[ssiguy2]

The Canada Line is standard subway/Metro and the capacity issue has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the puny station sizes. It is not ICTS/SkyTrain although everyone wishes it was so it would be quieter and faster which SkyTrain definitely is, you can tell the difference.

The Innovia monorail trains are of the same basic design as the SkyTrain and new SkyTrain cars will be able to be 100 meter long multi-articulated trains.

 

[Duck]

It absolutely blows my mind that the same people who will jump in bed with Subway and Light Rail will absolutely reject Monorail.

-Light Rail takes up lanes of traffic, pissing off drivers, and killing people when it runs them down.
-Subway disrupts neighbourhoods for years during construction, and while it may be able to move a lot of people, and OTHER CITIES have nice looking subways, Toronto's looks like absolute shit because all of it is built on a shoestring budget. I've been in washrooms far more attractive than Toronto's stations.
-Monorail can be built quickly, move just as many people as a subway, inspire people for the future, it just feels right. I dare you to show me anyone who's ever been inspired riding a train through a sewer tunnel or on one that rides along the street stuck in traffic.

But that's OK Toronto, have fun not having any new transit for the next 10+ years. See how that works out for ya. Obviously, subway and LRT are just so right. After all, there are no transit issues at all in "The City", eh? It's just working so well! All those other cities that made other transit technology choices must be sooooooooo wrong.

 

[44 North]

I'm a bigtime supporter of elevated, grade-separated, 'light' rapid transit. And I know there are major benefits of monorail (smaller guideway being the most prominent IMO). But on the whole I think it'd be the wrong solution for TO. We have subways (of different lengths, thx to Sheppard), streetcar, LRT (which is incompatible with streetcar), ICTS, and eventually RER. Adding a new system to the mix (whether Mark II, monorail, cable car, donkey cart, etc) wouldn't be wise.

Having said that, I think it's also not that wise to run standard Flexity LRVs for a completely grade-separated line like the S(L)RT. These vehicles are costly as heck and built for street-running operation. I feel like there should be a way to reduce their costs and weight, but still have them share parts/shops with the street-running Transit City LRVs.

And I'd also like to see this S(L)RT solution for the eastern waterfront. No, not a Doug Ford monorail (which was in fact backed by area developers like the 3C owners). But a standard light rail line, one completely (or mostly) grade-separated. We have an opportunity to rebuild an entire quadrant of a city, with some of the highest value property on the continent. I think going with a similar solution like that on QQ West is a mistake. The daily car accidents (and subsequent unreliable service) are only hammering that point home.

 

[Duck]

But the guideway for elevated LRT is absolutely massive! People who reject monorail because they claim its "visually disruptive" or whatever can't possibly accept elevated Light Rail as any better... It's so much more obtrusive.

 

[Forgotten]

The Canada Line is standard subway/Metro and the capacity issue has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the puny station sizes. It is not ICTS/SkyTrain although everyone wishes it was so it would be quieter and faster which SkyTrain definitely is, you can tell the difference.

The Innovia monorail trains are of the same basic design as the SkyTrain and new SkyTrain cars will be able to be 100 meter long multi-articulated trains.

It absolutely blows my mind that the same people who will jump in bed with Subway and Light Rail will absolutely reject Monorail.

-Light Rail takes up lanes of traffic, pissing off drivers, and killing people when it runs them down.
-Subway disrupts neighbourhoods for years during construction, and while it may be able to move a lot of people, and OTHER CITIES have nice looking subways, Toronto's looks like absolute shit because all of it is built on a shoestring budget. I've been in washrooms far more attractive than Toronto's stations.
-Monorail can be built quickly, move just as many people as a subway, inspire people for the future, it just feels right. I dare you to show me anyone who's ever been inspired riding a train through a sewer tunnel or on one that rides along the street stuck in traffic.

But that's OK Toronto, have fun not having any new transit for the next 10+ years. See how that works out for ya. Obviously, subway and LRT are just so right. After all, there are no transit issues at all in "The City", eh? It's just working so well! All those other cities that made other transit technology choices must be sooooooooo wrong.

