Has the Monorail's Future Finally Arrived?

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

All right. So let's summarize.

Here is a list of things that partisan monorail boosters claim as benefits but that aren't:[list][*]Aesthetics. 1) Monorail guideways in the US cannot be as narrow as those in China because of requirements for emergency and ADA access. Monorail guideways can still be somewhat narrower than light rail guideways, but that advantage is canceled out by monorail's requirement for bulkier stations.

1) Where does it say that guideways are required in the US? The most famous american monorail, at Disney, doesnt have one.

And even if you absolutly must have a guideway, it can be made of mesh metal, which allows 98% of light through.

Look at the Vegas monorail. The guideway is almost invisible.
http://www.destination360.com/north-...s/monorail.jpg


And once again, the "monorail requires bulkier stations" is complete bull.

Elevated rail can be built with any station size, be it monorail, light rail, heavy rail or amtrak style. You can built tiny center-platforms, or you can build an enormous structure.

You seem to have latched onto "Vegas has big stations, ergo all monorails have big stations". Fallacy.

Do all non-monorail stations look like what Dubai built?
http://www.constructionweekonline.co...ro_station.jpg

Of course not.

Cost. Monorails are no less expensive than other comparable elevated options (more so actually, since you can never cross the tracks), and their lack of flexibility means they are much more expensive if you want to try and run them at-grade or in a subway. Overall, cost is a negative for monorails.

Cirrus, what was the last time you crossed the tracks of the DC metro?

How often does the DC metro run at-grade?

Monorail, in the application described in this thread, is for high capacity. Not cheap-suburban light rail, where people should walk on the tracks.

As many have been trying to get you to understand, nobody is proposing monorail for niche lines like the A-train in Austin. We're talking about mega-cities like Sao Paulo, Tokyo and Mumbai.

If youre going to design a high-capacity rapid transit system, the LAST thing you want to do is force people to cross the tracks.



You then lash out and claim that "monorail and PRT boosters" are ignoring the facts, but it seems like everyone here is being rational about the benefits and limitations except for you. You're jumping through every hoop you can to show that monorail is never feasible.


I mean look at this thread, a news article posted showing that multiple cities are building monorails because after extensive study, they found that it offered the best alternative.

And you just rush in to claim
"No, it's not. Compared to light rail monorails offer no discernable operational advantage, are considerably more expensive, and much less flexible. "

But the article at no point mentioned light rail! You let your bias blind you. I wonder if you even read the article.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by quashlo

I’m talking about high-platform stations. If we are talking about fully-elevated (or even fully grade-separated, for that matter) light rail vs. monorail, you wouldn't design it as low-floor... You'd use high-floor to maximize capacity.

Well, OK, but in so doing you're further narrowing the niche of comparable corridors. Low floor elevated light rail can still hit pretty high capacities, so if you're going to exclude anything at or below those capacities, the window for monorail is narrower. I don't have a problem with that; I'm just saying.

Originally Posted by quashlo

Wait, I gave you one that has a capacity as constructed of higher than that. If we assume that headways are decreased from 3m30s to 2m30s (not a big deal at all) and they began coupling trains:

All right. I'll retract that one.

We seem to have reached agreement.

Now...

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

Where does it say that guideways are required in the US? The most famous american monorail, at Disney, doesnt have one.

In the FTA regulations. Maybe they weren't in place yet 40 years ago when Disney built its monorail, or (more likely) maybe as a private owner operating a private line on private property, Disney doesn't have to follow the same regulations as public transit agencies.

Originally Posted by jamessinclair

And once again, the "monorail requires bulkier stations" is complete bull.

We've just spent the last page debating this point vis a vis the ability for pedestrians to cross tracks. You can't just jump in after all that and say "nuh uh". Light rail absolutely can produce less bulky elevated stations than monorail provided they use low floor platforms.

Originally Posted by jamessinclair

what was the last time you crossed the tracks of the DC metro?

