Passenger Trains > People mover vs rail

I read an article about the long awaited Los Angeles Airport 2.25 mile people mover is to be completed next year at the eye popping cost of $4.25 billion. That comes out to $338,000 per foot. The price includes the people mover and a transit hub that tacked on nearly a billion to the people mover cost.  I really don't know much about people movers so I looked up the technology in wikipedia. I watched numerous people mover videos and I don't get the advantage with the technology over rail. They look like a convention light rail vehicle except I see they have rubber tires. The guideways look like they have a lot more equipment to make them run than a rail system.

 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read an article about the long awaited Los
> Angeles Airport 2.25 mile people mover is to be
> completed next year at the eye popping cost of
> $4.25 billion. That comes out to $338,000 per
> foot. The price includes the people mover and a
> transit hub that tacked on nearly a billion to the
> people mover cost.  I really don't know much
> about people movers so I looked up the technology
> in wikipedia. I watched numerous people mover
> videos and I don't get the advantage with the
> technology over rail. They look like a convention
> light rail vehicle except I see they have rubber
> tires. The guideways look like they have a lot
> more equipment to make them run than a rail
> system.
>
>  

Just as an excercise look at the Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit system...it's from like the sixties but still running for the benefit mostly of West Virginia University Students, but anyone can ride, just pay the fare. It's a fairly short run at 11 minutes so one could argue rail would have been prohibitive given the use case. As for 338 large per foot....you have to believe that lots of folks had their hand in the til. As for the mode...I dunno...I haven't seen it...but if what at least a few miles rail might have worked. 

I could be wrong but airport people movers usually can be paid with the airline passenger tax because they are part of the facility. No pressure in holding back on the expense. The technology has been around for years

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could be wrong but airport people movers usually
> can be paid with the airline passenger tax because
> they are part of the facility. No pressure in
> holding back on the expense. The technology has
> been around for years

The most obvious advantages of rubber-tired people movers are acceleration and braking. With shorter distances between stops, this is very important. Another important advantage is rubber-tired vehicles can deal with steeper grades better than metal-wheeled vehicles.

Allowance for steeper grades means the guideway can be made to fit in tighter spaces. Great example is PHX Sky Train (Phoenix, AZ) that goes up and down, going under freeways, over airplane taxiways, and reaching the "correct" floor of the terminals.

I see it as an evolution of the monorail, but no "hanging" or "straddling" with accompanying complexities in forces, so simpler to design and maintain. Personally, I don't find the design complicated. Rubber tires can absorb much of the forces from movement, and that "absorption" also translates to quieter ride. And no ties needed for the concrete "rails."

With higher rolling friction, rubber tires are less energy efficient than metal wheels. Not much of a sacrifice for shorter distances with many stops, which would be energy inefficient with light rail, anyway.

Many of the subways in Paris are rubber tired "people movers". They've been doing that for decades.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The most obvious advantages of rubber-tired people
> movers are acceleration and braking. With shorter
> distances between stops, this is very important.
> Another important advantage is rubber-tired
> vehicles can deal with steeper grades better than
> metal-wheeled vehicles.
>
> Allowance for steeper grades means the guideway
> can be made to fit in tighter spaces. Great
> example is PHX Sky Train (Phoenix, AZ) that goes
> up and down, going under freeways, over airplane
> taxiways, and reaching the "correct" floor of the
> terminals.
>
> I see it as an evolution of the monorail, but no
> "hanging" or "straddling" with accompanying
> complexities in forces, so simpler to design and
> maintain. Personally, I don't find the design
> complicated. Rubber tires can absorb much of the
> forces from movement, and that "absorption" also
> translates to quieter ride. And no ties needed for
> the concrete "rails."
>
> With higher rolling friction, rubber tires are
> less energy efficient than metal wheels. Not much
> of a sacrifice for shorter distances with many
> stops, which would be energy inefficient with
> light rail, anyway.

Thanks for the good summary.

Typically, they are automated with no driver, and the shorter cars can handle tighter curves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-tyred_metro

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typically, they are automated with no driver, and
> the shorter cars can handle tighter curves.

I'd say "semi-automated" as there's usually a remote observer to deal with unforseen events.

Denver Airport's People Movers accelerate and brake pretty hard - "(music jingle) Hold On, Please!" 

The Clarian Health hospital system built a rubber-tired people mover in Indianapolis, which was routed 1.6 miles between
what's now IU-Methodist hospital and Indiana University Hospital and Riley Childrens' Hospital.

The system was completed in 2003 at the cost of $40 million, and operated until 2019,

Why the closure? Costs. the Indy people mover needed $20 million in repairs and upgrades by 2018 so
the Clarian group shut it down. I believe some of the route was abandoned and demolished.

Clairian/IU now uses shuttle buses between the above mentioned hospitals. If my calculations are correct, this
people mover cost about $4735.00 per foot, in 2003 dollars.....