Only in a backwards minor league city like Vancouver could sardine cans like that be considered real rapid transit. Toronto is the big leagues, son. Tiny toy trains where in a real emergency your only option is to jump aren't a real choice when the lights are on and cameras are rolling. You may as well suggest having it be solar powered too.

 

[diminutive]

Only in a backwards minor league city like Vancouver could sardine cans like that be considered real rapid transit. Toronto is the big leagues, son. Tiny toy trains where in a real emergency your only option is to jump aren't a real choice when the lights are on and cameras are rolling. You may as well suggest having it be solar powered too.

Is this sarcasm? The Canada Line currently handles about 1/3rd of its maximum design capacity. It's fine. And as the name 'rapid transit' suggests, the real issue is speed, not capacity.

And it is also a prime example of the perils of P3 applied in the cheapest possible manner - the private sector partner will cut corners - to the point where it closes off future opportunities.

Ridership on the Canada Line is well within its design capacity. That strikes me as more efficient than Toronto where most rapid transit is way under capacity (e.g. Sheppard, Eglinton).

Moreover, it seems like most of the capacity shortages in most cities could be dealt with more efficiently by congestion pricing. These shortages only tend to materialize for an hour or so every day.

 

[44 North]

But the guideway for elevated LRT is absolutely massive! People who reject monorail because they claim its "visually disruptive" or whatever can't possibly accept elevated Light Rail as any better... It's so much more obtrusive.

They are massive, which is naturally a hindrance. But the Flexity LRVs are still narrower than TO's subways, so the guideway wouldn't be at the highest end of massive-ness. The only places I'd like to see these elevated structures are wide suburban arterials, greenspaces, or in very selective downtown locations (e.g the eastern waterfront - which hasn't yet developed). I'm not in the crowd that thinks an EL would be visually disruptive. Vancouver does it so well, that it's shameful hearing people bemoan the horrors of guideways. Some of them are so beautifully landscaped, and in areas so ugly and suburban, that it's clear they add more to the streetscape than they detract from it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Are there any monorail systems that move 20k+ pphpd?

Also, can someone spell out the benefits of monorail vs. elevated light rail? I'm not seeing any beyond slightly less visual intrusion.

 

[44 North]

Also, can someone spell out the benefits of monorail vs. elevated light rail? I'm not seeing any beyond slightly less visual intrusion.

The obvious benefit of light rail vehicles is that they're standard and built by manufacturers the world over. Monorail...not so much. They're pretty unique and I guess by default somewhat proprietary.

And I'm sure they can handle 20k peak, so long as they're designed for it. Light rail can handle 40k (which I believe Manilla does), but that would involve infrastructure that would essentially bring it into 'heavy rail' territory.

Edit: and oh yeah, there are some other benefits to monorails. Apparently they "glide as softly as a cloud". And the slob-like public will be "given cushy jobs".

 

[CDL.TO]

And it is also a prime example of the perils of P3 applied in the cheapest possible manner - the private sector partner will cut corners - to the point where it closes off future opportunities.

I still don't think that's necessarily the fault of P3. A publicly-delivered project looking to save money would do the same thing.

IMO, it's purely the result of the specifications developed by the government. No different than ordering 500 pens from Staples then later determining that you actually needed 700 pens. You wouldn't blame Staples for your lack of pens, would you?

 

[ssiguy2]

Elevated Monorail is superior to elevated LRT in every category:

Monorails have higher capacity due to wider 3 meter trains.
Monorails are quieter due to rubber wheels
Monorails have vastly less visual intrusion
Monorails enjoy far tighter turning radiuses than any LRT system
Monorails can be a single train of any length unlike LRT which can only have 3 articulations and then another train has to be coupled making passenger flow better on monorails.
Monorails take up far less room on the street..........usually the width of a sidewalk.
Monorails are much faster to build as most sections are built off-site and simply assembled along the roadway as opposed to LRT which requires all the track, electrical etc to be set up on site
Monorails can be built much faster due to the above
Monorails cost significantly less to build due to requiring less concrete for the support structure, less land requirements, more maneuverability and thinner pillons often meaning less reconstruction of already existing under/aboveground infrastructure and lower wage costs due to quicker building times.

