News   Jul 17, 2024
Side-by-Side The Davisville and Uovo Top Off on Yonge in Midtown
 527     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
Midtown Resubmission Adds Height, Density, Matches Adjacent Proposal
 1.5K     2 
News   Jul 17, 2024
News Roundup for July 17, 2024
 631     0 

Monorail for Toronto

If it did something like I said earlier than it would be a great idea. That is a basic Queen East to Queen West route via the Portands/Union/Liberty Village with potential for northbound extensions to connect with Bloore and Danforth. It must also be built to appropriate capacity of atleast 20,000 pphpd, not be a circular tourist route like Sydney's, and be part of the standard TTC system unlike the LV Monorail which was built with 100% private money and therefore run privately so it cost $5 to ride it's short 6km length and was not transferable to the regular transit system.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Its crazy to think that no one would use it just because it is called a monorail. It would have high ridership if it hit Cityplace and Liberty Village. I wouldn't complain if we got the DRL instead, but this is what we have to work with for now, so might as well get something out of it.
Click to expand...

No, this is not "what we have to work with for now". Just because one rookie, non-area councillor said it, doesn't mean the idea holds any water.
There is little demand for a multi-billion dollar line from Ontario Place to the Port Lands...that's what I meant by "transit people will actually use". And do you mean keeping the extensions to Bloor and Danforth elevated as well? Because that's absurd. Even out of the core, those areas are quite densely populated. This would end up costing significantly more than a DRL, and result in more NIMBYism than this city has ever seen.

Again, just because a rookie councillor from north Etobicoke says it, doesn't mean the idea is even worth discussing. It's absurd. There are real transit issues in this city, and a monorail along the lake does not address any of that.
 
We'll never get a DRL, but let's take this crazy monorail idea, even though it'll never connect with the Bloor Danforth subway.

Toronto Transit planning *shakes head*

I'm with 44 North. It's crazy to think this line could be a viable alternative to the DRL, and crazier to even discuss this it being an alternative. Do not get distracted with these pie-in-sky ideas. This line will not have the capacity, and if you even mention running this line through Riverdale, people will be marching to City Hall with pitchforks and torches. If this line is ever built, I'll bet it will be a small tourist installation with limited capacity, hel,l it may even be cable-hauled.
 
Clover Moore wants the city's "ugly and intrusive" monorail torn down






0

SYDNEY Lord Mayor Clover Moore wants the city's "ugly and intrusive" monorail torn down to make way for the proposed extended tram network through the CBD.

Two decades after it was built, the monorail is again being targeted by its critics who have questioned its necessity alongside an expanded light rail system.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal tenders have opened for the state government's feasibility study into new public transport corridors.
Sydney City Council and Randwick City Council want a light rail link along George St , Hickson Rd and out to Sydney's eastern suburbs to relieve the congested CBD.
The monorail, owned by Metro Transport, has eight stops along a 3.8km loop through the CBD from Pyrmont to Ultimo.
Metro Transport, which also owns the city's light rail system, claims the monorail is used by four million commuters each year.
Related Coverage










Ms Moore said the monorail, expected to temporarily cease its services during the redevelopment of the Sydney Entertainment Centre, no longer had a place in the city.
"The City of Sydney has advocated for an expanded light rail network for many years," she said. "We do not support the continued operation of the monorail, which is ugly and intrusive.
"It's planned shut down for the construction of a revitalised Sydney Entertainment and Convention Centre precinct, provides the perfect opportunity to permanently introduce light rail in its place."
Tender documents posted last week show the state government will examine transport routes from Central to Circular Quay, Sydney University, the University of NSW and to Barangaroo.
The proposed Sydney Light Rail Strategic Plan will specifically look at potential corridors within a 10km radius of the CBD, before shortlisting five preferred routes. The state government wants to be able to announce a preferred light rail network by June 2012 with an Environment Impact Statement to be ready by the first quarter of 2013.
NSW Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian said the future of the monorail would be considered as part of the transport master plan the government was developing for the entire state.
"We are committed to light rail, but we are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the previous governments by rushing into projects without sound analysis or even a basic plan," she said. "All modes of transport will be viewed by Transport for NSW in the context of developing a transport masterplan."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ded-tram-network/story-e6freuy9-1226128902853
 
I don't blame them. 8 stations, 3.6km in a downtown circular route is ridiculous. It was built as nothing more than a tourist train like the LV Monorail. A total waste of scarce transit funds.
 
