously unsigned comment by User:65.102.144.141
Is it possible the author of "a small number of destinations" meant a small number of popular destinations, i.e. urban activity centers? 15Jun06, 16:05CDT
Having gone back into the History, I see that indeed that seems to be what was meant-- e.g., an airport terminal (popular destination) linked by PRT to several parking lots (larger number of embarkation points). Another example is a stated goal of the Skycab program, which is to provide transit access to train stations.
In the context of initial PRT implementations therefore, I think the characterization is sound and the passage can be restored to that meaning if clarified. I propose Prototypes and systems in current development are often proposed for a specialized application, such as linking a number of dispersed locations (e.g., parking lots) to a popular major destination (e.g., airport terminal). 15Jun06, 17:10CDT previously unsigned comment by User:65.102.144.141

3D grid

This page doesn't have any mention of a 3D grid that some PRT people talk about. I think it deserves a small paragraph or something. Although england doesn't have them, I think this sentence would clarify things for people that are familiar with freeways - or at least with overpasses:

"A 3D grid design builds guideways so that perpendicular guideways do not intersect - much like freeway overpasses allow the cars on the freeway to continue non-stop."

Comments? Fresheneesz 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In England the corresponding things are called "motorways". I'm unsure of the merit of using a culture dependent word in a clarification. And if you've ever been on the M25, you'll know why PRT systems (which don't have traffic jams) are nothing like motorways. Think of Route 101 perhaps ;-) I think the 3D grid idea is important because it allows free flow - perhaps I would use the blood stream as an analogy. Stephen B Streater 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose.. but I doubt many people think about intersections and blood vessels that much - and, don't most blood vessels run parallel, not perpendicular? Fresheneesz 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The grid layout of towns is a particularly American thing. In England, roads often join up places which are sporadically placed, or run along bendy rivers. Roads usually do cross at right angles though. And blood vessels maybe not the right analogy, I concede. How about a big airport? They are good at people flow. Stephen B Streater 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I could suggest we switchout "freeway" for "highway", which the motorway page says a motorway is. I'm not sure about the airport idea, what did you have in mind? We could mention how airplanes don't cross paths, but rather fly over or under the other. Fresheneesz 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The ideal network layout uses merges and diverges as much as possible and over/underpasses as rarely as possible, so as to avoid roller coaster effects. Even with such a guideline, it might be possible to design citywide grids so that that are several straight-line crosstown guideways. But even if a few turns were necessary to get across town, that ought not to be a problem given nonstop, 25-40 mph service. 15 June 06, 18:26 CDT - [previously unsigned comment by User:65.102.144.141 ]
There are no roller coaster effects if you elevate north-south a constant 10 feet higher than east-west. Even if they did go up and down, the grade would climb so slowly, noone would ever notice. Fresheneesz 04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Source for this? Just zis Guy you know? 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No source, just my educated guess. Do you think that horizontal tracks would produce "roller-coaster effects"? As long as a gravity wave doesn't come by, I think we're safe in that respect. As for the up and down, thats just me talking, but rising 10 feet in say.. a quarter of a mile would require a grade of less than 1 percent (if I'm calculating it right - in any case its less than half a degree). You could have done the calculations yourself instead of asking for a source. Fresheneesz 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

More sourcing requests

Here are some more sentences that, IMO, would greatly benefit from footnoted sources, or simply cry out for expansion/further explanation.

  • "In the U.S., the average private automobile carries 1.16 persons, and most industrialized countries commonly average below 2 people."
  • "Based on these figures, some PRT designers choose an optimum vehicle capacity of 2 passengers or even a single passenger. Notable examples of this include designs by UniModal / SkyTran." - This needs a citation that the designs by SkyTran are "notable", by which I mean, sources that discuss this type of design, and use SkyTran as an example. Preferably, sources which are themselves very widely cited and respected.
  • "Most PRT designers avoid track switching, preferring vehicle-mounted switches or conventional steering." - Further explanation of the use of "conventional steering" would be good; it is not clear to me how it could be combined with a track-based design, or how it would be different than vehicle-mounted switches if it did.

Thanks in advance. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm splitting these into three separately signed points, so we can discuss each individually:
  • Regarding the 1.16 number: I found this which lists various numbers for occupancy, none of which are exactly 1.16. But the average number across all trips for the most recent year listed is 1.14, so it's close. I don't know where 1.16 came from, but it's in the ballpark of every figure I've seen. Perhaps we can change this to 1.14 and cite the source I just listed? A Transportation Enthusiast 11:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding "notably SkyTran", I don't think the intent was to say that SkyTran is "notable" in general (that's a whole different debate that I'd rather not get into) but that it was the most notable example of a 2-passenger PRT. If "notable" is problematic here, we could change these sentences to:
Based on these figures, PRT designers usually choose vehicle capacities of 4 passengers or less, with at least one design (SkyTran) based on 2-person vehicles.
A Transportation Enthusiast 11:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Should be four passengers or fewer. Stephen B Streater 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

small point - "critical"

The "key points" thing now says "There are 3 critical aspects of PRT". I think a better word would be "crucial", "defining" or even "key". "defining" I think works best, and "critical" implies something pressing, or impending. These aspects are more part of a definition of PRT than anything else. I guess the only reason i'm even commenting on this is because the wording has changed a couple times. Fresheneesz 08:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like "defining" A Transportation Enthusiast 12:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Could I just say...

that we have got back toi the situation where the initialism PRT appears at least once in most paragraphs. It makes it very irritating to read... Just zis Guy you know? 08:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just so easy to type, we can't resist! :-P A Transportation Enthusiast 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say in most paragraphs, but theres definately an average of more than 1 mention of PRT in each paragraph. I went through every one, and theres like 50 or 60 mentions. It could definately be reduced. Fresheneesz 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes - it's usually obvious from the context. Shorter text is usually easier to understand too. Stephen B Streater 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that it is not always "obvious from the context", and we should be careful not to remove too many "PRT"s from the text. (in some cases, the page compares PRT to something else - those are good times to make good use of "PRT"). Fresheneesz 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed image

As per my arguments earlier (uncontested) I've removed the Light Rail Now image because it is from an unreliable source. I've preserved the link to the Light Rail Now article index as an external link, so the content is still accessible, but it doesn't have the weight of an article reference. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Since that balances the speculative UniMOdal picture, we'll be removing that as well, yes? The two sources are of comparable reliability, after all. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the new PRT route diagram to both of these speculative images, and we don't need hundreds of images. As it happens, you can still see the Unimodal in that article, where it fits in well. Stephen B Streater 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

divergent chronologic and geographic requirements

The purpose of this statement is to describe the idea that riders have divergent, or widely scattered, times they need the transportation and points of embarkation and debarkation. As opposed to LRT and busses, which require riders to converge on particular points in space and time, PRT is meant to allow the natural chaos of the riders' requirements. It's the driving philosophy behind PRT. --JJLatWiki 19:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also only marginaly comprehensible :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yah. I was hoping that someone would understand what I was trying to say and find a way to express it more clearly. --JJLatWiki 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I replaced it with "However, designers and proponents envision city-wide deployment with many closely-spaced stations. The concept aims to satisfy the need for users to travel at different times, to different places, from different places - by incorporating off-grade guideways and numerous off-line access points, as shown in the diagram to the right. "
I think that more clearly says what you were trying to say JJ. If not, we can discuss it further here. Fresheneesz 05:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's less technical and incorporates the "time and space" characteristics that I'm talking about, but I think it should incorporate some distinguishing verbage between PRT and other forms of transit. The distinction helps one understand the PRT philosophy better. Maybe..."The concept aims to satisfy the need for users to travel at unscheduled, randomly different times and between any 2 points within the entire system, as opposed to most other forms of transit which run on fixed schedules and often require the rider to make connecting transfers to reach their destination, by..." --JJLatWiki 03:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok I added this "..different places - by incorporating off-grade guideways and numerous off-line access points, as shown in the diagram to the right. This is as opposed to other public transportation systems, like busses and trains, that require riders to converge on one time and place in order to get to where they need to go."
How is that? Fresheneesz 07:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ULTra

Just to let everyone know, I started a page on ULTra at ULTra (PRT). My version focuses on specs and the test track - so you guys can give me some input, or edit it yourself. Fresheneesz 06:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I already noticed :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "PAT" claim, & other of my recent edits

Hi folks -- Just to let you know, I'm going to once again try to improve this page, and will be making ongoing edits on a daily basis. Most of them will be minor; when they are not, I will note them on the talk page. For the time being, I will be focusing on the "history" section, which really needs to become less fragmented. In the first paragraph, I have a couple of questions/statements:

  1. Saying that it was invented by "some" inventors in 1950 is not very helpful. Who? To what effect? And what's the source? Without answers to these questions, we might want to delete this claim.
  2. What exactly was proposed by that HUD study? And I'm not sure how the sentence afterwards is connected with anything else.
  3. I've removed the following sentence:
Today, the concept of PAT (Personal Automated Transport) is 
often used to describe automated personal transportation systems for
both passengers and freights.

As far as I can tell, "PAT" is only used by two PRT design groups: Microrail and Higherway. The term pulls less than 700 hits in Google. So it's defninitely inappropriate to say "often" here, and in any case, term definitions like this aren't suited for the "history" section. Skybum 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should note somewhere else the term as being used by a "few groups including Microrail and Higherway"? Fresheneesz 07:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've put a briefer version of it back into the intro. Does that work for you? Also, I've improved the info about that HUD study. But I'd still like to know who these "some" inventors in the 1950s were, and what they had to do with anything. Skybum 00:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This article mentions no inventors, but gives a specific year, 1953, that PRT was thought of more seriously than half-baked ideas in the previous century. I've found a better source that mentions that Don Fichter started research on PRT in 1953. So many sources cite 1953, but leave the actual significance of that date out.. I've cited a source that doesn't leave it hanging. Fresheneesz 02:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I've tagged several claims in the article that (IMO) require citations. Please review and discuss here if necessary.

