|
THE SEVEN REASONS WHY RAIL
FAILED IN THE LAST ELECTION (in increasing order of importance) AND HOW MONORAIL
ADDRESSES THESE ISSUES by Patrick Goetz
1. Disruption of Neighborhoods
By proposing to use existing rail lines
passing through neighborhoods such as Crestview, Capital Metro turned what
should have been inner city rail supporters into staunch rail opponents. Had the
people in these north central Austin neighborhoods voted for rather than against
rail, this alone could have provided the margin of victory in the last
referendum for/against rail.
Not only that, but it simply doesn't make
sense to run a transportation rail system through extremely low density SF-3
zoned neighborhoods. The cost savings of using existing rail simply doesn't make
up for the poor route choice this results in, especially when one considers a
long term view. The rail line should go where the people are and where the
people want to go, and that means major transportation arterials with current or
the capacity for high density commercial and residential land use applications.
As already outlined, the proposed monorail system runs right down Lamar and
South Congress,
minimizing the disruption of area neighborhoods and maximizing the utility of
the system.
2. Inter modal Conflict
Has anyone from Capital Metro other than a
few long suffering #1 bus drivers ever bothered to take a look at North Lamar
Blvd. at 5 pm on an average weekday? The traffic is horrendous. Many, many
people drive on Lamar every day, and when those people start to try and
visualize how many cars will be displaced by a surface rail system, their hands
will immediately start reaching for the "just say NO" lever.
For the vast majority of people in Austin,
rail is as yet an untested transportation option. Who knows if it will work?
Meanwhile, we better not screw up what we already have, namely our existing
arterials designed for motor vehicle traffic. I don't think that this is a
terribly unreasonable perspective, particularly for someone who's never
experienced the benefits a rail system can provide.
The previously proposed surface rail system
would have taken up vast stretches of real estate on Lamar between Airport and
Guadalupe. For a large number of Austinites, this presents an unacceptable
disruption of the motor vehicle-based transportation system they are already
familiar and comfortable with.
As previously outlined, a monorail system
would minimize the impact on existing traffic on Lamar and Congress. Of course a
subway would take up no space at all on the roadway, but I don't believe we're
anywhere close to the population densities or size needed to make subway a
cost-effective solution.
3. Frequency of Service
A public transportation system which only
runs some of the time is limited in its potential to get people out of their
cars because of the fear of getting stranded some place when the train is no
longer running. Once built, the single biggest expense of a rail system is
labor; with our existing bus system, for example, the biggest expense in adding
or extending the service hours is the bus driver, and this must always be taken
into consideration when route determinations are made.
A surface rail system will always require
drivers due to inter modal conflict (i.e., light rail trains interfering with
and being interfered with by automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians since they
operate at the same level). However, a monorail system, being elevated, can
be fully automated, allowing one to run trains without incurring the expense of
a driver. A single set of operators can manage an entire network of trains from
a central location, helping to reduce labor costs and removing this as a factor
in determining what frequency of service and what service hours can be afforded
the customers. Consequently, we can have extended service hours and frequency of
service before a strong demand for these services exists, allowing the existence
of the service to stimulate the demand. One possible consequence? Fewer drunk
drivers endangering themselves and others on our roadways from midnight through 4 am.
4. Utility
That is, does the system go to the
destinations that people want to go to? Again, since monorail can and should be
deployed along existing major arterial roadways, one is assured that the rail
service will go to the destinations that people want to go to, since these
destinations are almost always located along major arterials for convenience of
access by motor vehicle traffic. If the train goes the same places the cars are
going, the path will probably be one of greatest utility. Maximizing utility
will negate the "Does too Little" part of "Costs too Much, Does too Little".
5. Deployment
By all rights, the merchants along Congress
Ave. should have been fanatically in favor of a transportation rail transit
system along Congress Ave.. Instead, they were dead set against it. They even
hired a lobbyist, former council member Max Nofziger, to speak out against the
deployment of rail. Why? Fear of the disruption of access to their businesses
construction of the rail line would cause. Installing a surface rail system
would tear up the entire roadway for months, if not years, not to mention the
large amounts of additional right of way which would need to be appropriated
from property owners to accommodate the rail system.
One of the benefits of monorail is that the
actual beams can be pre-manufactured off site and simply placed on the support
pillars. The only track construction which takes place on site is the
installation of the support pillars, and these need only be placed every 100-200
feet. Consequently, the disruption of traffic and access to businesses along the
route is minimized. For any particular part of the street, there are problems
while the support pillar(s) are being installed, but after a few days the
construction crew moves on, leaving a fully functional street (and fully
accessible businesses) behind.
The light rail system proposed in the
previous referendum had a build-out time of 20 years. 20 years!!! Who wants to
wait 20 years to enjoy the benefits of rail? To hell with that, give me another
lane for my car, let me keep a big chunk of my billion dollars and I'll make do
somehow; according to this plan I would have to anyway - there is no other
choice.
