Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << How do you get the people off? What if there is a fire? You can't just build a beamway and that's it. You have to build area along side it that allows for people to evacuate a train that is in trouble. >> How do you get people out of a subway tunnel if there's a fire? How do you evacuate a rail car that is on fire on a bridge? These are really inconsequential items that don't mean a whole lot in the big scheme of things. You can analyze every single transportation systems for the worst case scenarios. I don't understand why we build trolley systems at grade considering the track record for running over people on a regular basis that these systems seem to have. Which is worse, the remote possibility of having to evacuate a monorail or the more common hazard of killing someone beneath a train that runs at grade?
Originally Posted By jonvn "How do you get people out of a subway tunnel if there's a fire?" You evacuate the train, and head to an emergency exit. This is not possible with a single beam suspended over a freeway. "How do you evacuate a rail car that is on fire on a bridge?" First, a bridge is a very short amount of space, but even so, same answer. You are able to get off the vehicle and go to where it is safe. A monorail beam without anything else is not going to allow for that. "These are really inconsequential items that don't mean a whole lot in the big scheme of things." You can't be serious.
Originally Posted By ArchtMig Monorails are cooler looking to be sure, but you can accomplish the same thing with elevated light rail. I am still, and will forever be, a proponent of elevated transit in LA instead of digging long tunnels deep under the cities and the mountains. There is still a (semi?) organized movement to get monorails built in LA. The delivery of Disneyland's newest red monorail this week made news in some general interest media, not just the Disneyland fan websites, and that led to my discovering this website: <a href="http://www.wilshiremonorail.net/" target="_blank">http://www.wilshiremonorail.ne t/</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Monorails are cooler looking to be sure, but you can accomplish the same thing with elevated light rail. >> Elevated light rail is significantly more expensive to construct than monorail.
Originally Posted By bean "You can't simply put a middle monorail beam over the center of every freeway. There are many reasons for this. It is not a workable solution." This could be true but there are already several freeways in southern California which are getting overhead middle "carpool lanes" which amny times run empty. Other freeways will be gettign and already received toll roads. Other freeways have a rail system which is now used by one of the metro lines. The problem with those lines is there speed, the gold line alone is set to be expanded from Pasadena to Onatrio Internatinl Airport. Who in their right mind would take a rail line that will take hours to get to the airport. They could had easily added a proper stop to one of the Metro trains that run a few short miles from the airport. (one runs about 4 miles from the terminals) and only takes 35 minutes from Los Angeles. Even the rail ine added to the 105 runs in the middle of the freeway from a major hub area off the 605 short miles from the 91 and 5 yet once it reaches a couple miles from the LAX airport it turns south and avoids the airport completely. These were part of bad planning that could have helped the transportation system.
Originally Posted By bean "You can't simply put a middle monorail beam over the center of every freeway. There are many reasons for this. It is not a workable solution." This could be true but there are already several freeways in southern California which are getting overhead middle "carpool lanes" which amny times run empty. Other freeways will be gettign and already received toll roads. Other freeways have a rail system which is now used by one of the metro lines. The problem with those lines is there speed, the gold line alone is set to be expanded from Pasadena to Onatrio Internatinl Airport. Who in their right mind would take a rail line that will take hours to get to the airport. They could had easily added a proper stop to one of the Metro trains that run a few short miles from the airport. (one runs about 4 miles from the terminals) and only takes 35 minutes from Los Angeles. Even the rail ine added to the 105 runs in the middle of the freeway from a major hub area off the 605 short miles from the 91 and 5 yet once it reaches a couple miles from the LAX airport it turns south and avoids the airport completely. These were part of bad planning that could have helped the transportation system.
