Yesterday, I had to travel the 19 miles between Van Nuys and Marina Del Rey. At 60 miles an hour (down the 405), it should take about 20 minutes to get there.
Of course, nobody just gets on the freeway and speeds anywhere in LA. I took Sepulveda to Sunset to Bundy to San Vicente to 16th Street to Wilshire to Lincoln and then crawled down to Washington. The whole hour, I was dreaming of a monorail that might save me and millions of others from this burden.
Ray Bradbury wrote this editorial for the LA Times:
If we examine the history of subways, we will find how tremendously expensive and destructive they are.
They are, first of all, meant for cold climates such as Toronto, New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Tokyo. But L.A. is a Mediterranean area; our weather is sublime, and people are accustomed to traveling in the open air and enjoying the sunshine, not in closed cars under the ground.
Subways take forever to build and, because the tunnels have to be excavated, are incredibly expensive. The cost of one subway line would build 10 monorail systems.
Along the way, subway construction destroys businesses by the scores. The history of the subway from East L.A. to the Valley is a history of ruined businesses and upended lives.
The monorail is extraordinary in that it can be built elsewhere and then carried in and installed in mid-street with little confusion and no destruction of businesses. In a matter of a few months, a line could be built from Long Beach all the way along Western Avenue to the mountains with little disturbance to citizens and no threat to local businesses.
Compared to the heavy elevateds of the past, the monorail is virtually soundless. Anyone who has ridden the Disneyland or Seattle monorails knows how quietly they move.
I can’t express this any better than Mr. Bradbury has.
Here in Van Nuys 
Monorails have been in use all over the world (for a VERY long time) Sydney, Osaka, Jakarta, Singapore…FAR safer than Subways…just ask the people of Kobe, Japan.
It is not the fault of the monorail that Las Vegas tried to build one on the cheap…as usual with American ventures lately.
People who condem monorails usually know very little about them, as the facts speak for themselves…in Central London, Shanghi…everywhere but here.
Do for HALF the cost and HALF the time vs. a dumb Subway in earthquake prone LA.
LikeLike
Walter, when the monorail issue gets brought up, proponents bypass the inherent problems with the “mode of the future” (which has been that for 100 years)…
What technical or cost advantages does one rail have over two rails that would make monorail the superior choice?
For technical, very little. Monorail has been too specialized of a technology to perfect, and that’s why even new systems like Las Vegas’ are buggy. Japan, which has workable monorails, would be a logical place to turn, but the reliable reputation comes at a very heavy cost for engineering and design expertise.
Monorails also have the problems of being overdesigned, where the novelty outweighs any practical advantages. Monorails cannot run at grade, cannot be interoperable with standard gauge trains (one advantage of conventional rail is efficient usage of track; freight trains can share trackage with passenger trains, and in Europe, freight trains can mix with American-equivalent light rail transport), are slow and cumbersome to switch, and any speed advantages are negated in urban traffic that requires many stops for passenger access.
Sometimes, a basic design can be so simple and work so well that it doesn’t need to be improved. This is what monorail builders and their proponents forget. Its shortcomings don’t make up for its advantages, which any conventional rail design can duplicate.
So, when there’s a proposal for a monorail, wouldn’t a conventional rail system – or even a bus system – do the job just as well?
LikeLike
Sorry nay sayers, but you all sound like the LA Times editorial pages, anti transit in every possible way, even some of which are legit!
I use Metrolink trains from Northridge and have done so since the station opened after the quake. Love it.
I also use the Orange Line, which has had passenger loads exceeding 300% of original projections, and it’s fast, cheap and frequent.
The red line to downtown is boring (I’d prefer above ground to get some natural light) but again it’s faster, by far, than the freeway.
Incidentally, I’m a Vice President with a Fortune 500 company so I don’t qualify as one who is forced by econonomic conditions to use public transit.
However I agree completely with Andrew about the desirability on monorail. The Vegas problems aren’t a result of the concept but of design and operating failures.
LikeLike
Andrew wrote:
Did you mean to say “Most definitely NOT screwing around……”?
#####
:O
Yes. Thanks for correcting me.
LikeLike
Wad:
You wrote:
“I’ve worked with several of these bureaucrats (especially with transportation issues), and they are most definitely screwing around on the issues.”
Did you mean to say “Most definitely NOT screwing around……”?
LikeLike
JZY wrote:
So, the public discussion, as manifested here, is really about what mode of rapid mass transit system to be chosen rather than whether to build a systme or not. Meanwhile, the city bureaucrats are still screwing around the issue. Sigh.
#####
I’ve worked with several of these bureaucrats (especially with transportation issues), and they are most definitely screwing around on the issues. These are professionals who are skilled engineers and problem-solvers, and work on fixing the problem every day. And the ones I’ve met are the polar opposite of the officious, process-bound martinet.
The problem lies with, first, politicians, and second, voters.
Politicians are elected based on what they will not do for the electorate. Politicians spend their tenures fighting projects that create jobs, ease traffic, or upset the illusion that you can live in a metropolitan area with 10 million other people and yet still somehow make sure everything looks like and sounds as quiet as the countryside.
That’s half the equation. I wouldn’t go as far as to say voters have the collective rationality of infants. Toddlers, yes. Toddlers have the fundamental sense of self-awareness and existence, but not yet of the world around them and their role within it. They all understand the power of the tantrum and use it to their advantage. They don’t understand the consequences of their tantrums and are unable to weigh choices against one another.
