BIKE: Mass Transit: we want it, hence argue about it.

[Patrick Goetz]

And it's a good thing (both transit and the active discussion of transit
options).


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Michael Bluejay wrote:
> As for monorail, I don't
> think there have been any new monorail projects installed like the kind
> that monorail proponents here have been proposing.  But if you really
> think you have something new to offer that doesn't just pick up where
> the last rehashing left off, then have at it.
>


Lyndon is correct, a lot of new information has emerged, but most likely
the opposite of what he has in mind.  In particular, new projects have
been installed, as documented partially below.  A complete list of
monorails (new and old) can be found here:

   http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Where.html



On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Nawdry wrote:
>
> My take on the TxDOT rep's faintly pro-monorail comments is, first, it's
> probably extremely off-the-cuff and not based on any data, either on
> monorail costs and feasible, or on actual surveys of Austin public
> opinion (particularly INFORMED public opinion).
>

First of all, to the best of my knowledge there has never been an actual
survey of Austin public opinion, as Capital Metro refuses to do such a
survey.  We (Austin Monorail Project: austinmonorail.org) would love for
them to do such a survey and have been trying to figure out how to MAKE
them do it.  We regularly do presentations in public forums (neighborhood
groups, business associations, rotary clubs, etc.) and our *enthusiastic*
approval rating hovers at around 95% of the audience.  At the very pit of
his heart, Lyndon knows that the general public would be extremely
enthusiastic about monorail.  I know this because he and I attended the
same Rapid Transit Project meetings; I heard what people were saying, and
he did, too.

Second, if the quality of the data is anything like what we've seen so
far, looking at actual data would actually distort the decision making
process.  Case in point:  LRT supporters love to tell us that the Las
Vegas Monorail cost $150 million per mile to build.  Even a cursory
examiniation of the actual facts reveals that this is just a technicality
short of a blatant lie.  The actual costs are $87 million per mile, and
people who actual build rail systems claim that without the Vegas-specific
frills, the cost should have been no more than $50 million per mile.  For
the details, see http://austinmonorail.org/monorail_costs.htm


> Second, pro-highway, anti-transit partisans seem to have a pattern of
> trying to nudge planning in the direction of totally grade-separated
> alternatives to surface transit options, particularly LRT (light rail)
> ...[in order to kill off mass transit due to cost and prevent space
>     from being taken away from motor vehicles] ...


Of course if such options are actually wildly popular, then they would be
shooting themselves in the foot, since a lot of public money would begin
to go towards constructing such systems rather than more highways.

If a public survey revealed broad support for monorail, as I'm reasonably
sure it would, what would Lyndon say then?  All AMP is saying is "let's
find out if monorail has public support, and if it does, let's do it".
Contrast this with the subterfuge, marginalization of public opinion, and
waffling of Capital Metro.


>
> Monorail as a transit technology certainly has as yet exhibited neither
> "flexibility" nor "universal applicability".  Virtually every monorail
> in operation has the character of a relatively lower-capacity,
> shuttle-type peoplemover


*yawn*

Lyndon needs to get out more.  Particularly in Asian, monorail systems are
going up all over the place, and the Moscow monorail is looking pretty
sharp, too (http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/CnstMosc3.html). Moscow is
already contemplating another monorail system before their first 13km
system has even been completed, a pattern we see repeated everywhere.
Malaysia decided to set up factories to build their own trains, indicating
a long term interest in deploying the technology
(http://www.monorail.com.my/) and Las Vegas is already enthusiastically
talking about extending the monorail which opens next month to all parts
of the city, particularly to downtown and to the airport
(http://www.lvmonorail.com/).  Even if you don't believe the corrected
cost numbers on the AMP page, a thinking person would have to ask
him/herself "gee, if the LVM was such a boondoggle, why is LV so excited
about extending the system by at least a factor of 4?"  Never mind that
the LVM is intended to be *profitable* in 5 years, with a business plan
which passed federal scrutiny.



> The gradual deterioration of the Seattle project is a case in point.


Comments like this indicate a clear psychopathology, one which is not
helpful in improving mass transit in Austin.  Seattle is having problems
making the numbers work out, in part because the revenues aren't as high
as anticipated, largely because Seattle's own road warriors have figured
out how to get around paying the luxury motor vehicle tax which is the
proposed system's primary source of construction revenue.

Anyone who has ever been to Seattle, with its narrow streets and copious
bodies of water everywhere, recognizes the difficulty of building any kind
of a rail transit system there.  Sound Transit, Seattle's voter approved
LRT system is estimated to cost $178 million dollars per mile.  And of
course now that a precise route must be established, there are the usual
fights about what the precise route should be.  LRT would have exactly the
same problems.

Calling this a detoriaration is an indication of the Schadenfreude of
extreme LRT enthusiasts towards any transit system which is not an
at-grade train running on 2 steel rails (i.e. something which looks like
the Lionel train sets they enjoyed playing with as children and which
appear to have had a bit too much influence on their thinking).  I think
this is weird, but this and the reasons why I think this is weird have
already been extensively documented in the archives of this forum.