BIKE: Las Vegas monorail shut down

[Nawdry]

Comments below...

At 2004-09-06 16:30 , Michael Bluejay wrote:
>I don't know which system changes grades better, but it's a non-issue for 
>Vegas, which is flat as a pancake.

The original questions (from Bob at Amp Electric <bob>) are 
as follows:

 >>Which system, light rail or monorail, would be more flexible in changing 
grades? That is, can both systems be ground level for a stretch, then 
elevated, and back down for these
aesthetically sensitive areas?<<

Short answer: yes.  You can see this on some LRT systems - Dallas comes to 
mind, where the Red Line parallelling North Central Expressway basically 
undulates vertically, with elevated grade separations at the heaviest 
arterial crossings, and surface running elsewhere. For about 3 miles or so 
between Mockingbird and downtown, the LRT goes into a tunnel.

There's no inherent reason why monorail could not do this, except that the 
surface portions must remain totally separate from both traffic and 
pedestrians.  Not only can you get yourself creamed by a passing train, but 
also the high-voltage power conduit (bus) is typically located on the side 
of the support beam.  In addition, there is no way for pedestrians (or 
cross-traffic) to cross the guideway (except via an underpass).

This vertical "undulation" can work OK for widely spaced stations, as in 
north Dallas and its suburbs.  It would probably NOT be workable in a 
central-city area, particularly in a street alignment. I cannot conceive of 
a plausible application of this kind rollercoaster alignment on something 
like the Las Vegas Strip, although Michael Bluejay makes a fairly 
compelling case for some kind of rapid transit or LRT system in this corridor.


 >>Is there a precedent for monorail structures at ground level?<<

Yes - I have seen these in photos of at least a couple of Japanese systems, 
in short sections (one of them, an approach to a tunnel).  Again, this kind 
of monorail alignment would be subject to the drawbacks or constraints 
noted above.


>All I know is that light rail can climb, since they've run the trolleys in 
>San Francisco for decades.  I don't know why monorail wouldn't be able to 
>do the same.  An electric engine is an electric engine, right?

Depending on mainly on size of vehicle, motor power, and gearing, LRT can 
negotiate moderately steep grades ( 9-10% in some cases).  I trust you're 
thinking of the electric LRT in SF, and not the cable cars, which of course 
are pulled by a cable.

Monorails can theoretically negotiate grades of 10% or so, but the limiting 
factor might be an allowance for beam conditions - wetness or ice.  I 
wouldn't think the latter would be a consideration in Vegas.  In practice, 
both monorail and LRT are usually limited to a design maximum of about 6%, 
but there can be occasional exceptions.


>Prediction:  Nawdry will say that light rail climbs easily while monorail 
>doesn't, and Patrick will say the opposite.

Actually, both monorail and LRT come out about equal in the wash. Engineers 
generally avoid frequent steep gradients on either one, partly for the 
reasons already mentioned, and partly because of power consumption 
considerations.

To conserve postings, given the limits on this list, I'll address other issues.

Patrick Goetz (Sun, 05 Sep 2004 20:08:49) writes:

 >>Apparently the 90 *second* switchover time (Las Vegas Monorail) is 
unacceptably slow while the 6-15 *minute* switchovers of Light Rail systems 
are A-OK.<<

Switch throw time for a railway switch, including LRT, is about 2-3 
seconds.  To this must be added about 20 sec. interlocking and 
signal-processing time - including, if applicable, a fail-safe check with 
the system that the switch is in the correct position.  This is basically 
the same for a monorail or railway switch.

What is longer for monorail is the actual time for the beam drawbridge, AKA 
switch, to move from one position to the other.  This takes substantially 
greater hydraulic force than moving the points of a railway switch.  In the 
case of the Bombardier-WED-Alweg beamway system, everal tons of beam must 
be moved.  Patrick claims 90 sec in Vegas; I've been told "several 
minutes".  Even 90 sec. could impede operations at close headways, 
particularly if that's just the beam-movement time, and another 20 sec. of 
interlocking and ":signal processing" needs to be added.

Patrick also writes:

 >>It's incomprehensible to me that a Light Rail advocate would be 
trumpeting a simple mechanical failure in a 6-week old system as "proving" 
that the technology is unsound, when
this same person is a leading spokesperson for a technology which is slow, 
expensive, and extremely dangerous compared to all other forms of mass 
transit.<<

Like many monorail zealots, Patrick lives in another world, in which 
neither facts nor truth matter, and there is only One Right Answer.  First, 
nowhere did I say that the Vegas monorail's "simple mechanical failure" has 
"proven" that monorail technology is "unsound".  Patrick just makes this 
up.  Monorail technology is clearly workable and sound, as is demonstrated 
by decades of operation in Japan (and Wuppertal and Seattle) - as I've 
stated previously.

Second, Patrick is a master at fabricating pseudo-"information".  LRT is 
certainly not "slow, expensive, and extremely dangerous compared to all 
other forms of mass transit" - again, Patrick just makes this up on the 
fly, like he does with so much of his rhetoric.  The Light Rail Now website 
is packed with solid, well-referenced data demonstrating the contrary, so 
for the moment I'll just label Patrick's hogwash for what it is and refer 
readers to the website:

http://www.lightrailnow.org

Patrick writes:

 >>Lyndon knows as well as I do that monorail is the least expensive 
grade-separated technology, which is the primary reason I'm an advocate: 
elevated light rail, upper deck roadways for BRT, and subway are all 
considerably more expensive than monorail.<<

There Patrick goes again with another pseudo-'factoid".  The assertions 
I've seen as to the supposedly lower cost of monorail all seem to have come 
from either monorail vendors (like Hitachi) or the monorail crusade 
crowd.  The one actual apples-to-apples, fully researched, fully engineered 
study that I know of was done in July 2002 by Parson Brinckerhoff 
(obviously a leading villain of the worldwide anti-monorail cabal) for 
Orange County (Ca.) Transportation Authority.  This compared a modern 
predominately elevated LRT system with a Las Vegas-variety monorail and 
found that the total cost of LRT was less - in part because monorail 
stations had to be longer due to lower vehicle capacity.

There are applications where monorail may be the best choice, but this 
perpetual crusade to argue that monorail can substitute for standard-rail 
technology in EVERY application is absurd to the point of fanaticism.

LH