Monorail for Toronto

[gweed123]

Not that I necessarily support an LRT DRL, but even in that scenario why would you need a 6-car LRT? Rolling stock on the Frankfurt U-bahn or Cologne Stadtbahn can hold at least 200 per train (250 for some), and regularly run in couplets or triplets, including on their at-grade, street-median portions. Supposing that the line will see 25000 pphpd at peak even on the surface portion or that they somehow cannot/do not short-turn (unlikely), it means one 3-car train (75 m long) every 1.5 minutes, which is close to the peak street-median operation frequency on the Frankfurt U-bahn. (If Eglinton were to still be built as an LRT, it might even make sense to interline some Eglinton trains down this light rail version of the DRL, further decreasing the redundancy north of Eglinton. But now that's just dreaming.)

200 is generally the crush load, but yes you are right. It can be done, however, it's far from the optimal configuration.

 

[gweed123]

I would think ANY DRL would be better then nothing.. So whatevers cheapest and we can build fastest I support.

If we do the SUBWAY ONLY approach and it costs 3 or 4 times as much, which would cause a huge uproar from people scared their taxes are going up, which causes nothing to get built, I dont think we accomplished anything.

ID rather do a LRT DRL for the immediate future and if 20 years from now we are actually transit focused then build a QUEEN Subway..

You have it backwards. You run the HRT along the corridor that can handle the larger stop spacing, and you use the underground LRT (along Queen) as the supplemental rapid transit with closer stop spacing. Queen St needs a rapid transit solution that allows a smaller stop spacing. The primary function of the DRL is to relieve Bloor-Yonge by providing a RAPID alternative route into downtown. These two needs are mutually exclusive, unless you 4-track (which is what I proposed with the 4-track LRT under Queen).

 

[M II A II R II K]

The money can be spent just on the DRL and leave the Queen as it is. The Queen streetcar can still serve as short range transit, but those who use it to say get to Roncesvalles can use the DRL to get there. Beyond that the Queen Streetcar is actually fast.

 

[dunkalunk]

Pretty much exactly what I'd do, except I'd also improve light timing for transit on queen.

 

[Amy Rose]

Can't you extend Dufferin from Bloor to St Clair, so that Bathurst Street isn't the only way to St. Clair, other than that, excellent plan, but all downtown routes have to share traffic unless we magically find another Spadina

 

[dunkalunk]

The only reason why Bathurst is on that map is because tracks already exist there between bloor and st. clair. I just sort of threw it in there.

I kind of like how off topic this thread has gotten from monorail.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I kind of like how off topic this thread has gotten from monorail.

Yeah, its easy when most people on this forum do not talk or care about anything other than the almighty LRT.

 

[Electrify]

I'm going to wake a sleeping giant, and suggest monorail for a couple of corridors:

1. Sheppard Ave: I suggested this in the TC debate thread, and it was fairly well received. Convert the existing subway to monorail, then operate it above the ground for the duration of its route. This way we can have a true high capacity, rapid transit link for northeast Toronto, at an affordable cost, and relatively unintrusive structure for the people below. More expensive than LRT, but much better service.

2. Downtown Relief Line: People say that it is the only subway which makes sense, but it could be safe to argue that going underground doesn't make sense anymore, period. The Second Ave. subway line in New York City is now projected to cost nearly TWO BILLION per kilometer. Latest figures for an all underground Eglinton light rail line look to $360 million per kilometer, and that number is likely to increase from this early stage. Going above ground may be the best way to provide the transit we need in the city at an affordable cost.

 

[ssiguy2]

News from the Monorail world.....................
Ho Chi Min City has just signed a contract for the construction of 2 new monorail lines of a combined 20km.
The best news is in China.................China has announced that it is going to be building 20 to 30 new monorail lines for urban transportation {ie not theme parks, zoos, or malls} within the next 5 years! They will mostly be suspended models like at Dortmund University or Wuppertal.
It's when I read things like this that I am Toronto is not entertaining the idea of monorail...................seriously, what do the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, or Brazilians know about rapid and mass transit?

 

[Electrify]

I saw that on monorails.org, but I'm not too enthusiastic about the China project. Siemens suspended monorails tend to be of a people mover scale rather than of a mass transit one. I could see these lines being on the scale of the Miami Metro-Mover rather than of a standard subway line.

The Ho Chi Min City monorail project however, does look very promising.

Here are some videos of monorails operating in snowy conditions in Seattle. I've always wondered how well concrete straddle beam lines (the Moscow one is steel) handled snow, but these videos are very reassuring.

[video=youtube;MuGAresylZ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuGAresylZ4[/video]
[video=youtube;igmhrDWrnwQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igmhrDWrnwQ[/video]

 

[ssiguy2]

Ya, monorails can handle any weather and much steeper grades and sharper turns to boot. They are also faster and cheaper to build than any elevated system whether it be LRT, Metro, or SkyTrain.

 

[M II A II R II K]

With P3 we could have a street lined up with podium condos and have the monorails run on top of the podiums on both sides of the streets.

 

[Electrify]

Not sure if serious... but at the very least, it would certainly be cheaper to do Sheppard/Finch as monorails than underground. Might even have enough left over to do the DLR.

 

[ssiguy2]

Underground monorails are just as expensive as any other underground system, it's when the lines are at grade or elevated where the benefits lie. They are much faster to build as most is built off site, only have one one rail line so cheaper and also creates a far smaller shade and footprint and the supports can be very slender. They work in any climate, have better grade and turning radiuses than either metro or LRT and cast a smaller shawdow and foot print than SkyTrain. They have full metro capacity as they are the same width as standard metro ca and.t hey usually run on rubber wheels which makes them blissfully quiet and comfortable.
They would be idea for a DRL as their footprint is so small that they could still use the GO Rail lines. They would be great as a PPP.
With Indian and Chinese cities roaring ahead with monorail and Sao Paulo soon to be beginning their 110km system with projected capacity of one million per day monorail is the way to go.

 

[rbt]

They would be idea for a DRL as their footprint is so small that they could still use the GO Rail lines. They would be great as a PPP.
With Indian and Chinese cities roaring ahead with monorail and Sao Paulo soon to be beginning their 110km system with projected capacity of one million per day monorail is the way to go.

I'm curious, how do they handle turnbacks? As we know, any high capacity system has issues with emergencies and interruptions which they cannot directly control. Anything from flooding (not likely above ground) to fire, nearby emergency, downed electrical line/tree/etc, and of course the "medical emergency" alarm on the train itself (Toronto has several real medical emergencies each day -- some of which require turnbacks at nearby stations to be made). Ideally you redirect vehicles to another set of tracks around the problem and keep the problem area as small as possible -- a fallback is to turnback trains on both sides of the area and run a secondary service (shuttle bus) to replace the missing portion of the line.

Both moveable track monorail and the rotating switch type seem to take between 15 to 30 seconds to change the track configuration rather than the half second that a double-gang switch requires. How do the larger monorail lines handle turnbacks at arbitrary points while maintaining 90 second headways?

Switching speed is also important for trains entering/leaving storage yards while maintaining this headway of real service. Also, how about GAP trains and areas for pushing a disabled train at random (every 3km) points within the line.

I've also not seen a monorail able to run through a switch at 45mph while maintaining passenger comfort. Has this situation been improved?