L.A.'s monorail 'backbone'

Does all the talk today about expanded L.A. rail lines have a familar ring? Flashback 40 years. Then, as the last of the red and yellow cars were disappearing, the concept was monorails. At first, there were grand plans for a massive network around L.A. Then by the early 1960s, it had been scaled down to one so-called "Backbone Route" between Century City and El Monte. According to ERHA:

The MTA lowered its expectations and went back to basics. In 1961, it came out with a 23-mile,  Century City-Downtown-El Monte "backbone route". For a while, there was a glimmer of hope, ridership estimates suggested that this line’s $218 million cost could be paid from fare receipts, and federally backed financing arrangements were sought. The federal government refused to participate, however, and the backbone route was discarded. The backbone plan was to have been the start of a regional rapid transit system. In 1963, Kaiser engineers expanded it over part of the four corridors; at a projected cost of $619 million. This 64-mile system was financially out of sight.

Both the "Backbone Route" map (in orange with station bulleted) and the renderings of a Sunset Boulevard monorail station are from the MTA's very cool library.

Would monorails have worked in L.A. in the 1960s. Would they work today? Hit COMMENT and speak out!

Comments

[Ben]

So much bad info from anti-monorail people here. First off, monorail DOES have the capacity of subways, at a much smaller initial cost. Many Hitachi based systems carry 75,000+ passengers per day. The Tokyo monorail currently moves 150,000 people per day.

Monorail does need to be explored. While light rapid transit is great for moderate density areas with brief underground sections through denser areas, for heavy rapid transit subways just do not cut it anymore. The cost and time it takes to build them makes them very impractical. The solution is to go above ground, and monorail offers this solution.

[Angelo]

You really don't have a clue about monorails.

Sydney, Osaka, Tokyo, Singapore, and soon Central London, Moscow, Shanghai...MONORAIL

It is the safest, least expensive, most efficient system rolling.

Those cities mentioned above know quite abit more about them then the know it alls on here who pretend to.

LA should have gone MONORAIL in the 1960's...it would have been light years ahead of other American cities.

[Angelo]

You really don't have a clue about monorails.

Sydney, Osaka, Tokyo, Singapore, and soon Central London, Moscow, Shanghai...MONORAIL

It is the safest, least expensive, most efficient system rolling.

Those cities mentioned above know quite abit more about them then the know it alls on here who pretend to.

LA should have gone MONORAIL in the 1960's...it would have been light years ahead of other American cities.

[kp]

Scott, you forgot one. Where would the MTA place the monorail yard?

[Scott Mercer]

Okay, let's have that honest and open discussion about monorails. Once again.

1)Monorails are just smaller elevated trains that only have one rail. They do not have enough capacity for Wilshire Blvd.
2)Adding a third modality to the Metrorail system would add extra training costs, repair costs, maintenance training and application costs, extra money MTA doesn't have
3)Monorails on elevated structures would fall down in earthquakes. Subways usually don't get damaged in earthquakes. Our own Red Line in 1994. BART in 1989. Subway systems in Japan on numerous occasions.
4) How would we transfer from subway to elevated Monorail at Western Avenue? Is there room for a transfer station?
5) Is there even room along WIlshire for two tracks? And if you do make them small enough, aren't the cars too small for the route, i.e., capacity? And wouldn't the supporting structures have to be huge, not "slender" to avoid earthquake damage?
6) Monorails with windows, elevated, outdoors, in the LA summertime would be blazing hot and difficult to air condition.
7) There are fewer companies that manufacture monorail cars, parts, and infrastructure components. If those few companies go out business, the MTA is stuck with no replacement parts.
8) If monorail cars break down in between stations and stall, the passengers need to be rescued by fire trucks with ladders extending to the elevated tracks. If subway cars break down and stall between stations, people just exit the subway cars and walk along the tunnel to the nearest emergency exit.
9) The cost to build the Las Vegas monorail was comparable to subway construction costs. It was somewhat cheaper, but not 50% cheaper.

Shall I continue?

