There was a monorail startup in Charleston, SC a few years ago that fizzled. They were supposed to have a test section of tracks near the airport down there but I never heard of it. The new bridge over the Cooper River was initially considering the possibility of allowing for the adding monorail on the side of the bridge later, but I never heard what happened with it.

Ha ha!

I was going to respond to the cheap monorail from springfield for sale joke comment, but I'll leave it here.

There is a really big problem with monorails:

It is extremely inefficient and costly to shift "tracks". Rapid transit systems MUST be able to do this quickly, easily, and often without requiring costly maintenance.

By extension, it is very problematic to develop splitting and branching lines for similar reasons, which prohibits development of more complex regional systems found throughout the world.

For these reasons, monorails should be limited to circuit routes or one stop shuttle systems, like in airports.

Although monorails reduce the obstructive impact conventional rail has on tight urban environments, they would probably still be a poor choice for most of Baltimore's streets and neighborhoods.

Nate Payer
TRAC

I'm not sure how or why you steered this discussion to monorails. The Disney connection might make a snappy blog title but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. While I'm flattered over this attention, frankly, it seems like you're trying to make a mockery of my idea without either understanding it or explaining it correctly to your readership, which is thoroughly unprofessional, Michael. Hopefully your experience riding transit systems extends beyond Baltimore and Orlando, Florida and you'll be able to grasp what I'll explain again below.

What I am proposing is to put elevated tracks over the widened portion of the Pratt Street corridor that will accomodate a double track light rail, not a monorail. Big difference.

So first off here's the idea:

- My proposal would run light rail trains on double tracks along the currently proposed Red Line route on both the east and west sides of downtown. However after MLK, going eastbound, it would dip into a tunnel that would run to Lexington Market, and a connection with the Metro Subway and current Light Rail - the new major connection point in the city, conveniently placed smack dab in the center of the westside business district, which could really use the help to speed revitalization. The Red Line would then continue in a tunnel toward Pratt Street, loop backtracking a bit, before emerging above ground, on elevated tracks on Pratt, near the new Hilton hotel by Camden Yards. Another connection would be available for transfers to the current Light Rail at this station. The Red Line would continue on elevated tracks across the Pratt Street corridor before returning back into a tunnel for the East Side over near the Christopher Columbus Statue in Little Italy or that Parking Lot across President Street with the St. Leo's mural painted next to it. The east side exit from the harbor area is, admittedly, the biggest problem with my idea however. The space on Pratt St next to the Power Plant is a tight squeeze, so I'm thinking running it between the Power Plant and Aquarium then across the parking lots on the Piers might make more sense. But I could use some help on this stretch from anyone who's interested.

Here's the advantages of the plan:

- Elevated tracks are much cheaper than tunneling and this plan eliminates nearly half of the downtown tunnel while fully serving the major attractions and businesses on Pratt St as well as providing a line much closer to the new Harbor East district.

- The current plan to take the Red Line across Lombard Street is foolish. Lombard is too close to the Baltimore Street Metro Subway tunnel to provide adequate coverage across the downtown area, while being too far to make for efficient transfers between the two lines. If anyone is familiar with the CTA Red and Blue subway lines' coverage going through the Loop on State and Dearborn Streets (one block away from each other) in Chicago and how redundant it is, that is exactly what we're in for with the current Red Line plan.

- Pratt Street runs so close to the water that to successfully engineer a tunnel that would run below sea level underneath it is a big and costly engineering challenge. Fortunately the corridor - specifically from Camden Yards across to the Power Plant is extra wide for a major urban thoroughfare. Too wide, and in need of something to fill in the empty space. The Red Line on Elevated tracks is the ideal solution.

- Pratt Street and the "traditional" downtown of the city, including Harborplace, are currently squirming for more business - both in the retail and commercial real estate sectors. The Red Line prominently running through the area would deliver a great transit option and make it much easier for people to get downtown along that corridor.

- The creation of a major transit hub at Lexington Market simply makes more sense than the current plan, given that the Light Rail and Subway are already there.

Now for the disadvantages:

- People have a knee jerk reaction to elevated tracks. The fears are that they are too obtrusive or too loud. My hope is that with modern design and technology these problems of the past - which are undoubtedly an issue in Century old systems like the Chicago El and the elevated trains in New York, will be fixed.

- Three examples of recent elevated tracks in transit systems are the follow:

- The London Docklands Light Railway

- Bangkok Skytrain

- Taipei Muzha

I have not been on any of these but have some emails out to people who have. We'll see if any of them get back to me and care to share their experiences. Or, if anyone on here has ridden one of these more modern elevated systems please share your experience, particularly regarding the obtrusiveness and loudness of the lines within the urban environment.

Time to eat some humble pie. After reading the previous Red Line post it seems this post is directed to a commenter named Dave, who likes to talk about monorails, and not at my Pratt Street elevated light rail idea. My apologies, Michael. "Monorail" is obviously a blog "fightin' word" to me when it comes to transit ideas - particularly after that Simpsons episode.

But nevertheless, an elevated light rail, going across the Pratt Street corridor is an idea that should get serious consideration, particularly given the cost concerns you reported on this morning that have the MTA talking about single tracking Cooks Lane.

I think the disney monorail is cool and all, but the future really has to be a combination of mono-rails and and shuttle services. A monorail wont take you everywhere you want to go, but it will be pretty close. The shuttle can take you the rest of the way.