BIKE: Re: Rail Issues (3)

[Nawdry]

At 10/28/2004 08:47 , Patrick Goetz <pgoetz> wrote:

>As for Lyndon's other assertions, I don't have the time or energy to
>respond to every point.  I don't recall ever championing Bombardier, nor
>being a fan of automated systems, and the jury is still out on the LVM.


[But Patrick WAS singing the praises of automation, as in, e.g.:]

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:16:35 -0500
From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
Cc: mhollon
Subject: my position on rapid transit

A surface rail system will always require drivers due to inter modal
conflict.  A monorail system, on the other hand, can be fully automated,
allowing one to run trains without incurring the expense of a driver.  A
single set of operators can manage an entire network of trains from a
central location, helping to reduce labor costs and removing this as a
factor in determining what frequency of service and what service hours
can be afforded the customers.  Consequently, we can have extended
service hours and frequency of service before a strong demand for these
services exists, allowing the existence of the service to stimulate the
demand.

[What I also said was:]

 >>that Patrick's credibility should be judged by the similarly magnificent 
orations he
was delivering until the last few months on behalf of the virtues of Bombardier
monorail technology, the supposedly indisputable advantages of driverless,
automated operation, and the miraculous operational and financial performance
we were to expect from the Las Vegas Monorail.<<

[It's important to keep in mind that the Las Vegas system has been totally 
developed on the basis of Bombardier's (now evidently flaky) monorail 
technology. Here are some examples of what Patrick has said in extolling 
this technology, integral with the Las Vegas system ...]


Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:00:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
cc: austin-bikes
Subject: monorail lost, light rail won - again and again

Obviously you didn't attend the Saturday RTP session where different
technologies were to be considered.  What a complete farce.  Instead of
getting reputable vendors such as Hitachi and Bombardier, Capital Metro
assembled a room full of crackpots.



Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:02:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
Subject: Re: BIKE:  Monorails, bike access, impacts

 > For the Las Vegas Resort Corridor Monorail extension
 > project ~ appropriately built to handle heavy urban volumes
 > of passengers efficiently ~ most of the monorail stations are
 > massive elevated structures with a mezzanine level to
 > enable passenger access to either monorail directional
 >
 > * Property acquisition - Total of 28 property takings, totalling
 > 4.9 acres.  Of these, 22 would be commercial property
 > takings and 2 industrial.
 >
 > * Impacts on adjacent businesses - Dozens of businesses
 > along the 3 miles of route would be impacted (31 are

Which explains why the LVM is so expensive.  And yet, they're STILL going
to be able to make money on the system, or at least have it pay for
itself!  Amazing.



Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:10:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
Subject: BIKE: Mass Transit: we want it, hence argue about it.
In-reply-to: <CB700567-6815-11D8-A8A6-00039312C130>
To: forum

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

...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.



Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:38:35 -0500
From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
Subject: BIKE: Monorail opens in Vegas

The bottom line is that the short, circuitous, many-stopped Las Vegas 
monorail is still 15-20% faster than the any LRT system in the country, on 
average.  That's pathetic.

Of course no one in Vegas is very excited about monorail ... NOT.  Here is 
a quote from the Governor of Nevada 
(http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040714/law041_1.html):
"This is an extremely important day in the history of our state and of Las 
Vegas, as nine major properties in the Las Vegas resort corridor will now 
be linked to the Las Vegas Convention Center through this state-of-the-art 
public transportation system," said Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn. "In addition 
to providing a vital public transportation link, the Las Vegas Monorail 
will help ease traffic around the Las Vegas Strip and help improve the 
city's air quality. The myriad of benefits offered by this unique mode of 
transportation will only add to Las Vegas' reputation as one of our 
nation's great cities."

Plans are already underway to expand the monorail both to downtown and the 
airport, with other parts of the city clamoring for their own set of dual 
beam guideways.  Vegas is in the grips of monorail fever.

Further, let's recap some facts:

o The LVM was built entirely with private money (no public funds were 
encumbered) and is run by a Transit Systems Management, a private 
company.  They expect the system to be PROFITABLE in 5 years, with bonds 
paid back in full in 40 years.  And when I say that no public funds are 
encumbered, this is exactly what I mean.  The entire project is covered by 
an insurance policy that guarantees that the loans will be repayed in the 
event that the LVM becomes insolvent, hence there is no risk to the public.


[Word to the wise: Evidently, you get what you pay for.  LVMC went for an 
untested, scaled-down system, and it would appear Bombardier lowballed the 
price and cut corners on quality, all while monorail proponents cheered the 
supposedly "low cost" and "profitability" of this system at well over $100 
million per mile.  Now the chickens have started coming home to roost. LH]