Originally Posted By jonvn "Many of the arguments you make are countered there." Yes, I know they are. It is an advocacy site. However, it's not just me making these statements. "Seattle voters approved a major extension to their monorail system to make it a true transit system, and even approved a tax increase to fund it." Voters don't know a lot about transit specifics. While they may have voted in that manner, it does not mean that monorail is the best choice for a transit system. "I believe the site you posted is a propaganda site for standard rail much as monorails.org is for monorail." I don't think it is. In any case, there is not a big conspiracy against monorail systems. They are simply not considered as good as other types, and so you do not see them in this country outside of entertainment venues. This does not mean that rail transit is bad, but that if you do choose rail transit, monorail systems are not the best way to go with one, for many reasons.
Originally Posted By thrillmountain "Seattle voters approved a major extension to their monorail system to make it a true transit system, and even approved a tax increase to fund it." Actually what happened was that the voters approved a gas tax increase about 7 years ago for a light rail system...the money was spent (millions) on studies and NOTHING got built (they decided to use existing heavy rail system). The voters are hoping that maybe this (monorail extension) will get built..but at this point is does not look good...and all the while we have THE worst traffic in the nation... most of the unbiased studies i have read say that most cost efficient order for mass transit (from least to most expensive): Exisiting Heavy Rail Light Rail Monorails By the way we also have LOTS of what we call NIMBY's here (Not In My Back Yard) "Voters don't know a lot about transit specifics. While they may have voted in that manner, it does not mean that monorail is the best choice for a transit system." jonvn you are right...right now (in Seattle) it is just frustration from the voters they want ANYTHING to help the traffic problems... --Richard
Originally Posted By cmpaley "But rail lines are much more expensive to maintain" I'm not sure what you mean by maintain. Initial capital costs are really high, but long-term operating costs are actually cheaper for light rail than for bus. Labor costs, for one thing, are much lower for light rail (due to less vehicle operators moving more people). Maintenance can be expensive, but it's not something that has to be done all the time...it's an occasional thing.
Originally Posted By cmpaley "By the way we also have LOTS of what we call NIMBY's here (Not In My Back Yard)" LA has them too. >:O If it weren't for the NIMBY's, LA would have a wonder 5 line heavy rail system that would take people from Long Beach to El Monte to the San Fernando Valley to Santa Monica and, I believe, San Pedro. With the system we have now, I *can* see an extension of the Metro Green Line to Disneyland Resort (with a station next to the DtD Monorail station). Talk about convenience...a one-seat ride from LAX (assuming the Green Line ever goes into LAX) to Downtown Disney!
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Also, look at most transit systems, they build the larger systems that carry large volumes quickly (Subways, Heavy/light rail, and Monorails), to stations that transfer you to light rail or busses (or in some case, even vans). The right system for the right location... I think Las Vegas is perfect for Monorails, since there is a high premium on space along the strip, and there is high volumes of people that need to travel from one place to another. Here in San Diego, a push on Heavy Rail (Amtrak's second busiest route is the San Diegan!), and now the Coaster to serve the North County, and the San Diego Trolley, a light rail system, which is expanding, and has additional growth planned. The bus system was redesigned to make the most use out of the trolley system, with many bus routes starting/ending at a station, and scheduled to match up with the time the trolley arrives in the station. The track is almost finished to take you to San Diego State, and the next extension will take you to UCSD. But a trolley system wouldn't work in Las Vegas along the strip, due to the amount of exclusive roadway needed to place track and overhead lines. The need for an overhead route was very important, and the volume of people does require trains... have you ever seen the Bus on the Strip, they mainly use the double "according" buses, and many times folks can't get on, since the bus is already full to capacity! Also, public transit needs to offer something that current modes don't offer... this is why the Rail/Trolley system is so popular in San Diego, since they have exclusive right-of-ways, they can get you home quicker than driving, with a lot less stress.
Originally Posted By jonvn A trolley system can be elevated above the street level. It does not have to run on the street. But it is flexible enough to be able to do so if desired.
Originally Posted By cmpaley "Amtrak's second busiest route is the San Diegan!" *Ahem* The Pacific Surfliner. ;-)