A Transportation Enthusiast 01:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Larger motors generally more efficient than smaller ones: pick any electrical engineering textbook. I was not aware that there was any significant informed dissent from this view - I do have a B.Eng (hons) in electircal engineering...
  • These estimates do not account for cost overruns common in public projects and new technologies and are considered low by skeptics - seems to be in the cited sources at the end of the document.
  • Cost data from these small-scale systems indicates that while automation reduces labor costs by eliminating drivers, these savings are eroded by increased vehicle maintenance and system monitoring. Source is included in the listed references, from Light Rail Now (appears to be based on analysis of extant unmanned systems).
  • Some have also objected to PRT promotion on the grounds that it is a distraction from other, more proven transit solutions. Objectors claim that advocacy for PRT has reduced support for other alternatives to private motoring, with the result that neither alternative has been implemented. I think we can see the evidence of that on these talk pages and their archives...
Don't be tempted to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, will you? Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't be tempted to assume bad faith, again.
Sorry, Light Rail Now is not a reliable source, being an advocacy site for a competing technology.
Also, these talk pages are not reliable sources either. Try again, JzG. We need reliable sources here.
Not disrupting to make a point, just demanding the same level of reliable sources that you've been demanding for four months now. Provide the sources or I will remove the points. A Transportation Enthusiast 23:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You pretty much stated in as many words that you were off to wage war. And just how many links do we need to Jerry Schneider's personal pages? You make it look as if he is the only source other than the manufacturers discussing this technology. His perosnal pages may not qualify as a reliable source, incidentally - how much of it is published and peer-reviewed? Light Rail Now is a published journal. Just zis Guy you know? 09:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I said I was going to be bold, like you've been. If you interpret that as waging war, then that's your problem.
Jerry Schneider is a university professor, and his site is a document repository. He happens to have text versions of many of the previously published papers on PRT, and therefore his web site is frequently cited.
Light Rail Now a published journal? Huh? Here's a paragraph from the about page on Light Rail Now:
"The Light Rail Now Project is a charitable educational enterprise designed to support efforts both within North America and worldwide to develop and improve light rail transit (LRT) and other rail transit and mass transportation systems. This website – Light Rail Now! – is intended to provide informational and educational material helpful in bolstering these objectives and the general educational and outreach activities of the Light Rail Now Project. The Light Rail Now Project believes that presenting facts, reliable information, and well-supported arguments is the way to counteract the avalanche of misinformation and misconception about mass transit, rail transit in general, and LRT, and particularly to enable planners, decisionmakers, and the public to make truly informed decisions in regard to LRT as an amazingly versatile, attractive, and cost-effective mode of transportation technology. The Light Rail Now Project and this website are sponsored by the Texas Association for Public Transportation in collaboration with Light Rail Progress. (The website originated as a Web vehicle to support efforts to promote an LRT system for Austin, Texas in 2000, and was the official website of Light Rail Now and Walkable Neighborhoods.)"
Not a single mention about being a "published journal". Everything about the above paragraph sounds like advocacy. Where is the mention of this "journal" you refer to?
Also, I'd be curious to cross-reference the sponsor list against those who serve to benefit financially from light rail construction. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
A delightful conspiracy theory, which I am sure absolutely explains the fact that, contrary to what this article suggests about it potential, no wide-scale PRT system does or has ever existed. Just zis Guy you know? 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought unprovable conspiracy theories were fair game on the PRT pages.  :-)
By the way, you make a good point. Maybe we should add to the article the fact that no wide scale PRT system exists. Oh wait! It's already in the article! Repeatedly!
And I see you've backed off your claim that Light Rail Now is a published journal. Is it safe to say you agree now that it's an advocacy site that cannot be listed as a reliable source? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, even if LRN was published - they are peer reviewed. At least their cyberspace dream article is, and most peers think their arguments are total bullshit. Just a little reality check. Fresheneesz 00:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And your citation for that is?... Just zis Guy you know? 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
None is needed, because neither the paper nor its rebuttals are presented. As it should be. (Although I do think it's OK to include the Cyberspace Dream article, provided we also include the unreliability of the source and a discussion of the rebuttals). A Transportation Enthusiast 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, no citations are needed. But I couldn't help it: [1], [2], [3], [4] Fresheneesz 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anderson v. Vuchic

We seem to spend far too much time rehashing the spat between Anderson and Vuchic, and we somehow always seem to leave the text with Anderson having the last word (can't think why). If these are the only two academics discussing the issue, it is not significant and the article needs to be drastically shortened. Why are there no citations from engineering journals? Why are we relying almost exclusively on promoters and lobbyists in this way? Just zis Guy you know? 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If Anderson's verifiable counterpoint cannot be presented along with Vuchic's point, then they should both be removed. Anything else is promoting one POV. Now, JzG, I've tried inserting the Anderson claim after the Vuchic claim, you've rejected it, so I've now removed the Vuchic claim. There is absolutely no justification for preserving one side of an academic debate while suppressing the other. These are verifiable claims from trusted sources, and you insist on suppressing one while keeping the other. Either keep both or suppress both. Really, I don't understand the reasoning behind your repeated insistence that precicely half the argument (BTW, the half that you happen to support) be presented. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is, the whole article is about Anderson's viewpoint, that the system is practical. Vuchic's opinion is mentioned in the "criticism" section at the end. Anderson is already cited. Vuchic appears to be a prominent (and well-qualified) opponent. The vast majorityy of the article supports the pro-PRT viewpoint, and I can't understand why you would insist that criticisms be balanced line-by-line by apologia as well. As to balance, on balance there is no such thing as urban PRT and we must not forget that. Just zis Guy you know? 19:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you are missing the point. The whole article is Anderson's science, along with Irving's, Lowson's, Schneider's, and every other scientist who has worked on this technology. It is science, not viewpoint. Furthermore, where there is content that can be considered a proponent viewpoint, it is surrounded by qualifications and counter viewpoints. Look at the intro, as well as the section on headways, cost, etc. -- all of those sections are littered with disclaimers and qualifications for every single point that might be construed as a viewpoint (some of which have much evidence to back them up, and which you steadfastly refuse to concede, so they remain qualified). The only lack of balance in this article is that the existence of this technology does not mesh with your point of view that PRT is a "quixotic dream" with no chance of ever being built.
JzG, you are arbitrarily suppressing verifiable information based on your own POV and it must stop now.
Rather than risk a 3RR, I'm leaving it as is and tagging the section NPOV until it is resolved, probably through mediation or arbitration. Does anybody else have a view on this?
For the uninitiated, here is the issue: Vuchic and Anderson had a very public debate on the basic applicability of PRT. Vuchic claimed that because of its limitations there was no place for it, and Anderson reponded that Vuchic's conclusions were based on flawed assumptions. Just a simple academic debate between fellow professionals.
The problem is, JzG will only allow one side of the debate in the article! He steadfastly insists that Vuchic's arguments remain, with citations, while the Anderson response, which was published in the exact same journal as Vuchic's, is censored. In fact, he will not even allow a reference to Anderson's response! He insists that there be no evidence presented at all that Vuchic's words were part of a public academic debate.
This is insanity! How can one reasonably suggest that only one side of a debate be presented in an encyclopedia? How about we discuss the Nixon-Kennedy debates, and only quote Kennedy? Or Lincoln-Douglas - let's erase Douglas words from the records and only preserve Lincoln's! After all, we all know Lincoln was "right" so we can safely pretend as if the Lincoln-Douglas debates were actually just solo Lincoln speeches, right?
Are we to censor one person's arguments in a specific, well known debate, just because someone thinks it preserves some artificially constructed article balance? A Transportation Enthusiast 23:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the reason this article uses mostly promoter's pages is because engineering journals and stuff are difficult to find online - and the most famous anti-PRT stuff thats online seems to have been repeatedly debunked. Remeber that this article isn't about a POV, so we need to find some opponents that have decent arguements - or at least arguments that haven't already been debunked. Fresheneesz 00:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Vuchic's quote is warrented in the critiscism section and that Anderson's rebuttle doesn't belong there, but can appear first in the main body of the page. Fresheneesz 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't work, because Anderson's argument directly challenges Vuchic's. To put it in the main body of the article would require moving the entire quote there for context. Furthermore, the main body of the article has plenty of skepticism, why can't the skepticism contain the proponent rebuttal to a skeptic's argument? I've seen this on other pages. It flows much better that way. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Vuchic's bit is pretty short, and looking in the recent history, I don't see any substantial argument from Anderson - only that Vuchic has faulty assumptions. I added the bit about faulty assumptions (also putting in what two of his main assumptions are), so I think that maybe Anderson's disagreement is both obvious and unneccessary. Fresheneesz 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fresheneesz, that one line about faulty assumptions is the full extent the argument I inserted, and which JzG repeatedly reverts. The sentence I added was:
J.E. Anderson disputed Vuchic's conclusions, claiming they were based on flawed assumptions. <citation>
That's it. A single sentence with a very brief summary of Anderson's response, and referencing the journal article. This is what JzG is so adamant about removing. JzG's original revert contained the edit comment "Far too much space given to this spat." So JzG actually justified his original revert by claiming that a twelve word sentence presenting an important point from a reliable reference was consuming too much space in the article! After his revert (he removed the Anderson claim and reference), I then removed the Vuchic quote to balance the POV, saying that either both should stay or both should go. Then JzG restored it with the comment "No, ATE, the entire article is the counter argument!", which I have disputed above.
But really, what justification could JzG have for suppressing these 12 words which have rock-solid verifiability and which are critical to understanding the full context of the debate that occured? A Transportation Enthusiast 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think perhaps he was arguing about Anderson being specifically mentioned. I think maybe he'll go for the wording that insteads say that many people think his assumptions suck - I sure do. In fact, on the site he posted his ideas, there are a couple rebuttles. Fresheneesz 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right: I have no problem with stating that his assumptions are disputed, I just don't see the need to rehash the debate; it's easy for people to follow in the linked sources if they want. ATE's assertion that it was "twelve words" is false: it was twelve words plus yet another link to Schneider's site, which is in any case included in the link cited for the Vuchic statement. Debates over feasibility are a legitimate thing to note, but don't need rehashing because the size of the installed base of this forty-year-old concept is eloquent enough. A bit like hubless wheels - actually I have it in mind to get myself a monocycle. Just zis Guy you know? 14:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not easy to follow the linked sources, because you keep insisting those references be removed! A Transportation Enthusiast 15:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is! They are linked at the top of the source we cite! Before the Vuchic case is even stated! We only need one reference to the whole thing, are you afraid to let readers make up their own mind or something? The multiple links imbue it with vastly greater significance than it has. It's a single dispute between two people with differing viewpoints, and it's included to balance the fact that virtually the entire article is discussing somethign which exists only in the minds of its designers. Leave it be. Just zis Guy you know? 15:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. I didn't realize that the rebuttals were linked from the main reference page (I haven't followed that link for a while).
"virtually the entire article is discussing somethign which exists only in the minds of its designers", and in the verifiable, largely irrefutable scientific evidence those designers have produced. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

extrapolation from cars

I removed this rather long note:

