Another PRT milestone is his millstone

Editor's note: We continue beta-testing the change to one of the oldest editorial policies of "PRT is a Joke" IS A JOKE. For a limited time, The Name of the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist will be shown -- although special formatting will be used.

This week has brought another embarrassment to Ken Avidor's attempts at technology clairvoyance.

2005:

the fine print in the BAA press release says that the [Heathrow] project depends on "agreed milestones being achieved.". [sic] It is highly unlikely that ULTra-as-PRT will pass these milestones. Source

2009:

World's first Personal Rapid Transit System bursts onto scene at Heathrow

At Heathrow the world's first Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system reached a significant milestone this week as the system was officially handed over from construction to operational testing on Tuesday.

The event was marked with the vehicle bursting through a paper screen before parking itself in the dedicated bay.

Workers on the innovative £25 million project assembled at the PRT station in the Terminal 5 business car park to celebrate the next step in the project as it moves from construction to operational testing.

Source

As the British say, "Spot on, Ken!"







gPRT
Ken Avidor lives in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnall's porch

Reminder - Vectus PRT is not Raytheon PRT...

... even though the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist keeps claiming otherwise.

There is merely a superficial resemblance.

Also today: See the first official Vectus video (Quicktime format)

gPRT
Ken Avidor needs his eyes checked

M.I.A. on S.L.U.T.

Conventional rail transit is being mercilessly bashed today in a Seattle P-I Sound Off, but the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist and his poss-y are nowhere to be found. Why do they reserve their attacks only for innovators? Because "bashers" who are not active technology innovators are not perceived to be a threat to light rail and streetcars?



gPRT
Ken Avidor: Two! Two! Two mints in one!

When Appliance Parts Go Fishing

Today Kenmore Ovendoor the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist takes Curt Gowdy on another deep, deep, deep sea fishing expedition. Watch as Humidor casts and casts and casts with no bites! Enjoy the blatant POV pushing! Thrill to hours and hours of political trawling! Chuckle as he gets tangled in his own line.

Coming up next: “Mark Olson and the PRT Scam” by Clifford Irving. Excerpt: "Mark Olson was conceived in both senses of the word as a multi-decade experiment in gadgetbahnism. His father was Donn Fichter, who is credited as the father of gadgetbahn, and his mother is the conceptual artist "Chastity," a simple German girl whose father invented World War II. Together they made for a perfect start to a neverending conspiracy today known to a handful of cartoonists as the PRT Scam. Fichter and Chastity planned for their son Mark to grow up to become an American lawmaker. Their patient scheme was for Mark to futilely introduce gadgetbahn legislation in Minnesota that always fails, therefore not winning any state funding for gadgetbahn -- a clever trick to guarantee the supremacy of the criminal organization known as the National Asphalt & Highway Confederation, as well as providing a pastime for underemployed art school graduates..."

K@nny-boy: Put down the Short Elliott Hendrickson talking point and step away...
gPRT
Ken Avidor strikes iceberg and sinks on maiden voyage

Baby it's cold (or warm) inside - UPDATE 3

Today comes word that the first ULTra production vehicle has been delivered to the PRT test track in Cardiff. Says ATS Ltd. --

"The new vehicle features a more powerful motor, full climate control, and the complete passenger interface." Source

Recall that Ken Avidor the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist claims PRT doesn't/can't have air conditioning. Recently he issued a revised version of this unsupported, bogus charge:

The [ULTra] vehicle has to be converted from battery to hybrid (burning diesel or gasoline) in order to have HVAC.

Conversion to burning fossil fuels pretty much removes the selling point that PRT is non-polluting. (Seattle P-I Forum 7/26/07)

ATS Ltd.

UPDATE 1

(9/17/2011) Sure, it's been 4 years since this post went up, but debunking knows no expiration date!  This new ULTra press release must be cited:

Heathrow Airport has today unveiled the Heathrow pod, the airport’s most innovative transport system and the first new example of transit technology in 100 years...

Each temperature-controlled Heathrow pod has been designed for privacy and comfort and allows passengers to select their own direct destination.

