Wouldn't monorail work in Detroit?

[szla]

Generally when transit issues come up in Detroit, one of the main objections is the lack of density or places in which large numbers of people congregate. Monorails have the ability to snake through urban areas using existing right of ways. In Detroit, Woodward is generally considered the first place for the line. Many of the main areas of congregation are off the Woodward line. Places like Ford Hospital, downtown Royal Oak, Somerset, Eastern Market, the Casinos, Masonic, the DMC, Beaumont Hospital. Palmer Park Apt, WSU, the New Center. Herman Kiefer, the State Fair, Berkeley, Ford Field, the Oakland Government Center etc, A monorail would have the ability to connect all these entities easily. The entities could build the stations with access to both the entity and other outside activity having access. The average speed of monorail is faster than light rail. Accidents are nonexistent. Costs of construction are comparable and may be with the advent of the Urbanaut design lower. And lastly the major on going cost of a system is labor. A monorail has considerably lower costs. There does not have to be drivers.

[Ray1936]

They built a monorail in Las Vegas, going from Sahara to near the south end of the strip. It's a financial disaster. Generally privately built with only some small govermental subsidies; mostly for right-of-way.
http://www.lvmonorail.com/

[tahleel]

Why build a monorail [[or even a light rail) when there is currently a bus system that does the job pretty adequately without the major investment?

-Tahleel

[concernedmetrodetroiter3]

The problem is that there isn't any areas of real interest for those who live in the City of Detroit. The monorail currently serves "attractions" and not necessities. If the City were to bring in grocery stores, home improvement, etc, there would be many more people using the people mover. The majority of the people using the people mover are those who come from the suburbs [[like myself) and using it for entertainment purposes only. Detroit seems to be currently set for attracting outsiders and not taking into consideration of those living inside the City limits. I am a former resident of Detroit and found that I could live cheaper outside the City of Detroit and have improved services and conveniences. Detroit needs to start brining in attractions [[grocery, home improvement, real parks, schools, etc) to help those who are already settled there. I'm completely sick of the City trying to attract the "burbs, or outsiders" to invest in the City. Invest in yourself Detroit. Help those who are already there.

[concernedmetrodetroiter3]

I didn't mean to limit it to just the people mover. To develope a mass transit system, you must first develop areas of interest, which the City of Detroit does not have for the citizens. The transportation department can only do what it can. The City has nothing to offer to those looking to shop for groceries, supplies, cars, parks, etc. Keep on trying to piggy back off the sports teams City. Without the sports teams, who really needs the people mover? If you want to improve the bus system, bring in some attractions that the residents don't have to leave the City for.

[skyl4rk]

No destinations, no trip generations, no need for transit.

Next.

[ASR89]

Is there a chance the track could bend?

[Russix]

Why build a monorail [[or even a light rail) when there is currently a bus system that does the job pretty adequately without the major investment?

-Tahleel

I was pondering something along these lines earlier. I believe that a city is only as great as its transit. Pretty adequately doesn't attract people to live by it or use it unless they have no other choice.

[Retroit]

I think it's a great idea. After all, we have so much money lying around and there's nothing else that we could possibly use it for, so why not?

[REL]

We already have a monorail. At least, that's what it feels like when the People Mover takes on that curve near the river

[Blarf]

The People Mover is funny. I still like when during the Superbowl, people where waiting in lines that took longer than it would have taken just to walk to where ever they were going to.

[Bearinabox]

Why build a monorail [[or even a light rail) when there is currently a bus system that does the job pretty adequately without the major investment?

-Tahleel

You think our bus system is adequate?

[tahleel]

You think our bus system is adequate?

The Woodward buses? Yes.

I've road the bus for 10-12 years of my life, maybe more. It got me to where I needed to be. I just saved my pennies and when I was ready to buy a car, I did. It's really not that hard.

-Tahleel

[Bearinabox]

The Woodward buses? Yes.