[Paul]

Amen to John M. We have to pay to use public transit, why don't we have to pay to use expensive-to-build freeways? Toll the freeways and we will see increased carpooling as well as increased demand for public transit. As the network of public transit increases, demand for freeway usage will decrease and the overall commuter market will stabilize. We have eletronic toll collection, we have cameras at stoplights that can record license plates, combine the two technologies to create a tolling system that would not even require stopping before entering a freeway (although we do that already at metered onramps). Just don't privatize it!

As for the monorail issue, to quote kp, "Jacksonville, Sydney and Seattle monorails are all tourist circulators-- they are not viable forms of citywide rapid transit." Seattle had an existing monorail line within their city, and voters STILL voted down a proposal to build a citywide monorail network. Why? Probably because it broke down too much, caught on fire and even collided with an oncoming train. Now they are building a light rail line from SeaTac Airport through the existing downtown tunnel.

[John M]

Easy solution: 1) Select a proven technology (I recommend anything in wide use in the US so we can have national experts consult on construction and then over the long haul). 2) Toll the freeways using congestion pricing as in the 91 Express Lanes. 3) Use the freeway tolls to build the system. As segments are completed, tolls drop or are adjusted appropriately.

[Darrell Clarke]

Richard - Ability to cover operating costs is indeed an issue. Light and heavy rail have the advantage, though, of lower operating cost per passenger mile than buses. True about public transit on Wilshire, but doesn't that leave a subway extension as the fastest-traveling and least-disruptive choice?

The Las Vegas Monorail uses Bombardier's transit-grade monorail design, not that there is a standard for the few and proprietary monorail systems in the world. A monorail guideway built in Los Angeles if anything would be larger due to seismic requirements and a drip pan to catch falling parts. Also the Wilshire image I cited doesn't show how large monorail stations are.

[Richard H]

Darrell –

The Las Vegas Monorail was configured and designed for the Las Vegas Strip, not Wilshire Blvd. Superimposing the Las Vegas Monorail on Wilshire Blvd. proves nothing other than the fact that the Las Vegas Monorail shouldn’t go on Wilshire Blvd.

Wilshire Blvd. was not built with public transportation in mind. The best were the double decker open-air buses during the 1920’s and 1930’s. GM’s creations replaced those during the 1940’s.

I think a Subway under Wilshire Blvd. is a bad idea. Just too expensive. The only way will be if the Federal Government finances 80% or 90% of the construction. The subsidy for operating it will be substantial and take up a big chunk of the sales tax money. I don’t think the rest of L.A. County will care to be taxed to support a Wilshire Blvd. Subway. The existing Red Line/Purple Line costs enough to operate as it is.

[Richard H]

Movielock and kp –

“Catastrophic failure”

Interesting argument.

How about passenger jets? What happens when a passenger jet has a catastrophic failure? Can’t say they have never happened, because they have and when they do the story usually makes the news. People are obviously willing to take the risk of a catastrophic failure during flight. That’s why a lot of people won’t get on an airplane.
Board at your own risk.

The risks and hazards of riding a monorail are so very small, they are more a matter of people’s imaginations than anything else, like fear of heights or fear of rattlesnakes. There have been occasional electrical outages at DisneyWorld that have brought the monorail trains to a halt. They have this gasoline powered “pusher” that will go out and push the train to the next station where everyone is safely let out. End of emergency.

The strongest arguments against monorails are that the stations will all have to be elevated with all the problems and costs of building those structures and providing public access and security, etc. Building a monorail, or any elevated railway or roadway isn’t cheap. Still, far cheaper than building a subway. The Las Vegas Monorail came in at $141 million dollars a mile in 2002 dollars, mostly for building monorail infrastructure. The Red Line was $250 million a mile in 1990’s money. What’s the cost estimate for the Purple Line?

The reason monorails have been proposed and keep getting proposed for Los Angeles from the 1950’s to present day is because it is impossible to obtain a right-of-way for standard rapid transit in any cost effective fashion for most routes. Basically, it’s make your own right of way in a dense urban environment. It’s either elevated or underground. Elevated is cheaper than underground and monorails have less of an environmental impact than standard urban rail (at least so it is claimed).

