[See photos of the backyard monorail built by Kim Pedersen of Niles, California].
Here in Seattle we're plagued by plans to create two frighteningly expensive rail systems that are both about as useful as Mr. Pedersen's backyard monorail -- Sound Transit Link light rail and the Seattle Monorail. Both projects are fiscally unsound and neither will accomplish much in the way of reducing road congestion. So what explains their existence?
A reader suggested I read Emory Bundy's essay "Why Rail?" [subhead: Why do we support systems that almost never work?] Long, but worthwhile. Bundy observes that new rail systems are hardly ever cost-effective given their capacity and benefits, but come into being mainly for the following reasons: Idealistic nostalgia for pre-automobile 19th century America, unrealistic expectations about the actual costs and benefits of rail systems, and cynical pork barrel politics. His alternatives to wasteful rail spending: make more efficient use of existing road infrastructure, e.g. carpooling and congestion pricing of highways. (Along the same lines I would add encouragement of telecommuting and home-based work) and promote modern transit technologies, such as personal rapid transport.
Along similar lines, John Kirchner, a Professor of Geography and Transportation at Cal State L.A. emails:
it is the fantasy world of the monorail that is the most curious. The concept is old and the technoogy proposed is that of the 1950's.I do agree with market (and congestion) pricing of major roadways.Monorails are slow, inflexible, and have a surprisingly rough ride. Almost any modern light or heavy rail line is far superior, and can, like San Francisco's BART, be mounted on single pedestal elevated supports. I show images of the BART system to my students and most think it is a monorail, but it is far faster, much more comfortable, and it is easy to add and subtract cars as needed. I was on a monorail in Tokyo just two weeks ago, and compared to the other transit options that make that place a transit dream, the monorail is an amusement park joke. Short and simple. Tokyo does have "freeways," but they are all toll roads, and if I read the rates correctly, it would cost you at least $6-7.00 US to make a freeway trip in your car (I'm sure regulars get monthly discounts). But think about it; if good capitalists demanded freeways be paid for directly by users (as in France or Japan), what would happen to our overall urban transport picture.
So, the irony is that I support mass transit, but think Seattle made a stupid mistake in its choice of technology. The tax loophole is funny, but think about the implications of having to pay for each ride on the freeway, which as you know is how most trips are generated in urban areas, Seattle and L.A. included.
In the meantime, what can we do about the massively expensive and largely useless Monorail and light rail systems? We can refuse to pay for them and we recall them at the ballot box. Do what you can to help the intiatives to force revotes for both Sound Transit (www.trustandtransit.org) and the Monorail (www.monorailrecall.com)
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 26, 2004 12:01 PMI remember how RW Reagan actually said cars were many times more fuel efficient than rails.
Rail is about 40 times more fuel efficient.
The worst thing, domestically, I know about Eisenhower was the way he hooked up with the oil/auto people to push the National Highway System as a defense project.
40 times less fuel, and you want to write against it.
You sure have your priorities straight! Straight to OPEC! ;)
Posted by: Hey! on April 27, 2004 06:54 AMbut that was a cool looking train. thx for posting the pic.
Posted by: Hey! on April 27, 2004 06:55 AMHey! Take off your blinders. The microscopic minority of the population that lives along rail lines might benefit from that suspiciously magnificent fuel economy ratio, if they ONLY visited one another. But it's still a free country despite what our politically correct betters wish for. Freedom means: people go where they choose to. Please recompute your egregious fuel economy ratio (assuming you actually know how to) to account for the capital cost of building railroads to every destination freely chosen by the people. And while you're at it, recompute that 40-to-1 ratio to account for capital costs of that 'ideal' rail line. Otherwise, 40-to-1 is sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 27, 2004 08:16 AMRail efficiency for freight is about 10X that of trucks (BTU per ton-mile.) For passenger rail compared with cars, however, the efficiency improvement is pretty marginal. The mail reason is likely poor car utilization at off-peak times in the case of passenger rail...rail cars are heavy and hauling them around costs energy even when they are half-full or less.
I don't think these numbers include the energy capital cost for either rail or road.
Posted by: David Foster on April 27, 2004 02:10 PM"Along the same lines I would add encouragement of telecommuting and home-based work"
Shark - You don't get it do you? The people who are pushing for mass transit, and to make all alternatives unattractive are the downtown real estate firms. They want a reason for businesses to pay the inflated rent downtown, rather than people working near or at home. If they were really concerned for the environment, this would be the top priority.
Posted by: Dogbert on April 28, 2005 12:56 PM