Monorail for Toronto

[ssiguy2]

It needs to be big enough to comfortably hold two full trains unloading (100%) simultaneously. If the capacity of the train goes up, so must the capacity of the station. If a train has the same capacity as a typical subway train, then so must the station.

That means Sheppard sized stations (platform width, vertical transport of an elevator, two escalators, and stairs) are th

Pretty huge structure to toss over-top of an intersection and worse if they are side platforms (two elevators, 4 escalators, 2 sets of stairs).

No thanks. Make it street level.

Higher capacity needs require larger station regardless of the technology................why you bring that up only for monorails is beyond me. The 100 meter Eglinton subway stations will have lower capacity of 100 meter metro and monorail stations due to the LRT being thinner thus having lower per train capacity.
For elevated systems the monorails are superior to elevated metro or LRT is all ways. Much of the infrastructure can be built off site which is cheaper and far less disruptive to the streets while construction is underway, the beams are thinner due to only having one rail line and are not one solid concrete layer above the street which casts a far smaller shadow, they run on rubber tires so are much much quieter and smoother with none of the screetching you get when subways come to a stop at the stations, the mechanism are not effected by any weather, they have tighter turn radius and sharper inclines which helps negotiate around barriers and are more capable of having shallower {and hence less pricey tunneled stations} to clear the roads when they come out of the tunneled sections.
Cheaper to build, quieter, smoother, less visual impact, cost effective, higher grade abilities, smaller turn radius, smaller support columns that any other elevated rail system which makes them easier to build along current rail ROW.
This is why Sao Paulo, Mumbai, Moscow, Riyad, Tokyo, Osaka, and more and more cities are choosing monorail for their MASS and RAPID transit systems. Remember the Sao Paulo system is being built to accomadate one million passengers per day at 47,000 pphpd.
Why the aversion to the technology is beyond me especially seeing Bombardier is one of the world's biggest suppliers. Let's face it this idea of "proprietary technology" concern in Toronto is offensive. Toronto and Montreal are amongst the worst examples of using them in the world because they don't have proprietary technology but rather proprietary supplier........Bombardier.
Siemens could offer a buy one get one free sale on it's subway cars and it wouldn't make a hoot of difference as we all know and purchase of any rail cars in Toronto or Montreal that get any provincial or federal support will go to Bombardier.

 

[nfitz]

The 100 meter Eglinton subway stations will have lower capacity of 100 meter metro and monorail stations due to the LRT being thinner thus having lower per train capacity.

The LRT vehicles for Eglinton are wider than found in some metros. For example, Montreal, where the trains are only 2.5 wide compared to 2.65 metres for Eglinton. In London the deep tube trains (the new ones for the Victoria line) are 2.68 metres wide ..., and with very low ceilings at the doors ... and even narrow for some of the other lines!

Eglinton primarily has a lower capacity than Sheppard because of the length (which will be about the same as a 4-car subway train); not the width. However for systems with platforms of the same length, it doesn't particularly have a lower capacity.

 

[ssiguy2]

That's true some metro cars are smaller like Montreal's but I was using Toronto's subway cars as the analogy.
It still seems to me that tunneled LRT will be more expensive than tunneled metro or monorail due to having to build the overhead electrification which the others don't require.
For that matter, seeing the whole line is to be tunneled they could have gone with SkyTrain MK11 system which would save money from not having to reconstruct the current SRT. It seems the TTC has not only gone the most expensive route but also the one with the lowest capacity.

 

[nfitz]

That's true some metro cars are smaller like Montreal's but I was using Toronto's subway cars as the analogy.

Then either make it clear what you are referring to, or simply call it a subway so we know what your talking about. Would you stop people on Yonge street and ask them where the subway station is?

It still seems to me that tunneled LRT will be more expensive than tunneled metro or monorail due to having to build the overhead electrification which the others don't require.

As the Eglinton tunnel diameter is larger than the Spadina tunnel diameter, then yes, it would be.

But tunnel construction is only a fraction of the overall cost.

