Monorail for Toronto

[ssiguy2]

If it is just "elevated transit" that is not monorail than this is even worse than I thought. Monorails are cheaper, faster to build, are all weather, and very importantly have far smaller footprints and quieter than anyother elevated system. Those last two are of particular importance when going down the current rail ROW thru Corktown and thru the Portlands.
I don't see how this won't be a circular route once it hits the Portlands which require too many stops and will require some to "backtrack" when using it. Maybe I am interpetrting the route wrong and if so please let me know how the route would work.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The Frods ought not to be flattered by calling their fantasy documents a plan, and speculating about whether the route is a loop or two branches is like speculating about whether Santa Claus is fat or thin. The monorail idea is a hastily imagined and not at all thought out napkin sketch. It's about as likely to happen as is a jolly old man in red to come down my chimney.

 

[themarc]

To be fair, these trees are of the same genus.

Japanese Cherry Blossom Tree (Sakura): Prunus serrulata
Sweet Cherry Tree (commonly harvested): Prunus avium
Sour Cherry Tree: Prunus cerasus

Toronto does not need a Canada's Wonderland + Vaughan Mills combination by the waterfront (a monorail will look tacky, no matter how it is designed, unless it is constructed as part of the DRL). Maglev monorail is too expensive, especially given that the line will not be long enough to recoup its costs. Canada's Wonderland and Vaughan Mills both belong in suburbia (and rightfully so, one kilometre apart in Vaughan). Yes, I enjoy going to Canada's Wonderland and Vaughan Mills, but public space is more important for Toronto.

The Simpsons nailed the problem with monorails. Though it is an animated sitcom, it presents a convincing critique of modern suburban life. Yes, Marge is right all along. Main Street in Springfield does need repairs (and so do many major arterial roads in Toronto).

(I'm new here - great forum and I enjoy all the new news provided)

I am a member of the group "Friends of Toronto Islands". We assisted in having the 30 blossoming Sakura trees installed at Centre Island this spring. These trees are not that robust and require nearly exacting soil conditions to thrive. Many of the Sakuras installed at York University have perished due to poor soil conditions. So Sakuras are not the best choice for urban environments.

As for the monorail concept - I think a gondola (like they have at Whistler or Tremblant) would be a much more unique, functional and inexpensive choice as a transportation solution. Improved passenger capacity over a "train". Better yet - it could be extended on to the Island by clearing the Eastern Gap (needs to be 60+ meters or so for seaway navigational issues). A slow moving gondola would provide fantastic panoramic views for the harbor from many angles. Besides its proven technology and doesn't have to be run on any type of schedule - just throw the switch...

 

[Torontovibe]

Elevated transit in Toronto? God, I hope not! Every time I go to Chicago and NYC, I think to myself how happy I am that Toronto did not go that route.

 

[sixrings]

Every time I go to Chicago, I think to myself how depressed I am that Toronto did not build Elevated Transit. Elevated Transit is better then no transit or transit which shares space with Traffic.

 

[EnviroTO]

Elevated transit in Toronto? God, I hope not! Every time I go to Chicago and NYC, I think to myself how happy I am that Toronto did not go that route.

I would agree. It seems to turn streets into dreary industrial neighbourhoods. I think I prefer how Yonge, University, Bloor, and Danforth look. The same goes for Queen. One can envy the number of lines and network of those cities but it is hard to envy the end result, especially at street level. I would rather live here, and do.

 

[Justin10000]

I like elevated transit too. Gives a great view of the urbanscape. But they ARE obstrusive, and can be noisy. That is why NYC has been tearing them down since the early 20th century. I can only guess Chicago still maintains an extensive system because of the cost of building subways.

I am going to stick with surface rail. Yeah, it's slower, but it's not obstructive, and fits well in the urbanscape, and can be quick with the proper measures.

 

[gabe]

Every time I go to Chicago, I think to myself how depressed I am that Toronto did not build Elevated Transit. Elevated Transit is better then no transit or transit which shares space with Traffic.

My god those elevated subways in Chicago are loud!!! It's a good idea to wear ear plugs when walking under those elevated tracks. I wouldn't buy a condo near a elevated subway line or a monorail for that matter even if it is quieter. Nothing worse than have people ride by peeking in the window like the monorail in Vegas as goes by the hotel rooms.

