The mayor of Anaheim, CA has come out in favor of a monorail to connect the Disneyland Resort and the Anaheim Convention Center to the Anaheim Metrolink/Amtrak station, which will be moved slightly and reconstructed as an intermodal transit center.
I live in Anaheim and think this is a bad idea, but I do not have very many arguments to support my opinion should I speak against it. Can I get the members of this forum to supply me with some arguments along with the sources, if possible?
The distance involved is about 2.5 to 3 miles and it is a point-to-point system rather than a loop as in Disneyland. It pretty much has to run along the middle of local streets, which are quite wide.
Part of the mayor’s rationale is that a monorail would, because Disneyland uses one, have some sort of symbolic solidarity with the city’s major revenue producer. Ok, O can see that, but I still think it is a bad idea.
Sorry to have to say this, but I think it would be a GOOD idea. Beats all whatsis out of a bunch of diesel-stinking, traffic-snarling, air-polluting busses.
At least yours would have logical start and end points. Here in Las Vegas they decided to build the middle first, then feigned surprise when ridership didn’t develop as expected. Now they’ve finally figured out that it should extend to the airport. No telling when, if ever, it will reach downtown. In the meantime the transit district has added a bunch of articulated super-busses to the already abominable traffic on the Strip…
The only arguement is that you are in earthquake country and if something strong enough to worry about sinks the state into the Pacific, we will be a smaller nation.
If you get monorails the way Disney has done thiers… world class service.
I have ridden a very small (I mean SMALL…) monos like 3 lifetimes ago that since have been replaced by a newer system at a park called :Dutch Wonderland.
If you find that little park… a cookie for you.
Maglevs are nothing more than Monorails beefed up for flight.
Depends what the monorail is supposed to do. If “image” is the primary consideration (as opposed to cost or utility), then something as seemingly modernistic and wiz bang as a monorail might make some sense. Think of it as primarily an amusement park ride. But if it’s supposed to be real transit operation there are lots of objections. Here are two:
(i) Switches on a monorail are major, expensive pieces of engineering. They are essentially transfer tables where the whole supporting structure has to move, not just running rails on top of the supporting structure. This might not be a problem on an amusement park ride, but it would be a big problem on a real transit operation requiring multiple switches;
(ii) A monorail requires an elevated structure, since the structure itself is the guideway. Either the trains hang from one or (more often) ride on top of one but, in either case, the structure must be elevated above the ground. You can’t just lay a monorail guideway on the ground like you can with conventional track. And, when today’s elevated structure becomes tomorrow’s eyesore and you want to bring it underground, the tunnels have to be big enough for the supporting structure as well as the trains - a huge additional expense over conventional two rail.
Finally, I can’t pretend to be a great expert on monorail engineering, but I’ve ridden some of them and, frankly, they didn’t seem to me to have any real advantages from a transit rider’s perspective over a more conventional (and cheaper) two rail system. The Disneyworld monorail system, for example, is actually slower than modern light rail systems and, when you go beneath the glossy exterior of its trains and get to contol, propulsion and signalling, appears to be very similar to the CTA ‘L’ . The old Seattle monorail system had a definite gallop, as each supporting pier, over time, appeared to have beco
From what the original poster said, I gather that they are looking at an overhead system. If you must have an overhead system, a monorail is quieter than a two rail system, and has a smaller “footprint.”
It works in Vegas, Tokyo, Yokohama, Seattle and inside 4 Dizzyworlds, can be build over existing roadways without major disruptions, and theres already a pool of employees experienced with monorails there in Anahiem, why not do this, its a good idea, as opposed to what? light rail which would necessitate tearing up roadways and potentail car/train conflicts? Buses? thats all the exisiting roads need, more bluewhale size busses clogging the roadways…
Why oppose it, or is this just another example of that “not with my tax dollars” anti-taxation whining those behind the Orange Curtain are so adept at.
I got a better idea, get a private investment group to build a toll road, charge $9 one way on the SpeedPass to drive 2 miles from the station to the park, then complain to Caltrans that they cannot keep up maintanence and that they need state funding to stay open.
During the early stages of determining what type of rail system to build in Dallas, monorail was on the table. As I remember the argument, there were a number of objections to it. At the end of the debate Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) opted for light rail.
At the time there was only one manufacturer in the world that could supply the equipment for an extensive monorail system. It is a bad idea to lock onto one supplier; he has you by the throat when it comes to maintenance and the acquisition of additional equipment.
