| "Personal Rapid Transit" Taxi 2000's "Risk Factors" Revealed |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June My Links PRT Skeptic Web Site Personal Rapid Transit – Cyberspace Dream Keeps Colliding With Reality Pulse Article on PRT Dump Bachmann Blog Mpl Upside Down Old PRT Blog TLC's Resolution on PRT Pictorial History of Gadgetbahn Let's Get Real About PRT New York Press on PRT Joshua Frank on PRT Minneapolis Confidential Lloydletta Nooz www.publictransit.us tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: David Gow (reply) post date: 06.30.05 (8:29 pm) As a matter of fact I believe I HAVE seen this passage somewhere before. I have to consult some documents printed in the old-fashioned way on paper, but if this is what I suspect it is, Ken, you are going to get demolished yet again. But now I have to get some sleep. I invite all Avireaders to tune in tomorrow for the thrilling conclusion... posted by: PRTskeptic (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (1:04 am) Reply to: David Gow "Ken, you are going to get demolished yet again." Good luck, Mr. Gow. For the record, Mr Gow was offered the chance to debate me and refused. Mr. Gow has arguments and debating tactics... I have facts backed up by documents. posted by: KensHiTechArmy (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (8:39 am) Why is there no PRT built in an amusement park or airport. Every airport of any size now has an "Automated People Mover"(APM). Even MPLS/StPaul. But no PRT is built anywhere. By the way, every airport APM I have seen has huge headway, measured in Kilometers, not inches like the "Tax-us-2000 Times" UniBlab Jetson designs that can never be built. Almost every APM at an airport cost a freeking fortune, SF airport is one of the stupidest I have seen, yet somehow the "Ultra low cost that can be privately financed PRT" can not get a toe in the auto-closing door of airport fun rides. Why is that? I would guess that airport commissions, though prone to stupidity and tossing the peoples money to big private airlines are smart enough (barely) to avoid an obvious scam pushed by PRT snake oil salesmen. Especially if it involves close headway, squished pods and people jelly leaking out. Fun rides at amusement parks, now that would seem to be a perfect place to put PRT, right? But no, no ride to DisneyWorld or even 6 Flags for poor old Ed A, the nutty professor. The amusement parks obviously do not think it is a wise investment. And the people jelly problem tends to put a pall over the "fun" factor. posted by: David Gow (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (9:31 am) Soldier, obviously "You can't handle the truth!" PRT is not APM. Re-read the material about each, and how they differ. Then think. Hard. ULTra could have been built in Cardiff by now, except for resistance from the Welsh equivalent of Ken's Platoon. But you probably knew that. By the way, I saw in today's news that the Minnesota state government has had to shut down. Are you guys trying to figure out how PRT can be blamed for that? posted by: PRT Punk (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (9:57 am) Reply to: KensHiTechArmy Actually there are some airports seriously considering PRT and GRT (Cybertran). London Heathrow is considering ULtra. Houston's G. Bush Int'l is considering PRT. Oakland Int'l is considering GRT Cybertran. Read the excellent article on PRT/GRT in May's ASCE magazine: http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline05/0505abs.html#abs2 Frankly I don't understand your technological pessemism. It seems everyday a new marvel of technology is unveiled, records are broken that a few short years ago no one dreamed possible. PRT is relatively simple to a lot of stuff already out there. The achilles heal of PRT is the public works nature of the system. But once it gets its first few systems, this will be a plus and PRT will be unstoppable. posted by: David Gow (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (11:44 am) And another thing, I notice that you introduce The Passage in this post by writing: "the Taxi 2000's Risk Factors Document that acknowledges the Personal Rapid Transit headway problem is a major safety concern that would prevent a nose-to-nose PRT system from operating under current safety regulations." This is not wholly consistent with what you wrote earlier, June 23: "The Risk Factors document clearly states that the headway problem is a problem that no technology can fix... instead Taxi 2000 suggests lobbying for a change in ASCE guidelines for automated transit" What you wrote on June 23 gives the headway "problem" the status of an inviolable natural law "no technology can fix", like Newtons' 1st, or the speed of light. Now you attempt to weasel out it, subtly altering your position to reflect that the headway "problem" is really about the ASCE rule. posted by: Duluth Don (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (12:30 pm) Question of the day for PRTers: What will be Kenny-boy's next lie? Post your predictions! posted by: PRTskeptic (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (1:21 pm) Reply to: David Gow: I see you've learned a few debating tricks from the Old Toastmaster... but, you're not convincing. Either the document means what it says or it doesn't. Is the headway problem a serious issue for PRT proponents? Check this out: http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRT-Wikipedia.html posted by: PRT Punk (reply) post date: 07.01.05 (3:58 pm) If you doubt that a PRT vehicle cannot decelerate comfortably in time to reach the station, do a simple experiment. Drive your car on a lonesome road sometime and see how fast you can decelerate from 40 MPH to 0 MPH while sitting comfortably all the while. Then measure the distance it took. (and no creative exageration of what "comfortable" should be!) I'm sure you'll find PRT has no problem decelerating within the length it says it can. C'mon, do you really think the rocket scientists who developed PRT hadn't thought of all this? http://www.skywebexpress.com/pdf_files/150k_additional/Analysis-and-Sim-of-AutoVehStns.PDF posted by: PRTskeptic (reply) post date: 07.02.05 (8:18 am) Reply to: PRT PUNK & Mr. Gow The Risk Factors Document speaks for itself: "Federal and State safety regulation of automated transit systems can make PRT systems unworkable." If you have a problem with that statement, you'll have take it up with Taxi 2000. posted by: Ken MacLeod (reply) post date: 07.02.05 (8:52 am) PRT Punk, what comment/issue are you responding to? The normal deceleration rate isn't relevant to the headway question. posted by: David Gow (reply) post date: 07.05.05 (7:45 am) PRTskeptic: "The Risk Factors Document speaks for itself" Yes, it does. And I've not only explained what it means, but also why it was written. Anything else you can't deal with--such as a detailed, fact-based, coherent argument-- is your own problem. In closing, I'd like to congratulate you on this blog, which may go down in history as THE definitive Avidor-debunking page. posted by: MonkeyMan (reply) post date: 07.12.05 (6:22 am) Reply to: KensHiTechArmy You don't see anyone jumping at putting a PRT system in place because it is very difficult to be the first group to implement a complex system. It's the starting friction association with delving into so much new territory at once. |
|