„

INTERNATIONAL MONORAIL ASSOCIATION

IMA
Planning Guide
for Monorail Systems

First Edition, 2024

Disclaimer

International Monorail Association (IMA)

‘IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems’

Published by

International Monorail Association

Schützenstrasse 19
3627 Heimberg
Switzerland

This standard was developed by a consensus standards development process with long-
experienced experts from all over the globe coming from member organizations, non-members,
and other stakeholders in the field. The standards development process has met the
requirements for openness, balance, consensus, and due process.

While IMA’s process is designed to promote standards that reflect a fair and reasoned consensus
among all interested participants, while preserving the public health, safety, and welfare that is
paramount to its mission, it has not made an independent assessment of and does not warrant
the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or
process discussed herein. IMA does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, IMA’s standards to
replace the sound judgment of a competent professional, having knowledge and experience in
the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such
professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this standard.

IMA has no authority to enforce compliance with its standards and does not undertake to certify
products for compliance or to render any professional services to any person or entity.

IMA disclaims any and all liability for any personal injury, property damage, financial loss, or other
damages of any nature whatsoever, including without limitation any direct, indirect, special,
exemplary, or consequential damages resulting from any person’s use of, or reliance on, this
standard. Any individual who relies on this standard assumes full responsibility for such use.

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems Disclaimer

Foreword

Around 80 percent of monorails worldwide fulfil a transport task in public transit and, thanks to
their economic advantages and shorter implementation times, the trend is rising. Monorails are
effective not only in undeveloped areas, but also offer crucial advantages in densely populated or
rapidly growing urban environments where their implementation is relatively easy. The elevated
construction reduces the space requirement to a minimum, preserves existing road allowances,
and does not lead to a displacement of existing surface traffic, as opposed to many cases where
trams or dedicated bus routes are introduced. Some monorails manage very small curve radii of
as little as 18 meters and gradients of up to 12 percent, which makes them ideal for locations and
regions with a challenging topography and urban conditions. Monorails are also among the
quietest transport systems in that they have rubber tires. The prefabricated construction of the
infrastructure, such as guide beams, supporting pillars, and trackside components manufactured
at the outskirts of a city, enables the structures to be erected quickly with minimal disruption to
traffic. The elevated crossing-free operation eliminates the need for additional track safety
devices outside the stations and allows fully automatic and driverless operation according to level
4 automation (GoA4).

Faced with an escalating demand for public transportation in metropolitan areas, transportation
authorities are challenged to evaluate needs-based technologies and plan appropriate transport
infrastructures. In doing so, they must meet the sometimes divergent goals of high capacity and
reliability, urban compatibility, minimal environmental impact, and budget restrictions. To further
promote the use of monorails, the International Monorail Association (IMA) has worked with
monorail experts worldwide to develop a planning guide to assist in the early planning of
monorails and to also compare them with other modes of transport.

The ‘IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems’ offers a comprehensive framework that classifies
monorail systems in the broader transportation context. It covers key features and elements of a
monorail system, considering both the vehicle technology and the civil infrastructure including
wayside elements. The guide outlines system configuration options and details the critical steps
for a successful integration into the urban environment, along with all operational considerations.
Topics related to investment, funding and certification are also covered. Finally, examples of
successfully implemented monorail systems are presented alongside systems currently under
construction.

This first edition of this Planning Guide builds on the ‘Performance Specification for a Turnkey
Mass Transit Monorail System’ first published in 2022, and aims to make a major contribution in
promoting alternative mass transit solutions. It is an important step towards establishing
monorails as an efficient, reliable, safe, and environmentally friendly public transport solution.

The Executive Board Members of the International Monorail Association would like to extend
their gratitude to all the volunteer professionals, especially Carlos Banchik, Prof. Ahmed Ghallab,
Matthew Hofford, Sanjay Jamuar, Marko Kroenke, Gregor Supp, Rodolfo Szmidke, Peter Timan,
Ian Veigl, and Johannes Winter for their outstanding contributions to this effort.

The IMA Executive Council, September 2024

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems Foreword

Table of Content
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................................iv
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Public Transport ...............................................................................................................................2
2.1 General Framework .................................................................................................................2
2.1.1 Glossary and Abbreviations ........................................................................................2
2.1.2 Monorail Systems Configurations ............................................................................. 4
2.1.3 Classification of Urban Passenger Dual Rail vs. Monorail ........................................ 8
2.1.4 Brief Description of Modes of Transportation ........................................................ 12
2.1.5 Fleet Sizing and Headway Calculation .................................................................... 28
2.1.6 Monorail Systems..................................................................................................... 30
2.1.7 Construction Sequences .......................................................................................... 68
2.2 Urban Integration and Environment .................................................................................... 71
2.2.1 Urban Design and Development .............................................................................. 71
2.2.2 Project Development Steps ..................................................................................... 74
2.2.3 Environmental Impact and Factors ......................................................................... 80
2.2.4 Sustainable Principles ............................................................................................... 81
2.3 Operations ............................................................................................................................. 83
2.3.1 Operating Concept ................................................................................................... 83
2.3.2 Links to Other Key Documents................................................................................ 83
2.3.3 Parties Involved ........................................................................................................ 83
2.3.4 Stages of Operating Concept .................................................................................. 84
2.3.5 Objectives of the Operations Concept Document ................................................. 84
2.3.6 Typical Contents of OC ............................................................................................. 85
2.3.7 Operations Plan ........................................................................................................ 86
2.3.8 Health and Safety ..................................................................................................... 92
2.3.9 Total Cost of Ownership Models ............................................................................. 93
2.4 Investment and Funding....................................................................................................... 94
2.4.1 Monorail System Procurement and Finance Models ............................................. 94
2.4.2 Procurement Methodology ..................................................................................... 96
2.4.3 Procurement Process Alternatives ......................................................................... 98
2.4.4 PPP Models .............................................................................................................. 102
2.5 Future Expansion Consideration ......................................................................................... 104
2.5.1 Key Considerations for System Expansion ............................................................ 104
2.5.2 Strategies for Fleet Expansion vs. Longer Trains ..................................................106
3 Urban Transit Technology Selection ...........................................................................................109
3.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................109
3.2 Process of Technology Selection ......................................................................................... 112
3.2.1 Technology Selection - Step 1 Functional Requirements .......................................113

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems Table of Content

 3.2.2 Technology Selection – Step 2 Limit Potential Technologies Based on Capacity 114
3.2.3 Technology Selection – Step 3 Confirm Selected Technology Options are
Affordable .................................................................................................................115
3.2.4 Technology Selection – Step 4 Consider ‘Firm’ System Requirements Using a
Decision Tree ........................................................................................................... 116
3.2.5 Technology Selection - Step 5 Add ‘Softer’ Requirements Using Evaluation Matrix
.................................................................................................................................. 118
3.3 Key Project Success Factors is Turnkey Procurement Process ......................................... 119
3.4 Driverless Technology and its Benefits ................................................................................ 121
3.5 Rationale for Selecting each Technology ........................................................................... 122
3.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 127
4 Success Stories about Monorails ................................................................................................ 129
4.1 Opportunities and Challenges ............................................................................................. 129
4.2 World Market for Monorail Systems................................................................................... 132
4.2.1 World ....................................................................................................................... 132
4.2.2 Regional Distribution of Monorail Systems ........................................................... 135
4.2.3 Monorail Projects in Planning Phase ...................................................................... 136
4.2.4 Summary of Survey Results .................................................................................... 136
4.3 Description of Selected Implemented Systems ................................................................. 137
4.3.1 Tokyo-Haneda Monorail.......................................................................................... 138
4.3.2 São Paulo, Line 15 Silver .......................................................................................... 140
4.3.3 Chiba Urban Monorail ............................................................................................. 142
4.3.4 Osaka Monorail ....................................................................................................... 144
4.3.5 Chongqing Monorail ...............................................................................................146
4.3.6 Walt Disney World Monorail System...................................................................... 148
4.3.7 Nagoya Linimo Line ................................................................................................. 150
4.4 Description of Selected Systems under Construction ....................................................... 152
4.4.1 Cairo, East of Nile (EoN) and West of Nile (WoN) Monorails ............................... 152
4.4.2 Panama City Line 3 .................................................................................................. 154
4.4.3 Santiago de los Caballeros (SdC)............................................................................ 156
4.4.4 Monterrey Lines 4 and 6, Nuevo León, México .................................................... 158
5 Certification of Monorail Projects ...............................................................................................160
5.1 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................160
5.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................160
5.1.2 Responsibilities of the National Authorities and the Client ..................................160
5.1.3 Regulations for Monorails ...................................................................................... 161
5.1.4 Common Specifications for Monorails................................................................... 162
5.1.5 Required Documentation for Construction and Final Commissioning ................ 162
5.2 Safety Regulations ...............................................................................................................164
5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................164

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems Table of Content

 5.2.2 Safety verification of the infrastructure ................................................................ 165
5.2.3 Safety verification of the vehicles ..........................................................................166
5.2.4 Independent Safety Assessment ...........................................................................166
5.2.5 Proof Checking ........................................................................................................ 167
List of Sources and Useful Literature .................................................................................................168

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems Table of Content

List of Figures
Figure 1: Automatic control definition, IEE 1474 ....................................................................................2
Figure 2: Grade of Automation (GoA) ................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3: Standard self-propelled shuttle system ................................................................................. 5
Figure 4: Standard cable propelled shuttle ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Loop systems........................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Standard pinched loop system .............................................................................................. 8
Figure 7: Classification of common urban passenger rail applications................................................ 9
Figure 8: Classification of monorail systems by vehicle placement ................................................... 10
Figure 9: APM Tampa, Alstom Transportation, 2018 ........................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Mitsubishi Crystal Mover, Tampa, 20218 ............................................................................. 13
Figure 11: BRT São Paulo, 2014 .............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 12: BRT São Paulo, 2024 ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 13: Battery electric bus (Proterra), Montreal moving on exhibition, 2017 .............................. 15
Figure 14: Metro Amsterdam, Alstom, 2020 ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 15: Toronto Scarborough Line, Alstom Transportation INNOVIA 200 Metro LIM, 2014......... 18
Figure 16: London Docklands Light Railway (DLR), Alstom Transportation B07 ............................... 18
Figure 17: LRV Frankfurt, Alstom Transportation Flexity, 2019 .......................................................... 20
Figure 18: Santos LRV, Brazil, 2023 ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 19: Jacksonville Monorail, 2018 ................................................................................................. 22
Figure 20: Chiba Suspended Monorail, 2019 ........................................................................................23
Figure 21: H-Bahn Düsseldorf Airport, 2020 .........................................................................................23
Figure 22: Rivium (Rotterdam), 2getthere autonomous shuttle, 2017 ...............................................25
Figure 23: Ultra Pod at Heathrow Airport, 2018...................................................................................25
Figure 24: APM HIA Doha Airport ........................................................................................................ 26
Figure 25: Cable Car London, 2019 ........................................................................................................27
Figure 26: Turnback using rear crossover ........................................................................................... 29
Figure 27: Turnback using front crossover .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 28: Monorail Line 15, São Paulo, 2024 ...................................................................................... 30
Figure 29: Simplified system engineering cycle ...................................................................................32
Figure 30: A System of Systems............................................................................................................32
Figure 31: Interfaces to wayside, rollingstock, civil, operation, passengers ..................................... 33
Figure 32: Total Turnkey Systems elements ........................................................................................ 33
Figure 33: Outline of the monorail system .......................................................................................... 36
Figure 34: Guideway elements .............................................................................................................37
Figure 35: Subcomponents of straddled monorail ..............................................................................37
Figure 36: Track of SAFEGE Monorail .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 37: Subcomponents of suspended monorail........................................................................... 38
Figure 38: Comparison of suspended monorail types Eugen Langen vs. SAFEGE............................ 39
Figure 39: Station with central platform (Okinawa monorail), 2024 ................................................. 40
Figure 40: Station with side platforms (Kitakyushu Monorail), 2024 ................................................. 41
Figure 41: East-of-Nile Cairo Monorail Station under construction, 2024 .......................................... 41
Figure 42: Different types of connection between main line and station (East-of-Nile Station under
construction, Cairo, 2023) .................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 43: East-of-Nile station under construction, Cairo, 2023 ........................................................ 42
Figure 44: East-of-Nile Cairo Monorail, 2023 ....................................................................................... 43

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems i

Figure 45: São Paulo Line 15, 2019 ....................................................................................................... 44
Figure 46: Tama Monorail Structure ................................................................................................... 45
Figure 47: Chiba Monorail Structure ................................................................................................... 46
Figure 48: Osaka Monorail, 2024 ......................................................................................................... 47
Figure 49: Finger plate from São Paulo monorail ............................................................................... 47
Figure 50: Finger plate from Okinawa monorail ................................................................................. 47
Figure 51: Finger plate from SAFEGE Chiba Monorail ......................................................................... 48
Figure 52: Finger plate from SAFEGE Shonan Monorail ..................................................................... 48
Figure 53: Pintel design ........................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 54: Pintel structure at Santiago de Los Caballeros monorail.................................................. 48
Figure 55: Osaka monorail steel bearing with Seismic Restrainer ..................................................... 49
Figure 56: Bangkok monorail with bearing ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 57: Civil construction of Cairo Monorail, 2023 ......................................................................... 49
Figure 58: Cairo Monorail, 2023 ........................................................................................................... 49
Figure 59: Pivot switch ......................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 60: Osaka Monorail, 2024 .......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 61: Switch of Okinawa Monorail, Japan, 2024 ..........................................................................52
Figure 62: Emergency guideway in the middle of dual lane track structures, same level as vehicle
floor height ........................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 63: Track, Line 15 São Paulo, 2017 ............................................................................................. 54
Figure 64: Emergency Guideway and cable way, São Paulo Line 15, 2023 ........................................ 54
Figure 65: Las Vegas Monorail during construction, 2002 ................................................................. 55
Figure 66: Process of defining the clearance gauge .......................................................................... 56
Figure 67: Line 15, Oratorio Depot, 2024 ............................................................................................. 56
Figure 68: Kitakyushu Monorail, 2024 ..................................................................................................57
Figure 69: São Paulo Line 15 Depot ......................................................................................................57
Figure 70: Tokyo Haneda Monorail, 2024 ............................................................................................ 58
Figure 71: Monorail bogie maintenance workstation inserted in concrete beam ............................ 59
Figure 72: Monorail bogie maintenance workstation ........................................................................ 60
Figure 73: São Paulo Line 15 bogie maintenance, 2020 ...................................................................... 62
Figure 74: Operations and control center, São Paulo Line 15, 2023 ................................................... 63
Figure 75: Schematic of monorail power supply for buildings and line ............................................ 64
Figure 76: Power supply and distribution system .............................................................................. 64
Figure 77: SCADA system components ............................................................................................... 65
Figure 78: CBTC system architecture................................................................................................... 67
Figure 79: Piles and columns................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 80: Capitels and launching guide beams ................................................................................. 68
Figure 81: Closure pour joints and system elements .......................................................................... 69
Figure 82: Piles and foundation blocks ............................................................................................... 69
Figure 83: Columns ............................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 84: Concrete and steel structures ............................................................................................ 70
Figure 85: Guideway and final services ............................................................................................... 70
Figure 86: Monorail station integration in Chongqing, China............................................................. 71
Figure 87: Smart stations in smart cities ..............................................................................................72
Figure 88: The urban rail development handbook ............................................................................. 74
Figure 89: Key categories and examples of design features for an urban rail system ......................75
Figure 90: Planning steps for monorails ............................................................................................. 76
Figure 91: Constructability feedback model.........................................................................................77

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems ii

Figure 92: Research process for constructability ............................................................................... 78
Figure 93: Monorail Constructability ................................................................................................... 79
Figure 94: Enhancing urban livability ................................................................................................... 81
Figure 95: Railway Subsystems............................................................................................................ 83
Figure 96: Stages of operating concept.............................................................................................. 84
Figure 97: Requirements environment for mobility solutions ........................................................... 112
Figure 98: Capacity and commercial speed of transit technologies................................................. 114
Figure 99: Capital Cost of Technologies ..............................................................................................115
Figure 100: Exclusion procedure based on core requirements - sequence of decision for
hypothetical project ............................................................................................................................ 116
Figure 101: Turnkey procurement approach ...................................................................................... 119
Figure 102: Simplification through turnkey procurement approach ................................................ 120
Figure 103: Advantages of turnkey procurement approach ............................................................. 120
Figure 104: Total growth in automated metros, measured as km in operation................................ 121
Figure 105: Maglev in Nagoya, 2024 ................................................................................................... 124
Figure 106: Suspended Monorail in Wuppertal, Germany................................................................. 125
Figure 107: PRT System at Heathrow Airport, London, 2018 ............................................................ 126
Figure 108: High Speed Metro in Germany, 2023 ............................................................................... 126
Figure 109: Picture of Tama Monorail and Mt. Fuji at a station, 2024 .............................................. 129
Figure 110: Kitakyushu monorail with an elevated highway, 2024.................................................... 130
Figure 111: Monorail systems worldwide (by status) ......................................................................... 132
Figure 112: Regional shares worldwide (by number of systems) ...................................................... 133
Figure 113: Regional shares worldwide (by length of systems) ........................................................ 133
Figure 114: Average length of monorail system (km)= total length / number of systems............... 134
Figure 115: Total length of share of line Purpose worldwide ............................................................ 135
Figure 116: Tokyo Haneda Monorail, 2024 .......................................................................................... 138
Figure 117:Tokyo Haneda Station and Depot, 2024............................................................................ 139
Figure 118: Line 15 – Silver, 2014 .......................................................................................................... 140
Figure 119: Line 15 station and depot 2024 ......................................................................................... 141
Figure 120: Chiba Monorail, 2024 ........................................................................................................ 142
Figure 121: Station and Depot, 2024 ................................................................................................... 143
Figure 122: Osaka Monorail, 2024 ....................................................................................................... 144
Figure 123: Station and Depot, 2024 ................................................................................................... 145
Figure 124: Chongqing Line 2, 2024 ....................................................................................................146
Figure 125: View of station and track, 2024 ........................................................................................ 147
Figure 126: Walt Disney World Monorail, 2023 ................................................................................... 148
Figure 127: Walt Disney Monorail entrance and Column Detail, 2023............................................... 149
Figure 128: Linimo Line, 2024 .............................................................................................................. 150
Figure 129: Linimo Line station, 2024 ..................................................................................................151
Figure 130: Cairo Monorail, 2022 ......................................................................................................... 152
Figure 131: Cairo Monorail, 2022.......................................................................................................... 153
Figure 132: Panama City Monorail tunnel construction, 2024 ........................................................... 154
Figure 133: Panama City Line 3 Monorail Construction, 2024 ........................................................... 155
Figure 134: Santiago de Los Caballeros, 2023 .................................................................................... 156
Figure 135: Santiago de Los Caballeros Monorail Construction, 2023 .............................................. 157
Figure 136: Monterrey Monorail, 2024 ............................................................................................... 158
Figure 137: Monterrey Monorail Construction ................................................................................... 159
Figure 138: Documentation scheme for construction and final commissioning .............................. 162

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems iii

List of Tables
Table 1: Typical characteristics of a monorail system .......................................................................... 12
Table 2: Contractual Work Scope......................................................................................................... 34
Table 3: Key characteristics of transportation modes comparison .................................................. 110
Table 4: Technology evaluation matrix of hypothetical project ....................................................... 118
Table 5: Currently the top 10 longest monorail lines in operation worldwide (SCI Verkehr, 2022) 135
Table 6: Example of applicable laws for monorail system ................................................................ 161

IMA Planning Guide for Monorail Systems iv

1 Introduction
The interest in developing monorail systems has increased around the world in the last two
decades based on its unique benefits such as sustainability, efficiency, fast construction, and cost-
effectiveness. A testimony to this fact is the partial list of new monorail systems starting in 2003
with the Okinawa Urban Monorail in Japan, Chongqing Lines 2 and 3 in China, Sao Paulo Lines 15
and 17 in Brazil, Daegu Line 3 in South Korea, Mumbai Monorail in India, Changsa Maglev Express
in China, Bangkok Yellow and Pink Lines in Thailand, Wuhu Lines 1 and 2 in China, Wuhan
Suspended Monorail in China, Fenghuang Maglev in China, Cairo East and West of Nile Lines in
Egypt, Panama City Line 3 in Panamá, Santiago de los Caballeros Monorail in Dominican Republic,
and Monterrey Lines 4 and 6 in Monterrey in Mexico.

The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive and practical guide for planning and
implementing monorail systems based on the experience and expertise of the International
Monorail Association (IMA) and its members. The document aims to assist cities, authorities,
investors, operators, and other stakeholders who are interested in developing monorail systems
using the latest state of the art technology.

Key elements of this Planning Guide are the monorail system description in the context of public
transport with systems configuration, classification and definition of all aspects of the system. The
environment and urban integration with sustainable principles and the stages of operating
concepts with operations plans are explained. Also, the models of investment and funding with
procurement methodologies are outlined. One of the main chapters is on urban transit
technology selection and includes a part of the planning process and identifies the success factors
in a turnkey procurement process. The Planning Guide then concludes with a summary of
accomplished monorail systems as well as discussing the regulatory framework and safety
regulations related to certification.

Many experts and members from the International Monorail Association contributed to the
document including operators, large project developers, system integrators, rollingstock and
components suppliers, civil infrastructure designers, urban planners, academic researchers,
consultants and certification institutes. The completed version is planned to be published at the
IMA conference in September 2024 in Neumarkt, Germany and also presented at the InnoTrans
2024 in Berlin, Germany.

The ‘Monorail Planning Guide’ is part of a series of documents like the ‘Performance Specification
for a Turnkey Mass Transit Monorail System’. Both are offered as free downloads from the
homepage of IMA.

We invite the reader of this document to find answers to their questions about monorails from
the many experts worldwide who see them as a way to enhance mass transit service with a low-
carbon, automated, electric system.

Introduction page 1
2 Public Transport
2.1 General Framework

2.1.1 Glossary and Abbreviations

The following are definitions of the terms used in this document to achieve common
understanding of the concept for Monorail system planning.

Automatic Control

Figure 1: Automatic control definition, IEE 1474

Source: IEE 1474, illustration by IMA

Automatic Train Operation (ATO)

A sophisticated monitoring and control system that supports autonomous vehicle operations
with short headways for a highly safe and efficient system with minimum running cost. ATO
functionality permits reliable and frequent service operation of most exclusive right-of-way transit
systems such as APM, Monorail, or Light Metro or Heavy Metro.

Automatic Train Protection (ATP)

ATP functions are responsible for ensuring safety in all aspects of the train control system. ATP
functions include train presence detection, safe train separation, over-speed protection, etc.

Capacity
Refers to system design capacity. It is often defined as passengers per hour per direction (pphpd)
during peak hours of operation. ‘Design capacity’ refers to the future capacity of the system – the
capacity a transit system is designed for. It means the system has been designed with provisions
allowing it to be upgraded to meet capacity 20 years or 30 years in the future. The terms ‘initial
capacity’ and ‘ultimate capacity’ are often used.

Public Transport page 2

Commercial Speed
Refers to average speed for one round-trip including station stops. It is used for sizing the fleet of
vehicles.

Grade of Automation (GoA):

Figure 2: Grade of Automation (GoA)

Illustration by IMA

Headway
Refers to vehicle frequency in one direction, meaning the time between trains or buses. It often
refers to the peak hour headway and is expressed in time units.

Maximum Operating Speed

Refers to the maximum speed the vehicle can run as defined by the vehicle supplier.

Owner/Operator
The responsible organization for the selection and procurement of the transit system, with
planners and consultants often supporting this process.

SCADA
SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) is a control system architecture comprising
computers, networked data communications and graphical user interfaces for high-level
supervision of machines and processes.

Timing, Round-Trip Time

The round-trip travel time shall be defined as wheel-start to wheel-start of the same train at the
same station/point on the route, in the same direction of travel during regular service operation.
This considers the time delays related to communication and all station dwell times.

Multiple round-trip time may not to consider some part of communications.

Public Transport page 3

Timing, Travel Time
Travel time from one end to the other end on a transit line including station dwells, deceleration,
acceleration, and cruising.

2.1.2 Monorail Systems Configurations

Monorail system configurations basically follow the same principles that have been outlined for
Automated People Mover (APM) systems. A comprehensive source is the ‘ACRP REPORT 37
Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (2010),
LEA+ELLIOTT Dulles, Virginia’. The chapter 4.2 APM systems configurations of that document
describes in a good way different alignments and reference is taken for this chapter to be used for
Monorail applications.

This section describes overall system characteristics, including system guideway alignment and
platform configurations. Also, several distinctive physical and operational characteristics of
systems that define the system’s alignment configuration are presented. The physical
characteristics are used to determine the best configuration to suit a particular application in an
urban or airport environment. The different system alignment configurations include:

▪ Single-lane shuttle,
▪ Single-lane shuttle with bypass,
▪ Dual-lane shuttle,
▪ Dual-lane shuttle with bypass,
▪ Single Loop,
▪ Double loop, and
▪ Pinched loop.

