Re: [t-i] PodCar City conference newsletter #2 now available - PRT Definition Revised...?

[Anupam Vibhuti]

Highly unfortunate that ATRA now defines PRT as 4 seat vehicle systems....! 

This attempts to leave out Skytran... I BM Design...! ITNS...! and potentially many others. I wonder what they have to say about this 'new' definition scuttling the chances of 'truer' PRT paradigms.

Can ATRA suddenly define PRT as a 4 person vehicle system?

Anupam

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

Includes information about ground-breaking for the Vectus PRT project in Korea.
 <http://www.podcarcity.org/stockholm/>http://www.podcarcity.org/stockholm/


- Jerry Schneider -
   Innovative Transportation Technologies
     http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
       

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
Anupam Vibhuti [+91 9810070013]M
Architect & Urban Transport Planner @ Worxpace CPL  [www.worxpace.net]
D 113 East of Kailash New Delhi 110065 India Tel: +91 11 41624401,2,3 Fax: +91 11 41620040 Alt MailID: vib...@worxpace.net

[Jack Slade]

I can't find that mentioned in the link. Even if it is there, I don't see that ATRA is a part of it, as it is not their conference.

The original ATRA definition is: Small vehicles available for exclusive use by an individualor a small group (typically 1 to 6 passengers traveling
together by choice) and available 24 hours a day."

Jack Slade

"

--- On Thu, 8/11/11, Anupam Vibhuti <anupam....@gmail.com> wrote:

> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

>
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Anupam Vibhuti [+91 9810070013]M
> Architect & Urban Transport Planner @ Worxpace CPL 
> [www.worxpace.net]
>
> D 113 East of Kailash New Delhi 110065 India Tel: +91 11
> 41624401,2,3 Fax: +91 11 41620040 Alt MailID: vib...@worxpace.net
>
>
>
>
>
>

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>
> To post to this group, send email to

> transport-...@googlegroups.com.

>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Anupam Vibhuti]

http://podcarcity.org/fileadmin/podcarcity_org/PCCC/PCCC5/docs/PCCC5%20-%20Newsletter%202.pdf

Sorry here it is - look at page 4 & 5. Anupam

[Richard Gronning]

I agree with Anupam.
I read the PDF that somebody within ATRA wrote and we discussed it at our CPRT meeting last Tuesday. Could it be that the writers of this document have fallen into the same trap that the transit planners have fallen into? They can only accept what is THERE? Then the name, "Advanced Transit," should be changed to, "Present Transit."  Here are points from the paper that we disagreed with and possibilities;

• 4 passengers. Well, no. 2-6 passengers is more likely. Ed Anderson said that the studies showed that a wheel chair requires something like 56"-58"width. The Taxi 2000 vehicle reflects that width. Ed said that the larger the system, the more that the ridership goes towards the number  of passengers as one. (Never completely)
• ... decades of inflated PRT claims...(?) I'd like to see how any of the claims are inflated. What is this statement all about? Are present engineers and designers so inept that they can only accept what has been already built? 
• ... a maximum speed of approximately 25-35 MPH? The Taxi 2000 one-off vehicle has enough power to propel it at 60-80 mph. What about Unimodal? It's true that the control systems will have to set a speed limit for various areas and applications, but that isn't the limitation or any sort of absolute on the speed of the vehicle.
• ... go over or under streets. Don't both ULTra and 2Getthere have sections that are AT street level? 
• ... premium circulator service for small areas Travel service. So, because the present limited control systems, the spacing of the vehicles, and the speed of the systems make them low capacity systems with only limited expandability, that's IT? PRT can't do any more? Where's the vision in that? 

There are other statements, such as the one about "permanence" that we couldn't even fathom. Who is this document written for? Why are the applications so limited? Why take only the present systems and present applications as all that could be? Could it be that the document is mislabeled?

Dick

[Jack Slade]

I don't read that as a definition of PRT.  Instead,  I see it as a description of the cars in the 3 systems pictured,  and the definition I quoted is still valid.   The automobile has been around for a hundred years:   try writing a description of the cars,  and no one passenger number fits.

