HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 5:58 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: California
Posts: 2,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
I really dislike the idea of introducing another separated mode of transit into LA.
Ha-ha. So what's your rationale for that *deleted* feeling? Do you sell cars, build conventional rail systems, have a fetish for traffic jams, or are too easily confused with complexity?
__________________
“Skyscrapers! Unhealthy ugly giants! To live and work as close as to the land is a blessing! Remember, you are not a cloud! Come down and live on the ground!”
― Mehmet Murat ildan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 6:16 AM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
build conventional rail systems
This

NSMP also has a good explanation for why Monorail doesn't make any sense for LA in the dedicated LA transit thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 6:17 AM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Also fetishizing a particular mode of transit is dumb. Fetishizing monorail is just as dumb as fetishizing auto transit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 5:17 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Also fetishizing a particular mode of transit is dumb. Fetishizing monorail is just as dumb as fetishizing auto transit.
Absolutely I have a fetish for transit and specifically a new fetish for Monorail and am expressing it on a Monorail Forum. You know who else has a fetish... Elon Musk for electric cars and for space. You know who else has a fetish, Steph Curry of the golden state warriors. You know who else has a fetish, Mark Zuckerberg for computers and social media. All of their; what you call fetishes (I call it passion) has translated into something beautiful and successful in the world when no one else saw it coming.

This is a forum about mono-rail to have intelligent interactions about said topic. Forums are places of discussion. Please provide intelligent facts or thoughts to add to the discussion. Like I said before, debates are great and foster injunuity and creativity. We can disagree on things but Don't just shut down a discussion because you have a preference. I love debates so please come with your passion for what you love in life and speak from there. If monorail is not the passion, then go to the forum of your Desire. What is your desire?

Last edited by hughfb3; Jul 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 5:51 PM
canucklehead2 canucklehead2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YEG
Posts: 5,998
Haters gonna hate apparently. Don't like monorails? Take off!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 12:35 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: California
Posts: 2,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Also fetishizing a particular mode of transit is dumb. Fetishizing monorail is just as dumb as fetishizing auto transit.
I actually agree with you here. But I still don't see how monorails in LA would be a bad thing.
__________________
“Skyscrapers! Unhealthy ugly giants! To live and work as close as to the land is a blessing! Remember, you are not a cloud! Come down and live on the ground!”
― Mehmet Murat ildan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 5:20 AM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
I actually agree with you here. But I still don't see how monorails in LA would be a bad thing.
There aren't very many lines that make sense as being entirely elevated, and monorails only have advantages when elevated. Also, monorails (instead of LRT/HRT) reside systemwide operational flexibility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 7:16 AM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA View Post
There aren't very many lines that make sense as being entirely elevated, and monorails only have advantages when elevated. Also, monorails (instead of LRT/HRT) reside systemwide operational flexibility.
This is why I come to forums... I learn so much from differing points of view and I'm coming to terms with the fact that The word "Monorail" seems to have a certain view in many people's eyes... it's not Sexy.. it has a branding problem. One is "Rail," the other is Mono-rail." It's like people hearing "marriage" and then "gay-marriage," and then a whole can of worms opens. How about we come up with a new name for it... we can call it the "Single Track Train." We can say... I would like to propose a single track train from LAX to Union station. Maybe people will hear this differently.

I was actually talking with a friend and she didn't get that a people mover does not equal Monorail. The only difference between a Single track and a double track train is the positioning of the rail from either verticals or horizontal. You can have light to medium to high capacity Single track trains. I think most people when they hear Monorail, they think light capacity, slow, short distance "people movers" like what are at airports and in the downtowns of Miami, Jacksonville and Detroit. The misconception is that most "people movers" are actually dual track and not monorail/single track.

I'm actually grateful now for the comments that happened earlier because now I know that the word "monorail" triggers people, and so I will now refer to it as "Single track train" or "ST," no more "M" word. Example: Let's take the ST!!! A city can have a Heavy rail, light rail, ST rail, SOOOOOO GOOD!!! I want to create a presentation to present to the mayor about a corridor for Single track train in LA and am so grateful for this new branding. Thank you SSP Forum and Forumers and canucklehead2 for starting this thread. This is truly a place where ideas flow

Last edited by hughfb3; Jul 11, 2017 at 7:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2017, 2:03 AM
canucklehead2 canucklehead2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YEG
Posts: 5,998
I think your perspective comes largely from where your own personal experience(s) with rapid transit. I'm from Edmonton, which of course pioneered modern LRT/Pre-Metro in the America's in the late 1970's before falling under the spell of ignorant anti-transit governance for most of the 1990's and 2000's... I love the system as a whole but most system expansions post 2010 have been botched to say the least...

