|
Updated June 16, 2005-- People who hate Personal
Rapid Transit really hate it. Some are willing to go to great
lengths to persuade people to stick to traditional forms of transit.
Sometimes they don't do their homework. That's what happened
last year when the group Light Rail Now released a ballyhooed paper
on PRT, Cyberspace Dream Keeps Colliding With Reality.
The document was filled with what were most likely innocent errors,
caused by the mistake of evaluating PRT on whether or not it worked
like a train.
The group SoundPRT wrote a definitive rebuttal to LR Now. The Seattle-based
group pointed out mistakes made by LR Now in mischaracterizing--
Effect of PRT's on-demand service on station operations and size, and equity of service
Distance between PRT guideways and overall low visual impact
PRT capacity
PRT vehicle headways and emergency procedures
Design, components and construction of PRT vehicles and guideways
What creates crowds of transit riders.
Likely PRT costs
Reasons for failures of past PRT test projects, and failure to mention successes
For other critics of PRT, fighting innovative transit technology is a holy war.
For example, one Minnesota anti-PRT activist has created a website filled with
distortions, innuendo, conspiracy theory, and manipulated images, all crafted
to make PRT look like an unworkable, crackpot idea.
Here's an example from just a single page from the site, alongside the actual facts:
| Anti-PRT Activist:
| Facts:
|
"Raytheon made an attempt to build a PRT system.
It was a huge flop. It just looked awful. The
undercarriage of the pod had these little tires
that looked like they came off a boat trailer.
The tires looked very, very dorky."
Quoting a photographer:
" ' We were just outside
Boston, Massachusetts at the Raytheon [PRT test
track]. Several energetic images were needed to
promote the new system worldwide, with
instructions that we were not to reveal the
rubber tires under the vehicle in any of the
final photos.'
...Ed Anderson [Skyweb Express PRT designer]
and crew made sure that the new model
they built would have a fully enclosed guideway
concealing the clunky undercarriage and the dorky wheels.
...Imagine one of these things going 100 mph on those
crappy little wheels. Look at the narrow wheel base
and the crappy go-cart-style undercarriage and imagine
this pod taking a turn at 40 mph with 3 heavy passengers.
For contrast, take a look at the undercarriage, wheels
and suspension system of cars, busses [sic], trains and
trolleys."
|
Raytheon's project was a flop because the company had
deep pockets, and so had no problem making design mistakes
that resulted in an oversized, too-expensive system. Though
they had purchased rights to Anderson's PRT design, he
was not involved in Raytheon's work and did not approve the
changes made.
The photo (a copy of this
one) used to illustrate the 'dorky boat trailer
tires' is NOT Raytheon's vehicle (that used automotive-sized tires), but
rather an early scale model of Anderson's Skyweb Express. It bears resemblance
to the products of a small-aircraft maker that had
been in talks as a potential producer of PRT passenger
cabins. Small wheels are acceptable in this design,
because they are only needed to support and roll the
vehicle; propulsion and braking are performed by magnetic
motor, not through the wheels.
In Anderson's design, the guideway will be covered by
a thin shell for appearance, as well as to keep foreign
objects off the running surfaces. Raytheon's guideway
would have had covers too;
showing the tires in the photos would not have been an accurate
portrayal of the appearance of the finished product.
Top speed of an urban PRT system will more likely range
35-40 mph, not 100. Anderson's design will corner just fine because
there are also lateral stability wheels, visible on the model
just above the larger, 'dorky' wheels.
Three-seat PRT cars will carry less than 1000 lbs. The
amount of supporting structure needed is therefore much less than that
required for the underside of a bus or train.
|
| Anti-PRT Activist:
| Facts:
|
|
"Another problem was that massive guideway. The above picture
shows the actual Raytheon guideway superimposed on a Minneapolis
street... Ed Anderson and crew disowned the Raytheon project,
claiming Taxi 2000 could make the pylons and guideway slimmer.
The engineers of the 2001 OKI Central Loop Study proved that
there was no way that slim guideways and pylons could safely
hold up a bunch of fully loaded PRT pods."
|
Once again: Raytheon made its guideway too big; the
guideway in the photo is without its covers. Here's a page with unretouched photos of
the test track.
What Parsons was supposed to do in the 2001 study for Cincinnati's
OKI agency was evaluate a PRT proposal by a local committee, as
submitted. The committee had chosen Anderson's Taxi2000/Skyweb.
Instead, Parsons invented its own imaginary PRT design. Parsons
has no real PRT expertise and failed to ask Anderson or anyone
else who does, so it is no surprise that Parsons found its own
PRT engineering unsound and too expensive.
See:
Anderson's design, with covers
How Parsons bungled the OKI project
The Gatekeepers
|
| Anti-PRT Activist:
| Facts:
|
|
"ULTra, who also claim they can use slim guideways seems to have
resorted to Raytheon-style photographic fakery to convince people
that a slim structure can be feasible. In photos on their site, UlTra (downloadable files) shows a test
track built mostly on the ground like a go-cart track. Only one
section is on pylons... two pylons... with the ramrod-straight
guideway firmly anchored into solid abutments. It's not a guideway
at all , but a simple "beam bridge". Other photos show only the pods,
guideway and pylons, but no abutments... it's so fake."
|
ULTra is a British PRT design. The test system referred to was
designed with elevated and ground-level portions expressly in
order to demonstrate the design's flexibility.
