A Field Guide to Transit Quarrels: The Recommended Video

It turns out that the excellent blog Portland Transport created a really clear video of the Portland version of my presentation, “A Field Guide to Transit Quarrels.”  Only tonight have I had both the time and the bandwidth to look at it.  Apart from the well-amplified sniffles from my cold at the time, it looks and sounds pretty good.  Thanks to Bob Richardson and everyone else at Portland Transport who made it happen.

Part 1: Introductions

Part 2: The Spectrum of Authorities

Part 3: Balancing Claims

Part 4: Example and Conclusions

Part 5: Q&A

If you saw the presentation elsewhere, you might want to check out Part 1 for Metro Executive David Bragdon’s funny introduction of me.  But other than that, only the Q&A will be new to you.  Most of my answers in the Q&A cover familiar issues on this blog, but with Portland examples.  At one point, though, I was asked about Personal Rapid Transit, and very unwisely, I gave an answer.

8 Responses to A Field Guide to Transit Quarrels: The Recommended Video

  1. Robert in Calgary August 28, 2010 at 6:37 pm #

    I would say, the charge that you have an anti-rail bias is dismissed – due to a lack of evidence!

  2. Tom West August 30, 2010 at 6:04 am #

    Any chance of a transcript?

  3. Jarrett at HumanTransit.org August 30, 2010 at 6:09 am #

    Why? Was I mumbling that much?

  4. Paul K. McGregor August 30, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    Why was it unwise to comment about PRT? I thought your response was a measured response. You weren’t exactly embracing it but you weren’t blasting it big time either. Yes, the guideways would be the same visual issues that is raised with other aerial structures.
    Speaking of PRT, I was having a discussion with a PRT advocate on a Linkedin group and he indicated that PRT can have the same carrying capacity as LRT. I suppose if you put out enough pods, have a decent speed and operate over a short distance that might be true, but I tend to be a bit skeptical of that claim. After all, it was a PRT advocate making the claim. Anyone have any independent verification of that claim??

  5. Paul K. McGregor August 30, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    I also liked your BART SFO extension analogy and yes, they have done a lot of experimenting with the service to figure out how it should operate. The SFO-Millbrae BART shuttle was a complete waste. Then they had trips go to SFO and then to Millbrae. Because it was reversing the trip, you had to have two operators so that made it a bit more complicated. So now they are operating one line directly to Millbrae and one line directly to SFO with no shuttle at all. If you want to go to SFO from Millbrae you now have to go to San Bruno, get off, cross the platform and board a SFO bound train. This has to rank among the most stupidest travel options around. I tried to raise the issue to both BART and the Bay Rail Alliance, which is a rail advoacy group for Caltrain, and no one seemed to care. Oh well, I tried!!

  6. EngineerScotty August 30, 2010 at 7:14 pm #

    Discussing PRT in a speaking engagement is not dangerous–no danger of a horde of PRTistas getting wind of the talk and descending en masse on Metro headquarters to argue with you–at least not before your talk ends and everyone goes home.
    But mentioning it here….

  7. Simon August 31, 2010 at 12:22 pm #

    PRT is viable, already in operation, and an integral part of most cities transit systems. It is just called by another name – Taxi

  8. EngineerScotty August 31, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

    PRT is viable, already in operation, and an integral part of most cities transit systems. It is just called by another name – Taxi
    True, but I was thinking of the proposed automated variety that doesn’t charge per the mile… :)