Vegas: Monorails v. Gridlock 478
TimeTrip writes "Vegas seems to be taking a little cue from Disney. 'Las Vegas, which never stops thinking big, has just embarked on its most ambitious, costly attempt to solve a problem that once seemed impossible to have in this sprawling desert valley: gridlock. It is building the nation's largest monorail system.'"
Or maybe they'll be taking their cue from Lyle Lanly. Frankly this sounds more
like a Shelbyville idea.
build your own backyard monorail (Score:2, Interesting)
Wish Seattle new how to start construction. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Monorail (Score:3, Interesting)
Not just a Disney idea. (Score:2, Interesting)
Disney replaced the Mk.IVs with Bombardier built Mk.VIs (The Mk.Vs are at DisneyLand). The new trains are inferior according to the drivers, but the trains had been aquired already. They are, in all fairness, more roomy to the passengers. Disney then sold the old Mk.IVs, still in perfect condition, to the city of Las Vegas.
So, when you are riding on a train between hotels, you are most likely riding the same train you might have riden 10 years ago at Walt Disney World.
Why this is an amazing idea (Score:4, Interesting)
A bunch of posters here have wondered "why build such a thing?" Having just had the misfortune of visiting Vegas, let me say why the city is uniquely suited to benefit from a monorail.
Like no other city, Las Vegas is made up a tremendously high percentage of people who visit just for a the weekend. Tens of thousands of people fly into Vegas every week, all of whom go directly to the casinos, where they sleep in the upstairs hotel rooms. Right now, they essentially have two viable choices: cab or rental car.
Nobody wants to go through the hassle of figuring out a bus system just after flying into town. And walking that mile or so to the casinos, with luggage, in the dessert heat won't work either. A monorail dedicated to connect the airport with the strip is an incredible idea, as much as I may personally detest gambling.
Re:how about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually Disney Is Involved (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wish Seattle new how to start construction. (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly we're a bunch of gawddamned Godless commies compared to the good, honest, business-uber-alles people of Seattle, aren't we?
Re:Seattle is working on this too... (Score:1, Interesting)
I always wonder how exactly this is measured. I live in Seattle and took a trip to San Francisco - that was bad. Jammed up well after 8:30pm, whereas Seattle is fine (not good, but passable) even at 5:30pm. At least from the North to downtown.
Anyway, the monorail has been approved by the voters, approved again by them and now needs to be approved again. This is what is known as the "fucking politics" effect. The monorail should have broken ground quite a while ago if not for moronic councilmen and other politicians. The Stranger [thestranger.com], a non-satire cousin of The Onion has a monorail article every 2 weeks or so and usually it's about how it's getting taken up the ass. Our new mayor is dead set on getting light rail built despite the fact that it ruins foot traffic in a number of poor people's neighborhoods (and unsurprisingly, will be underground through most of the white, middle to upper class neighborhoods). Unfortunately, the other choice for mayor - Mark Sidran - was a stern motherfucker who would have been much worse, overall.
I personally have very little faith the monorail will be built here in Seattle within the next five years. The good news for me is that mass transportation (buses) will start running from Seattle to the northern suburbs (all the way to Everett, I think - I know it makes it to Mukilteo) in under 2 years. Then, assuming I still live in Seattle, I will be able to sell my car. That's a 2500 lb. chain around my neck I'll be happy to ditch.
Why monorails? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, though, I'd be interesting to know why it is that everybody in the States automatically thinks of monorails whenever non-bus public transit is discussed. Could it be that you're all becoming just a little bit too Disnified? I'm surprised there is little mention of the old San Fransisco cablecars. Maybe you'd prefer something along the lines of Alfred Ely Beach's pneumatic subway!
If you make the trip over to Europe, you will see that just about every town or city has some sort of public transit involving surface light rail, usually trams/streetcars. Every one of these systems is efficient and well run. I see no reason why the same cannot be done over here. If it's a question of space, remember that all of these European towns are strapped for any space, and efforts are made to preserve as much green space or living space as possible. Still they install the tramways. They go down the centre of multi-lane boulevards, down disused railways, purpose built elevated track, pedestrian malls, and, because they can be built to accommodate regular tired vehicles--cars, no pun intended--straight down any city streets. In short, a tram can be built to go just about anywhere that efficient public transit is needed. It's also handy that nobody would need to re-invent the wheel, as excellent, KISS technology exists. For those concerned about costs and subsidies, keep in mind that places like Zagreb and Sarajevo, both capitals of war-torn countries, don't exactly have much money to throw around, but rebuilding their own tram lines has been a priority. For the NIMBY types, these systems are quiet and often quite picturesque, especially compared to buses. (Postcards of trams are everywhere! Besides a red London Double Decker, ever see a picture postcard featuring a diesel bus?)
North America was filled with streetcar systems right up to the '50's. Ottawa, for instance, had an excellent streetcar system that ran all over what was then the city. It was even powered by its own hydroelectric power dam on the Ottawa River! Killing it off is now considered one of the stupidest things that City Hall ever did! Toronto still has much of theirs, and has been expanding it in recent years. There are certainly no plans to build any more lines like the crappy Scarborough RT line, a monorail, that hasn't been the best of systems.