I've road the bus for 10-12 years of my life, maybe more. It got me to where I needed to be. I just saved my pennies and when I was ready to buy a car, I did. It's really not that hard.

-Tahleel

It gets me to where I need to be, just not necessarily when I need to be there. Usually the same day, though.

Buses aren't really suited to mainline service in a city the size of Detroit. Too much crowding, too many people trying to board at once at major transfer points, and once the scheduling inevitably gets thrown out of whack, it only gets worse. You wait twenty minutes on a ten-minute line, and then two buses show up at once, and the one that stops for you is packed so tight you can hardly breathe while the one that breezes by you has maybe four people on it.

I can and do use DDOT to get around town, but it is not adequate for a city this size.

[professorscott]

If by "monorail" we mean a driverless, elevated train, yes it will certainly work. The People Mover works; the People Mover does not carry more people than it does because it is entirely within the CBD.

The reason the powers that be exclude elevated, driverless trains from consideration after some study is the difference in cost. The Vancouver SkyTrain's "Canada Line" is the most recent such implementation; it cost $1.9B for just under 12 miles of line, so you're talking $150M per mile. OK, that's $150M per mile Canadian, but still.

Light rail is typically estimated at $30M to $60M per mile. When it costs a great deal more, that's usually because of some unusual consideration, like the need for tunnels.

Now, admittedly, a driverless train is less expensive to operate than a train with a T.O. [[or "motorman", as Chicago still calls 'em). But you have to have the money at hand to build the system in the first place; a light rail line from downtown Detroit to Birmingham would cost just under $1B at the high end of the scale; the SkyTrain would cost about $2.4B to cover the same distance.

Now let's estimate that it will cost $15 million a year to operate the light rail service. That's a guess; there's no science behind it. Further, let's assume it costs absolutely nothing to operate a driverless train, so you're saving $15 million a year, so the extra $1,400 million dollars it costs you to build the driverless line, why, you'll make that money back in savings after just about a hundred years!

Now, having said that, it does make sense to have a generally surface light rail line go overhead or underground for short distances in heavily developed business areas. So I could see, let's say, light rail coming in toward downtown on Woodward and then going up in the air for a couple thousand feet - which would mean you're basically just building a big bridge - to carry it over the downtown traffic leaving events, and get it to [[let's say) Rosa Parks TC.

I invite comments on that last paragraph; so far as I know, nobody has floated that idea around to the powers that be.

[ghettopalmetto]

Without going into excruciating detail at this time, let's think about why every major transit system built since the 1970s has been rail-based, vis-a-vis monorail [[or even alleged Bus "Rapid" Transit").

[professorscott]

GhettoP,

What do you mean by "rail based vis-a-vis monorail"?

Prof. S

[ghettopalmetto]

GhettoP,

What do you mean by "rail based vis-a-vis monorail"?

Prof. S

I know for certain that both Washington, DC and Seattle [[there may be others) seriously considered a monorail alternative when developing their transit systems. DC, as we know, opted for heavy-rail subway. Seattle opted for light rail.

Every major rapid transit system built in the United States has consisted of rail modes, and one needs to consider why monorail has yet to be adopted, aside from intra-airport and amusement park transportation.

[wolverine]

Those giant blocks of text in the first posts would be perfect for the executive summary section in the monorail feasibility study

[stasu1213]

Why didn't the city of detroit make the people mover go up woodward to eightmile and circle back from the beginning? Was that Coleman Young's and the council oversight?

[mwilbert]

Every major rapid transit system built in the United States has consisted of rail modes, and one needs to consider why monorail has yet to be adopted, aside from intra-airport and amusement park transportation.

That really doesn't say much--people doing public projects feel straying from the pack is too much of a risk, pretty much regardless of the merits.

On the other hand, it isn't like the streets of Detroit are so crowded there isn't room for rail at ground level. I don't really see the need for a monorail, and we certainly don't have the money. I'd definitely hope it would be considered as an alternative to a subway, but that isn't happening either, so it isn't very relevant.

