Marcus wrote on Apr 26, 2006 12:22 AM:Monorail, lightrail...it's all the same. A giant government boondoggle that will most definitely be a colossal waste of tax-payer money. I say scrap the whole program now before we waste any more money!

Dave wrote on Apr 26, 2006 9:07 AM:The San Diego Trolley is a very successful and useful form of mass transit. The more it has been expanded, the more useful it has become. If gas prices keep going higher, more people will probably realize how useful it can be. Combined with the Coaster and the Sprinter it's a nice alternative to have.

Dan wrote on Apr 26, 2006 10:49 PM:There are so many things wrong with Mr. Wolinsky's comments I don't know where to start. The Wuppertal Monorail had 100+ years of service before a contractor left a clamp on a rail causing derailment. I see the 1930’s elephant wasn't mentioned, maybe because it survived the fall into the river. Eisenhower's transportation advisor in the late 1950’s(What's good for GM is good for the US) declared trams and trolleys (light rail) a lethal hazard to pedestrians and automobiles thus ordering fully functional, inexpensive fare systems to be removed. The basic loss of right-of-way can never be recovered. Was that fact missed? I see Mr. Wolinksy’s website shows a picture of our Nation’s Capitol Metro system that cannot run in snow depths greater than 8” (3rd rail icing) and if it rains to heavily (control station/box flooding). It appears that you have to pay to read his material, perhaps twice? I read somewhere that one of the Japanese monorail systems (yes, they have a few right along with superior internet and cell phone service) was used for evacuation during an earthquake. I don’t think you will ever see that in New Orleans, no way. Was it mentioned that the Seattle did operate at a profit since 1970 (the operator pays a fee to the city) and it was originally an exposition (JFK loved it)? Kind of like the Mars Rover that just kept going long after its original mission till it broke a wheel. Also missing was that the Las Vegas system was completed under-budget and ahead of schedule. How about Australia’s monorail system? Some alignment! The facts just keep spinning. IMHO, if you just calculate the number of derailments, suicide by rail, at grade accidents, and right of way costs that can be avoided, if not eliminated by the basic concept of an elevated system, monorail is worth a try. Everyone (even Dubai and Tehran) is getting one but not U.S. . The spin doctors are sure to tell you to not even attempt it, like the thought of hybrid cars, dome housing, or secure cockpits (hijackings to Cuba) in the 1970’s. I would say “I am loving it” but its somebody’s trademark now.

Walt wrote on May 5, 2006 9:33 PM:San Diego has been spending 40% of transportaion funds on mass transit schemes that carry less than 2% of trips, and 75% used by riders without access to autos. Light rail, (trolleys), buses, and also monorails suffer the same ineffectiveness because they are too inconvenient, and take too long.In most, riders go to two wrong destinations before getting near the real one. Congestion will only be reduced with transport for individuals now supplied by autos. SANDAG has boasted recently about removing 2000 autos daily from roads because of trips at the new SDSU trolley station. So that those students can save with subsidized tickets, and no need for parking permits, taxpayers, local, State, and Federal are paying over $40 daily for each such auto. Would taxis be cheaper? Strangely monorail elevated structures gain public acceptance elevated highways able to carry 5 to 10 times more don't. Indeed both use land more efficiently. Maybe we need to build the elevated highways and run monorail vehicle profiles along the edges to kid the public? That's better than kidding them that $ hundreds of millions for any kind of transit is cost effective to reduce congestion! By the way just because vehicles use electric motors doesn't mean they are pollution free. Remember those power stations.

