[sustran] The only good monorail, is an old monorail (maybe).

[Eric Britton]

From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER at wri.org] 
Sent: Sunday, 31 January, 2010 17:20
To: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com



 

In the 1960s we the good citizens of Berkeley voted to put our parts of the
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system under ground, at a cost that in today’s
money is hundreds of millions plus the extra operating costs of higher
propulsion energy for trains under ground.  The idea was to avoid creating
two sides of the tracks with an over-ground system as it appears in
communities north and south of here.

 

Good decision? I don’t know. The question is whether we could have spent the
money on better station access, and other features that would have increased
ridership. The North Berkeley BART Station is a huge lifeless parking lot
where informal carpools form. It COULD Have been a node with cafes,
apartments and businesses. Etc but no, our people would have none of this.
Pity,.  Ask monorail developers what THEY plan to do to increase access and
activity around stations

 

One important point about all the alternatives. The CO2 savings are there,
but even at $85/tonne (the value Nic Stern puts on CO2) these savings are
truly dwarfed by other costs and benefits. They rarely tip the balance for a
project. And for those who really believe CO2 is a a threat (I do), TAX CO2,
don’t just invoke a CO2 value to justify a project.

 

More on this idea can be seen at
http://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/pubs/reports/Shipper-ConsidClimateChange-La
tinAmer.pdf

Particularly the appendices for Mexico City and for a bike path system in
Santiago de Chile.

 

lee

 

  _____  

From: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.co

m
[mailto:NewMobilityCafe at yahoohttp://metrostudies.berkeley.edu/pubs/reports/S
hipper-ConsidClimateChange-LatinAmer.pdfgroups.com] On Behalf Of Heather &
Kerry Wood
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:50 PM
To: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] The only good monorail, is an old monorail
(maybe).

 

  

Dear Eric

 

Monorails, hmm... maybe I should start with the advantages.

 

--         A very small land footprint without the cost of tunneling.

 

--         The capacity of rail or light rail.

 

--         A sexy look.

 

 

Surely with all these advantages there is a fortune to be made?

 

 

I suggest that the big disadvantages are 

 

--         Passengers are stuck up in the air when they want to be at street
level (especially in an emergency). In principle this is no different from a
metro.

 

--         Noise and visual. In principle these can be at least mitigated
(even by going underground in an extreme case), and at worst a monorail is
much better than a road flyover. Bridge designs and noise suppression have
improved since the Schwebebahn. Again, this is not so different from a
metro.

 

--         Getting trains from one track to another. 

 

You say that space is a problem if monorails need switches (I like the 'if')
but there are three related problems.

 

--         Switches are expensive as well as space-hungry. 

 

--         High-speed switches are impractically expensive. High-speed
monorails manage about 70 km/h through switches (very slow for a high-speed
train), by jacking a length of straight track into a curve. The displaced
end must move by the width of a train plus a bit of clearance, or say 3-4
metres, so the jacked section has to be very long.

 

--         Switches are minimised because of cost, and too few switches lead
to an inflexible system.

 

Operators struggle with any breakdown because there are few options for
getting a train out of the way. Delays are easier: there is nothing you can
do except make good use of any slack in the timetable.

 

In contrast, a late-running bus can end its run before an outer terminus,
transferring passengers to the bus that is now just behind. Then it can,
hopefully, start its shortened inward trip on time. Light rail can do the
same trick if the right loops or sidings are provided. Better still, either
system can be scheduled to terminate some services before the end of the
route. Heavy rail is not that flexible but can use switches to put a train
on to another track, another platform, a loop or a siding. 

 

A long monorail has excellent carrying capacity -- just like a railway train
-- but takes a long time to run through low-speed switches. For example, if
the speed limit through a switch was 10 km/h, a 200 metre train would take
80 seconds to go through a switch 20 metres long. More complex layouts would
take longer. When the train was clear, a departing train might face a
further wait while the switch was reset; a matter of two or three seconds
for rail but longer or much longer for monorail. 

 

I have pulled these numbers out of thin air, but they are enough to suggest
that there are problems with scaling up monorail beyond a 'demonstration
project'. Designing a terminus for a departure every two minutes might be a
technical challenge, especially for multiple routes. Success might be a
funding challenge and failure would be a commercial challenge.

 

Monorail systems never seem to have two or more routes running on one track,
as is common for rail systems. In principle passengers can interchange
between routes but in practice I don't think this is done -- does anybody
know of a city having two monorail routes? If it is not done, might the
reason be that the city authorities got wise before the second line was
built?

