Not reporting on it, but quietly whispering his opposition on his personal blog.
The Laffable Luddite says:
"He's covering monorail!"
"He's NOT covering monorail!
He then goes on to breathlessly quote all the stuff I reported - a week ago - at PRTJJ's sister blog, "This Week In Precipitation" (TWIP, The Editor's Blog of The PRT NewsCenter™). And what does "quietly whispering" mean? How is posting something in a normal size font 'whispering'?
For some reason,
Ken has a bug up his butt about my not reporting it at Examiner.com, as though some massive pipeline of Seattle Transportation News has been filtered to omit mention of the Great PRT Conspiracy.
News Flash -- I don't report anything on Examiner.com anymore, not in over TWO years, which was when I decided Examiner to be pretty much a joke as a citizen journalism umbrella. My material is still there, it's still damn good stuff, but I haven't been adding to it, and I won't be. Examiner doesn't really vet anything anyone writes. Content-wise there is no difference reading an Examiner-branded blog as opposed to something on Blogger or Tumblr -- quality depends on the author, being part of Examiner adds no value. And so in the last couple of years Examiner has become, in my opinion, a home for a lot of right wing nutjobs. Why would I want to be part of that brand? I wouldn't, so I don't and I'm not. Why has Ken Avidor decided to obsess about Examiner? I don't know and really don't care -- although I am amused. If you want to know you could ask him -- if he allowed "PRT Moondoggie" readers to post comments.
revealing (yet again) that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. I'm designer and admin for GetThereFast.org, but it's not 'mine.' It is run by a Seattle-area committee as an advocacy/community outreach website about PRT. Therefore MY editorial voice is not present on the page of news links. That GTF takes no position on the CenTran monorail proposal (again, I covered it here) is simply a statement of fact, and we want to stay out of what is, essentially, a political campaign. As for "finally" acknowledging the existence of the "PRT proposal," I want to extend my apologies to Ken. New posts of news on GTF can lag because it often takes me a while to get to it, since I give PRT NewsCenter most of my time. Although, Ken, my not having enough time for GTF is really your fault. All your anti-PRT idiocy creates tons of work for me here at "PRT Is a Joke IS A JOKE."
Update 1:
I suppose I should acknowledge the possibility that Avidor thinks he is Valiantly Taking The Fight To The Enemy On His Home Turf. But the way he's gone about it comes across as 'Don't cover PRT your way, cover it MYYYY way.'
Ken, I'm telling you this as a friend -- get some help for the OCD. Allow comments, Ken! Cluck cluck bawk bawk BAWK! gPRT
Ken Avidor served himself up for us to write about today, with the following tweet. Apparently he just couldn't resist the opportunity to conflate Bachmann's 2003 PRT bill with the current St. Croix River Bridge project.
The one thing has nothing to do with the other -- unless you equate the bipartisan support for the bridge in the MN congressional delegation with the 13 Democrats and 5 Resmuglicans who were pro-PRT in the 2003-04 state senate session.
We'll leave behind the matter of the bridge, since Ken's handlers seem to have helped him find the correct side of that issue. But what of this 'promotion' of PRT by Minnesota Public Radio?
It was a story in MPR's News & Features section. Got that? Not Opinion or Editorial.
In Ken's eyes, if a news story doesn't agree with his propaganda it must be enemy propaganda. That's how author Dan Olson is turned from a reporter into a promoter.
You know, this reminds me of the time Ken Avidor took issue with an article about a possible PRT project in Dubai:
It's a two-fer! Not only is Ken Avidor caught in the act of taking someone out of context, it also reveals he doesn't know 'new Twitter' shows you the thread right there!
UPDATE 1: He removes the context AGAIN! (12/14/2011) Link
I tweeted:
...and Avidor quotes it as:
IsAvidorcontent to leave it here, and limit the damage to himself (@GottaLaff has over 18,000 Followers, versus Avidor's 501)? Of course not, he continues the kerfuffle -- finishing it off with an arrogant flourish:
(Firedoglake? Why doesn't Ken ever promote the time he got his clock cleaned at Democratic Underground?) Thanks for this Christmas present Ken , it's exactly what I wanted! Update 2: No Comprende Subset (3/22/2013) Link Ken went after another humorist on Twitter last weekend, this time it was the actual Lizz Winstead (72,726 followers).Let the record show Avidor has trouble distinguishing between "ALL" Minnesotans and a subset thereof:
Oh, but it didn't end there.
By the way, "goo.gl/G65rl" links to Dump Bachmann blog ('Dumping Bachmann since 2005 or possibly 2004'), where Ken duplicates his error and amplifies it with a huffy 'buy my book' (as in "just follow the money"!) post.
He thinks he was being polite!
First Laffy, now Lizz. Ken, what's your problem with funny women?