2.1.2.1 Shuttle System Configurations

Shuttle systems are the most basic configuration. Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate four basic types
of two-station shuttle system configurations.

Single-Lane Shuttle
A single train shuttles back and forth between two endpoints on a single guideway. Two stations
are most common, but additional stations can be accommodated. This simple shuttle is best
suited to transporting passengers between two points in a low-demand environment. Because a
single point failure along the guideway will shut down the single-lane shuttle, this configuration
should only be used where passengers have the alternative of walking or where a standby means
of conveyance is available.

Single-Lane Shuttle with Bypass

Two synchronized trains pass each other in the bypass area of the guideway. Because each train
can be independently propelled, there is the potential for a degree of redundancy and failure
management capability. A third station can be added in the bypass area. Single lane shuttles with
bypass are limited to two trains. This configuration is slightly more complex operationally than
the single-lane shuttle because the trains must be synchronized to avoid delays at the bypass. This
configuration has a role in relatively low-demand situations to transport passengers between two
points.

Public Transport page 4

Dual-Lane Shuttle
Two trains shuttle back and forth independently in a synchronized manner on separate
guideways. During non-peak times this configuration can be operated as a single-lane shuttle to
allow for maintenance on the other lane/train, or in an on-call mode, like elevators. Two stations
are most common, but additional stations can be accommodated.

Dual lane shuttles provide both vehicle and wayside redundancy for good failure management
and are limited to two trains. This configuration serves higher demand levels than the single-lane
shuttles for passengers traveling between two points. To provide Monorail system configurations
in the context of the various components, Figure 3 shows the plan view of a two-station, self-
propelled Monorail shuttle above a profile view of the same shuttle configuration.

Figure 3: Standard self-propelled shuttle system

Source: Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (2010), chapter 4,
illustration by IMA

A cable-propelled Monorail shuttle is similar in configuration to a self-propelled shuttle, but there

are differences with a number of the Monorail components, as shown in Figure 4. Propulsion is a
clear difference between cable- and self-propelled systems. Propulsion is provided at the station
(bull wheel) for a cable system, while it is provided in the vehicle (onboard motor) for a self-
propelled system.

Public Transport page 5

Figure 4: Standard cable propelled shuttle
Source: Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (2010), chapter 4,
illustration by IMA

Dual-Lane Shuttle with Bypasses

Two synchronized trains pass each other on each lane in the bypass area of the guideway. This
configuration doubles the capacity potential of the dual-lane shuttle configuration by allowing a
maximum of four trains without requiring four full guideway lanes. This configuration is suitable
for higher demand levels than the other shuttle configuration for transporting passengers
between two points.

2.1.2.2 Loop System Configurations

Loop and pinched-loop system configurations differ from shuttle configurations and are described
below. Figure 5 illustrates the range of loop-type Monorail system configurations.

Single Loop/Double Loop

Loop configurations allow multiple stations to be served with a self-propelled (but typically not
cable-propelled) vehicle fleet. Distances and number of trains are not limited. As the scale of a
single-loop system increases, the one-way movement of its trains becomes problematic. For
example, in a multi-station loop, if the passenger’s destination is the adjacent station in the
opposite direction of the one-way train movement, the passenger must ride through the entire
system and all other stations to reach the destination. Failures on a single loop can cause a
shutdown of the entire system unless there are pre-planned backup shuttle routes between
unaffected stations. The single loop should only be used for nonessential services that can

Public Transport page 6

provide an alternative means of conveyance in the event of failures. Even then it has serious
operational drawbacks.

The double-loop configuration solves these problems by offering trains traveling in both
directions. Passengers can be instructed as to the shortest route to their destination station.
Double loops provide redundancy to lessen the impact of failures. Double-loop configurations are
suitable for nonlinear applications that serve multiple stations and have higher demand levels
than can be served by single-loop or shuttle systems.

Figure 5: Loop systems

Source: Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (2010), chapter 4,
illustration by IMA

Pinched Loop
Although having the visual appearance of a dual-lane shuttle, the trains in a pinched-loop
configuration travel in a loop by reversing direction and changing lanes via switches at the end
stations. Intermediate switches between selected stations are often provided for failure
management purposes, allowing trains to be temporarily rerouted around a problem area that
would otherwise disrupt service. Stations along the alignment are served in both directions of
travel. Distances and number of trains are typically not limited. This configuration is well suited to
linear, must-ride applications requiring high-capacity frequent service, multiple stations, multiple
trains, and high reliability.

Advances in cable-grip subsystems (detachable grips) now allow cable-propelled technologies to

be used in limited pinched-loop configurations with multiple cables/cable drives, typically serving
two or three stations and with cable transfer done at stations.

Figure 6 shows the pinched-loop configuration within the context of the different Monorail
system components. It is important to note that the pinched-loop system includes switch
machines for crossovers and yard access, as well as an expanded central control equipment room,
which typically includes train control functions for the yard access and departure testing.

Public Transport page 7

Figure 6: Standard pinched loop system
Source: Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (2010), Chapter 4,
illustration by IMA

2.1.2.3 Network

The next level of system configuration is an entire network of lines, circles, loops in any kind of
combination like a metro or tram system for a city or urban area.

2.1.3 Classification of Urban Passenger Dual Rail vs. Monorail

One of the ways that urban passenger rail can be defined is based on the type of structures
required for the system operations. This type of classification divides the rail systems into dual rail
and monorails. The following section offers additional details on many of the main categories
described below.

Dual Rail – the Conventional Rail

Conventional rail systems can be attributed to wheel-rail systems, whose vehicles are guided on
two rails. Applications range from common regional transport to connect the countryside to
urban areas, to long-distance applications to connect different cities, to high-speed transport.
Classic railways are used in urban transport in the form of LRVs and metros. Automatic people
movers (APMs), despite most of them having rubber tires and often running on concrete mainline
structures, are classified as two-rail systems and are not considered as monorails. The same
applies to Automatic Guideway Transit (AGT). Figure 7 shows the common rail applications on a
double rail basis.

Public Transport page 8

Figure 7: Classification of common urban passenger rail applications
Source: SCI Verkehr GmbH / International Monorail Association, World Market Study on Monorail Systems,
illustration by IMA

Monorails
A monorail is a transport system that travels either on (classic or straddle monorail) or under
(suspension monorail) a single narrow track – often called guide beam. The beam can take on
different shapes and be made of different materials. The monorail guide beam consists of a single
structural rail that takes the vertical, lateral and the longitudinal loads. Monorails are usually
driven by onboard electric motors. The types commonly referred to the term monorail can thus
be classified according to their carrying and guiding principle and vehicle placement.

Monorails have been around for more than a century; however, only recent developments have
enabled transport authorities to consider monorails as a real alternative in public transportation
to meet their needs in mass urban transit. Monorails are often easier to integrate into existing
urban areas as they are elevated and comparatively easy to build, taking up little valuable traffic
and pedestrian space at the street level, and requiring no expensive tunnelling. The special track
design of monorails generally supports a cost-effective, elevated construction method and a very
fast implementation. Despite a significantly increasing number of applications, monorail systems
still maintain a niche existence.

Following Prof. Eryu Zhu, Beijing Jiaotong University, the main system approaches can be
summarized as follows:

Public Transport page 9

Figure 8: Classification of monorail systems by vehicle placement
Source: SCI Verkehr GmbH / International Monorail Association, World Market Study on Monorail Systems,
illustration by IMA

Suspended Monorails
In addition to the first suspended monorails (the Wuppertal suspension railway), where steel
wheels with flanges on both sides carry the vehicle and guide it on the steel rails, suspended
railways are also designed with guideway girders consisting of an open section steel beam. Two
vertical wheels to the left and right of the opening carry the vehicle, and horizontal rollers guide
the vehicle on the vertical beam’s inner walls. The width of the hollow section can be up to 2 m.
Nevertheless, there exist many rubber-tired suspended monorail systems running on the inner
side of the hollow section and guided on the beam’s inside side walls.

Straddled Beam Monorails

The most widespread type of monorail is the so-called straddled beam monorail. Many of the
straddled monorail systems are based on the Alweg system from 1952, where the vehicle
embraces both sides like a saddle around the track, which is formed from a narrow concrete
beam with a rectangular cross-section.

Depending on the system, the guide beam width varies between 500 and 900 mm and the height
typically between 1 and 2 m. The vehicle's load wheels are supported by the beam. Due to the
small support width of the carrying wheels, guide tires are arranged on both sides in two
vertically superimposed areas so that the vehicle is held upright and guided along the track.
Straddled monorails with a narrow guideway beam are available in high-floor and low-floor
versions. The latter requires central wheel housings inside the vehicle for the load wheels.

Maglev
Maglev systems, short for magnetic levitation, are advanced transportation systems where
vehicles are levitated and propelled along a guideway using magnetic forces. Since most maglev
systems embrace the track on both sides like straddled monorails, maglev systems are classified
as monorails and are considered as monorail systems in this document.

Public Transport page 10

Further system approaches
Beyond the above-mentioned types of system, there are other technologies that have not yet
found their way into revenue service. For example, some concepts such as the multi-standard
monorail, where a combined running beam is to be used for both system approaches - i.e., a
parallel combination of suspended and straddled monorail. Also, there are ideas for so-called
cantilevered monorails, in which the lateral surfaces of the guideway beam are used to support
two laterally guided monorails.

Intended use and performance-oriented classification of monorails

Monorail systems aim to offer an economic alternative to conventional railways. They are mostly
straddled monorails with rubber-tired wheels on steel or concrete beams and serve as public
transportation with line lengths ranging from 10 to 30 km, or even more than 50 km in some cases
(Chongqing, China and Cairo, Egypt).

Depending on the application, the transport capacity of monorails varies from a few thousand to
over 40,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd). It thus reaches the values of medium
sized metro systems. Lower infrastructure costs in combination with automation of the operation
up to GoA4 (due to segregated track infrastructure) favor an economic operation even with lower
transport demand.

Wheel size and wheel material are the main factors determining the maximum speed, which is
between 60 and 100 km/h for wheel-guided systems. Maglev systems have a top speed well
above 100 km/h, with the Transrapid in Shanghai taking on a special role as designed for long-
distance transport system but used in public transport with 430 km/h.

The individual systems differ in specific infrastructure costs due to the respective track design, the
system height and width, the flexibility in routing, which is influenced by the minimum curve
radius and the maximum gradient, as well as the complexity of switches.

Due to the elevated construction and the high-grade capability, monorails are ideally suited for
use in urban areas where no track-bound local transport system is yet available and topographical
and urban development features make the use of classic railway systems difficult. The lower
vibration and noise emissions of rubber tires or magnetic fields in the support system are a
further advantage for use in urban areas.

According to Prof. Christos Pyrgidis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, monorails can be

characterized based on selected performance parameters as shown in the following table:

Public Transport page 11

Table 1: Typical characteristics of a monorail system
Criterion Usual expression Comments
Line length 10 - 30 km
Horizontal alignment 40 - 70 m Minimum implemented so far 18 m
radius
Longitudinal gradient 0 - 10 % Maximum implemented so far 12 %
Maximum running speed 60 - 100 km/h
Commercial speed 15 - 40 km/h Average trip time (including station time,
boarding, dwell time) divided by line length for
a typical route
Transport capacity Small: 2,000 pphpd1 For public transportation with 4-car trains at 90
Standard: 4,800 pphpd sec. headway typically 22,500 pphpd (can go up
Large: 12,500 pphpd to 48,000 pphpd with up to 8-car trains)
Frequency 3-15 min.
minimum 60 sec
Distance between stops 800 - 1,500 m

Source: Professor Christos Pyrgidis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, SCI Verkehr GmbH / International Monorail
Association, World Market Study on Monorail Systems

2.1.4 Brief Description of Modes of Transportation

The following sections briefly discuss each transit technology and explain the features of each
technology, its ideal application, and advantages and disadvantages.

2.1.4.1 Automated People Mover (APM)

APM typically uses rubber-tired technology. APM is a fully automated driverless transit system
operating in its own right-of-way. APM is ideal for elevated systems but can also be in tunnel or at-
grade.

APM Capacity
The capacity of a vehicle for mass transit application is around 150 persons per car at 6
passengers/m2.

Headway
Typical lowest headway with ATO is 90 seconds.

System Capacity
System capacity of typical APM assuming at 90 seconds headway is:
4 car train: 150 passengers × 4 cars × (3,600 sec./90 sec.) = 24,000 pphpd.
6 car train, providing a system capacity of 36,000 pphpd

System Design
The APM system is typically designed to offer 30 years of service and very high reliability over its
operating life.

