Monorail madness

I couldn't help but notice a small skirmish on one of the comment boards at Bottleneck Blog over monorails. Proponents want more of them and think they could be a cheaper alternative to a subway on the Westside.

Here are the renderings sent to me by the MTA of what a monorail might look like squatting over Wilshire Boulevard. In looking at mass transit alternatives for Wilshire, MTA staff concluded that a monorail would overwhelm the streetscape, be slower than a subway, carry fewer people and have to follow the street grid -- making it harder to route than the subway.

As for readers who insist monorails are cheaper than the subway: That's hard to say, although it certainly seems possible given the subway's high cost. The question is: Even if you save some bucks, is it worth it?

-- Steve Hymon

Drawings: MTA

Comments

[Lauren]

I would like to respond to those who say that monorails are not a viable mass rapid transit system.

This is a completely uninformed response to change. The actual arguments for the feasibility of a monorail in Los Angeles (and the actual reasons for the rejection of the proposal by the city council) have been aesthetic issues.

For those who have said that monorails are not a good form of mass rapid transit, your uninformed opinions are denounced by just two examples:

The Tokyo-Haneda system serves about 140,000 people per day. Tokyo is one of the most technologically innovative cities in the world. It can get to the airport in under 7 minutes, where as by car- it would take 50.

The Kuala Lumpur model serves about 45,000/day and embodies everything that a monorail should in Los Angeles. It is good looking, above traffic, safe, electronically powered, and quiet.

Given this, the busing system in Los Angeles is probably the worst in the world. Vast, yes. But Los Angeles remains a car-dominated culture! Even with busing options to keep our streets less congested and decrease our global footprint, Angelenos still don't take the bus.

Thus, why are we supporting an expansion of such a system? People don't use it! Using zero-emission buses is a step forward for the environment, but if people don't use the bus systems now...what will make them want to use them later?

The disadvantages of a monorail are not the lack of a networking system. In fact, that is part of the reason a monorail is so great. It networks ABOVE traffic. And with that in mind, if you think they are ugly, don't look up! In fact, I find it hilarious that this is even an issue for the buses in Los Angeles are an eyesore.

Subways are a waste of money as everybody knows that it is a mistake to build underground in Los Angeles.

That said, either bring back the Red Cars or make a Monorail.
I choose the latter.

[Lauren]

I would like to respond to those who say that monorails are not a viable mass rapid transit system.

This is a completely uninformed response to change. The actual arguments for the feasibility of a monorail in Los Angeles (and the actual reasons for the rejection of the proposal by the city council) have been aesthetic issues.

For those who have said that monorails are not a good form of mass rapid transit, your uninformed opinions are denounced by just two examples:

The Tokyo-Haneda system serves about 140,000 people per day. Tokyo is one of the most technologically innovative cities in the world. It can get to the airport in under 7 minutes, where as by car- it would take 50.

The Kuala Lumpur model serves about 45,000/day and embodies everything that a monorail should in Los Angeles. It is good looking, above traffic, safe, electronically powered, and quiet.

Given this, the busing system in Los Angeles is probably the worst in the world. Vast, yes. But Los Angeles remains a car-dominated culture! Even with busing options to keep our streets less congested and decrease our global footprint, Angelenos still don't take the bus.

Thus, why are we supporting an expansion of such a system? People don't use it! Using zero-emission buses is a step forward for the environment, but if people don't use the bus systems now...what will make them want to use them later?

The disadvantages of a monorail are not the lack of a networking system. In fact, that is part of the reason a monorail is so great. It networks ABOVE traffic. And with that in mind, if you think they are ugly, don't look up! In fact, I find it hilarious that this is even an issue for the buses in Los Angeles are an eyesore.

Subways are a waste of money as everybody knows that it is a mistake to build underground in Los Angeles.

That said, either bring back the Red Cars or make a Monorail.
I choose the latter.

[Brian C. Brooks]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am compelled to respond to comments made about my admittedly lengthy statement in support of monorail. This one will be shorter, I promise.

The most important duty I have is to thank Dan W. and Oliver C. for their comments. They have demonstrated that they “get it”. This blog is supposed to be a place for constructive comments. It is not supposed to be a “battle” zone. My intention is to educate and persuade. If someone prefers to ride trains at four times the costs and subways at more than ten times the cost I support their right to prefer rail. Perhaps that group should cover at least the additional costs.

I don’t think the general public should be required to pay for the additional expense or to wait for on a regional transit solution so their specific preference can be built instead. I also think that traffic should not have to stop at rail crossings all over town so that people can ride trains instead of monorails which do not interfere with surface traffic.

In direct response to Dan W. I have studied a route through Sepulveda Pass that does not interfere with traffic or require the taking of private property. It could be part of a network that connects to LAX and other locations. Monorail is a regional solution that does not require $531 Billion dollars in additional revenue (taxes) over the next 30 years.