Switching from one route to another, as has been mention, is a big challenge for monorails.
The overhead apparatus to support the monorail is ugly. Admittedly, this is a personal preference. I spent a lot of time in Sydney, Australia whilst living in Australia. The Sydney monorail is an eyesore.
If a monorail train breaks down between stations, the passengers have to be evacuated by ladder. As a rule the fire department has to be called or the transit agency has to have the equivalent of a hook and ladder truck. Getting older or infirmed passengers off the train is a daunting task.
The stations are expensive to build. They all require escalators as well as stairs and perhaps elevators. Light rail stations and heavy rail stations only require escalators if they are located under ground or on an elevated line. As an example, DART has only two stations with escalators. All the other stations are at ground level.
One of the advantages of the light rail system in Dallas is that it permits an across the platform transfer to the Trinity Railway Express trains. If Dallas had opted for a monorail, the transfer would have been much more difficult.
I personally dont care if the station is 100 feet underground like Metro Center in Washington DC or 50 feet up in the air.
You still need to move people that is part of the cost of doing business.
Anyone can get into the Monorail business as long they understand how to build a one beam bridge and necessary parts to make it all work.
Thinking about this further, perhaps the monorail is dead long before it really kicks in because other things such as Moller Skycars and similar protoypes are approaching if not already being certified for service in the USA.
Since I am (unfortunately) familiar with the traffic conditions in and near Anaheim, I would have to say that anything that adds to or disrupts surface street traffic is NOT an option! In that respect, monorail construction would be much less of a problem, and monorail operation would mean only one T-pillar every 200 feet or so to obstruct traffic.
After all, what are the other options? Surface light rail? I shudder to think about it, both while under construction and later. Busses? See my original post. Subway? Sure - at ten times the cost, and even less accessible than monorail in the event of between-stations breakdown. Elevated rail? Just plain ugly, and more expensive to build. (With a monorail, support structure and track are the same. Not so for two rails in the sky.)
Of course, the City of Anaheim could do nothing - which would give me an excellent reason to stay north of Cajon Pass on I-15! You folks need my tourist dollars lots more than I need your traffic hassle!
I neglected to mention a critically important issue that applies to any expensive guideway system, whether two rail or monorail. Where’s the market for it? I don’t live in California, although I get out there alot. Until very recently, there wasn’t even a bus service between Amtrak and Disneyland. Late last year, an outfit called Anaheim Resort Transit established an hourly service, apparently using small “trolley” type touring busses. It would be interesting to see what kind of passenger loads they handle to/from Amtrak over the next 12 months. But it doesn’t sound like they are anticipating the kind of patronage that would warrant construction of an expensive fixed guideway system. My guess is that they expect their traffic to consist mostly of employees of the resorts in the area commuting to/from work.
Actually, that shouldn’t be surprising. As railfans, we all sometimes assume, without thinking much about it, that most people like trains as much as we do, and will use a rail alternative if one is made available. But pretend for a moment that you’re not a railfan. Pretend that you’re an ordinary parent who’s not particularly interested in trains, and you want to take your family to Disneyland for a day. Why would you even consider loading everyone in the car, driving to a commuter rail station and parking there, waiting for the train, transfering to the monorail (or whatever) at Anaheim, and then riding to the park, when you can simply stay in your car and drive the whole family directly to the Disneyland parking lot. Sure, there will be lots of traffic, but it will likely still be faster (and certainly more convenient) than the transit alternative. And, if you’re a tourist, you won’t even consider the option of using an unfamiliar commuter rail system. This is definitely not a situation where “if you build it, they will come.”
Some additional information on the notion that switching “tracks” is a problem. Newark Liberty International Airport uses a point to point system with rotating beam switches that reconfigure within 30 seconds of activation.
My own humble opinion is that monorails are good if you never really want to go anywhere beyond the initial “a” to “b” on a map (like within the specific boundaries of an airport), don’t mind custom equipment that will require specialized maintenance and the fact that the system may require a custom build to replace the cars at the end of the service life span.
So if the transit plan is limited to shuttle trips between these two “venues”, then a monorail might make sense, but so could buses or other modes. If the plan “ever” could be expanded to include linking these venues with the rest of the world to provide a single seat ride, then monorail may have built in limitations in speed, ride quality at speed, cost to build custom equipment, loading gauge limiting capacity or requiring longer (or MU’d) trains, and ??? Power distribution and signaling would probably be the same for any rail mode.