Justin10000 said:
We'll never get a DRL, but let's take this crazy monorail idea, even though it'll never connect with the Bloor Danforth subway.

Toronto Transit planning *shakes head*

I'm with 44 North. It's crazy to think this line could be a viable alternative to the DRL, and crazier to even discuss this it being an alternative. Do not get distracted with these pie-in-sky ideas. This line will not have the capacity, and if you even mention running this line through Riverdale, people will be marching to City Hall with pitchforks and torches. If this line is ever built, I'll bet it will be a small tourist installation with limited capacity, hel,l it may even be cable-hauled.
Click to expand...

Why can't we have both? Monorail has the capacity to operate as a DRL, and you could build a second line along the waterfront for the same cost as an underground line between Pape and Queen. How many times do we have to debunk this myth that monorail has limited capacity restraints?

ssiguy2 said:
I don't blame them. 8 stations, 3.6km in a downtown circular route is ridiculous. It was built as nothing more than a tourist train like the LV Monorail. A total waste of scarce transit funds.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I still think its one of the best examples of how monorail can work in a dense urban setting, visually speaking.
 
I don't get people pushing monorail technology.

At best, it's a something "cute" for tourists but outside this, it could never properly service a population. People advocating monorails need a reality check. That the Fords are actually considering this along the entire waterfront instead of just extending the streetcar lines is astounding. Monorail for a theme park makes sense. But for the entire waterfront?

Just a complete waste of resources and time.
 
Last edited:
There isn't enough funding to keep the existing system in a state of good repair.

How would the city be able to afford this flawed idea?
 
This from Las Vegas newspaper (Las Vegas Review Journal) in March 2011. The LV monorail is not part of their, surprisingly good, transit system and goes close to but not actually to the airport.

One of the sidebars to the sad news that the Sahara hotel-casino is closing in May is this: What's the impact on the beleaguered Las Vegas Monorail?

As a few people know, the monorail starts at the still-open MGM Grand, and winds its way down the back side of the Strip, eventually coming to the Sahara. A maintenance facility for monorail cars is located near the property, too.

But now, with the Sahara closing, riders will have no reason to journey past the Las Vegas Hilton stop on the monorail's 3.9-mile route. It's ironic, since one of the goals of the monorail was to ferry tourists to certain hotels and thus ensure a steady flow of foot traffic. That's undoubtedly why the Sahara signed on to the monorail in the first place.

Quite unlike the Sahara -- which enjoyed iconic status and was a hugely successful enterprise for years -- the monorail has endured a steadily increasing string of slow-motion failures since it was launched in 2004.

According to the monorail's website, the train carried 5.2 million people in 2010 and brought in $23.3 million. That's enough to cover the cost of operating the system, but nowhere near enough to make payments on the more than $600 million in bonds that built it. Hence, the monorail's January 2010 bankruptcy.

Contrast those numbers with figures from 2005, a banner year for ridership, when the monorail carried 10.2 million people. Or 2006, the highest grossing year for the monorail financially, when it made $31.4 million.

Although the monorail has been mired in legal wrangling since it filed for bankruptcy, its website still advertises a long-held dream: to take the train to McCarran International Airport.

"The Las Vegas Monorail Company is currently in the planning stages of a proposed expansion to McCarran International Airport, which would help deliver Las Vegas visitors to their business and vacation destinations along the Strip," the site says. "This phase of expansion planning includes seeking environmental approval(s), securing appropriate entitlement rights through the Clark County Monorail Franchise and finalizing a ridership forecast for the expansion.

"Check back soon for updates ..."

Realistically, there's only one way the monorail will ever extend to the airport, and that's if it is taken over by the taxpayers. And in this post-recession, Tea Party era, the idea of a publicly owned monorail is about as likely to fly as one of the monorail's trains. Which means we should expect the monorail to make a play for exactly that outcome. This is Las Vegas, after all, home of crony capitalism.

But should the public take it over? Should this example of casino hubris and wildly optimistic ridership and revenue projections be rewarded with a public bailout, like our own little version of AIG or Fannie Mae? Is the Las Vegas Monorail too big to fail?

When the Sahara couldn't attract enough customers (even with the monorail delivering passengers right to its back door) it announced its closure. That's what happens in the private sector, and the monorail still bills itself -- despite tax-free bonds issued by the state and myriad tax exemptions -- as a private enterprise.

Let's not forget a little-discussed alternative: When the monorail was built, some foresighted soul insisted that a fund be created to provide money to tear it down if things didn't work out. While the ultimate decision on what to do with the troubled train will be made by those poor souls who bought the monorail's bonds, if talk of a public takeover comes up, we should all keep in mind that there's another option.

And unlike the Sahara, which had plenty of fans, very few people will mourn the loss of the Las Vegas Monorail.
 
valvenis said:
There isn't enough funding to keep the existing system in a state of good repair.

How would the city be able to afford this flawed idea?
Click to expand...

Private sector pixies will pay for the Fairies Wheel. RoDoFrod will build the monorail with the pot of gold to be found at its end.
 
tkip said:
I don't get people pushing monorail technology.

At best, it's a something "cute" for tourists but outside this, it could never properly service a population. People advocating monorails need a reality check. That the Fords are actually considering this along the entire waterfront instead of just extending the streetcar lines is astounding. Monorail for a theme park makes sense. But for the entire waterfront?

Just a complete waste of resources and time.
Click to expand...

People against Monorails need a reality check. They aren't just for tourists. A monorail can offer whatever you want it to offer. Places like Vegas didn't build a monorail as a commuter line. It was built to ferry tourists... nothing more. Look at places that built monorails for normal everyday commuters for examples of what a monorail can provide. Its not the end of the world. A line that can carry more than twice the daily ridership of the Sheppard line isn't 'cute technology for tourists'. A line here in Toronto from Union to the Portlands will become that 'tourist' attraction. Extend it outwards from Union, and it will become a useful line for commuting.

Just because you watched an episode of the Simpson's, doesn't mean you become an expert on Monorails. There are plenty of examples out there that work.
 
If you look at Doug Ford's interview with CTV, he meant monorail as any type of elevated transit. Which I think is a great idea for the outer Eglinton stretches and part of the DRL and show that they're at least somewhat open to non-underground rapid transit.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Just because you watched an episode of the Simpson's, doesn't mean you become an expert on Monorails. There are plenty of examples out there that work.
Click to expand...

I rode the one in Las Vegas. It was like Scarborough RT but even worse. Creaky, bumpy, altogether an unpleasant ride.
 
If you don't monorail that's fine but we PLEASE get ove this idea that it's just for airports and theme parks.
Sao Paulo is currently building it's 110km Bombardier Innovia 11 system with capcity of 48,000 pphpd with expected ridership one million passengers per day..................Toronto should be so lucky.
Then again what do the Japanese, Moscovites, Koreans, Indians, Brazilians, and Germans know about transit when they can compare it to Toronto's truly stellar mass/rapid transit system?
 
superman said:
If you look at Doug Ford's interview with CTV, he meant monorail as any type of elevated transit. Which I think is a great idea for the outer Eglinton stretches and part of the DRL and show that they're at least somewhat open to non-underground rapid transit.
Click to expand...
Why would he have said monorail if he meant any type of elevated transit. We have two elevated transit systems in Toronto already, and neither are monorail. Even I don't think that Doug Ford is that stupid. He said it for a reason ... presumably it's what the financiers whispering in his ear are using.

However, I confess I haven't seen the CTV interview. Do you have a URL?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top