bus rapid transit, light rail transit, and rail rapid transit â is presented. Finally, this paper ..... personnel. On average .... 23. 24,840. (Calgary Transit, n.d.), (City of Edmonton, n.d.), (Canada Line, 2005) (Toronto Transit Commission,. 2012).
CSCE 2014 General Conference - Congrès général 2014 de la SCGC
Halifax, NS May 28 to 31, 2014 / 28 au 31 mai 2014
Monorails for sustainable transportation – a review Patrick Miller, S.C. Wirasinghe, Lina Kattan, Alex de Barros
Abstract: Despite having been conceptualized in the 19th century, today there are few examples of functioning monorail systems for mass transit. While other modes of mass transit have established bodies of research and many applications around the world, the monorail has seen less attention in research and development outside of specific geographic contexts, like Japan. While studies have demonstrated the benefits and costs of monorail in these contexts, there is a limited understanding of monorail systems’ potential role in a North American context. This paper seeks to explore the potential for monorail class of mass transit to provide sustainable mobility in North America. First, this paper presents a critical review of monorail drawing upon existing research – specifically with respect to existing monorail systems in Japan. Planning and operational challenges and strengths of monorails are the focus of the review. Second, a comparison of operational issues and sustainability impacts of monorail to other major rapid transit modes – bus rapid transit, light rail transit, and rail rapid transit – is presented. Finally, this paper proposes conditions where monorail would serve as an effective transit mode based on cost, capacity, geographic context, and sustainability impacts of mass transit modes.
1
Introduction
Rapid transit systems play a critical role in promoting urban sustainability. Throughout North America a number of rapid transit systems have been implemented – including heavy rail (subway and metros), light rail transit (LRT) in a number of configurations, and bus ways. While the notion for operating vehicles on a th fixed singular rail may have been developed in the 1800s, monorail systems emerged in the 20 century as a unique alternative form of mass transit. Despite relying on an established form of technology, monorail systems have been implemented in a relatively small number of countries. The monorail mode of transit is also less researched than other modes – while conventional rail systems have a wealth of text books and established literature to draw upon, a literature review of monorail texts and papers shows fewer resources to draw upon. However, some key research does exist that draws upon practical experience working with monorails, primarily in Japan. This short paper reviews information provided in selected research papers and reports on this form of mass transit in order to present an up to date summary on the state of practice and research on monorails. This paper seeks to explore the potential for monorail to provide transit service that enables sustainability goals. First, section 2 provides a summary of monorail characterization, including information on how monorails are classified as a transit system. This section also provides an overview of the different types of monorail technologies that have been implemented, as described in the literature. Next, section 3 provides an overview of topics, issues, and opportunities discussed in monorail planning literature, including planning, implementation, and operational issues. Section 4 provides a comparison of monorail to other mass transit modes, such as light rail transit or rail rapid transit, based on historic data from standard literature sources. This section also includes a comparison of specific Japanese and Chinese monorails to Canadian transit systems. Finally, section 5 provides a summary of the information presented and suggests future topics of discussion and research to improve understanding of the monorail mode of transit.
GEN-181-1
2
Monorail Characterization
This section of the paper seeks to summarize background on monorail transit systems. Monorails can simply be described as a ‘transportation mode whose vehicles are guided and supported by a single rail or beam’ compared to the dual rails or concrete pathways used by steel wheeled LRT and metro, or rubber tired metro (Kikuchi & Onaka, 1988) (Daniel Mann Johnson and Mendenhall, 1972) (Nehasi, 2001). There is no ‘one type’ of monorail transit system, rather the name monorail refers to a family of transit system types that utilize a single rail or beam as a guide way for a car. Monorail systems may ride along or suspend from the beam/rail and utilize a wide variety of rolling stock combinations dependent on system needs (Vuchic, 2007) (Kennedy, n.d.). Despite the diversity of monorail systems, all fit into the right of way A or completely grade separated category based on their design requirements (Kennedy, n.d.). Kennedy also suggests that monorail vehicle and technology is not compatible with mixed traffic operations due to the guide way beams. Two major types of monorail systems have been implemented for transit purposes:
Suspended: a system type based on the original Schwebebahn system in Wuppertal, Germany, which used a singular steel rail and steel wheeled vehicles. Vehicles hang from the support beam, rather than ride atop it. Modern systems based on this concept use concrete or steel beams and rubber tired cars.
Straddle: a system type that has vehicles that ride along the guiding support beam, which is made from concrete or steal. Often referred to as Alweg systems, these monorail systems are the most commonly implemented and have seen service at several places in Japan.
