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.
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.
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. |
Interspersed --- On Thu, 8/11/11, Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> wrote: |
|
Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011, 2:47 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Slade |
|
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
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
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
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,
--- 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...?
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,
--
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.
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
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
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 |
--