I thank you, Oliver C. You made the time I spent preparing comments worthwhile. You “get it” the best of all. You investigated on your own to check facts. If you had checked the www.metrail.com site you would have seen a published capacity of 55,000 people per hour per direction. Hitachi is actually operating at the higher capacities they quote. The Times is trumpeting the fact that the existing LRTs have managed to carry 50,000 per day. I would suppose any system that can carry more than 25 times that amount should be considered capable. A three-rail elevated system can have two monorails operating in the same direction so the 55,000 number should be doubled. Monorails can easily operate at 30 to 60 miles per hour because traffic interference is not a factor.

A single beam monorail line could be put on each side of Wilshire and take up little more surface space than the light poles. Businesses would compete to have an aboveground station directly into their facility. This would be similar to the stations in the casinos on the Las Vegas Monorail. The most blatant misrepresentation of “the brilliant graphics” of a Wilshire monorail is that the second picture shows dozens of people but no cars. Monorails can operate normally when the traffic below is in gridlock.

Kimberly, I am an old Vietnam Vet, an ex-trustee of a multi-billion dollar retirement fund, and a retired president of a Professional Employees Union. I am not going to pack my tent and leave because someone talks mean to me.

Were the costs of the repair facility included in the $7 Billion dollar subway estimate? A monorail facility is much smaller. Unlike steel wheel trains, changing monorail tires, brakes, and batteries takes very little room and all of these items should last well over 100,000 miles on a monorail. There is plenty of room along the proposed right of way for such a facility.

Metro is having a difficult time ignoring monorail because of its lower cost, less environmental impact, absence of traffic interference, and world-wide record of reliability. Some of the Metro Board members already support monorail and several staffers would support monorail if allowed to have their own opinion. Monorails are the only system that could eventually offer a single seat system throughout the region because surface rail and bus systems cannot feasibly use the flood channel rights of way and would interfere excessively with surface traffic along other alignments.

Here is the simple summary, most surface systems interfere with and are restricted by traffic. Elevated rail is massive, ugly, loud and expensive. Subways cost too much and would actually prevent regional mass transit in our lifetime. The monorail solution works now.

Kimberly, if monorail systems are rejected and I am ignored, I have not lost. The people of Los Angeles County and Southern California have lost. They have lost an opportunity to have a world class system and to greatly relieve their own traffic congestion problem. My intention is to inform as many people as possible who are truly seeking an answer to congestion about the monorail solution available now.

At Your Service,
brianc.brooks@verizon.net

[Dan W.]

"Given the potential to significantly reduce the capital injection necessary from the state, one would at least think that this transit mode should be appropriately considered by L.A. authorities."

----------------------

While I am not at all convinced of the merits of monorail, the place to "try" it, if at all, is possible as a Sepulveda project from Sylmar to LAX via Westwood. You could build a yard up in Sylmar or in the north Valley. There is no current project on offer by Metro in this corridor, and many people see a Sepulveda project is a no-brainer.

However, I personally prefer a HRT or LRT project.

Taking away lanes of traffic on Wilshire Blvd. was always non-starter.

[Oliver C]

I must say as a general comment that there is a significant amount of misinformation posted as fact in these comments. On that front C. Brooks' comments are probably the best researched (and definitely the most polite).

A 'fact' that I take issue with from some of the earlier posts is the idea that transit monorails have low inherent capacity.

Transit monorails like those found in several Japanse cities (as opposed to amusement park monorails) have significantly greater capacities than those quoted by K. Richards and also operate at far faster average speeds.

For instance Hitachi quote their large monorail system capacity for a six car train operating at 2 minute headways at over 32,000 passengers per hour per direction:

http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/monorail_system/system_capacity/loading/index.html

This obviously compares favourably to the 6,300 an hour figure quoted by K Richards.

A quick calculation also shows the average speed that the Tokyo monoral achieves on its 17.8km route (it does it in 23 minutes even when stopping at all 10 stops) to be 29 mph rather than the 18 mph quoted in her earlier post.

Now it's important to note that my intention in quoting these data points is not to argue that monorail is more inherently capable than a subway system.

It's more a matter of what is better value for money.

The low population density of L.A. means that ridership is unlikely to ever approach the levels seen in more densely populated urban agglomerations like NY or Tokyo. As such L.A. could probably get away with building a monorail system that was perfectly capable of handling the expected passenger ridership, for a fraction of the enormous capital cost that the extension of the subway system would entail.

Given the potential to significantly reduce the capital injection necessary from the state, one would at least think that this transit mode should be appropriately considered by L.A. authorities.