UPDATE 2

Now you're probably saying, "man, four years was a long time ago. Give Avidor a break, he's probably given up on that one."  A reasonable and generous impulse -- except, here he is in tweets from August 2011, fishing (unsuccessfully) for substantiation:

Andrew_Frankel Sign in heathrow pod saying it 'does not produce any emissions'. Fair comment or wilfully misleading cobblers? Discuss.
11:05 AM Aug 23rd from Twitter for iPhone retweeted by Avidor

Avidor @Andrew_Frankel Was the Heathrow pod interior climate-controlled? - Did the pod have ventilation/air conditioning?
4:24 PM Aug 25th from web

Andrew_Frankel @Avidor Dunno, wasn't a hot day so didn't notice. My guess is that it's ventilated but not a/c. Not much point for 5 min journey?
9:25 AM Aug 26th from web

Avidor @Andrew_Frankel Thanks. Maybe not in UK, they're trying to sell these pods all over the world - India, Australia, and here in Minnesota.
1:46 PM Aug 26th from web

Update 3 (1/25/2012)

gPRT
Ken Avidor should stop blogging about the PRT and scram

Advocacy Does Not Equal Decisionmaking III- everyone needs to calm down

RDC, a rather articulate commentator, is in understandable high dudgeon over at his Laurels and Lances blog about PR put out by the people at SkyTran PRT:

Wild and unsubstantiated claims on the SkyTran website such as SkyTran being able to "totally eliminate commuter congestion in any city" is literally false advertising and a complete misrepresentation of the product. Another claim of "SkyTran can END road congestion, car accidents and automobile air pollution" also state the impossible.

Where are the actual studies proving these claims?...

Source

Short answer: their aren't any studies I know of proving these particular claims. I agree they are overblown. However, if he is so inclined I can direct RDC to a number of studies from over the years describing what PRT can do in more dispassionate and academic terms.

Furthermore, the glaring faults RDC sees in SkyTran's claims are pretty much right on, such as--

Another claim from the makers of SkyTran is that people will be traveling around at 100 mph around the city. If you sent someone in one of the passenger pods for a 4 block ride, you would not get it to 100 mph. If you did, that person would be thrown back and whipped forward as there is insufficient space for speeding up and slowing down safely. You also would have hundreds of switches and sensors along the line to allow the PRT pod to bypass stations and other pods. One tiny error in any of the millions upon millions of calculations per second the system must do or a small system glitch, as the driverless pod is whipping around the city at 100 mph, could easily spell disaster.

Absolutely, which is why all other PRT designers I know of propose 25-40 mph speeds in town, reserving higher velocities for the day when PRT lines might extend between cities. Allow me to note that these kinds of pro-PRT claims are exactly the kind of over-promising I have spent a great deal of time counseling against. It is the mirror of those who claim PRT is 'a scam,' 'light rail is all we need,' and 'mass transit doesn't work, just build more roads.' Over-promising what PRT could do creates resistance among people who ought to support PRT, people who are sincerely seeking alternatives to the car culture and unsustainable environmental practices.

Claims by overly enthusiastic advocates should not be generalized to all of the PRT designers and proponents (nor should their enthusiasm mean their technology doesn't work). A review of the serious literature will reveal the rigorous academic nature of the data that supports PRT.

On the other hand, the point that SkyTran is at right now amounts merely to discussion about its potential merits. It is an overreaction at this stage to characterize it as the first step in an evil ripoff of taxpayers, for the two simple reasons that it is just people talking, and (all together) advocacy does not equal decisionmaking.

There are hoops any new public transit technology has to jump through to be selected for implementation: protracted, deliberative, multi-lateral study and decisionmaking that protects the public interest. Hardware has to be built, tested and operated to the satisfaction of regulators (as is being done in Europe). Pilot systems must be established and operated to the satisfaction of politically accountable officials, if not voters themselves, before a decision is made to proceed. Likewise with design & engineering for actual urban implementations, and the public and/or private revenue sources to pay for it.

PRT proponents need to bear this process in mind, as well as the detractors. Public officials, on the whole, are slow to embrace PRT because of this obligation to protect the public interest, not because of less flattering traits some people may like to speculate about.

Optimally, R&D on PRT would be funded privately, as with the Vectus system, although even with public investment in planning and testing, as is the case with the British/EU ULTra PRT, there is no need to think that would take funding away from existing transport systems. Competitive grants awarded on merit, budgeted/appropriated for the purpose, are available from national and state agencies, and private foundations.

