Monorail vs LRT

[Cloudship]

Light Rail is not higher capacity than a monorail. The fact is that Monorail really covers a vast range of sizes and designs. Most people think of monorails as either the little park sized ones like they have in Sydney, or at best the Disney-sized ones, which are closer to light rail in size and capacity. Other monorails, though, are much closer to metro capacity, and usually have the equivalent dimensions in passenger space.

[jchernin]

i think lrt does a better job of encouraging pedestrian activity, so i choose lrt.

[Xusein]

Monorails look better, but LRTs are more realistic money-wise.

Light rail that isn't in the middle of a road is the best example.

[newyorkrunaway1]

LRT is more "people scaled" and that encourages more use. People look at monorails as hovering large masses that intimidate them. LRT is much more appropriate, and honestly have never been a fan of monorails.

[Cloudship]

I think we are comparing the wrong two methods. Light Rail is really more for use where you have close, frequent stops and need quick load times. Monorails are much better at longer distances between stations. Light Rail is better when it comes to approachability, but that also is a huge problem in some cases, where you have to deal with interference with other traffic and passengers. Monorails get out of the way, so in those cases where there is a major concern with traffic interference, Monorails have a definite advantage.

Personally, I think you need to look at monorails versus metro systems more than Light Rail.

[greg_christine]

The answer regarding which is better is specific to the corridor. Where there is an existing at-grade right of way that has few cross streets, light rail is a good choice. For corridors where there is no existing at-grade right of way and where the alternative would be tunneling, monorail can be used to good advantage.

I don't care for light rail systems that operate on the medians of city streets. This type of configuration leads to severe restrictions on speed. In such instances, it would be better to either save money by building bus rapid transit instead of light rail or to spend more money and have a fully grade separated monorail. In such instances, light rail seems to bring the worst of both worlds by combining the slow speed of a bus with the higher cost of a rail system.

[greg_christine]

Originally Posted by gladisimo

Monorails are much cooler, I think LRTs are more practical (higher capacity?) anyone can fill in on this?

The number of people that a system can carry past a given point during an hour is equal to the passenger capacity of the trains multiplied by the number of trains per hour. For light rail, the length of the trains is limited by the distance between cross streets at the stations. Most new systems in the United States are designed for three-car trains with a total length of about 270 feet. Some systems such as Portland's are limited to two-car trains. Seattle will have four-car trains. For a three-car train, the capacity is about 450 passengers though this number is subject to variation based on local standards for crowding.

Virtually all new light rail lines in the United States are designed with traffic signal priority. The traffic light cycles are adjusted as trains approach so that the trains always have a green light. This improves the speed of the trains; however, it disrupts motor vehicle traffic on cross streets. The typical traffic signal cycle time is about one minute. On average, every third traffic signal cycle is disrupted when trains operate at six-minute headways in both directions on a double-track line. As a consequence, most new light rail lines are limited to headways of not less than about five or six minutes between trains. Three-car trains operating at five minute headways have a capacity of about 5400 passengers per hour per direction.

If a line is grade separated, the length of the trains is not restricted by the distance between cross streets and the frequency of trains is not limited by considerations of the disruption to motor vehicle traffic on cross streets. Also, the system can be automated with the result that capacity requirements can be met using smaller trains at closer headways. Headways of 90 seconds have been used on some automated systems. Relatively small trains with a capacity of just 150 passengers per train operating at 90 second headways can transport 6000 passengers per hour per direction, which is higher than the typical new light rail line in the United States. The system capacity can be several times that of light rail if larger trains are used.

Please note that the capacity advantage of grade separated systems is not specific to monorail. Conventional rail lines that are fully grade separated offer similar advantages.

[Nutterbug]

I think LRT offers a better emergency escape route.

[alsen]

Originally Posted by Sen

This is getting ridiculous. Most roads do not have trees on median anyways, only on sidewalks, which are hardly affected by monorail.
besides which is going to have a more positive impact on environment, building a monorail so people dont drive cars to pollute environment and cause congestion, or having a few more trees? (and in this case, having a few more cm in height of trees).

well said.btw,i think monorail look prettier than LRT.but monorail has a very limited capacity and is more of an attraction than a real meaning of public transportation.

[greg_christine]

Originally Posted by alsen

well said.btw,i think monorail look prettier than LRT.but monorail has a very limited capacity and is more of an attraction than a real meaning of public transportation.