 

 

Kerry Wood

 

 

On 31/01/2010, at 6:07 AM, Eric Britton wrote:

 

 

Dear Ashok and others,

 

Thanks for sharing that Times of India article. Glad to see that someone is
pointing out one or two of the downsides of this inappropriate project.

 

But I am somewhat disappointed that no one on our Sustran list thus far
seems to want to step forward and help us enumerate all the reasons why
monorails are such a brain dead concept.

 

Someone tell me that I am wrong, but among the many flagrant
disadvantages/absurdities of the monorail concept for cities, include:

 

1.    They cost far too much money given the level of service they provide





2.    They don't (really) go anywhere (i.e., where they are needed in a
many-to-many world)





3.    Good transportation is supposed to be as close to seamless as we can
make it – and they are anything but, cut off from the rest as they are by
definition





4.    Limited capacity (per buck spent)





5.    They are a visual intrusion (scar) on the city scape





6.    The ignore, they actually degrade the street in many ways – which is
the very heart of the city





7.    They are, to a pylon, to a track, to a car, to a station, ugly as sin
(my old grandmother's expression).





8.    If they need switches, the space requirement becomes complicated.





9.    Emergencies are very messy.





10. They don't do the basic job that is needed.





11. They saddle the city with debt.





12. To be "cost effective" (ho ho), they cannot provide affordable service
for the majority





13. They are not sustainable by any measure





14. They are often the project of industrial-financial-political interest
alliances and even, if one digs deep, corruption. (As so often is the case
with big ticket transport and other public investments.)

 

By the way, did anyone note that almost to the day as Mumbai joyously
welcomed their first test car the Las Vegas Monorail Co has filed for
bankruptcy?  Just thought I would mention it.

 

In summary: They are so awful, so thoroughly dysfunctional that I even have
difficulty in anyone trying to justify them (or not) in terms of anything
like "relative CO2 efficiency". This I see as a splendid project for a MA of
PhD student sharpening their tools, but when it comes to the politics of
transportation they defy common sense.

 

So out they go.

 

(I invite comment and corrections as always).

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. Ask me what's better, what gives more sustainable transport bang per
buck than a monorail?

 

 

 

 

From: ashok mundkur [mailto:ashok_mundkur at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 30 January, 2010 07:34

Some data  re: Metro Vs Mono rail presented in today's Mumbai edition of
Times of India that may be of interest to you ..... in case U haven't seen
it...

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM
<http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&lo
gin=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T&AW=1264832913750>
&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T&AW=1264832913
750
Cheers
Ashok

  _____  

From: phaizan at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:58:39 +0530

Please take a look at the forwarded email. The final nail in the coffin of
monorail, in maverick Eric Britton style.

Faizan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eric Britton < <mailto:eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 7:38 PM

The only good monorail, is an old monorail (maybe). Schwebebahn Wuppertal
since 1901->

Monorails? There is something almost touching about avarice and stupidity
when they get together and blatantly hang out there for all to see.

I first looked at monorails for city transport of all kinds of types and
stripes back in 1970, and on a number of grounds they looked awful then and
they still do today. I have my own long list on this, but if you wish we
might have some fun starting a collaborative list under the title of
something very elegant such as "Why monorails suck".

I am amazed that these discussions are still taking place and that there are
cities and eventual sponsors that take them seriously. There is a monorail
mafia that shows up wherever at the drop of a hat to show their stuff, often
offering generous credits and other forms of compensation to see that their
job gets done. I haven't made an effort to keep up. But I do remember some
recent salvoes in parts of India, also Bogota, São Paulo, Curitiba, and a
certain number of US cities that just don't know when to let a bad idea go.
(Check out the historical stuff on this in the Wikipedia. Pretty good.)

What I don't understand is why they are not simply laughed at and set aside
for more serous things.

But then again, perhaps there is something that I fail to understand.

Educate me.
Eric Britton

PS. Here's a nice exercise for you if you wish to dig a bit. Go to the New
Mobility Partnerships at  <http://www.newmobility.org> www.newmobility.org
and on the top menu click
Knoogle (yes, it's an ugly word) and once there pop in "monorail". This will
then take you on a lightning  survey of more than eight hundred sources,
projects and pogroms looking at sustainable and at times unsustainable
transport in countries around the world. Interesting.

