News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

rbt, Atlanta, LA, Washington, Miami, San Francisco and Montreal come to mind immediately without trying as cities that started after us, within the North American context that is the closest point of comparison.

Toronto was actually way out ahead of the game, building subways in the 1950's when everyone else in N America was constructing superhighways that bisected their cores. We were way ahead of that game ... but have lost it since 1980 or so.

For the record, Stockholm, Rome, Cleveland, Nagoya and Lisbon are "first world", a concept that needs quotes around it in 2010. None of those are "third world".
 
Atlanta, LA, Washington, Miami, San Francisco and Montreal come to mind immediately without trying as cities that started after us

Yes. Montreal is another outlyer. The others we all well after the white-picket fence dream had worn off and peak-oil was becomming a concern. San Fran is leading the pack in the 70's. Nearly a full generation after Toronto (yes, most women were having kids in their early 20's).

For the record, Stockholm, Rome, Cleveland, Nagoya and Lisbon are "first world", a concept that needs quotes around it in 2010. None of those are "third world".

The terms, concepts, needs, wants that apply today are significantly different from those of the 1950's; when these events took place.

Cleveland, simultaneous to opening their new metro sold off their rail based rolling stock to Toronto and didn't replace most of it with similar capacity bus lines. Their project was a consolidation/reduction of existing infrastructure rather than something intended to expand/improve service. Recent efforts have brought their ridership back up to ~10% of the population from what they collapsed the system down to.


The others cities mentioned most certainly were not considered, technically adept, well funded, 1st world, etc. during the 50's when they were building their systems. North Americans did not look at them with envy; the little bit of north-american news I can find on the subject looked more like pity than envy.


The assertion that Toronto was ahead of the game is interesting. Decisions made at that time certainly worked out in our favour but I think I would go with "fast follower" rather than leader.
 
Toronto was actually way out ahead of the game, building subways in the 1950's when everyone else in N America was constructing superhighways that bisected their cores. We were way ahead of that game ... but have lost it since 1980 or so.
It's nice to think we were ahead of the game, but the truth is that we've always been way behind it. The subway construction in the 1950s only came after 40 years of procrastination. It was the subway building elsewhere of the Edwardian period we were emulating.

As for highways bisecting our cores ... we were planning that in the 1960s ... but it took so long to get going, that all we had in the 1970s when such things were clearly passé was the Gardiner, DVP, and Spadina stub expressway.

Some claim we were ahead of our time by keeping out streetcars in the 1960s. The truth was the phase-out was so slow and behind schedule, that by the 1970s it started to make sense to keep them. Had we removed them in the 1950s like most cities, instead of the late 1960s through 1980s that we had planned, they would have been gone.

So Toronto isn't so much "ahead of it's time" but has "kept the dress so long, that it's back in style again". More frumpy than chic.
 
So again, ssiguy, could you please explain to me why Monorail is better than subway, LRT, or ICTS? An actual list of strengths would be very welcome.