As for monorails themselves I always was fond of them from Astro Boy repeats, The Simpsons monorail episode and of course photos of the 1962 Worlds Fair which I only got to Seattle two years ago myself and fell in love with not only the city but the ALWEG system as well... Here's why...

1-It has more glass than any other rapid transit vehicle I've ridden including the successful (in Vancouver anyway) UTDC/Skytrain technology which although nice feels alternatively tinny and cheap on Mark I trains and claustrophobic on the Canada Line cars. In a city as spectacular as Seattle or Vancouver or most Western cities for that matter you wanna be able to help sell that picturesque image to tourists or prospective residents when in town...


2-The rubber tires on concrete beam system is quieter and with quicker acceleration than steel on steel which although better on later UTDC trains still pales in comparison noise wise.


3-The guideway even at its fattest in Seattle is miniscule and dainty feeling. Walk down tree-lined 5th Avenue with the monorail above and you barely notice that. Can't say the same about the cities LRT or bus system never mind commuter rail.

So why do people fetishize them? That's really like asking why people most people would prefer a Tesla over a Lada... Sleek and stylish will always win over people no matter what it is which is why Bus Rapid Transit will never really catch on.

Also, they represent progress and an unrealized version of tomorrow that has yet to arrive and perhaps never will. Also the fact that there's nothing like flying 15' over a busy city street at 50 mph to make you feel like you've arrived in 21st century earth. The only areas where subways make more sense are cold-weather cities like Edmonton, Winnipeg or Minneapolis where even if you were above the city the views are MEH...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2017, 3:14 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 970
Monorails are amazingly non-disruptive. Two examples; first, everyone's favorite monorail system stopping and running through a hotel lobby (The Contemporary Resort at Disney World)... Skip to 1:00 for the trains to arrive:
Video Link


And, btw, the Disney monorail is no theme park ride. It is one of the busiest monorail lines in the world, carrying more than 150,000 riders per day. Like, the entire TRAX light rail system in my hometown of Salt Lake City carries less than half of that number.

Then Seattle:
Video Link


For anyone looking for more great monorail videos on youtube, check out that guy's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/lkstrknb He's earned my subscription.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2017, 3:29 PM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 435
When I was a kid I rode that Disney world monorail. What would be a real cool thing if trains could go ten or so stories up in the air. Have trains for the sky, trains close to the ground and underground trains. I doubt there will be flying cars, what about flying trains? Or that could be dangerous, if a train somehow disconnected from tracks that would be a big disaster. Maybe only having moving walkways ten stories up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 11:46 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
Monorails are amazingly non-disruptive. Two examples; first, everyone's favorite monorail system stopping and running through a hotel lobby (The Contemporary Resort at Disney World)... Skip to 1:00 for the trains to arrive:
Video Link


And, btw, the Disney monorail is no theme park ride. It is one of the busiest monorail lines in the world, carrying more than 150,000 riders per day. Like, the entire TRAX light rail system in my hometown of Salt Lake City carries less than half of that number.

Then Seattle:
Video Link


For anyone looking for more great monorail videos on youtube, check out that guy's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/lkstrknb He's earned my subscription.
Those Disney Monorail numbers absolutely prove my point. I actually feel that we are in a time where our political establishment in Los Angeles is actually listening to the people and moving forward with ideas. It's super exciting to see things that we speak of on these forums actually being looked at and pursued; likewhat we are seeing with the new studies of the expo/blue line junction improvement studies. Our mayor Garcetti is on it and so is our Metro CEO Phil Washington.

This is why I am committed to put together a team of people to create an amazing presentation for a quad Single track train with express and local service from LAX to downtown LA convention center and Union station which serves the community and business as well as preserves the park and bike path beneath.

