M II A II R II K
Senior Member
It's not as intrusive as an elevated highway, and it can be routed through the back streets and have some stations go inside buildings like the stops in the Eaton Centre.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ssiguy2
- Start date
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't support the building of a Sydney type system. It was basically built as a tourist route as it only goes one way.
As I have stated before I do not support any elevated system, regardless of technology, anywhere in a city core unless using already in use rail lines. Unless using currently used rail corridors I would never support any system that is not tunneled in the old city of Toronto and, with a few exception, any system that is not elevated/ total at-grade anywhere outside the old city boundaries.
This si similar to what most cities in the world do. Vancouver's SkyTrain lines are elevated outside the city and tunneled within the city.
As I have stated before I do not support any elevated system, regardless of technology, anywhere in a city core unless using already in use rail lines. Unless using currently used rail corridors I would never support any system that is not tunneled in the old city of Toronto and, with a few exception, any system that is not elevated/ total at-grade anywhere outside the old city boundaries.
This si similar to what most cities in the world do. Vancouver's SkyTrain lines are elevated outside the city and tunneled within the city.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
L.A. - About those monorails…
May 19, 2010
Steve Hymon
Read More: http://thesource.metro.net/2010/05/19/about-those-monorails/
###################################
There’s been some murmurings about town recently about building monorails-along-freeways as a mass transit fix for the region. As long-time transit observers know, the monorail idea has, in fact, been kicked around before. The above plan, floated in 1960, never got airborne because of community opposition, in particular, to an elevated line along Wilshire Boulevard, according to the Metro library. (I highly recommend a visit to the library’s website for a firsthand view of many other transit plans put forth in the last century that went belly up).
Building a monorail along the 101 freeway was also discussed in the 1990s but never got anywhere because, in part, of concerns that the freeway would have to be widened and bridges rebuilt to accommodate support columns. More recently, a monorail was looked at again as part of the alternatives analysis for the Westside Subway Extension project. The chart at right, taken from chapter 2 of that study, shows some of the issues involved with building elevated rail lines. Metro planners and the Board of Directors of the agency eventually chose a subway as the best mode of transit for the Wilshire corridor.
###################################
A 1960 plan to build 74.9 miles of monorails at a cost of $529.7 million never left the ground. Map provided by Dorothy Peyton Gray Transportation Library at Metro.
http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1960_monorail_proposed_routes_map.jpg
May 19, 2010
Steve Hymon
Read More: http://thesource.metro.net/2010/05/19/about-those-monorails/
###################################
There’s been some murmurings about town recently about building monorails-along-freeways as a mass transit fix for the region. As long-time transit observers know, the monorail idea has, in fact, been kicked around before. The above plan, floated in 1960, never got airborne because of community opposition, in particular, to an elevated line along Wilshire Boulevard, according to the Metro library. (I highly recommend a visit to the library’s website for a firsthand view of many other transit plans put forth in the last century that went belly up).
Building a monorail along the 101 freeway was also discussed in the 1990s but never got anywhere because, in part, of concerns that the freeway would have to be widened and bridges rebuilt to accommodate support columns. More recently, a monorail was looked at again as part of the alternatives analysis for the Westside Subway Extension project. The chart at right, taken from chapter 2 of that study, shows some of the issues involved with building elevated rail lines. Metro planners and the Board of Directors of the agency eventually chose a subway as the best mode of transit for the Wilshire corridor.
###################################
A 1960 plan to build 74.9 miles of monorails at a cost of $529.7 million never left the ground. Map provided by Dorothy Peyton Gray Transportation Library at Metro.
http://thesource.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1960_monorail_proposed_routes_map.jpg
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I wonder where they got those numbers from, they seem quite off.
Subway:
Max of 14 000 pphpd? Doesn't the Yonge line currently run around 30 000? And in Hong Kong don't they run around 80 000? Or is that just people per hour (not per direction)?
You can get WAY more than 800 people in a subway train. According to the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, the F line in New York has an average loading of 227 people per car, and since (I think) they run 10 car trains, that would mean 2270 people per train. Toronto fits 1182 people in each 6 car train. HK MTR crams even more people into their trains.
As for speed, most regular subway trains have a top speed of 80km/h. 70mph subway trains do exist (LACMTA A650, MTR A Stock and London A Stock for example), but it's not common.
LRT:
Doesn't the LACMTA green line run at 70mph?
BRT:
Top speed of 35mph (56km/h)? Really? I've been on TTC buses going over 80km/h. And many American systems such as Houston have buses driving in HOV lanes on freeways at speeds in excess of 65mph.
They seem to underestimate all types of transit because the numbers are based on LA standards. 18 vehicles per hour isn't very much. Using 30 or 40 would have better illustrated the maximum comfortable capacity of the systems.