The Jacksonville people mover? That thing is a joke. Watched a Youtube video taken on it. The cars were passing on the expressway so fast, it looked like the peoplemover was standing still. I don’t know the story behind it, but it has to be a disaster.

Of course, there is the Disneyworld monorail and some monorails in Japan. But let's not discuss those.

[Shaun]

Why build a monorail down Wilshire when there is already a heavy rail subway that ends at Western? It makes no sense to build a elevated monorail from Wilshire/Western to Santa Monica b/c people coming to and from Downtown LA would have to transfer to complete their trip. A mid line terminus is a horrible idea and will hurt ridership. If you want people to use transit it has to be convenient and transferring trains just to complete your trip along the same route is not convenient. A monorail is a bad idea to go down Wilshire; there is already a subway there and it just needs to be expanded.

[Eric]

This is another bad idea. Look at the other cities that tried this, particularly Seattle. Citizens there had to pay huge car tax increases to finance the project, and then after the first segment opened, it kept getting shut down for weeks at a time due to accidents and glitches. Later a fire on the line shut it down again. Eventually the whole project was permanently scrapped. Miami had a lot of problems with their monorail when it started also, particularly noise complaints (they aren't as quiet as they are supposed to be). The Las Vegas monorail doesn't go many places and is mainly a tourist attraction; same for the one in Sydney. I can't think of a useful place for a monorail in LA that everyday residents will use a lot. Even the one at Disneyland isn't used by many of its visitors, as it only goes between Downtown Disney and Tomorrowland, and there can be a long wait to get on it.

[Darrell Clarke]

See http://wilshiremonorail.net for a visualization of the Las Vegas monorail on Wilshire Blvd. in Brentwood. "Notice how the columns block all the left-turn lanes."

[kp]

As movielocke mentioned, the catastrophic failure issue prevents monorails from being considered for large scale urban systems. What happens when a monorail breaks down between stations? Theoretically, you'd have to design redundant crossover switches every mile or so. Easy to do with conventional rail switches, no so easy (or cheap) with monorail switches.

I'd disagree that there's some sort of "union conspiracy" at work against monorail construction. Projects like the Las Vegas and Jacksonville monorails took just as long to build...and just as much concrete...as other recently completed elevated light rail viaducts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jacksonville_Skyway_stub.jpg

Yes, Transit agencies don't like to add too many modalities because of the "economy of scale" with bus/rail parts, service yards, and training staff. That's simple economics, not monorail bashing.

[manuel]

First of all, I agree with Joe. We would live in a happier place with monorails.

What the MTA needs to have multi level platforms at each stop of the proposed monorails. One of the levels can be leased to retailers such as Starbucks, Mc Donald's and so on. The MTA would make money from the leases and the commuters would have a place to eat on their way to work. Other business that can work would be a cleaners, mini marts and pharmacies. Imagine picking up your clothes on the way to your home.
Okay lets get something started.

[movielocke]

Anyone know why buildings with elevators still have stairwells?

Catastrophic failure, any technology dependent construction (such as a seventy story skyscraper) still requires redundant low tech solutions for when the technology inevitably periodically fails. The biggest problem with a monorail infrastructure is catastrophic failure. If you can address that problem in the manner that roller coasters have, and you can provide a rapid way to clear the track and service a failing car then monorails are an excellent cost effective and timely solution to some of LA's traffic woes.

Of course the time and cost benefits are nothing compared to the vicious opposition and union lobbying that will occur against monorail. After all the construction unions want slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow as possible construction because they make more money that way and the various unions associated with the MTA want fewer types of transit because it increases their training costs and decreases their ability to have employees diverted to transit in temporary high demand that day (the very thought that the MTA does this anyway is one of the most laughable I've ever come across).

I doubt that marrying a rail line to every freeway would be a viable answer. Rather we should look at how Union Station is a hub for most all our rail right now, and then look for other places throughout LA to be similar hubs that can direct rail to the appropriate areas of dense employment. LAX is an obvious hub, the modern equivalent of Union Station, Less obvious are where the hubs in the OC and SFValley should be. These hubs should have lines connecting each other where viable and lines spidering out from the hubs to the areas within their operation radius. Since there would be some intersection with lines from other hubs, you'd need to build transition stations there.