Throughout much of Asia, the term "LRT" is used to refer to conventional steel-wheeled or rubber-tired transit lines that are elevated rather than in tunnels. Examples include the Star and Putra lines in Kuala Lumpur, the LRT1 and LRT2 lines in Manila, the Kanazawa Seaside Line in Yokohama, and several rubber-tired people mover lines in Singapore. This type of line can have very high passenger capacity. In North America, the term "LRT" refers to rail transit lines that are not grade separated. The length of the trains is limited by the distance between cross streets in way of stations. If traffic signal priority is used, the frequency of the trains is limited to five or six minutes so as not to cause undue disruption to motor vehicle traffic on cross streets. The result is fairly limited passenger capacity that can be easily exceeded by monorail or any other grade separated system.

[greg_christine]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

I think LRT offers a better emergency escape route.

This is an issue of serious concern. This is the reason that the Las Vegas Monorail has a catwalk between the guideway beams:



Any new transit monorail built in the United States would likely be required to have a similar catwalk.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by greg_christine

This is an issue of serious concern. This is the reason that the Las Vegas Monorail has a catwalk between the guideway beams:



Any new transit monorail built in the United States would likely be required to have a similar catwalk.

That takes away the aesthetic advantages of a monorail guideway, doesn't it?

How do these other qualities compare:

Noise
Smoothness
Energy efficiency
Maintenance

[tiger]

Originally Posted by alsen

well said.btw,i think monorail look prettier than LRT.but monorail has a very limited capacity and is more of an attraction than a real meaning of public transportation.

The monorail in KL is small scaled used for attraction,whereas the ones in Tokyo and some other cities are large scaled used for public transportation.

[alsen]

Originally Posted by tiger

The monorail in KL is small scaled used for attraction,whereas the ones in Tokyo and some other cities are large scaled used for public transportation.

ok...got it

[KGB]

Wow....someone from Toronto creating a thread in favour of monorails over LRT??? Blasphamy!!! Must be from the 905. LOL


Anyway...there's a reason monorails only work in certain travel pattern environments. They would never work for inner-**** travel based on modal integration on a grid-pattern system. You need to take the service where the riders are...and monorail-freindly spaces are not ridership-friendly spaces. They also don't encourage development along their routes.

You are much better off creating LRT that travels along the routes where people are and want to get to....on ROW as often as possible of course, and preferably with signal priority. It "might" be slower, but as long as it's used for short-distance travel (long-distance cross-town routes should always be HR subways anyway), it's not a big deal...but in this case, convenience and better access trumps speed anyday.





KGB

[Cloudship]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

That takes away the aesthetic advantages of a monorail guideway, doesn't it?

How do these other qualities compare:

Noise
Smoothness
Energy efficiency
Maintenance

Depends over what. Over surface transportation, yes. But if you are to use an elevated system, even with the catwalk it is still a smaller structure than light rail would use. And that is really where Monorails are most effective - where you want to separate the transit from the surface so that you get the most efficient travel possible. As far as noise and smoothness goes, that depends alot upon the systems involved. Theoretically Monorail is quieter, but it depends upon how well the beam and wheels are designed. Same with light rail - how well was the track designed, how good are the wheels, how tight are the corners. Energy efficiency depends upon length between stops and slopes. Monorails do much better with slopes and with acceleration and deceleration, light rail efficiency grows the more time it spends running at speed. Maintenance is a whole pandoras box that doesn't seem to have any agreement to.

The fact is they are two systems with different pros and cons. Light rail is an in your face thing and works great where you have a number of people moving short distances. it is quick to get on and off, and people will tend to chose it last minute. But they can be quite slow, and when they don't run in their own right of way (which negates the being visible and convenient) it can wreck havoc on traffic. In the US anyways many light rail systems have ended up promoting worse traffic and made more people against transit than anything else. Monorails aren't so visible and convenient for those short hops. But it is a faster system because it is grade separated. And, it can get out of the way even in places where you would never be able to separate light rail. hen thinking of monorails, think along the lines of metro systems - development patterns and such are very similar.

[greg_christine]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

That takes away the aesthetic advantages of a monorail guideway, doesn't it?

How do these other qualities compare:

Noise
Smoothness
Energy efficiency
Maintenance

Yes, the catwalks between the guideway beams detract from the aesthetics of monorail; however, it is still less visually intrusive than elevated light rail:



Of course, light rail that is on city streets avoids the elevated structure entirely; however, operation on city streets brings restrictions on speed, so there is no “free lunch”.

