Jump to content

Monorail...Monorail.....MONORAIL!


MadVlad

Recommended Posts

Yeah, they did a real good job of specifying points of interest that could spark debate/support from all the states.

Check out this new concept for elevated rail, this company is proposing to build lines in metro Detroit at no cost to the city(s) it runs through. The best things are that it is MagLev and can go 250mph and the charge for using it will be $.05 per minute (vehicles would carry everything from passengers to freight and act as a car ferry)! Interstate Traveler Company (I know, the website may not look impressive, but apparently they have already secured funding.)

I had posted a thread about Maglevs a while back, not sure if it was on this board or another board, and I got ripped into pretty hard about it. they sound like a great idea to me but everyone just seemed to say they didn't support the cost it takes to create them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This particular system costs about $10 million per mile, less than most light rail systems I've seen. And the project in Detroit won't cost any of the municipalities a dime, I'm not sure if they plan on doing that everywhere or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This particular system costs about $10 million per mile, less than most light rail systems I've seen. And the project in Detroit won't cost any of the municipalities a dime, I'm not sure if they plan on doing that everywhere or not.

I have not been able to find any information on the project of which you speak. Could you please post a link to a related article? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea seems like a great one, though I agree the website looks a bit amateurish. I suppose they're offering to do this for no money because if it is as revolutionary as they claim, other cities with monster public transportation problems would be next, like LA, Miami, anywhere in Texas, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Monorail in Connecticut is NEVER going to happen....ever. Especially since an extention of the Metro North line from New Haven being one of the components of the proposal that Amann is pushing. Not to mention that I personally think it would look cheesy to have something that Disney World carries little kids to see Mickey Mouse and Goofy. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the loop configuration seems limiting for several reasons.

1. It doesn't cover much area. I could probably get to the opposite side of the downtown loop on foot faster than if I took the monorail.

2. It portrays Hartford as a theme park trying to impress visitors (the people that we hope will come). As for locals, I think it would be more of a novelty than a practical means of transportation.

3. The loop appears to succumb to the "wall" that cuts Asylum Hill off from downtown, therefore emphasizing its effect.

I would prefer a more linear route that represents a larger cross section of the city. Downtown Hartford is not a theme park in the middle of the desert. It is the core of a city with connectivity issues that I hope the monorail discussion will address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Personal Rapid Transit would be great to consider as an alternative to monorail. It would be cheaper to build and provide quicker, more efficient service to it's passengers.

It's been researched for years and is a mature concept. Several companies are in the late prototyping stages for their products.

There was a PRT proposal in Providence a while back. Happily it didn't get built, it was a silly waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a PRT proposal in Providence a while back. Happily it didn't get built, it was a silly waste of money.
Why do you consider it a silly waste of money?

This is a map of the proposed system for Providence, I believe.

PRT would be cheaper to build than monorail, on the order of $15million/mile or less. Monorail is easily 10 times that. Being cheaper, it could be built out much more to cover more area. It would provide non-stop, no-transfer service to any station in the system at any time of day with on-demand service (minimal waiting).

The lightweight guideways and small stations would have a much smaller impact on the existing urban environment. It could be more easily routed to avoid historic or scenic areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you consider it a silly waste of money?

This is a map of the proposed system for Providence, I believe.

Yes, that's the one.

PRT would be cheaper to build than monorail, on the order of $15million/mile or less. Monorail is easily 10 times that. Being cheaper, it could be built out much more to cover more area. It would provide non-stop, no-transfer service to any station in the system at any time of day with on-demand service (minimal waiting).

Monorail would be even more silly and even more a waste of money. The area that system covers is maybe 2 square miles. It's easily walkable, I walk across it several times a day. The area would be better and easier and less costly served by looping our regional buses tightly around the core (which is an idea that is gaining momentum) and allowing people to use the buses locally (perhaps even with with a fareless square like Portland, OR) to move about the Downcity core.

The extreme north and south points (the State House in the north and RI Hospital in the south) are not easily walkable now (though I would walk it without complaint, but I'm a little odd), but there is not a pressing need for people to traverse that distance with any regularity, certainly not with a regularity that would justify the cost of a PRT system. Proposed light rail corridors from the Bay front to the Valley area west of the State House would fill that gap.

The lightweight guideways and small stations would have a much smaller impact on the existing urban environment. It could be more easily routed to avoid historic or scenic areas.

There is nowhere in the service area covered by that map that would not have an impact on historic or scenic areas of our downtown considering that the entire downtown is listed as a whole on the National Register. In fact the routing of those lines would put elevated transitways over our most scenic area, the riverfront. Which we just spent hundreds of millions of dollars recovering from elevated rail structures.

It would also be foolhardy to spend any amount of money on any sort of fixed transitways that only served Downcity and did not facilitate transit to the East Side, Federal Hill, Armory and other areas of the city. We'd have a NIMBY storm just trying to put up wires for an electric bus or trolley line, a PRT guideway could not be slender enough to satisfy detractors here, including myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The area that system covers is maybe 2 square miles.

...

In fact the routing of those lines would put elevated transitways over our most scenic area, the riverfront.

After looking at it more, I see the problems you're talking about. I agree that that proposal for the system is too small and poorly laid out to be beneficial.

I would think a larger PRT with somewhere around 30 square miles of coverage would provide a great benefit to the area. Having one or two guideway sections through the historic downtown area should be enough to provide coverage to within a quarter mile of nearly everywhere, and should blend in more easily than the above map suggests.

It might even be possible to have no PRT guideways through that area if stations along the periphery would provide close enough service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just use normal mass transit and actually INTERACT with people. Or, as Cotuit said, just walk?

