Sky Trolley

[Ronayne]

Heres an inteesting video I found regarding a suspended monorail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljjNCq8aYeQ&feature=related

It reminds me of how much I dread the future...
I must admit, that the raising platform is a great idea.

- Chris :wave:

 

[drrt4]

Well to bad the U.S. wont use this. Becuas it works!!:hehe: nice idea i would i love to see this here in the U.S. DR:wave:

 

[magickmaker]

This is based off a design already in place in Japan.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axFvhVfLAhQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZMspOnyydc

Note, because of the design, this monorail has switches.

 

[mitch456yui]

What if a Sky Trolley breaks down?

 

[paulzmay]

Am I allowed to say Gadgetbahn? http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gadgetbahn

These things are never as cheap as their promoters claim, and are frankly pretty ugly. Would you want one built past your windows? The whole thing starts with the assumptions that you can't take road space away from cars for mass transit (e.g. trams). The fact is, many cities have, and traffic actually seems to reduce...

There's probably a reason that there are very few monorails about, and even fewer underslung ones - they look cool, but that's about all there is to it. Also, as there are so many incompatible innovative rapid transit concepts being proposed at the moment, any municipality buying one will not get the economies of scale that are evident in tram manufacture, and could well struggle to get parts after a few years (anyone remember the Birmingham UK airport maglev, or heard about the problems Adelaide has with sourcing compatible O-bahn buses?).

Paul

 

[magickmaker]

Well, in Japan they have this rather neat locomotive that would push the cars to the next station or the first emergency disembarking location. Whichever comes first.

 

[RooRocz]

Has all the disadvantages of traditional BRT systems (requires a dedicated road lane, low capacity compared to other systems) combined with almost none of the advantages of traditional BRT (high initial cost, massive terrifying support columns, more difficult maintenance) plus its own unique problems (the whole station can break down. This just doesn't happen with other forms of transit.)

Also, the stations are very small. They could overcrowd quite easily.

EDIT: and it includes massive undesirable advertising in full view of the public.

Doomed to failure, this one is.

 

[rjhowie]

Regarding numbers didn't the video point out that numbers are controlled so that isn't a problem. The only minor downside i can see is that if you happen to work in an office or live in a flat and have your view obstructed? It's certainly unique and has been in practice for decades. so it works.

 

[paulzmay]

Has all the disadvantages of traditional BRT systems (requires a dedicated road lane, low capacity compared to other systems) combined with almost none of the advantages of traditional BRT (high initial cost, massive terrifying support columns, more difficult maintenance) plus its own unique problems (the whole station can break down. This just doesn't happen with other forms of transit.)

Also, the stations are very small. They could overcrowd quite easily.

EDIT: and it includes massive undesirable advertising in full view of the public.

Doomed to failure, this one is.

Doesn't look like it needs it's own lane, as it's well above the traffic. All I can think is that it solves one of the main problems of conventional monorails (access to elevated stations) in the most expensive and unwieldy way possible. Having to have every station staffed is nice, but it costs a lot of money. Realistically this won't go anywhere for the same reason that there are are very few monorails elsewhere - they just aren't the best thing for the job 95% of the time.

The point made about capacity vs light rail is also a bare faced lie - you are quite restricted in the length of train (ever seen Budapests monster trams) because of the sheer length of the platform lift, and you can't run two trains closer than you can lower the platform, empty it, fill it, and lift it back up again. Trams can be run virtually nose to tail (e.g. Melbourne).

Paul

 

[William0d0]

As long as people who don't ride it don't have to pay for it, I'd rather not have to pay for someone elses ride.

 

[paulzmay]

As long as people who don't ride it don't have to pay for it, I'd rather not have to pay for someone elses ride.

But doesn't everyone benefit from less traffic? Doesn't the whole economy benefit from better mobility? I agree there's still a value for money test for public transport subsidies, but who paid for your highways?

Paul

 

[William0d0]

But doesn't everyone benefit from less traffic? Doesn't the whole economy benefit from better mobility? I agree there's still a value for money test for public transport subsidies, but who paid for your highways?

Paul

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution authorizes Congress to build roads (obviously with tax dollars). There is no lawful mandate to subsidize public transportation.

If it is benificial then the private sector can take care of it and fund it by billing the users.

 

[paulzmay]

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution authorizes Congress to build roads (obviously with tax dollars). There is no lawful mandate to subsidize public transportation.

If it is benificial then the private sector can take care of it and fund it by billing the users.

The fact that there's a law for it and not for subsidising public transport says more about the USA than it does about whether it's a good idea to subsidise public transport or not. Does the NY subway make a profit? Enough to cover it's building costs if it was built now? How would New York cope without it? Doesn't it therefore benefit every New Yorker whether they use it or not?

Paul