For that matter, seeing the whole line is to be tunneled they could have gone with SkyTrain MK11 system which would save money from not having to reconstruct the current SRT.

They could have ... though it gets them away from a propriety system that doesn't run very well under heavy snow, extreme cold, or extreme heat. Great for Vancouver perhaps ...

 

[ssiguy2]

Well SkyTrain does have problems with snow and cold that is only due to the TTC not putting in the heating mechanisms.
Anyway it seems to me that metro or monorail would have been a far superior choice than LRT.
Let's face it the only reason why they using LRT is due to Miller and then Metrolinx went ahead and ordered the LRT cars.

 

[nfitz]

Well SkyTrain does have problems with snow and cold that is only due to the TTC not putting in the heating mechanisms.
Anyway it seems to me that metro or monorail would have been a far superior choice than LRT.

The LRT is a metro system; it is completely grade-separated and will run every 3 to 6 minutes.

 

[EnviroTO]

I don't know why so many people get hung up on the technology. Transit delivers a certain capacity, at a certain speed, and with a certain impact to its surroundings and the environment. To be against a technology based on the number of rails or the weight of a vehicle makes no sense. The reason to rule out a technology is when you can prove the goals for transit could have been delivered at a lower cost. A metro or a monorail would have been a superior choice? Those two are very different technologies... what problems are you trying to solve? That sounds to me like saying to someone who bought a car that a transport truck or a bicycle would have been far superior choices because transport trucks can carry more and bicycles have better fuel economy.

 

[gweed123]

I don't know why so many people get hung up on the technology. Transit delivers a certain capacity, at a certain speed, and with a certain impact to its surroundings and the environment. To be against a technology based on the number of rails or the weight of a vehicle makes no sense. The reason to rule out a technology is when you can prove the goals for transit could have been delivered at a lower cost. A metro or a monorail would have been a superior choice? Those two are very different technologies... what problems are you trying to solve? That sounds to me like saying to someone who bought a car that a transport truck or a bicycle would have been far superior choices because transport trucks can carry more and bicycles have better fuel economy.

In my opinion the best example of LRT used as true rapid transit (ie not a glorified streetcar) is the Boston Green Line. Higher capacity grade-separated segment where it's needed most, and then at-grade as you get further away from the city, where it becomes more of a local line.

The real advantage with LRT comes when you are building it out in the suburbs, and the projected ridership doesn't warrant a fully grade-separated ROW (like what would be required with HRT), yet you can still run it like a subway inside the city where the grade-separation is needed.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Sao Paulo’s new monorail: too late for the World Cup?


June 29, 2011

By Channtal Fleischfresser

Read More: http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/tra...s-new-monorail-too-late-for-the-world-cup/548


.....

Brazil, which is roughly the size of the continental U.S., is using the opportunity to upgrade its transportation infrastructure, from its airports to its subway lines. The city in most need of infrastructure upgrades is arguably São Paulo, the world’s seventh-largest city and one of the hosts of the 2014 World Cup. With a population of roughly 20 million people, the sprawling metropolis is slightly larger than Los Angeles and slightly smaller than the greater New York City.

- In a city whose subway system is limited to a relatively small central network, gridlock and extensive traffic jams are a daily nightmare for its citizens, many of whom have no option but to travel by car, bus, or motorbike. São Paulo’s urban planners have the particularly daunting task of making its 3,000 square miles accessible to its population and to the expected influx of tourists in 2014.

- The São Paulo Metro recently awarded a US$862 million contract to build the city’s first elevated monorail between the city’s airport and its existing subway system. A consortium that includes Malaysia’s Scomi Engineering – a company that focuses on transport solutions – and Brazil’s Andrade Guttierez and CR Almeida will begin work on the project next month. The monorail will run 49 feet above ground for 11 miles, stopping at 18 stations. Construction is expected to take three and a half years. Although the project is meant to be part of the city’s transportation overhaul in anticipation of the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the competition is likely to kick off in mid-2014, a full six months before the project is expected to be completed.