 

[ssiguy2]

In terms of capacity the world's longest system at 80km is in Chongqing China. The first segment open in 2005 and has 2 Lines. Line 3 is the busiest at {2014 est} 682,000 pass/day and Line 2 carries 234,000 pass/day. 80 at one million a day is basically the same as the Toronto subway. The monorails combined carry the same number of passengers per day as the 120 km of standard Metro. The new Sao Paulo Monorail is being built with capacity of 48,000 pphpd with frequency capacity of every 65 seconds.

Its also interesting to note I have been watching the progress on the Sao Paulo system which is to be over 100km. Of course when you build any rapid transit there is always howling from local residents and businesses about how it is hurting business or is loud etc..........that's common to any form of transit or road construction. Sao Paulo is also building elevated Metro but according to the site comments there have been noticeably fewer area complaints near the monorail construction sites as opposed to the elevated Metro ones due to taking less time and space to build.

 

[Duck]

Heavy Monorail was the only logical choice for Chongqing - my husband was just there for part of a university course, and said the city is like Pittsburgh and is completely built on hills and valleys with rivers running through it. Besides rubber-tired monorail, only a technology like VAL (tires) or ICTS (LIM/contactless propulsion) could have perhaps traversed the hills and curves that their Line 2 and 3 alignments go along.

I'm on your side but I do have to point out that there are several LRV's that have more than 3 articulation points; our own FLEXITY Freedom and Outlook vehicles have/will have 4 articulation points (5 segments), and the trains running on G:link (Gold Coast, Australia) have 6 articulations (7 segments). The low noise (virtually silent), almost non-existent construction disruption (trash can sized column every 50 m or so - bore a hole, stick in a pole, done), and very low visual overhead occlusion would be my main selling points for choosing Monorail over elevated light rail. That and they're just so damn cool. Light Rail is 100+ year old technology.

For fun, some footage I took earlier this year down in Florida:

(and for those who are going to jump on this as "see, they're just for theme parks!" - please keep in mind this system services an area the size of Kitchener, has about 25 km of guideway, 3 lines, and moves 150 000 people a day. If it goes down, the whole resort is screwed. It has to work!)

 

[44 North]

I'm not sure the rules or regs, but I feel like if we built a monorail here it would require a gangway for passengers to walk on in case of emergencies. If so, this would essentially reduce the narrowness of the guideway - which is one of monrail's main selling points. I can't think of any elevated structures in Canada that don't have a space for people to walk on.

And somewhat related, but here's a list of the vehicles widths for different systems. Didn't include monorail.

ICTS Mark I: 2.5m width
ICTS Mark II: 2.5m (floor body width) + 15cm (upper body width)
Flexity Freedom: 2.65m width
Hyundai Rotem (Canada Line): 3m width
Toronto subway: 3.14m

 

[ssiguy2]

Elevated monorails are also less effected by severe weather than standard Metro and especially elevated LRT as the LRT have their catenaries exposed which makes them susceptible to sleet, high winds, and snow.

I don't know of any advantages of tunnelled monorail over tunneled subway/Metro. The capacity is the same as are the tunneling costs, stations etc although both are superior tio tunnelled LRT which has lower capacity and requires higher height tunnels and stations due to the catenary. When it comes to elevated transit however, monorail is superior to elevated LRT and/or Metro is every category.

Bangkok has decided to shelve it's new elevated Metro lines in favour of monorails creating a system of over 100 km. Cairo is set to begin a new line with Bombardier heavily favored. Istanbul has announced 6 shorter monorail lines and Daegu S.Korea just opened it's first true transit monorail line a month ago. The Daegu line is interesting because they installed special window that are designed to be clear in open spaces and over buildings but when they pass thru areas where tall apts are nearby, the window turns a light grey colour which still provides light but momentarily stops passengers from seeing inside the apts it goes by giving the people in the nearby apts privacy.