|
Post by nickv on Jul 17, 2007 22:32:32 GMT -8
Okay, a monorail idea along Wilshire is one thing, but I think the Wilshire Monorail Proponents are really pressing it with these ideas. These are ideas on their Web site for the Wilshire Corridor. Are these crazy ideas, or are the promoters really proposing these on the corridor??? Wilshire Monorail Auto TrainJust about how long will the station stops be to load and unload all those cars? Wilshire Monorail Medic TrainWhoa! A medic unit on rails? That means place an ER station stop at the hospital, and... Okay, as far as EMS 911 calls, somebody please explain how the rest of this system is going to work. Wilshire Monorail Fire Engine TrainHow much extra to install fire hydrants and water piping on the elevated structure? Which fire station should house this ladder train? Wilshire Monorail Police Station TrainFor the public's safety and quick response time, please keep this train off the main transit corridor, especially if it's behind the Auto Train. Dispatch the helicopter if there's a crisis. Wilshire Monorail Restaurant TrainWell, this one's not 100% crazy. Snack machines near the major stations I think would work better. Save the cafe cars for longer regional trains. Save the full service dining cars for long distance Amtrak and CA HSR. If anybody can explain how the promoters are going to propose these ideas to officials, please post.
|
|
|
Post by faithbasedtransit on Dec 29, 2007 15:01:07 GMT -8
While I personally agree that a Wilshire Monorail is a good idea on the whole, I think the promoters do their cause considerable damage with their 'fantasy' suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Dec 29, 2007 17:41:44 GMT -8
I agree, Kim. Inasmuch a monorail, as with light rail and heavy rail and commuter rail and buses, bicycles, unicycles and even cars have their ups and downs, we must focus on where and when to place a particular type of technology.
Transportation, like every complicated issue, is NEVER a one-size-fits-all thing.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 21, 2008 16:26:33 GMT -8
Not sure if the Fox 11 will show the same thing but currently Fox 5 New York is airing a Simpsons rerun where a used car salesman sells a monorail system to Springfield and Homer becomes the conductor. The monorail ends up being a colossal failure. Even the Simpsons know that monorails as realistic mass transit solutions are a load of crap. I'm not saying it wouldn't work in certain places as a peoplemover or circulator (Century City perhaps) but simply its not proven enough
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jan 21, 2008 18:41:50 GMT -8
Aside from the authority of the Simpsons, will someone please tell us why Monorail will not work down Wilshire ? Facts not opinions.
I agree it may not be ideal, but lets us face the fact the State and City are broke and have crapped away billion upon billions of dollars of property tax windfall. We are facing massive deficits, and will soon have to confront the unfunded burden of government employee retirement and healthcare costs.
No matter how much we may want a subway down Wilshire, there is no way we can afford the billions it will cost, plus the billions in cost overruns. Smiling politicians who run around repeating "Subway to the Sea" are taking us all for a ride and are only interested in getting re-elected.
Face it, a lousy Monorail down Wilshire is better than nothing, because nothing is what you are going to get if you keep holding out for a $20 billion dollar subway.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 21, 2008 20:18:44 GMT -8
Wilshire Monorail Promoters make statements presupposing that an elaborate monorail system running down Wilshire Boulevard can be brought on-line in a shorter time frame at less cost. The Wilshire Monorail Analysis supports improved transportation options along the Wilshire Boulevard corridor. The organization is not anti-monorail as a technology solution, but is concerned about proposing a solution using a specific technology and then attempting to juggle the facts to fit those requirements. Here are some facts from various sources: Monorail pros:+Monorail cars are quieter than HRT and LRT and can be controlled by computer because the system is separated from traffic. LRT with at-grade crossings must have drivers. +Monorails do not interfere with traffic because they are elevated. +Initial construction costs are less expensive than a subway. +They require minimal ROW space, both horizontally and vertically. +Monorails wrap around the track; thus derailment is difficult. +Monorails can climb steeper grades. Cons:-Not compatible with the existing Metro Rail network. Therefore, the system would not be able to use the existing subway corridor through Downtown LA to LAUS nor the proposed LRT Downtown Connector. -Monorails must be grade-separated, and can only run elevated if initial construction costs are to remain low. The elevated rail, emergency walkways, and elevated stations can obstruct views along Wilshire Bl; therefore generating much local opposition and NIMBY-ism along the corridor. -Many cross-track switches would be needed to maintain frequent service along Wilshire in the event of a train break-down or other track-related work. All of the Metro Rail lines have a number of cross-track switches along their corridors. These switches are much more complicated than conventional rail and would greatly obstruct views; therefore generating much local opposition and NIMBY-ism along the corridor. -Seating/standing capacity is much lower than LRT and HRT.
