Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
All right. So let's summarize.
Here is a list of things that partisan monorail boosters claim as benefits but that aren't:[list][*]Aesthetics. 1) Monorail guideways in the US cannot be as narrow as those in China because of requirements for emergency and ADA access. Monorail guideways can still be somewhat narrower than light rail guideways, but that advantage is canceled out by monorail's requirement for bulkier stations.
|
1) Where does it say that guideways are required in the US? The most famous american monorail, at Disney, doesnt have one.
And even if you absolutly must have a guideway, it can be made of mesh metal, which allows 98% of light through.
Look at the Vegas monorail. The guideway is almost invisible.
http://www.destination360.com/north-...s/monorail.jpg
And once again, the "monorail requires bulkier stations" is complete bull.
Elevated rail can be built with any station size, be it monorail, light rail, heavy rail or amtrak style. You can built tiny center-platforms, or you can build an enormous structure.
You seem to have latched onto "Vegas has big stations, ergo all monorails have big stations". Fallacy.
Do all non-monorail stations look like what Dubai built?
http://www.constructionweekonline.co...ro_station.jpg
Of course not.
Quote:
Cost. Monorails are no less expensive than other comparable elevated options (more so actually, since you can never cross the tracks), and their lack of flexibility means they are much more expensive if you want to try and run them at-grade or in a subway. Overall, cost is a negative for monorails.
|
Cirrus, what was the last time you crossed the tracks of the DC metro?
How often does the DC metro run at-grade?
Monorail, in the application described in this thread, is for high capacity. Not cheap-suburban light rail, where people should walk on the tracks.
As many have been trying to get you to understand, nobody is proposing monorail for niche lines like the A-train in Austin. We're talking about mega-cities like Sao Paulo, Tokyo and Mumbai.
If youre going to design a high-capacity rapid transit system, the LAST thing you want to do is force people to cross the tracks.
You then lash out and claim that "monorail and PRT boosters" are ignoring the facts, but it seems like everyone here is being rational about the benefits and limitations except for you. You're jumping through every hoop you can to show that monorail is never feasible.
I mean look at this thread, a news article posted showing that multiple cities are building monorails because after extensive study, they found that it offered the best alternative.
And you just rush in to claim
"No, it's not. Compared to light rail monorails offer no discernable operational advantage, are considerably more expensive, and much less flexible. "
But the article at no point mentioned light rail! You let your bias blind you. I wonder if you even read the article.