[Jack Slade]

Interspersed --- On Thu, 8/11/11, Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> wrote:

From: Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> Subject: Re: [t-i] PodCar City conference newsletter #2 now available - PRT Definition Revised...? To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011, 2:47 PM I agree with Anupam. I read the PDF that somebody within ATRA wrote and we discussed it at our CPRT meeting last Tuesday. Could it be that the writers of this document have fallen into the same trap that the transit planners have fallen into? They can only accept what is THERE? Then the name, "Advanced Transit," should be changed to, "Present Transit."  Here are points from the paper that we disagreed with and possibilities;

No matter what generation of UV graduates you are dealing with,  the fact remains that they are trained to deal with existing things only.  It is very rare, in a classroom,  to hear any discussion of what might change,  as time goes on.  It is more likely to be considered by students rather than instructors.

4 passengers. Well, no. 2-6 passengers is more likely. Ed Anderson said that the studies showed that a wheel chair requires something like 56"-58"width. The Taxi 2000 vehicle reflects that width. Ed said that the larger the system, the more that the ridership goes towards the number  of passengers as one. (Never completely) ... decades of inflated PRT claims...(?) I'd like to see how any of the claims are inflated. What is this statement all about? Are present engineers and designers so inept that they can only accept what has been already built?

YES

... a maximum speed of approximately 25-35 MPH? The Taxi 2000 one-off vehicle has enough power to propel it at 60-80 mph. What about Unimodal? It's true that the control systems will have to set a speed limit for various areas and applications, but that isn't the limitation or any sort of absolute on the speed of the vehicle.

The same mistake they made with trains, cars,  and aircraft.  Start slow and small and let other people make improvements later. ... go over or under streets. Don't both ULTra and 2Getthere have sections that are AT street level? This mistake they will both realize after their first system is in use for a while....maybe it has already,  regarding speed,  which is creeping up already

... premium circulator service for small areas Travel service. So, because the present limited control systems, the spacing of the vehicles, and the speed of the systems make them low capacity systems with only limited expandability, that's IT? PRT can't do any more? Where's the vision in that?

There are other statements, such as the one about "permanence" that we couldn't even fathom. Who is this document written for? Why are the applications so limited? Why take only the present systems and present applications as all that could be? Could it be that the document is mislabeled?  It already is:  "Podcar" Jack Slade

Dick On 8/11/2011 1:55 AM, Anupam Vibhuti wrote: Highly unfortunate that ATRA now defines PRT as 4 seat vehicle systems....!  This attempts to leave out Skytran... I BM Design...! ITNS...! and potentially many others. I wonder what they have to say about this 'new' definition scuttling the chances of 'truer' PRT paradigms. Can ATRA suddenly define PRT as a 4 person vehicle system? Anupam On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote: Includes information about ground-breaking for the Vectus PRT project in Korea.  <http://www.podcarcity.org/stockholm/>http://www.podcarcity.org/stockholm/ - Jerry Schneider -    Innovative Transportation Technologies      http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Steve Raney]

Here is the two-page ATRA Industry Group PDF:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/Vendor_Neutral_US_PRT_Desc_July2011.pdf
. The Podcar Conference newsletter #2 borrowed from this PDF.

Marketing Objectives / Guidance used in preparing the PDF:
* This document was drafted by ULTra PRT with input from Vectus,
2getthere, a transportation consulting firm and a power stakeholder.
All contributors have substantial experience with (and empathy for)
serious PRT prospects. The prose has a single, consistent “voice.”
Documents that are written by committee tend to read poorly.
* The first use of this document will be as part of a larger PDF
submission to a study where government requested serious consideration
of PRT, but the alternatives analysis produced a disappointing one-
dimensional alignment that did not exploit PRT’s two-dimensional
capabilities.
* Target audience is (justifiably) risk-averse city electeds and staff
who are not transit experts and who are unfamiliar with PRT.
* Promote PRT in procurements and feasibility studies.
* Avoid antagonizing prospective customers.
* Persuade elected and staff that PRT is a viable, advantageous
technology for their city. Suggest that PRT may be procured via
innovative methods.
* Describe PRT vendors in a manner consistent with the San Jose Podcar
Conference categorization: http://www.cities21.org/cms/index.php?page=categories.
Describe Category 1 vendors accurately and favorably in a manner that
is mutually acceptable. This document is not a competition between
vendors. The goal is to motivate cities to procure PRT systems via
competitive procurement in the future. Some negotiation was necessary
to achieve consensus. The Category 1 vendors are not completely happy
with the resultant consensus prose. Category 3 and 4 vendors are
described as “promising.” Category 3 & 4 vendors may end up bidding in
procurements in the future, but do not currently motivate the
consideration of PRT in transit alternatives studies.