|
|
|
Post by nickv on Jan 21, 2008 20:33:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 22, 2008 1:02:06 GMT -8
Kingsfan, the idea here is to build the most efficient, safe, and beneficial rail lines possible. Do rail lines cost money? Yes. Do well built rail lines cost billions of dollars? Yes. Will a Wilshire Monorail cost billions of dollars? Yes.
The problem with our system as it stands other than the obvious fact that its unfinished is that we we have been going for mileage quantity over overall quality of our rail lines, and for the most part that means grade separations forgone for lower cost. We build light rail because its inexepensive compared to heavy rail but lose capacity. We can spend a billion dollars to add one lane in one direction on the 405 but we can't grade separate Vermont, Western, and Crenshaw on Expo? As it is Blue Line ridership cannot grow over 90K or 100K with three car trains and we can't increase headways more than they'll be once Expo opens. I have an idea for four car trains with Blue and Expo but thats for a later post. We build BRT because it looks like we're saving money and end up with overcrowded buses. I'm thinking with rail and higher platform costs it could have only been like 150-200 mil more to make the Orange Line an LRT.
Wilshire and Vermont are two corridors that need the highest capacity system we have and that is the Red Line, which for good reason runs along both of those streets, but not long enough on either to be truly effective. You have to build rail right the first time because you don't get to do it again. Elevated structures in California these days cost 300 million per mile which is on par with tunnelling costs. Especially with California's siesmic codes, they need to be especially reinforced whereas a below ground tunnel doesn't have to deal with that as much, ironically enough. Could you back me up on this one Damien, you have all the numbers? So is it really any less expensive to install a system that is incompatible with what we currently have, will be a major eyesore on that particular street, forces a transfer midway through the ride (so much for choice riders there but of course we can just subject our transit dependent citizens to whatever), and uses technology unproven that it is to provide a below ground, out of sight, extension of our most effective high capacity technology.
Also, being a cynic of the government does nothing to advance our cause of getting Los Angeles the rail system it deserves. I can understand how somebody would expect this to be a colossal boondoggle that will never get built and serve only the politicos. Despite the fact that our current Red Line had major problems, it also provides an effective alternative to transit for 140,000 people and growing. A couple of things to remember though. First, tunnelling technology has improved significantly just in the last 10 years such that the surface disruption is going to be a lot less than that of the Hollywood Red Line. Second, Tutor Saliba has nothing to do with this project. The Red Line was only one of many contracts that they managed to screw over. DMJM Harris has proved itself a worthy builder of the East Side Gold Line (tell me how disruptive that tunnel was. It's the above ground portions that are bothering business owners) and co-builder of the PGL. Also Roger Snoble has changed the 80's and 90's culture of Metro for the better (though it still has the build on the cheap mentality but that is more a product of the Board than the MTA itself). Thirdly, we shouldn't fault our politicians for having vision and assume they are out to screw us or serve themselves. Everyone in SoCal, pols included is against something. Mayor Villaraigosa is actually for something. He wants a subway down Wilshire because he knows its what our city needs to not choke on our own gridlock (that's going to happen anyway but we might as well have an alternative). He knows that the riders who pack like sardines everyday on the 720 deserve a better commute. He knows that the other global cities laugh at us because jump into our steel box, drive 50 miles, get out of our steel box, and think that the world revolves around us and our steel box. Theres a portion of the city who shuns that concept but they use their steel box out of percieved necessity because transit doesn't go where they do.