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Typically, they are automated with no driver,
> and
> > the shorter cars can handle tighter curves.
>
> I'd say "semi-automated" as there's usually a
> remote observer to deal with unforseen events.
>
> Denver Airport's People Movers accelerate and
> brake pretty hard - "(music jingle) Hold On,
> Please!" 

denver's need replacement, think new vehicles have been ordered

The hospital complex at Fitsimmons in Aurora colo was to have light rail serving it, but CU medical got concerned the light rail would effect sensitive medical machines.   so now there is a shuttle bus from a stop, which really sucks, 3 hospitals could have had front  or rear door service



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/24 03:04 by dan.

Sac Metro airport's "people mover" climbs a fairly steep grade outside, so sometimes rain on the surface.  Seems to work, but that whole Terminal B upgrade several years ago seemed like quite the boondoggle.

Not often, just once that I can recall, the "mover" failed and passengers walked along the same path between the ticketing area and the gate area.

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read an article about the long awaited Los
> Angeles Airport 2.25 mile people mover is to be
> completed next year at the eye popping cost of
> $4.25 billion. That comes out to $338,000 per
> foot. The price includes the people mover and a
> transit hub that tacked on nearly a billion to the
> people mover cost.  I really don't know much
> about people movers so I looked up the technology
> in wikipedia. I watched numerous people mover
> videos and I don't get the advantage with the
> technology over rail. They look like a convention
> light rail vehicle except I see they have rubber
> tires. The guideways look like they have a lot
> more equipment to make them run than a rail
> system.
>
Some of the airport ":People movers" use rail.  Atlanta and JFK for starters.    Id say that building the LA airport one with rail would be cheaper...im guessing that airport ppl were sold on "the quieter rubber tire ride"  .  And sinec they are playing with other ppls money, they go for fancier and more expensive.....and then there's the politics.

My experience from having spent half my life at airports...ive seen all sorts of  different  people movers.  No two are the same.  everyone has to re-invent the wheel.   The ones that run on rail seem to be the most reliable.  The only reliable rubber tire system ive ridden on is the Montreal subway...and it actually has rail also inside the tires...

The amount the LA airports is spending on the people mover is insane.  Drunk sailors spending someone elses money.   Of i hear "we are building for the future" one more time, I'll spit up.   I'd bet te mortgage that its spending for votes...

Thank you everyone for responding. There is a lot of good info here on the pros and cons.  My takeway is traditional rail is cheaper and more reliable while rubber tired systems are more expensive but offer more flexibility with curves, grades, and braking. 
 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

DFW Airport had a rubber tired people mover called AirTrans for about 30 years
that was replaced about 20 years ago with a new rail system Skylink.  Both are/were
driverless.  Airtrans was slow and jerky.  Skylink is smooth and quick.

Sounds like the cost of the LAX system mirrors CAHSR in excesses.


 

The people mover at LAX is just a part of a major revamp. You're also getting a new off airport rental car center and a connection to MTA LRV's.
This ain't just a shuttle between terminals...

Miami has a several miles long elevated people mover system which snakes thru downtown. Rubber tired, single car models

Posted from Android

Thank you.  Building a people mover in the middle of an existing tight footprint airport, as is being done at LAX,  cannot be cheap.  Plus the huge rental car center and everything else,  all while the airport continues in operation.  Using LAX as one of my 'home' airports since it opened in 1960,  I welcome the opening of this decades overdue project.  

tampa airport had one

masterphots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you.  Building a people mover in the middle
> of an existing tight footprint airport, as is
> being done at LAX,  cannot be cheap.  Plus the
> huge rental car center and everything else,  all
> while the airport continues in operation.  Using
> LAX as one of my 'home' airports since it opened
> in 1960,  I welcome the opening of this decades
> overdue project.  

This is the real reason for the high cost.   I used to work in the Standard Oil Building in Chicago, later renamed the Aon Building.   When it was built it was faced with marble.   Marble didn't handle acid pollution from cars, etc. too well and when pieces weighing tons started shedding the marble was replaced with far sturdier granite.  The refacing cost more than the original building!   

Why?  Because the work had to be done around the fact that 10,000 people were now working in the building.   That meant mostly working at night/weekends.   Expensive.  Massive scafolding and extensive underpasses needed to be built to protect people going in and out.   Expensive.  External elevators needed to be built as the interior elevators couldn't be used.   Expensive.   Massive amounts of material needed to be carefully removed and carted away.   Expensive.

It's the same reson that freeways cost more to maintain than to build new.   Building new is easy on a site with nothing already there.

Many of these systems are coming to the end of their technology lives.  The Detroit airport people mover was recently upgraded, giving it another 15-20 years of service.  Cincinnati's system is also in need of replacement, no idea if one is planned.  Out on the west coast the people mover at the Getty Museum is also running on 30+ year old technology.