  • "Direct extrapolations from mass transit systems such as buses and trains or from private automobile usage may be inaccurate due to the different properties of a PRT system. Nevertheless, some designers use private automobiles as an analog to estimate potential PRT ridership. "

I don't think this argument is justified. It makes sense to me that such extrapolation would *over*estimate the average group-size, since people can carpool with cars, which is a significantly large percentage of travel in some cities (40% 11% for SF - 20% of all car trips and probably around 30% of all passanger-trips in SF) - but PRT can't do carpooling, only take groups of people that are already very close. But of course, we can't take my word for it, I think the size of this qualification needs a source. Fresheneesz 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This was added by JzG a while back, because he believed the assumption needed to be further qualified (even though the previous version clearly identified the car comparison as an assumption). I think it's wordy and confusing, but it's relatively low on my list of concerns. As for carpooling, I do know that some researchers have studied the possibility of adding "ridesharing" to PRT control systems; i.e. during vehicle loading, a display would identify the destination of the current passenger so that others travelling to (or near) that destination could share the ride. I recently added a sentence about ridesharing (with source), in which the researchers simulated a ridesharing algorithm that could potentially double the vehicle group size during busy periods. I don't know of any current system design that has anything like this. A Transportation Enthusiast 03:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I assume ridersharing offers some economic insentives to riders? Fresheneesz 06:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It would depend on the system I guess. I would think there would have to be some sort of incentive though. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
So, remove the whole lot as speculation then. No data, state no data, leave it at that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not speculation, it's research. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Until there is a real system to base it on, it's speculation. And in as much as it is research, it appears to be original research. Cite the reliable secondary sources (engineering journals etc.) which have discussed these figures and their value. Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong -- it's not original research. It's from a published journal. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Many people have used cars as an analog for this, i'm pretty sure its been published in a bunch of places. All we have to do is cite some.. or one. And research is research whether the thing you're researching has been in use for decades, or if it hasn't been used ever. No difference. Fresheneesz 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

O&M costs plane=bus?

I removed the fragment:

  • "; U.S. federal data shows that O&M costs are nearly constant per seat for a wide variety of systems: buses, trains, aircraft and private automobiles. [citation needed]"

It seems pretty ridiculous that someone would find that operation and maintenance for planes, busses and cars is the same per seat. Must I argue further? This needs a citation before its readded. Fresheneesz 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I also found that line perplexing. And what do they mean "per seat"? Shouldn't it be per passenger mile or something else that takes the amount of usage into account? Maybe I just don't understand the term "per seat". A Transportation Enthusiast 03:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I found this interesting precisely because it is counter-intuitive. I wrote this, and I seem to remember that the quote's from J.E. Anderson's discussion of O&M in his article about recent trends in PRT, if you can find it. The link seems to have died when his company's site removed a bunch of his white-papers. Ray Van De Walker 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

PRT distracts

I wonder at the utility of mentioning that some people have objected to PRT "on the grounds that it distracts from more proven modes of transit". That sort of thinking could be used to discourage any sort of research in any field - it discourages science and discovery. Such a claim can be 1000% true, but says nothing about the failing of the idea of PRT. It seems like a pity technique. Fresheneesz 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more. It's almost axiomatic for all development. Leather-soled shoes, metal alloys, rifling, railroads, internal combustion engines, flying machines, electric lightbulbs, plastic, nuclear power plants, VOIP, and countless others. All of them distracted from more proven technology and often siphoned development funds away from competing technologies. It's a hollow argument because it's practically self-evident and universal. --JJLatWiki 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
And the latest cited source in the article says that there is opposition form more established modes. Well well. Just zis Guy you know? 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The very reason I didn't remove the text. Its true, and its interesting. Fresheneesz 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
To which cited source are you referring? Beside, I did not imply that there is no opposition from more established modes, because I know for a fact that there is. I assert that it is pointless to include such an argument in the article because it is a self-evident, fact of life, and only reasonable from a political point of view. Trains and busses distract from roads for private automobiles, HOV lanes distract from normal traffic lanes, planes distract from trains, bridges distract from ferries, Service Pack 3 development distracts from generic XP development, AJAX distracts from Java. Aside from a political interest in either side, what is the significance of distraction? --JJLatWiki 18:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I said that it is interesting because of the fact that such an argument is totally ridiculous. My personal opinion is to keep it as trivia. But of course, if I were JzG - trivia would be out like a shot. Fresheneesz 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
JzG, I'm still hoping you will tell me which "latest" source you're citing that says there is opposition from more establish modes. --JJLatWiki 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

New summary text?

JzG, first off, isn't there a problem with using almost verbatum text from a copyrighted source? Second, the text you inserted is from an abstract of one person's presentation at a conference on Automated People Movers. The presentation itself was apparently a review of at least a sampling of the approximately 200 non-trivial writings on PRT, not a review or analysis of PRT itself. Neither the abstract, or the contents of the presentation were published except as proceedings to a conference and are not subject or subjected to peer review, upon which you are fond of faulting other edits. I'm not sure this is pertinent information relative to PRT. Some of the contents of the actual presentation may be useful fodder for skeptics and proponents alike, but I don't think they add material substance to the article. Furthermore, if this is the new criteria for contributions to this, or any other article, there were about 70 presentations given at the 2005 APM conference with at least 7 of them in the PRT portion of the conference, can we now quote any statements provided in those abstracts without fear of deletion/reversion? I just thought I would ask your opinion before I delete the new material. --JJLatWiki 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no problem. It's a balanced and verifiable description of the state of play from a broadly sympathetic source. We could blockquote it verbatim if you'd prefer; as an abstract this is permissible by copyright. Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
And other content from this and similar conferences are likewise fair game? Skybum 01:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't disagree with the inclusion of this new paragraph, but I think it's (a) misplaced and (b) too long.
IMO, it belongs as a short summary in the criticism section. It is, after all, not about PRT but rather about PRT literature. I think this should be removed from the intro and added as a small paragraph in the skepticism section. Something like:
Some have argued that the lack of critical analysis of PRT has hindered its development and mainstream acceptance.
with a citation to the source. There is really no need to include that entire quote, especially in the intro. A Transportation Enthusiast 03:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"verifiable description of the state of play"? It's neither verifiable nor a description of the state of play. This is one man's opinion (or really just a summary of his opinion) in the form of a critique of PRT literature. He may be sympathetic and the critique was meant to be constructive, but it's still just one man's opinion. I'm not saying he's wrong either, but he's critiquing PRT literature, not PRT. The whole paragraph should begin with, "According to 'Critical Review of the Personal Rapid Transit Literature' by Wayne D. Cottrell, Assistant Professor at the University of Utah,..." But you've presented it all as accepted fact. For example, where is the verification that the amount of study on integration into urban design is an unresolved issue for PRT? It's not in the abstract and the presentation didn't provide it because he didn't imply that it is a problem PRT faces, only that PRT literature isn't adequately addressing the question. And then you reworded the concluding sentence and changed its intention: "What literature there is is typically favorable toward the concept and is said to lack self-criticism." Your wording implies that there is scarce literature available and that lacking in self-criticism is a common opinion of that literature. The abstract of the original research of Cottrell didn't imply scarceness and it was his singular opinioned recommendation that the literature "might" be improved by greater introspection and criticism. --JJLatWiki 17:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I definately think that section needs to be scaled down a bit. It doesn't really seem like the paragraph is about literature, but if it is in fact about literature then its very confusing to say the least. Fresheneesz 04:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
What ATE did was to add weasel words, yet another cite from Anderson to excuse it, and essentially to neuter what is one of the very few bits of actual secondary source material in the entire article. I have no objections to working on this text, but what we really really don't need is to "balance" a neutral secondary source with yet more special pleading which completely misses the point of the review. Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded per JJLatWiki's suggesitons above. Just zis Guy you know? 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I had preserved every point in the original version, just summarized it for brevity. I also added a small point about a well known allegation regarding the cessation of gov't funding in 1974. I provided qualification ("allegedly") and a citation, and yet JzG bluntly reverted once again. Now, I'm going to reinsert my changes, because I believe they have merit, and because I belived it is wholly irrelevant whether one editor believe that one point happens to "neuter" the meaning of another; as long as it's verifiable, such considerations should not matter at all. JzG, there is nothing wrong with what I added. I'd be interested in others' views on this. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you'd added yet another Anderson apologia, some weasel words, and knocked the body out of the excellent point made by the independent author. So, I reverted and then rewrote, without the Anderson apologia, and incorporating the criticisms made above. And your Anderson cite is a perfect example of precisely what Cottrell was saying, and what I've been saying all along: what literature there is is typically favorable toward the concept and lacks self-criticism. That appears to me to be our fundamental disagreement: you do not accept that this is true. So, can you provide any secondary sources who say that the material is adequately self-critical? This is as far as I can tell the only reliable secondary source cited in the entire article. We already knows that Anderson thinks the world is doing him down, and we don't need to be told it again. Most specifically, we don't need to hear it as "balance" to somsone who stands outside the debate, when we have vanishingly few references to anybody with even the slightest pretence to neutrality anywhere else in the article. Just zis Guy you know? 12:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is the exact text I inserted. I've highlighted the words I added that summarized the points without getting overly verbose (citations removed):
Research into PRT peaked between 1971 and 1975 when the U.S. government was actively involved. Government support faded by the end of 1974, allegedly due to political lobbying from the conventional rail community. A resurgence in research and development occurred during the 1990s, but a number of political, economic, and aesthetic issues remain unresolved. Some have claimed that the academic literature on the topic fails to address these concerns, and generally lacks self-criticism.
JzG, exactly which point was compromized by my summarization? Furthermore, the quote about government funding fits perfectly fine here! There is nothing wrong with it! It doesn't "neuter" anything, it just adds a detail about why government funding allegedly ended. And if you don't like the weasel word, then remove it. But leave the point, because it's valid.
But no, JzG insists on reverting the whole paragraph back to his version, which contains points that have already been made elsewhere (the intro summarizes the issues), and in the process removing a perfectly valid point. Fine, I'll add it elsewhere. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh FFS, get over it will you? I backed out the change for the reason stated: it had yet another reference back to Anderson, whose views are not only well understood but also symptomatic of precisely the problem the cite is talking about; the purpose of this article is not to boost Anderson's pagerank. I then made changes based on the comments here, which were reasonable enough. Stephen has taken those changes and further refined them. The citation is entirely valid in context and makes a very important comment regarding the evidence base. The last thing we need is to take a neutral secondary source and wrap it around with even more apologia about how it's all a vast conspiracy to keep this wonderful technology off our streets. Allegedly due to lobbying from the conventional rail lobby my arse. The US Government hates spending money on public transport, and has done for ever. No hypothetical conspiracy is necessary to explain this! Just zis Guy you know? 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
There you go again, JzG, assuming my motives are to "boost Anderson's pagerank". I'm not even going to respond to such accusations anymore. Since you so object to "neutering" the POV expressed in this section, I've inserted the point about the cessation of government funding in the history section.
I'd still like to know exactly what about my concise summary, other than the Anderson quote, that you find so objectionable. You could have reverted that one line, but no, you revert the entire block without even considering the merit of the summarization. How many dozens of such reverts can we find from you, JzG, on these pages? Maybe you should take your own advice from the top of this page, have a cup of tea and relax. Or is that advice just for other editors? A Transportation Enthusiast 16:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd venture in a bit to this discussion:

  • The JzG cite is interesting as reliability of sources is discussed a lot here
  • The Fresheneesz position is better as the cite refers to literature rather than PRT concept itself
  • The quote does not need to be included in full and JJLatWiki makes some good suggestions
  • I'll see if I can come up with my own summary. Stephen B Streater 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You will note that as rewritten I made it clear that this was the view of Cottrell, and I cut out about half the text. It backs the statement made in the UniModal article that reliable, neutral sources are hard to find. And given the long-standing articles here, and that this is as far as I can see the only reliable secondary source cited in the entire article in respect of technical aspects, I'd say it was one of the more important points. It helpd explain why there are no cites from the engineering journals, for a start. One thing we don't need is to wrap it round yet another quote from Anderson explaining how it's all a vast conspiracy to do down his wonderful dream. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"that reliable, neutral sources are hard to find. And given the long-standing articles here, and that this is as far as I can see the only reliable secondary source cited in the entire article in respect of technical aspects" - what are you talking about? For the umteenth time, please, please, please identify the sources which you consider lacking! You keep making the same argument without providing detail! A Transportation Enthusiast 15:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure. All the ones which are not from engineering journals or other reputable secondary sources. As of now that's anythign on Anderson's website, anything by Anderson, Vuchic, ATS, unless published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. We also need the details of where Anderson's paper on Taxi 2000 was publiched (the journal name and issue number). And what we really need is some citations for engineering journals rather than the websites of those involved in promoting or opposing PRT. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, non-specific allegations. This is starting to sound like the old debate, where a certain editor who shall not be named kept making the vague statement that the whole article was "bogus". JzG, for the (umpteen + 1)th time, why don't you point out specific points that you feel are unsupported so we can end this circular debate? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oy, JzG. Are we adding another rule to your list of exceptions? As of now, for the PRT family of articles, anything by Anderson, from an Anderson website, by Vuchic, or by ATS is impermissable unless it can be confirmed as being published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. Is this rule limited to just the PRT family of articles or do Anderson, Vuchic, and ATS have such stringent restrictions everywhere in WP? So far this brings the list of special exceptions to five. --JJLatWiki 21:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is a useful secondary source (Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source) and think it is reflected fairly in the JzG summary, with some tweaks
  • There is no need for weasel words when we have the names of the people making the claims, as this just makes it harder for future readers to understand the accuracy of the information
  • The reference from A Transportation Enthusiast Advanced Automated Transit Systems Conference, Bologna, Italy is a red link at the moment, so I can't easily comment on its applicability - please point me to the correct cite
  • The article is clearer when different views are separated in the text. For example, Unimodal gives prominent place to the innovative nature of the technology in the introduction, but the System details section is allowed to flow without constant interruption. I think Cottrell's independence and thoroughness warrants giving his work a paragraph to himself, so readers can see his opinion clearly. If Anderson has views, he could have his own paragraph, with a weight reflecting the importance of his contribution

Stephen B Streater 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking through in a bit more detail, the natural place for political opposition (including that from supporters of rival systems) seems to be Personal rapid transit#Opposition and controversy. I'd like to see it all in the same place, rather than sprinkled through the text. Often people don't read a whole article, but are just looking for one or two aspects, and these should be clearly labelled for ease of access to readers. Stephen B Streater 14:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still forming my opinion BTW. The Introduction and Overview seems to be slightly trying to do the same job. I'd be tempted to make the Introduction shorter, for example, and separate the writing about what PRT is from the writing about people's opinions of it. Stephen B Streater 14:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your changes. Just zis Guy you know? 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
So now we have this from ATE, with my additions in italics::

On March 23, 1973, U.S. Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) administrator Frank Herringer testified before congress: "A DOT program leading to the development of a short, one-half to one-second headway, high-capacity PRT (HCPRT) system will be initiated in fiscal year 1974."[citation needed] However, this HCPRT program was diverted into a modest technology program[citation needed]. According to PRT supporter J Edward Anderson, this was "because of heavy lobbying from interests fearful of becoming irrelevant if a genuine PRT program became visible". From that time forward people interested in HCPRT were unable to obtain UMTA research funding[7].

So: first of all, are we confident that Anderson has a credible basis for the assertion that this, and only this, was the reason for temrination fo the programme, and if we do, can we be confident that his opinion is suitably authoritative? Second, can we be confident that his statement that the fuinding was "diverted" is accurate and supportable, rather than, for example, budgetary constraints? Third, when it's said to be "congresisonal testimony", is it in fact sworn testimony, or is it just a budget summary subject to horse-trading as such things habitually are? Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with attributing the latter part to Anderson, as you have done.
As for the previous sentences in which you request sources: we already know US gov't support ended in 1974 (from your source below), so the point that the HCPRT program was diverted looks pretty well supported. Also, here we have a person, Anderson, who is an expert in the history of PRT, reporting a direct quote from congressional testimony. Why do we need more citations here? Are you implying that Anderson misquoted Herringer? A Transportation Enthusiast 17:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You are relying implicitly on Andersons statement that this was congressional testimony rather than just a budget statement or some such. It is perfectly plain that Anderson is as sore as hell about this, I would not call him a neutral observer. Where is the reference from congressional proceedings? Also, the ending of Government support could have been for many reasons, including simply coming to the end of the initially agreed funding without producing the desired results - a pretty common outcome, I understand; the term "diverted" is a loaded one - all we know for sure is that the funding ended. We should be very wary of trusting the word of someone with a vested interest here. Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I found the quote here [5]. I'm slightly swayed to keep Anderson's quote, after all, he's a prominant figure, and we're not "trusting" him because we clearly label that its his voice and his opinion - but that it does connect with that event. Fresheneesz 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done for finding this. It would be good to find it on the U.S. government website. Is everything like this published there? Stephen B Streater 22:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think the wording is better and has much less implication that it is a consensus opinion. I still think the abstract itself leaves a little too much to the imagination of the reader. For example, given the title of the presentation, the criticism implies that the challenges aren't adequately addressed in the available literature, as opposed to not being addressed at all. And then there's the last sentence, which reads, "The PRT literature, typically favorable toward the concept, might be improved by greater introspection and criticism."

  1. Does the first part mean: a) "PRT literature is TOO often written by those in favor of PRT and therefor tends to be disproportionately favorable toward PRT" or b) "Even though the PRT literature may be prepared by a wide spectrum of sources, it is still favorable toward PRT".
  2. In addition, does last part mean: a) "might be improved by greater introspection and greater external or peer criticism." or b) "might be improved by greater introspection and self-deprecating criticism.

The current interpretation reads, "He also states that the literature, typically favorable toward the concept, might be improved by greater introspection and criticism." To be more accurate and remove some ambiguity, I suggest, "He also suggests that the literature might be improved by greater introspection and criticism." --JJLatWiki 19:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

New cite

I couldn't find the cites requested, but this one looks like quite a good secondary source. Stephen B Streater 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Interesting, too - note that it says PRT lies at the boundaries rather than being included in the scope of work - one could be forgiven for interpreting the current text of this article as implying the exact opposite. Just zis Guy you know? 19:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The "boundaries" referred to are those of the AGT "ongoing assessments" occurring at that time: 1974-- 32 years ago. -09 Jul 06, 1700 CDT.