.....

 

[ssiguy2]

Those are hot looking.
More monorail news...................from Queen's Park.
Seems like, with the assistance of the province, Bombardier is building a monorail rail track for development and a showcase for it's new Innovia 300 monorail trains. There are already projects under construction in Riyadh and Sao Paulo. It's being built so potential buyers can see and drive the trains while in motion so they can get a real feel for the technology.
It's still not too late to screw the Eglinton LRT and turn the technology over to under ground monorail which would be far superior.

 

[EnviroTO]

It's still not too late to screw the Eglinton LRT and turn the technology over to under ground monorail which would be far superior.

It's not too late to explain how it would be far superior. Is it the lowered passenger capacity of the vehicles that you like? The less solid ride provided by bouncing around on tires? Unless it is elevated it provides only drawbacks over light-rail. Monorail's economics excel when they are compared to elevated light-rail or ART. If the plan is not to build elevated transit then monorail is a bad idea.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Hey, id rather have 50-100 miles of monorail built in my lifetime than knowing that 50-100 miles of LRT/Subway will eventually be built in the next 50 years in Toronto....Hahaha, who cares of whats built after your dead.lol

 

[Mapleson]

Hey, id rather have 50-100 miles of monorail built in my lifetime than knowing that 50-100 miles of LRT/Subway will eventually be built in the next 50 years in Toronto....Hahaha, who cares of whats built after your dead.lol

I guess you are getting towards the end of your life expectancy? I'm not sure I'll see 2061, but my family will and I care that they get the best value-for-money that they can.

Anyone that thinks building monorails over LRT or HRT would be faster or more likely for political survival has their head in the sand to the political realities that must be overcome to gain new transit infrastructure.

 

[Electrify]

It's not too late to explain how it would be far superior. Is it the lowered passenger capacity of the vehicles that you like? The less solid ride provided by bouncing around on tires? Unless it is elevated it provides only drawbacks over light-rail. Monorail's economics excel when they are compared to elevated light-rail or ART. If the plan is not to build elevated transit then monorail is a bad idea.

Not sure exactly where you are getting significantly lower capacity from. The Innovia 300 can handle about 500 passengers crush loaded into 4 cars (http://www.monorails.org/pdfs/INNOVIA 300.pdf). The quality of the running surface plays a greater role into the comfort than the material used. There are times when a subway ride is about as smooth as a bus ride due to the age of the rails and the suspension on the trains.

If the majority of the line is going to be underground, as is the case with Eglinton, then monorail may not be the best solution. However with a monorail, we could theoretically elevate it over the street in places where we would have to tunnel standard rail instead.

 

[Mapleson]

Metrolinx released a document last year that had the dimensions of the existing CLRV, ALRV, and the new LRVs for the legacy streetcars, and Transit City: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/LRV-Fact-Sheet.pdf Assuming the TTC lengths are correct, and the Metrolinx widths are correct, then a CLRV has an area of (assuming it's a rectangle) of 38 m², an ALRV has 58 m², a legacy Flexity has 76 m², and a Transit City Flexity has 80 m².

Reported CLRV capacities are 102 normal, and 132 crushed (from Transit Toronto, and ALRV is 155 normal and 205 crush.

Scaling this, the Transit City LRV would have a capacity of 212 normal and 277 crush.

The Innovia 300 has a crush load of 502 with 64 seated (3.2 people per square metre using the above rectangle approximation), while a TC LRV has a crush load of 277 with 85 people seated (3.4 people per square metre). Having 12-Innovia cars together would be 150.3m long with 192 seats and 72.3k pph peak capacity, while a TC LRV with 5-cars would be 155m long with 425 seats and 71.2k pph peak capacity (using 75-second headways)

Personally, I think reducing total capacity by 121 people while increasing seating by 233 (for these comparable trainsets) is a great trade-off. There is nothing inherent in monorail or birail technology that wouldn't let them duplicate a more efficient interior layout.

Similarly, the choice for rubber wheels over steel wheels does not rely on having one track or two.