The DC metro is a third rail system, which is entirely different. It has a maximum design capacity of about 50,000 pphpd, more than any monorail.

Originally Posted by jamessinclair

As many have been trying to get you to understand, nobody is proposing monorail for niche lines like the A-train in Austin. We're talking about mega-cities like Sao Paulo, Tokyo and Mumbai.

Please refer back to my multiple posts agreeing that monorail can be an appropriate mode given the right set of circumstances, most specifically where a medium-high capacity is needed and you're going to do elevated anyway.

Originally Posted by jamesinclair

I mean look at this thread, a news article posted showing that multiple cities are building monorails because after extensive study, they found that it offered the best alternative.

Yes, as I have repeatedly said, it can be the best alternative given the right circumstances. However, it is not a wholesale replacement for traditional rail and is not the best alternative for the vast majority of transit lines around the world, as extensive studies in those cases show.

Originally Posted by jamessinclair

You're jumping through every hoop you can to show that monorail is never feasible

This is patently and utterly false. You have either failed to read large sections of several of my posts, or you are blatantly lying. I have said repeatedly that it is feasible given the right set of circumstances. Would you like me to quote each time?

[Cirrus]

Here is the updated requirements list:

Here is a list of things that partisan monorail boosters claim as benefits but that generally aren't:

• Aesthetics. As the Vancouver SkyTrain example shows, traditional rail can be built that looks very similar to monorail (the reverse is not true). Monorail guideways can be somewhat narrower than light rail guideways, but that advantage is usually (not always) canceled out by monorail's requirement for bulkier stations. Overall, aesthetics is a wash except for in a capacity niche where low platform light rail isn't possible and thus light rail's less bulky station advantage doesn't apply, resulting in an aesthetic advantage for monorail.
• Cost. Monorails are no less expensive than other comparable elevated options (more so than elevated low-floor light rail, since you can never cross the tracks), and their lack of flexibility means they are much more expensive if you want to try and run them at-grade or in a subway. Overall, cost is a negative for monorails.
• Capacity. Monorail capacity is comparable to elevated/grade-separated light rail with high platforms, slightly higher than elevated/grade-separated light rail with low platforms, but lower than heavy rail metro systems. Overall, monorail doesn't offer any capacity advantage over any other mode, resulting in a wash.
• Automation. Any grade-separated transitway can use automated vehicles. This is a wash.

Now here is a list of the things that MUST be true for monorail to be competitive with light rail. You need ALL the things on this list to be true for monorail simply to break even with light rail:

• You have already decided that your line is going to be 100% elevated regardless of what type of train you ultimately choose.
• Your capacity needs fall in the "medium-heavy" range, high enough to require 100% grade-separation but lower than heavy rail.
• You must not care about interoperability with other existing or planned segments of your transit system, or freight.

Now here is a list of things that can push monorail over the top. If your line meets one or more of these characteristics in addition to all three from the previous list, then monorail is probably your best option:

• You have a specific need to climb grades that are steeper than you can climb with a traditional duorail (but not so steep that monorail can't climb them either).
• You have capacity needs high enough to eliminate low-floor elevated light rail as a viable option, but not so high as to require heavy rail. This is most likely in the 15,000-30,000 pphpd range. At these capacities, monorail offers a clear aesthetic advantage over elevated light rail and would therefore be preferable.

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well, OK, but in so doing you're further narrowing the niche of comparable corridors. Low floor elevated light rail can still hit pretty high capacities, so if you're going to exclude anything at or below those capacities, the window for monorail is narrower. I don't have a problem with that; I'm just saying.

You’re still not getting it, are you?

Remember, the discussion is about fully-elevated (and, to some extent, fully grade-separated) steel-wheel rail vs. monorail. Show me a fully-elevated steel-wheel rail system that uses low-floor vehicles, and I will agree with you. But you will have trouble finding them, if there are any. It’s stupid to build a fully grade-separated corridor and use inferior low-floor designs, as you’re capping your vehicle capacity with zero benefit. Low-floor designs are for street-running. This is not a "further narrowing" of the oft-mentioned monorail "niche"... It's simply a reiteration of what the rest of us have been saying all along.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We seem to have reached agreement.