Originally Posted By bean "OK, for monorails. Suppose you are on a monorail, and the thing gets stuck out there on the 101 between Reseda and White Oak. How do you get the people off? What if there is a fire? You can't just build a beamway and that's it. You have to build area along side it that allows for people to evacuate a train that is in trouble." this also maks sense but then i am sure all that is taken into consoderation. I am sure that there are contigency plans for the rail system that already run in the middle of the freeway. I doubt it can not be accomplished. There are many ways of towing vehicles like Monorails or other simple tranposrtatin system from overhead tracks. I ride the metro system everyday and i could assure you that not all miles of train tracks have emergency evacuation systems. There are many bridges, tunnels and areas which would be similiar to a system not having access for evecuation. Train gets stuck we wait awhile until problem is resolved or another train arrives and connects to ours to finish our trip. will an overhead train system happen, probably not but its not impossible. What will happen is that the state will spend millions on studies then change their mind and spend millions more on new studies then someone new will take office and start over. That is why large projects in California get stalled. How much money and times has been spent already on a high speed train and nothing yet. Thats just the way thinsg work. The LA airport has had projects worked on for years and years on how to improve its use including transportation. Millions and millions spent. Then someone decided that the project will cost to much and everything was started again (there goes those million spent) now the new project is to expensive so things get cut becuase not enough money for the project then a new person is brought in and project starts over. Still nothing done. Meanwhile other states have a better transportation system, more advanced airport facilities than California
Originally Posted By jonvn "This could be true but there are already several freeways in southern California which are getting overhead middle "carpool lanes" which amny times run empty." You can put an elevated roadbed up there. You can put an elevated light rail or heavy rail line up there, but you can NOT simply put a simple beamway above the freeway. It is unsafe. You would need to put a roadbed on either side of the track for safety. Evacuation and emergency reasons alone dictate it. At that point, there is no use for monorail. But assume people ignore that issue. The operation of a monorail is also problematic, in that it requires specialized vehicles that must be built to run only on this sort of track, and not standard gauge types of bi-rail track. The costs due to having to build all custom vehicles then skyrocket the cost of your system. Furthermore, if anyone has seen how Disney has to operate their tracks when they need to switch, it is a time consuming affair. One entire beamway has to move out of the way, and be replaced by another. This is a very complicated mechanical activity and is rife with problems. And if the track does not fully lock into place, the track can not be used, you have a dead spot in the line. On a regular rail system, it takes a second for the track to switch, and if there is a mechanical problem, the track can still be used. "Meanwhile other states have a better transportation system" The SF area has a better transit system. It is in California. California is not simply Los Angeles. The problem with LA and mass transit is that it is just too large. Suppose there actually was an extensive rail system over the LA region. And you want to go to Pasadena from Canoga Park. OK, you get on a train in Canoga Park, and it takes you to Pasadena. Now what? Pasadena is HUGE. You would then need a huge fleet of busses everywhere in Pasadena or you have a very long walk ahead of you. It can't, and does not work.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The operation of a monorail is also problematic, in that it requires specialized vehicles that must be built to run only on this sort of track, and not standard gauge types of bi-rail track. The costs due to having to build all custom vehicles then skyrocket the cost of your system. >> The costs of monorail vs. other rail systems are not all that different -- somewhere in the neighborhood of $20M a mile. Light rail systems can costs upwards of $100M a mile for systems with a large number of tunnels/bridges/elevated roadways. While there are some additional costs associated with fabrication of unique trains for monorail systems, those costs are usually offset by lower construction costs for the rail system itself. << Furthermore, if anyone has seen how Disney has to operate their tracks when they need to switch, it is a time consuming affair. One entire beamway has to move out of the way, and be replaced by another. This is a very complicated mechanical activity and is rife with problems. >> The WDW beamways are over 30 years old and still use the 1970s switching technology available at the time. Switching technology for monorail systems has improved substantially since then and is no longer considered to be an issue any more significant that other rail switching systems. Switching systems are not a barrier to monorail deployment.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The costs of monorail vs. other rail systems are not all that different " Then why bother with it? There really is little reason for going with a non-standard system. Take BART, for example. It uses a non-standard track gauge, and it has increased costs over the years quite a bit because of it. It's simply not a practical solution, and why you really don't see it anyplace. There is a system in vegas, but that's not exactly a real city. There is also one in Seattle, and it's never been extended. It's a nice idea for a theme park, but beyond that, it has too many inherent problems for it to be chosen for rail systems. This is not to say that a rail system is not a good idea, but monorail particularly is not.