[Bob Zwolinski]

Steve, Thanks for posting this blog!
These brilliant graphics plainly show the visual blight that any aerial structure would impose on Wilshire Boulevard. Try building a monorail through Beverly Hills… I’m sure it would go over like a lead balloon.
We don’t need to make the Wilshire line a multi-modal nightmare.
What am I saying? It already is a multi-modal nightmare! Having to transfer at Western from a six-car subway to a 60-foot rapid bus, crawling with the other traffic for the remainder of the westerly ride is ridiculous!
Let’s get the subway built ASAP. We’re now suffering the horrific consequences of it being 4 decades overdue.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Mr. Brooks, your long defense of your position was very entertaining, but here is the truth:

Metro has removed the monorail from consideration, and you conveniently failed to address one of the most compelling reasons ... to add a new mode for the Wilshire extension would require a new yard to handle the new technology.

I dare you to find a large enough parcel of land, either undeveloped or reasonably priced, along the Wilshire corridor that can be used to store and maintain your precious monorails. I know you will not be able to do so.

An extension of the subway means expanded use of Metro's existing rail yard east of downtown Los Angeles. It already exists, and that brings the cost of the subway extension down.

This battle is over. You have lost. Now please pack your tents and leave, because there is no argument you can make -- however many paragraphs you choose to waste your time writing them -- that is going to change the outcome.

[Brian C. Brooks]

A sincere message to Mr. Steve Hymon.

A Billion dollars is a Thousand Million Dollars. Most of us consider a million dollars a lot of money. If you “save some bucks” while providing a better system, it is “worth it”. If you build a faster system with a technology that has never killed a rider or a pedestrian, it is worth it. A mass transit system that riders would prefer to ride is “worth it”.

The 13-mile subway is estimated to cost $7 Billion dollars and take twenty years to complete. That is over $ 538 Million, 461 Thousand dollars per mile. Others have estimated the cost of monorail at $100 Million dollars per mile. At that cost, seventy miles of monorail could be constructed. I believe modern monorail construction on established rights of way could be constructed for less than $40 Million dollars per mile. At that cost, one hundred and seventy-five miles of monorail could be constructed. A 175-mile regional system that serves many times the number of people that commute along Wilshire between Western and Santa Monica would be “worth it”.

Several years ago I attended an engineering conference that considered the “difficulties” of extending the subway to the west. Tests had shown the existence of flammable gases, explosive gases, toxic gases, and oxygen displacing gases. Never the less, they suggested that sealing the tunnels would protect the riders from these dangers. I don’t doubt that today’s technology could build tunnels within areas that hold gases that can explode or burn, poison or suffocate people. My only question is why?

More importantly, the government has no money. The subway would completely use all of the mass transit “revenue” that may become available for many years. Mr. Doran Barnes, the Executive Director of Foothill Transit, states that bus riders’ fares “pay for 25 percent of the system’s operating costs and the rest comes from sales tax measures with a small portion from federal grants”. I don’t know if Metro’s ratio of fares to cost is even that high because I have not seen a similar statement. I have heard that the cost of Metro rail systems exceeds the cost of providing the same transit service by limousines. I would ask that Metro states their operating and maintenance costs and provide the percentage paid by the riders and the percentage paid by taxes from the rest of us.

I believe we should have public transit with ticket costs determined by operating costs. I am fine with the government subsidizing the ticket costs for low-income riders. Just admit the cost rather than setting artificially low fares.

We have trains and Metro should make them more convenient and useful. We will always need buses for local transportation. They would work well with monorail for the longer portions of the commute.

I proposed use of the area alongside flood control channels for monorail routes to the Board of Supervisors. They initiated a study by the Department of Public Works which confirmed the feasibility of the proposal. Surface rail along the same routes is not feasible because of the bridge crossings and cross traffic. Elevated rail would not be feasible because the infrastructure would be much more massive and intrusive, and because the steel wheel on steel rails would be incredibly loud and objectionable to those living and working near the tracks.

I value my credibility and I knew that speaking-out would draw attacks. In fact, I referred to this part of the campaign as the “ready for public ridicule” phase. The biggest obstacle to consideration of monorail is political resistance. The next biggest obstacle is resistance from the established players who control the existing set of circumstances. I am also amazed by the lack of public information and the amount of public misinformation on this subject. I am somewhat surprised by the degree of anger arising from my comments. Your readers are free to believe what they wish or to investigate for themselves as I did. My statements are not true because I say so, nor are they untrue because others say they are not. “The truth is out there” and it is most easily found on the internet. I recommend The Monorail Society at www.monorails.org as an initial source.

With your permission I will respond to the comments and objections in the blog.

The rendering from Metro of a massive monorail system over Wilshire is very biased and misleading. The structure shown is much more massive than necessary and looks like it would support trains (which may be four times heavier than monorail). A single-beam monorail along each sidewalk with pylons less than three feet in diameter would not block the streets (or the sidewalks). In many cases the businesses and agencies could construct stations that have direct access to the raised monorail. Public monorail stations would have very little impact on the surface. An escalator and an elevator for handicapped use would not require much more surface area than a bus stop.