Is anyone good at assembling numbers and/or doing graphic design that wants to be on the team?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 2:07 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 763
cool topic.

not totally sure about the premise though. is it really true that an elevated monorail of a given capacity (crush load of trainset * frequency/headway) results in a "lighter" structure than elevated light rail or even elevated heavy rail?

the structure pictured at the beginning from chicago or new york are certainly not what you'd build today. even the 1960s era structures for BART's elevated structures at the ohlone greenway are light by comparison, and while they're certainly heavier than the disney monorail, they're really an absolute worst case scenario: wide gauge, heavy rail trains in the highest seismic zone there is, built by a big conservative government agency.

placing them higher, as they are here, actually reduces their visual impact further.


at the other end of the spectrum, i'd imagine a motorless light rail train like BART's oakland airport connector is really as light as such a thing could possibly be in a seismic area.

it's not a bad structure and the uses of trusses for the main spans is something i haven't seen in a long time.

aren't there problems with monorails from friction, lateral loading, turn radius etc?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 8:16 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 813
is there a chance the track could bend?


not on your life, my Hindu friend
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2017, 8:48 PM
hughfb3 hughfb3 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
cool topic.

not totally sure about the premise though. is it really true that an elevated monorail of a given capacity (crush load of trainset * frequency/headway) results in a "lighter" structure than elevated light rail or even elevated heavy rail?

the structure pictured at the beginning from chicago or new york are certainly not what you'd build today. even the 1960s era structures for BART's elevated structures at the ohlone greenway are light by comparison, and while they're certainly heavier than the disney monorail, they're really an absolute worst case scenario: wide gauge, heavy rail trains in the highest seismic zone there is, built by a big conservative government agency.

placing them higher, as they are here, actually reduces their visual impact further.


at the other end of the spectrum, i'd imagine a motorless light rail train like BART's oakland airport connector is really as light as such a thing could possibly be in a seismic area.

it's not a bad structure and the uses of trusses for the main spans is something i haven't seen in a long time.

aren't there problems with monorails from friction, lateral loading, turn radius etc?
Hi. Welcome to the topic of discussion. The picture examples you gave above are actually not mono-rails, they are duo-rail people movers. This is the big misconception we have as Americans in believing that all monorails are people movers. Monorail is actually quite flexible. This is what I believe is the value in this forum. Look throug previous posts on page 1 and welcome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2017, 3:58 AM
canucklehead2 canucklehead2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YEG
Posts: 5,998
"Mono means one and rail means rail... And that concludes our intensive three-week course."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2017, 5:01 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughfb3 View Post
Hi. Welcome to the topic of discussion. The picture examples you gave above are actually not mono-rails, they are duo-rail people movers. This is the big misconception we have as Americans in believing that all monorails are people movers. Monorail is actually quite flexible. This is what I believe is the value in this forum. Look throug previous posts on page 1 and welcome.
uh, I wasn’t posting examples of monorails. I was noting that modern elevated rails of other sort are nowhere near as heavy / wide as the examples posted earlier!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2017, 3:28 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 970
Fair argument, mthd. The elevated rail lines I linked pictures to in the beginning were using early 20th century technology, which has since improved. Elevated rail lines are less oppressive than before. We can all agree on that. The reason I linked those images at the beginning has to do with the time period in which people first began experimenting with monorails, and were inspired by those type of very disruptive infrastructure projects.
But here's a question: are modern elevated rail transit lines really as non-intrusive as monorails? I don't think any conventional-rail system could be made to be as non-intrusive as a monorail, even if the support structure is made to look similar. At least not for the same cost.
And raising the guideway is also a technique monorails can use:

Sao Paulo monorail:


Even though the aesthetic argument has been slightly weakened as elevated rail lines have made technological improvements, I think there is still a strong case for monorails. If you are going to build a transit line that is mostly elevated, has steep grades, high ridership demands, and can't have devastating impacts on the community around it, Monorails are the clear 1st choice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2017, 7:46 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead2 View Post
"Mono means one and rail means rail... And that concludes our intensive three-week course."
Amazing how many people can't figure that out. Vancouver's SkyTrain of Detroit People Movers are NOT in anyway shape or form monorails.

Monorails also have the benefit of being less disruptive to build than other elevated systems because most of the construction can be done off site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2017, 6:14 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 2,865
Lightbulb

Whether it is light rail, heavy rail, or monorails in aerial structures, the stations used to board and alight the trains are usually huge, double deck structures 30 feet in the air hanging completely over a street and its sidewalks. Why do everyone post pictures of aerial structures, comparing pole sizes, without a huge station in it? Once that station is included, all the different trains look huge!
Look at Las Vegas monorail stations and compare they with Vancouver's skytrain stations. You'll be hard pressed to tell the differences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.