BIKE: Re: Las Vegas monorail shut down

[Nawdry]

At 2004-09-07 04:00 , Michael Bluejay wrote:
>On Sep 6, 2004, Nawdry wrote:
>
>>  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.
>
>Oh come on, that's pretty much *exactly* what you said.  Read your own 
>email, below.  You said:
>
>>Complex, automated systems certainly do work, but they are 
>>"catastrophically" vulnerable to relatively small failures almost 
>>anywhere in the system.


Gee, Michael, while you're at it, any more viewpoints you'd care to 
fabricate for me?

Here's the entire quotation, from which Michael excerpted a piece to fit 
his contention of what I supposedly believe:

 >>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.)<<

Immediately afterward, I explained:

 >>This in turn implies high technical maintenance costs, another point I've
made. <<

I think most readers can easily understand that, to focus on a weakness of 
a given technology does not constitute an argument that the entire 
technology is unsound.  All modes - rail rapid transit, LRT, PRT, "BRT" and 
buses, monorails, whatever - have weaknesses of various degrees.  This 
certainly does not intrinsically imply that any of these technologies is 
fundamentally unsound.

Anyway, I think most members of this list can cognitively process the 
subtleties here, so I will turn to some other, related, issues.  First, the 
Las Vegas monorail went back into service today.  Apparently, improper 
installation of the guidewheel assemblies on some vehicles was at fault - 
and apparently fairly easy to correct.

Second, ridership below the levels projected for initial service has been a 
problem which has elicited criticism.  Certainly, an average of 30,800 
rider-trips a day is quite a healthy starting level of ridership for any 
new transit service.  But the problem in regard to the Las Vegas monorail 
is that its promoters projected far above that level - evidently to attract 
investors it what has been billed as an urban public transport operation 
that would "turn a profit" (i.e., not only cover operating costs but also 
capital costs, with interest, while repaying investors).

It would appear that the LVMC's ridership forecasters predicted peak levels 
of ridership and farebox revenue throughout each day for 365 days a 
year.  Certainly, the Strip never really goes to sleep, but expecting this 
level of sustained ridership invites skepticism.  Even more so to expect it 
from Day One of operation.

Incidentally, while the 30,800 daily ridership is quite a commendable level 
by"normal" standards, keep in mind that this is a very unique, 
activity-dense, highly congested resort corridor.  It is NOT comparable to 
Houston's Main St. corridor (where LRT is apparently garnering a comparable 
ridership) or to the corridor served by the Hiawatha LRT line in 
Minneapolis, which is attracting about 15,000 rider-trips a day.

Finally, a relatively brief comment on a couple of Mike Librik's 
observations.  Mike writes:

 >>The problem of a wheel falling off the vehicle would ground any fleet of 
public vehicles. If one rolled off of a bus, trolley, or dump truck, they 
would all get inspected right away.<<

They would get inspected, but whether an entire fleet would be grounded is 
debatable.  Exactly this problem happened to some of Baltimore's buses not 
too long ago - buses were losing their wheels.  This prompted a massive 
fleet inspection program, but it did not shut down the entire system.

I'm racking my brain to think of comparable situations involving 
rail.  Amtrak had a serious problem with cracking on the trucks (bogeys) of 
their Bombardier highspeed Acela locomotives not too long ago;  this 
prompted a withdrawal and rehab of all the Acela rolling stock, but it did 
not shut down their entire operation (they kept "conventional" equipment 
running).

 >> It is probably the shop manager and staff who are getting worked over 
as much as the lug nuts. A few of the early BART trains had some brake 
failures and tended to stop in the
parking lots of the stations (at least according to the fellow I rode with 
passing
through Oakland).<<

BART started out with totally automated operation.  Not long after startup, 
in 1973 (or 1974), a BART train in automated mode ran off the end of an 
elevated stub track and came crashing down (into a parking lot? 
maybe).  This was the only incident of this kind I'm aware of.  I think 
they put the system in "slow" mode till they reworked the ATO system to 
permit manual override - I don't recall a total shutdown.