This is a real picture of a suite at the Bellagio Hotel. You may want to wear a bathing suit when using the tub. The monorail track is right outside the window!!

 

[Torontovibe]

If you look at all the buildings along the elevated subways in New York, it's lined mainly with dilapidated slum buildings and government housing and there is a good reason for that. No sane person wants to live beside a dirty, noisy train, that runs every 10 minutes, all day and night. Walking underneath those tracks is bad enough but having to live beside it, would be dreadful. That's why it's only the poorest people who live there. Nope, I'll take a pass on that one. They only people saying they want that in Toronto, are probably people who wouldn't have to live with that noise and dirt, day and night. Put them beside the tracks and watch how fast they suddenly change their minds. I wouldn't be surprised if they all live on quiet, cul-de-sacs in Sauga. lol

 

[ssiguy2]

The "L" and NYC elevated trains are old and standard subway. This is why they are both loud and obtrusive. Monorail has far more slender support polls and due to running on rubber tires is much much quieter. They are far more comfotrable to ride in and more pedestrian friendly. Remember you don't get the large overhand of other elevated systems like subway or SkyTrain as it is just 2 slender poles with no solid block of the overhead rail track platforms. This is why greenery thrives under monorail lines and can be made very esthetically pleasing.
I would strongly disagree with any elevated system down any of the downtown streets but excel along existing rail ROW where there is limited room for the poles, need tight turning abilities, and require quiet trains for the neighbourhoods.

Queen West Queen East
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
Mininco----------------Exibition------- =====Skydome=====Union========Corktown=======----Portlands

That would be am ideal system interlining the Waterfront Monorail with a DRL Monorail using the existing rail ROWs.

 

[ssiguy2]

^ My lousy computer skills shine thru.....................D'oh!
Anyway, just interline the DRL to Queen East and West.......I think {hope} you get my gist.

 

[Johnny Au]

The main reason why New York (especially Manhattan) and Chicago had elevated tracks is because they were primarily swampland. It is not easy to dig under a swamp. Toronto does not have much swampland (most of which was drained out long before urban planners had serious plans to implement subways).

 

[dlam]

there's an elevated line in Paris near the Eiffel Tower and it's in some expensive area. Those people don't mind, they just don't open their windows that much. those cars run on rubber tires, i think it is to reduce noise

 

[Long Island Mike]

The main reason why New York (especially Manhattan) and Chicago had elevated tracks is because they were primarily swampland. It is not easy to dig under a swamp. Toronto does not have much swampland (most of which was drained out long before urban planners had serious plans to implement subways).

JA: Manhattan Island mostly is made up of a solid rock type called Manhattan Schist that made the foundations for tall buildings
there very sound and strong...what you are thinking of perhaps is sections at or near the East or Hudson Rivers which are
recovered fill-a good example of building in a fill area is the original WTC "bathtub" foundation in which the towers footprints
went down to the base bedrock...

When the Chicago subways were built - The State Street Subway in the 40s and the Dearborn Subway in the late 40s/early 50s
they had to be built specially because the areas in which they were built the bedrock is very deep below ground and the tunnels
were built into fill like soft clay...the best examples being the long downtown stations and the Chicago River tunnels...

I feel that surface lines or aerial structures perhaps similar to what a system like Washington's Metro has may be a cheaper
and easier to build alternative then building strictly underground which usually is the most expensive option...

LI MIKE

 

[Electrify]

I would agree. It seems to turn streets into dreary industrial neighbourhoods. I think I prefer how Yonge, University, Bloor, and Danforth look. The same goes for Queen. One can envy the number of lines and network of those cities but it is hard to envy the end result, especially at street level. I would rather live here, and do.

Those areas were industrial long before the els opened up. Factors such as outsourcing and suburbanization helped to make them dreary.

And even if it was a little noisy, I wouldn't mind living near an el. The property would need some soundproofing, but once completed I would be right along a rapid transit route with an excellent view. I could see train passing the cars underneath, and they could see how much better transit is while stuck in traffic.

In fact, I think we have things backwards. We should be building highways underground, and transit networks above the ground.