I did a video about Seoul last year, and one of the elements that I think is most interesting is how many “people movers” — really automated light metros and frequently locally-called “light rail” — exist across the region.

Seoul’s Sillim Line. (Credit: JR Urbane Network)

As I’ve talked about before, people movers often feel like they are used by cities as a crutch, connecting places that should be on the rapid transit network but were missed for one reason or another, be it a rapid transit line that didn’t stop where it should have, or a major development sited off of the transit network.

Acknowledging that people movers often exist to try and mitigate problematic conditions, I think it’s interesting to ask what we could do if we had more! While I certainly would rather major universities, hospitals, airports, and shopping centres be directly served by rapid transit, if they are not, a people mover could still be a serious improvement on the status quo.


If you enjoy my content, consider subscribing to my blog:

or supporting me on Patreon:

Your support will help me bring you more content faster!


No American city seems poised to highlight this more than LA, which is in the process of building two different people movers, one connecting LAX to the LA “Metro” light rail system (it’s worth noting that rail to airport is a very common people mover typology in America), and another connecting SoFi stadium and other destinations with another light rail stop. While in both cases I think the people mover is a band-aid solution for poor planning (like putting an event venue the size of SoFi away from rapid transit — many cities most impressive stations are at major stadiums), the connections will be much better that what could have been offered by buses, and arguably higher capacity than the light rail service, since people movers should be able to operate at extremely high frequency.

Rendering of an Inglewood People Mover station. (Credit: City of Inglewood)

Now, what I think makes Seoul’s “people movers” particularly interesting is that they are not all strictly there for the purposes of connecting remote destinations. These such routes (like the Everline) do exist, but many of the lines actually act as infill urban transit, operating like a light subway line in an area that is poorly connected or dense enough to justify even more service. Since Seoul is extremely dense and hilly, this kind of role would be a struggle for trams, and while the city does do buses at an almost unbelievable scale (Seoul is easily the most underrated BRT city), once you experience a constant stream of diesel buses along a street you realize it is an imperfect solution.

Seoul’s Yongin Everline. (Minseong Kim, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

And to be clear, cities in Asia in general have a lot of people movers. Bangkok has its Gold Line (nicely incorporated into the BTS system), I can think of loads of examples in Chinese cities (often using bespoke domestic tech), Singapore has its suburban “LRT”, and more than any other country, cities in Japan have all manner of monorails and people mover lines augmenting the conventional heavy rail and subway systems (it’s also one of the few places where these systems have been running long enough and have become busy enough that multiple generations of rolling stock have been introduced). In Asia, people movers feel like less of a crutch and more a flexible tool that can bring fixed guideway transit to places where it would be challenging for conventional rail. Of course, while a people mover is less convenient or capacious than a direct high-capacity rail link (likely delivered by shifting an alignment to hit a major destination), they still do offer a big boost for transit as a lightweight connecting service that can provide high frequency, and thanks to automation usually has low operating costs.

Osaka’s Nanko Port Town Line. (Series207, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

To some extent, the role played by these lines is similar to the “shuttle”
lines in some traditional metro systems like Paris, London, New York, and Madrid — it’s just that like with light metro, people movers let you emphasize frequency instead of vehicle size, creating a better system — especially for inevitable transfers.

In a series of future posts, I am going to talk about how we can design and plan people movers to improve as opposed to simply fill in gaps in our transport systems, and I might even include some concepts for places in various cities where one (or several) might be of use.

14 responses to “More People Movers”

  1. Yes, people movers are a great way to get into automation. For feeder lines frequency is very important as travel always involves at least one transfer. Though ridership may not justify a real metro. For the same reason gondolas make a great feeder like you see in Mexico City and soon Paris. They are a people mover without track.
    Seattle has the spine:a north-south light rail,. But it is struggling with the ribs:East-West connections as they tend to be Hilly. Rubber tired or maglev people movers or gondolas could be a perfect supplement.

    1. Hi Martin,

      I love your Seattle Transit Blog article about using APMs for Ballard! Do you have any links showing operating cost savings, before and after automation?

      In San Diego, the transit planning agency wants to build an elevated, self-propelled APM to connect the Airport with the Downtown transit hub and Civic Center. But the transit operating agency and NIMBYs oppose the APM and want an airport LRT branch with 15-minute frequencies instead. Any data supporting automated rail would be awesome in advocating for the APM.

      More background:

      The LRT branch proposal is horrible. It’d be as if Sound Transit proposed Ballard-West Seattle Link to interline with Link Line 1, Link was street-running through Downtown, and Line 1/Line 2 were connected by a flat junction. The ensuing frequencies would devastate Eastside ridership, where everyone with a car would drive than wait up to 15 minutes for 10-minute Link rides between Redmond and Bellevue.

      That’s exactly the predicament facing San Diego. Our equivalents to Link Line 1, Line 2, and Eastside are the Blue Line, the Green Line, and Mission Valley + Grantville, respectively. Like Link Line 1, the Blue Line is our busiest and most frequent, being anchored end to end by massive, all-day destinations. But like Line 2, the Green Line is spawning the most ambitious TODs outside Downtown: there are two under-construction, $4B infill TODs in Mission Valley alone, both on the Green Line. And the kicker: one of those TODs is San Diego State’s satellite campus, connected by an 8-minute, grade-separated light rail to San Diego State’s main campus (the other is a redevelopment of a 27-hole golf course next to the city’s largest mall).