[dtowncitylover]

Why didn't the city of detroit make the people mover go up woodward to eightmile and circle back from the beginning? Was that Coleman Young's and the council oversight?

Because the People Mover was supposed to be the loop of a system. But when the Ford administration gave us more money to expand the system, we refused it for the sole reason we were the Motor City and mass transit wasn't our thing.

[ghettopalmetto]

That really doesn't say much--people doing public projects feel straying from the pack is too much of a risk, pretty much regardless of the merits.

On the other hand, it isn't like the streets of Detroit are so crowded there isn't room for rail at ground level. I don't really see the need for a monorail, and we certainly don't have the money. I'd definitely hope it would be considered as an alternative to a subway, but that isn't happening either, so it isn't very relevant.

Too much risk = no federal funding.

Here are some issues to consider with regard to monorail:

What are the performance advantages and disadvantages versus traditional rail?
What are the costs and capacity compared to traditional rail?
Who supplies the rolling stock?
Where does one buy spare parts?
Who is qualified to maintain and service a monorail system?
How do you construct switches in the track, and hence, yards for the rolling stock?

Those are just a couple points to consider, among others. Over the past 35 years, rail has a unanimous victory over monorail, in over two dozen new systems. You don't build a monorail just because you can. It has to make sense and provide the best value for the investment.

It's not a question of whether or not monorail would work. Rickshaws would work too. It's a question of what provides the best performance for the dollar.

[szla]

I do not claim to be an expert on rapid transit. I am someone who has traveled around a bit and taken a variety of transit systems throughout the country [[ Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Seattle. Washington DC, Boston, Las Vegas, Toronto and Detroit). I have read a lot about the issue and there are many conflicting analyses on these issues. One citing above refers to Vancouver and its' 1.9 B cost. That is an elevated light rail system. The people mover is a rubber tired train. Las Vegas is cited in a couple reports as costing from 88m to 149m per mile. It is short system so costs per mile will be higher. The performance advantages from my perspective and a few others are that monorail is faster on average, more on time once the wrinkles are worked out [[granted they take time some time) a great ride, has virtually no accidents with vehicles, can be run through very limited spaces, make a very limited footprint and I believe in Detroit's case can access the very areas that could give the concentrations that would make it a competitive system. In addition in Detroit we oftentimes do not take into account the cost of maintenance and in most instances thatcost is labor. There is much less labor-there are no drivers. I've seem statements relative to the Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur monorail that they may actually break even. Like any system in Detroit I believe it would take a regular source of revenue [[tax of some sort).. The disadvantages seem to be that each system might be unique which might cause part problems. Switches are a non issue with all the newer systems that have been built in the past 5 years whether it be the Japanese , Chinese or Malaysian systems. It also doesn't appear to be an issue with the Moscow monorail. The size or amount of people that the system can carry can be scaled up or down with cost variations. The real issue is cost. The Okinawan monorail completed in 2003 cost 43.47m per mile. The Kuala Lumpur monorail which was taken over in midstream cost 57.96m per mile, The Incheon Korea monorail a smaller 6-8 mile monorail which goes from the city center to an out island touristy area cost 16m per mile. The last one is the one that really piqued my interest. The system is called the Urbanaut. It was developed by the guy in charge of the Seattle monorail. It corrects a lot of the problems with the system and comes in as a more affordable option. Detroit is a perfect option for monorail. It is flat, with very little elevation change all the way to Pontiac. Soils which are serious problems in other areas are a minimal problem here. Earthquakes are non existent. Public right a ways are everywhere. I'm concerned we will end up with a system nobody wants. Earlier the consensus stated with serious vehemence that light rail has won almost all the battles in every city. So did urban renewal, so did tear that shit down it's old, so did a mortgage for everybody. Bash the hell out of me now.

[professorscott]

It wasn't as simple as saying we refused the money. The Fed needed us to agree as to how it would be spent, and we couldn't agree. Someone on the blog was probably around at the time and can fill in details.