|
Transit home page
Why I oppose light rail A table comparing light rail and monorail Arguments for light rail and my rebuttal |
Two examples of successful light rail systems are the two closest to the Seattle region — Max light rail in Portland, Oregon, and the Sky Train in Vancouver, British Columbia. Sound Transit and other light rail proponents use the success of light rail in other cities as one of their strongest arguments as to why Sound Transit should build a light rail system in Seattle and the surrounding area. This year Sound Transit will open Tacoma Link, a line about a mile long. They are in the preliminary stages of construction on Central Link, that will connect Downtown Seattle to SeaTac International Airport, via the Rainier Valley district of Seattle. SOME FORM OF RAILWAY WAS THE BEST OPTION AT THAT TIME. Cities solved mass transit demands with streetcars, interurban railways, commuter trains, elevated railways, and subways. In later years busses became a good option, but for moving large numbers of people the solution of choice was to lay tracks. TIMES HAVE CHANGED. There is more concern today about the welfare of residents and businesses in the path of a transportation project, and on those in the neighborhood. There is more concern for safety. Construction costs have risen enormously. There is much more effort to protect the environment. There are new technologies to move large numbers of people rapidly, safely, and comfortably. LIGHT RAIL IS NO LONGER THE BEST SOLUTION TO RAPID TRANSIT. But people change their ways slowly. For many government officials and mass transit planners, faced with a need to provide a better mass transit solution, the hard-wired gut reaction is to build some form of railway, no matter what the cost, because the need for mass transit is so great the cost does not matter. CITIES ALREADY HAVING LIGHT RAIL ARE ALREADY COMMITTED TO LIGHT RAIL. If a city already has light rail, any expansion would logically be something compatible with what they already have, therefore more light rail. SEATTLE DOES NOT HAVE LIGHT RAIL YET, SO WE STILL HAVE A CHOICE. The year is 2003. We are aware of newer technology that is better and costs less than light rail. We still have an option to stop spending money and effort on a 19th-century technology and divert that money and effort to cheaper and more effective 21st-century technolgy. We need to do this now because what we do now commits us to using compatible technology in the future. SO WHAT ABOUT THE SUCCESSES IN PORTLAND AND VANCOUVER? These systems were started in the 1980s, when light rail was still one of the best choices. The systems did experience success, and over time, as new decisions had to be made about expansion, it was only logical to expand with more light rail so the trains could be used throughout the system, including the original line. To me, it is not just a matter of whether or not light rail was a success, because I agree that the current system is a success. To me, the argument is "what if they had started with monorail instead of light rail?" WHAT IF PORTLAND HAD STARTED WITH MONORAIL INSTEAD OF LIGHT RAIL? When the decision was made to build the first light rail line, little was known about monorail and there were no large-scale monorail systems in use. It was definitely safer to commit to proven light rail technology than to gamble on a relatively unknown and unproven technology such as monorail. Portlanders made the right decision for the time. But just suppose that they had decided to build a monorail line as the first line. It too would have been successful, in fact more successful than light rail. Most likely the first expansion would have come sooner, at less cost, and completed sooner. Subsequent expansions would also come sooner, until today they would most likely have a monorail system much larger than the present light rail system, with much higher ridership. All the people that have died from Max trains would still be alive (unless they died later from some other cause). Scores of people would have been spared their painful injuries or disablements. Thousands of people would still have their same homes and business locations. People would be commuting between Downtown Portland, Gresham, Beaverton, and the airport in less time than they are now. Communities split asunder by a pair of tracks would have been spared. WHAT IF VANCOUVER HAD STARTED WITH MONORAIL INSTEAD OF LIGHT RAIL? The situation in Vancouver, B.C., is similar to that in Portland, but there is an important difference. The Max system in Portland is mostly surface light rail, with tracks built in streets or elsewhere on the ground. Vancouver also decided on light rail, but opted for grade-separated light rail, underground Downtown and elevated in most other areas. As a result, the Vancouver Sky Train is safer and faster than the Max system. In fact, The Sky Train has many of the advantages of monorail. So what if Vancouver had built monorail instead of light rail? The biggest difference is cost. The Sky Train railway requires a structure similar to an elevated roadway to support the tracks, and it has to be wide enough to hold two railroad tracks. A monorail runs on a long beam. So two monorail guideways (beams) are much lighter in weight than the bridge-like railroad structure, so the columns supporting the monorail guideway are much smaller around that those required for the railroad. Overall, monorail construction uses far less concrete and other materials, it takes less labor, it takes less time, and it causes less damage to streets below, therefore less repair costs. As in Portland, lower cost and faster completion means more money sooner for the next phase of construction. Therefore, I think that if Vancouver had used monorail instead of light rail, they would have a system now that would have more lines and extend further into the suburbs. Unlike monorail in Portland, monorail in Vancouver would not have the advantages of saved lives and injuries, higher speed, and less disruption to communities. In these ways elevated and underground light rail have advantages similar to monorail. The biggest differences lie in cost and construction speed. SO, ALTHOUGH LIGHT RAIL IS SUCCESSFUL, MONORAIL WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL! I regret that the people of Portland, Vancouver, and other cities, happy with the light rail system they have, can't experience the higher level of success they would be enjoying with a monorail system. Has the Seattle area also committed itself to second best? THE SEATTLE AREA IS AT A CRITICAL THRESHHOLD. Do we go ahead and begin a light rail system that will commit us to a gradual expansion of the same at high cost for a second-best system? Or do we shift our thinking to a monorail system that will be cheaper, better, faster, and grow faster throughout the region? The citizens of Seattle have already made their choice clear. Frustrated by the failure of government and politicians to build a monorail system, the people within the city limits started a petition that resulted in an election approving a monorail system, but only in the City of Seattle. Sound Transit is a regional agency not subject to what the people of Seattle want, so Sound Transit stubbornly proceeds with light rail that will seriously impact some Seattle neighborhoods. I think most people along the route would much rather have a monorail, but Sound Transit is isolated from the people’s desires. Sound Transit won’t even let the people vote on whether or not they want a change. See my table comparing light rail and monorail. Return to my Mass Transit home page Go to my Monorail site Return to the Fleming Family home page
©2003 Robert M. Fleming Jr. | |