  2. Jonathan Douglas Avatar
    Jonathan Douglas

    I think People Movers are a great option when major destinations and other transport rights of way cannot easily be colocated. But they need to be properly connected. As an example I am very familiar with, the BART Oakland Airport connection. It involves quite a bit of walking and multiple levels of stairs/elevator at the Coliseum/Airport stop, and the elevated station at the airport then requires descending and a walk across traffic into the terminal (all with bags). It often feels like a suboptimal implementation of a suboptimal mode of transportation, but that people should just be thankful that anything exists at all.

    1. BART’s OAK APM gives APMs a bad rap. It uses cable-pulled tech, which limits frequency to a hypothetical 4.5 min or so and top speeds to 30 mph. On top of that, it grinds to a halt at the Doolittle facility not to pick up any passengers, but simply to switch cables. Not to mention it doesn’t provide one-seat rides to Downtown Oak. But BART got what they paid for–the OAK APM cost a bargain basement $150M per mile.

      San Diego’s proposed APM will be far better. It’ll provide one-seat rides between the airport and the Downtown transit hub and Civic Center at two minute frequencies. Since it’ll cost about $500 M per mile, it will be self-propelled, making it far easier to expand into full-fledged light metro.

  3. “In a series of future posts, I am going to talk about how we can design and plan people movers to improve as opposed to simply fill in gaps in our transport systems, and I might even include some concepts for places in various cities where one (or several) might be of use.”

    Reece, please email me, and I’ll gladly supply maps/studies regarding San Diego’s APM! Also, where do you think an APM depot can be sited (given how virtually every empty lot in Downtown San Diego has been acquired by developers)?

    Some background for other readers: San Diego is proposing an elevated self-propelled APM to directly connect the airport with the Downtown rail hub and Civic Center with 2 minute frequencies. This APM is the best proposal, considering the alternative would be an LRT branch that would hurt trunk frequencies and reliability.

    1. The San Diego People Mover is unusual in that:

      1) It would run through downtown, with three stops outside of the airport.
      2) It would connect to every trolley line, and a lot of bus lines.
      3) It would be extremely frequent.

      By the general outline that Reece gave, it shouldn’t be considered a people mover at all. It should be considered an automated light metro. It would be the best piece of mass transit within San Diego. Not a “crutch”, but an example for the rest of the network.

  4. Aren’t all the people movers in South Korea generally considered a failure locally? Most of them seems to either be constructed at places where demand are too little and the trains are empty, or they’re constructed at places where the demand are too much and they cannot offer enough capacity to transport people along the line

  5. The “Metromover” in Miami has been around for around 40 years, and is on its second generation of rolling stock.

    1. It’s a very funky system, seems to be fairly well used though!

    2. That’s not the sense I get! Though some lines definitely should not have been people movers!

    3. Could always do an underground / underdevelopment maintenance facility as with some of the people movers in Seoul, I am sure that is not necessary though!

    4. 150M per mile for a mostly elevated APM is crazy expensive, thats more than a heavy subway costs in some places!

    5. Yep, there are almost certainly places where these will be necessary, especially since so much of the new Link construction is along interstates – which are not prime development sites!

  6. “people movers often feel like they are used by cities as a crutch, connecting places that should be on the rapid transit network but were missed for one reason or another”

    Or you can think of them as being part of the rapid transit network, but with different hardware. Specifically small, automated trains that run frequently. With all due respect Reece, what is wrong with that?

    Another way to look at them is to ignore the hardware and just focus on the line itself. Here you have the basic trade-offs in network design. For example consider the Vancouver airport. It is served by branch of the Canada Line. On the one hand this is great for riders coming from Vancouver. They have a direct line right to the airport. On the other hand, frequency is cut in half both for airport and Richmond passengers. Riders who take a bus to the Bridgeport Station (a major transit hub) have less frequent train service to either location as well. This being SkyTrain, frequency isn’t that bad (since the Canada Line is automated); but it is still a tradeoff. Now imagine that for whatever reason (e. g. crowding from Richmond) they decided to split off the airport branch and make it a completely separate line. This offers some advantages. It also means this new line is basically a people-mover. Thus it is basically just a simple “branch versus separate line” trade-off.

    Consider another example: AirTrain JFK. In this case the network is a lot more complicated. Two automated lines connect to the other system at two separate stations. One station serves the A line, while the other line connects to the LIRR as well as the E, J, Z. None of those other lines are automated, while the people-mover is. Again, you can think of this other line as simply being a new part of the subway system, except with automated (and smaller) trains. The geography is such that an alternative would not only be very expensive, but likely not get you much. Airports are often dead-ends, and JFK is no exception. This could be tacked onto the end of an existing line (or be built as a branch) but that would likely reduce the frequency of trains to the airport. Some would come out ahead, and some would be worse off.

Leave a Reply

Trending

Discover more from Reece Martin

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading