[kEiThZ]

I could see a monorail for Eglinton. But that's it.

That said. I just can't see this city agreeing to a visual obstruction down the centre of a major urban avenue.

 

[M II A II R II K]

In the already existing rail corridors it could work, as well as the highway corridors including the Don Valley, and if not in the Don Valley on one of the slopes at least.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I could see a monorail for Eglinton. But that's it.

That said. I just can't see this city agreeing to a visual obstruction down the centre of a major urban avenue.

Why exactly does Eglinton need a monorail? For the central portion? I doubt that a monorail would even fit in there, and if it's for the peripheries of the line, then it's pointless because there's no problem. The Richview corridor has more than enough room for heavy rail subway in a trench or even an elevated guideway (though trench is more flexible long term and possibly cheaper.) In the east the road's more than wide enough to accommodate a full elevated ROW down the median/off to the side. I really don't think that Toronto needs a monorail at all.

 

[hbl33]

Can monorail be used on DRL? Any thoughts?

 

[Second_in_pie]

I do not believe the allegations that monorail has similar capacity to subway for a second, so that basically automatically rules out use in the DRL in my eyes.

I suppose that if you wanted to run it above Front St then it might make sense why you're asking, but it's not like people will be accepting it with open arms. Even the prettiest of elevated structures through such dense parts of downtown will be seen as a bad choice. And I'm not sure if there is actually any room to build an elevated structure through downtown.

 

[ssiguy2]

i would NOT support any elevated system down Eglinton from approx Laird to Dufferin. It's too residential, urbane, and would be unsightly on the urban enviornment. As I have always stated I am strongly against any elevated system thru roughly the original city of Toronto boundaries unless using current rail ROW. East of Laird, however, I could see all elevation to Kingston. If an area is even semi suburban it doesn't qualify for an underground system.
If Toronto made it clear that anything along Eglinton was going from Duff to Laird with no potential for expansion for at least 30 years then I would go for subway over underground monorail. Toronto already has experience with the tech and rolling stock. Monorail tunnels are no more or less expensive than subway as it's the width of the train which dictates the size of the tunnels and subway and monorails are both 3 metres wide while SkyTrain and LRT use thinner trains.
The reality is that Eglinton will be extended east of Laird and west of Dufferin and can be elevated and this is where the savings of monorails come in and they are quite substaintial in both money and times against any elevated or total at grade exclusive ROW system. Something people forget that monorails can also be run at grade. As long as there is completed grade separation the trains can have drivers and run along streets as easily as total grade separation LRT. Monorails, howver, are considerable cheaper to build than complete separation at grade than LRT because it doesn't require expensive and unsightly overhead power lines.
Re: Canada Line. You are right Monorail was never considered in fact the city wanted SkyTrain but because most of the line is underground or over bridges the savings from elevation would be very small. YVR also made it quite clear that it was not going to fund any LRT system or SkyTrain system even if tunneled but subway would result in them pulling their part of the funding. Their reasoning was that subway cars are wider and therefore more friendly to passengers carrying luggage and I can see their point.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They can also get off the fixation of building Rapid Transit on specific streets and have a random line that stops at major intersections and significant destinations, that also limits us to justifying building anything if the ridership is justified on any given major street.

The stretch of the BD that goes from VP to Kennedy with overground sections of course, and far apart stations would be better justified in the suburban areas. And when it gets to downtown it can be underground with closer together stations.

 

[ssiguy2]

Monorail for DRL?...............depends on where it will terminate. If they intend for the DRL to be totally underground including all possible northbound extensions then no. Might as well just build subway.
If the system was to run, for instance, under Queen {not King!} but then roughly head north up Commer to Don Mills using the area in/around rail ROW which it already ahs and north from Dundas West station north along the existing rail ROW to the airport or Humber College area then it should be monorail.
There are no cost saving between tunneled subway and tunneled monorail. It is along complete grade separation and/or elevation where monorail shines. Not only is it cheaper to build but also requires less land and is less visually intrusive. Monorails are rubber tired so they are much quieter than any elevation LRT/subway/SkyTrain. Those thing mean a lot when going down street medians and near residential areas. One only has to compare Montreal's Metro to Toronto's subways to see how much quieter they are.
Monorail tracks are also built completely off site which reduces construction time and traffic interference. It is actually much faster and cheaper to build monorails elevated even one metre than building it completely at grade as it means the track can be built off site One only has to look at St.Clair to see how disruptive LRT can be and how the residence learn how to despise the thing before it's even finished being built.