▪ Mainly elevated; but can be at-grade or in tunnel

▪ Capital cost is higher than tram/LRV but lower than heavy metro for medium capacity
systems
▪ Flexible alignment

Public Transport page 12

 ▪ Mainly driverless
▪ Travel time is low
▪ Very safe due to ATO and segregated
▪ Typical vehicle capacity @6pax/m2: 150 passengers per car
▪ Typical system capacity: 24,000 pphpd with 4-car trains at 90 seconds headway
▪ 30-year design life and very high reliability

Figure 9: APM Tampa, Alstom Transportation, Figure 10: Mitsubishi Crystal Mover, Tampa, 20218
2018
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

2.1.4.2 Bus Rapid Transit / Bus Rapid Transit System / Transit-way (BRT/BRTS/T-way)

BRT typically operates on a mix of dedicated lanes in city’s streets, and on dedicated guideway
that may be elevated or in tunnel.

Capacity of a regular 12 m long city bus is 65 passengers at 6 passengers per square meter. BRT
uses articulated buses that can double the length of a regular bus, with a capacity of 150
passengers at 6 passengers/m2.

Headway
Regular city buses normally operate at 10 minutes or longer headway. BRT can have shorter
headway because it has a dedicated lane. However, it cannot have very short headway because
there are still intersections on the alignment. The lowest typical headway during peak time is
roughly 5 minutes.

System Capacity
With a 10-minute headway (600 sec.), the possible system capacity for a regular bus is 65 × (3,600
sec./600 sec.) = 390 pphpd. With 5-minute headway (300 sec.), the possible system capacity of
BRT is 150 × (3,600 sec./300 sec.) = 1,800 pphpd.

Public Transport page 13

System Design
The BRT system is typically designed to offer 15 years of service and reliability is lower than rail
systems. A bus or BRT system requires a very high staffing level to provide drivers.

Figure 11: BRT São Paulo, 2014

Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Figure 12: BRT São Paulo, 2024

Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 14

2.1.4.3 Bus

Buses operate in the city using existing streets. Buses are worldwide the mode of transport used
the most. The main reason being the low cost of buying and maintaining the vehicles. The number
of passengers per vehicle though is very limited. A standard 12m city bus can handle around 100
passengers per vehicle, while a longer articulated bus can reach capacities of up to 190
passengers.

Most buses still rely on combustion engines as their main source of power, which is an
increasingly big problem within city limits due to the air pollution being monitored more
intensively in recent years. Battery powered buses and trolleybuses are an alternative to reduce
pollution. With battery buses still being significantly more expensive and still not fully capable of
replacing the services formerly used by buses with combustion engines due to the limited
capacity of the batteries and the relatively long charging times.

▪ Mainly use existing streets

▪ Ideal solution for low-capacity systems
▪ Capital cost is low for existing streets but can be higher with transit-way
▪ Drivers are needed
▪ Travel time could be long
▪ High incidence collisions and injuries
▪ Typical vehicle capacity @6pax/m2: 65 per bus; 150 passengers per articulated BRT.
▪ Typical system capacity: 390 pphpd for bus at 10 minutes headway; 1,800 pphpd at 5
minutes headway for BRT
▪ 15-year design life and relatively low reliability

Figure 13: Battery electric bus (Proterra), Montreal moving on exhibition, 2017
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Public Transport page 15

2.1.4.4 Heavy Metro / Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)

Heavy metro typically operates in underground tunnels. Using tunnels, they achieve high capacity,
full grade separation and no visual intrusion at surface level. Heavy metro is an ideal solution for
high density cities where demand is high, and road congestion is very severe. A typical heavy
metro would have at least 6-car trains with car lengths in the 22 m range.

Heavy metro tends to be high cost due to a high percentage of tunneling and large underground
stations with associated infrastructure. Construction time for heavy metro is typically much
longer than for any other urban transit systems, because tunneling is much slower than
construction for elevated or at-grade systems. Investment in heavy rail is justified if the demand is
very high and surface space is very expensive.

Heavy Metro Capacity

A typical heavy metro vehicle's capacity is 300 passengers per car at 6 passengers/m2.

Headway
The headway for metros can vary due to system design between 120 and 90 seconds.

Possible System Capacity

The system capacity of heavy metro assuming 6-car train at 90 seconds headway is 54,000 pphpd.

System Design
The heavy metro system is typically designed to offer 30 years of service and achieves very high
reliability.

Figure 14: Metro Amsterdam, Alstom, 2020

Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Public Transport page 16

2.1.4.5 Light Metro / Light Rail Transit (LRT)

Typically uses lighter and shorter metro vehicles than heavy metro to reduce impact on civil
structure and reduce civil cost. Light metro mainly uses elevated structure but can also be at-
grade or in tunnel. Light Metro systems typically operate on dedicated right of way and can be
fully automated providing reliable, frequent service, and flexible in operation according to
ridership demand such as high traffic during sporting events.

The elevated light metro is much less expensive than underground metro due to the lower
construction cost of elevated guideway, normally less than half of underground tunnel. Some
sections of the alignment can be at grade or in tunnels. The capacity of the light metro is typically
lower than heavy metro. However, the low capacity is often justified because of the much lower
capital cost of the system compared to heavy metro.

Light metro uses much lighter and shorter trains than heavy metro to reduce civil impacts and
costs. However, limitations such as horizontal curve and grade are like those of heavy metro.
Therefore, constructing elevated metro systems is typically costly and often involves extensive
relocation or destruction of valuable infrastructure. For these reasons, light metro systems are
sometimes not an option.

Vehicle capacity of Alstom INNOVIA Metro 300 LIM is 186 persons at 6 passengers/m2.

Headway
The typical lowest headway with ATO is 90 seconds

System Capacity
Assuming 90 seconds headway, the system capacity of a light metro system is:

▪ 4-car train: 186 passengers × 4 cars × (3,600 sec./90 sec.) = 29,760 pphpd.
▪ 6-car train, with a capacity of 44,640 pphpd at 90-second headway.

System Design
The light metro system is typically designed to offer 30 years of service and achieves very high
reliability especially due to the safe driverless operation.

▪ Mainly elevated; can be at-grade or in tunnel

▪ Capital cost is slightly higher than monorail or APM, much lower than heavy metro in the
intermediate capacity range
▪ Alignment is less flexible than APM or Monorail unless LIM (linear induction motor) is used
▪ Mainly driverless
▪ Travel time is low
▪ Very safe due to ATO and segregated
▪ Typical vehicle capacity @6pax/m2: 180 per vehicle
▪ Typical system capacity: 28,800 pphpd with 4-car trains at 90 seconds headway
▪ 30-year design life and very high reliability

Public Transport page 17

Figure 15: Toronto Scarborough Line, Alstom Transportation INNOVIA 200 Metro LIM, 2014
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Figure 16: London Docklands Light Railway (DLR), Alstom Transportation B07
Source: Photo Marko Kroenke

2.1.4.6 Light Rail Vehicle (LRV)

In general, tram or LRV operates primarily in city streets possibly with some sections of its own
right of way off streets. They have the lowest system capacity and lowest speed urban rail
systems. A benefit of tram/LRV is its permanent transit way in the city that will attract more
development investment and residential growth compared to bus. Stations are at street level
permit easier and faster access; provide quicker connections to other surface transit lines than
elevated or underground systems; and are easier for passengers with restricted mobility,

Public Transport page 18

eliminating a need for elevators. Tram/LRV is an ideal solution for short trips within a city core.
Tram/LRV operates with electricity and generates less pollution downtown.

The degree of traffic congestion relief is limited because tram/LRV operates in city streets in
mixed traffic. It is noisy, especially on curves. It takes away street lanes thus increasing
congestion. Staffing requirements are lower than by bus or BRT.

Travel speed is very important to passengers because it means time. Tram/LRV typical maximum
operating speed is 70 km/h. Typically, a tram/LRV has an average speed of about 20 km/hour
depending on the number of intersections, level of congestion on the road, time of the day and
the station dwell time according to the traffic of each station. Travel time is also not totally
predictable because of other traffic in the street and accidents or road closures.

Like the bus, safety is also a concern for tram/LRV. Accidents are common for LRV/tram because
they interface with other road traffic, bicycles and pedestrians and the low noise generated by the
electric LRV/tram. For segregated LRV systems, accidents at rail crossings are often deadly. High
costs are associated with accidents including insurance and vehicle repairs. According to FTA
statistics, there were 180 collisions, 945 injuries and 40 fatalities in Light Rail operations in the U.S.
in 2014.

Noise, vibration and the fixed catenary lines are typical complaints from residents and businesses
along tram/LRV alignments. The steel wheel and steel rail are one of the main sources of noise,
especially on sharp curves.

Capacity
The capacity of a typical 100% low floor 32 m long tram is 220 persons at 6 passengers/m2. We
assume LRV application with dedicated right-of-way uses two of the 32 m trams coupled
together.

Headway
The typical practical headway for a tram is roughly 10 minutes. Typical practical headway for an
LRV is 5 minutes.

System Capacity
The system capacity of tram at 10 minutes headway is 220 × (3,600 sec./600 sec.) = 1,320 pphpd.
System capacity of LRV at 5 minutes headway is 220 × 2 × (3,600 sec./300 sec.) = 5,280 pphpd.

System Design
The LRV system is typically designed to offer 30 years of service and achieves high reliability.

▪ Mainly use existing streets. Can have own right-of-way

▪ Better than bus in attracting real estate developments along the alignment
▪ Capital cost is relatively low because of at-grade alignment but sensitive to utility relocation
costs
▪ Drivers are required
▪ Travel time could be long
▪ High incidence collisions and injuries
▪ Typical vehicle capacity @6pax/m2: 220 per tram/LRV
▪ Typical system capacity: 1,320 pphpd for tram at 10 minutes headway; 5,280 pphpd for LRV
at 5 minutes headway
▪ 30-year design life and high reliability

Public Transport page 19

Figure 17: LRV Frankfurt, Alstom Transportation Flexity, 2019
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Figure 18: Santos LRV, Brazil, 2023

Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 20

2.1.4.7 Monorail

Monorail is a typically elevated transit system using vehicles running on a single guide beam. The
vehicle uses in most application rubber-tired technology to achieve small curves, high gradients
and low noise. Monorail systems operate on dedicated right of way and can be fully automated
providing reliable and frequent service. In this document, Monorail refers to mass transit grade
monorail. There are applications such as straddle type or suspended type.

Monorail guideways comprise slender beams that provide flexibility in alignment and ease of
construction with minimum visual impact. The ability to follow existing rights of way results in
minimal land requirements, reducing the need for divisive property expropriation and the need to
destroy existing valuable or culturally sensitive buildings. Designed to integrate seamlessly into
different environments, including through buildings and structures, Monorail system
infrastructure meets the most stringent urban transit, environmental and safety standards.

Monorail systems in general deliver modern aesthetics, spacious interiors and a comfortable ride.
The sleek, futuristic, monorail vehicle design is also an attraction to riders and visitors to the city.

Monorail systems using grade separated, exclusive right-of-way are ideally suited to automated
driverless operation taking advantages of the driverless benefits including frequent, reliable
service and low staffing levels.

Monorail systems minimize the costs and disruption of civil construction. The pre-cast, post-
tensioned elevated guideway structure is constructed off-site to allow for exceptionally rapid
assembly on site (at least, one beam a day compared to 2 to 3 weeks for a U-viaduct for LRT cast-
in-situ). In addition, the elevated guideways avoid the need for potentially expensive and time-
consuming tunnelling works, a major advantage when introducing a new transit system in
existing dense urban areas.

Monorail offers excellent ride quality and low noise levels by using low-noise metro tire
technology, allowing it to be placed close to buildings if desired. Monorail systems today are
designed to meet international mass transit standards.

Maximum operating speed of monorail is typically 80 km/h with commercial speed approximately
30 km/h - 40 km/h. Monorail power supply comes directly from the power rails on the beam
without any overhead catenary resulting in a better design and better operability and
maintainability.

Monorail Capacity
The ALSTOM INNOVIA Monorail 300 vehicle’s capacity is approximately 143 persons per car at 6
passengers/m2.

Headway
Typical lowest headway with ATO is 90 seconds. Shorter headways are possible depending on the
system alignment and train configuration.

System Capacity
The system capacity of a typical monorail with 4 cars, assuming a 90 second headway is 22,880
pphpd (143 passengers per car × 4 cars × (3,600 sec./90 sec.).

7 cars Innovia 300 system maximum capacity of 48,000 pphpd with 78 seconds headway.

Public Transport page 21

This capacity level is not typical for monorails and represents the upper limit. At this limit, it is
worthwhile carrying out detailed studies in order to shed sufficient light on economic efficiency
and other decision criteria (e.g. construction time, feasibility of other modes of transport in very
congested areas such as urban fit).

System Design
The monorail system is typically designed to offer 30 years of service and achieves very high
reliability especially due to the safe driverless operation.

▪ Mainly elevated
▪ Capital cost is higher than tram/LRV but much lower than heavy metro for medium capacity
systems
▪ Flexible alignment
▪ Mainly driverless
▪ Travel time is low
▪ Very safe due to ATO and segregated
▪ Typical vehicle capacity @6pax/m2: 140 per car
▪ Typical system capacity: 22,400 pphpd with 4-car trains at 90 seconds headway
▪ 30-year design life and very high reliability

Figure 19: Jacksonville Monorail, 2018

Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Public Transport page 22

Figure 20: Chiba Suspended Monorail, 2019
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Figure 21: H-Bahn Düsseldorf Airport, 2020

Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Public Transport page 23

2.1.4.8 Tram / Streetcars

Trams or streetcars operate in city streets on tracks, but with mixed traffic, meaning road vehicles
such buses, cars and trucks share the same traffic lanes.

Trams are available in a higher range of capacities. The smallest versions are comparable to a
standard bus but the number of passengers per vehicle can be increased significantly up to 400
passengers. Trams also do have the advantage that they can form longer trains by coupling to
units together which leads to a very flexible number of passengers per train. Trams are almost
exclusively electric powered making them emission free at the place of operation.

2.1.4.9 Automated Guideway Transit (AGT)

AGT’s are a class of transportation systems in which unmanned vehicles are operated on fixed
guideways along an exclusive right of way. This definition covers systems with a broad range of
characteristics and includes many types of technology. To provide an organizing structure for the
assessment, three major categories of AGT systems have been distinguished:

Group Rapid Transit (GRT)

▪ Mainly use existing streets repurposed for GRT

▪ Segregated or mixed traffic with limitations
▪ Typical battery-operated vehicles with charging stations
▪ Ideal solution for low-capacity systems
▪ Capital cost is low where existing streets are used
▪ Full autonomous operations require performance limitations to allow sufficient safety level.
▪ Typical speed reductions to limit collisions and injuries
▪ Individual vehicles enable increased use of point-to-point operations
▪ Can reduce overall trip time and improve passenger experience
▪ Typical vehicle capacity @6pax/m2: 15 to 24 per GRT
▪ Typical system capacity: <500 pphpd at 3 minutes headway
▪ <1,500 pphpd at 1 minute station headway per berth
▪ 10-year design life

Public Transport page 24

Figure 22: Rivium (Rotterdam), 2getthere autonomous shuttle, 2017
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)

A type of automated transit system that is on-demand, uses an exclusive right-of-way, provides
point-to-point service, and usually accommodates no more than three to four passengers per
vehicle.

Figure 23: Ultra Pod at Heathrow Airport, 2018

Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Public Transport page 25

2.1.4.10 Cable-propelled Automated People Mover

Cable-propelled automated people movers are a type of transit system where vehicles are moved
along a track or guideway using a cable propulsion mechanism. These systems are commonly
found in environments like airports, theme parks, or city centers, where short, frequent, and
reliable transport is needed. Unlike traditional rail or road vehicles, these APMs do not have an
onboard engine; instead, they rely on stationary motors to move the cables that pull the vehicles
along. This allows for quieter, energy-efficient, and low-maintenance operations.

Figure 24: APM HIA Doha Airport

Source: Photo by Johannes Winter (claystreetX GmbH)

There are two primary types of cable-propelled automated people movers: cable-hauled trains
and cable-driven shuttle systems. Cable-hauled trains typically operate on fixed routes with
multiple cars linked together, moving back and forth between stations on a single track. These
systems are ideal for higher-capacity needs, often found in airport terminals or large campuses.
Cable-driven shuttles, on the other hand, are smaller, often operating in a loop, and are designed
for short distances and high-frequency service. The vehicles can stop at multiple stations, and
their design allows for easy integration into confined urban spaces.

Both types of these APMs offer step-free access, making them fully accessible for people with
reduced mobility, wheelchairs, or strollers. With their reliable performance, low environmental
impact, and ability to fit in dense or specialized settings, and are increasingly seen as a modern,
sustainable solution for urban and institutional transit needs.

Public Transport page 26

2.1.4.11 Cable Cars

Urban cable cars, also known as aerial cableways or gondolas, have become an increasingly
popular mode of transportation in cities around the world. Utilizing cable propulsion technology,
these systems offer efficient, eco-friendly alternatives to traditional transit options, especially in
congested urban areas or challenging terrains. While often associated with mountainous regions
or tourist attractions, urban cable cars have evolved to serve as practical public transit solutions.
They transport passengers over rivers, up steep inclines, or across bustling cityscapes, offering
both functionality and a unique travel experience.

There are two main types of aerial cableways: aerial tramways and gondolas.

Aerial tramways use a fixed track cable and typically have one or two large cabins, capable of
carrying between 40 and 220 passengers, that move back and forth between two stations.

On the other hand, gondolas consist of smaller, detachable cabins that travel continuously in a
loop, carrying anywhere from 4 to 40 passengers per cabin. Gondolas offer greater flexibility with
multiple stations and routes, but their total length is usually limited to about 5 kilometers.

Both systems offer step-free access, making them suitable for all users, including those with
wheelchairs, scooters, or bicycles, making urban cable cars a versatile addition to modern public
transport networks.

Figure 25: Cable Car London, 2019

Source: Photo by Johannes Winter (claystreetX GmbH)

Public Transport page 27

2.1.5 Fleet Sizing and Headway Calculation

Equations

System Performance Analysis

Key Performance Indicator Comment

𝑅𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (𝑠)

𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑒𝑡 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 =
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (𝑠)

It shall be the
𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (𝑠) = 𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (𝑠) 𝑂𝑅 𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (𝑠) greater of the two
values.

𝑠
3600 ( ) 𝑥 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑠)
𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (𝑠) = ℎ
𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 (𝑝𝑝ℎ𝑝𝑑)

See descriptions
𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑤𝑎𝑦 (𝑠)
below

Turnback Headway [s]

▪ Occurs at end stations for pinched loop operations

▪ Turnback Headway must be less than System Headway so as to not impact capacity of the
system

Turnback Switches

Influences on the system capacity are as follows

▪ Turnback time at end stations determines the minimum possible headway on the system
▪ Turnback time is dependent on the switch parameter as follows
1. Track alignment and vehicle speed through the switch
­ Influenced by switch radii, track spacing, spiral lengths
2. Distance of switch from station
3. Dual Track Spacing (e.g. side versus center platform
4. Switch Position: rear versus front turnback
­ Rear turnback provides higher capacity (pphpd) with more trains
­ Front turnback requires fewer trains, but offers lower capacity/longer headway
5. Signaling and switch beam movement delay times
6. Switch movement time
7. Train length
­ Time to pass through the switch

Public Transport page 28

Rear Turnback

Turnback Headway Element (behind station) Sketch Reference

Pseudo station approach time (ta) A→B
+ Signaling delays and switch movement C, D
+ Pseudo station exit time (te) E→F
+ Signaling delays and switch movement G, H
=

Figure 26: Turnback using rear crossover

Source: Illustration by IMA

Front Turnback

Turnback Headway Element (behind station) Sketch Reference

E01 Station (platform B) approach time (ta) A→B
+ Dwell time at E01 station (tdw) B
+ E01 Station (platform B) exit time (incl. 1s propulsion enable delay (te) B→C
+ Signaling delays D
+ Switch movement E
=

Public Transport page 29

Figure 27: Turnback using front crossover
Source: Illustration by IMA

2.1.6 Monorail Systems

Monorail System

Monorail is a transport system that runs on a single rail. Monorail is a unique mass transit system
which can be erected in any congested and crowded city for ease and safe transportation without
loss of time. Monorail is a lightweight system, in which, train runs on a narrow guideway beam.
The monorail system can achieve turning radius down to 50m.

Figure 28: Monorail Line 15, São Paulo, 2024

Source: Metro SP/IPT

Public Transport page 30

2.1.6.1 A System of Systems

Choosing a turnkey supplier is the most effective approach for optimal rail service that addresses
passenger capacity needs. In the cost sensitive world of public transportation, a turnkey supplier
is the most efficient choice. System Integration is the process of transforming operational
requirements into a system configuration that best satisfies the operational needs of the railway.
It incorporates all related technical parameters and interfaces in a manner that optimizes the
entire system. It also combines the efforts of all engineering disciplines and specialties into one
single engineering effort.

For system integration to be effective, it requires an expert party to define and control the
interfaces to ensure compatibility. This party brings together all subsystems in a logical sequence
with appropriate testing at each stage. They also perform the testing and verification process to
confirm that the operational requirements are met.

The size of the project depends on the application; regardless, the approach is the same.
Partnering for system integration can add significant value. The system integrator is with the
developer every step of the way, problem analysis, system selection and design, all the way
through to final project realization. The integrator works with transportation authorities and
planners on project concept and configuration and can offer appropriate system performance
specifications to guide the project. In later stages, working closely with fixed facility designers and
architects to ensure fully functional designs for stations, guideways and operations, maintenance
and storage facilities (OMSF).

The process of designing a rail system is interactive and iterative between the system integrator
and civil and mechanical partners. The customer develops the top-level requirements from the
mobility needs of the public, entering this process at different points depending on the particular
project. Rail projects take time to establish full conceptual definition, ridership estimates, detailed
system requirements and contract terms. The systems engineering approach involves:

▪ transforming the operational requirements of the customer into a rail system that best
meets the daily operational needs
▪ integrating the related technical parameters and ensuring compatibility of all system
interfaces to optimize the complete system
▪ integrating all engineering disciplines and specialties into one single engineering effort

Systems engineering experts provide a standard methodology for the efficient and effective
management of engineering in the design and supply of complete systems. System integration
encompasses the engineering activities that fuse the various subsystems into a complete system
that will satisfy the requirements of stakeholders.

Public Transport page 31

Figure 29: Simplified system engineering cycle
Source: Illustration by IMA

Figure 30: A System of Systems

Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bombardier Transportation

From Left to right: Fare Collection, Platform Screen Doors, Communications, Vehicles,
Signaling and Control System, Power Supply and Distribution, Guideway and Civil
Infrastructure

Public Transport page 32

Figure 31: Interfaces to wayside, rollingstock, civil, operation, passengers
Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bombardier Transportation

Figure 32: Total Turnkey Systems elements

Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bombardier Transportation

Contractual Work Scope

When designing a system, customers and suppliers need to recognize that there is only one
integrated system comprised of three parts – Infrastructure and Electrical & Mechanical
Equipment (E&M) Installation and the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) provision. Therefore,
its partners must integrate the Civil and E&M scopes through all steps of the project, including

Public Transport page 33

design, supply, construction and installation. This includes coordinating the design effort,
including information flow and design review. Typically, the scope of supply breaks down like this:
Table 2: Contractual Work Scope

1. Infrastructure

▪ Elevated or at grade guideway structure

▪ Passenger stations
▪ Maintenance depot and storage building
▪ Tunnel, bridges, retaining walls
▪ Sump pumps, ventilation
▪ Fire alarm, building climate/energy control
▪ Equipment monitoring
▪ Ducts, cable trays/ways
▪ Construction/installation safety
▪ Operations control center (room and infrastructure)
▪ Municipal and ancillary civil work
▪ Construction QA

2. Electrical & Mechanical Equipment Installation

▪ Rolling Stock
▪ Wayside power supply and distribution (AC/DC)
▪ Track, fasteners, turnouts
▪ Control and Communication Systems
▪ Workshop equipment
▪ Operation and maintenance planning
▪ Platform door system
▪ SCADA
▪ Fare collection system
▪ System safety
▪ Access control requirements
▪ Switch and switch control systems
▪ Test and commissioning
▪ System quality assurance
▪ Power distribution and traction power substations
▪ Installation and wiring

3. Operations & Maintenance Provider

▪ Infrastructure
▪ Electrical & Mechanical Equipment

Design Process
In the early stages, the customer develops a fundamental rail system design. At this stage, they
will determine where the guideway goes, where stations are located and how many passengers
will be using the system during peak- and off-peak hours and what their travel patterns will be.

Based on the fundamental system design, the process for the E&M scope focuses on operations
analysis, dealing with normal operation and failures. It is iterative with top-level train design
determining the composition of trains, their frequency and number required to meet the
passenger service demands. Working with the service patterns and the system availability

Public Transport page 34

requirements to determine the availability allocation to major subsystems. To do this, it requires
wayside alignment details including location of stations, crossovers and location as well as the
values for grades, curves and superelevation, which means working closely with the civil
guideway designers, performing subsidiary but critical tasks, to provide additional design
requirements and constraints for subsystems.

Then developing plans to cover noise control, electromagnetic capability (EMC), maintainability, a
system safety program, RAMS (reliability, availability, maintenance and safety) and a system
security plan. The early fundamental system design enables the civil partners to develop the first
level design of the E&M subsystems and elements of the civil infrastructure. The civil partners
require an initial estimate of the E&M requirements. Participating together in meetings and
review a preliminary version of the Civil Design Interface Manual. The degree of detail in this
manual depends on when the partner issues the design process and how much existing
technology is already in use.

Systems Integration
The systems integration team is responsible for integrating the engineering activities from various
subsystems into a complete system designed to satisfy the requirements of the stakeholders.
Their tasks consist of:

▪ hierarchical decomposition of requirements and allocation to subsystems

▪ identification and derivation of system safety requirements
▪ transformation of operational requirements into a system configuration to best satisfy
operational needs
▪ identification and quantification of system goals
▪ creation of alternate system design concepts
▪ performance of design trade-offs
▪ selection and implementation of a balanced and robust design
▪ design verification properly integrated in accordance with specifications
▪ providing performance analysis and system simulations
▪ ensuring compatibility of all system interfaces in an optimal manner
▪ integrating efforts of all engineering disciplines and specialties (such as RAMS) into a
cohesive effort

System Simulation
Using simulation studies and various simulation tools to validate requirements. The simulation
tools analyze train performance, the impact of the track configuration, the effects of different
signaling and propulsion systems, the impact of system delays and failures, and systems
operational safety and robustness, and can be used to calculate headway and line capacity. For
example, using software to simulate train performance and system operation under signaling and
propulsion types, and this is a key part of the proposal design and optimization process.
Validating the simulation tools to industry standards in advance.

System Performance Analysis

The system integrator is responsible for ensuring the system meets the performance
requirements and that the wayside subsystems understand these requirements. Preparing the

Public Transport page 35

System Performance and Failure Management Analysis document that describes the design
failure routes to use on the system, the performance levels of the system under normal and
specific failure modes, failure route descriptions, restrictions, line capacity, safety and stopping
distances, and vehicle parameters including capacity, weights, and emergency brake rates. The
Energy Efficient Guideway Design describes the steps to produce an energy efficient guideway
design and include round-trip times, and calculations for headway and passenger flow, power
consumption and distribution, and safe train separation.

Requirements Engineering and Management

The system integrator uses the Requirements Management Process to ensure customer, supplier
and internal requirements are properly managed throughout the lifecycle. The Requirements
Development Procedure is the process used to develop all project design requirements and
provides the definition and analyses of the customer requirements, and the product-derived
requirements. The Requirements Traceability Matrix or Systems Compliance Verification Matrix
ensures that tracing all requirements to project completion.

Systems Design
The system integrator develops the system architecture from the customer and contract
specification using our standard products to the maximum extent possible, provide overall
system design and integration, review and approve subsystem designs and technical
requirements descriptions, and evaluate designs for compliance to system design requirements
and contract technical specifications.

2.1.6.2 Outline of the Monorail

Figure 33: Outline of the monorail system

Source: Illustration by IMA

Public Transport page 36

Monorail straddle type

Figure 34: Guideway elements

Source: Illustration by IMA

Figure 35: Subcomponents of straddled monorail

Source: Japan Monorail Association based on Hitachi Rail

Public Transport page 37

Monorail suspended type

Figure 36: Track of SAFEGE Monorail

Source: Illustration by IMA

Figure 37: Subcomponents of suspended monorail

Source: Japan Monorail Association based on Hitachi

Public Transport page 38

Figure 38: Comparison of suspended monorail types Eugen Langen vs. SAFEGE
Source: Japan Monorail Association

Public Transport page 39

2.1.6.3 Stations & Alignment

Monorail stations can use central or lateral platforms, depending on the necessities of the project
and the space available. Usually, the stations have two levels, a mezzanine with ticketing facilities
and system rooms, and the platform.

Passenger stations serve as the interface between the vehicles and the facilities the system
serves. Access mezzanines can be placed above or below the boarding platforms offering design
flexibility. When possible, the boarding access to the platforms can be designed from street level
with sufficiently wide medians (about 6m). With careful station planning, passengers can more
safely, efficiently, and easily move into and out of the system.

Station Equipment

▪ Passenger Information Displays

▪ Public Address
▪ Platform Screen Doors
▪ CCTV
▪ Emergency Stop

Figure 39: Station with central platform (Okinawa monorail), 2024

Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 40

Figure 40: Station with side platforms (Kitakyushu Monorail), 2024
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Figure 41: East-of-Nile Cairo Monorail Station under construction, 2024

Source: Photo by Ahmed Ghallab

Public Transport page 41

a) Connection between switch and station b) Connection between guideway beams and station
Figure 42: Different types of connection between main line and station (East-of-Nile Station under construction, Cairo,
2023)
Source: Photo by Ahmed Ghallab

Figure 43: East-of-Nile station under construction, Cairo, 2023

Source: Photo by Ahmed Ghallab

Public Transport page 42

2.1.6.4 Main line structures

Monorail lines allow mainline structures with tight radius curves, superelevation (cant) up to 10%,
and slopes of up to 6% gradients with fully automatic modes of operation rather than other transit
systems.

Structural system of monorail consists of:

▪ Guideway beams
▪ Pier caps
▪ Columns / Straddle bents
▪ Piles

Figure 44: East-of-Nile Cairo Monorail, 2023

Source: Photo by Ahmed Ghallab

Expansion columns located at distances between 100 to 150m contain steel expansion joints, and
pintels between structures that provide displacement compatibility between adjacent structures,
or mechanical bearings to allow for the expansion and contraction of the structures.

Public Transport page 43

Figure 45: São Paulo Line 15, 2019
Source: Google Street View

Some monorail lines have different structure configuration. Besides having a continuous
guideway on 120m, they have joints on the beam at each collum with bearings and finger plates,
so they have nearly 20m of spam. When they need to have a bigger spam, they use metallic
beams.

Public Transport page 44

Figure 46: Tama Monorail Structure
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024

SAFEGE monorails use a continuous steel box beam fixed on columns, so they have different
spams depending on the necessity of crossing streets, roads, rivers, etc. They also have joint
expansions, and they use finger plates to allow the comfort movement of the train.

Public Transport page 45

Figure 47: Chiba Monorail Structure
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024

The following pictures contain different aspects of mainline structures such as concrete and steel
guideway beams, columns, assembly of guideway beams.

Public Transport page 46

Figure 48: Osaka Monorail, 2024
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Finger plates are metallic structures used at the guideway joints to provide comfort to the
passengers when the train passes on the joint. It is composed of base plates that are fixed on the
concrete structure of the guideway, and finger plates that are fixed on the base plate with bolts.
The size of the teeth of the finger plate depends on the type of structure, being longer when the
continuous structure has 120m, and smaller on the case of the joints on each collum.

Figure 49: Finger plate from São Paulo monorail Figure 50: Finger plate from Okinawa monorail
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke, 2015 and 2024

Public Transport page 47

 Figure 51: Finger plate from SAFEGE Chiba Monorail Figure 52: Finger plate from SAFEGE Shonan Monorail
Source: Photos by Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024

Pintels are metallic devices that limit the transversal movement of the structures, allowing the
longitudinal movements, like the expansion and contraction of the concrete/steel materials from
the temperature variation. It is usually composed of one internal metallic component filled with
grout and two metallic gloves that will provide the movement.

Figure 53: Pintel design Figure 54: Pintel structure at Santiago de Los Caballeros monorail
Source: São Paulo Metro Source: Photo by Maikel Garcia, 2024

Bearings are components installed under the beams and have a similar function to the pintels,
avoiding transversal movements of the structure while allowing the longitudinal expansion and
contraction of the materials. The bearings can be fabricated using elastomeric materials or with
steel components.

Public Transport page 48

Figure 55: Osaka monorail steel bearing with Seismic Restrainer
Figure 56: Bangkok monorail with bearing
Source: (55) Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024, (56) Carlos Banchik, 2024

Figure 57: Civil construction of Cairo Monorail, 2023

Source: Photo by Ahmed Ghallab

The following pictures contain more pictures of monorail mainline construction.

Figure 58: Cairo Monorail, 2023

Source: Photo by Ahmed Ghallab

Public Transport page 49

2.1.6.5 Switches

These structures allow the redirection of trains. There are two main types based on their
operation; simple beam replacement switches consist of one or many steel beams with a fixed
pivot and free ends, or more complex segmented switches with beams composed of short
segments that are configured to redirect the trains. A pivot switch is shown below.

Figure 59: Pivot switch

Source: Innova (2024)

The switch below is a series of segmented switches that allow the feeding of spur lines off a
mainline in an iconic installation in Osaka Monorail.

Public Transport page 50

Figure 60: Osaka Monorail, 2024
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 51

The switch below is a crossover segmented switch.

Figure 61: Switch of Okinawa Monorail, Japan, 2024

Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 52

2.1.6.6 Emergency Walkway

The walkway is a passive system wide walkway that provides enhanced passenger safety without
compromising visual aesthetics’. NFPA 130 requires the installation of continuous means of
evacuation along the mass transit alignment.

Figure 62: Emergency guideway in the middle of dual lane track structures, same level as vehicle floor height
Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bombardier Transportation

Pictures below show a sample of emergency evacuation structures from Line 15 in São Paulo and
the first installation in Las Vegas Monorail circa 2002.

Public Transport page 53

Figure 63: Track, Line 15 São Paulo, 2017
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Figure 64: Emergency Guideway and cable way, São Paulo Line 15, 2023
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 54

Figure 65: Las Vegas Monorail during construction, 2002
Source: Photo by Carlos Banchik

2.1.6.7 Vehicle Dynamic Envelope

The vehicle dynamic envelope is the minimum clearance on all sides of the vehicle. These
dimensions account for the space of the vehicle in motion.

The vehicle structure gauge is defined as the clearance to any permanent obstruction or
structure, and is based on the vehicle dynamic envelope, built up to include additional effects due
to chording in the middle of the vehicle or overthrow at its nose or tail, superelevation,
construction tolerances and running clearances.

According to p-REES Module 1-F Railway Alignment Design and Geometry the following items are
typically included in the development of the Vehicle Dynamic Envelope:

▪ Static vehicle outline

▪ Dynamic motion (roll) of springs and suspension/bolsters of vehicle trucks
▪ Vehicle suspension side play and component wear
▪ Vehicle wheel flange and radial tread wear
▪ Maximum truck yaw (fishtailing)
▪ Maximum passenger loading
▪ Suspension system failure
▪ Wheel and track nominal gauge difference
▪ Wheel back-to-back mounting and maintenance tolerance

Public Transport page 55

Figure 66: Process of defining the clearance gauge
Source: Derap AG, illustration by IMA

2.1.6.8 Depot and Maintenance Facilities

Depots allow for the centralized cleaning, maintenance and storage of trains. They contain a
series of pivot switches that allow the trains to be distributed in different facilities based on the
needs.

A maintenance depot is normally provided that includes a workshop area that accommodates
access to roof-mounted, interior and undercar equipment on the vehicles, an electrical shop, a
machine shop, equipment areas for brake, HVAC, propulsion systems, a storage area for parts and
tools, utility facilities, and personnel and office space.

Figure 67: Line 15, Oratorio Depot, 2024

Source: Photo by São Paulo Metro/IPT

Public Transport page 56

Figure 68: Kitakyushu Monorail, 2024
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Figure 69: São Paulo Line 15 Depot

Source: Photo by Viviane Ricarda Lima Veiga, 2020

Public Transport page 57

Figure 70: Tokyo Haneda Monorail, 2024
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 58

2.1.6.9 Monorail Bogie Maintenance Workstation

The monorail bogie maintenance workstations (BMWS) are inserted into a monorail train
concrete rail beam to facilitate removing and installing one or more monorail train bogies.

Figure 71: Monorail bogie maintenance workstation inserted in concrete beam

Source: Handling Specialty, Grimpsy, Canada

Operators are able to utilize a sophisticated control and user interface screen to access a single
BMWS, which in turn allows access to a single bogie unit. Alternatively, the screen can be used to
activate up to four monorail bogie maintenance workstation units, thereby enabling access to
bogies on two rail cars simultaneously.