Article is pretty good

I've read the article now, and made some minor changes (mostly improvements). It's a lot better than I expected from the level of arguments going on. There is still some repetition eg Unimodal in history section and later on in Proposals section. And I think the introduction is a bit heavy - just because the article is big doesn't mean the introduction has to be. Of course, deciding what to prune is another matter. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is good, for the most part. The changes I've fought bitterly over are, for the most part, very minor in nature. That's what's so frustrating here: even though we agree with JzG on probably 80% of the content, JzG still treats us like we're a bunch of mindless cheerleaders whenever we make a few minor additions and/or changes. Nearly every single change we've made, no matter how minor in scope, has been treated with hostility by JzG. If he would just give us the benefit of the doubt that we're not just a bunch of POV pushers, and judge our edits on their merits rather than revert them on sight, this debate could have ended months ago. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
But the things you are fighting over are the things which are not in this "pretty good" article. Perhaps if you chose a source other than Anderson's site occasionally you would come across as less of a cheerleader :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Anderson doesn't have a "site". The quotes I've retrieved from him are from external published sources. Why don't you point out to me the places where I've cited dubious sources? By "dubious" I mean something along the lines of Light Rail Now, which you tried to convince us was a published journal.
And if you'd like a list of edits by us "cheerleaders" which you mass-reverted (and which you later accepted, once you bothered to examine them in detail), I can provide it. It's not a short list. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, JzG disturbs me at how he admittedly treats us. An editor assuming good faith wouldn't imply that we sound like "cheerleaders". Fresheneesz 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Admins don't have to follow the rules. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You could always stop acting like cheerleaders. And I only undid one revert (incidentally, "mass revert" is tautology), and that was due to a browser caching problem. The major problem on this Talk page seems to be the endless "and another thing..." arguments over issues that were settled within the article ages ago. The major problem in the article is too few citations from reliable sources. And yes, ATE is right - Anderson has a microsite, not a site. A differnece which makes no difference, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
(1) What on earth is a "microsite", and (2) would you kindly point me to this "microsite you are referring to? A Transportation Enthusiast 21:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
By "mass revert", I mean the habit you have of reverting a whole set of changes, sometimes encompassing completely unrelated edits. If you would like to suggest a more appropriate term for this action, I'd be happy to use it instead. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, JzG, I assume you would consider the Journal of Advanced Transportation to be a reliable source? I'm guessing you don't consider it as reliable a source as the very prestigious Light Rail Now, but it is a peer reviewed journal. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If we are acting like cheerleaders, then you're acting like your adgenda is to banish PRT from the planet, and that you own wikipedia. Of course, that is a gross exageration - but so is calling us cheerleaders. Fresheneesz 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
To address the issues in turn: (1) I meant Schneider's microsite; this should have been clear from the context. Surely there must be other sources than Anderson and Schneider? Are these the only people who have published on the issue? (2) Admin rollback goes back to the last version by any other editor, that's how it works - Godmode Lite and other tools do the same. (3) I want cites from engineering journals, peer-reviewed, verifiable, solid. There must be some discussion in the mainstream surely? If not then the whole thing should be nuked from space as a triviality. (4) My agenda is as it has always been: to ensure that we follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. If I wanted to banish the subject I would nominate it for deletion, or just delete it out of process, instead of spending so much time trying to fix it. (5) Look at it this way: I came to this with absolutely no preconcived notions in response to a request to deal with neutrality issues. This I have done to tbe best of my ability. You appear to think that only those promoting the technology are neutral; I venture to suggest that you may be wrong in this. There is a profound difference between a questioningf or sceptical viewpoint (which is the default per the scientific method) and either an uncritical acceptance or a dogmatic rejection of an idea. As of this moment my sceptical view seems to accurately reflect the real world (where there is no urban PRT), and my assessment of the sources you have provided matches the assessment of Cottrell, that they are insufficiently self-critical. Just zis Guy you know? 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
To address each of your points above:
  • "I meant Schneider's microsite; this should have been clear from the context" - OK, let's re-examine your original text: "Anderson has a microsite, not a site.". Yes, of course, silly me, I should have assumed Schneider when you wrote Anderson.
  • "Surely there must be other sources than Anderson and Schneider?" - Well, there's Irving's comprehensive text, but that text is offline and hard to get. Much of Anderson's work builds upon Irving's very extensive research, so he is quoted frequently. But the fundamental question I have for you is: what is wrong with citing Anderson and referring to Schneider's site? Schneider's site is a document repository of previously published material, and Anderson is far and away the most prolific PRT researcher in terms of publicly available materials. So you want to arbitrarily eliminate these two sources? On what basis?
  • "I want cites from engineering journals, peer-reviewed, verifiable, solid." - Oh, like Light Rail Now?
  • "There must be some discussion in the mainstream surely?" - Is the Journal of Advanced Transportation mainstream enough for you? Or will you arbitrarily eliminate that source just like you are arbitrarily eliminating all the others?
  • "Look at it this way: I came to this with absolutely no preconcived notions" - except for a self-professed adoration for the nameless editor who has called PRT a hoax and a fraud, as well as an admitted love of trains and light rail, which would be directly impacted by large PRT installations. Nope, no preconceived notions there.
Now, for the (umpteen + 3)th time, JzG, please please please enumerate the specific points you find to be unsupportable! How many iterations of this ridiculous circular debate are we to endure before you decide to list the specific points you have problems with? A Transportation Enthusiast 14:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And for the unpteenth time the things I find unsupportable are the ones which have been removed from the article. My point is, the focus of the article should saty very much as it is: it describes a largely hypothetical system, making it clear that it is largely hypothetical. I have no idea why you want to go round the debate yet again, because all this was settled in the content ages ago. Just zis Guy you know? 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It was "settled" only in your mind. When we've tried to make reasonable changes to the article, you've reverted them regardless of their merits. Your justification in the past was "article balance", or sometimes just accusing us outright of POV pushing. More recently, you've resorted to "there's too much Anderson" or "these are not reliable sources" as your justification, even though there's no basis for either of these claims. Is there "too much Darwin" in the evolution article? "Too much Einstein" in the relativity article? Why are we so averse citing the words of the single most prolific PRT researcher of the last 30 years, whose reputation as a researcher seems to be impeccable aside from the fact that he had the audacity to try to commercialize his life's work with Taxi 2000? A Transportation Enthusiast 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

