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

Editor's note: An open letter to you know who

Dear Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist,

When you want to win friends and influence people, first impressions are important. It's making sure you're being seen at your best. It's putting your best foot forward. Presentation.

You don't do it just for the sake of doing it, of course. You do it because people know that if you care enough to attend to the little details, you're someone that maybe they should heed. Someone to take seriously.

Take some normal events from every day life. Would you pick your nose in front of a potential client? No, you wouldn't. Would you snap your fingers in a Greek diner to get a waitress's attention? Of course not. You can lose an arm that way.

Similarly, when you communicate with an elected official in a letter, your goal should be to impress. You should be concise. You should address one subject. Don't send a screed that tries to link domestic violence, verbal abuse, transit technology and the I-35W bridge. You might come off looking a bit, well, you know.

Do open with the salutation "Dear."

Do proofread. Do put a professor's name, title and university in the correct order. Don't reveal you are ignorant of the difference between capital punishment and capitol punishment.

Don't complain about a bill you opposed that has already been defeated, last year.

And most of all, when writing an open letter to Margaret Anderson Kelliher, and not only post it on the interweb for the world to see, but also expect her to read it instead of clicking the Back icon, at least have the courtesy to address her as Speaker Kelliher or Madam Speaker.

But only if you want to be effective.


Hope this helps,
Mr_Grant
Managing Editor




gPRT
We now adjourn Ken Avidor sine die

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

See who's on his side

Rodiva the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist has a new talking point. 'Seems one official of one road department in Arizona is dismissive of the Skytran PRT concept. So naturally the propagandist feels obligated to trumpet this and claim the Wikipedia PRT article does not reflect "the consensus of transportation professionals."

Check out the Arizona Republic article Rodiva is linking to, and scroll down to the reader comments. Notice how the people agreeing with the anti-PRT position fall into three loose categories:

People who hate Arizona and Mesa--

hahahahha...... America's dumbest state continues. What a joke.

Great idea! Can take residents from the trailer park or retirement community over to the pawn shop and liquor store. Stop by Walmart for some camoflouge hunting gear

Besides, Mesa is the most backward city in the valley.

Main Street is a joke even for a small farming town. The city of Mesa is run by a bunch of hillbillies.

People who think referring to The Simpsons monorail episode is original--

This sounds eerily like a Simpsons episode.

Wasn't there a Simpson's episode about this... something about monorail saleman pitching a deal that can't be passed? I agree Mesa should only invest in proven technology.

monorail.... monorail..... MONORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIL!!!!!!!!!!!

...is there a chance the track could bend?

agreed- this sounds more like a SHELBYVILLE idea.

And racists and haters of the homeless--

This sounds awesome! I would love to pay,with my tax dollars, for the transportation of homeless people!

This will be a great way to transport all the illegal aliens living in down town out to the airport… and the homeless people will have a new place to go pee. We could even call them pee pods.

Hope the migrant workers enjoy riding it.

Source

Of course, on the homeless Kenwood is already there.

gPRT

Ken Avidor - vAn ride oK

Bring It On IV: Epilogue

The bias charge against me at Wikipedia by Kenwood the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist? It went down in flames. This is what it was about--trying to slant Wikipedia, a project that has the objective of being neutral and objective, so it reflects his personal bias. Here is his blatant appeal --

Please Get Somebody at Wikipedia to do something about Personal Rapid Transit
In the wake of the 35W bridge collapse in my city, right-wingers and PRT promoters are attacking transit funding and even funding of bicycle infrastructure[3][4]. Please bring some reality to that PRT article before the next MN special session when Rep. Mark Olson and others will likely use PRT to attack funding for the Central Corridor LRT and Northstar. The Arizona Tribune recently ran a good article about UniModal where a transportation professional was quoted saying Skytran "is an idea on the Internet, but that's about the only place it exists." [5] It's time the Wikipedia article about PRT reflect the consensus of transportation professionals instead of the PRT promoters (who are editing it- see talk pages)....thank you...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 15:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to show you how ineffective he is, this post was made on the discussion page of a senior Wikipedia user who has withdrawn from Wikipedia activity. In other words, this rather desperate plea is falling on deaf ears.

Nonetheless, it confirms everything PRT proponents and neutral observers have been saying -- the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist is engaged in an ultimately political campaign against a technology. He perceives PRT as a threat to another technology he prefers; PRT itself has done nothing to earn such fear.
Don't like some of the politicans who claim to support PRT? Then don't vote for them. But PRT is just a technology.
It is not partisan. It is inanimate.