Notes:
* Under Capitalism, it is common practice to sell current feature set,
rather than future feature set.
* For Category 1-4 vendors, future feature set is unlimited, but that
is not helpful for current transit alternatives analyses. There are
fewer restrictions on Category 1 vendors advancing their feature sets
than on Category 4 vendors (more full-time engineering staff employed,
etc).
* Category 4 vendors currently demonstrate infinite headway systems
lacking safety approval to run at 1 mph - the "null feature set." It
is likely that some Category 4 vendors will receive angel round
funding and develop compelling systems, but PRT angel round funding
has been disappointingly slow to come about. As of 2011, the rule is
that it takes 10 years to move from angel round funding to PRT revenue
service. It is possible that some talented Category 4 vendor will be
able to break that rule and set a new faster-to-market precedent.
* Continued success by Category 1 vendors serves to increase the
probability that Category 4 vendors receive angel round funding.
* Disparaging characterization of transit planners who eliminate PRT
from transit alternatives analyses should be avoided, as this reduces
the chances of selling the next few PRT systems.

Please take a deep breath before posting a flame message back.
Significant thought has gone into this approach, molded by interaction
with prospective customers.

- Steve

[Richard Gronning]

Considering the recipients, maybe there are some merits to it.

I think the main objections that I have are that it's under ATRA's name
without explanation and that it doesn't specify that it is totally, "today."

On 8/11/2011 6:48 PM, Steve Raney wrote:
> Here is the two-page ATRA Industry Group PDF:
> http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/Vendor_Neutral_US_PRT_Desc_July2011.pdf
> . The Podcar Conference newsletter #2 borrowed from this PDF.
>
> Marketing Objectives / Guidance used in preparing the PDF:
> * This document was drafted by ULTra PRT with input from Vectus,
> 2getthere, a transportation consulting firm and a power stakeholder.
> All contributors have substantial experience with (and empathy for)

> serious PRT prospects. The prose has a single, consistent �voice.�

> Documents that are written by committee tend to read poorly.
> * The first use of this document will be as part of a larger PDF
> submission to a study where government requested serious consideration
> of PRT, but the alternatives analysis produced a disappointing one-

> dimensional alignment that did not exploit PRT�s two-dimensional

> capabilities.
> * Target audience is (justifiably) risk-averse city electeds and staff
> who are not transit experts and who are unfamiliar with PRT.
> * Promote PRT in procurements and feasibility studies.
> * Avoid antagonizing prospective customers.
> * Persuade elected and staff that PRT is a viable, advantageous
> technology for their city. Suggest that PRT may be procured via
> innovative methods.
> * Describe PRT vendors in a manner consistent with the San Jose Podcar
> Conference categorization: http://www.cities21.org/cms/index.php?page=categories.
> Describe Category 1 vendors accurately and favorably in a manner that
> is mutually acceptable. This document is not a competition between
> vendors. The goal is to motivate cities to procure PRT systems via
> competitive procurement in the future. Some negotiation was necessary
> to achieve consensus. The Category 1 vendors are not completely happy
> with the resultant consensus prose. Category 3 and 4 vendors are

> described as �promising.� Category 3& 4 vendors may end up bidding in

[Richard Gronning]

BTW, it's already offensive to;
1) bus drivers. They'll get flack from the unions for the no-driver
statement.
2) Certain portions of the community that believe that people should be
forced to ride together. We changed that portion for our CPRT blurbs
long ago.