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
That plan also endorsed having monorails over freeways, so maybe just like over rail corridors it would be less intrusive on freeways too.
rbt
Senior Member
The right hand column tells you exactly where they got the numbers from. If they are real numbers from the systems they have the most experience with (lines in LA); then I'd say they're perfect for a study in LA.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
NO kidding.
The 6 car Tokyo Monorail at it's highest average weekday ridership was 188,000 on just 17km of track. It's busiest day ever was 300,000 passengers. That data is based on it's time table of every 3 minutes 30 seconds in rush hour and every 5 minutes off peak Those numbers could double with 90 second peak/3 minute off peak. Sorry but I have never heard of an LRT capable of 600,000 passengers a day on only 17km of track.
Also remember that LRT. if it has any crossings, can run at a frequency of just every 3 minutes due to bunching.
It's ridership level has plunged by 30% to 127,000 passengers a day due to a new rail line built to serve the same area. Even at that level it is carrying 40% more passengers per km than the Canada Line currently does.
An LRT advocate group obviously had a hand it warping these numbers
The 6 car Tokyo Monorail at it's highest average weekday ridership was 188,000 on just 17km of track. It's busiest day ever was 300,000 passengers. That data is based on it's time table of every 3 minutes 30 seconds in rush hour and every 5 minutes off peak Those numbers could double with 90 second peak/3 minute off peak. Sorry but I have never heard of an LRT capable of 600,000 passengers a day on only 17km of track.
Also remember that LRT. if it has any crossings, can run at a frequency of just every 3 minutes due to bunching.
It's ridership level has plunged by 30% to 127,000 passengers a day due to a new rail line built to serve the same area. Even at that level it is carrying 40% more passengers per km than the Canada Line currently does.
An LRT advocate group obviously had a hand it warping these numbers
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
There could be a monorail above the DVP, but it would make for long elevator rides down from the street. Unless the monorail were built on one of the valley's slopes not so far down.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
That seems like a waste of funds. Monorail could serve Toronto extremely well using existing rail and hydro corridors.
sixrings
Senior Member
Please indicate which hydro corridors and rail corrodors. A map would be extremely helpful. We all know about finchs possibilities but I am sure many are confused about where else these lines could go.
sixrings
Senior Member
Please indicate which rail/hydro corridors you are reffering to. A map would be helpful. Everyone knows about finch corridors possibilities but where else?
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The Finch corridor is the one I was thinking of when I considered Hydro corridors. As for rail lines there are a whole slew.
DVP station down to Parliament or Broadview, Malvern Line to Broadview, Humber to Downtown and Pearson to downtown. Also Union to Gerrard to SRT and head east to along Scarborough rail ROW.
There is also the option of Malvern to Rosedale/Yonge and Union to Miminco.
These are rail corridors that are just sitting there waiting to be used. Toronto benefits by having an extensive rail network but the TTC doesn't use even one. The benefit of Monorail is that having rubber wheels along these routes make it very quiet and have far smaller foot prints than elevated subways, SkyTrain, or even atgrade LRT. Most Monorails are built primarily off site which means they can be put up very fast which makes construction time and hence public frustration {ie St.Clair} to a minimum.
Toronto could VERY easily have 100km of Monorail across the city within 10 years...........tops.
DVP station down to Parliament or Broadview, Malvern Line to Broadview, Humber to Downtown and Pearson to downtown. Also Union to Gerrard to SRT and head east to along Scarborough rail ROW.
There is also the option of Malvern to Rosedale/Yonge and Union to Miminco.
These are rail corridors that are just sitting there waiting to be used. Toronto benefits by having an extensive rail network but the TTC doesn't use even one. The benefit of Monorail is that having rubber wheels along these routes make it very quiet and have far smaller foot prints than elevated subways, SkyTrain, or even atgrade LRT. Most Monorails are built primarily off site which means they can be put up very fast which makes construction time and hence public frustration {ie St.Clair} to a minimum.
Toronto could VERY easily have 100km of Monorail across the city within 10 years...........tops.
Asterix
Active Member
Again with the 'very easily' line. If anything was 'very easy', it would have been done. Anyone who thinks any answer is 'very easy' obviously does not understand the issue.
I obviously don't know all the explanations, but for starters, the rail corridors are not "just sitting there waiting to be used", they are being used by their current owners who aren't about to allow a third party to mess around on their lines.
Then there's the issue that the DV line is just a tad elevation separated from anywhere people might want to start from and from where they might want to end up. Of course I'm sure Toronto could "very easily" have 200m long escalators that "very easily" work all the time up to Castle Frank.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Due to the bureaucracy between the three levels of government..nothing is easy in Toronto.
adma
Superstar
You could "very easily" build a 100 floor skyscraper at Queen and Soho. Doesn't mean you should.