No, we haven’t… I’d appreciate you not claiming we have done so without my consent.

I’ve already debunked your misconception about monorail capacity… Let me continue unraveling the rest of your misconceptions and subjective opinions which you have been injecting into this thread as fact:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Aesthetics. As the Vancouver SkyTrain example shows, traditional rail can be built that looks very similar to monorail (the reverse is not true).

And why would you want to design monorail to look very similar to SkyTrain? What’s the point?

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Cost. Monorails are no less expensive than other comparable elevated options (more so than elevated low-floor light rail, since you can never cross the tracks), and their lack of flexibility means they are much more expensive if you want to try and run them at-grade or in a subway. Overall, cost is a negative for monorails.

Again, please compare elevated steel-wheel rail to monorail. It’s pretty obvious the savings on materials and constructions with monorail are substantial… You’re only building two thin beams on top of columns. But I can reference cost numbers if you continue to insist on this.

[Cirrus]

You’re still not getting it, are you?

Remember, the discussion is about fully-elevated (and, to some extent, fully grade-separated) steel-wheel rail vs. monorail. Show me a fully-elevated steel-wheel rail system that uses low-floor vehicles, and I will agree with you. But you will have trouble finding them, if there are any. It’s stupid to build a fully grade-separated corridor and use inferior low-floor designs, as you’re capping your vehicle capacity with zero benefit. Low-floor designs are for street-running. This is not a "further narrowing" of the oft-mentioned monorail "niche".

You're still not getting it, are you? See how I can say that too? It's very helpful to the debate.

The niche of lines that are required to be 100% elevated is extremely narrow, even in developing countries. Low-floor light rail gives you the ability to have a high-capacity trunk line where you need it, but to run on-street where you don't (either as part of a spur or near the end of the line). You are ignoring or dismissing as irrelevant what is probably the single most important factor in mode choice. It is not ground I will cede.

If you want to claim that this discussion is only about whether monorail is appropriate within the niche where monorail is appropriate, that's a pointless tautological discussion. But yes, I agree: Monorail is indeed appropriate in those cases when monorail is appropriate.

I really don't see the point in going on here beyond that statement. Monorail will continue to be built in the extremely rare instances where it works, and it will continue not to be built where it is impractical, which is the overwhelming majority of the time. That is true no matter how many times we go around in this thread. Feel free to have the last word, because it's clear there's nothing more to add.

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The niche of lines that are required to be 100% elevated is extremely narrow, even in developing countries.

The project flow is like this:
A decision is first made to go 100% grade-separated... This is pretty much the norm in a developed country. It’s very rare to see any sort of street-running, no matter what you tried to claim in this post. I can count on my hand the number of newly-constructed street-running rail systems in China and India.

Then a decision is typically made whether to go elevated or underground (it can be a mix, and yes, monorail can do both, although yes, it is less advantageous when you need bored tunnels). This usually involves a discussion of how much the local / national government is willing to fork over. Elevated is just much, much cheaper than underground, making it a very attractive alternative. For recent examples of fully- (or mostly-) elevated lines, look no further than Bangkok (Suvarnabhumi Airport Link, BTS SkyTrain), Taipei (Wenshan Line, Neihu Line), Manila (Purple Line, Yellow Line), etc.

Fully- or mostly-elevated is not necessarily a “niche” market. And because it’s a market that monorail performs really well in against steel-wheel rail or rubber-tired guideway, you see developing cities looking to it as a viable choice. Just from the list in the article: Chongqing, Mumbai, São Paulo, and Port-Harcourt. Among those not listed are Dubai (Palm Jumeirah Monorail) and Kuala Lumpur, and I have no doubt that there will be more monorail systems in the future.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by quashlo

Fully- or mostly-elevated is not necessarily a “niche” market. And because it’s a market that monorail performs really well in against steel-wheel rail or rubber-tired guideway, you see developing cities looking to it as a viable choice. Just from the list in the article: Chongqing, Mumbai, São Paulo, and Port-Harcourt. Among those not listed are Dubai (Palm Jumeirah Monorail) and Kuala Lumpur, and I have no doubt that there will be more monorail systems in the future.