On 8/11/2011 6:48 PM, Steve Raney wrote:

> Here is the two-page ATRA Industry Group PDF:
> http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/Vendor_Neutral_US_PRT_Desc_July2011.pdf
> . The Podcar Conference newsletter #2 borrowed from this PDF.
>
> Marketing Objectives / Guidance used in preparing the PDF:
> * This document was drafted by ULTra PRT with input from Vectus,
> 2getthere, a transportation consulting firm and a power stakeholder.
> All contributors have substantial experience with (and empathy for)

> serious PRT prospects. The prose has a single, consistent �voice.�

> Documents that are written by committee tend to read poorly.
> * The first use of this document will be as part of a larger PDF
> submission to a study where government requested serious consideration
> of PRT, but the alternatives analysis produced a disappointing one-

> dimensional alignment that did not exploit PRT�s two-dimensional

> capabilities.
> * Target audience is (justifiably) risk-averse city electeds and staff
> who are not transit experts and who are unfamiliar with PRT.
> * Promote PRT in procurements and feasibility studies.
> * Avoid antagonizing prospective customers.
> * Persuade elected and staff that PRT is a viable, advantageous
> technology for their city. Suggest that PRT may be procured via
> innovative methods.
> * Describe PRT vendors in a manner consistent with the San Jose Podcar
> Conference categorization: http://www.cities21.org/cms/index.php?page=categories.
> Describe Category 1 vendors accurately and favorably in a manner that
> is mutually acceptable. This document is not a competition between
> vendors. The goal is to motivate cities to procure PRT systems via
> competitive procurement in the future. Some negotiation was necessary
> to achieve consensus. The Category 1 vendors are not completely happy
> with the resultant consensus prose. Category 3 and 4 vendors are

> described as �promising.� Category 3& 4 vendors may end up bidding in

[Dennis Manning]

Steve:

Did ATRA have anything to do with writing or posting this paper? If not you
should not have used their name in the title. It's deceptive no matter what
the merits of the paper might be.

Dennis

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Raney" <steve...@cities21.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:48 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: PodCar City conference newsletter #2 now available - PRT
Definition Revised...?

> Here is the two-page ATRA Industry Group PDF:

> http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/Vendor_Neutral_US_PRT_Desc_July2011.pdf
> . The Podcar Conference newsletter #2 borrowed from this PDF.
>
> Marketing Objectives / Guidance used in preparing the PDF:
> * This document was drafted by ULTra PRT with input from Vectus,
> 2getthere, a transportation consulting firm and a power stakeholder.
> All contributors have substantial experience with (and empathy for)

> serious PRT prospects. The prose has a single, consistent �voice.�

> Documents that are written by committee tend to read poorly.
> * The first use of this document will be as part of a larger PDF
> submission to a study where government requested serious consideration
> of PRT, but the alternatives analysis produced a disappointing one-

> dimensional alignment that did not exploit PRT�s two-dimensional

> capabilities.
> * Target audience is (justifiably) risk-averse city electeds and staff
> who are not transit experts and who are unfamiliar with PRT.
> * Promote PRT in procurements and feasibility studies.
> * Avoid antagonizing prospective customers.
> * Persuade elected and staff that PRT is a viable, advantageous
> technology for their city. Suggest that PRT may be procured via
> innovative methods.
> * Describe PRT vendors in a manner consistent with the San Jose Podcar
> Conference categorization:
> http://www.cities21.org/cms/index.php?page=categories.
> Describe Category 1 vendors accurately and favorably in a manner that
> is mutually acceptable. This document is not a competition between
> vendors. The goal is to motivate cities to procure PRT systems via
> competitive procurement in the future. Some negotiation was necessary
> to achieve consensus. The Category 1 vendors are not completely happy
> with the resultant consensus prose. Category 3 and 4 vendors are

> described as �promising.� Category 3 & 4 vendors may end up bidding in

[Steve Raney]

Dennis,

There were a couple of e-mails today between "ATRA EU" / "ATRA
Industry Group" and ATRA members today. There were some ruffled
feathers. There was concern about the review process, but it wasn't
something that resulted in an escalation to the point of leveling a
charge of "deception." I know that ATRA has been following details of
the formation of ATRA EU. There's no ATRA EU web site or anything
explanatory yet, but I believe something will arise at some point. I,
myself, am not an expert on the details of ATRA EU (I'm an expert on
the "first use" of the document). And we're in summer, so there
shouldn't be an expectation of immediate gratification to the
questions raised. I expect there's a mutually beneficial way
forward.

