BIKE: Re: Rail Issues (2)

[Nawdry]

At 10/27/2004 21:21 , Michael Bluejay <bikes> wrote:

>It would be nice if you afforded the same generosity to the *brand-new*
>LV monorail, but no, they have some problems during startup and you
>can't resist ranting and raving about how it "proves" that monorail is
>just stupid, unworkable technology.  But when light rail runs into any
>problems you fall all over yourself to offer excuses and come to its
>defense by dismissing the "occasional glitches" and the need for
>"tweaks".

Michael,

I have never asserted that monorail is "stupid, unworkable technology", and 
it is extremely irritating to have words and viewpoints repeatedly 
fabricated for me.

What I have said is that the Las Vegas monorail is pretty clearly not the 
public transit miracle that has been portrayed by many fanatical 
supporters, particularly in their relentless campaign to attack light rail, 
regional "commuter" rail, and virtually all other standard railway modal 
applications, and to obsessively advance monorail technology as a sort of 
magic-bullet solution to every conceivable possibility for urban rail 
transit.

Furthermore, I have repeatedly acknowledged that light rail and virtually 
ALL new transit installations will tend to have startup glitches of varying 
levels of severity.  Here's what I pointed out in my posting of Sun, 05 Sep 
2004:

 >>Other rail systems have had startup problems, but none of them have been 
shut down for such a prolonged period because of the malfunction of a 
single vehicle. Certainly, all operators want to get at the root of any 
problem.  What I infer from the Vegas situation is that the system somehow 
cannot operate with the prospect of this type of malfunction 
recurring.  The only comparable situation which comes to mind is the 
grounding of aircraft because of a mechanical problem discovered in a 
single aircraft.  But for an urban transit system to be forced into total 
shutdown because of a single vehicle's malfunction suggests a basic 
weakness of this relatively complex technology (and of a design by which 
major vehicle parts can fall straight onto whatever is on the ground below).<<

Here's what I wrote in my posting of Mon, 06 Sep 2004:

 >>I agree that having a  "bug" in the early weeks of startup is itself not 
a good reason for strong criticism.  Most new rail operations have had 
their glitches - e.g., Houston and the recently opened Minneapolis Hiawatha 
LRT system have had brief shutdowns because of power distribution outages.

What I find striking about the current Vegas monorail situation is that a 
relatively small guidewheel problem on one vehicle would force the shutdown 
of the entire system over a period of a number of days.  This suggests to 
me several things:

(1) Complex, automated systems certainly do work, but they are 
"catastrophically" vulnerable to relatively small failures almost anywhere 
in the system.  High technology implies high maintenance.  (I use 
"catastrophic" in a technician's sense - it brought down the entire system.)

(2) This in turn implies high technical maintenance costs, another point 
I've made.  Remember a couple of years ago, when we were all being assured 
by Patrick et al. that automated monorail operation would dramatically 
lower operating costs, so much so that they would all make a profit?  The 
current incident I think drives home one of the reasons why this just 
doesn't happen.  In fact, this shutdown, plus the spate of ongoing problems 
prior to it (especially operational delays in part because real-world 
passengers, in real-world experience, were holding doors open for others in 
their party), is probably eating away Bombardier's lunch.  I note, in this 
regard, that Bombardier pulled out of the bidding for the Seattle monorail 
project partly because they couldn't raise the surety bond required.  I 
don't know if the Vegas experience will bankrupt Bombardier, but I would 
imagine that it has got their monorail division on quite a hot seat.  And I 
also note that Patrick, who a year or so ago was singing the praises of the 
Bombardier technology, is now dissing them and suggesting they "should get 
out of the monorail business".  Tch, tch.

(3) The Vegas monorail guidewheel problem is probably extra-serious because 
Bombardier & Co. have made no provision for a drip pan below the support 
beam to catch any debris, drippings, etc. - as I have been arguing it 
should for some time, to the ridicule of Patrick.  As it stands, anything 
which falls off has a straight drop to whatever is on the surface below.

Automated transit operation does have its benefits.  But, like anything of 
human creation, it's not a miracle.  That's one of the main points I'm making.

No, the Vegas monorail should not be fatally judged by this one experience 
so soon after its launch.  But, as I said, this experience does seem to 
point to drawbacks of the technology (i.e., it's not the silver bullet for 
urban mobility that monorail promoters have portrayed) and it does seem to 
corroborate several points I've been making, as indicated above.

I will also note that LRT is not immune from total shutdowns.  Portland's 
MAX system was shut down for about a day last winter, due to an 
unprecedented ice storm, and Houston's LRT operation has been shut down for 
a day by flooded streets and its operation truncated several times because 
of partygoers in the streets downtown.  (A whole 'nother issue, but I won't 
go there right now...)  Obviously, those incidents point to drawbacks of 
surface LRT as a mode.<<

And keep in mind that the above comments were written BEFORE the additional 
problems leading to the PROLONGED TOTAL SHUTDOWN which is now the current 
situation.

Clearly, both monorail and light rail have their problems, as do other 
modes.  In view of my comments above, I would strongly challenge Michael's 
characterization that I "fall all over [my]self to offer excuses and come 
to its defense by dismissing the 'occasional glitches' and the need for
'tweaks'."

>This is why you've lost credibility with me.  I don't have any big
>preference towards monorail or light rail, I can't feel I'm getting a
>fair analysis from you.  Probably much of what you say about various
>things is true, but it's too hard for me to try to pick out the truth
>from the spin and so I'm just tending to ignore most of it.  I think if
>you focused on fairness rather than trying to obliterate the opposition
>while painting your own side in glowing terms you'd actually wind up
>with more people on your side.

I think you're cherry-picking among my comments, ignoring or "tuning out" 
my actual statements, and misquoting and misrepresenting my views.  That 
would skew anyone's judgement.

LH