The station shown over the street could be constructed up and out the way as shown but would not have to be built at that location. The tunnel-like shadows are somewhat misleading because they are not that extensive. At any rate, the massive buildings along Wilshire create much more massive shadows. Consider that the rendering was provided by Metro and they are known to be anti-monorail by policy.

Monorail switches operate effectively every day of the year in other parts of the world. I believe new designs which are even more effective and less massive are possible. Train switches are much more massive if you include the depth of the prepared roadbed or the elevated structures.

The fastest operating system in the world is the maglev in China, which operates at 267 mph. The recent TGV high speed test did not exceed the fastest maglev speed (311 mph?) and required special wheels and resurfacing the tracks between each trial run. This does not relate to urban mass transit systems or appropriate speeds.

Monorails operate safely in the “earthquake countries” of Asia. Monorail was used for bringing relief supplies when the roads and tracks were destroyed by an earthquake in Japan. Most people would prefer to be above ground during a major earthquake rather than in a tunnel. Monorail beams are much less massive than freeways.

Monorails have been around for over 100 years. Trains have been around over 200 years. We have local Light Rail and Subway systems already. We know they do not solve the traffic congestion problems. We know drivers avoid them because they take too long. We know accidents and injuries occur. We know they are expensive, intrusive, loud and obnoxious. The 50 year-old technology of the 5/8ths scale-model monorail at Disneyland has shown millions of riders that it is safe, quiet, and does not interfere with traffic or enjoyment of the surface areas. It does not cause traffic congestion and is not slowed down by traffic congestion. This is not true of trains. That is why there is not a train across the parking lot.

I like the Simpson’s monorail song. I also remember a train song that says “If you miss the train I’m on, you will know that I have gone. You can hear the whistle blow a hundred miles.”

Elevated train infrastructures are more massive than monorail and central power could lead to a widespread failure of all systems (including electric trains and subways). I prefer self-powered vehicles for safety reasons.

The walkways in subways do add to the cost. A simple grate between monorail beams would serve the same function at minimal cost without expanding the structure.

Regional monorail in southern California does not have to be a fantasy. The most important factor in Urban Planning is implementation. Otherwise, it is just a good (or bad) idea. My intention is implementation.

I am not proposing old and inefficient monorail technologies. I won’t defend them. Old cars did not work as well as today’s cars. There are good efficient monorail systems in the world. One of them has carried over one billion riders without a breakdown. I propose allowing new efficient and environmentally friendly systems to have an equal chance to prove themselves.

I have a video of monorails operating along street medians without blocking turns or interfering with traffic in any way. Monorails can carry up to 55,000 people per hour per beam per direction. That number of riders is not carried by any system in Los Angeles County.

Modern monorails are sleek and beautiful. I think they look (and smell) much better than diesel locomotives or buses. Monorail cars operating at two-minute intervals are at least one mile apart. The infrastructure beams and pylons are much smaller and would not have the same impacts on the streetscape. There would be no major urban visual pollution. Acquisition of right of way would be minimal and in most cases unnecessary. This is also the argument for monorail over elevated rail. In addition it uses much less concrete and steel and is therefore much cheaper to construct.

The Las Vegas Monorail was built by casino interests to connect casinos. It was not designed to provide efficient public transit. Even so, if it is extended to the airport, it will provide transportation that is faster than private vehicles. Trains cannot operate using the monorail’s alignment within streets and between buildings.

The KL monorail was not allowed to connect within the station to the other forms of mass transit. A multi-modal system could have been easily constructed. The financial problems were not related to the technology. This is demonstrated by the fact that another company is still operating the same system. This is a bit of a glass house problem for people who promote trains and buses that are financed mostly by public subsidy from our tax dollars. Monorails would operate more cheaply and I believe they can pay their own way through rider fees. That has never been true of rail or bus systems in California. A new rail system entails a new and permanent subsidy from taxpayers.

I was present at Metro meetings. I presented written and oral positions. A monorail option was discarded because it would require a median on Second Street (not true) even though a light rail option was considered which by Metro’s admission would have taken all but one lane (eastbound) from traffic. Also, monorail could have been extended all the way to Union Station without interfering with traffic. It was not considered because “almost no one wants monorail”. I am beginning to see a pattern. Somehow, 90% of the people I speak to in public say they would prefer monorail. Coincidence?

The monorail expansion in Seattle was approved by the voters four times. It was finally killed after the government agencies appointed a Board of Directors and hired a CEO who over-designed the system (I believe there were 13 major maintenance vehicles for 16 trains and pylons each going down 288 feet to bedrock). The stations were extremely over-built and expensive. The outrageous costs were finally rejected by the voters, not the technology. This excessive construction design was not required for there proposed elevated rail system.

