Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "In fact monorail systems can often be built without closing down major thoroughfares, and the construction timeline for monorail systems is usually twice as fast as that for conventional rail systems." I think you are making some assumptions. Most of San Francisco's new 3rd Street light rail system was built without closing down the street. I would imagine that the decision to close down thoroughfares would depend on the configuration of the route.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer OK, the Las Vegas Monorail is 3.9 miles long, and some of the beam was already built (the old Bally-MGM section) at a cost of $650 million, or about the same price as the original DCA costs. The length of the proposed track (based on Mayor Pringle's comments of where he would like stops) is about the same distance (between 3 to 4 miles in length), and I presume would cost even more in today's dollars.
Originally Posted By patrickegan Then what’s needed is a hybrid Mag-lev system. While undoubtedly more expensive upfront, it would pay for itself in rider-ship and acclaim over the next 55 years. The Mag-lev system would also lend itself to a new foundation that Disney could incorporate it into a viable Tomorrowland concept (no one said the future would be cheap!) It’s clean, green and wouldn’t exacerbate an already congested street. The system by design also mitigates fire dangers, noise and collision issues. Other consideration not in the studies that DB posted are; wasted man hours/productivity along with the carbon loading and wasted fuel of idling cars waiting for trains that bifurcate major thoroughfares. San Francisco is really a poor example for mass transit comparisons. It is the quintessential apple (geographical confines), in the all orange debate. Not many cities in America enjoy the same $20 to $30 cab fare range that’s available to the San Franciscan.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Then what’s needed is a hybrid Mag-lev system. While undoubtedly more expensive upfront, it would pay for itself in rider-ship and acclaim over the next 55 years.** That's what China thought. Didn't quite work out that way for them, it seems.
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai-Hangzhou_Maglev_Train" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S hanghai-Hangzhou_Maglev_Train</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S hanghai_Maglev_Train</a> "Maglev ridership has been below expectations, due to limited operating hours, the short line, the high price of the tickets and the inconvenient location of the Longyang Road terminus in Pudong. There is significant local criticism that the project was showy and wasteful, delivering no practical benefit to residents."
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is another thought, sooner or later Disney will decide to build something on the current KCML/Strawberry Field area, and the CM's that currently park there will have to get a new place to park. There is plenty of area on the East side of I-5 that is basically warehouses and similar type of businesses that are not part of the Platinum Triangle project. Disney could make a deal with the City, in where Disney builds a spur, one from Katella to the new parking lot area. Then has its own trains, which would run non-stop from the parking lot to the Katella Stop, where the could build a special CM only Tram loading area (similar to where the KCML lot drop off area is) to get folks to DL Costuming/Harbor House and TDA. In the long term, this could be cheaper than running the current CM Shuttles. By building a separate Train stop at Katella, and then having the other stop in the middle of the new parking area (who knows, they might build a structure depending on land costs), you don't have a worry of the "public" boarding the wrong trains, while sharing the majority of the trip on the main line.
Originally Posted By Mr X Japan has had a mag lev train up and ready to go for years now on test tracks. The reason they haven't built it? Cost. It'd be like 100 billion dollars. No way that sort of thing ends up in America. They'd have to charge a fortune for a ride (even a little ride like the China one that's only 18 miles!), and why would anyone pay that when they could just hop on a bus or drive?
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Mag Lev is for LONG Distances, and wouldn't make any sense for a 4 mile route that would have about 6 stops. One of the proposed types of transportation that would stop in the new Anaheim Transportation Center would be a High Speed train of some sort that would connect most of California, and maybe even a High Speed Train to Las Vegas. But the proposed transportation system the Mayor wants is to connect the "big stop" with the convention center and the DLR area.
Originally Posted By Mr X Here's a neat video of the Japanese test track... <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2926400396387878713" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videop lay?docid=2926400396387878713</a> Sorry, but I was just totally lol at around the 5:00 mark...I wonder if they do that every time. It sure SEEMED like a theme park attraction! Can't you just picture "thank you for experiencing the Disney maglev system, and enjoy the rest of your day" in Japanese there (the girl, I mean). Darkbeer, the weird thing is the Shanghai maglev is only about 18 miles long. Seriously, what's the point? And yes, 4 miles would just be silly.
Originally Posted By Mr X Actually the funny part starts around 4:20...cool vid though (I'm a train buff, as well as a "futuristic" buff).