---

On Behalf Of Walter Hook
Sent: Friday, 29 January, 2010 00:43

eric,

we are developing these parameters for BRT also, and there is also a give
back on co2 from construction, though usually its smaller, and if you need
to build the elevated BRT (like they are doing in Ahmadabad in places) there
is a lot of concrete there also.  its not a BRT/mrt thing.  i am trying to
integrate the evaluation criteria to look at mrt and brt and other options
using similar methods.  i am in Guangzhou for the opening of the BRT here
and one very nice feature is its integration with the metro system, maybe
the first time we get nice full integration.  the BRT is not on a corridor
with mrt in the long term plan, so its additional and not competitive.





 


On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, < <mailto:bruun at seas.upenn.edu>
bruun at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:



Walter raises an important issue. There is indeed a payback time. But it
isn't necessarily 20 years for systems that have frequent service and carry
large numbers
of people all day. And even when it is 20 years, keep in mind that metros
and railways
are around for a century or more. The tunnel for the first line in London.
the Metropolitan
Railway, was opened in 1863 and is still in service today. That is true
sustainability.

If the point is that BRT avoids this problem, we have been over this before.
Points to consider:

1) Sometimes a tunnel is the only way to get both decent capacity and high
performance to the places
that need it. Once a tunnel is needed anyway, the case for rail strengthens.

2) I heard the presentation at WRI about Ahmedabad two weeks ago where the
speaker said "build BRT,study Metro" which got laughs from the audience. I
point out that just the opposite also happens. "Build Metro, study BRT" was
the case in Delhi. This difference in incubation time must be taken into
consideration when evaluating the carbon reduction. How much extra would
have been emitted waiting for the go-ahead for the first BRT line?

3) What are the real options on the table? If the choice is between building
a Metro and building a highway, I will take the Metro. If the choice is
between BRT and Metro, then it needs to be studied closer. I don't
automatically pick either one.

Eric Bruun

---

 



Quoting Walter Hook < <mailto:whook at itdp.org> whook at itdp.org>:

sudhir from CAI Asia just ran some numbers for metro projects and CO2.  If
you include all the construction related CO2, they come out negative for a
large number of years, and to get positive co2 impact you need to push the
project time line out something like 20 years or more. i imagine monorails
would not be quite as concrete intensive but may be close.   Interesting to
note the mention of Lanzhou.

w





---


On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 6:20 AM, Eric Britton
< <mailto:eric.britton at ecoplan.org> eric.britton at ecoplan.org>wrote:

Mumbai monorail project looks to reduce CO2 emissions

By Lisa Sibley
Published 2010-01-27 09:22





 

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia-based Scomi Group, a global service provider mainly
in the oil and gas industry, said today its trial run of India's first
monorail car for a project in Mumbai has been a success.





The Malaysia-listed company also specializes in urban transit systems, with
an emphasis on India, China, the Gulf states, and Brazil. The trial run
occurred yesterday, also a national holiday, the Republic Day of India.





The monorail is expected to prevent 200 tons of carbon dioxide emissions
daily. The proposed structure is also considered environmentally friendly
because it won't obstruct sunlight or trap excessive emissions. In
addition,
it's expected to be quieter than other modes of transportation.





Scomi India's Country President Suhaimi Yaacob said in a news release the
project's focus is on sustainable mobility, reduced urban congestion,
improved reliability, and comfortable travel.





Other cities looking to reduce mass transport emissions include China's
Lanzhou, which is working on a comprehensive urban development plan linking
a new city center with a rapid bus transport system, expected to result in
a cleaner, more economical mass transportation system (see China's Lanzhou
makes plans to reduce mass transport emissions
< <http://cleantech.com/news/5429/lanzhou-mass-transport-system>
http://cleantech.com/news/5429/lanzhou-mass-transport-system>  [1]).
Scomi's engineering division and partner Larsen & Toubro, India's largest
engineering and construction conglomerate, secured $545 million for the
Mumbai Monorail Project in November 2008, and are expected to complete the
project by 2011.





Scomi is tasked with delivering 60 cars, making up 15 sets of four-car
trains. Each four-coach monorail is expected to be able to accommodate
about 600 passengers, carrying a total of nearly 300,000 daily commuters.





 

The monorail project is expected to have a 20-kilometer (12.4 mile)
proposed route between Jacob Circle and Chembur, a suburban neighborhood in
eastern
Mumbai, with one central depot and about 18 user-friendly stations. Chembur
is located about 22 kilometers from downtown Mumbai and considered a
transit point for travelers to Pune.