More sources

Stephen B Streater 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Alexa data is a measure of web site popularity and is largely irrelevant for an academic journal. Otherwise, the most prestigious journals would be those hosted on Yahoo, Google, and MSN. :-)
The US National Transportation Library lists JAT as an information source, and this (PDF) lists it as a "fully peer reviewed journal". I found many other references to it as a refereed journal. I don't see any reason why it would not be considered reliable.
But there's the other question: are we allowed to cite articles from JAT authored by Anderson and Schneider? I'm not going to go through the trouble of adding citations, if JzG is just going to reject them at the sight of Anderson's name. A Transportation Enthusiast 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's good to have a spread of sources if possible. Take the best quotes from Anderson and Schneider and use other people for the rest. Stephen B Streater 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should not quote Anderson and Schneider, just that we should not rely on them to excess. Both are enthusiasts for the technology. We have good evidence that the literature is not adequately self-critical, that does not mean that we have to be equally unbalanced. And we must not link to copies of copyright works on websites other than the publisher, unless we have good evidence that release has been granted (this is normal WP practice). What I am looking for here is some evidence that this is a widely discussed and debated topic, rather than something with half a dozen interested parties which the rest of the world essentially ignores. The citations list at present gives, to me, the latter ipression, which I think is probaly unfair. Just zis Guy you know? 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Every researcher is an enthusiast for the particular area of research they focus on. By your standard, no positive research about a topic or technology should ever be permitted, because anyone who is interested enough to research a topic is automatically disqualified as an enthusiast! We should be relying on the verifiable sources we have access to. If the literature is swayed in support of a given topic, who are we to decide that that support is not warranted? If we make a judgement that the literature is artificially swayed in one direction or another, then that in itself is original research, is it not?
As for the paper that makes the point you make, it's certainly a valid opinion, and should be represented as a point in the article (which it is); but to make judgements about the entire article based on that one very minor conference paper is entirely inappropriate. A Transportation Enthusiast 22:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
JzG, you're altering the meaning of the new Cottrell abstract. It does not provide good evidence that PRT literature is not adequately self-critical. As far as we know, this one guy alone thinks PRT literature might be improved with greater criticism. He didn't explicitly state PRT literature lacks self-criticism, or that it can't withstand peer scrutiny. That's one possible interpretation. But for the moment, I think you're being unfairly judgemental toward PRT and really anyone who doesn't speak ill of it. The vast majority of the debate on the subject involves politics, not transit systems theory, and you're debating the politics, not the theory. Politicians aren't very interested in it because it quickly becomes a political albatross at the first whisper in a public forum. There's no political risk to suggest LRT as a solution to commuter problems, so why choose path of great risk when a low risk path exists? PRT is also outside the mainstream of common knowledge. So there is no political will to investigate the idea. If there's no political will, and no public interest, who is going to venture the cash to realize greater development?
Most of the ideas are basic concepts, with only a rare half-hearted effort by someone of the clout of Raytheon, who by the way, bastardizes the concept to make it appear less extreme. Maybe one day, someone influential and ignorant of the concept will ride some limited version of PRT like the one being developed for Heathrow and he'll get the wild idea of building a faster, larger scale version for his office campus and into the surrounding communities. Who knows, maybe one of the rare politicians who thought PRT was a good idea will ride the Heathrow system and thank his lucky stars he didn't hitch wagon to it. Until then, we're ALL stuck with the dreamers on one side with their theories and computer models saying it's possible, and the naysayers on the other saying it's impossible, and nary a sliver of common ground between them. How do you reconcile this dichotomy?
Do want to report only the middle ground? Sourcing well-respected, peer-reviewed, journals would be nice (and I would definitely like to see them), and a fully-operational, full-scale system would be even better, but proscribing sympathetic sources is frankly, kind of ridiculous. You don't hold other articles to the same standard. PRT is a theoretical concept that shows no evidence that it violates the known laws of physics, yet you treat it like they're proposing extra-dimensional, matter transporters in every home and office. They're not saying they will split an atom in a special way and a rabbit will pop out. They THINK such a system is feasible and has a good chance of functioning as theorized. Of course people can disagree with the theory, just like every theory. But simple disagreement does not make the middle ground skepticism. Ed Anderson has authored several books describing his theories in great detail and those books have been published by university presses, which ARE peer reviewed. Opposing positions however tend to be MORE speculative, not formulated or modelled. So what's the middle ground between possible and impossible? "Improbable"? Would you be happy with the article starting out, "PRT probably can't work in practice, but here's the theory..."? --JJLatWiki 23:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Not every' researcher is a proponent of that which they research. There are plenty of researchers who challenge published research (see the various publicaitons on cold fusion). I'm not sure which other articles I supposedly don't hold to the same standard. And I've never said we should proscribe sympathetic sources, either, only that we should strive for some kind of balance. As it turns out the Cottrell paper tells us that there is no balance, because the only people writing about it are proponents and there is little debate in the journals. I would love to see a special feature in one of the engineering journals on the challenges and opportunities of PRT, but that's not going to happen any time soon I guess because it is so far from being mainstream.
I'm not sure I've ever implied that it's impossible, only that the barriers are immense (which Cottrell states). What we have here is a bit like the Artilleryman in the Jeff Wayne version of War of the Worlds - he paints a fantastic picture of an undergorund civilisation, then points to a tunnel thirty yards long which is as far as he's got. There is a gulf between dreams and reality in this subject, and what sources we have often do not adequately reflect that. Stephen's work is good, though, and is actually very much along the lines of the intent of the changes I made when I first arrived here. I still don't understand why my position of scepticism (default in the scientific method) is beign portrayed as so extreme by others, especially since I am an electrical engineer by training and a big fan of gadgets of all types. Are those in favour of this technology really completely unused to any kind of questioning of its relevance and feasibility other than from people involved in political lobbying? Just zis Guy you know? 10:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it ironic that you are so supportive of Stephen's changes, since some of his edits were almost identical to edits that we had made. Only when it was one of us making the changes, you reverted them on sight; when Stephen makes them, you support them unconditionally.
Maybe this is one reason for rampant sock puppetry on Wikipedia: once some admin thinks an editor has an "agenda", that editor can no longer participate in a meaningful way without being accused of promoting his supposed "agenda".
But if this is the way it has to be, so be it. Stephen has earned our trust on both sides, so if he has to be the one to execute changes, that's fine. Sure, it's cumbersome, and certainly not in the spirit of Wikipedia's "everyone can edit" and "be bold" policies, but whatever. If that's the only way JzG will accept changes to the article, what other choice do we have? A Transportation Enthusiast 13:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't imply that you implied PRT is impossible. Only that you've proposed balancing between those 2 camps, and wonder what that middle could possibly be called. I also stated that you are reading more into the Cottrell abstract than is actually there, especially toward the negative. The Cottrell abstract does not state or even imply that the barriers faced by PRT immense. It does not state that the there is no balance in the available literature. And it does not state that the only people writing about PRT are the proponents. You inferred all that.
I don't think the scientific method has a "default position", per se. Scientific Method involves observation, characterization, theory, predictions, and experimentation. And not necessarily in that order. Except for large-scale, real-world experimentation, Anderson has done all that, and sceptics seem to spend a lot of time and money making sure such experimentation never takes place. The theories have been published and peer reviewed. The critics seem to hold equal sway in this debate simply by saying PRT can't work or it's a hoax.
I also think your cold fusion analogy is way off the mark. PRT does not challenge our understanding of the laws of physics, like cold fusion. It simply challenges a paradigm and intuition. If PRT proposed moving at 5000 MPH like Vactrain, then your analogy would be more apropos. But PRT is no where near that level of difficulty. We're debating relatively trivial matters like, whether a PRT station can actually handle a rush-hour surge and still look as attractive as they appear in the proposals, and how far off the real capacity will be from the design concepts. It's as if the cold fusion debate centered around how possible it is to build a cold fusion power plant that can run a single house while being asthetically attractive and still fit in a closet or attic space. --JJLatWiki 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't drawing parallels with cold fusion, I was pointing out that there are subjects, of which it is one example, where coverage is not dominated by enthusiasts. And the only reason cold fusion springs to mind is because a firned of mine was doing a PhD in one of Fleischmann's labs at the time, so I remember it particularly well. And yes, scepticism is the default in the scientific method - the approach is to generate a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. So, the analogy was with the Artilleryman, where his dreams were in stark contrast with reality. Even when the LHR system goes live that will still be the case for PRT: a system its supporters tout as a widescale urban transport solution but whose only impementation is in an airport car park. Just zis Guy you know? 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Evolution is a topic with a great deal of skepticism. Why then isn't the "neutral" or "default" position skepticism? I'm fairly sure nobody's ever seen a "real-world" Neanderthal; we only have fossil evidence of his existence. So does that mean that the evolution article should sway towards the skeptical until we encounter a real-life, living Neanderthal, or some other hard evidence of evolution? Darwin was obviously a proponent of his own ideas, and I would hazard to guess that you'd find few evolution researchers that are not proponents of the theory. Should we qualify everything in the evolution article with "If evolution were proven true..."? A Transportation Enthusiast 18:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood your reference to cold fusion. I would, however, like to see a reliable citation that says scepticism is the default position of the scientific method. Or that the scientific method requires an attempt to disprove a hypothesis. Maybe you're referring to the process of eliminating alternative explanations. That's not the same as disproving a hypothesis. Of course, if you don't adequately eliminate alternatives, your theory is more subject to disproof. And obviously if you disprove your own theory, then you avoid the embarrasment of being publicly disproved. But the process does not specify attempting to disprove the theory.
So, on to your Artilleryman analogy...dreams and reality are often in stark contrast. Is that to say that such a tunnel could not be built, or that it would not perform as expected? If one man is going to try dig this tunnel alone with his bare hands, then the practical application is outside the realm of probability. Does that mean the theory is not sound?
As far as the Heathrow installation goes, I agree with you that it could even turn into more ammunition against PRT. Poorly implemented examples could do more harm than good. And even if it works well, it's tiny compared to the dream and may not reflect how well it will work in an urban environment. --JJLatWiki 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I've shortened the introduction a bit. All information should be somewhere in the article, but someone with a passing interest should get an idea

  • Paragraph 1: PRT and what it is in general terms
  • Paragraph 2: Summary of history and state of play
  • Paragraph 3: Systems being built
  • I took out Cabintaxi from the introduction because the two systems being built are more interesting for new readers, and Cabintaxi is mentioned elsewhere.

Stephen B Streater 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your changes except for the phrase: "...since there has never been a successful real-world installation" (emphasis mine). There have been no installations of PRT, successes or failures; all projects which failed (Aramis), were terminated (Cabintaxi), or morphed into something else (Morgantown), did so before public installation. So the original text "...since there has never been a real-world installation" is more accurate here. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like "real world". How about: ... no completed installation? Stephen B Streater 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Successful was a bit POV too, so I'm trying completed for a bit. Stephen B Streater 22:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Completed" is better. I don't think it's perfect, but it's better than "successful". What do you think of: "...since no system has progressed beyond the prototype stage"? A Transportation Enthusiast 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Some real systems are being buillt now; these may have advanced beyond the prototype stage. The prototype wording seemed to gain acceptance before though, so I'm not actively opposed to it. Commericial systems in production are importantant, as these show the concept is moving on from theory and prototypes to practice - a major issue for PRT it seems. Stephen B Streater 08:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct in saying that at least one (ULTra) seems to have progressed beyond prototype. So, I think I now prefer your wording. A Transportation Enthusiast 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There is one minor problem with this wording: the article describes an urban transport mode, but the Heathrow system will not resemble the system described in the article in many respects. It should be clear that no urban system exists or is planned, and that the first implementation will be quite limited in scope and therefore can't answer some of the key questions about urban PRT. Just zis Guy you know? 18:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's already clearly stated that no system exists, urban or otherwise. A Transportation Enthusiast 18:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the Dubai system an urban implementation? It is planned to run within the financial district. Stephen B Streater 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's shaping up to be something like a campus network, one would expect a station at each building in the complex. At this time only two loops are planned, but some of those buildings will be huge, potential ridership demand at each station could be urban scale. It's much too early to know more, since the plan is delayed by other construction at the site.[8] In addition, there is another Dubai development called Creek Extension reportedly considering PRT;[9] it would make sense to choose the same kind of PRT as DIFC and link them together, but who knows. Fun to think about though.
The initial Heathrow ULTra installation is not "urban," but surely it would help define an operational envelope indicating whether urban service is possible, does anyone disagree? Furthermore, if the initial one meets expectations, the planned expansion (something on the order of 30 miles and several hundred vehicles) would fit the "urban" proof? The article makes it clear what the current R&D path is, Heathrow evolution could be a specific example of this. 12 Jul 06, 18:11 CDT

small question

The wording "a category of proposed public transportation systems" was recently changed to "a proposed category of public transportation systems" - which I think isn't correct. The systems are proposed, not the category. The category simply is. Fresheneesz 04:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Stephen B Streater 06:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Overview

I've done some work on the overview. The idea is to include the motivation for PRT, the table of comparisons (which I find particularly illuminating), and a bit about the non-technical background. As everything is described in detail later, it doesn't make sense to include too much apart from this. In addition, I noticed that the bulk of the article had nothing to break up the test, so I've moved the guideway diagram down to the section on guideways, leaving just the photograph at the top. Stephen B Streater 08:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder from an earlier thread-- the guideway diagram is still incorrect in that the stations are shown on the mainline, and the bypassing traffic uses the sidings. It should be the other way around. -1725CDT, 17 Jul 2006
For rider comfort, the drawing is probably atypical, but functionally, the existing diagram would work just as well. It doesn't make much sense to have the cars that are bypassing the station be the ones that have to curve right-left-left-right. But does the diagram confound the understanding? I think not. I would still like to see a diagram that shows stations "offline", as opposed to the current "bypass" paradigm. But I'm not going to complain because no one liked my more cartoon-like drawing so I'm not a good candidate to create the still better version. --JJLatWiki 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I get your point, but I just showed it to someone and she asked "why is it swervy"? And I have seen no PRT design that IS designed this way. Lots of things are functional but not designed in the best way possible, the AMC Pacer and the child proof cap for instance. I could do a new version if the original artist doesn't wish to--but it won't be as pretty! -14:39CDT 18 Jul 2006
LOL! I guess you haven't seen my artistic contribution: [[10]] Someone could do a "What If..." movie based on what the modern world would be like if the AMC Pacer had never been conceived...well, maybe just a short story. Would any car look the same today had the Pacer not been there as an example of what NOT to do? But, please, make your own drawing and see if sticks. --JJLatWiki 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I fixed it. Fresheneesz 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Jpods removal

First, there is no demonstration vehicle and no letters of intent. The vehicle is a mockup, not a demonstration. No aspect of the vehicle seems operational and it seems to bear no resemblence to the computer renditions. And none of the letters that I could actually view said or implied what a "Letter of Intent" implies. They were letters expressing a personal "interest" in JPods or PRT in general. Two VERY different animals.