According to one communication I had with an
engineering firm, a single crew can deploy 5 miles of monorail beam in a single
year. By this reckoning, with 4 crew working simultaneously, we could have our
entire monorail system in less than 3 years! 3 years is a time frame I (and most
other people) can live with. 20 years is an outrageous and unacceptable amount
of time to wait.
6. Speed
This point can't be stressed enough. People
will simply not use a system which is slower than sitting in traffic in their
own car. They might if parking were severely limited, but this is not the case
in Austin; on the contrary, the downtown area is infested with an ever growing
number of parking garages. Why on earth would anyone choose to sit in traffic in
a bus or in a surface rail car when they can just as well sit in traffic in the
air conditioned, radio and CD player equipped comfort of their own car? The
average speed of the previously proposed surface rail system was 11 miles per
hour. At this speed, I would never use the train because I can get to any
destination in Austin faster on my bicycle!
According to my calculations, a monorail
system such as OTG HighRoad with stations placed at intervals of 1 mile can easily achieve a cruising
speed of 70 mph between stops, allowing for an average speed of about 28-32 mph
(with stopping time included). However, actual design and average speeds of some
systems may be lower. Since the system enjoys grade separation, there
is never any need to slow down at intersections or stop because, for example, a
another vehicle is stalled or stopped on the track due to traffic jams. This is a
much higher average speed than one can get traveling downtown by automobile,
particularly during rush hour. Combined with convenient frequency and hours of
service, this is all that it takes to get commuters out of their cars and onto
the train. Once they do it, they'll never look back, and a rail-friendly
environment will have been established, allowing for additional rail routes
(including, perhaps, surface rail on existing rail right of way and a downtown
trolley system as part of the transportation mix).
Light synchronization DOES NOT solve the
inter modal conflict problems surface rail suffers from. The driver must still
slow down and make sure some errant motorist isn't absentmindedly running the
red light. And in the case of severe traffic jams and gridlock, surface rail
vehicles are stuck in traffic just like everyone else. Consequently, what's the
point? Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a system which will not only
displace cars and vastly widen the roadway, but in the final analysis, doesn't
improve quality of service? The only way to guarantee a fixed service time
regardless of traffic conditions is grade separation. For Austin, grade
separation means monorail - there is no other practical choice.
In short, LET'S KEEP THE RAPID IN RAPID
TRANSIT.
7. Cost
One argument made against monorail is that it
is considerably more expensive than a surface rail system. The argument made
(successfully, I might add) against surface rail is that it "Costs too Much,
Does too Little". Monorail solves the "Does too Little" part of this sound bite
by providing fast, guaranteed service along existing major arterials to the
destinations people want to go to. What about cost? My research indicates that -
done right - monorail is no more expensive than surface rail. In the previous
rail referendum, the cost of surface rail was estimated at 30 million dollars
per mile. In an e-mail sent to me, David Owen of the Owen Transit Group, Inc. (Owen
Transit Group, Inc. HighRoad Monorail Rapid Transit System) cites costs for a monorail line which are considerably
lower. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Owens comments:
Our HighRoad numbers,
however, are accurate. So much so that we'd be willing to contract to it. (Our
web site states the complete cost of a typical 20-mile system in the Atlanta
area would be $22.5m/mile... Austin costs would be similar.) In general, the
major cost items have been project priced from vendors... this includes the
guideway manufacturer, vehicle manufacturer, controls vendor, etc.. We are an
engineering firm. This is what we do. Others in the aircraft industry have given
us extensive "peer reviews" and concluded our costs to be accurate and
reasonable.
We cost analyzed
conservatively, that is, in areas requiring parametric costing, we chose to set
cost estimates too high rather than too low. Further, our manufacturing and
costing standards are based on aerospace industry tolerances rather than the
lower bus/transit standards. We desire to shake the industry with a quality
product at a price point well below others in the same capacity range (such as
heavy rail). Light rail, btw, falls far short of our capacity.
The cost of light rail being
asserted at $25m/mile is unique! A more typical industry history has shown the
minimum cost to be $42m/mile.
As previously mentioned, one of the benefits
of monorail is that the actual beams can be pre-manufactured off site and simply
placed on the support pillars. One way of cutting costs would be to have the
actual beams manufactured locally, perhaps even by Capital Metro! In any case,
it should be clear that the price of a monorail system can be competitive with
the cost of deploying surface rail, and perhaps even cheaper.
A valid point is that monorail stations will
be more expensive to build because they are elevated. On the other hand, they
can be built over the roadway, reducing the amount of right of way which will
need to be acquired along Lamar and Congress. One way of mitigating these costs
is by including rental space for fast food and commercial vendors in the station
design. In the final analysis, the expense of elevating the station should not
be prohibitive, particular in light of the reduced cost of land acquisition.
By every measure, monorail is the only
rational solution for Austin.
Austin Monorail Project Home
|