Dan wrote on May 11, 2006 9:14 PM:Hey Walt, saying that Monorail advocates have a one-track mind is only a joke. The key here is intermodal and that applies to engine/power plant types too. Monorail alignments are recommended to link other transportation sites (like the huge empty airport parking lots) with major sites. Your costs and outcomes seem skewed but lets agree that regional application of transportation policy cannot always please everyone or effectively interconnect with other disparate regions/policies. You want to talk pollution then figure in the amount of isotope products that cannot be distilled from oil (each well has a unique profile), which is aerosoled than inhaled/ingested. Or lets see, the only "real" nuclear engineering advancement in twenty years is the removal of public debate. President Carter’s real threat to the far-right/neo-cons was that as a Naval nuclear engineer he understood the complete fuel cycle not just plant operations (do you? does dubya?). So you say don’t do anything because you want your SUV and you refuse to share a common mode with the teeming millions without the consideration that road projects are subsides (entitlements) to automakers and fuel suppliers. Denial is certainly part of addiction behavior (“we are addicted to oil”). Compromise is part of recovery.

Dan wrote on May 12, 2006 1:03 AM:It took a while but I found the data you cited. Since July 2005 completed a six mile gap in the Green Line and the survey completed "late 2005". What business pays off 200% in less than six months? Excluding drugs, guns, oil and flipped real estate. Only 26% percent (students who buy student passes)of the ridership resulted in a reduction of 2,000 parked cars at SDSU ONLY in less than six months. Not including the effect at the Old Town Station area which is the next busiest station. "The survey also yields interesting data about Green Line passengers themselves, including their preferred means of payment, reasons for using the service, and overall impressions of the new low-floor vehicles. For example, two-thirds of Green Line riders use passes (41% monthly pass; 26% college pass; 5% day pass), while 20 percent use cash. Passengers’ reasons for using the trolley service vary. The main reasons given by those surveyed were: no car (39.2%); avoid traffic congestion (28.2%); cost of driving (25.4%); parking hassles (21.6%); environmental benefits (19.6%); faster than a bus (14.5%); more time to read and relax (13.3%); and easier than driving (11.3%). Most trips on the Green Line are between home and school or home and work." Thanks for the spin Walt. Speaking of Walt, Do you think Disney World would still be open without its Monrail's 300,000 trips yearly or was that monthly? EPCOT was to be the example for "your" commmunity hence the Geodesic dome.

Walt wrote on May 14, 2006 7:05 AM:The summary report on Green Line trolley's tiny contributions to travel though Mission Valley as expected spins the attraction of subsidized passes to funds-straped SDSU students. That each of the 2000 cars presumably removed from roads costs we taxpayers $43 is not mentioned. Nor that many of the second busiest Old Town boardings are simply because downtown riders now must transfer there. More on the whole picture about the other 98% travelers later. Too late, but transit through Mission Valley might have been monorail. Considerable of the trolley is elevated anyway. Wonder if it would be cheaper than the recent extension $86 million per mile?

Walt wrote on May 22, 2006 7:56 AM:This original discussion of Monorail vs Light Rail and the physical and operational aspects is a tempest in a teapot. The real issue is how best to develop elevated guideways which can use land more efficiently and expand useable capacity in existing corridors. The straightforward answer is to elevate highways. The simple near term reason is travelers will use them as improvement to their overwhelminging preference for personal transport in autos. That's a tough sell because of built in anti auto biases at work by the smart growth community and fellow travelers, citing largely aesthetic rational. The future though offers positive high promise for elevation on narrow eleveted guideways carrying small automated vehicles. By traveler option they go directly to real destinations without transfers thus matching or beating current automobils' preferred convenience and flexibility. About 5 times the people throughput for the same land use and 1/2 energy consumption is feasible. They overcome mass transits principle deficiency by using off-line loading on demand and thus eliminate wrong place stops for the majority of occupants on massive energy-hungry buses and trains. When elevation is anathema in sensitive areas they can run surface or subsurface. In some designs the vehicles can be driven of the guideway to more remote destinations. Several qualified experimenters are showing basic feasibility. But there has to be support for critical mass installations. Rather than discuss the merits and problems of two forms of mass transit long ago discarded by the vast majority of travelers, some constructive effort in support for future technology travelers will want to use is more productive.