BIKE: Las Vegas monorail shut down

[Michael Bluejay]

I don't have any allegiance to either side in the Light Rail vs. 
Monorail debate. so I think my take on this is fairly unbiased.  And 
that take is that Patrick's points were the first obvious things that 
popped into my head before he even sent his post.  Lyndon discredits 
himself by trying to disparage the LV monorail just because of this 
early shut down.  The LVM hasn't even been up for TWO MONTHS!  I think 
it's completely fair to give them some time to work the bugs out of a 
BRAND-NEW SYSTEM.  If they're still having problems another six months 
from now then let's talk, but for right now it's a non-issue, and 
anyone who thinks it is just isn't being fair.

It's also obvious that monorail is safer because there's nothing for it 
to run into.  Duh.

That said, having just returned from Vegas, I think light rail going 
down the Strip would have been the better choice.  Right now you have 
to walk a fairly long block from the strip to get to a monorail 
station, and then when you get off you have to walk a long block back.  
This assumes that you're going to and from the strip, but most people 
are.  This is wildly inconvenient to say the least, especially when you 
can get a bus or a taxi right on the strip without having to turn 
around and trek the other way.  What Vegas needs is fast transit up and 
down the strip itself.  Monorail would have been out of the question on 
the strip because it would be a visual intrusion that blocks the view 
of all the eye candy up and down the strip.  The hotels wouldn't like 
it, and the tourists certainly wouldn't.  So light rail going up and 
down the strip would have been preferable.  It would have been a little 
slower than monorail because of the traffic signalization, but that's 
balanced by all the time you save not having to walk to and from the 
stations.  The stops could be more frequent and would be right on the 
strip.  I don't know why they didn't choose this option, it would have 
been much, much better.

BTW, I tried to ride the monorail, but after trekking all the way to a 
station and buying my $3 ticket from a vending machine I found that the 
trains stopped running 5 minutes before I bought my ticket, at 
midnight.  I had to walk down a long corridor to get to the station, 
and there was nothing at the beginning of that corridor to tell me that 
the trains stop at midnight, and the ticket machine certainly didn't 
stop me from buying my ticket.  I wound up sharing a cab with three 
other people, which came out to be cheaper than the bus.

-MBJ-

On Sep 5, 2004, at 11:28 PM, Nawdry wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>