It seems, neither do most of the people who are entitled to the franchise and actually bother to exercise their birthright. How many people can actually connect voting down something with an undesirable side effect later on? Seems very few. And this problem is especially acute within homeowner populations. You know, the same petulant caste that the founders of this country determined the only people fit to vote!
Bureaucrats have wrote volumes of studies to determine how to fix the problems they were duly hired to remedy; it’s just you and me and the men and women we hired that prevent them from doing their jobs.
LikeLike
http://la-traffic-sucks-lets-fix-it.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
A monorail would never happen in LA. We live in the land of high priced real estate and no one is going to be okay with looking out their window only to see a monorail. I can’t see it happening.
LikeLike
Sorry, but Ray is wrong.
The subway is a MUCH better idea than the gadget transit of a monorail.
Yes, a subway costs more, but that’s because it’s worth it. You get what you pay for.
The subway is MUCH stronger in an earthquake than any elevated train. The arch, the vault and the tube are the strongest architectural structures known. In the 1994 Northridge quake, part of the subway was running. The tunnels came through without a scratch. Elevated structures (like the 10 freeway bridges in West L.A.) collapsed in the Northridge quake. If the quake hadn’t happened at 4:30 a.m., many more would have died.
A subway is capable of carrying many more people than a monorail, with longer trains and bigger and more comfortable cars.
A monorail is a visble eyesore (at least to some people; I don’t agree), but a subway is “out of sight and out of mind.”
Subway construction will not destroy neighborhoods, but will create NEW construction. Just go to the North Hollywood Red Line stop for proof. Yes, a few buildings here and there may have to go. Yes, construction will be disruptive for several years. But subways will be better for the neighborhoods down the line.
A subway can carry as many paseengers per hour as a four lane freeway in each direction, at about the same cost of construction, AND it doesn’t take up any land, AND it’s 100% electrically operated, so it doesn’t pollute. (yes, monrails are too).
Subways are not good for everywhere in Los Angeles, but going underground down Wilshire Boulevard, which has a greater population density than anyplace in the USA except Manhattan, makes a great deal of sense.
As far as going down the 405, surface light rail would be far cheaper than a monorail, and less prone to damage in an earthquake. It would take up slightly more room than a monorail, but check out the Green Line in the 105 freeway to see how it would look. It works fine in the freeway.
Subway to the Sea by 2020!
Take care, everybody.
LikeLike
Andrew,
You asked a good question, but’s a technology and design oriented one. That is, are you asking “is it doable” and “what impacts are tolerable” questions in constructing a subway? Monorail building also bring forth on grade impacts. In fact, tenneling can imaginably have less on grade and continuous imapcts.
LikeLike
Does it make sense to build a subway and tear up streets and construct tunnels
if an above-ground monorail does not?
LikeLike
So, the public discussion, as manifested here, is really about what mode of rapid mass transit system to be chosen rather than whether to build a systme or not. Meanwhile, the city bureaucrats are still screwing around the issue. Sigh.
LikeLike
DesLily, building subways in earthquake-prone areas is nothing new. Tokyo, Mexico City, San Francisco and Los Angeles all have subways that have survived major earthquakes. In fact, subways were chosen because they move along with the ground, as opposed to elevated sections which sway and cannot tolerate movement as well.
LikeLike
The Seattle Monorail (http://2045seattle.org/?page_id=94) posts this concerning earthquakes and monorails:
“An Earthquake-Safe Solution
Monorails have a fantastic track record of surviving earthquakes. The devastating 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan (our sister city) destroyed the use of its freeways and train lines, but all three of its monorail systems survived and were operating that same day.”
LikeLike
I too used to think a monorail would be an ideal alternative to heavy rail located either on the surface or underground. However, I did some reading on the technical and logistical aspects of a Disneyland-type system and was disappointed to learn it has drawbacks that are at least as great, if not greater, than LA’s Blue Line or Red Line.
Also, the subway system of Mexico City did quite well following the massive earthquake that struck that city several years ago.
LikeLike
first: you would NEVER catch me on a subway in hollywood.. for the same reason I am not sure a monorail would be good.. how earthquake proof would it be??
LikeLike
I don’t think there is a public transportation project that isn’t termed a “disaster”. There are many in Van Nuys who despise the Busway even though it cost much less than a light rail system. I don’t know about Vegas, but it seems to be mostly a scheme to get gamblers around faster–not exactly a societal good deed.
What I can see in the Japan monorail photos is the rail line snaking throught congested and dense areas–much like Lincoln Blvd in Venice–and how little it impacts the people below. There are no grade crossings, and no need for bridges or road work to accomodate a light rail system.
The Freeway system and the congestion on our roads from depending on cars is costing us billions, many more billions that could be saved by building a monorail through the most congested sections of LA.
LikeLike
Andrew, not related to this thread, but read:
http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.aspx?cp-documentid=418653>1=8012
McMansions are not as appealing as we may fear them to be….
LikeLike
I can, though.
Monorails have been the technology of the future for 100 years now. No mode of transportation in history has taken this long to develop.
Their biggest flaw is that the single rail doesn’t offer any technical or fiscal advantages over conventional rails.
Seattle rightly canceled its project, and Las Vegas has been a nightmare from the start. Compare that to successful conventional light and heavy rail systems.
I do agree with you about a 405 project. Something that runs between the Sylmar Metrolink Station to the South Bay will get 50,000 riders easily.
The cheapest would be a busway, like I-10 between El Monte and downtown L.A. or the (failed) Harbor Transitway. A rail line would be more costly, but if you have capacity problems like the Blue Line, it would be wise to build it as rail from the start.
LikeLike