 >>To its credit, any grade separated system would avoid driver-error 
collisions completely.<<

I presume Mike means motor vehicle driver errors.  Of course, he's right, 
except that I strongly suspect in Houston, where motorists have not only 
been running into MetroRail trains, but crashing into the new downtown 
fountain as well, we'd be hearing about a rash of crashes into the support 
columns (assuming it were an elevated system).

 >>But I tend to find separated systems, elevated or underground, more 
appealing due to the station, which is so much a place of its own, and so 
better for waiting. Waiting at curbside, like for a bus, is a bit 
humiliating.<<

Mike's comments on stations make me wonder if he's actually seen some of 
the more elaborate surface LRT stations, such as those in Dallas, Denver, 
Portland, etc.  This is not quite the same as waiting at the curb for a bus.

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to all types of station - 
surface, elevated, underground.  I tend to prefer the typical modern 
surface LRT station because it seems more accessible and 
user-friendly.  But the elevated stations in Miami were appealingly breezy 
and cool this past June; the surface-level Tri-Rail (regional-rail) 
stations seemed a bit more sultry.  On the other hand, climbing up to the 
elevated MetroRail and MetroMover stations got to be quite a chore (you 
find that elevators are unacceptably slow, and escalators have something 
like a 75% out-of-service rate) - particularly when you're trying to race 
an approaching train to the platform, and especially when you're hauling 
your laptop, backpack, and luggage.

LH

=PTP=================================================

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2004/aug/13/517335104.html

LAS VEGAS SUN
August 13, 2004

Monorail officials tout ridership


Las Vegas Monorail officials are touting ridership numbers for the
system's first 16 days of operation as "strong," despite falling short of
initial annual ridership projections.

The company announced Thursday that more than 523,000 riders had
boarded the $650 million system, which shuttles passengers from along a
4-mile route from a station at the MGM Grand to one at the Sahara hotel,
between July 15 and July 31.

At this rate the monorail would bring in about 11 million passengers a
year, roughly 9 million short of the 20 million people planners estimated
would board the trains.

Monorail officials defended the numbers, saying they looked forward to a
busy convention center to boost the lower-than-projected numbers. The
system also is expected to expand its hours -- currently operating from 8
a.m. to midnight -- an extra four hours, company officials said.

The monorail opened July 15, more than six months behind schedule,
after battling a series of computer and mechanical glitches that had
plagued the system. Bombardier Transportation, the company contracted
to build the monorail, and construction partner Granite Construction were
held liable in May for fines of $85,000 a day for delays. By early July the
companies had reportedly amassed more than $12 million in fines.

An extension of the existing route is expected to break ground next year
and another route to McCarran International Airport is in long-term plans.


=PTP===================================================


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Aug-14-Sat-2004/opinion/24534604 
.html

Las Vegas Review-Journal
Saturday, August 14, 2004

EDITORIAL: Riding the monorail

Early ridership figures for Strip train aren't meeting expectations


Las Vegas Monorail officials tried valiantly last week to cast a positive light
on their disappointing ridership figures. But no amount of spin can
obfuscate the mediocre news.

The monorail began service on July 17, and in the first two weeks carried
about 30,800 passengers up and down the Strip each day. That's more
than 40 percent below the 53,000 people officials hope to eventually see
riding the train daily. And it's about 25 percent below the break-even figure
of 40,000 daily riders for the $650 million project.

"We are pleased," said monorail spokesman Todd Walker. "We've just
begun to market the system to the public."

One would think, however, that ridership numbers might spike initially
given the novelty of the new system. And it's sheer folly to believe that
ridership will significantly increase when the hours of operation are
expanded later this month from 8 a.m. to midnight to 6 a.m. to 2 a.m.

All of this needn't concern Las Vegans at this point. It may indeed be true
that numbers will pick up as the system matures and officials provide
more options for purchasing tickets. Besides, the monorail is privately
financed, although the state backed the bonds used to build the project.

But don't be surprised if taxpayers are eventually asked to subsidize the
monorail's expansion to downtown or the airport. And if that happens, the
ridership and revenue figures take on a whole other dimension.