The systems facilitate the hydraulic detachment of the bogie(s) from the train car through the
provision of a supporting mechanism. Subsequently, an electromechanical drive is engaged to
lower the bogie and traverse outward from the monorail beam, thereby facilitating
comprehensive access to the bogie.

The process allows operators to perform maintenance tasks on the bogie unit or replace it
entirely by reversing the aforementioned process.

The BMWS may be utilized in either an individual or synchronized mode. The operator utilizes the
synchronized mode during the ‘Bogie Removal’ and ‘Bogie Installation’ processes. This mode
enables the lifts to travel in unison with one another. Individual mode, on the other hand,
facilitates the movement of individual lifts with detached bogies, following the synchronized

Public Transport page 59

portion of the ‘Bogie Removal’ process and preceding the synchronized portion of the ‘Bogie
Installation’ process.

Figure 72: Monorail bogie maintenance workstation

Source: Handling Specialty, Grimpsy, Canada

General Sequence of Operations

Home Position
In the home position, the BMWS units are in line and the platform flush with the top of the
monorail beam. The BMWS locking bars are fully extended into the side/center supports and the
bogie supports are flush with the lift/beam.

Removing Bogie
The following operations are initiated through the HMI with BMWS in home position:

1. Position Bogie: Operator positions cars so that bogies are centered on the BMWS units.
2. Support Bogie Frame: Bogie support cylinders extend coming into contact with the bogie
and supporting the bogie frame.
3. Position Jacks: Operator manually positions and raises the jacks until jack is in correct
position, touching monorail train.
4. Retract Locking Bars: The BMWS raises above home position to take pressure off locking
bars which are then retracted.

Public Transport page 60

 5. Lift cars to fully raised position: The BMWS platform raises until the pre-programmed
height is reached. The raised position allows the operator to position the support stands
under the cars.
6. Placement of Car Support Stands: Operator places support stands under cars and adjusts
support stands to engage car body.
7. Retract Side Plates: The BMWS side plates retract taking pressure off the run tires.
8. Cars lowered onto Support Stands: The BMWS lowers until the cars are resting on the car
support stands. This motion transfers the weight of the cars onto the car support stands
and unloads the secondary bogie suspension.
9. Operator unfastens bogie from car.
10. Fully Lower Individual BMWS: BMWS fully lowers platform to allow the bogie to clear the
underside of the car.
11. Traverse Individual BMWS’s to maintenance position: The BMWS loaded with the bogie
traverses perpendicular to the monorail beam into the bogie maintenance position.
12. Individual BMWS’s can now be operated independently through the hand-held pendant in
local mode.

Installing Bogie
The following operations are initiated through the HMI with the BMWS in the maintenance
position:

1. Operator places bogie in correct position on BMWS.

2. Traverse Individual BMWS’s to home position: BMWS Traverse Motor moves BMWS
toward Home position. Traverse continues until HOME traverse limit switch is reached.
3. Align Individual Bogies and Load Secondary Suspension: The BMWS raises as required in
order to re-connect the bogie to the car and load the secondary suspension. Lift Motors
raise the platform until a pre-programmed height is reached which loads the secondary
suspension but does not lift the vehicle off the support stands.
4. Extend Side Plates on Individual BMWS: Bogie Support cylinders extend to maintain
pressure on bogie. Side Plate cylinders extend.
5. Operator inspects all BMWS’s and then places all local pendants in remote mode. At HMI,
place system in synchronized mode.
6. Cars are raised to maximum height which lifts the cars off of the support stands.
7. Remove vehicle support stands.
8. Lower car to home position and locking bar cylinders extend thereby transferring weight
of platform and car onto Locking Bars. Bogie Support cylinders retract.

The BMWS is now in the HOME or ‘STOWED’ position: the BMWS is traversed to be horizontally in
line with the guide beam and the lift platform is flush with top of the guide beam. The Locking
Bars are extended and inside the side supports and/or center supports.

Public Transport page 61

Figure 73: São Paulo Line 15 bogie maintenance, 2020
Source: Photo by Viviane Ricarda Lima Veiga

Public Transport page 62

2.1.6.10 Central control and equipment rooms

Equipment rooms house the power distribution equipment, train control and communications
equipment, and central operations control room. Planners typically locate equipment rooms near
stations and the maintenance facility.

Figure 74: Operations and control center, São Paulo Line 15, 2023
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

Public Transport page 63

2.1.6.11 Train Power Substation

Buildings to get the energy from the power supply and connect to the monorail line.

Figure 75: Schematic of monorail power supply for buildings and line
Source: Illustration by IMA

2.1.6.12 Power Supply and Distribution

Two independent medium-voltage AC transmission lines or cables typically supply the system with
AC power. One of these transmission lines serves as the primary power supply, while the second
serves as a backup. This power is converted to DC for distribution to the Monorails.

Figure 76: Power supply and distribution system

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7191811617725026304/ based on The Electric Railway
System

Public Transport page 64

2.1.6.13 SCADA

SCADA is a control system architecture comprising computers, networked data communications

and graphical user interfaces for high-level supervision of machines and processes. It also covers
sensors and other devices, such as programmable logic controllers, which interface with process
plant or machinery.

Figure 77: SCADA system components

Source: Illustration by IMA

Referring to the authors of ‘Externetworks’ (https://blog.externetworks.io/how-scada-is-used-in-

rail-operations/#how-scada-systems-are-used-in-rail-operations) SCADA systems are composed of
multiple components, including sensors and actuators, remote terminal units (RTUs),
programmable logic controllers (PLCs), a human-machine interface (HMI), and a supervisory
computer (SCADA) software. These components work together to collect sensor data and send
commands to actuators to control the industrial process being monitored. SCADA systems are
typically used in transportation.

SCADA systems use various technologies to collect and process data from industrial processes
and equipment. Some of the key technologies used in SCADA systems include:

▪ Sensors: SCADA systems rely on sensors to measure parameters such as temperature,

pressure, flow rate, and more. Sensors are typically connected to a programmable logic
controller (PLC), which converts the sensor data into digital signals that the SCADA system
can process.

Public Transport page 65

 ▪ Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs): PLCs are microprocessor-based controllers used to
control industrial processes and equipment. They are often used to control motors, valves,
and other devices that are used in industrial automation. PLCs can be programmed to
respond to specific inputs and perform particular tasks.
▪ Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs): HMIs are graphical user interfaces used to display data
and allow operators to interact with the SCADA system. HMIs typically include displays,
touchscreens, and input devices such as keyboards and mice.
▪ Communication Networks: SCADA systems rely on communication networks to transmit data
between sensors, PLCs, and HMIs. Communication networks can be wired or wireless and
may use protocols like Modbus, DNP3, and OPC to communicate data.
▪ Data Storage and Analysis: SCADA systems typically include data storage and analysis
capabilities that allow operators to review historical data and identify trends and patterns in
the performance of the industrial process or equipment. This data can be used to improve
process efficiency, identify areas for improvement, and make more informed decisions about
the system's operation.

SCADA systems used in rail operations monitor and control various processes such as train speed,
track switch positions, signal status, and traction power. These systems are also used for
monitoring the condition of railway infrastructure and detecting faults such as broken rails or
malfunctioning switches.

SCADA systems in rail operations have been shown to increase efficiency and safety by allowing
for real-time monitoring and control of critical railway processes. Benefits of SCADA Systems in
Rail Operations Improved reliability, increased safety, reduced downtime, and enhanced
operational efficiency are among the benefits of using SCADA systems in rail operations. These
benefits are achieved through the ability of SCADA systems to detect faults and anomalies in real-
time, allowing for prompt corrective actions.

Real-time monitoring of railway processes also allows for faster response times to train speed and
other operational issues. This can reduce the time required to stop a train or take corrective
action when needed, increasing safety and enhancing efficiency. SCADA systems are also used for
predictive maintenance, which helps identify potential problems before they become significant.

Public Transport page 66

2.1.6.14 Automatic Train Control

Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) moving block technology which enables full
driverless operation of the system.

Figure 78: CBTC system architecture

Source: CBTC Simulation Platform Design and Study - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/CBTC-system-architecture_fig1_283187607 [accessed 13 Sept 2024]

2.1.6.15 Vehicles

Vehicle Subsystems

▪ Propulsion
▪ Brakes
▪ Fire Detection & Suppression
▪ Heating Ventilating and Air-Conditioning
▪ Passenger Doors
▪ Lighting
▪ Bogies

Public Transport page 67

2.1.7 Construction Sequences

Elevated Guideway
The following pictures show some construction stages of the guideway section from Line 15, São
Paulo 2010-2014.

Piles and columns

Figure 79: Piles and columns Source: Photos by Rodolfo Szmidke

Capitels and launching guide beams

Figure 80: Capitels and launching guide beams Source: Photos by Rodolfo Szmidke

Public Transport page 68

Closure pours and system elements

Figure 81: Closure pour joints and system elements Source: Photos by Rodolfo Szmidke

Stations
The following pictures show some construction stages of the Jardim Colonial station from Line 15,
São Paulo 2019-2021.

Piles and foundation blocks

Figure 82: Piles and foundation blocks Source: Photos by São Paulo Metro
Columns

Figure 83: Columns Source: Photos by São Paulo Metro

Public Transport page 69

Concrete and steel structures

Figure 84: Concrete and steel structures Source: Photos by São Paulo Metro

Guideway and final services

Figure 85: Guideway and final services Source: Photos by São Paulo Metro

Public Transport page 70

2.2 Urban Integration and Environment

2.2.1 Urban Design and Development

Public transportation and how it relates to cities and their residents is changing fast, as cities
become more congested at ground level and below ground, and as uses of space face increasing
competition, having to demonstrate a strong added value for the use of limited resources.
Thorough planning and urban integration are not only able to minimize the impact of that usage of
resources, but to enhance them.

Adequate urban design and integration results in building communities and the (re-)generation of
(new) spaces in the neighborhoods. When urban design principles are properly applied, both the
traveler and residents benefit from the new infrastructure. Adequate design and successful
integration create spaces for people, that can be used and shared by multiple social groups,
enriching the existing local spaces, creating new landscape references by shaping (re-)
development) and creating opportunities beyond the transportation element itself.

Figure 86: Monorail station integration in Chongqing, Source: Photos by Paulo Meca, 2024
China

Urban design must take care of the integration of mainline structures and stations into the
communities monorails transits by, as well as optimizing and improving the land use of
surrounding spaces, in a manner that is respectful of the environment, promotes economic
development and social equity, whilst it should aim to (re-)generate public spaces for the enhance
usage by the local communities, transforming what could be seen as a convenient but disrupting
infrastructure into a unifying trigger of positive change for the community as a whole, enhancing
livability and long term value, whilst maximizing transportation performance. The main goals
should be:

▪ Maximize the performance of the transportation investment.

▪ Enhance the livability of the communities it serves.
▪ Create long-term value and,
▪ Sensitively integrate the project into the diversity of communities along the corridor.

Public Transport page 71

Sustainable design and successful integration must have a fluid relationship with the landscape
by minimizing negative impacts and maximizing the positives, creating equilibrium between the
natural environment and the man-made infrastructures. This is true not only of the natural
environment, but also the cultural and societal environment: new projects always create an
opportunity to fuse the local traditions with modernity and a look into the future, in a manner
that citizens of all generations, from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs can identify a part of
themselves represented and therefore taking pride and ownership in the project and its builds.

Figure 87: Smart stations in smart cities

Source: Smart Stations in Smart Cities, International Union of Railways

More and more cities have policies aiming for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), envisioning
placing higher population densities within walking distance of mass transit nodes to create an
energy efficient city model. In the TOD urban model, the station becomes a centerpiece, essential
and reference building, with the potential to become a destination. An alternative and
complementary urban policy is Development-Oriented Transit (DOT), where transport systems
are used to enhance and improve the community and local (re-) development. There is great
potential in meeting the synergies of TOD and DOT, and the conscientious application of the
adequate planning principles for each specific situation plays a critical role in the successful
integration of urban transportation systems.

The role of such an important infrastructure has to be defined on a case by case:

▪ If stations may become a dominant feature or they may fade away becoming
architecturally invisible, it is a consideration that the local environment and community
define, and it will impact the street and public spaces layout around.
▪ The level of impact and also of opportunities by the track infrastructure is strongly
influenced by its placement – elevated, at-grade or underground. Different areas even in
the same city may require different approaches and solutions. Whilst track alignment
shows and displays a neighborhood to commuters, they can act and be seen as
obstructive and noisy by local residents, so sensible planning is required to earn
acceptance and prevent rejection.