I understand that good people will disagree. I do not use Wikipedia as a confirmed reference. I have studied my proposal extensively. I have tried not to omit any facts or to say anything that I do not believe is true. The best mass transit asset that government agencies have in Southern California is the existing right of way system. I believe monorails can be constructed at less cost than other technologies along the side of flood channels, within street medians, and on both active and inactive railroad alignments without interfering with traffic. In many cases, strip parks with walking and hiking trails could be constructed on the surface beneath the monorails. Monorail construction is much faster than road or railroad construction. Monorails are not invisible but they can be beautiful to most people.

Many of the people who have spoken out here against monorail are members of a group which wants to bring trams and trolleys back to our streets. I like trains, trams and trolleys myself. They have proven that they do not work in Los Angeles. Why not allow monorail the opportunity to prove that it does work. Rather than have Los Angeles known for the worst congestion in the world, why not have it famous for the best mass transit system?

[Brian C. Brooks]

A sincere message to Mr. Steve Hymon.

A Billion dollars is a Thousand Million Dollars. Most of us consider a million dollars a lot of money. If you “save some bucks” while providing a better system, it is “worth it”. If you build a faster system with a technology that has never killed a rider or a pedestrian, it is worth it. A mass transit system that riders would prefer to ride is “worth it”.

The 13-mile subway is estimated to cost $7 Billion dollars and take twenty years to complete. That is over $ 538 Million, 461 Thousand dollars per mile. Others have estimated the cost of monorail at $100 Million dollars per mile. At that cost, seventy miles of monorail could be constructed. I believe modern monorail construction on established rights of way could be constructed for less than $40 Million dollars per mile. At that cost, one hundred and seventy-five miles of monorail could be constructed. A 175-mile regional system that serves many times the number of people that commute along Wilshire between Western and Santa Monica would be “worth it”.

Several years ago I attended an engineering conference that considered the “difficulties” of extending the subway to the west. Tests had shown the existence of flammable gases, explosive gases, toxic gases, and oxygen displacing gases. Never the less, they suggested that sealing the tunnels would protect the riders from these dangers. I don’t doubt that today’s technology could build tunnels within areas that hold gases that can explode or burn, poison or suffocate people. My only question is why?

More importantly, the government has no money. The subway would completely use all of the mass transit “revenue” that may become available for many years. Mr. Doran Barnes, the Executive Director of Foothill Transit, states that bus riders’ fares “pay for 25 percent of the system’s operating costs and the rest comes from sales tax measures with a small portion from federal grants”. I don’t know if Metro’s ratio of fares to cost is even that high because I have not seen a similar statement. I have heard that the cost of Metro rail systems exceeds the cost of providing the same transit service by limousines. I would ask that Metro states their operating and maintenance costs and provide the percentage paid by the riders and the percentage paid by taxes from the rest of us.

I believe we should have public transit with ticket costs determined by operating costs. I am fine with the government subsidizing the ticket costs for low-income riders. Just admit the cost rather than setting artificially low fares.

We have trains and Metro should make them more convenient and useful. We will always need buses for local transportation. They would work well with monorail for the longer portions of the commute.

I proposed use of the area alongside flood control channels for monorail routes to the Board of Supervisors. They initiated a study by the Department of Public Works which confirmed the feasibility of the proposal. Surface rail along the same routes is not feasible because of the bridge crossings and cross traffic. Elevated rail would not be feasible because the infrastructure would be much more massive and intrusive, and because the steel wheel on steel rails would be incredibly loud and objectionable to those living and working near the tracks.

I value my credibility and I knew that speaking-out would draw attacks. In fact, I referred to this part of the campaign as the “ready for public ridicule” phase. The biggest obstacle to consideration of monorail is political resistance. The next biggest obstacle is resistance from the established players who control the existing set of circumstances. I am also amazed by the lack of public information and the amount of public misinformation on this subject. I am somewhat surprised by the degree of anger arising from my comments. Your readers are free to believe what they wish or to investigate for themselves as I did. My statements are not true because I say so, nor are they untrue because others say they are not true. “The truth is out there” and it is most easily found on the internet. I recommend The Monorail Society at www.monorails.org as an initial source.

With your permission I will respond to the comments and objections in the blog.

The rendering from Metro of a massive monorail system over Wilshire is very biased and misleading. The structure shown is much more massive than necessary and looks like it would support trains (which may be four times heavier than monorail). A single-beam monorail along each sidewalk with pylons less than three feet in diameter would not block the streets (or the sidewalks). In many cases the businesses and agencies could construct stations that have direct access to the raised monorail. Public monorail stations would have very little impact on the surface. An escalator and an elevator for handicapped use would not require much more surface area than a bus stop.

