Maglev and monorail are two technologies that have been marketed as being better than standard rail technology because
- They're "better, faster, more reliable"...etc.
- Their "cool factor" would make them destinations in themselves and/or attract riders who would not ride conventional transit like buses and trains.
Due to my unfortunate involvement with the ill-fated Seattle monorail project, I know more about monorail than I do about maglev, but I think the thoughts below apply to both.
- These technologies are proprietary. Once you've selected a vendor, you're stuck with them.
- As a result, they can't interoperate with any existing transit you already have.
- Their track configurations make construction, grade crossings, etc., difficult in urban environments, but the speed isn't that much better over short distances. Maglev might actually make more sense in longer applications.
- They're rare enough that there isn't much research on long-term reliability.
- Since you're not buying an off-the-shelf system, costs are difficult to estimate.
- I think that the "cool factor" is real, but it's almost impossible to quantify.
#1 seems to be the most likely to cause problems (and, more likely than not, trigger a cascade of lawsuits if a vendor fails to provide necessary services), and can cascade into trouble with #4 and/or #5 (if you buy a system from X, it doesn't work, and the vendor won't fix it, you're basically stuck suing to force them to either fix it or let you back out of the contract in some form, or to force them to eat losses because of misrepresentations on reliability and so forth). #2 is an almost unbelievable operational drawback that reminds me of the issues NYC has had with having two subway systems.
I agree that over longer distances, they make more sense...but those generally imply that you're simply not allowing grade crossings, but either elevating or burying most of the line. In FL, that seems to be the plan: Just elevate the train...but then again, we're back to the question of "Why not just call up Disney and talk monorails?" at that point. At least with the monorail system there, you have a known quantity for a longer-distance system; the only questions would involve re-speccing the system to different speeds...but at the same time, that sort of system has something like a 40-year operational record in FL.
And as to #6, at least my inclination is more that there is a cool factor with most rail-based systems (down to and including streetcars) that handicaps buses. Actually, it's more that there is an "uncool" factor around buses that, when combined with a mix of unpleasant waiting places (often just standing by a sign without even a bench), bad frequencies (I noted this elsewhere, but once frequencies start wandering into the 30 minute range, I become far more reluctant to ride), and a stigma that buses have had since at
least the 50s and have
never gotten around, the general rule IMHO is that you should avoid a bus line if you want people to ride something. The fact that some areas have tried pitching buses as "trains with rubber wheels" (and that the pitch, again from what I can tell, doesn't "fool" anyone) say something right there.