Monorail has no advantage over subways when tunneled but unlike underground ICTS and LRT Monorails have subway capacity as almost all Monorail cars are, like subway cars, 3 metres wide as opposed to thinner LRT and SkyTrain cars including the MK11.
When outside whether down street medians, hydro corridors, or rail ROW is where the benefits really shine.
Monorails have rubber tires running on concrete which creates a very smooth, quiet ride that also has 6% grade climbing ability. That is higher than any other mass transit system. Due to using one {hence MONOrail} rail they take have a smaller footprint. Remember Monorails wrap around the track which means the track is thinner than the trains. Monorail cars are also lighter than subway cars so they have the same capacity but require much thinner pylons to support the trains. Monorail tracks therefore are less intrusive, block out less sun and take up only ONE lane for the pylons where subway structures usually require 2 car widths.
This not only makes them easier and much faster to build but requires less building material. That not only saves labour and material costs but also construction time so there is far less disruption times while being constructed.
Finally, one of the biggest time savers and a huge money saver that none of the other systems offer is that most of the work is done off site. Everything about the rail system itself is built elsewhere and all that really happens at the construction site is putting pylons in the ground and just adding the connecting prefabricated rails. This means that construction can continue non-stop and due to having all work contracted to different competing bids the price can be lower and , very importantly, have no "unexpected" expenses. Monorails, in many ways, are more built on an assembly line system.
Think of it this way..............have you ever heard of Modular homes. They, unlike mobile homes, are REAL homes in all senses of the word. They can have basements, be 2 or 3 stories tall, and can be put anywhere like Rosedale or the Bridle Path. I'm sure you have seen many but didn't know they were Modular. Modular homes are NOT allowed in mobile home parks because they are standard houses. The reason they are becoming more popular is that they are cheaper as they are built off site in a factory on a assembly line like basis. When the whole house is completed they just move it to the site and place it on top of the foundation/basement. Construction times, labour costs, and ease of construction are the benefits and this is essentially how Monorail systems are made.
You, of course, have to build the stations but the can be smaller stations like subway unlike longer stations required by ICTS or LRT because Monorails have the same pphpd capacity as subways unlike the other 2 systems which have thinner cars.
LRT/SUB/ICTS?Mono are all electric and non-polluting.
Monorails, due to total elevation and the cars wrapping around the track cannot become dislodged so they are proven to be the safest mass transit system ever developed.........................even Monorail's biggest critics admit that. Wrapping around the track and having the propulsion system area covered means that have no problem with any form of weather including snow and sleet which ICTS does have a problem with.
Some say Monorails have concerns because if there was a fire one could walk off the train to safety unlike a twin track system. That is true. Most systems have one special vehicle set aside that could pull the train to the next station in an emergency. Japanese Monorails have this but despite all their system and the Tokyo system running since 1964, they have never had to use it. There has never been even one small incident or even stall between stations. The Monorails are so safe that despite the fact that Japan seem to have an earthquakes every year they have never effected Monorail service and as such is one of the reasons they continue to build new systems.
A short coming which you hear a lot about is "switching" problems. It is very true that Monorail is the only one of the 4 major systems that cannot continue to switch while still travelling. The train has to come to a complete stop but the switching process still only takes between 20 to 40 seconds.
The real concern that many transit systems have the largest problem with when talking Monorails is that they are proprietary. This, like ICTS, is a valid concern. Although there are many systems throughout the world they are not compatible. As construction of large systems continues it may require the large builders like Scomi, Hitachi, and Bombardier to negotiate more vigorously but the reality is that you will still have to buy from the builder. The soon to be held Monorailex conference will be addressing exactly that as they know it is the primary reason holding back many other cities from jumping on the Monorail bandwagon. I don't know how they will do it but the good thing is that all the large manufacturers have a vested interest in creating some form of commonality when replacing vehicles.
Monorails have subway capacity but at a fraction of the price and can be built much faster with a far smaller footprint. It is a technology that Toronto should {but won't} embrace.
I hope all of this helps. I would like to know what you think.
 
Monorails have rubber tires running on concrete which creates a very smooth, quiet ride that also has 6% grade climbing ability.

That's about the same as the Queens Quay ramp isn't it? I know it is more than 5% because there have been reports about redesigning the portal down to a 5% grade.
 