The station shown over the street could be constructed up and out the way as shown but would not have to be built at that location. The tunnel-like shadows are somewhat misleading because they are not that extensive. At any rate, the massive buildings along Wilshire create much more massive shadows. Consider that the rendering was provided by Metro and they are known to be anti-monorail by policy.

Monorail switches operate effectively every day of the year in other parts of the world. I believe new designs which are even more effective and less massive are possible. Train switches are much more massive if you include the depth of the prepared roadbed or the elevated structures.

The fastest operating system in the world is the maglev in China, which operates at 267 mph. The recent TGV high speed test did not exceed the fastest maglev speed (311 mph?) and required special wheels and resurfacing the tracks between each trial run. This does not relate to urban mass transit systems or appropriate speeds.

Monorails operate safely in the “earthquake countries” of Asia. Monorail was used for bringing relief supplies when the roads and tracks were destroyed by an earthquake in Japan. Most people would prefer to be above ground during a major earthquake rather than in a tunnel. Monorail beams are much less massive than freeways.

Monorails have been around for over 100 years. Trains have been around over 200 years. We have local Light Rail and Subway systems already. We know they do not solve the traffic congestion problems. We know drivers avoid them because they take too long. We know accidents and injuries occur. We know they are expensive, intrusive, loud and obnoxious. The 50 year-old technology of the 5/8ths scale-model monorail at Disneyland has shown millions of riders that it is safe, quiet, and does not interfere with traffic or enjoyment of the surface areas. It does not cause traffic congestion and is not slowed down by traffic congestion. This is not true of trains. That is why there is not a train across the parking lot.

I like the Simpson’s monorail song. I also remember a train song that says “If you miss the train I’m on, you will know that I have gone. You can hear the whistle blow a hundred miles.”

Elevated train infrastructures are more massive than monorail and central power could lead to a widespread failure of all systems (including electric trains and subways). I prefer self-powered vehicles for safety reasons.

The walkways in subways do add to the cost. A simple grate between monorail beams would serve the same function at minimal cost without expanding the structure.

Regional monorail in southern California does not have to be a fantasy. The most important factor in Urban Planning is implementation. Otherwise, it is just a good (or bad) idea. My intention is implementation.

I am not proposing old and inefficient monorail technologies. I won’t defend them. Old cars did not work as well as today’s cars. There are good efficient monorail systems in the world. One of them has carried over one billion riders without a breakdown. I propose allowing new efficient and environmentally friendly systems to have an equal chance to prove themselves.

I have a video of monorails operating along street medians without blocking turns or interfering with traffic in any way. Monorails can carry up to 55,000 people per hour per beam per direction. That number of riders is not carried by any system in Los Angeles County.

Modern monorails are sleek and beautiful. I think they look (and smell) much better than diesel locomotives or buses. Monorail cars operating at two-minute intervals are at least one mile apart. The infrastructure beams and pylons are much smaller and would not have the same impacts on the streetscape. There would be no major urban visual pollution. Acquisition of right of way would be minimal and in most cases unnecessary. This is also the argument for monorail over elevated rail. In addition it uses much less concrete and steel and is therefore much cheaper to construct.

The Las Vegas Monorail was built by casino interests to connect casinos. It was not designed to provide efficient public transit. Even so, if it is extended to the airport, it will provide transportation that is faster than private vehicles. Trains cannot operate using the monorail’s alignment within streets and between buildings.

The KL monorail was not allowed to connect within the station to the other forms of mass transit. A multi-modal system could have been easily constructed. The financial problems were not related to the technology. This is demonstrated by the fact that another company is still operating the same system. This is a bit of a glass house problem for people who promote trains and buses that are financed mostly by public subsidy from our tax dollars. Monorails would operate more cheaply and I believe they can pay their own way through rider fees. That has never been true of rail or bus systems in California. A new rail system entails a new and permanent subsidy from taxpayers.

I was present at Metro meetings. I presented written and oral positions. A monorail option was discarded because it would require a median on Second Street (not true) even though a light rail option was considered which by Metro’s admission would have taken all but one lane (eastbound) from traffic. Also, monorail could have been extended all the way to Union Station without interfering with traffic. It was not considered because “almost no one wants monorail”. I am beginning to see a pattern. Somehow, 90% of the people I speak to in public say they would prefer monorail. Coincidence?

The monorail expansion in Seattle was approved by the voters four times. It was finally killed after the government agencies appointed a Board of Directors and hired a CEO who over-designed the system (I believe there were 13 major maintenance vehicles for 16 trains and pylons each going down 288 feet to bedrock). The stations were extremely over-built and expensive. The outrageous costs were finally rejected by the voters, not the technology. This excessive construction design was not required for the proposed elevated rail system.