If SkyTran is all that it claims, where is the test line on company property to clearly show everyone the concept in a full scale working model?

asks RDC. I can't speak for that particular company, but that would require sufficient investment, and that would require investors to see it as an acceptable risk. Maybe you haven't noticed, but public transit does not exactly have a low threshold for entry into the market: vast manufacturing capacity in materials, facilities and labor are required (in the past, deep pockets such as Raytheon--who nonetheless mucked up PRT2000--and the two megacorps involved in Cabinentaxi--a proven design that fell victim to military spending demands of Pres. Reagan). And there are the above-mentioned regulatory and policy hoops. In addition, in my state (probably others too) there are laws protecting public transit agencies from private competition.

By its very nature, advocacy is one-sided and seeks advantageous comparisons with the status quo.* This can be said of any innovation. If a particular invention doesn't pan out, then we won't buy any. But it also doesn't mean innovators will stop trying, nor should anyone tell them to stop.

on the Web: Laurels and Lances

gPRT
Ken Avidor, a deer, a female deer
* This is frequently characterized as "bashing," especially if the comparisons are not objectively framed. Heated comparisons (I've read things on the order of 'light rail is a failure' and 'a waste of money') are not helpful, because viewed from the decisionmakers' perspective conventional transit is a good decision -- they function; construction and operation creates jobs and follow-on ripple effects in the economy; there are land use/redevelopment benefits; a significant segment of the public also sees in transit desirable social outcomes. Now, it is still much-debated whether conventional transit achieves prevailing expectations, the magnitude of economic benefits justify the investment, and whether transit-driven development is fair to underserved areas. But those are complex public issues (and in the case of social outcomes, not all variables in the decision are quantitative), transit innovators would do well to exercise caution and restraint when weighing in on them. And, moreover, the PRT community's rhetoric needs to acknowledge not only that new conventional systems are being built, but also that those systems will continue to exist into the future. Responsible PRT deployment proposals need to describe how they will interact in a multi-modal transit landscape, as we have done at GetThereFast.org

Sanitized (of relevancy) for your protection

Apparently, the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist has never before heard of a private company (of any type) trying to keep protesters (of any type) off of its facilities. No, I guess PRT invented that too.

Using Kenmore's logic, if a company is pro-environment, it ought to allow environmental protesters to gather and possibly disrupt its operations. If not (and especially if it also has a PRT program), then the company must be anti-environment. Who cares if the EU and Swedes see PRT as a tool for urban mobility and reducing oil dependence -- that's an inconvenient truth Mr. L'Avitory flushes down his memory hole.

What we really need to know is what's the Mark "Slappy" Olson connection? Has Olson ever flown into or out of Heathrow? We need the facts!

Also today: Heathrow's new Terminal 5 will be served by surface rail and the London Underground -- obviously, trains must be part of the Airport Expansion Conspiracy too.

Update: the Propagandist singles out PRT as 'greenwashing' (9/4)

Dec. 17 -- BAA's Heathrow Corporate Responsibility Report cites multiple modes and methods in its surface transport strategy:

Paddington-Heathrow local train
Piccadilly express train extension
Heathrow Express extension
Heathrow-Staines "AirTrack" rail link
Public transport interchange
PRT
Improved bus and coach service
Employee car trip reduction
Employee public transport commute discount
No change in parking strategy
Limit construction worker car trips

I challenge the Propagandist to be consistent, and denounce all of these as greenwashing!

gPRT
Ken Avidor is a stalking horse for Garry Trudeau haters

Do these pants make his assumption look fatuous?

Today Ben Labridor's propaganda is based on his claim that Vectus, the Swedish-Korean PRT system, uses a "fat guideway" (right; he got the stills from this video report). Based on this claim he then goes on to write that "g-forces" are why Vectus is mounted on short posts, and that Vectus is "just like Raytheon."

We already disposed of the big "fat" lie in April -- you can read that here. Vectus is superficially similar to Raytheon, but is much smaller (plus the guideway will wear vertical stripes which, as everyone knows, are slimming!). As for g-forces, maybe it didn't occur to Ovendoor that an elevated system under assembly and testing conditions is simply easier to work on if within reach of people on the ground.

And since when do flags = phony? Don't tell the United Nations.