How's that for yet another non-answer?

- Steve

On Aug 11, 6:49 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[Dennis Manning]

Steve:

Well you dance around but I think it's fair to say ATRA as an organization
didn't underwrite your paper.

No deception??? Bullshit!

How's that for a direct answer?

My take is that you unsportsmanly used ATRA to promote your own product.

Dennis

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Raney" <steve...@cities21.org>

Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:58 PM

To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: PodCar City conference newsletter #2 now available - PRT
Definition Revised...?

> Dennis,

[Steve Raney]

Dennis,

Whoa! I did not personally suggest putting the ATRA logo into the
brochure. This request was made by someone who was more involved in
the founding of ATRA EU / ATRA Industry Group. I am sure they had good
reason to believe that using the ATRA logo was a sportsmanly thing to
do. Let's please assume the best intentions until facts show
otherwise. Neither you nor I are privy to the agreement between ATRA
and ATRA Industry Group.

I concur that ATRA did not review the ATRA Industry Group PDF. The
ATRA Industry Group reviewed the ATRA Industry Group PDF.

- Steve

On Aug 11, 11:00 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Steve:
>

[Jack Slade]

Steve, that was good. We never heard of ATRA-EU. Hope you didn't just invent it....Jack Slade

--- On Fri, 8/12/11, Steve Raney <steve...@cities21.org> wrote:

> From: Steve Raney <steve...@cities21.org>
> Subject: [t-i] Re: PodCar City conference newsletter #2 now available - PRT Definition Revised...?

[Dennis Manning]

Steve:

This is getting way too deep. Until this paper popped up I'd never heard of
the ATRA Industry Group. Who the hell is the ATRA Industry Group? When did
they get the blessing of ATRA?

You've got a lot of explaining to do to justify connecting ATRA to this
paper which is clearly written to promote the interest of the Big 3. I'm not
even arguing that overall this isn't a good move for PRT. But as past
Chairman of ATRA I know first hand how much ATRA strived to be PRT system
neutral. The ATRA I knew would never endorse this paper.

Dennis

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Raney" <steve...@cities21.org>

Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:27 PM

To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: PodCar City conference newsletter #2 now available - PRT
Definition Revised...?

> Dennis,

[Anupam Vibhuti]

Sad to see credible people with incredible ways. 

All this is 'perhaps' a good method for 'crafting' oligopoly. I also see this as the first overt 'deceptive' step if all this has been attempted without express approval of ATRA or majority of PRT proponents in a transparent manner..

Let current systems be called 'Podcars' or 'Podcar version of PRT' - no problems to that.... Let people / customers / officials NOT have the impression that 'Podcar' is PRT. 

In the pdf being quoted - Instead of saying " Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), sometimes known as "podcars", is an emerging premium transit concept for local areas.  PRT employs automated, four-person vehicles traveling at a..." it should have rather read "Podcars, sometimes known as "PRT", is an emerging premium transit concept for local areas. Podcar employs automated, four-person vehicles travelling at a..."

I have raised this issue in the past by differentiating 2 seat versions and 4 seat versions only for the sake of not getting into the 'old' trappings of status quo - what we have witnessed for the last 45 years...! I have personally witnessed this assertion here in India amongst transit system customers over the last couple of years already and dread that we would be stuck with a 4-person vehicle system again for the next 60 years...!

There must be good marketing compulsions & genuine need to 'clearly' typecast the 'podcar' product family - however unless we have a clear caveats in all such communications - - we are creating the risk of subverting the cause of better PRT products. Lets not typecast 'pod car' in a way that it kills further markets or markets for those vendors who are focussing on better systems already.

