…and Googling further, the newer trams in Amsterdam hold nearly 200.
The big problem with busses is that they are subject to the whims of traffic. Who wants to ride a system with unpredicatable timing that gets you places much slower than a car? Right now it is mostly people with no other choice, which just makes people more reluctant to use busses. In any sort of modestly urban situation, busses are a poor public transit solution. The only reason why it is so pervasive right now is the power of the automotive and oil industry.
Goodness, that Okinawa subway looks just like the future!
Why don’t we see more monorails? Public transport is a hard sell in America, and face outright violent opposition. Just look at all the cries that public transportation systems have to “pay for themselves” as if our public road and highway system does. We havn’t been seeing a lot of subways being built, either. The sort of urban planning that makes people want good public transportation just isn’t in vogue right now.
Pittsburgh committed to busses in a big way over any type of light rail system because it was perceived as cheaper and w/o a “footprint”. Surprise! The bus is, as noted, at the mercy of traffic. The solution was the VERY EXPENSIVE construction of “busways” which are simply additional roads that only busses are permitted to use. In the course of this devotion to the almighty bus, Pittsburgh abandoned a pretty extensive streetcar system. In the last decade, at more expense, the “T” system has come on-line. This light rail system is kind of an uneasy combination of streetcar and subway. Of course, it doesn’t go far enough or have enough stops to be a really attractive means of transportation. haven’t heard about it in a while, but there were also plans to build a mag-lev (spelt mag-lev but pronounced boondoggle) train that would run from the city to the airport. Bottom line is that Pittsburgh is a shining example of all that is wrong with mass transit.
Contrast this with the extensive and convenient Metro subway system in Washington DC.
A few other things:
-
Many light and heavy rail systems use customized equipment to accounting for different rail curve radii, station platform heights, operating voltages and the like. However, with more rail systems coming online, it’s becoming more common to use use off-the-shelf equipment, and save a few dollars. Transit agencies are creating common standards, and many are pooling together for rolling stock contracts. Every monorail system is custom, and there are no shared standards, not even track gauge; thus, equipment is more expensive.
-
Track switching is much easier with conventional rail equipment. Switches are very awkward, expensive and unreliable with monorails.
-
A monorail can only be elevated. If it’s run at grade or un a subway, a deep trench muct be dig to accomodate the rail. Platforms are only a few feet above the rails of a light rail or heavy rail system; on a monorail, they’re nine or ten feet above the bottom of the rail.
-
If there is a power outage, it’s easy to evacuate a light or heavy rail train; even on an elevated portion, passengers can step piut of the train and walk along the right-of-way to the nearest station. With a monorail, you’re stuuck unless a train is equipped with emergency ladders.
When I lived in Los Angeles, for 2 years I was a public transit commuter. I found that a 34 mile trip from Burbank, where I lived, to El Segundo, where I worked, took 3 hours (one way!!!) on a bus/light rail combo. That’s why I bought a car.
NYC + rail = good.
L.A. + rail = stupid.
Has the Los Angeles Blue Line/Red line so-forth been expanded much since 1998?
It occurs to me that, since Pittsburgh already has these busways, they could be retrofitted into streetcar lines. Just lay tracks on them.
Historically, one reason the old streetcar systems were perceived as inefficient, and slated for demolition, was because they had to share the streets with cars – i.e., autos and streetcars running in the same lanes – and so, as city streets got busier and busier with auto traffic over the decades, the streetcars tended to get stuck in traffic, just like cars or buses. The solution seems obvious in hindsight: Segregated lanes for the streetcars.
The busways could be retrofitted as streetcar lines except that they connect primarily with the area freeways or parkways as they are called. Pittsburgh screwed up by not constructing a 1st rate subway system initially. More than the cost of a subway system has been pissed away on busses, busways, and the “T” at this point. City/county finances being what they are, the money isn’t there to construct a subway now. So, Pittsburgh shall remain wedded to its bus system and that is just one more reason Pittsburgh will never be the attractive business and pleasure destination the city/county government would desperately like it to be. Who wants to visit or start a business in a city where something as basic as getting from point A to point B is an inordinate pain in the ass?
WAG, but I suspect the geography of Pittsburgh pretty much rules out a subway - when there’s a steep hill on the surface, you’re suddenly talking about building stations that aren’t twenty feet below the surface but hundreds of feet. Plus, you’re talking about true tunnelling (rather than cut-and-cover), rarely used for urban transport nowadays due to cost.
It depends on what you mean by “much”. The Red Line has been completed to its final intended destination of North Hollywood. There is also a new light rail line, called the Gold Line, which goes from Union Station to Pasadena.
Also, the statement “L.A. + rail = stupid” depends on where you are and where you want to go. My parents live near the Universal City Red Line station and often go downtown to the Music Center to attend concerts and operas. For them the completion of the Red Line has been a great benefit.
Ed
As a regular user of the Croydon tram, I can report that it is an excellent way to get around. Quiet, efficient, frequent and effective.
In London the Docklands Light Railway is probably closer to the monorail idea (although obviously it’s a double rail system). It’s elevated (apart from the tunnel under the river) and largely automated (a driverless system, albeit with a bloke to open and close the doors for safety reasons and occasionally check tickets). Given that they’re still building more and more extensions to the DLR system, I can only assume that it’s cost-effective. South of the river it’s largely built above Deptford Creek, which means that it’s not obstructing other properties or development.
(It’s also fun to sit in the front and pretend you’re in a slow rollercoaster. Or maybe that’s just me.)
Hell, no. Going down into Bank is one of the best things to do in London 
Also the DLR, at least in its original form, is very much light-rail, and parallels the Manchester trams in demonstrating how old railway routes could be successfully reused. The run into the city and north to Stratford is only elevated because the Victorian viaducts are!
