BIKE: Las Vegas monorail shut down

[Nawdry]

Patrick, you're a master at diversion.  Fully according to program, Patrick 
diverts attention from the problems of the Las Vegas monorail to try to 
shift the focus onto Houston's light rail system.  A lot to be discussed 
there, but for the moment, I'll respond to Patrick on the issue at hand: 
the Las Vegas monorail.

At 2004-09-05 20:08 , Patrick Goetz wrote:
>Nawdry wrote:
>>I believe this incident thoroughly corroborates many of the weaknesses of 
>>automated monorail technology which I have been pointing out for some 
>>time.  See relevant articles below...
>
>The Las Vegas Monorail is new technology, employing completely automated 
>newly-designed high-capacity vehicles and has been in operation for less 
>than 2 months.  Lyndon's reporting of the facts is, as usual, at best, 
>extremely selective, similar to what one finds on the Fox News Now, er... 
>I meant LightRailNow website.  The cause of the dislodged wheel has 
>already been identified, and the system could have been back in operation 
>almost immediately.

Well, maybe deliverance will be at hand.  I'm sure it will, eventually 
(perhaps before Bombardier's monorail division goes totally 
bankrupt).  But, again, I cannot think of any standard-rail system  - 
light, heavy, or in-between - which has ever been totally shut down FOR 
DAYS because of a problem with a single vehicle.

>It's unfortunate that the whole system has been shut down for days because 
>of one incident; however, since this is a new system, the operators want 
>to be 100% certain that it is completely safe and that they continue to 
>enjoy a 100% accident-free record.  To this end, they're conducting yet 
>another comprehensive safety investigation which will go on until they're 
>satisfied that this will not happen again.

Patrick is also a master at spinmeistery.  Of course, of course, of course 
- nothing new here.  This is exactly what the numerous news articles over 
the past several days have been saying.  The point is: 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).

>Contrast this with light rail, which is the most dangerous form of mass 
>transit in America, with the highest number of fatalities per passenger 
>mile of any form of mass transit technology (see the video "Light Rail: 
>Smoke and Mirrors" for more information).


Well, the remainder of Patrick's oration is clearly another of his familiar 
diatribes against light rail.  I haven't seen "Light Rail: Smoke and 
Mirrors" (in fact, this is the first I've heard of it) but I can imagine 
its propagandistic achievements.  The entire safety issue - including 
Patrick's claims - deserves better than the charlatan numbers voodoo to 
which it's subjected by the monorail crusade. For some verifiable 
statistics on comparative safety performance, I'll recommend the following 
article, which looks at both fatalities AND injuries, using US DOT data:

Transit Mode Safety: Rail Leads
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_00022.htm

 From this more comprehensive perspective of safety, LRT (light rail) 
performs quite well in comparison with automated modes such as monorail.

I'll just note that light rail is also performing quite well - saving lives 
by attracting travellers from motor vehicles into public transport - not 
only across North America, but worldwide, where new starts and system 
expansions are vigorously under way - a most peculiar occurrence, if one is 
to put any stock in the death-trap malarkey purveyed by the monorail 
crusade contingent.  Curiously, there are also a small handful of 
urban-transit monorail schemes under way - primarily in Third World cities 
like Jakarta, Teheran, and Almaty, which already have fairly well developed 
standard-rail networks anyway.

A response to most of Patrick's other points (focused on LRT, monorails, 
and safety) will have to go onto my To-do list for the imminent 
future.  Meantime, let me note that, as usual, Patrick continues to 
facilely confuse the entire issue of a FULLY GRADE-SEPARATED RAPID TRANSIT 
MODE with the issue of the GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY (rails, beams, or whatever) 
with the issue of enhanced performance of a predominantly SURFACE MODE such 
as LRT (or the various permutations of bus operations grouped under the 
rubric "BRT").

I'll point out that there is a wide range of fully grade-separated 
technologies available to planners, of which monorail is only one.  As I've 
often argued, monorail is appropriate for a few very restricted 
applications - most of them supplementary to urban transit networks using 
standard-rail technology.  Most systems use standard-rail technology for a 
variety of reasons.  Full grade separation obviously avoids the problem of 
surface traffic conflicts - particularly, the problem of motorists 
flaunting the traffic-management system and crashing into transit vehicles 
- but it comes with its own array of drawbacks.

Ah, but these points are way to fine for the ferocious zealotry of the 
monorail crusaders, for whom there is but one glib answer for the 
complexities of meeting urban transit needs.

LH