Mumbai, Sao Paulo, Dubai and Kuala Limpur have recently built steel wheels on steel rails trains too.
Mumbai new metro cars (not mnorail)


Sao Paulo light metro (not monorail)


Kuala Limpur metro (not monorail)


Dubai metro (not monorail)


Looks like they all are not just building monorails? It wouldn't be proper to state they didn't or will never look at monorails, but it is just as improper to suggest that's all they will ever look at steal wheels on steel rails in the future too.

[ssiguy]

Of all the elevated systems avaliable Monorail is the most affordable, funtional, easiest to build, comfortable, and most estheticaly pleasing. Why?
It is only one rail line so doesn not have near the ugly overhead presence {ala Vancouver SkyTrain}, usually rubber tired so are quiet and smooth, have small concrete pillar footprint which are much easier to erect and are built offsite, due to covered rail can work under any climate condition, and have the great incline and turning radius of any large mass transit system.
Monorail , I think, are finally getting the respect they deserve and their future is a very bright one.
A subway or metro almost always meant being all or mostly underground. That was fine for a time when enviornmental regulations were lax or even non-existent, labour was cheap, and the technology was rudimentary. Now that none of those things any longer hold true the Monorail benefits are becoming more clear.
One thing is for certain, the days of when monorails were just things to be considered for malls, zoos, amusement parks, or airports are long gone.
You can love or hate them but one thing is for certain ............their popularity is increasing and it's best days are ahead of her.

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by electricron

Sao Paulo light metro (not monorail)
...

Looks like they all are not just building monorails? It wouldn't be proper to state they didn't or will never look at monorails, but it is just as improper to suggest that's all they will ever look at in the future too.

First, I never said they were only building monorails, and I never said monorail and steel-wheel rail are exclusive of each other. All that you've shown is that the ultimate choice of technology depends on the conditions unique to each project.

But can you guess who just awarded another monorail contract?
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story...3&sec=business

This will officially become Line 17 of the São Paulo Metro.
18 stations
18 km
252,000 daily riders (projected)
Contract value is USD $890 million.

Really, was what I said so ridiculous? The situations that make monorail an attractive choice will continue to persist for some time in these cities and others which are just beginning the process of modernization and industrialization.

First, some people claimed that monorail was restricted to "medium- capacity corridors" of 10,000-15,000 pphpd, and then I showed that Chongqing could very easily reach over 30,000 pphpd if it wanted (a conservative estimate). Of course, I also neglected to mention that Line 2 in São Paulo, also a monorail and currently being built by Bombardier, can do as high as 48,000 pphpd, approaching the operated capacity of many existing subway systems.

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, this "niche" that naysayers keeps trying to fit monorail into isn't as small as they say it is?

[jamesinclair]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We've just spent the last page debating this point vis a vis the ability for pedestrians to cross tracks. You can't just jump in after all that and say "nuh uh". Light rail absolutely can produce less bulky elevated stations than monorail provided they use low floor platforms.

Ever been on a modern floorless roller coaster? There are metal platforms that rise up, so people can board their seats, and then move out of the way for the train can run.

If you insist on allowing people to cross the track, which is a ludicrous concept in most countries, then that could be easily and cheaply built.

Here is an example:
http://www.coastergallery.com/2005/MM54.html

But Im thinking of Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and I cant think of a single example of a high capacity rail line that allows people to cross the tracks.

The only situations where people do cross are when the rail line runs like a bus in the street, using bus-like 40-60 foot vehicles.