"Bring It On" Series, parts I, II, and III

UPDATE: The case has been closed and archived -- the title is "Mr Grant - No COI"

Ken Avidor - AKron dive
gPRT

Bring It On III: I am charming, funny and articulate

The back-and-forth on the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Noticeboard was paralleled by back-and-forth on the discussion page of the Personal Rapid Transit article. Send the rescue chopper, he's gone down in flames. Ovendoor the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist is as pathetic as on COIN, again carping about whether I get paid for PRT work, and again resorting to the 'I don't have time' cop-out. Whereas by comparison I sparkle like a 21st century Bennett Cerf. Read on --

Question About Conflict of Interest Concerning David Gow (Mr Grant)

David Gow maintains several websites, blogs that promote Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) and moderates a Seattle PRT web forum. All this activity alone constitutes a conflict of interest, but I would like to know if David Gow (Mr Grant) has received payment for promoting PRT and if so, who has paid him...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 18:07, 8
August 2007 (UTC)

---

First: I have no clue whether or not he has been paid; second: it is entirely irrelevant here because he has not added anything advertorial or controversial to the article; third: if you insist on knowing whether Gow was paid, you should also answer whether you've ever been paid for your anti-PRT campaign - like, for example, any articles or Roadkill Bill works you've [sic] created that are anti-PRT in nature. Your presence on these articles has been much more significant and controversial than Gow's, so if you've made any money off your anti-PRT campaign then that would be much more of a COI than anything you can accuse of Gow. ATren 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Once again we see [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] attack a person because his attacks on the technology have been shown to be without foundation. As Atren notes, I may have a pro-PRT presence online, but it is only COI if my Wikipedia edits have a COI result. [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] seems to think expertise or opinion necessarily takes away one's ability to write objectively or neutrally.
As for whether I receive payment for my work, for the time being I am going to neither confirm nor deny anything, one way or another. The reason? I wish to be amused by the talking points and conspiracy theories [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] will produce in the coming days/weeks/months/years/eras, which I am sure are being concocted even as I write this. After all, one of my blogs is [Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] Humor, and I always need material. --Mr Grant 19:51, 8 August 2007
(UTC)

---

Again, I ask respectfully; Have you, Mr Grant (David Gow) received payment for promoting PRT and if so, who has paid you?

The policy {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F]:

If you fit either of these
descriptions: you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or, you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;


then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them.

---

And again, I ask you respectfully, which of Mr. Grant's edits to the PRT article do you consider to be problematic? ATren 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

And I, just as respectfully, respond to you, Ned Luddington ([Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist]), that I am in compliance with the policy you have quoted. I'll trust you on quoting them accurately. Love ya, don't change. Mmmmmmmwah. --Mr Grant 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

[Now he tries to change the subject, perhaps sensing his impending humiliation]

---

There also seems to be an obvious conflict of interest regarding owner of a start-up PRT company BillJamesMN editing the PRT page and it seems other editors were well aware of it [13]...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 21:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you have a problem, raise it at the COI noticeboard. I think you know where it

is... ATren 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey Nedken: I agree with you that BillJamesMN may have appearance of a COI. That is why I have proposed a remedy I hope will improve the article. How would you like to improve the article? --Mr Grant 22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

One last time; Are you paid to promote PRT?...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 01:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

One last time: which edits are you concerned about? Because if he's not making promotional edits, then the COI question is moot! ATren 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Are you paid to oppose it? Because it's like a full-time job for you. --Mr Grant 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

With the exception of a comic about PRT back in 2003 for which I received $40, no... Now, you can answer my question; Have you been paid to promote PRT?...[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

You're not the boss of me. And at 01:41 you promised that would be the last time you asked. --Mr Grant 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

And can you answer my question: which edits do you consider PRT "promotion"? Because unless there is evidence of actual PRT promotion on behalf of Mr Grant, the COI charge is completely irrelevant. Are you going to provide diffs [record of different versions side by side] to support your argument? ATren 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

So that's it? You refuse to provide the diffs? ATren 13:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

It would take a more time [sic] than I have... I agree with the admin--"If he (Gow) wants to avoid all potential for future misunderstanding he can confine himself to the article talk page."[Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist] 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Hold the phone! You did the experiment without doing the research first? You went to battle without knowing the enemy's position? You asked a question in court without already knowing the answer? You expect me to believe that, with all the time you spend trawling the PRT waters, you have no actual evidence of my COI? This was just a fishing expedition!!! Is there a Wikipedia policy against time-wasting?

And staying on the talk page "to avoid all potential for future misunderstanding" amounts to a gag order -- because you are the one who will be doing the misunderstanding. So no way. I am educated in performing neutral, competent policy & program analysis, I have a sheepskin that says so. I perform neutral, competent policy & program analysis every day. How about you? FORTY DOLLARS???!!! --Mr Grant 16:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The admin also clearly states that Mr Grant's edit history is "all helpful and straightforward contribution." And, judging by your "I don't have time" excuse, it's quite clear that she's absolutely right - there is nothing on which to base a COI complaint. As Mr Grant states above, this appears to be little more than a fishing expedition.

Furthermore, I question why you believe that Gow has received money to promote PRT - do you have any evidence to support this? Once again, that seems to be a completely unfounded insinuation, made with the intent to falsely imply impropriety on Gow's part. To paraphrase the great Jackie Gleason: "Ad homina homina hominem". So as far as I'm concerned, Mr Grant has proven himself to be a model editor on these pages, and he can go ahead and continue editing without reservation. ATren 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

That's the end of it, as of this moment. However, Labridor did make another post that could be seen as a fitting conclusion to this saga -- read about it in Part IV.

"Bring It On" Series, parts I, II, and IV

The best Ken Avidor anagram is still -- nAive dorK
gPRT