The first step that is needed is a rail line along the westside in the manner of the Vancouver SkyTrain. This would go from my theoretical hub point of LAX towards the SF valley Hub and south towards the OC hub.

[Ken]

For all of you requesting more freeways and more lanes, where exactly would you put them? What $500,000 houses are you going to tear down for miles and miles on end? A little reality check. For 50 years engineers have been trying to get a one mile stretch to connect the 110 to the 210, but people have blocked it. Every step of the way.

As for the monorail lovers, theoretically a good idea, however, I suggest a more 21st century approach, one that is also far more in line with the LA lifestyle.

PRT or Personal Rapid Transit.

It is similar to a monorail in that it is low cost, elevated, track driven, but it cost far less, moves much fast, can carry more users, and best of all is not a shared system. Probably the best PRT demo online is at http://www.cities21.org/Redmond.htm

I suggest that LA invest in a test bed site up in Palmdale (where the city owns about 10,000 acres for an airport we will never build)and prove out the technology once and for all. If all the engineering claims hold true, we can have a monorail like system that is 10% of the price and 200% more efficient.

[greg kay]

To those who chant "more freeways more lanes" (is Don being sarcastic?) why do you assume that the widespread usage of cars in Los Angeles is proof that everyone loves them? If there were a viable alternative (ie: not a slow bus stuck in the same traffic) alternative, I and many, many others would jump at it.

Multimodal transportation can work great: bicycles for 10 blocks or less distances, busses for 2 miles or less distances and heavy rail for the journeys across town. With proper funding (local gas tax?) subways can be built in less than 10 years - a blip in the history of a metropolis.

[kp]

Jacksonville, Sydney and Seattle monorails are all tourist circulators-- they are not viable forms of citywide rapid transit. Jacksonville monorail in particular is a horror story of cost overruns typical of proprietary transportation systems.

Monorail enthusiasts are like promoters of "intelligent design", it's all about "teaching the controversy". To them, it's not about building a comprehensive transit system, it's about "corrupt politicians" and "biased engineers" conspiring against their futuristic vaporware.

[Mark E. Capron]

Why would anyone want to build monorails or more lanes, when we can have the benefits of more lanes and monorails while making money on our investment?

The key is to apply our brains instead of getting stuck on lanes, or buses, or monorails, or trains. One version of brain application is described at GuardianAngelCars.org.

[Richard H]

Dean G –

I think Mike Antonovich wanted a monorail along the 101 in the San Fernando Valley, not the 405.

This was back in 1992 or 1993. He had the issue put to the voters of L.A. County as a ballot question. It lost if I recall correctly. I don’t think the opponents were so much NIMBYs (although there will always be NIMBY opposition to anything, guaranteed) but other local politicians as well as most local Metrorail rapid transit boosters because it was an “incompatible” system. Antonovich was also accused of being a regional public transit secessionist or some such. The LACMTA plan then was for the Red Line to go all the way from Union Station to Warner Center using the Chandler route in a “seamless” transit line. Antonovich’s monorail would have had the Red Line end in North Hollywood where his proposed Ventura freeway monorail would connect and traverse the rest of the way.

This was before all the Red Line cost overruns and sinkholes in Hollywood. Of course in 1998, passage of Zev Yaroslavsky’s ballot measure killed further Red Line construction. No “seamless” Red Line from Union Station to Warner Center, but no Ventura freeway monorail, either. Instead, a bus transitway is built where the Red Line was supposed to go through the San Fernando Valley.

So instead of the Red Line ending in North Hollywood where there would have been a monorail connection, the Red Line ends in North Hollywood at a bus connection.

To be fair to the Red Line boosters, 40 to 50% of the subway line was funded by the Federal government. This was a decisive factor for building the heavy rail subway. Antonovich’s monorail wouldn’t have gotten a dime of Federal money.

The whole thing stank of transit union politics.