But that still doesnt solve the problem of your claim: How does the ability to cross the tracks result in a smaller station footprint!?!

Most monorails use a center island platform. Most elevated rail in general sues that design. How on earth does crossing the tracks allow you a smaller station design? You cant get smaller than a single platform.

Yes, as I have repeatedly said, it can be the best alternative given the right circumstances. However, it is not a wholesale replacement for traditional rail and is not the best alternative for the vast majority of transit lines around the world, as extensive studies in those cases show.

This is patently and utterly false. You have either failed to read large sections of several of my posts, or you are blatantly lying. I have said repeatedly that it is feasible given the right set of circumstances. Would you like me to quote each time?

Again, you started by looking at a thread title that proclaimed monorail's growth, and replied with "no".


Look at how valid your statement is:

LIGHT RAIL can be the best alternative given the right circumstances. However, it is not a wholesale replacement for traditional rail and is not the best alternative for the vast majority of transit lines around the world, as extensive studies in those cases show

BUSES can be the best alternative given the right circumstances. However, it is not a wholesale replacement for traditional rail and is not the best alternative for the vast majority of transit lines around the world, as extensive studies in those cases show

BI-LEVEL DMU can be the best alternative given the right circumstances. However, it is not a wholesale replacement for traditional rail and is not the best alternative for the vast majority of transit lines around the world, as extensive studies in those cases show

In other words....duh. No technology works in all situations. Thats why so many types exist.


Again, look at how you started the conversation, reminding you that the OP at no point mentioned light rail.

No, it's not. Compared to light rail monorails offer no discernable operational advantage, are considerably more expensive, and much less flexible.

[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/tran...-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.

.....

[northbay]

^the monorail looks like it's flying!

[hammersklavier]

Cirrus, looking at those requirements it would seem like the Honolulu light rail would be closest to filling monorail's niche. AFAIK that line is 100% elevated anyway.

[Trantor]

the São Paulo Metro Line 17 (Gold) Monorail will be completed in 2014, its true, but that is irrelevant, because its divided in three phases. The important phases, which will connect Congonhas airport (domestic airport) to the subway stations will be completed until 2012.

2014 will see the line completed until Morumbi stadium, but its important to notice Morumbi stadium WILL NOT host World Cup 2014 matches. The line will already be operational before 2014.

[Trantor]

wrote this more detailed post at the Smart Planet´s article:

Sao Paulo's Metro Line 17 (Gold) Monorail is set to be completed in 2014, possibily after the World Cup, its true.

But that isnt really an issue, because the line is set to be completed in three phases. Each phase will be operational as soon as its completed:

Phase 1: Congonhas Airport - Sao Judas Station (Line 1 Blue Subway). 3,8 km, two stations, set to be completed in the end of 2011, early 2012.

Phase 2: 10,8 km, 12 stations, from Sao Judas Station until Morumbi Station(Line 9 Emerald (CTPM)) and Jabaquara (Line 1 Blue subway). To be completed in late 2012, early 2013

Phase 3: 6,9 km, 6 stations. From operation to So Paulo/Morumbi station (Line 4 Yellow subway)

As you can see, by early 2012 the most important aspect of the line, which is the connection of Congonhas Airport to the subway system will already be completed.

The connection to Morumbi Stadium is irrelevant, since the Stadium wont be part of the World Cup 2014.

[Trantor]

Line 17 Gold (monorail) at Google Maps
http://maps.google.com.br/maps/ms?ms...c06ce3723f6685

at Google Earth (must save KMZ file and open it)
http://rapidshare.com/files/28404484..._sp-090918.kmz



VERY COMPLETE thread at SSC Brasil, with 143 pages, full of graphics, projects, etc (in portuguese, however, but you can ask questions in english)
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=900260

[Trantor]

btw, São Paulo has another monorail line already under construction, at the east zone of the city. Its part of Line 2 Green (subway), which will continue as a monorail. The subway ends in Prudente Station and users change to the monorail cars.