I hope Steve would appreciate the point. Lets have a larger existential vision for the industry.

This subvertive attempt is deplorable and unacceptable. Without pointing fingers, this unintentional faux-pas must be corrected immediately without passing the buck. IST - Christer Lindstrom as conference presenter should take note and amend the content of the brochure - what with ATRA disowning the same (trusting Dennis's version)

Anupam

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Anupam Vibhuti]

The point is, "podcar" is "podcar" not PRT entirely  - to be represented in that manner.. You appear not to have really got the import of the discussion here...!

You must be incharge of the communication at IST and podcity conference, therefore this mail to you to do the necessary, if you deem fit.

Anupam

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Christer Lindstrom <chri...@encitra.com> wrote:

Hi All,

I am not sure why I am copied these emails, but it might have to do with the
fact that I coined the "podcar" concept. Without going into details, I have very few
criteria for what that is:

- Public transportation with better capacity, lower cost and average speed
  in urban environments than any other current mode of public transit
- Offline stations
- Automatic - No driver
- Direct or semi-direct transfer from origin to destination
- Separate guideway without opposing or crossing traffic (no 2D
  except for merging)

I see no reason whatsoever to limit the size & seating of the vehicles
expect for logistical issues, ie the task at hand to solve in an urban
environment X is more effective with N seats etc. I still think the
concept of the cabinentaxi is the best example of the possibilities
with PRT/Podcars/ATN or whatever you want to call it. In the
video you find 2 seaters up to 12 (?) seaters, cargo vehicles, supported
and suspended automated vehicles, off line stations, separate guideway
and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERdF0FK-2io

I also want to mention that this is still very young industry and there will
be a lot of discussions , some heated, about what we do and want to do.
It is quite natural and a process I welcome. Passion is good, it means people
care.

My 5 cents.

/Christer

[Peter Muller]

I have been trying to tell vendors other than ULTra, 2getthere and
Vectus that they need to join ATRA. If they want to influence what
ATRA does, they need to become members. Throwing stones from outside
does no good.

ULTra, 2getthere and Vectus are moving ATRA EU to a new level. ATRA
needs a larger membership of suppliers, consultants and potential
owners to keep up with its offspring.

On Aug 12, 2:24 am, Anupam Vibhuti <anupam.vibh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point is, "podcar" is "podcar" not PRT entirely  - to be represented in
> that manner.. You appear not to have really got the import of the discussion
> here...!
>
> You must be incharge of the communication at IST and podcity conference,
> therefore this mail to you to do the necessary, if you deem fit.
>
> Anupam
>

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Christer Lindstrom <chris...@encitra.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > **

> > a..." it should have rather read "*Podcars*, sometimes known as "PRT", is
> > an emerging premium transit concept for local areas. *Podcar *employs

> > automated, four-person vehicles travelling at a..."
>
> >  I have raised this issue in the past by differentiating 2 seat versions
> > and 4 seat versions only for the sake of not getting into the 'old'
> > trappings of status quo - what we have witnessed for the last 45 years...! I
> > have personally witnessed this assertion here in India amongst transit
> > system customers over the last couple of years already and dread that we
> > would be stuck with a 4-person vehicle system again for the next 60
> > years...!
>
> >  There must be good marketing compulsions & genuine need to 'clearly'
> > typecast the 'podcar' product family - however unless we have a clear
> > caveats in all such communications - - we are creating the risk of
> > subverting the cause of better PRT products. Lets not typecast 'pod car' in
> > a way that it kills further markets or markets for those vendors who are
> > focussing on better systems already.
>
> >  I hope Steve would appreciate the point. Lets have a larger existential
> > vision for the industry.
>
> >  This subvertive attempt is deplorable and unacceptable. Without pointing
> > fingers, this unintentional faux-pas must be corrected immediately without
> > passing the buck. IST - Christer Lindstrom as conference presenter should
> > take note and amend the content of the brochure - what with ATRA disowning
> > the same (trusting Dennis's version)
>
> >  Anupam
>