Ah. You know Personal Rapid Transit is having a good week whenever a loud NNNNNNNNNNGGGGG sound comes from the direction of Minnesota. That's the sound Ken Avidor gets whenever he starts up the totally analog, hand-cranked calculating machine on which he hammers out his PRT Moondoggie blog attacks against anything resembling transit technology innovation. And here it is now:
For many years, I've had to listen to the PRTistas claim Personal Rapid Transit was "faster, better cheaper" compared to conventional modes of transit. The so-called Heathrow PRT project was supposed to be the proof of those claims... [sic] and it has failed miserably.
…
NNNNNNNNNNGGGGG. The core of this offal is taken from the same tired, old, made-up talking points as always* -- so instead of another dissection, this time I want to make some observations about Avidor's strategic direction. Let's turn to our debunking friend who's fun to be with, Mr. Side-By-Side Comparison:
Ken Avidor blog/claim
Fact check
After many years, delays and enormous piles of hype, the pods of Heathrow are now "officially unveiled"(Reuters):
Traveling at speeds up to 40 km/hour (25 mph), after an average wait of just 34 seconds, the system looks like something straight from a science fiction film.
25 mph? Not exactly "rapid". And the 34 second wait? That pretty much dooms their oft-repeated claim that you never have to wait for PRT. Also, a 34 second wait eliminates the possibility that PRT could operate at "nano-second headways" in order to match the capacity of conventional transit. With those pathetic stats, the ULTra pods cannot be seriously considered a viable transit mode for urban areas.
The first PRT study for Heathrow was in 2004, and the go-ahead was given almost exactly 6 years ago. Six years from greenlight, through design, planning, construction, manufacturing, and testing is not a long time for a major civil engineering project that includes the first of a kind product.
25 mph is plenty fast when the vehicle doesn't have to stop until its destination; that speed is close to average speed.
Also, no respectable PRT designer says there will be no waiting -- they say 'little or no waiting,' or 'on-demand or brief waiting.'
In ULTra, the control system is synchronous, meaning pods are inserted into virtual 'slots' that circulate around the guideway network. Each slot is as long as the minimum interval allowed between pods.
What this means is that there is room for roughly 113 slots on the network's 2.36 miles of guideway. There are currently 21 pods, so the system has plenty of unused capacity, which if needed would be met by adding more pods.
The current ULTra ridership record is 164 trips in an hour using 18 pods, or a capacity of 656 people moving among the 3 stations. The designed capacity is 500,000 riders per year for this phase. Guideway, pods and riders served will increase should the system expand to the rest of Heathrow.
According to ULTra, the company behind the technology, the 30 million pound ($47 million) development could transport up to 500,000 passengers each year and replace 50,000 shuttle bus journeys.
...
The cost of the Heathrow pod project proves that the infrastructure is expensive to build. There are no real-life figures on what it will cost to operate and maintain the pods of Heathrow for a year.
Waaaaait. One of the things Ken is supposed to be showing is that PRT is not "cheaper."
$47 million is a lot, but no one ever said PRT would be dirt cheap. Just calling PRT expensive doesn't prove it's not cheaper. To do that he has to compare it to something else. Which he does not do.
There is a control room and presumably people who have to monitor the pods. How much that all costs - 3 or 4 million dollars a year for a simple two mile stretch, it's certainly not "cheaper" than taxis or jitneys.
He just pulls "3 or 4 million" out of his butt. But even if Ken's in the ballpark, doesn't that money represent money for jobs rather than hardware?
Taxis and jitneys burn fuel,Ken. And each one requires a driver -- presumably not working on a volunteer basis. What's the economy in Avidor's universe based on?
It could be argued that the Heathrow pod "system" is not a true PRT system at all. It has a heavy "bi-directional guideway" that would not fit on the average city street. The Heathrow pod system do not have the elevated stations that are pictured in countless visuals on the web- for example, the enormous, hideous station festooned with advertisements on this webpage. The Heathrow pods have rubber tires and do not circulate like taxis, but instead must be berthed separately so they can charge their batteries. The pods must also back out of their berths - requiring plenty of room.
Sure, you could argue it. But if someone argues that something they oppose isn't a "true" example of that something, it's usually a sign they know they can't win the argument. Ken is defining ULTra as not-PRT in order to be able to continue to claim PRT doesn't exist and is unproven.
And for the record, "bi-directional guideway" (2 guideway, one for each direction, on the same support posts) is used at Heathrow where it does fit, and because it would be stupid to go around the end of the runway by more than one route.
That last Ken Klaim™ is what I want to focus on. As I noted, he's trying to parse ULTra, basically nitpicking it. He's hoping the casual reader will take his ULTra-as-outlier argument at face value.