Light rail on an elevated or mixed elevated and at-grade system could provide more flexibility IF there are ever any plans to extend the system to other destinations (ie. to bring people from other areas (LAX?) to Disneyland or the convention center. Although I may be mistaken, isn’t there a dedicated light rail line linking Hong Kong’s airport and Disney HK? (http://www.hongkongairport.com/eng/aguide/airportex.html)
I try to use transit when I’m traveling on business – Marta in Atlanta from the airport to downtown for conventions or business meetings, DC metro from WAS to Alexandria or the mall, etc.&
It used to be a battle to get downtown and park your car. Today you can still park your car downtown but need a few dollars in the off hours to keep it from getting vandalized.
When Baltimore opened thier subway it was much better to park at a outlying station, ride the subway down and run around downtown on foot. Even if you were on a wheel chair you could still do it really easily.
The big secret to Baltimore is what I call the “Skyway” completely possible to get from the downtown station to the harbor without having to cross a street on surface level on foot.
I understand that light rail ties into BWI which is growing in strength each year.
If Anaheim really needs to put public transit in the air, I think it can do better than monorails. If it has to be in the air, rather than monorails I think people movers have shown their mettle over shortish distances of no more than a couple miles that need to include many stops.
This kind of gets into the idea as to what classes of public-transit elevate well. In the USA and IMHO modern El’s are problematic. In Chicago land-acquisition of the northernmost stretch of what is now known as the Red Line L (that’s how we spell it in Chi), Wilson Ave. to Howard Street (border w/Evanston), was built thru a partially rural area. I saw a charming print at one of the local historical societies some years ago, of a cow grazing as the brand-new El hustles by in the background. This was circa 1906 – others reading this I hope will have the exact date. Point is, land acquisition was almost scratch. But that was 102 years ago! Note also that all of Chicago’s L extensions post-1960 (except Midway’s Orange Line) were built using significant amounts of expressway median.
OTOH look at he example of L.A.'s Blue Line, which looks very LRT to me with its pantograph and meduim-length trainsets. But the Blue Line IIRC has been a little disappointing in terms of ridership compared to the other LRT lines and the Wilshire subway. Fear of crime has something to do with it, too, but IIRC the decision to go “el” and pay for elevated structures, bridges, and stations, vs. to pay more in land-acquisition and run surface was a close call – and a large part of it may be not wanting to p.o. the owners of the warehouses and such that comprise part of its trip by closing thru service streets for a dedicated ROW. That’s legitimate. What is also likely, though, is that if that LRT had been built mostly on the ground, it would probably have around twice as many stations. (And
There is an overhead system that has not been used but is based entirely on existing technology that is both less expensive and more flexible than monorail and doesn’t have much different a footprint. It is elevated light rail. The original Charles Harvey’s “West Side Patent Elevated Railway” on Manhattan’s Greenwich Steet and Ninth Avenue from Debrosses Street (i think) to 34th Street, in 1867, used a single car, connected to a cable, with one steam driven pulley at the south end. The rails were directly attached to longitudial beams between supports that were a U supported by single column. No crossties, the beams held the rails in gauge. When the Tweed organization took over the line and extended and expanded it, they introduced steam engines. This necessitated both a heavier structure and some resilience between the rails and the structure, so crossties (sleepers in the UK) were introduced and have been a feature of all elevated railways since, mimiking standard railroad practice. But they are competely unnecessary for an electric overhead railway, and there are better ways of assuring some controlled resilience between the rail and the longitudinal supporting girders. The result, a very open structure, with no more shade than a monorail, but using conventional, street-car, light rail, or electric railway technology. Wonder who will be first?
I live just outside Anaheim city limits. Where does the mayor think he’s going to get the funds for the monorail?
Anaheim already has a high occupancy tax on hotel rooms. You can only bleed the tourist business so much.
City governments in CA cannot unilaterally impose a sales tax.
County transportation Measure M projects are already allocated countywide, and any attempt to hijack funds would meet with stiff resistance from other cities.
The State of California doesn’t have surplus funds and other cities/counties would likely fight it to protect their pet projects funding.
The feds are iffy, at best.
Looks like a financial checkmate to this O.C. resident.
We are financing a new water tower to be built using bonds to finance it for the next 20 years to pay for the thing. Without that water tower we cannot sustain our boomtown growth on that part of town.
I worry about the Market because there is noise about Bonds going bad.
Of course someone can step in and make a nice multimillion dollar contribution as long they get to brand the thing.