Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Maybe not in San Diego, but they are very effective in other cities, especially here in San Francisco. >> There's a difference between efficient and effective. I'd say San Diego has an effective system, just not efficient. I'd guess that if I had some experience with San Francisco's system, I might draw the same conclusion. It's all relative to other transportation options as well. San Diego has been a traffic paradise for me -- I can essentially get anywhere in a vehicle without substantial delays. I imagine that in other cities, maybe SF, the vehicle traffic makes it so that an inefficient mass transit system is acceptable in comparison to other inefficient alternatives.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "This is a red herring thrown out by groups against mass transit initiatives." Is it? Then explain why there aren't more monorail systems being built. It seems that automated peoplemovers and light rail systems are far more popular with transit agencies and less costly to build and operate.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "There's a difference between efficient and effective." San Francisco's Muni system has had it's share of problems. However, most of them seem to be mismanagment rather than inefficient trains. At the moment the light rail portion of the system, which runs under Market Street and above ground through the rest of the city, is very efficient. The point I'm making here is that a system like this can be built for a fraction of what a monorail would cost and efficiently connect DLR with other areas of Anaheim.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Then explain why there aren't more monorail systems being built. It seems that automated peoplemovers and light rail systems are far more popular with transit agencies and less costly to build and operate. >> They are less popular with the heavy construction companies that rely on government dollars for expensive highway contracts for initial construction and maintenance (paving, expansion, etc.). Monorail and peoplemover systems have a small footprint for ongoing maintenance of the beam and transportation infrastructure. The paving companies don't like the idea of shifting to transportation alternatives that might reducle their amount of government work.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 " But anything that touches a city street brings its own issues with it." <The DL Monorail already does this. It goes over Disney way twice.> But the vehicles themselves do not touch city streets. This is what I meant. Note that the DL tram from the parking structure does not use Anaheim streets. Because once you do, you become subject to all sorts of laws that you can avoid if you don't. This is why a bus system to bring people to the third gate, a la WDW, brings its own problems, and why something elevated might be better.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Well, if you really wanted to, you could build it at street level, but that would completely defeat the purpose of the thing in the first place.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Monorail and peoplemover systems have a small footprint for ongoing maintenance of the beam and transportation infrastructure. The paving companies don't like the idea of shifting to transportation alternatives that might reducle their amount of government work." Maybe I'm missing something, but if they have the same or similar footprints, then why are transportation agencies choosing peoplemovers over monorails? There are dozens of new peoplemover systems in operation in the US, yet the only monorails are at tourist attractions like WDW and Vegas. "You can't build a monorail that runs at street level..." Doesn't the TDL monorail run at ground level at some point along its route?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << why are transportation agencies choosing peoplemovers over monorails? >> I wasn't aware this was a trend? Where are the peoplemovers being built besides airports?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Well, if you really wanted to, you could build it at street level," Actually, not really, you can't, because of the inherent design of the monorail system. You can build a bi-rail system at street level, but monorail by its very design precludes that. If there is a ground level monorail at TDL, then it still must be separate from the rest of the roadway. Try and picture the rail of the monorail track. It is a concrete beam. It's about 1 foot wide, and has high voltage electricity running next to it. How are you going to do this at street level? Well, you can of course move the electricity to overhead wires, as trolleys do. Then what do you do with the track? Embed it into the ground? Then you have this foot wide trench in the ground. That doesn't work. You can't have people walking or driving over it. Not embed it? Then you have this concrete beam sitting on top of the ground all along the track. Same problem, you can't have people walking or driving over it. Even if you overcome that, track switch would require a huge amount of space on the ground. Almost an entire corner lot the size of a gas station would have to be dedicated to any switching mechanism. Up in the air, well, that's ok, but on the ground, that doesn't work well. A couple of reasons why monorail is not practial, and is not used. It must be grade separated always. You CAN embed a birail track into the ground. It does not need to be grade separated, and it uses standardized designs, systems and materials. Look at all the trouble it has taken Disney to get a replacement monorail for its park right now. It's not something you just can get, like a trolley car.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You can't build a monorail that runs at street level...> That's its strength. That's why a monorail avoids the problems of systems that do utilize city street. There are weaknesses to a monorail, too, though, as various people are noting. I think it would be cool to have a monorail link the three parks, but I think a rail system developed in tandem with Anaheim and extending to the sports arenas is probably more practical.
Originally Posted By jonvn You might want to call it a strength, but the removal of design flexibility is generally not a strength.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I said the monorail presented problems; but one strength (perhaps the main one), is its elevated nature. Of course there are lots of tradeoffs that come with that.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I wasn't aware this was a trend? Where are the peoplemovers being built besides airports?" I believe that Miami has one that runs around its downtown. Also, the system at JFK travels well beyond the confines of the airport, connecting the facility with the city's commuter rail system. Again, the point I'm making is that these systems along with light rail are being built in situations where a monorail could have been used. Having ridden the LV Monorail this week, I'm convinced that to expand such a system in Anaheim would be too costly and pointless when there modes of transport that are better options.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "If there is a ground level monorail at TDL, then it still must be separate from the rest of the roadway." Yes, I believe that it is.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I said the monorail presented problems; but one strength (perhaps the main one), is its elevated nature." But can't ANY rail system be elevated? If so, I wouldn't call that a strength for monorail systems.
Originally Posted By jonvn The only reason you would put a monorail system in Anaheim is because of the fun factor. However, aside from the already mentioned grade separation problem and switching problem, you have an issue with emergency evacuation. you need to be able to get out of the thing in case of a fire. That would require you to have a platform on either side of the track. Since you are building a platform anyway, you might as well just go for the cheaper and more flexible birail system. If they do build out some sort of transit system, what will probably happen is that there will be, like in WDW, a transit center from where you could transfer from one system to another, including the already existing monorail. The monorail will be slightly modified to go to this station, Or it would be built into the station already at DTD, and the rest will all be light rail or some other form of common transit.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, and I said I think a light rail system developed with Anaheim is probably a better solution. However, another possibility would be a bus system, as at WDW. Once you use the city streets, you have another set of problems. A monorail (or elevated rail) avoids them. That's an advantage over buses. A monorail presents other disadvantages compared to elevated rail, however.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Since you are building a platform anyway, you might as well just go for the cheaper and more flexible birail system. >> In comparing costs, light rail systems are usually no cheaper than a monorail system. In fact, labor costs for maintenance of light rail vehicles, manpower to operate trains, and infrastructure costs often exceed other transportation modes over the lifetime of a bi-rail system.