The abutments are ramps that allow the vehicle to climb and
descend from the elevated portion.
Of course an elevated guideway is going to resemble a bridge,
that's unavoidable. It's... elevated. ULTra's elevated
guideway has exactly the same two running surfaces--beams,
if you will-- as the ground-level portions.
And it's not fake--the ULTra system in the photos is a functioning,
complete loop with station. It has been exhaustively tested, and
certified by the UK rail safety agency. Members of the public
have ridden it, and given it high marks.
See: ULTra test track
ULTra public questionnaire results (Word)
|
This is just one example of tactics employed by those opposed to the type of
technology advances represented by PRT: distortions and unsupported guesswork
are pulled out of thin air, enter cyberspace, and--despite being debunked--are
repeated over and over.
When right-wing (anti-environment, anti-transit) elected officials and their
media talking heads continue to repeat untruths even after they've been
disproved, it's called the Big Lie. What should it be called when perpetrated by
"pro-transit" people who are against Personal Rapid Transit?
"Stick with proven kinds of transit" is the opponents' mantra. But this attitude,
when combined with the reality that public transit is currently a monopoly perpetuated
by those who profit from the status quo (see Related Reading, below), leads to an absurd
conclusion. The implications of their reasoning are (1) that the "proven" technology of buses
and trains ought to be exempt from one of the basic impulses of human nature: the
drive to make things work better, to innovate; and (2) corporations
now profiting get to do so in perpetuity, protected from competition.
Consider where we would be today if the following "proven" technologies of the past
had been made safe from being superceded, from becoming obsolete:
Mercury space capsule, Redstone rocket. No Apollo, no Saturn rocket, no
Moon landing, no Shuttle, no space station.
•Model T Ford. No '57 Chevy, no Volvo 240 series, no Smart minicar, no
gas/electric hybrids.
•Crank telephone. No rotary dialing, no mouthpiece & earpiece in the same
handset, no touch-tone dialing, no cellular phones.
•Black & White cinema, celluloid. No color, no Technicolor, no digital.
•Silent film. No talkies, no stereo, no Dolby/surround/THX.
•The IBM Personal Computer. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" -Bill Gates.
•Vacuum-tube Radio. No transistors; no Television.
In short, "proven technology only" means no progress.
What motivates opposition like this, especially from progressive activists who
ought to be open to new, more sustainable forms of transit that can get more
people out of their cars? It would be unfair to speculate. But all of the above
Facts are available on the Internet--including on this very site. And the
Minnesota anti-PRT activist in question is aware of it: his name appears
regularly in this site's webstats report.
Also in the Library:
See How They Distort ←You are Here
See How He Makes It Up
Follow The Money
See How He Ignores Context
See His Answers Become Nonresponsive
See Him Flail Wildly
Related Reading:
The Gatekeepers
See How He Argues (Wiki page)
See How He Argues II: Does anyone deserve this?
(even right-wingers?)
"PRT Is a Joke" Is a Joke
Defending PRT with wit, sarcasm and all that good stuff
Also:
The Personal Rapid Transit debate heats up—a few notes.
(June 13) A certain anti-PRT activist recently started a blog, and wrote:
The PRT proponents dare not spell
my name or link to my site lest the Googlebot ups the rank of my website... like at this PRT proponent''s web site. For example:
"For other critics of PRT, fighting innovative transit technology is a holy war. For example, one Minnesota
anti-PRT activist has created a website filled with distortions, innuendo, conspiracy theory, and manipulated
images, all crafted to make PRT look like an unworkable, crackpot idea." (Click on "See How They Distort")
Recently one blog-roving PRT proponent - "PRT-Liberal" was invited to participate in a PRT podcast debate with
me... Mr PRT Liberal decliined the invitation.
I have the facts, I know my stuff. That is why no prominent PRT proponent will debate me. Not Representative
Mark Olson who scratched his bill HF1174 from committee agendas twice to avoid giving me a hearing, not
Mark Olson''s PRT partner Minneapolis Councilman Dean Zimmermann who has not replied to my challenge
to debate his PRT plan for Minneapolis.
Fella, the reason I don't use or spell out your name is solely in order to wind you up, as the Brits
say, and apparently it worked.
The reason I am not going to do the podcast with you is explained in the RoBlog thread: not only does your neocon-esque talking-points strategy (Distort, Lather,
Rinse, Repeat) make it, as Ian Bicking points out, "an unwinnable debate for the defender," the
simple truth is that you don't have the facts, OR know your stuff. You have demonstrated
this over and over. And over and over and over...
I no longer wish to encourage someone like you and your platoon of followers, because your brand of "activism"
is really disinformation.
I just don't take you seriously. It's probably the reason others won't debate you either.
And, as for "blog-roving," speak for yourself.
"PRT Is a Joke" Is a Joke
Defending PRT with wit, sarcasm and all that good stuff
The author has a degree in Policy Analysis from the University of Washington
Graduate School of Public Affairs (now known as The Evans School).
|