The 6% grade is the MINIMUM grade which is why I stated it. Some systems have an incredible 11% grade ability.
My last post was so long I forgot 2 other major cost saving benefits of Monorails: They have, by far, the sharpest turning ability. This is why you see so many at amusement parks. They can manouver around small spaces and on mass transit that means being ably to avoid a lot of expensive existing underground infastructure
Due to their very high grade climbing/descending abilities it is also possible to have far less expensive at grade or just slightly elevated stations which are far easier to build, can be accessed by ramp only so expensive elevators may not be required. They can quickly climb over streets and then decline equally fast for the at grade stations. This means that in some cases the stations could just be longer TC streetcar like stops but yet totally unobstructed mass/rapid transit and still be automated. Again, a huge cost savings.
Now I have a question for Monorail critics...............what is it about Monorail that you don't like? I have asked this question before but the only answers you get are stupid Simpson's songs and then equally stupid comments based on the Simpson's song. So for people who want to have an intelligent conversation, why do you not think Monorails would be ideal and Toronto best system for current rail ROW, Hydro corridors and suburban street medians and why has it not been pushed as an alternative to LRT/Sub/Sky?
 
Now I have a question for Monorail critics...............what is it about Monorail that you don't like? I have asked this question before but the only answers you get are stupid Simpson's songs and then equally stupid comments based on the Simpson's song. So for people who want to have an intelligent conversation, why do you not think Monorails would be ideal and Toronto best system for current rail ROW, Hydro corridors and suburban street medians and why has it not been pushed as an alternative to LRT/Sub/Sky?

First off, I don't think that's a fair question. I have absolutely nothing against monorails. If Lagos wants to build a 300km rapid transit network, monorail should be considered. Same goes for any other city building a new system. But Toronto already has a rapid transit network. Adding another vehicle type means more maintenance costs and less flexibility.

Secondly, it is proprietary technology. If you build a Hitachi system, your stuck with Hitachi, and we know well that worked out for the SRT.

Thirdly, I don't see where they fit into our network. If you're building in rail corridors, or hydro corridors, why build an elevated guideway? This is the perfect scenario for surface level routes, making LRT/Metro cheaper to build. Median guideways are not acceptable in Toronto for some reason, no matter how many rails sit atop the concrete structure. As for tunneled lines, see points one and two.
 
The terms, concepts, needs, wants that apply today are significantly different from those of the 1950's; when these events took place.

Cleveland, simultaneous to opening their new metro sold off their rail based rolling stock to Toronto and didn't replace most of it with similar capacity bus lines. Their project was a consolidation/reduction of existing infrastructure rather than something intended to expand/improve service. Recent efforts have brought their ridership back up to ~10% of the population from what they collapsed the system down to.


The others cities mentioned most certainly were not considered, technically adept, well funded, 1st world, etc. during the 50's when they were building their systems. North Americans did not look at them with envy; the little bit of north-american news I can find on the subject looked more like pity than envy.


The assertion that Toronto was ahead of the game is interesting. Decisions made at that time certainly worked out in our favour but I think I would go with "fast follower" rather than leader.
Nagoya was not "technically adept"? While standard of living wasn't as high, much of Japan (including the Chukyo region around Nagoya) by mid-century, despite the hiccup of obliteration by US bombings during WWII, was already as, or more, industrialized a society as Canada was/is. The example of Nagoya also isn't completely correct; while the underground subway was built in the 50s, Nagoya already had an extensive aboveground railway network, as is common for Japanese cities, for decades. And if Sweden were a "3rd world" country in the 50s, I don't how many countries could be considered "1st world"; Canada would have only barely made the mark. The fact is, both Sweden and Canada were, and are, second line industrialized countries that were both not as far ahead as the big wigs like the US and UK who had the economy and population to develop urban mass transit much earlier. If North Americans really looked on them with pity, then all it shows is the ignorance and arrogance of North American society, which isn't news.

While I think it's a stretch to say Toronto was "ahead of the game", it's interesting to note that many economically advanced and industrialized cities, like all German cities except Berlin and Hamburg, and those in the Benelux and Austria, didn't develop their U-bahn/S-bahn/Stadtbahn/premetro/metro systems until after Toronto did. Oh those 3rd world cities them.
 