Originally Posted By patrickegan No tunneling or large bridges needed… I’d rather use the Munich airport express example (less lead paint) <a href="http://www.magnetbahn-bayern.de/ENGLISH/english.html" target="_blank">http://www.magnetbahn-bayern.d e/ENGLISH/english.html</a> 4 klick’s can be done for say $170 million throw another $100 million on for overruns. Local municipal funds (float bonds), plus matching Federal and State transportation funds and Disney (suspend top tier bonuses for a couple of years). It’s totally feasible, as the cost is in the same ballpark as a new sports stadium complex.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "Would only work for one or two people though, and THEN where would ya go!?" I know the topic has sort of moved on from the fire stuff, but when there was a fire in the WDW Monorail, according to Realityland, the people inside the cars closest to the flames used D rings hanging from the roof to pull themselves out of the cars and get on top of them. They then walked a long the top of the train (which had non-skid paint on it), and slid down the nose of it. From there, they made a nice long single file line along the beam, which made it pretty easy to get everybody down safely. While I'm sure it wouldn't be fun to slide down the front of the Monorail, there are ways to safely get off of one in an emergency. "The other choice is to elevate part of the LRT line" The problem with this is that, by design, standard rail trains are designed do have fairly low friction between the track an the wheels, making it easier to travel long distances without much change. It takes a rediculous ammount of space to get one of these types of trains to do much of anything with elevation changes, so I don't think this would be all that practical. I remember a couple years ago they were doing work on the DLRR (I think it was just before the 50th) because a section of it (I want to say between TT and TL, but I'm really not sure) had a "very high" slope to it. Most causal riders don't even notice that the train changes elevation at all, so it was still extremely gradual. If they were going to build a section of it underground, and elevate another section over the roadway, I think it would probably take about the entire length of track to make the change in elevation. There's always a cable car system similar to the one in the Detriot airport, but I personally don't think that would be much fun at all...
Originally Posted By Mr X **there are ways to safely get off of one in an emergency.** Well, that doesn't really sound safe though does it? Sliding down the nose onto the beam!? Yikes.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Well, that doesn't really sound safe though does it? >> About as safe as getting behind the wheel of a car everyday and taking your chances with the local traffic.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer First off, I don't think you need BOTH underground and elevated, just one or the other. I think the underground option is better, and you can start having it go underground just past Angel Stadium, and I think it would be easy to get some right of way access on the side of the road during the Platinum Triangle project. Also you need less of a grade to go underground. A cut and cover tunnel would only have to be about 12 to 15 feet deep at the I-5 to not block traffic. An elevated Track would have to get to about 20 feet above grade, to allow for the few feet of concrete to support the track, and still allow about a 15 foot clearance if it went over Harbor. And talking about elevated grades, what is the requirement for the Monorail, I think about the same as an LRT, and with the need to place the Monorail Track over Interstate 5, it would take a long section of track to get it high enough to cross over the freeway while leaving enough clearance for trucks underneath.
Originally Posted By Mr X **About as safe as getting behind the wheel of a car everyday and taking your chances with the local traffic.** While the monorail may be safer, that particular situation definitely is NOT...you don't think someone might have slid off the front the wrong way and not managed to catch the narrow beam? Below that you've got a long way down (not to mention electricity if you hit the side!).
Originally Posted By jonvn "a High Speed train of some sort that would connect most of California, and maybe even a High Speed Train to Las Vegas." If that ever gets built, I'll be amazed. That's been kicking around for years and years. I'd love to see it "according to Realityland, the people inside the cars closest to the flames used D rings hanging from the roof to pull themselves out of the cars and get on top of them. They then walked a long the top of the train (which had non-skid paint on it), and slid down the nose of it. From there, they made a nice long single file line along the beam, which made it pretty easy to get everybody down safelythough." Oh my god! You think this is acceptable? They were VERY VERY lucky people didn't fall, a person didn't drop a baby, or someone didn't freak out and stay in the monorail and die from burning. That's terrible! "I don't think you need BOTH underground and elevated, just one or the other." It depends on the terrain, traffic, and how they want it to appear. Around the resort, you might want things at grade or elevated because it looks nicer. Elsewhere, where it doesn't matter, a cut and cover tunnel might be best, to keep the trains from interferring with traffic. They end up doing a ton of studies on this stuff, to figure out what is the best thing. There are many options.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Monorails have caused accidents, the main way is due to falling parts, both the Disneyland Monorail and the Las Vegas Monorail have had problems, and had to add additional precautions due to this main problem. There have also been deaths by those using the Monorail, 4 people were killed in Germany when a Monorail derailed in April of 1999.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The cost of the underground infrastructure to build light rail systems, in addition to the hidden costs associated with closing down entire city streets while light rail systems are installed, makes this not a very valid point. In fact monorail systems can often be built without closing down major thoroughfares, and the construction timeline for monorail systems is usually twice as fast as that for conventional rail systems. This is one of the reasons why businesses along light rail corridors fail during the lengthy construction phase of those projects. The construction footprint required to install monorail pylons and supporting infrastructure is much less intrusive.> The JFK airport train light rail system is elevated, and for most of its length travels in the median of the Van Wyk Expressway (Freeway). There were construction issues with the Van Wyk (one lane closed I think each way for a while), but it was NEVER closed. In fact, if you just looked at the JFK airport train track from ground level, you might think it WAS a monorail system (with a wide top). It's basically pylons that fan out to form a "T" shape, with the tracks on top of the T. This seems the most practical idea to me. No grade/crossing issues, easily evacuatable (just make the top of the "T" wide enough to include an evacuation strip), cheaper and easier to maintain due to there being many LR systems around the world with their associated suppliers, easier to add to or reduce the length of the trains, possibility for a driverless system as at JFK, and they could be designed to look fun if Disney had a hand in the design. And if you included stops at the Conv. Ctr, PT, and sports stadiums as well as the parks, you could partner with Anaheim and not pay for the whole thing yourself. Not as cool as a monorail, but more practical I think.