Not that official letters or demonstrations are necessarily prerequisites for an encyclopedia entry, but to me, this whole concept is too meagerly developed to yet warrant even a mention in the main PRT article, much less its own article. --JJLatWiki 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. I am always open to new evidence, but other systems here appear to have had more work done on them. Stephen B Streater 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Heathrow: first? Second? Etc

It says "In 2005, the two most advanced projects were: ULTra at Heathrow Airport in London [1], which is scheduled to be the PRT system to open, and one at the Dubai International Financial Center in Dubai.[2] Both are scheduled to come into operation in 2008"

There seems to be a word missing/omitted, I am guessing probably the word 'first' or the word 'second', between "scheduled to be the" and "PRT system".

Knotwork 07:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, two words were lost. Stephen B Streater 11:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Add info about a PRT simulator

I noticed that , since there are no PRT systems up and running,many arguments for PRT are based on simulation results.

There is a PRT simulator available at http://students.ceid.upatras.gr/~xithalis/simulation_en.html

Many of the parameters of the simulated system are not editable (speed , headway) which means it can't simulate all PRT systems. However other parameters are editable (maps ,network topology, number of people using it ), it has a relatively easy to use GUI , demos and many interesting statistic results. It could be used as a source.


Chris

PPT - objections to link deletion

Hello,

I created a new variant on the PRT concept, namely: www.pptproject.com . You can look for yourself if you wish, but it's a genuine attempt at innovation in PRT design. In good faith I added a link to my concept under the "External Links" section. But JzG / Guy decided it was inappropriate and deleted the link. I discussed this topic with Guy directly, but was unable to resolve the issue. As I understand Guy (correct me if I'm wrong), he has two objections to my link:

1) Using Guy's own words: "it has not been identified as a significant proposal by any external authority".

External authority? I am unable to get Guy to elaborate or give names. There's apparently some official group somewhere of which I'm not invited. With this sort of restriction no new innovations can be included on the page, basically a chicken before the egg problem since by definition, new ideas are not yet blessed. Again to use Guy's own words: "there is no evidence that your idea is considered notable by independent authorities". This seems terribly counterproductive to increasing knowledge on the subject.

2) I posted the link myself.

Guy believes it's inappropriate to promote your own idea. Why? How does any new idea ever see the light of day without self promotion? Furthermore he labeled my website as SPAM, even though there's NO advertising of any kind. See for yourself. Obviously I could ask someone else to post the link, but this seems like a pointless exercise. I have no objection to the removal of my website link if it's inappropriate or off-topic. I would like to hear what others have to say on this.

gary www.pptproject.com

Some people can't take a hint. WP:EL, links to avoid: links to your own website; also commercial links and links which exist mainly to promote the site. see also WP:COI, WP:SPAM. There being no evidence that this is considered a notable scheme by any independent authority, and the only external references I can find being your own attempts to either solicit help or promote the project, I see no reason whatever why it should be included. Come back when it's been discussed by independent third party authorities. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps while Gary is reading all those policy pages, you should browse over to WP:BITE for a refresher course... ATren 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've already explained it patiently to him on my Talk page, as I'm sure you know since you follow me around. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't appreciate accusations of stalking. They are completely unfounded - I've had this article on my watchlist forever. But now that I look at your talk page, I see that you were also borderline uncivil - pissing you off? What kind of thing is that to say to a new user who is asking you for help? ATren 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, your popping up in numerous places is puire coincidence. Of course it is. If you think there is a problem with my response to the repeated requests from this individual to link his own site from the article, you are free to raise a WP:RFC. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, please...hint away. Of course you don't see external references on the idea. I just told you. It's a new concept, new website. Since when is there a ban on innovation when it comes to discussing PRT technology? I guess I'll have to give up on you ever defining "independent authority". Do they wear black coats? Sunglasses? Or possibly do you just mean yourself. -- gary
Precisely. Wikipedia exists to document that which is already significant, not to promote that which we would like to become so. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much ALL of the PRT concepts documented in the article are JUST concepts and do not actually exist in the real world. So I guess it depends on how you define "significant", doesn't it.
I think the link should stay. 76.214.149.36 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
And I think it shouldn't, for the reasons stated. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Guy, can you provide a quantifiable definition of "already significant"? I'm very anxious to reach the point where my concept is included on this Wikipedia page, so it would be very helpful if I better understood the requirements. - gary
Covered by mainstream sources. Once it's been reviewed in peer-reviewed publications, it may be deemed significant. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Which mainstream sources? Looking at other discussions on this talk page, even this can be a cause for disagreement. Myself I have no opinion, but obviously you do.
Gary: generally you need to be able to cite coverage in reliable sources. The two most common reliable sources are (1) academic publications: peer reviewed journals and conference proceedings, and (2) mainstream media coverage. So for example, a published journal article or a New York Times article would help your cause immensely. The reason for this restriction is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine or blog, and as such has a relatively high standard of inclusion. Does this help? ATren 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
ATren, thanks for the reply. Since the only publication you cite by name is the New York Times, I still don't have much to go on. And the NYT is obviously not a "peer-reviewed publication", which is the requirement that Guy has set forth. And since he uses his editorial authority to delete links, it seems only fair that he would name the publications he has in mind. Wouldn't you agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gary.stark@earthlink.net (talk • contribs) 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
Actually, I gave the NY Times only as an example - there are probably dozens of newspapers and magazines that would be considered reliable. The point is, there has to be reliable, third party verification (or validation) of a concept before it is included. No, newspapers are not peer reviewed, but the good ones have journalistic standards that make them generally acceptable as sources here. The point is to get your ideas published (non-trivially - i.e. not just a passing mention but in-depth coverage) in a reliable publication: academic journal, mainstream newspaper article, etc. ATren 06:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
ATren, you're missing my point. While you may have your own idea of what the guidelines should be, you aren't the one deleting links, Guy is. And while clarification of that process feels a lot like '20 questions', we're very close. Guy has defined the criteria as "peer-reviewed publications" (exact quote). What publications? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gary.stark@earthlink.net (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
To be honest, Gary, I probably would have deleted the link too. While I find your ideas very interesting and novel (I recently visited your site and watched the animations), there is little or no validation from external parties. For most of the other proposal links, there is media coverage and/or academic publications (ULTra, Taxi2000 come to mind). Even some of the newer proposals have some media coverage to back them up (Vectus is building a test track in Sweden). Your ideas are just that: ideas. I would love to see you develop those ideas into a real system, perhaps publish articles in an academic journal detailing your designs and engineering. If not an academic paper, then perhaps you could get some real media coverage of your effort (though it would have to be from a reliable media source - a notable media entity such as a major newspaper or magazine). See alsothis discussion I had a while back with Bill James, who is developing JPods in Minnesota. ATren 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The problem with traditional encyclopedias was that they were always hopelessly out of date with emerging technologies. I just assumed that an online version would be current and dynamic, a place where the latest activity in any given subject could be evaluated by a peer audience. Clearly I was wrong. The editorial process as you describe it instead focuses on recording historical activity. So if a new PRT concept was to come along that was the best thing since sliced bread, one would NOT read about it on Wikipedia until much later. So I can understand why my concept was deleted from the site. I guess I never thought of PRT as even having a history! At least there aren't any in my neighborhood...
What ATren said. If we linked every single site that floated an idea on a subject, there would be no room for content. So we have external link guidelines, and sadly your idea falls outside those. You can't fix that without significantly raising the profile of your idea - in other words, you have to fix it in the real world first. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow...so you're swamped with sites dedicated to PRT proposals? Who would have guessed! And since I don't perceive my concept as 'history' just yet, I'm good with the deletion. But I do have a problem with your lack of response to perfectly fair questions. What ever happened to those "peer-reviewed publications"? And while I actually agree with many of your talk page writings, you don't have the right disposition for the job of editor.
Gary, if ATren and JzG agree, that's practically historical. As I understand the relevant policies and guidelines, it is normally strongly discouraged to include links to your own materials in articles -- it's a better alternative to suggest on the talk page that someone else add the link, which hopefully adds at least one disinterested party to the mix. In your case, I've looked at your website, and agree with JzG and ATren that your website doesn't meet the WP:EL guidelines yet. Thanks, TheronJ 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Gary, if ATren and JzG agree, that's practically historical." Can mideast peace be far behind? :-D ATren 16:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I haven't read anything else on this discussion outside this talk page, so bare that in mind. Let me try and clarify some things for you: 1) You asked, "How does any new idea ever see the light of day without self promotion?" Answer: Wikipedia is not meant to be the venue for self-promotion. Preferably, your idea should find its way into Wikipedia without you. 2) You keep asking what is acceptable "independent authorities" or "external authorities". Answer: I think it would be better to say independent and external "sources", not "authorities". For engineered concepts like yours, having your idea scrutinized, debated, and validated by independent engineers carries the most weight. But respected periodicals and other news sources would tell the Wikipedia editor community that your idea is more than just Photoshopped images on your personal web site.
You will find many Wikipedia entries that also violate every tenet that was used to deny the link to your web site. Unfortunately, your area of interest happens to be hotly debate and the PRT article is closely monitored by a broad spectrum of interested editors and so every minor change gets examined immediately. I agree with the removal of the link for all the reasons Guy cited and I agree with ATren and would also have removed the link myself even without the knowledge that the site's owner added the link.
If I may be so bold to make a suggestion, submit your ideas to transportation and engineering journals, get your proposals in major periodical. After your idea has some published independent recognition, start a new talk thread here and ask if someone else would add your idea to Wikipedia. I wish you good luck. --JJLatWiki 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

EDICT and neologisms

  • EDICT is not the EU, it is a group sponsored by the EU. I have not found an official EU position paper on PRT. I have also looked for position papers from groups such as the UK's commission for integrated transport, and can't find one yet.
  • "lean transportation" and the parallel with lean manufacturing is a neologism, something we should avoid. We should wait until it's in widespread use.