This is the approach he has taken for years when opposing ULTra. Sure, it looks like a car on something resembling a footbridge. Compared to the even-more-futuristic designs of Taxi 2000 and PRT International (which Ken is more familiar with because they are being developed in Minnesota), ULTra looks downright present-day.
Which is the problem for Ken . Because looking present-day, existing and functioning translates into feasibility. Which makes a joke (appropriately enough) out of Ken's Number One Talking Point: "Personal Rapid Transit is an infeasible transportation concept."
Keeping PRT looking infeasible is why Ken Avidor continues to panic-bash the Heathrow transit-pod project. Heathrow is shaping up as the smiling, telegenic poster child for feasibility.
But don't take my word for it. Let's compare ULTra to the official definition of PRT by the Advanced Transit Association:
ATRA sez:
ULTra?
Personal Rapid Transit has all of the following characteristics:
• Direct origin-to-destination service with no need to transfer or stop at intermediate stations.
Check.
• Small vehicles available for the exclusive use of an individual or small group traveling together by choice.
Check!
• Service available on demand by the user rather than on fixed schedules.
Check-a-roony.
• Fully automated vehicles (no human drivers) which can be available for use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
ULTra is fully automated, but -- Oops! ULTra is only available 20-22 hours a day, depending on day of the week :( But this is more hours than the Heathrow Express train from London (no service 11:30pm - 5am). So we'll call this one... 'Chec.'
• Vehicles captive to a guideway that is reserved for their exclusive use.
There are no off-ramps from the guideway, so Check!
• Small (narrow and light) guideways, usually elevated but also can be at or near ground level or underground.
Check, check and check!
• Vehicles able to use all guideways and stations on a fully connected PRT network.
Check!
Note that these bullets define characteristics of service and safety only. PRT is technology independent, and manufacturers are free to use any technology they choose.
Note that last thing: "PRT is technology independent, and manufacturers are free to use any technology they choose."All this Avi-steria -- about FROG, little rubber tires, kinds of guideway and stations, everything -- is just a lot of smoke.
He's saying Don't use ATRA's definition of PRT to evaluate ULTra, use MY definition.What is known as a straw man.
ULTra is Personal Rapid Transit. ULTra works. Which is more than you can say about Ken Avidor's arguments.
One strange meme to which Ken Avidor has tried to impart momentum is his opinion of the inadequacy of wheels used in PRT vehicles, specifically:
the Cardiff ULTra was essentially Frog/2getthere with its dorky wheels covered up to give it a futuristic look
--Avidorat Daily Kos, 5/21/09
the Cardiff ULTra was essentially Frog/2getthere with its dorky wheels covered up to give it a futuristic look
--Avidorat Dump Mark Olson, 9/10/07
Taxi 2000's PRT pod is supposed to run on futuristic-sounding "linear induction motors" (The pod actually rides on dorky, little rubber tires).
--Avidoron Dump Mark Olson, 6/15/06
The only difference between FROG and ULTra that I can see is that the ULTra vehicles have wheel covers that hide their dorky, un-futuristic-looking wheels.
-- Avidorat WellUrban, 6/9/06
Lately, he's been at it again:
That's just an error within an error -- ULTra uses 13 inch diameter tires, and everyone knows golf carts have 18-22 inchers.
What's dorky about small wheels anyway? I guess we have to do what PRTJJ does best: examine the facts.
How are small tires foolish or stupid? Not only have they been standard equipment on some compact cars for decades, they are also used in custom cars. Such as lowriders.
I invite Ken Avidor to go to East L.A. and tell the first lowrider driver he sees that his car has "dorky little wheels."
Little (li-təl), adjective
1. Not big
2. Not much Merriam Webster
What does wheel diameter have to do with strength or reliability? Not much:
I doubt four 13 inch wheels will have trouble supporting a 800-ish kilo PRT vehicle.
Plus, in today's eco, bio, lower consumption, smart-energy, compact walkable urban village world, isn't smaller better? Next to a Hummer, is a Zenn a "dorky little" electric car? Which is better, Ken -- a Range Rover or a Smart fortwo? Which happens to be the same size as a --
Of course, one person's dorky golf cart is another's Neighborhood Electric Vehicle.
But to be consistent, Ken Avidor must support the bigger and therefore less dorky wheels. And we all know what guys who love the BIG wheels are compensating for, don't we?
(IT ANNOYS THE MINNESOTA ANTI-PRT PROPAGANDIST WHEN HIS NAME ISN'T MENTIONED. So we don't. Exactly.)
"One of the best ways to address it, honestly, in all seriousness, is to mock the people who are making these allegations." -Rachel Maddow
"There's no way to debate liars." -Randi Rhodes
"What I do isn't propaganda. What I do is taking what they say and using it against them. What I do is jujitsu. They say something ridiculous and then I subject them to scorn and ridicule. That's my job." -Al Franken
+
+
+