[Don Sweeney]

I lived in New York for twenty years and grew accustomed to using mass transit. The subways and elevated railways were a great idea one hundred years ago. They are not cost effective today. Subways are NOISY! If you have ever traveled on a subway and tried to carry on a conversation with the person sitting next to you, you’ll understand. However, I would lay money on it that most people reading this letter, or most people on committees and discussion groups about mass transit have never been on the Los Angeles subway.
Los Angeles needs some sort of mass transit today. We don’t need slow, noisy, air-polluting buses. Nor do we need expensive, underground railways. We need an efficient, clean, fast, quiet, non-polluting transit system. We need a monorail.
Monorails have been extremely efficient in getting large masses of people from place to place in an earthquake-ridden land called Japan without any problems. Cities such as Seattle, Washington, Sydney, Australia, and even Jacksonville, Florida, all have monorails up and running and they all boast about their efficiency.
Los Angeles is no longer the forerunner, city of the future. We are getting closer and closer to that city depicted in the movies called Bladerunner. If we keep dragging our heels, we’ll all be driving Japanese-made cars and talking about the “good old days” when driving from Encino to downtown only took three and a half hours and $55 in gas.
Go to YouTube.com and type in TranSolution and see the idea I have been talking about since 1973.

[Don Sweeney]

I lived in New York for twenty years and grew accustomed to using mass transit. The subways and elevated railways were a great idea one hundred years ago. They are not cost effective today. Subways are NOISY! If you have ever traveled on a subway and tried to carry on a conversation with the person sitting next to you, you’ll understand. However, I would lay money on it that most people reading this letter, or most people on committees and discussion groups about mass transit have never been on the Los Angeles subway.
Los Angeles needs some sort of mass transit today. We don’t need slow, noisy, air-polluting buses. Nor do we need expensive, underground railways. We need an efficient, clean, fast, quiet, non-polluting transit system. We need a monorail.
Monorails have been extremely efficient in getting large masses of people from place to place in an earthquake-ridden land called Japan without any problems. Cities such as Seattle, Washington, Sydney, Australia, and even Jacksonville, Florida, all have monorails up and running and they all boast about their efficiency.
Los Angeles is no longer the forerunner, city of the future. We are getting closer and closer to that city depicted in the movies called Bladerunner. If we keep dragging our heels, we’ll all be driving Japanese-made cars and talking about the “good old days” when driving from Encino to downtown only took three and a half hours and $55 in gas.
Go to YouTube.com and type in TranSolution and see the idea I have been talking about since 1973.

[Robert Rosebrock]

Fernando: The Wilshire Monorail is simply an alternative to the proposed subway that would cost $5 billion in today's dollars and take 20-30 years to build. Such a boondoggle shouldn't even be on the table for discussion. Maybe it's best to have a monorail down Olympic, Pico or Santa Monica. All were asking for is that an honest and open discussion to take place about building a monorail system all across Los Angeles, something that should already been in place.

It's obviousl that nobody has all the right answers right now. One thing for sure; buses, light rail and subways are the wrong answers, otherwise the Times would not have this "bottleneck" blog site. Nonetheless, I have
great confidence in American ingenuity when left to non-partisan engineers and architects to find the best solutions for we, the citizenry. Lest you've forgotten, 40 years ago we sent man to the moon and safely back home again. Today, we cannot even send our fellow man to work and safely back home again.

Don: Thanks about more freeway lanes -- we need to build elevated lanes. Carpool lanes are another "wrong answer." Return it to the "fast lane" for long-distance drivers, just as it was designed and intended a half-century ago. The "fast lane" worked then, and it can work now. It's time to start thinking like Americans again.

[Shaun]

Don,
Talk about wishful thinking; more lanes and more freeways does not equal congestion relief. That's the same "mantra" that got us into the situation we are in today b/c LA didn't build any alternatives. How wide do you think LA freeways should be? 12, 14, 16, 24 lanes wide? And how would you even aquire the right of way to build it given real estate prices? Also would you want to live right next to a freeway with all the noise and pollution; if you don't then don't expect other people to either. No city has ever solved or reduced congestion in the long run with more freeways and more lanes so why would it work in LA all of a suddenly? And when that 20 lane freeway is as congested 30 years down the road as today's freeway then what do you do? Build a freeway a 1/2 mile wide? People need and WANT alternatives to driving and LA needs to expand it's rail system like it should have done 40 years ago. Southern CA is just too desnsely populated to rely on just automobiles and freeways now and we need more travel options.