Guy (Help!) 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I've reverted your edits for the following reasons:
  • The document "Moving Ahead with PRT" gives and unqualified endorsement of PRT, and is posted on the official European Commission website. Regardless of EDICT's official designation, the existence of this particular document on an official website is evidence enough that the EU endorses the concept.
  • You clearly do not understand the EU. This is not an official EU document, it is a document by EU-finded group EDICT published on the EU website. I cannot find an EU psoition paper on PRT, but this is not it. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence you removed no longer contained "lean transit" (I left that term out because I thought that was what you had a problem with), so it no longer violated WP:NEO. As for the parallel with lean manufacturing, that is certainly well sourced in a ASCE conference paper, and I don't see any reason to remove it. It represents an interesting perspective on the design philosophy of PRT, by comparing it to a concept that is more familiar to many in industry.
ATren 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The comparison is design to coin a neologism. Wait until a better source - i.e. not advocates writing advocacy - says it. I studied manufacturing technologies in university and in my first couple of jobs, has been compared with <> similar to. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please elaborate on why an ASCE conference paper is considered "advocacy". Who are we to judge the merits of the paper that the ASCE accepted? I still fail to see how your judgement of the authors supercedes the judgement of professional organizations like IEEE and ASCE. I would like to see a good reason why Dunning's published paper is off limits; until then I am adding it back.ATren 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, with regards to EDICT, I am not referring to EDICT per se in that paragraph, I am specifically referring to the news item posted on the EU website which explicitly and without qualification endorses PRT in cities. So the source for this statement is the document on the official EU website that references the EDICT project, not EDICT itself. I don't see why there would be any dispute that this is an endorsement by the EU. I think you are misunderstanding the citation as pointing to EDICT itself, when I'm actually referring to the EU document; therefore I'm restoring it. Please clarify if you have an issue with that particular document on the EU site. ATren 00:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The EU supports vast numbers of groups and publishes vast numbers of their documents on its websites. That does not - in any of those cases - imply endorsement of the document's contents. Please read up on the EU's Fifth Framework Programme, as JJLatWiki suggests.
You will also be well aware that the people who publish academic papers are rarely disinterested, which is why meta-analyses in the professional journals are so widely read, as a way of balancing the competing claims. Anyone can write a paper in which they draw comparisons, but until those comparisons and the terminologies the engender are accepted within the mainstream, they are not really the stuff of encyclopaedia articles (hence WP:NEO - avoid neologisms).
This article still lacks good, neutral, critical reviews of the entire subject from reliable independent secondary sources. I would very much like to see some of the European governments' views on the likelihood and desirability of PRT systems, but so far my own government appears to have restricted itself to noting that it exists and then going on to talk about trams. Maybe they think trams have greater public acceptance, certainly trams and light rail are enjoying a degree of popularity right at the moment, but nothing like the level in Northern Europe. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what would qualify as "good, neutral, critical reviews"? Does this mean that Dr. Vuchic's work does not qualify? Many people think well of him. Is it that any treatment that carefully considers the pros and cons automatically contaminates itself, possibly by saying something favorable on the pro side or negative on the con side? Is it possible that careful thought about PRT tends to win converts (or else make enemies) across the board? I am, myself, very much aware of some serious issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps that would be useful information? I am reminded of the report that Richard Burton prepared on the male brothels of India, a report that nearly destroyed his career with an excess of information. Was that report NPOV? Perhaps. ...who knows? Wikipedia needs to be NPOV, but not every external reference needs to be NPOV (see dittohead). Maybe the reader should be allowed to judge. Bob 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, so people who publish isolated academic papers that do not have support among others should be avoided - then why is Cottrell's paper in the intro? His was a conference paper in the same conference as Dunning's, and I've seen nobody else support his view. Shouldn't Cottrell's paper be removed as well? It seems as if you are again applying a higher standard for acceptance for favorable material than for critical material. ATren 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
(BTW, I also agree with JJLatWiki's version, so I guess there are times we can agree on something :-) ATren 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC) )
note:Dr. Cottrell is an active member of the Advanced Transit Association. Various people and organizations mentioned in this article are active members of ATRA. Bob 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • JzG said, "The comparison is design to coin a neologism." and "We should wait until it's in widespread use." I have to disagree. I personally don't see an encyclopedic benefit to the analogy, but I don't think it's a neologism. First of all, WP:NEO says that neologisms should not be used because, "they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people". If the entry in the PRT article said, "PRT is lean transit", then clearly it would be a neologism because few people would understand "lean transit", "lean transit" is not clearly definable, and "lean transit" might even have different meanings to different people. But, the paper in question is attempting to map certain attributes of a fairly well defined term, "lean production", to certain attributes claimed for PRT. By saying that someone has proposed an analogy between PRT and lean production, Wikipedia is not perpetuating a neologism. Others have drawn analogies for PRT to packet switched networks. That doesn't imply neologism.
  • That said, I don't think the analogy is significant and, by itself, doesn't really further one's comprehension of PRT, even if one was an expert in lean production. Analogies like lean production and packet switch networks don't hold water for me because they ignore certain immutable facts. But that's just my opinion. If someone put in the "network" analogy, I would gloss over it and possibly look for a published counter-argument. --JJLatWiki 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about sources

JzG: I posted this question above but you didn't answer:

In your rejection of Dunning's paper, you indicated that isolated academic papers that do not have support among others should be avoided. My question is: then why is Cottrell's paper in the intro? His was a conference paper in the same conference as Dunning's, and I've seen nobody else support his view. Shouldn't Cottrell's assertion be removed as well? It seems as if you are again applying a higher standard for acceptance for favorable material than for critical material. Please explain to me the difference between Cottrell and Dunning, both of whom published conference papers in the same conference, covering topics that do not seem to have widespread support in the literature.

Note: I am not arguing against the inclusion of Cottrell: rather I am arguing that the inclusion of Cottrell coupled with the exclusion of Dunning is an apparent double standard; if Cottrell's article is represented, why not Dunning's? ATren 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain...

Why we cite as a source an advocate's non-peer-reviewed rebuttal to a report we don't cite as a source for anything? If we're going to have the special pleading we should at least have the OKI report] as well, not least because it (unlike the rebuttal) comes from a third-party consultancy working on behalf of a governmental group which has a degree of accountability, so is probably a formally reliable source. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe it's because the OKI is cited? ATren 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The OKI Report is the definitive study of PRT. The report cost the the taxpayers $625,000. The OKI Report was the work of transportation engineers (Parsons Brinkerhoff). If there is to be a Wikipedia article on Personal Rapid Transit, it should be based on the research and conclusions of the OKI Report. Avidor 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There is an article on PRT Avidor. Get with the times..... Fresheneesz 10:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
PB is a very big company with a lot of subsidiaries. Still, the corporate ethical culture at portions of PB seems to be deficient, at least from some points of view and not only from the point of view of PRT advocates: http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A6483. That article was written before the latest "Big Dig" fiasco, (the death of a motorist due to concrete falling from the ceiling: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0712/p03s03-usgn.html). Perhaps this reflects on the reliability of the OKI Report. Certainly PB was not a disinterested party at OKI. Organizations that hire PB are generally looking for a Light Rail Transit solution. I would be content to dispense with both the OKI report and the rebuttal, were it not that it speaks volumes about why PRT has been delayed so long. Bob 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If J. Edward Anderson is Not Notable, Why Is Anderson Cited So Much in This Article?

A good case has been made for deleting the J. Edward Anderson article: "Here we have an article on an individual whose notability is - questionable at best" "The number of Google hits for "J. Edward Anderson" is small, under 200 off Wikipedia."[11]... If Anderson isn't notable enough for his own article on Wikipedia, should he be cited as much as he is in this article? Clearly, Anderson does not have the standing in the field of transportation of Professor Vukan Vuchic[12]. Professor Vuchic's writings about PRT should carry more weight than Anderson's. Since PRT has largely been associated with Dr. Anderson, it only makes sense to delete this article for lack of notability if the J. Edward Anderson page is deleted for the same reason... Avidor 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vukan Vuchic has more Google Juice than J. Edward Anderson therefor Anderson is wrong and Vuchic is right? Ignoring the irrelevance of Google Juice as a measure of one's notability or standing, my only question is, what kind of logical fallacies are used in your paragraph? Maybe a Proof by example? PRT ∈ J. Edward Anderson and since J. Edward Anderson is statistically insignificant, therefore all elements of the J. Edward Anderson set are also insignificant. But, your logical fallacies also have elements common to Hasty generalization, Spotlight fallacy, Red Herring, Association fallacy, and maybe ultimately, Loki's Wager.
Speaking of Google Juice, compare the hits for these searches: "J. Edward Anderson" PRT and "Vukan Vuchic" PRT Significant? NOT IN THE LEAST. --JJLatWiki 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


SEPARATE PAGE FOR DISCUSSION OF PRT IN GENERAL

Please look to the discussion page Talk:Personal_rapid_transit/discussion to discuss PRT in general. If your comments are arguments for or against PRT please post them there. If your comments are to help improve the page - by all means post them here. Thanks.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_rapid_transit/Archive_5&oldid=967191226"