Extra: English transcript of the video

Addendum -- the Duh Factor

(June 7) Examine this statement by the Propagandist:

notice that [the Vectus guideway is] mounted on slim posts close to the ground. Why? Because G-forces would require heavier posts if it were up higher. Source

This is so vague that it suggests conclusions that result in the casual reader being led astray. First assumption: the posts are short because they are skinny. But if easy ground access is desirable for the test personnel's work, then the posts are skinny because they are short, i.e. they are as skinny as the present application requires.

Second assumption: Vectus isn't telling you taller posts are bigger. This is where the Duh Factor comes in: OF COURSE taller posts are bigger than skinnier ones. But simply blurting "g-forces" is a gross simplification. Some engineering background: post characteristics are a function of "load" on the guideway-- guideway weight, loaded vehicles, resistance to crosswinds, centrifugal force on curves equal to about 1/4 of vehicle weight, and earthquake codes of the locale. Load factors mean that taller posts need to be larger in diameter at their base, and larger foundations. But this is intuitive -- DUH!

The actual Duh Factor

Third assumption: bigger tall posts would be too big. Humidor again recycles his guideway-over-street composite photo (shown last year to be inaccurate), with the words "UGLY PRT." But really now, we've already shown the Vectus guideway pipe is about half the diameter of Raytheon's, and there is less structure mounted on top of the pipe -- therefore the formula continues to be: smaller vehicles, smaller guideway, less weight, smaller posts than Raytheon.

Archive: Oh sure, as if light rail goes by the nickname Stringbean

gPRT
How many Ken Avidors does it take to screw in a light bulb? Trick question! Light bulbs are not needed because flaming torches are proven technology.

More resistance to innovation

Back in the 1970s, there was a small group of people who thought they had an alternative to the status quo. These innovators believed they could do a certain job by building new infrastructure based on a wholly different concept.

Defenders of the conventional wisdom (the "experts") told the innovators it wouldn't work. They said the changes were stupid, irresponsible and unnecessary. They even said the users could get hurt in various ways.

Now, who were these crazy dreamers, and what were the proven, accepted methods they were trying to overthrow? Were they early gadgetbahners, proto-PRTistas attacking rail and bus systems? Was it Jerry Schneider and Emory Bundy? Nope. I refer to none other than the story of the creation of the modern world's first naturalistic zoo exhibit, the Western Lowland Gorilla habitat at Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle.

Start listening to the report by NPR's Robert Krulwich at :03:20 -- and keep this in mind the next time the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist attacks innovation.




gPRT
Ken Avidor In The Mist

Let's Be Disruptive!

Originally published at "PRT Is A Joke" IS A JOKE v.1
Words written with wildcards (***, !!!, etc.) was the way we originally wrote Ken Avidor, Ken, and Avidor.

One of *** ******'s Talking Points is that PRT is

an excuse by pro-highway/anti-transit Republicans... to block funding for [conventional transit]. This is why, perhaps, Taxi 2000/Skyweb Corporation's leader, Ed Anderson, refers to PRT as a "disruptive technology". Source

He thinks "disruptive" means destructive. But it's been well documented, here and elsewhere, how *** doesn't understand what the term means -- basically, enter the market at a low level, then move 'up'.

And here's another example of someone who DOES understand it: National Geographic--

If prices continued to drop, solar cells might change the whole idea of energy by making it cheap and easy for individuals to gather for themselves. That's what techies call a "disruptive technology."

"Automobiles were disruptive to the horse and buggy business," [PowerLight Corp.'s] Dan Shugar says. "PCs were disruptive to the typewriter industry. We believe solar electric systems will be disruptive to the energy industry." Source: "Future Power," National Geographic, Aug. 2005

We can find a parallel in ***'s position in Google. He's been so busy cruising the internet, posting links to his own web pages in blogs and discussion forums, that if you Google "PRT," *** is in the first page of results. That is a strong 'market' position. So, PRT supporters, let's practice some disruption of our own, and move the targets of ***'s hate 'up market.' Do it by visiting these PRT-friendly sites and URLs as much as you can, every day:

:: "PRT Is a Joke" Is a Joke!
:: Skyweb Express
:: Citizens For PRT
:: ULTra
:: Councilman Dean Zimmermann
:: Dean Zimmermann Fact Sheet
:: Dean Zimmermann on Minnesota Public Radio
:: Interview with David Tilsen of Zimmermann For Justice (.rm)
:: Get There Fast Seattle PRT site
:: Get On Board! PRT Seattle PRT site

Erratum: 7004 visitors

gPRT