BTW, here’s the site of the Monorail Society: http://www.monorails.org/ It’s currently updated, with the latest monorail news, and lists every monorail system operating in the world.
And at this site – http://www.lightrail.com/ – you can get all the latest news on streetcar and light-rail systems, and a list and maps of all the light rail systems in North America.
The Red Line has been extended to North Hollywood, and the light rail system has been extended from downtown L.A. to Pasadena. A light rail line from downtown L.A. to East L.A. is in the planning stages.
The reason it’s so difficult to commute between Burbank and El Segundo is not because trains are stupid, but more because there are not enough routes. If there were a direct route from downtown L.A. to the South Bay, it would have been much faster, obviously.
In spite of the rail developments over the last decade, public transit in L.A. is still heavily skewed toward buses. Slow, dirty, trafficbound, but wonderfully cheap, and the drawbacks don’t matter since only poor people have to ride them–and most of them don’t or can’t vote. Rail projects are also hampered by NIMBYism and cronyism. A good example of the latter is alleged in this[url=“http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1448&IssueNum=79”]article in a local alternative newspaper which states:
Though there have been some improvements, I’d say that transit here is a case of the old adage that you get what you pay for. And in this city, most of the people who decide how much to spend on transit don’t care to spend much, because it’s mostly other people who actually have to use public transit.
Dude, about the only thing Pittsburg could do for me in public transportation that I would throw a freaking party over is to have cheap and simple transit to the airport. And if I could get there from Westmoreland County where my grandparents are without having to fire up the rental car in January, I’d give you my hypothetical firstborn. Then again, public transit isn’t built just to satisfy me, I know.
Getting places in that town has always been screwed up. What on earth is it with the belts? Do they really take you anywhere? Do they take you where things were twenty years ago? Do they possibly lead you right into the river, maybe?
Next time I fly into the airport at 4 and have to make it through town to Greensboro during rush hour I may just shoot myself and save the trouble. Preferably before I get to those damned Squirrel Hill tunnels, argh!
Washington, D.C., has a pretty fast and extensive Metro subway system. But I went to college at Georgetown University, and if I wanted to ride the subway I had to walk or bike a couple of miles to either Dupont Circle or Foggy Bottom. When the Metro system was built, the residents of Georgetown lobbied successfully to keep the subway out of their historic, yupscale neighborhood – because they didn’t want to make it any easier for poor coughblackcough people to come visiting. (No cite for that, it’s just something that everybody knew.) NIMBYism indeed. I read in James Howard Kunstler’s The City in Mind (Free Press, 2001) that the same kind of suspicion and hostility has warped the development of the MARTA rail system in Atlanta. From pp. 66-67:
The north-south axis of MARTA eventually was completed, running as far north as North Springs and Doraville. http://www.itsmarta.com/getthere/schedules/index-rail.htm
In Washington, however, there is still no Metro station in Georgetown. http://www.wmata.com/metrorail/systemmap.cfm
I wonder how racial/ethnic tensions have shaped (or prevented) the development of mass-transit systems in other cities?
Followup to last post: The linked Washington Metro map doesn’t tell you where Georgetown is. It’s west and north of Foggy Bottom. For all I know, the Orange and Blue lines run directly under it already; if not, they could easily have been routed to provide a station at the intersection of K Street and Wisconsin Avenue.
To make busses fast and desireable just give them right of way over everything except emergency vehicles and make the fare real cheap. (How about free?)
I would not want to ride a bus to work with sirens blasting in my ears. And how else could you make sure cars would get out of the bus’s way?
Hmmm. Are you sure about Georgetown? Here’s my reference point: I knew someone who went to GU in the early '50s. He described it as still somewhat industrial, with pickle factories (“meet me down in the pickle-packing district!”) but, more interestingly, a good number of . . . black folks. Note that the decent preservation of the colonial housing there could actually be due to its having remained relatively poor and thus free of money to build new housing till the relatively recent past (“yupscale” intentionally-preserved neighborhoods being a relatively recent invention – when people wanted to “gentrify” in the '40s or '50s, I suspect they defined this as razing old colonial houses and building split levels).
Anyhow, I ask because:
“Planning for Metro began in the 1950s, construction began in 1969, and the first segment opened for operation in 1976. Metro is one of the largest public-works projects ever built, and it is the second-busiest rail transit system in the United States.”
So . . . if my source is right that G-town was, if anything, a bit louche (and, “ethnic” to boot) in ca. 1954 (no official cite for that, sorry) – and if the planning began “in the 1950s” – you’d have to answer two questions to confirm the “everybody knows” NIMBY theory (which I’d heard too, BTW):
- When did G-town become sufficiently “yuppified” (and/or ‘heavily white’) that organized “NIMBYism” could have had an effect?
and - When was the Metro station siting/planning more or less completed?
I’m not willing to bet on which came first.
FWIW, in other cities, I’ve heard other class/ethnic tensions invoked. E.g., I mentioned Miami, and the fact that the Metrorail doesn’t go to many popular/important places you’d think it would, but does go to many other places with sparse working populations or other attractions. Some Miamian’s I’ve talked to “blame” this fact on the need of the (mostly white) “civic fathers”/monorail dorks who planned and built and lobbied for the system needing to get minority council members/‘community leaders’ “invested in” the project, for want of a better phrase, by delivering a little pork barrel in the form of stations for every area of the county, whether really needed or not. Whether that’s true, I don’t know, but it has been the source of some bile there, as there have been instances (or allegations of instances, or popular perceptions; who knows?) of kids from the poorer neighborhoods using the trains for access to the mall(s) in the suburbs for five-finger discount activities.
A monorail is basically just another elevated train, and any neighborhood an “El” runs through ends up looking like shit.