Have all the plans and designs for these practical and efficient systems been thrown out in favour of all these amusement park monorail rides? If monorails as public transit are so efficient, so quiet, so inexpensive and so simple, I fail to see why they aren't all over Europe, where space saving and efficiency is all-important.
*****
Why it's hard to put in US cities (Score:3, Interesting)
(1) is because everyone has a car, and their "active range" is much bigger. I was pretty happy going by bike and mass transit in Stockholm. But if my average trip there was 5 km it's perhaps 15km here. I get there equally fast. It seems everyone likes to live 30-60 minutes from their work, that means that Americans in general live much more spread out.
Anyway, regardless of why, the population density difference is a fact. And this is a problem for mass transit since with 1/3 the population density, you'd need 9 times as much mass transit, at 9 times the cost to serve the same population. That's a lot of empty busses and trains.
(2) US cities don't have much of a center, especially the younger ones. LA, Dallas & Phoenix are mostly huge spread out built areas with little distinction. Trips people make tend to be from fairly random points A to equally random points B.
In short, mass transit is hard in these cities because there is little mass movement. All travel is individual. There are no huge streams of movements that a mass transit system could serve really well.
European cities have grown and developed over centuries together with their transportation systems. Those systems serve their needs, and the habits of their population have been formed by the available services.
Older US cities like New York, Boston and Chicago have evolved in a more European way, and do have pretty respectable and well used mass transit systems.
I'm sure you're right about transportation in London. But consider why that is so. And it sure doesn't make me want to move to London!
Re:Mass transit is best for tourists (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably the biggest of mass transit's problems is that there is already so much invested in infrastructure that's optimised for cars, that it's nearly impossible to compete. This even extends to on-going maintenance, as maintenance for the car/truck infrastructure is generally not considered as part of the cost, where in transit it gets included at the time of ticket purchase.
Both sides always have heavy hidden subsidies, and supporters of each side always point out that the other side is subsidized. But the only part of the payment that is counted for the car is the part included in the cost of the gas, where for transit you are reminded each time you ride.
Add to this that mass transit inherently takes longer. With a car, you can assume that it is immediately available at need, and that you will go to your destination directly via the most direct route. With transit you must get to the stop before the scheduled time. Wait. Get on. Pay. Travel an indirect route (which translates into more time delay). Walk from the destination stop to the true destination.
This assumes that the car will be able to park. But even counting that, the car is almost guaranteed to be faster. Also, during the trip the driver has his attention engaged, so is less likely to be bored. And doesn't need to associate with strangers of unknown disposition.
It's not really surprising that people prefer cars. At all. But the social costs of cars are much higher than those of mass transit. And the energy efficiency is much lower. So people keep trying to come up with some way that will work. Areas that have strong transportation corridors have more success than those that don't, for the reasons that you indicated. Thus in San Francisco, the Bay, and the congestion that the bridges causes during the commute have combined to make BART (and before that AC Transit and the Key System) reasonably successful. But the real thing that makes it successful is that San Francisco has essentially no parking. There are literally more cars in San Francisco than there are parking spaces. And that's at night.
And even with those advantages, BART has troubles. The basic problem is that which one should expect from a monopoly: It's relatively unresponsive to the patrons. Escalators are frequently down for months while being repaired, e.g. It's not that the people don't try to do their job. It's just that when they evaluate the relative costs and rewards for any particular action, the costs of upsetting patrons are considered less important than something else (e.g., finishing that report that the head office wants to send to the federal government). In their position, it's a quite reasonable assessment. But it does lead to patrons that are
E.g.: AC Transit looses money when it runs busses late at night, as there are few patrons. So it cuts late service. This means that people who need to depend on transportation in the late hours find some other way to travel. Usually this means that they get a car, pay insurance, etc. Now that all of these costs are sunk, they frequently decide that they don't need AC during the day either. So these riders are lost. But this doesn't happen immediately. Now the next time a bond for transit vote comes up, will these peopel vote for it? Not likely! They will likely be quite angry. So the budget shrinks. And shrinks more, since the local funds can no longer be used to meet "matching funds" programs from the feds. So the service gets worse. To improve things, they reorganize the routes. This means that for some people, lines that had been marginally acceptable are now unacceptable. So they switch away.
Do people ever switch back? Well, if their car is in the shop, they may try the bus. But it is (as mentioned above) almost guaranteed to be more inconvenient than their car. So they don't stay.
Who uses transit? People who don't have cars, for one reason or another (I don't drive). People who can't afford to own a car. People who are headed for an area where you really can't park. Any others? Probably, as this is just off the top of my head. Some commuters find transit as convenient as sitting parked on the freeway. It depends on where they live, where the transit lines are, and where they are headed. (But these are people who can easily be lost if transit lines shift -- as they do.)
I don't see a general answer. But in the special case of Los Vegas