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << It's simply not a practical solution, and why you really don't see it anyplace. >> You typically don't see it much because the heavy/light rail industry lobbies heavily to have their systems installed instead. There are a number of examples where cities had the choice between conventional rail systems and monorail -- all the metrics pointed towards a monorail system, but city governments caved in to pressure from well heeled rail and heavy construction lobbyists.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, no. It's not lobbying so much as it is easily shown to not be a viable solution. Seattle already has a small monorail system, and research was done into whether or not to expand it. There are just too many problems, and so they did not.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << This is not to say that a rail system is not a good idea, but monorail particularly is not. >> In order to install a conventional rail system, cities need to completely disrupt established streets and communities for years in order to install a new system. To me, the primary benefit of monorail is the ability to install a system that disturbs a much small footprint of existing infrastructure and can coexist with an already established urban environment. If you want to build a rail system quickly, with minimal impact to local businesses and communities, monorail is the best way to go. Our cities really can't continue to afford the infrastructure for far flung suburban development that rely on surface streets and automobiles. If you want to get people out of their cars and onto mass transit, monorails offer a good solution to quickly get a system up and running with a lot of flexibility on where you can run the rails through a multitude of different environments.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Seattle already has a small monorail system, and research was done into whether or not to expand it. There are just too many problems, and so they did not. >> Essentially, Seattle said they didn't have the money to spend on any new mass transit systems, and the decision wasn't particularly based on any specific "problems" with monorail. However, if you look back at the press articles from the Seattle monorail episode, you will find that the most vocal opponents to monorail expansion did have ties to the light rail industry.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If you want to build a rail system quickly, with minimal impact to local businesses and communities, monorail is the best way to go." You can't build a monorail system any more quickly than any other. It requires a platform all along the track like any other rail system. You build a platform, you then take up all the resources that any other rail system needs.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << You can't build a monorail system any more quickly than any other. >> Not true. Most monorail components are pre-fabricated and then quickly installed on-site. The footprint required for monorail pylons is much smaller than the footprint required for other rail systems and requires less reconstruction of existing infrastructure than other transportation options. Construction of light/heavy rail requires shutting down of entire city blocks throughout the period of construction while utilities are buried, rails installed, and entire thoroughfares rebuilt from the ground up. In many cases, monorails can be constructed while leaving streets open to some sort of traffic flow. There really is no comparison.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ But it's financial/ridership performance has nothing to do with the fact that it is a monorail. A light rail, bus, or any other transit system would perform as poorly. There isn't a functioning mass transit system in the U.S. that doesn't require government subsidy of some sort. You could apply the same financial analysis to the U.S. highway system to determine that it fails to generate more revenue than it costs to continually construct, upgrade, and repair. Boston just finished there multi-billion dollar "Big Dig" highway project that will never generate a return on investment -- most transportation projects never do. Analyzing and judging singular mass transit systems without any comparison to other operating transit systems is a red herring intended to forward an agenda against mass transit in general.
Originally Posted By bean "The monorail in Vegas has been a complete failure." i would not say that the monorail system in Vegas is a complete failure. If that was the case then the city and surrounding bussiness would not had approved the next two stages to increase the monorail system around the city of Las Vegas. The next phase will finally connect the airport with the existing line. The expansion plan has also been approved to expand the monorail to go from the airport to the opposite end of the strip and over past the freeway at one point. New stops will be incorporated in some of the major resorts along the opposite end of the strip then turn towards the red dirstrict with a final loop to the newly being built resorts at the north end of the strip and finally looping back to the Harrah. At the point monorail is also in development to go north to old vegas. Plans have been released and dates for construction have been set. So eventhough the ridership has not been as high as anticipated the system is not even close to being considered a failure. Many feel its problems at the moment is its short distance and the fact that most stations were built to far back into the resorts properties. Connecting it to the airport will definately encourage ridership.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I can't wait to catch the Disney Monorail to go to the Cheesecake Factory. Maybe my buddy, Jon, will come and we can sit and discuss online Disney webmasters over some sinful desserts.