In terms of the other issues raised, I can offer the following:

NOISE

The monorail systems that I have seen in Seattle, Las Vegas, and the Disney resorts are very quiet. The trains are generally not audible over the noise of surface traffic even when one is standing next to the guideway structure. I have had the trains literally sneak up on me while I was trying to arrange a camera shot. I’ve been told that the main source of noise on the Bombardier/Disney trains is the air conditioning equipment.

The light rail lines that I’ve experienced generally are also very quiet with two exceptions. First, there is generally an high-pitched squealing noise on curves. The wheels of rail vehicle bogies don’t have differentials, so one or both wheels must slide when the train goes around a curve, which results in the squalling noise. The second significant source of noise is from the warning bells at grade crossing gates, which are often used at grade crossing along higher speed sections of light rail lines. Many light rail lines in the United States are subject to frequent complaints regarding noise. The Gold Line between Pasadena and Los Angeles in particular has been the subject of ongoing complaints regarding noise with local residents calling for the trains to be operated at lower speeds and for the warning bells at grade crossings to be made not as loud.

SMOOTHNESS (RIDE QUALITY)

Light rail generally has a significant advantage in the smoothness of the ride. Rubber-tired systems including monorail generally have a much lumpier ride. I have heard anecdotally that the large monorails built by Hitachi in Japan are quite a bit smoother than most monorails in the United States.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Light rail has a significant advantage in having open air stations that are at-grade. There are no escalators or elevators and no air-conditioning. The only energy consumption at the typical light rail station is from the ticket vending machines and the lights. Steel-wheeled light rail trains have lower rolling resistance than rubber-tired monorail trains; however, the energy consumption difference is modest compared to the advantage of grouping large numbers of people on a train instead of placing them in individual motor vehicles.

Rather than energy efficiency, the focus these days is often green house gas emissions. There is a study that was performed for a transit line between the future Warm Springs BART station and downtown San Jose. (See Reference 1.) Among the options considered were heavy rail (BART), light rail, and bus rapid transit. The study included an examination of the total net change in green house gas emissions from highway and transit traffic. The study concluded that the option that offered the greatest net reduction in green house gases was bus rapid transit. Much of the electric power generation in the United States is fueled by coal, which is far worse than petroleum based fuels in terms of green house gas emissions. Electric powered transit is locally clean but nationally dirty.

MAINTENANCE (AND OPERATIONAL) COSTS

A study was performed for the Evergreen/Coquitlam transit line for the Vancouver area. (See Reference 2.) The study compared several options including light rail and Skytrain. The Skytrain option is similar to monorail in that it is an automated system and features an elevated guideway and stations. The study determined that the totally automated Skytrain trains offered a significant operational cost savings by avoiding the need for drivers but this was offset by the operating costs of the more elaborate stations and the need for station attendants. The result was that light rail actually had slightly lower total operating costs.

There is another study that compared light rail to monorail for a transit line across Lake Washington in the Seattle area. (See Reference 3.) That study showed a significant operating cost advantage for monorail. Most of that cost advantage would have been due to the fully automated operation of the trains without onboard staff.

REFERENCES

Each of the following references can be found on the Internet:

1. “Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor MIS/EIS/EIR, Major Investment Study (MIS), Final Report”, Prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) by Earth Tech, Inc., S. R. Beard & Associates, Manuel Padron & Associates, Inc., and Parsons Transportation Group, November 2001.

2. “Northeast Sector Rapid Transit Alternatives Project, Phase 2 - Evaluation of Rapid Transit Alternatives, Final Technical Report”, A report to Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority by IBI Group, March 31, 2004.

3. “Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update, Issue Paper E.1: I-90/East King County High Capacity Transit Analysis, Final“, Prepared for Sound Transit by Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Doublas, Inc., March 2005.

[FallenGuard]

On the Topic of the Siewalk on Monorails, I think some of them have Inflatable Emergency Chutes (Like those in Planes), so the Sidewalk can be omitted.

[Electrify]

Originally Posted by KGB

Wow....someone from Toronto creating a thread in favour of monorails over LRT??? Blasphamy!!! Must be from the 905. LOL

I guess that my location says "Richmond Hill, Ontario" kinda also helps to give away my 905ish location

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by DonQui

Monorail is paying the cost of a subway without getting the benefit of capacity.

Who would choose it?!

Streets are too dense with a lack of ROW.

Of course, Edmonton built it underground through Downtown and University.