SSC thread
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1002079

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

The niche of lines that are required to be 100% elevated is extremely narrow, even in developing countries. Low-floor light rail gives you the ability to have a high-capacity trunk line where you need it, but to run on-street where you don't (either as part of a spur or near the end of the line). You are ignoring or dismissing as irrelevant what is probably the single most important factor in mode choice. It is not ground I will cede.

It's not about being 100% elevated, it's about being 100% grade separated. The two are different. Essentially, if a city CAN do 100% grade separation, it's almost always the the better choice. In this modern age, most grade-separated transit is also automated, meaning you can offer a much superior level of service for marginal increases in cost. Essentially, you can run shorter trains more often.

Vancouver's a good example of this. Trains weren't even run at the station's full length 80m until decades after the train was built. Many decried the short trains as "toy trains" Even now, longer trains could be run on existing platforms.

The newest line, the Canada line, shortens these platforms to 40m ( expandable to 50m ). Osaka, a large city with extensive public transit has built several of the last few lines with shorter platforms and automated.

It is simply less expensive to run a fully-automated system for the same level of service.

Yes, all these are not monorails. They use rail technology. However, they all must be grade-separated. They are usually run underground when entering downtown areas, because rail technology is simply too bulky to elevate in downtowns in North America for local tastes.

If you want to claim that this discussion is only about whether monorail is appropriate within the niche where monorail is appropriate, that's a pointless tautological discussion. But yes, I agree: Monorail is indeed appropriate in those cases when monorail is appropriate.

Doesn't that apply to any mode of transit?
[Insert mode here] is appropriate within the niche where [insert mode here] is appropriate

I think what people are mainly saying is that the perception that monorail is a niche may not be based in reality.

I really don't see the point in going on here beyond that statement. Monorail will continue to be built in the extremely rare instances where it works, and it will continue not to be built where it is impractical, which is the overwhelming majority of the time.

I think that's the matter in question.

[twoNeurons]

An interesting article about the potential of monorail for Thiruvananthapuram (try pronouncing that!), a 745,000 person city in India:

Monorail system

Among the various mass transportation systems available, viz. mass rapid transit system (underground or elevated rail system), monorail and bus rapid transit system, monorail is the most suited system for the volume of passenger traffic and the conditions prevailing on the arterial roads in medium-sized cities like Thiruvananthapuram.

Experience has shown that the MRTS is most suited for large metropolitan cities, where the volume of passenger traffic is very high, whereas in the case of medium-sized cities, the monorail is less expensive to build than a comparable MRTS (underground or elevated) of equal capacity. The primary advantage of monorail over conventional rail system is that it requires minimal space, both horizontally and vertically. Monorail vehicles are wider than the beam, thus requiring only a minimal footprint for support pillars.

Due to smaller footprint, they are seen more attractive than the conventional elevated rail line or elevated bus rapid transit, and block minimal amount of sky. Monorail being a grade separated system does not interfere with the existing transportation modes. Moreover, this system can be implemented with minimal acquisition of land and property and relocation of utility services, while compared to other systems.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/citys-tra...71-60-123.html

[Wizened Variations]

I understand the physics of mass and supporting mass.

Due to some impressive entries by quashlo, jamesinclair, twoNeurons, Cirrus, electricron, MIIAIIRIIK, Tranto and others, I believe that in more situations, the length of the monorail could be longer than I suspected previously. IMO the best two uses of monorail still remain point to point layouts with stops but without switching, and, loops. Loops in particular strike my fancy, as this may be the only feasible cure to radically increase the usage of spoke and wheel steel rail layouts like Denver or Chicago to permit interspoke transfer without going all the way downtown (an option the business crowd at the downtowns of both metro areas intensely dislike) as ROW would not have to be at ground level.

(Sometimes I just want to scream at the powers at be- smart as they think they are, and, rich AS they are, that by doing so passenger usage would go up so much that there would be MORE money for them, in addition to local authorities outside the core areas).