I understand that good people will disagree. I do not use Wikipedia as a confirmed reference. I have studied my proposal extensively. I have tried not to omit any facts or to say anything that I do not believe is true. The best mass transit asset that government agencies have in Southern California is the existing right of way system. I believe monorails can be constructed at less cost than other technologies along the side of flood channels, within street medians, and on both active and inactive railroad alignments without interfering with traffic. In many cases, strip parks with walking, biking and hiking trails could be constructed on the surface beneath the monorails. Monorail construction is much faster than road or railroad construction. Monorails are not invisible but they can be beautiful to most people.

Many of the people who have spoken out here against monorail are members of a group which wants to bring trams and trolleys back to our streets. I like trains, trams and trolleys myself. They have proven that they do not work in Los Angeles trafffic. Why not allow monorail the opportunity to prove that it does work. Rather than have Los Angeles known for the worst congestion in the world, why not have it famous for the best mass transit system?

[Ray Shea]

I'm always amazed with people who still monorails offer some kind of significant advantage of double rail systems. There are a number of reasons for my skepticism.

There is no such thing as an effective monorail switch, unlike duel rail, a monorail cannot shift from track A to track B to get around an breakdown, easily adding and deleting trains and cars (adjusting for changing traffic) or simply diverting from a trunk line to a branch line.

The fastest regularly operating trains in the world are conventional duel rail systems (Frances TGV, Japan's bullet trains) todays monorails operate at crawl speeds compared to these speedy efficient systems.

The monorail concept has been around for a long time. There a little loop system in Germany that was built in the early 1900's. Its a cute tourist attraction but the rest of the city's system built since is duel rail. There's a reason why no where in the world is their a monorail system (no switching and no speed or capacity advantages) virtually all of them are single end to end lines or loops that work in amusement parks, worlds fairs, airport links where capacity and flexibility demands just aren't there. Furthermore they all operate at crawl speeds.

We live in earthquake country, the idea of building anything elevated (millions of pounds of structure and equipment suspended on stilts above crowded right of ways like Wilshire) is perfect for disaster. Just look what happens to elevated freeways every time California has an earthquake.

By contrast during the San Francisco Worlds Series quake and the Los Angeles Northridge quake miles of BART, Metro Red Line, Blue Line and Metrolink tunnels suffered absolutely no damage. The reason (though counterintuitive) is that tunnels are hardly impacted by earthquakes they are part of and move with the earth.

An earlier comment in these responses indicated that there is problem with finding reliable suppliers to stand by their products. The reason is simple building a monorail is a good way to go out of business.

[Morgan Wick]

"A lot of passion. A lot of good arguments. Talking about rail in Los Angeles is sort of like participating in a fantasy football league. In other words, it doesn't affect reality, unfortunately."

Unless you lobby your elected representatives and the MTA Board, vote for people who will actually DO something, and get your friends, family, and neighbors thinking about the myriad issues.

[Homer]

Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?
Ned Flanders: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!
[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: Once again...
All: Monorail!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
[big finish]
Monorail!
Homer: Mono... D'oh!

[Dan]

I lived in Vancouver during Expo 86 where many technologies were explored. For a city system, the government selected elevated light rail with linear induction motors and after the early bugs were worked out, it has performed very well. Google "Sky Train". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Skytrain

[Tom Rubin]

The Vancouver Expo 86 transit system was and is a huge success, carrying more people than the Red Line - but it is NOT a monorail.

Monorail capacity is highly dependent upon the precise technology selected; there ARE those that are capable of carrying Red Line loads at good speeds and have been doing so for decades; however, the non-standardization of monorail technology is one of the biggest problems, you never know if your vendor is going to be around next time you need something.

We already have more than enough different guideway technologies in LA; having another, particularly one that would require huge numbers of people making a straight-line trip to transfer is not desirable.

[Erik]

The illustration of a Wilshire Monorail above conveniently leaves out a parallel catwalk that LAFD would probably require in order to facilitate evacuations. Las Vegas Monorail has them and it significantly increases the visual impact of the monorail beam.

Subway tunnels have these built in for no extra cost.

[Enough]

A lot of passion. A lot of good arguments. Talking about rail in Los Angeles is sort of like participating in a fantasy football league. In other words, it doesn't affect reality, unfortunately.

[Scotty]

Monorails are a complete failure. The one at the LA County fair never worked, the one at Expo 86 in Vancouver worked sometimes, the one in Las Vegas is a disaster, jerks all over the place, is as slow as an old person with a walker, probably would not survive and earthquake, and they are nothing more than a novelty. Good grief. I am amazed this mentality still exists. Six car subway trains run to NoHo every 10 minutes all day. It would take a platoon of monorail cars to equal the carrying capacity of the Metro Red Line. And talking about ugly, those photos show major urban and visual pollution.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Any aerial mode will have the same impacts on the streetscape (monorail, elevated light rail, elevated heavy rail). Any aerial mode would require supports in the median along the entire alignment, with cross-beams at intersections and at any turn, and with acquisition of property adjacent to stations to construct station access stairs/escalators/elevators (as opposed to a simple portal, with a much smaller footprint, for underground rail).