(Kikuchi & Onaka, 1988) (Vuchic, 2007) (Kennedy, n.d.) (Daniel Mann Johnson and Mendenhall, 1972) (Nehasi, 2001) Kikuchi and Onaka (1988) describe monorail systems, regardless of system type, as being composed of vehicles, guide way, stations, and control systems. These components are common across rail rapid transit systems, though the vehicle systems and guide ways employed on monorail systems vary significantly. Vehicles use rubber tire wheels for stabilization and propulsion along the beam, which varies greatly compared to more traditional rolling stock and rail used in conventional rapid transit systems. 3
Monorail System Planning and Development Considerations
Monorail systems, like all transit systems, should be carefully developed to meet passenger needs and the limitations and opportunities of the local context. This section reviews planning issues put forward in academic writing, textbooks, and technical reports. This review provides an overview of considerations for developing and implementing monorail systems. 3.1
Right of Way Conditions
Kikuchi and Onaka (1988) state that monorail serves a role similar to LRT or bus way systems – meaning they provide high capacity transit across a moderate geographic scale. For example, in Japan system length varies from 6.6 km to 21.2 km. In most instances, monorails are developed to be elevated and supported by columns (Kikuchi & Onaka, 1988) (Kennedy, n.d.) although; Kennedy (n.d.) suggests that in some instances tunnelled monorails may be utilized. As monorails require complete grade separation, the type of grade separation to be used is a critical consideration when developing or considering a plan for monorail. Suspended monorail systems require aerial structures or deeper tunnels to accommodate their
GEN-181-2
vehicles and as a result straddle systems, which still require structured right of ways, may have wider application (Daniel Mann Johnson and Mendenhall, 1972). Reviews of monorail structures and guide ways indicate that their profile/size is typically smaller than other modes operated as elevated transit, such as LRT (Kennedy, n.d.). This allows monorail to serve physically constrained corridors where the right of way may not be expanded due to cost, public opinion, or geographic factors (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., 2012). In these constrained contexts, it may not be financially or physically feesible to develop other transit modes – such as surface running BRT or LRT. Additionally, if the cost of heavy rail is prohibitive or heavy rail’s capacity is not required, then the case for considering monorail is good.
3.2
Applications of Monorail Technology
Monorails have been used for transit systems in a number of countries including: China, India, Japan, Brazil, and the USA. There are also plans in Iran, South Korea, and Indonesia, among other countries, to introduce monorail systems. Route lengths of current systems range from 6.6 km long with 8 stations to (Shonan monorail) to 21.2 km long with 14 stations (Osaka monorail) (Siu, 2007). On the same systems, the spacing ranges from 1.21 km to 1.5. Stop spacing and placement may be a more pressing issue for monorails as they may require elevated stations, which could be more expensive than at grade stations for LRT or BRT systems. Station development also requires specific attention. In their treatment of Japanese systems, Kikuchi and Onaka (1988) outline that stations are typically elevated above the road right of way. This may limit impact on traffic, but it may also present constructability or access issues to be considered during planning. The authors also suggest that the role of the monorail is strongly established in corridors where space is extremely constrained and service is highly desired. Kikuchi and Onaka (1988) suggest that straddle systems have a greater maximum grade at 10%, however 6% is the grade used in practice. Acceptable grade may be a determining factor of mode selection based on the type of geography present. Kikuchi and Onaka set out three applications for monorail systems as part of a broader transportation network: 1. Connecting large scale land developments (activity centres) and existing rail stations for access as well as circulation within the new town. This application has an estimated daily ridership of 50,000-100,000. 2. Connection between satellite developments in suburban communities (500,000 to 1,000,000) with estimated daily ridership of 100,000 3. Circulation within a downtown area of a large metropolitan area with estimated daily ridership of 70,000-80,000. (Kikuchi & Onaka, 1988) These applications are informed by the Japanese experience with monorails, but provide a foundation for further applications and the development of a planning framework for considering monorail among other mass transit options. The 3 main applications are observed outside of Japan as well – for example the 8.6km KL Monorail in Kuala Lumpur provides a connection between two rail lines through a corridor not served by rail transit. Another example is Mumbai Line 1, which opened in 2014 with a length of 8.9km and provides feeder services to larger rail systems from areas that are currently underserved by transit. A review of Japanese monorails is presented in Table 3-1. GEN-181-3
TABLE 3-1 JAPANESE MONORAIL REVIEW System
Type
Average Spacing (km) 1.78
Total Length (km) 17.8
Number of Stations (km)
Tokyo
Straddlebeam Straddlebeam Straddlebeam
10
618
17
Peak Capacity (pphpd) 10,506
1.63
21.2
13
410
8
3,280
0.68
8.15
12
392
10
3,920
0.92
12.84
14
165
12
1,980
Shonan
Straddlebeam Suspended
0.94
6.6
7
496
8
3,968
Tama Toshi
Straddlebeam
0.89
16.1
18
416
12
4,992
Chiba 1
Suspended
0.64
3.2
5
14
2492
Chiba 2
Suspended
1
12
12
10
1780
Osaka Kitakyushu Okinawa
Capacity per train (passengers)
178
Frequency
(Chiba Monorail, n.d.), (Yui Rail, n.d.), (Shonan Monorail, n.d.), (Kitakyushu Monorail, n.d.), (Nehasi, 2001) The Japanese monorail data reflects a diversity of applications of both suspended and straddle monorail types. Monorails with a system length greater than 15 km include Osaka, Tokyo, and Tama Toshi. The Tokyo monorail, which serves Haneda airport as well as key trip generators in the region offers a point to point travel service as well as interchanges with other transit lines. With the highest average stop spacing, this system is positioned to connect and feed, vs. provide regional transit coverage. Osaka Monorail plays a similar role to the Tokyo Monorail – it provides connections between other rail lines and the Osaka International Airport. Similar to Tokyo, this monorail features higher stop spacing. Tama Toshi monorail is the third longest monorail in Japan and provides connections between suburban areas and other rail stations. This system features shorter stop spacing, which is similar to stop spacing observed in primary transit systems. Japanese monorails with a system length