> > Anupam Vibhuti [+91 9810070013begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91 9810070013      end_of_the_skype_highlighting]M

> > Architect & Urban Transport Planner @ Worxpace CPL  [www.worxpace.net]

> > D 113 East of Kailash New Delhi 110065 India Tel:+91 11 41624401begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91 11 41624401      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,2,3 Fax:
> >+91 11 41620040begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91 11 41620040      end_of_the_skype_highlightingAlt MailID: vibh...@worxpace.net
>
> --
> Anupam Vibhuti [+91 9810070013begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91 9810070013      end_of_the_skype_highlighting]M

> Architect & Urban Transport Planner @ Worxpace CPL  [www.worxpace.net]

> D 113 East of Kailash New Delhi 110065 India Tel:+91 11 41624401begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            +91 11 41624401      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,2,3 Fax:
> +91 11 41620040 Alt MailID: vibh...@worxpace.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Richard Gronning]

This is interesting...
I KNOW that Dr. J Edward Anderson is a member of ATRA. So is Joe Lampe.
So, PRT Intl, PRT MN, were consulted on this advertizing paper?

OR, were these entities excluded from PRT Industry Group and, possibly,
PRT EU?

Again, what is the relationship between ATRA, ATRA EU, and PRT Industry
Group? Who are the officials? (We already know about ATRA)

Dick

[Jack Slade]

I think I do understand the conversation.  My real point is that I have waited so long for PRT that I am glad to see the first systems built,  and in the process of expansion,  no matter what the formatof early vehicles.  Did you notice I didn't say Podcars?  I still don't like the term.  I think this will open the eyes of the public to more things that are possible than they have ever dreamed of,  if they stop listening to the futurists who want to build bigger trains.   Jack Slade

--- On Fri, 8/12/11, Anupam Vibhuti <anupam....@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dennis Manning]

After the flurry of email on this issue I think the best thing to do is for the originator of the article to contact the leadership of ATRA and ATRA EU and get their take on the issue.

 

Dennis

[Peter Muller]

My point is that there is not a single US supplier that is a paid up
corporate member of ATRA. Not one (based on April, 2011 data).

This conversation concerning what ATRA is or is not doing involves 10
participants of which only three are individual members and one is a
corporate member of ATRA.

I say again, if you want to influence what ATRA does you need to join.
If you care, join. If you don't join, you have no right to expect ATRA
to listen to you.

Peter

[Jerry Roane]

Peter

There are reasons that the patent holders of US technology do not join ATRA.  This is a classic chicken and egg problem.  ATRA has never embraced new advances (the chicken) and thus no new advance has joined (the egg).  If ATRA wants to attract patent holders they might consider being more open to new ideas.  Just my 2 cents.  I have not complained about the use of the ATRA logo because I don't care about its use.  My personal experience at CAMPO is the Portland derived planner lumped dual mode in with PRT and rejected the whole concept for what ever reasons were in her little head.  Teaching the planners about how fantastic PRT is a tough job for sure.  Some small fraction of the story is getting out but the filter in the brains of the receiving persons is blocking for some reason. 
I received a firm rejection of PRT while in Washington DC at the transit innovation interview and the last CAMPO activity I attended I was heckled by the TxDot rep for Austin Ed Collins as they thought I was selling PRT.  

I do care for sure and I have invested toward that end but I still can't see joining ATRA again from all I have seen and heard.  This publication just backs that up.  Call me chicken.

Jerry Roane IP holder  

 

--

[Michael Weidler]

Sounds like a trip to the Trademarks office is in order for ATRA if they haven't done so already.

---

From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: PodCar City conference newsletter #2 now available - PRT Definition Revised...?

> transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Dennis Manning]

ATRA, ATRA-EU, and AIG (ATRA Industry Group) are working closely together to best facilitate the development all automated transit and PRT in particular both in Europe and around the globe My earlier posts were concerned about a small group usurping the rights of the larger ATRA umbrella. All parties are working to avoid such conflict.

 

Dennis

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.