[Don]

Hey everyone! We're in LA. We know what we need:

More freeways.

More lanes.

Anything else is wishful thinking. Let's be real, okay? We all want to solve the problem, right?

Does anyone truly think we have EXACTLY the optimum number of lanes and freeways in Los Angeles? To claim that, you'd have to support the notion that either adding or subtracting lanes and freeways would make things worse.

Again. Chant the mantra:

More lanes.

More freeways.

[Fernando]

To Jay and Robert R.

For this Wilshire Monorail, where in the hell are these monorails going to switch tracks? Do you know how much space, energy AND noise these track switches take up and make? How thick are the beams to carry close to 1500 passengers on a single train? How wide are the emergency walkways for an evacuation? How will we get the trains onto the tracks?

The minute you figure out the answer to these questions we could just get the Purple line subway out of the ground and build an elevated structure for the existing trains to utilize. No need for clumsy transfer facilities at Wilshire/Western, no need to worry about NIMBY's to build a maintenance yard. An elevated down the middle of a wide parkway like Santa Monica Blvd, Burton Way would work for this Western transit extension.

Until that time, fellas, get back down to reailty before you guys get laughed at with another costly proposal.

[Joe]

Disneyworld has a monorail and it's the happiest place on earth. I think we can all agree that LA needs some more happiness.

[Phillip Cohen]

Monorail would work in today's Los Angeles. The enviroment begs for this type of urban friendly transportation. The infrastructure can be one of an integrated type. Instead of having free standing monorail structures running parallel above our streets we can have one that is built into buildings. Imagine a new Los Angeles and surrounding area with buildings that have monorail transportation running through their center. People can have their condos and apartments built around the monorail. The commerical market place can be built around the monorail platforms. This can be the city of tomorrow. It can bring people from all over the southland together.
Phillip

[Robert Rosebrock]

Jay Handals is right, there must be an open and honest debate about monorails. One thing is clear; if buses, light rail and subways are supposed to be the answers to our traffic problems, then we'ver certainly been asking the wrong questions. For the past 19 consecutive years, Los Angeles has had the nation's worst traffic congestion and it will only get worse before it gets better unless we change our thinking.

It's time to build an elevated mass transit and get it moving above traffic instead of impacting traffic. As soon as our elected officials have the courage and honesty to seek the best solutions for we, the people, we will then start reducing gridlock. Now that we know the wrong answers for reducing gridlock, it's time to realize that a monorail system that interlinks all of Los Angeles is the right answer.

Robert Rosebrock

[Dean G]

A few years back, Supervisor Mike Antonovich proposed a monorail along the 405 freeway. The hillside associations of Tarzana, Sherman Oaks and Studio City went berserk. They maintained that they all stand at the windows of their homes all day, looking North at the 405 freeway and that every half hour they would be subjected to what appears to be a 1 inch long dark line in the middle of the freeway, between the trees and sound walls and that it would be moving faster than the traffic on the 405. This moving line, barely visible a mile away from most of them would ruin the quality of their lives so much that they must protest it at all costs. I am ready for monorail, subway and bore-holes though the Sepulveda pass at any cost. I will gladly pay higher taxes to fund it. Business should pay tax on this too. I would love to take public transportation and rail lines along Ventura Blvd and spend my money in all those restaurants, shops, coffee houses, cheese shops, bars and clubs and get home again without my car. Businesses would more than make up a transportation tax by the profits from my spending. The thought of sitting on Ventura Boulevard or in freeway traffic keeps me away from it. Hopefully we will seriously do what is best for all Angelino’s and not the NIMBY’S.

[Jay Handal]

It is hard to believe our elected officials refuse to study a monorail. At one third the ccost, prefabricatted offsite to avoid business disruption, and operating in less than 20% of the time to build a subway, we have to ask the question: Do the elected officials prefer to spend 5 Billion of today money for a project that will not be built for 20 years, and only stretch fromn western to La Cienega, or spend 1.75 billion and have it up and running in 4 years, is it just to appease the unions, cause it certainly wont move us in my lifetime. Just do a study and give us an honest comparison. We are all tired of traffic congestion and tired of false reasons why we cant do things. Howe about being proactive and figure out how to do things. I was reminded at a meeting last night that the Mayor is promoting a "Subway Towards the Sea" not a Subway TO the sea... THink about the difference..