Other than that, the difference is in passenger capacity, which I summarized in a previous post. In that regard, heavy rail still beats both light rail and monorail, whether done as a subway or as an aerial system.

[D. Malcolm Carson]

Can someone explain to me what possible argument can be made for monorail vs. aerial light rail. I keep seeing people passionately arguing for monorail, but it just looks like aerial light rail on one track to me.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Perhaps I should have properly compared modes when I quoted Wikipedia.

The standard six-car subway construct can carry up to 800 passengers (14,000 per hour, per direction), at an average speed of 32 MPH.

Light rail (three dual-cars) can carry up to 425 passengers (7,600 per hour/direction) but can be as slow as 24 MPH.

Monorail (six car train), up to 350 (6,300/hour), 18 MPH.

Given Wilshire's demand, there really isn't any contest between modes.

[Cycling in Hollywood]

OK well I must admit I am mostly convinced, thanks for the info.

However I did ride the KL monorail quite a bit while I was there in 2003 and I loved it, great way to get around that part of the city. I am no expert on monorail reliability though.

BTW KL is a major Asian city and has some serious density in the central city where the monorail runs, not a jungle village or something...

[Darrell Clarke]

"Google Sydney monorail images"

Hate to say it, but that's just a little amusement park-type monorail in Sydney.

The one transit-grade (speed and capacity) monorail in the United States is in Las Vegas, built for $100 million/mile in 2001-4. With inflation it could be $150 million/mile now.

See http://lavisions.blogspot.com/2008/01/flood-channel-monorails.html for more.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

If I may add, regarding the claim that "the monorail line in Kuala Lumpur seems to work well" ...

---

Quoting from the linked Wikipedia entry:

KL Infra [the original builder and operator] declared bankruptcy on May 15, 2007 after repeatedly missing loan repayments.

The KL Monorail trains are capable of accommodating 158 passengers each during regular operations.

Prior to the opening of the KL Monorail an accident occurred involving a safety wheel from a train falling off and hitting a pedestrian walking under the monorail viaduct ... As a result of this accident, the launch of the monorail was postponed.

The monorail, the newest component of the system, has been publicly criticised over the way its stations have been connected to the other systems.

---

I won't even try to cut and paste all the criticisms over the ergonomics.

In any event, what part of that sounds like "works well"?

[Kymberleigh Richards]

This is not Kuala Lumpur. Their system will never have the kind of ridership as the Wilshire Blvd. corridor.

And the Tokyo monorail was not built as a mass transit system to move people on a heavily-traveled corridor, it was built to get people to and from the airport, which is a far lower number per day.

"Learning from other countries' examples" means knowing the differences between their systems and the needs of the Wilshire corridor.

I also note that many of the systems listed in that Wikipedia entry are operated in theme/amusement parks or as tourist attractions. The only one listed as a "commuter line" connects a single suburb of Hiroshima with that city ... still far less than the demands of Wilshire.

I suspect the monorail-supportive posters were not in attendance at the recent community meetings Metro held to discuss all of the options that were proposed and which would be moved forward. Had they been there, they would know all of the reasons monorail is not a viable option; Anthony Fernandez' post is accurate in pointing out the lower capacity of monorails and the need for a separate yard (a big advantage of extending the existing subway is that the existing yard east of downtown is already built, which is also part of the argument against light rail).

In any event, Metro staff has removed monorail as an option from the ongoing study, so all the proponents for same are simply engaging in a quasi-intellectual exercise which will not have any impact on the outcome.

[Bart Reed]

To the untrained eye, a pop psyche technology seems like a better solution. Monorail proponents always claim that this technology is cheaper, better and faster, despite abundant professional documentation that simply proves them untrue.

In Las Vegas, light rail could have been installed for at least $600 million less and would have a capacity of at least double. But the local promoters wanted an amusement park ride, not a useful transit system. Note that the Las Vegas route would be useful in the center of Las Vegas Blvd., but the photo illustration above shows what that would have looked like on the strip, so they put it down an alley behind the hotels and it bleeds financially.

To explore a little more about some of the monorail proposals, this website was created: http://www.wilshiremonorail.net/ , where illustrations are made of various proposals and lots of questions are asked.

I always find it curious that some will propose solutions but they really don't understand the ramifications and are willing to believe undocumented claims. Why do we have to study other countries? We have plenty of working transit in Los Angeles, just not enough. Yes, a subway extension will be built. ExxonMobil and $5/gallon gas have pushed this past the tipping point.