...

Unless PRT is some dramatic cost-saving technique, I say no way.

PRT is expected to cost around $15million/mile or less. (source) Compare this to Monorail ($140million/mile) or light rail ($46million/mile) (source).

"Normal" mass transit, by which I guess you mean "existing" mass transit, has proven to be inefficient. During busing times, many stops are made to deliver each passenger to their destination or to pick up additional passengers. This causes each passenger's trip to be longer. During slow times like late at night, headways (time between vehicles) are longer, so the passengers have to wait longer for the transit vehicle to arrive. And since the vehicles are mostly empty late at night, they are inefficient in terms of energy usage (energy used per passenger mile). Also, unless the passenger's origin and destination are along the same transit route, they would have to transfer between vehicles or transit modes, causing even more time to be expended.

PRT, with it's lightweight vehicles and non-stop travel, would be more energy efficient than the large vehicles of other transit modes. (source)

PRT is based around the fact that during peak transit times, the average occupancy of automobiles is 1.1 passengers. Likewise for public transit, usually people aren't travelling in groups from home to work. (How many people work in your office that live within one-half mile of your residence?) Based on these statistics, it makes sense to provide the most efficient transit for individuals or small groups, to move them from their origin to their destination quickly. Non-stop, direct origin-to-destination transit is the result. By not having to stop for other passengers or traffic, and not having to transfer to other transit routes, the goal is accomplished.

See the last page of this paper for the discussion of transit mode efficient by vehicle type, which compares walking, driving an automobile, and using PRT. PRT isn't the best solution for every situation, but in many cases, it could be very beneficial.

BTW, how many other people do you talk with when you ride public transportation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who owns each "pod?" And wouldn't you still have to walk somewhere to get to where the pod picks you up? I'm not getting this at all, it seems very impractical.

And by the way, I always end up talking to people on the bus. Last year on one bus that I always rode, a group of people would play cards everyday in the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer back to this new mass transit concept: Interstate Traveler Company

This system is for both inter-urban and interstate travel at 250mph+ and is estimated to cost about $10 million per mile because of factory made "snap together" parts. It is MagLev and, due to solar panels, instead of using energy, it will make a surplus of energy most of the time, and later models will be able to create hydrogen from runoff water from roads. This will also carry all sorts of stuff in a secure "armor plated" spine, from water to gas to electricity and fiber optic. The first proposed line will be in Detroit. This is a far superior mass transit form than anything else, even if it only works half as good as they claim and costs twice as much.

Check out this animation of how it works (Windows Media): Ride The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who owns each "pod?" And wouldn't you still have to walk somewhere to get to where the pod picks you up?
Most PRT systems, including the vehicles, would be owned by city or regional transportation authorities, just like buses and trains.

Most PRT designs call for stations to be located about even one-half mile. The maximum a person would have to walk would be one-quarter mile, but the average distance (statistically) would be one-eighth mile. Stations would probably be located near popular locations or notable landmarks. It wouldn't be as convenient as going to the garage and getting in your car, but you wouldn't have to find or pay for parking once you got to your destination, and you wouldn't have to be sober to drive home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think it would look cheesy to have something that Disney World carries little kids to see Mickey Mouse and Goofy. :unsure:

Show me LRT that looks less "cheesy" than Disney's monorails. They have proven themselves as legitmate people movers, at least the Japanese think so. Tokyo-Haneda, and Chiba monorails (probably the most well-known) are far from cheesy.

wy not have something like San Francisco's BART?

Yes, BART, $100,000,000 in debt....and has only turned a profit immediately following Loma Prieta....

PRT= stupid stupid stupid stupid. Why not just use normal mass transit and actually INTERACT with people. Or, as Cotuit said, just walk? Are we that fat and anti-social?

I don't know if I'd call it stupid. What's normal? Buses? Light Rails? I suppose. Buses around here are awfully bumpy, uncomfortable, and inconvenient. Light rail? Just my $.02, but the VTA light rail here in Santa Clara County sucks, now there was a waste of money.

Who owns each "pod?" And wouldn't you still have to walk somewhere to get to where the pod picks you up? I'm not getting this at all, it seems very impractical.

Strategic locations for connections with other forms of transit. It's certainly not practical for everywhere, but it has its uses. Monorail on the other hand is a lot more practical that light rail in many instances for many reasons. That's what this was all about originally, right? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, I'm not sold on the issue, I'd need to see it in action I guess to be able to better evaluate it. If it ends up being some sort of amazing cost-saving technique to effectively deliver mass transit to our cities, then I'll probably be all for it. It just seems to me (and this may not be true) like its popularity would be based upon people hating other people. Just my opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Monorails are the way to go. They are virtually silent, effective, and real sleek. When I went to Seattle a few years ago, I was impressed with their monorail. I don't think they look cartoonish at all, I actually think they look a little futuristic. The layout the Courant had doesn't go far enough, the monorail needs to go more east/west, and less circular...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The layout the Courant had doesn't go far enough, the monorail needs to go more east/west, and less circular...

MadVlad,

Soon after the Monorail concept appeared in the Courant I felt I needed to respond in some way. I have the same concerns you do.

I decided to resurrect (and tweak) an idea that I have worked on a few years back. The idea that I hope to present soon is at www.peopleofgoodwill.com/transit/hart.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually love this idea,but would the current residential make a HUGE problem? The only way I can think of making it happen without tearing up the neigborhood is to make it a subway, but then again I don't think they'd want to noise from a subway. The only way I see it working is if you had it run directly under the current road system. Then as soon as you reached Hartford going East....make it go above ground for the rest of the way. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.