His PRT is made of straw

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:

Saturday, September 17, 2011
ULTra's Glorified Golf Carts at Heathrow Not "Faster, Better, Cheaper"

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. As a comparison, when the Hiawatha Light Rail line opened in Minneapolis, its scheduled speed was 21 mph.** 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. But I can. Heathrow ULTra is 47/2.36=$19.9 million per mile.  Light rail in the U.S. averages "about $35 million per mile."
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.

gPRT Big Bad Wolfidor

Notes

* The following links debunk other Talking Points appearing in Ken's post:

• ULTra does not use FROG-brand navigation
• 2getthere née FROG still exists, it was the old parent company that went bankrupt.
• Michele Bachmann: one of 5 Republicans and 13 Democrats authoring PRT-related legislation in the Minnesota Senate session in question. Her bill was insignificant.
• Vukan Vuchic says the automobile is a necessary part of "modern transportation," and lumps it in with buses and rail. In other words, the automobile-centric status quo.

** A news item reported by Light Rail Now, so it must be true.

More about the size of his n

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.

Wait, I had something else lying around needing to be debunked. Ah, here we go:

Citizens on Both Sides of the Atlantic Say No to Personal Rapid Transit

Almost a year ago, Chris Millar leader of the Daventry District Council told the Daventry Express, "The eyes of the world are on Daventry with this project." The project he was talking about was a plan to install a futuristic "Personal Rapid Transit" (PRT, Podcars) system in the quiet market town of Daventry, England, population 22,36. [sic]

Now, it appears the plan to bring the much-hyped "revolution in sustainable public transport" to Daventry has been called off... what happened? [ellipsis in original]

Source

"Citizens on Both Sides of the Atlantic." Man; how many people are required to take a position before you start generalizing like that?

Fast forward to the April, 2009 when The Gusher published an article titled "Pod Off! Residents oppose Daventry PRT scheme"

More than 100 Daventry townspeople voiced their opposition to proposals for a pod transport network in the town at a public meeting on Monday night.

100 people out of the 22,367 who live in Daventry (town)? Why, that's a sample size of four tenths of a percent (0.004). And one tenth of a percent (0.001) of the population of the wider Daventry district.

I only mention this now because, recently, I helpfully tried to bring this to Kenny-Boy's attention! I placed this comment on the Daventry article he posted on his Viropop stalkblog (the one he set up after I started blogging on Viropop):

Population of Daventry District: 71838
Population of Daventry Town: 22367
Number of members of "Stop the Daventry POD"*: 70

Awww, but Avidor censored it.

So when Ken writes "both sides of the Atlantic," alert readers are probably wondering, Daventry is just one side of the Atlantic -- what about the other side? How many citizens in the U.S. said No to PRT? Ken only bothers to mention Peg Tully in Ithaca, New York. A sample size of 1 out 304 million Americans is 0.00000000329 (0.00000000296 if you include 34 million Canadians).


*A Facebook page

This just in: PRT Is a Joke IS A JOKE is the #2 Ken Avidor site on the web!

Fun comparison:

• Number of active PRT-haters: 4
• Number of Alan Keyes for President voters, 2008: 47,694

gPRT

Context Patrol: How much is "trillions"?

Today we return to a subject raised last week. To wit, the Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist's claim:

"...to extend [Personal Rapid Transit] to the entire Twin Cities metro area, the cost would be in the trillions of dollars."

At the time we pointed out Ken Avidor's claim is rendered absurd by the fact that the entire American economy alone has a value of $10 to 11 trillion. But what degree of absurd? Super absurd? Or mega-über-duper absurd? PRT Is a Joke is a Joke has to nail it down, because that's just how we roll.

Last weekend Public Radio International's This American Life ran a report on the current credit crisis, making much of the fact that the entire pool of money in all the world has a value of $70 trillion. So when Avidor says a Twin Cities PRT network would cost "trillions," how much is that in context?

"Trillions" is plural, so it means more than 1 trillion. At least 2 trillion then. Two trillion dollars is 2.8% of the entire $70 trillion global money supply; 2.8% of all the rice sold in China, everything bought by Bill Gates, all the cars sold by GM, all the songs downloaded at the iTunes Store, all the Slurpees sold by 7-11 -- everything.

Two trillion dollars, out of everything sold in the world. $2 trillion is roughly the GNP of Germany; about the cost of the Iraq war/occupation; the value of the bad mortgages lenders are writing off; the amount Americans spent on health care in 2005. Mr. Avidor expects you to believe a PRT system for one American city would cost that much. Why? The same reason as always -- because he pulls it out of his butt. That's how much he hates PRT.

Also today: Specific World Wildlife Fund support for PRT ("Skycab" thumbnail below orange ball)

Funny: Look who else doesn't know how much a 'trillion' is

gPRT
Ken Avidor has a mortgaged credibility crisis

World Wide Webding a ling

The Minnesota anti-PRT propagandist has had a busy few days.

1. Head over to his Minneapolis Confidential blog (Motto: “Comments on this blog are restricted to team members”) and enjoy a new video bearing all the Labridor hallmarks:

• Statements framed in the form of a question
• High pitched jittery voice
• Low-angle jittery camerawork

I think he's trying to say that the FBI would never, ever, ever, EVER frame anyone.

Update: more pointless questions, jittery camera work (5/29)

2. Repeating some of his same old propaganda points on Daily Kos (he's still using the air conditioning lie), and pretending the entire transit world revolves around the Twin Cities.
Notable quotables in the Comments. First up:

"...to extend [PRT] to the entire Twin Cities metro area, the cost would be in the trillions of dollars. "

“Trillions”! The U.S. Gross National Product is ‘only’ about $10-11 trillion. Maybe he meant ‘bazillions.’ Next:

"The so-called carbon-neutral city "Masdar" you've been reading about is just a lot of hype." [Don't tell World Wildlife Fund! -Ed.]

Gosh, remember the time he said "there is no PRT project at London's Heathrow airport"?

Photo: JohnPP (Flickr)

PRT guideway under the car ramps at Heathrow. Photo: JohnPP (Flickr)
Heathrow ULTra pod on guideway. Photo: Artofthestate (Flickr)

Also: One supposes Cartoonboy must be smarter than all the stupid engineers involved in Masdar -- NPR, May 5 and May 6.
Prediction: he'll call this a "puff piece"

Will he cancel his National Geographic subscription?

Pandas must be gadgetbahners!

gPRT
Ken Avidor's motto: I Am Curious Yellow Journalist

More PRT Google fun

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.

Last Friday I noted that, Googled a certain way, PRTJ et al is a miniscule 1.5% of hits when looking up PRT. This runs contrary to claims by *** and his follower that they are "kicking PRT keyword butt on google, yahoo, msn, wiki,everywhere."

Today I thought I'd share a slightly simpler method to show the insignificance of PRTJ--but one that's still a lot of fun.

:: Google PRT, excluding mentions of PRTJ as much as possible: about 31,300 hits

:: Google PRTJ: about 132 hits

:: PRTJ again, this time excluding self-references (mentions on ***'s own web domains): about 90 hitsUnder this method, we find ***'s PRTJ is mentioned on the web at a frequency 0.29% (90/31,300) that of PRT. Or expressed another way, Personal Rapid Transit is mentioned 348 times more often than PRTJ.



There. Wasn't that fun?

I'm still trying to figure out a way to filter out the hundreds of times that *** has posted his own URL on other people's web sites and blogs.

Errata: 626 visits

Google shows only 8 pages linking directly to PRTJ.