[Bob Zwolinski]

Of course monorails would have worked in the 60s, as they would work today.
Any mode of rapid transit would have better than the nothingness we endured for almost 3 decades.

It's a shame that we didn't build it back then. We'd have quite a nice system in place by now. But there was not enough outcry nor did we know how to fund a massive project like this back then. And to think that ALWEG offered to build it for free in exchange for a few decades of it’s fare-box revenue. Talk about political shortsightedness!

I personally don't believe that monorail is viable rapid transit modality.
Switching trains/tracks and emergency evacuations make this mode much less desirable than conventional urban rail.

I find it amusing that there is a group that is suggesting constructing a monorail up the middle of Wilshire. Try getting THAT past Beverly Hills politics. They didn’t want any part of it back in ’62. I’m sure that they wouldn’t want it now. Ahhh, just what the MTA needs, a 3rd modality… It would be an operations and training nightmare!

Let’s stick to the heavy rail & light rail modes we have now.

[Richard H]

Monorails were the Maglev of the 1950’s.

I found the ERHA (Electric Railway Historical Association of Southern California) webpage that the blog links to: “The Seven Eras of Rapid Transit Planning in Los Angeles” to be a very good summary of the history of rapid transit plans (more like dreams and fantasies) for Los Angeles during the last century. It does ignore most of the plans and schemes for auto transportation, such as the 1937 AAA engineering study that was one of the earliest if not the earliest proposal for building expressways (later to be called freeways) in Los Angeles.

What happened is history. The automobile was given clear priority. The federal government provided a huge source of funding for freeway construction with the passage of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956 and major constituency, the transit dependent, was nearly completely ignored. Simple as that.

The SCAG Destination 2030, which Steve Lopez mentioned in his column, appears to be the latest in a long line of plans for grand designs for transportation in the region. Maglev gets mentioned in that study the way monorails were in the ones from the 1950’s.

There is the monorail at Disneyland. Walt Disney built it in the 1950’s to be a demonstration line as much as an amusement ride at a time when this mode of passenger transportation was being promoted.

Rarely mentioned in any discussion of monorails as a transit option is the Disneyworld Monorail that began operating in 1971 and appears to have a very good record of operational performance and safety. If nothing else, it shows that monorails do work and are financially viable. The monorail hasn’t bankrupted the Disney Corporation yet.

[Patrick T.]

It is very much needed. Thgink of all the traffic it has the potential to allleviate. Depending on the starting and ending points, it could help "spread out" urban density by strategically placing routes throughout the Valley and San Bernadino County. I wouldn't mind buying property in Lancaster, Antelopr Valley, etc, if there was a dependable means of public transportation to get me to work in L.A.

[Shaun]

Although I think Monorails are a bad idea b/c of the recent failure of Las Vegas's monorail system; just imagine LA today if they had built just half of that proposed system and all for less that $750million. We didn't build it back then and now we are kicking ourselves for not doing so, so just imagine what we will be saying another 30 years down the road if we don't build the Wilshire subway and other rail extensions. Several lawmakers are now promoting subways that they once were opposed to. Lets learn from out past mistakes, bite the bullet, and expand our rail system. LA needs alternatives.

[Cahwyguy - Daniel]

Back when MetroRail was first announced, I thought the right approach would be monorails along every freeway, along the sides above the soundwalls. At each normal interchange, there would be a monorail station, with a park-and-ride lot. That lot would also provide short-term car rentals for local, non-freeway travel, as well as a bus turnaround for local employers to offer shuttle service.

I still think such an idea would be an economical solution. I know that I would take it: yes, I would still drive, but driving to the 118 or 405 from my house is a lot less than driving to El Segundo, and I know there are sufficient aerospace employers in the area that there would be a shuttle from the 405/El Segundo station.