Let's look at Los Angeles Mayors of the last 30 years. Tom Bradley: Proposed the Red Line and managed to get lots of federal funds out of an intensely anti-transit Reagan administration, Dick Riordan: Consent decree...enough said, Jim Hahn: Did he do anything other than oppose the Orange Line and vote for LRT because like 5 rabbis didn't like how close it came to their two synagogues?, Villaraigosa: While he hasn't produced any tangible effects yet, he got the ball rolling at the MTA. Three or years ago, there was doubt that it would even get built in my lifetime and I'm 18. In 2004, LaBonge and Villaraigosa at least brought the idea back to the table and maybe we might get three miles to Fairfax before 2020. Now we might actually see it built to Westwood or SM before 2020. There was a permanent federal ban for taking that straight shot down Wilshire and now its gone. Can you honestly tell me that Waxman would have just decided one day in 2005 "Hey, maybe I should repeal my methane ban".
The Purple Line has the opportunity to connect our most important commercial and pedestrian centers and redefine the way we look at living in the city. On their own, Santa Monica, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Miracle Mile, Wilshire Center, and Downtown are walkable vibrant areas. Century City is the cause of probably 75% of the Westside traffic problem. The problem is that there is no effective way to get between these places and thus the idea that you need a car is reinforced. People go between these places everyday (I invite you to all ride the 720 in either direction at nearly any time of day. I did it for a year. I've even seen crowded Eastbound buses at like 10:30 PM) and even more would if they saw it as an alternative. We are talking hundreds of thousands of people here, perhaps millions as LA gets more dense and our rail network expands in other places. Monorail isn't going to cut it. Steel on Steel third rail has been proven for over 100 years. Villaraigosa, like Bradley was, wont even be in office when this is complete. Both of those mayors put the interests of the city over themselves because they know we are the city of the 21st century and we deserve a high quality mass transit system.
Ok that was my rant and not totally against Kingsfan, I just decided to address his points while rallying the troops for the Subway to the Sea or whatever you want to call it. (though going into the Valley after Westwood seems insanely smarter to me but at least to Westwood). Feel free to critique
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 22, 2008 1:25:48 GMT -8
I almost forgot. Monorail can't jog down to Century City and still continue to Westwood in a line without taking a Venice-Sepulveda like diversion to Westwood Blvd because you can build a subway under homes but you can't build a monorail over them
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jan 22, 2008 14:19:25 GMT -8
um.... Antonio, is the "return" key on your computer broken? just asking... @_@
anyways, the negatives far outweigh the positives when it comes to building monorail systems.
the Las Vegas experience should serve as a warning. the price of a ride is way too high, the novelty factor wears thin quickly, low capacity is definately an issue and private investment is no guarentee of success. indeed, the Las Vegas Monorail seems to be a money hole. and Seattle abandoned plans to expand its monorail and is building a traditional light rail line instead....
and I hate the idea of a sole-source developer. L.A.'s light rail fleet includes vehicles built by several different manufacturers.
a monorail may be cheaper at first, but it'll cost a lot more in lost ridership and NIMBY battles.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 22, 2008 17:55:21 GMT -8
Lol yah it was a rant. Just as if I were speaking in a heated fashion, I wouldn't stop for formalities. I would just keep going and going and going...like the engergizer bunny
Yup, it looks like the return key is working again ;D
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jan 22, 2008 23:22:02 GMT -8
Good...the return key makes it easier for us to read the rant, which was pretty well-worded.
|
|