Last edited:
Now I have a question for Monorail critics...............what is it about Monorail that you don't like? I have asked this question before but the only answers you get are stupid Simpson's songs and then equally stupid comments based on the Simpson's song. So for people who want to have an intelligent conversation, why do you not think Monorails would be ideal and Toronto best system for current rail ROW, Hydro corridors and suburban street medians and why has it not been pushed as an alternative to LRT/Sub/Sky?

Between your capital-M Monorail (hey, it's not a proper name; lower-case "monorail" will do) and your apostrophe'd "Simpson's" (it's "Simpsons"), maybe the fact that you write and advocate like an obsessive-compulsive nutcase (or pubescent) with poor (or underdeveloped) communication skills effectively renders "intelligent conversation" a waste of time.
 
I asked for replies from INTELLIGENT people so that obviously knocks you off. As for all the talk of MONORAILS it probably has some thing to due with this being the MONORAIL thread.
 
I asked for replies from INTELLIGENT people so that obviously knocks you off. As for all the talk of MONORAILS it probably has some thing to due with this being the MONORAIL thread.

I put forward some cogent, if somewhat obvious, reasons explaining why I'm not into your mono-ronto scheme. So, you must not think I qualify as intelligent. Such a blow to the soul may take weeks to overcome!

Dude, you talk about monorails a lot. A LOT. On every thread. It's weird.

BTW, you can use that if you want, for marketing or whatever. Monoronto!
 
I asked for replies from INTELLIGENT people so that obviously knocks you off. As for all the talk of MONORAILS it probably has some thing to due with this being the MONORAIL thread.

Too bad you seem to talk about monorails in every other thread. You just cannot seem to keep it here.

And please, do not capitalize the name. That is really pushing it. Monorails do not hold a higher place in the universe.
 
The 6% grade is the MINIMUM grade which is why I stated it.?

That makes the system pretty useless if the minimum grade is 6%.

Some systems have an incredible 11% grade ability.

I don't think there is need for that in Toronto.

They have, by far, the sharpest turning ability.

What is the turning radius? Is it really tighter than Union loop or the many intersections in the city?

They can quickly climb over streets and then decline equally fast for the at grade stations.

Isn't this more a factor of running on tires? A metro system like Montreal would have the same advantages. Additionally, implementing these steep segments not only makes the ride more uncomfortable likely leading to a need to decrease speeds, but also increases long term energy costs.

What is bad about monorail? Zero cost savings when wholly at grade or underground, and greater energy use due to increased rolling resistance. All the lines we are building in Toronto are at grade or underground and I would say that energy costs are an important consideration these days. As for Skytrain, I have no idea why a monorail solution wasn't used there. Despite already having an ALRT system they opened up bidding on the Canada Line to other technologies and no company pitched a monorail solution. I would imagine if a company submitted a monorail bid with capabilities meeting the design requirements and at a cost lower than the alternatives there probably would be a monorail built in Vancouver. Why didn't the Japanese monorail players push a bid for the Canada Line? Vancouver was open to technology change, and Montreal specified a metro with tires but even still a company is trying to sell a metro with rails to them. Surely if a company is out there selling monorails believes that their product is the ultimate solution for urban transit they should have been able to submit a viable bid for the Canada Line.
 
I asked for replies from INTELLIGENT people so that obviously knocks you off. As for all the talk of MONORAILS it probably has some thing to due with this being the MONORAIL thread.

...and, to repeat, it's a thread YOU started and are obsessed with keeping going. As the guy below says: "Dude, you talk about monorails a lot. A LOT. On every thread. It's weird."

And in so doing, you're actually driving INTELLIGENT people away. Because they think you're PSYCHOTIC. Seriously. I can't imagine your quoted statement above (capitals and all) coming from any stable person over the age of 15.

Apply your posting techniques to dating, and women are going to call the cops on you for stalking.
 
In regards to climbing ability: There are conventional LRT lines that climb grades of 10% or higher. Sheffield Supertram is around 11%, and the Lisbon tram is 13%.
 

Back
Top