BIKE: Bikes and monorails

[Patrick Goetz]

There were some very good points made here.  I was going to respond to a 
slew of posts all at once, but will cherry pick this one because I can't 
resist.



Nick Dalton wrote:
> 
> All an automatic monorail is trying to do is emulate what a 
> elevator/lift does vertically.
> 

Well, it's a bit more complicated than this, as a monorail has to 
negotiate curves and an elevator just travels in a straight line. 
Negotiating curves means radius of curvature-based accelerations away 
from actual stopping points which might be different under different 
weather conditions.  Otherwise, point well taken.  In an earlier post, 
Lyndon mentioned that I claimed that automation of monorail operation is 
one of the potential ways of lowering operating costs.  Although this is 
true, I think automation is a dumb idea for 3 reasons.  1) it adds a lot 
of unneccesary complications to the electronics 2) People don't feel 
safe, particularly at night if there isn't someone "official" on the 
vehicle, meaning you have to have security guards anyway, so it might as 
well be a driver, and 3) automation will scare the bus drivers union.

Even with drivers, the operating costs of monorail are automatically 
half that of light rail in an urban environment, as the average speed of 
monorail is easily double that of light rail, meaning you only need half 
as many vehicles (half as many drivers, half as much maintenance, half 
the capital expenditures on vehicles, half as many maintenance techs, 
etc.) in order to meet the same headways.  Let me explain for the 
mathematically disinclined.  Suppose you have a circular, 15 mile track 
and you'd like to have a train show up every 1/2 hour at a particular 
station.  If you have a 15mph light rail system, you will need to run 2 
trains in order to meet this headway, as any 1 train will take an hour 
to get around the track.  If you have a 35-40mph monorail you can meet a 
slight better than 1/2 hour headway with just 1 train.


> 
> Theoretically the big running cost of a urban transport system is the 
> ongoing wages cost. Its normally sighted as the reason most public 
> transportation systems need ongoing subsidy. If you can eliminate the 
> driver without overly inflating the cost of capital or maintenance ( as 
> in an elevator ) then this would be a considerable change. If anyone 
> does know of the on running costs please let me know.
> 

This argument only works if you don't have to have a security guard on 
each train.  What I've been told is that surveys indicate people -- 
especially those not used to using public transit -- don't feel safe 
unless there is someone "official" on the vehicle with them.  True, 
drivers will make considerably more money than a guard, but I can show 
fairly easily that -- even with high wage drivers - a monorail system in 
Austin will make money for the city within 10 years.  If we're making 
money anyway, why not let the system provide a few decent wage jobs as 
part of the package?  It is true that the newest Paris Metro is fully 
automated and perhaps at some point we'll have so many transit lines or 
run so many vehicles ourselves that this will become an issue, but the 
advantage of monorail (well, one of the advantages) is we can always 
switch over to a fully automated system later.


> If you want something very reliable then stick with a bike.  If we are 
> prepared to spend millions on new transportation technology then how 
> about asking for assistance for bikes?
>

No one on this list would disagree with this.  2 comments:

1) A lot of people simply will not ride a bike, especially in the Texas 
heat.  The 2 most prolific posters to this list, for example, probably 
haven't been on a bike in 30 years!  I would love to see everyone on a 
bike, but just don't think it's going to happen if there is any other 
alternative -- a lot of people are just plain lazy.

2) I view monorail, in part, as precisely this:  technology to assist 
bikes.  Any monorail vehicle we get would be designed with flip up 
seats, so that at least 8-10 bikes could be brought into each car. 
Having a fast way to cover large distances will allow someone who lives 
in Pflugerville, for example, to "bike" to his/her job at Ben White / 
I-35.  They would bike 2-3 miles to the monorail stop at Howard/I-35, 30 
minute monorail ride to Ben White and Congress, followed by a 1-mile 
ride to the office.  No need for a shower even, given the distances.


> If we are prepared to rip up the road and install rails and overhead 
> power cables then would it not be a lot simpler to
>
<snip 5 proposals>
>
> Perhaps if where where to think creatively and be prepared to innovate 
> on the commuter cyclists behalf. Perhaps if we where happy to spend per 
> mile the kinds of money Monorails and Light rail cost per mile we 
> *MIGHT* find that we get the same kinds of ridership.
> 

Perhaps, but I'm skeptical.  Our culture is far from ready to embrace 
the bicycle.  I come to work every day in a t-shirt, shorts, and 
sandals, but the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances don't 
enjoy this privilege.  Having to wear "work" clothes is a major 
impediment to biking; most folks just won't go through the hassle of 
showering and changing at work.  Combine this with the fact that over 
the last 20-30 years, people have lived, on average, progressively 
further away from their work place.  VMT per capita has increased almost 
exponentially since 1970, and I really don't see the average Austinite 
biking 40 miles round trip to work every day, even if they did have a 
covered bikeway to bike under.

Eventually (say, in 20 years) we might enjoy land use patterns that 
dramatically reverse these trends, but it's going to take a fast and 
high volume mass transit system to get us there; i.e. we won't get the 
changes in land use until there is a system to get us around in it.. 
There is simply no way to get around this dilemma; we need a 
grade-separated rail system, and we need it now.  (BTW, Lyndon's point 
about a PB study indicating that elevated LRT is cheaper than monorail 
is so patently absurd that I'm hoping someone else will point out the 
obvious.)