 

[ssiguy2]

I do not believe the allegations that monorail has similar capacity to subway for a second, so that basically automatically rules out use in the DRL in my eyes.

I suppose that if you wanted to run it above Front St then it might make sense why you're asking, but it's not like people will be accepting it with open arms. Even the prettiest of elevated structures through such dense parts of downtown will be seen as a bad choice. And I'm not sure if there is actually any room to build an elevated structure through downtown.

Monorails certainly have subway capacity. The monorail trains for the new 110km Sao Paulo system will have a capacity of 1000 people and they are planning to run them, when capacity requires, every 80 seconds bringing the capacity to approx 48,000 to 50,000 pphpd.

 

[khris]

Monorail would work really well on Hurontario in Mississauga. Or elevated LRT.

 

[Justin10000]

I doubt monorails have the capacity of a subway. I have heard similar claims before, and actual operating practices have shown otherwise. Scomi's longest train at 6 cars is claimed to have a maximum capacity of 139persons per car, and this is at a crush load of 7person per square metre. A typical subway car would have double the capacity. I'll bet all monorail trains must have the same seat configuration, especially in the middle to hide the top-running guide wheels.
I also doubt a monorail can reach 50,000pphpd. The RER A has a capacity of roughly 50,000pph running double deck trains at 2 minute headways. The M1 2N double deck train was also designed to empty out 550 passengers in 1 minute using wide doors. The Scomi monorail do not seem to have wide doors required for quick loading, and unloading.

 

[ssiguy2]

I just had to bring this thread back to life.
The new monorail system is a go! It will be slightly smaller at 100km and have capacity of 30,000 pphpd. Of course that could increase simply by lengthening the stations because their widths are 3 metres like a standard subway car.
The first 24 km line will commence construction early next year and be completely done by 2015 with the entire 100km system completed by 2021. It is expected to carry a whopping one million passengers a day. A big surprise is that it will be built by our own Bombardier! Scomi was considered the front runner but they went with Bombardier's Innovia system due to it's superior design and lighter weight than Scomi and Hitachi meaning more slender poles.. It bodes well for the other systems in Brazil that are planning monorail......Rio, Manaeus, and even Curitiba to replace some of it's over burdened BRT lines.
With TC now on it's heels maybe they will consider monorail as opposed to the low capacity, slow, disjointed, and expensive streetcar system they want to build.
As the order for the TC cars just went out the TTC maybe be reorder them to an equivalent dollar value of monorail cars. I bet Bombardier would probably jump at the chance as it could use it as a show piece for other NA systems.
Bombardier just announced it will also build the new 4 km system for Riyad.

 

[lafard]

as the order for the tc cars just went out the ttc maybe be reorder them to an equivalent dollar value of monorail cars. I bet bombardier would probably jump at the chance as it could use it as a show piece for other na systems.

Scarborough RT.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Las Vegas Monorail files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

From lightrailnow.org:

Troubles continue to mount for the Las Vegas Monorail – the city's privately owned 3.9-mile elevated tourist line connecting several casinos and the Las Vegas Convention Center in the famous Strip district.

On January 13th, the line's private operator, Las Vegas Monorail Company (LVMC), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, with officials laying blame on the current economic crash, leading to a drop in ridership as fewer people have been visiting the tourist-oriented city. "The current economic downturn, including a 30 percent decline in convention traffic to Las Vegas, has increased the financial strain on the Monorail, like it has with every other tourism-dependent Las Vegas company" said President and Chief Executive Curtis Myles, quoted by the Las Vegas Sun (Jan. 13th). However, Myles assured the public that the line would continue to operate.

...

The Las Vegas Monorail, like several other recent monorail proposals and projects, was portrayed as a much more feasible and desirable alternative to light rail transit (LRT) by a segment of that loose grouping of rail transit opponents sometimes wryly characterized (by LRT supporters) as the "Anything But Light Rail (ABLR)" amalgam. Among that sub-group, the Las Vegas Monorail was expected to become a model of the supremacy of monorail technology, both technologically and financially.

However, the monorail's major technical problems quickly dispelled the notion of technological superiority. And, over the past several years, the monorail's purported financial performance advantages have been steadily discredited by its deteriorating financial condition.

 

[ssiguy2]

If you have a problem with monorail fine but don't bring up the LV system. It was built completely with private money and is NOT part of the LV transit system. It's $5 ticket and only goes a few km. You cannot use it with any transfer from regular transit and vice versa.