Public Transport page 72

Given that the roles of stations go beyond transit and possess a broad civic role, regardless of size
and appearance, there are key considerations for adequate integration, such as:

a. Stations should be located strategically in respect to their neighborhoods. They are places
for the people and become part of the landscape. They can provide space for local
business, retail, civic duty spaces, be an open green space for play and social interaction,
or all of them. This needs to be addressed with the local community specifically.
b. Stations need to make efficient connections, both with other forms of public
transportation services, but also in relation to other urban and community buildings and
facilities.
c. Pedestrian reach and connectivity should be optimal, but also consider access by private
vehicles (with limited parking opportunities), taxi and bicycles.
d. Improve local use with multi-use functions and forms likely to attract a wide range of
users by meeting a variety of needs and preferences.
▪ Design with change in mind. The future is fluid and conditions are ever changing, so
adaptability is essential, mainly when transport infrastructure is a catalyst for urban
and community growth and change.
e. Stations also act as an entrance into a neighborhood and can establish or reinforce the
distinctive characteristics of that place and benefit the neighborhood. Therefore, station
and infrastructure design should respond to the character of its local context, present and
future, respecting residents and significant heritage places.

For many people the first impression they have of a neighborhood is the experience they have
when in transit and upon arriving at a station. For commuters and other local residents, stations
may be the most frequently visited building in their daily life, hence these buildings play important
roles in the identity of the neighborhood as would a reception lobby give a great deal of its
character to a building or hotel.

Community consultations, open communication with local representatives, consideration of the

specific area requirements and needs, and generating a clear vision for the future go a long way
towards successful integration and acceptance.

Public Transport page 73

2.2.2 Project Development Steps

2.2.2.1 Overview

According to the Urban Rail Development Handbook the following 16 project development steps
are recommended for successful project handling, considered in the respective phase as
presented in the following flow chart.

Figure 88: The urban rail development handbook

Source: Illustration by IMA based on Urban Rail Development Handbook

The superordinate project steps are therefore distinguished in ‘Urban Rail as Opportunity, Design,
Optimization and Risk management, financing and Health, socio-ecological aspects and
environment’.

Urban Rail as an Opportunity

1. Urban Rapid Transit as an Opportunity for Sustainable and Inclusive Development

2. Deciding Whether to Develop an Urban Rail Project

Design

3. Project Management Planning

4. Design an Urban Rail Project

Public Transport page 74

Key Categories and Examples of Design Features for an Urban Rail System:

Figure 89: Key categories and examples of design features for an urban rail system
Source: Illustration by IMA

Optimization and Risk Management

5. Project Optimization
6. Managing Risk
7. Procuring the Project

Financing

8. Structuring Public Private Partnerships

9. Maximizing Funding and Financing
10. Preparing for Construction
11. Institutional Set-Up and Governance of Urban Rail
12. Ensuring Operational and Financial Sustainability

Health, socio-ecological aspects and environment

13. Addressing Social Impacts of Urban Rail Projects

14. Environment, Health, and Safety Management
15. Improving Accessibility and Shaping Urban Form
16. Climate and Natural Hazard Resilience in Urban Rail Projects

2.2.2.2 Planning steps for Monorails

For monorails the following planning steps – like for automated people mover systems – are
recommended. This chapter refers to the ‘Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated
People Mover Systems at Airports (2010)’ and its chapter 5.2 Airport APM Planning Process Steps.

Public Transport page 75

Figure 90: Planning steps for monorails
Source: Illustration by IMA based on Lea+Elliott

Step 1: Identify need—This is the process by which passenger conveyance needs to/from airport,
or passenger activity centers that cannot be adequately accommodated by walking are identified
and quantified. Quantification typically takes the form of wait time, connect time, and/or walk
distance requirements and thresholds.

Step 2: Technology assessment: develop alternatives and analyze operations—The passenger

activity generators identified in step 1 will help determine station locations. To connect the station
locations, alternative routes/ alignments are developed and analyzed with respect to operations.
This can be done using a single or a variety of different technologies. The analysis of operations
will help in sizing the fleet to meet the demand ridership between stations and in providing a
system capacity (passengers per hour).

Step 3: Determine facilities requirements—The fleet size determined in step 2 allows the related
system facilities’ requirements for power, maintenance, train control, guideway and its right-of-
way (ROW), and stations to be developed.

Step 4: Determine costs—With the alignment, fleet, and related facilities now sized, the high-level
capital and O&M costs of the system can be estimated. The level of service (trip times, service
frequency) can also be double-checked against relevant passenger conveyance thresholds from
step 1.

Step 5: Perform justification analysis—The costs developed in step 4 are then compared against
the benefits of the system to determine if the system is justified

Step 6: Determine affordability and other impacts—The final planning step determines if the
resulting system is affordable to the community. Other final checks of environmental impacts,
feasibility, and constructability (first performed during preliminary planning in step 3) are also
performed in this final step. If all these checks come up positive, then the system enters final
design and implementation (procurement).

Public Transport page 76

2.2.2.3 Constructability

One of the key factors in integrating monorail projects into urban areas is their constructability.
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) introduced the concept of constructability in 1986. CII
stated that “Constructability is the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in
planning, design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives”.

Since the 1980s, constructability has been an important concept in the construction industry,
offering significant benefits when applied. This section provides insights as to how to incorporate
the implicit benefits of Monorail projects based on a paper by Bo Wang and Prof. El-Diraby,
Constructibility Analysis of Monorail Projects, dated 2003, an interesting formal analysis of
monorail systems is performed.

Constructability, taken as an “attitude” during the life cycle of a project allows for the lessons
learned during monorail construction to be incorporated into feedback loops like the one shown
in Figure 91 (Kartam, 1996). The model proposed, offers a framework for understanding this
process that starts at the Planning Phase where the project incorporate lessons learned from
traditional mass transit Operations. This basic knowledge on the Operation Phase informs the
Construction and Design Phases that incorporate the construction capabilities of the teams
involved.

The interaction between Owners, Contractors and Engineers provides the first constructability
improvements. Feedback to the Construction Phase also informs the Planning Phase, where there
are traffic solutions to be implemented, as well as simplifications to cabletrays and systems
deployments, etc.).

Constructability
Planning Phase

Constructability
Design Phase Monorail
Project
Development
Process
Construction Phase

Operation Phase
Post Occupancy Evaluation

Figure 91: Constructability feedback model

Source: Kartam, 1996, illustration by IMA

The advantages of monorail systems have resulted in the development and operation of many
monorails worldwide, with even more in planning or construction. To improve the ease of building
these projects, better communication between engineers and contractors is crucial early on. The
flowchart in Figure 92 formalizes a feedback system proposed in the paper mentioned earlier for
sharing construction knowledge.

The sharing of knowledge and incorporation of the lessons learned can lead to savings between
10 and 20 percent mentioned in the paper.

Public Transport page 77

 Background of Constructability

Introduction to Monorail Project

Constructability Analysis of Monorail Project

Influence Diagram HOT Diagram

Existing Area condition

Construction Method
Project Objectives

Structural System
Route Planning

Project Scope

Techniques
Concepts

Products
Lessons learned
Maintenances
(Case Study)

Storage Station Design

Power Supply Vehicle Technology ▪ Literature

Review
Computer Control ▪ Case Study
Guideway Design
System

Constructability Implementation Progress

Figure 92: Research process for constructability

Source: Kartam, 1996, illustration by IMA

Benefits of Constructability

The Constrution Industry Institute indicated in 1986 that constructability, through the early
integration of construction knowledge and experience into engineering and design, offers
significant benefits by minimizing changes, disputes, cost overruns, and delays during
construction.

By shortening construction time and improving project management, constructability studies in a

project can reduce overall project costs and capital investment risk.

Direct benefits of constructability include:

▪ Simplifies construction planning,

▪ Reduces both design and construction costs,

Public Transport page 78

 ▪ Shortens the construction timeline,
▪ Ensures higher quality standards,
▪ Allows for more realistic commitments to future trades,
▪ Enables earlier occupancy for the owner

There are other benefits, more difficult to quantify, that include:

▪ Creating a team that works together toward shared project goals,

▪ Collaborating for mutual benefit,
▪ Training across different disciplines,
▪ Sharing expertise from previous projects,
▪ Builders gaining a better understanding of design, and designers understanding
construction,
▪ Boosting innovation in both design and construction,
▪ Reducing the time needed to learn new skills,
▪ Gaining a competitive edge.

Figure 93: Monorail Constructability

Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bo Wang, 2003, Constructability Analysis of Monorail Project

Public Transport page 79

2.2.3 Environmental Impact and Factors

Every infrastructure project inevitably impacts its surrounding environment, both positively and
negatively. We accept the development of new infrastructure when the benefits outweigh the
associated drawbacks, particularly when mitigation strategies are employed. If the balance tips
towards more harm than good, projects often undergo reassessment, redesign, or are even
abandoned altogether.

To ensure successful outcomes, it is crucial to evaluate all potential factors from the project's
outset. This involves carefully considering how each decision influences the overall impact, and
prioritizing thoughtful planning to avoid costly changes, delays, or negative public perception.

A structured approach to managing impacts includes:

▪ Avoidance – Wherever possible, eliminate negative effects while maximizing positive

outcomes.
▪ Minimization – For unavoidable negative impacts, reduce their scale through thoughtful
design, thorough planning, and exploration of alternative solutions.
▪ Mitigation – Address and lessen the consequences of remaining impacts.
▪ Compensation – Offset detrimental effects by providing additional benefits, ideally within
the same area, whether they be environmental, social, or economic.

To anticipate and manage these impacts effectively, the following guidelines should be applied
(adapted from The Urban Rail Development Handbook)

1. Design considerations: Strive to minimize harm to the environment and surrounding

communities. Expert input from various fields can help identify and address potential
negative effects of stations and mainline structures.
2. Community engagement: Involve local communities early in the planning process to gain
insights into unforeseen concerns and foster solutions that benefit all parties.
3. Integration with urban spaces: While public transportation connects communities, surface
tracks can divide them. Vertical planning, like using monorails, helps minimize disruption,
but new challenges (e.g., noise, visual impact) must still be addressed.
4. Station design: Careful consideration of station size, height, and layout can mitigate
negative effects such as unnecessary vertical movement or disturbances to neighbors.
5. Terrain and topography: Use the natural landscape to seamlessly integrate roads, bike
paths, and pedestrian routes with the infrastructure, minimizing visual and environmental
disruption.
6. Alignment impacts: Evaluate how both the horizontal and vertical alignments affect
neighborhoods and natural environments, considering factors like noise from vehicles and
visual impacts of elevated structures.
7. Environmental enhancements: Introduce green spaces, tree barriers, and public gardens to
reduce noise, enhance visibility, and support community acceptance.
8. Compact designs: In densely populated areas, use compact station designs and integrate
high-demand services to maintain vibrant street activity around large constructions.

Public Transport page 80

 9. Public safety: Ensure that station and track designs do not create unsafe or neglected
public spaces that may degrade the local environment.
10. Art and landscape: In collaboration with the community, incorporate artwork or
landscaping projects to enhance public spaces and foster local identity.
By incorporating these strategies, projects can be better planned to balance their benefits with
their impacts, fostering sustainable, community-supported developments.

2.2.4 Sustainable Principles

”Sustainability [is] the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal
practice. In general, sustainability is understood as a form of intergenerational ethics in which the
environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do not diminish the opportunities of
future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare”. Encyclopedia Britannica.

“Sustainability is often thought of as a long-term goal (i.e. a more sustainable world), while
sustainable development refers to the many processes and pathways to achieve it.” UNESCO

Public transportation as part of the urban environment and its development, is one of those key
supporting pathways towards achieving a more sustainable future. Availability of collective forms
of transportation, and especially those powered by other than fossil fuels, has the potential to:

▪ Remove private vehicles from the streets, reducing air and noise pollution.
▪ Allow the (re-)utilization of existing spaces and freeing up road and parking spaces for new
uses, thus reducing the overall surface dedicated to transportation.
▪ Improve the health of residents by encouraging movements on foot to and from the nodes
of transportation and improvement of air quality.
▪ Improve social interaction and cohesion, by sharing spaces.
▪ Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
▪ Reduce overall energy bill of transportation and of medical expenditure, hence freeing more
financial resources for other goals.
▪ Improve safety of pedestrians and cyclists due to traffic reduction
▪ Create local job opportunities and bring economic benefits to the communities.

All the factors above have a very clear collateral benefit: Enhancing urban livability. Making the
city centers more attractive and livable incites a return of higher density of population to the
cities, rather than continue the suburb spread. This shift from endless expansion and take-over of
the surrounding environment is in itself a major achievement towards sustainability.

MAKE
CREATE CONNECT TO
TRANSIT
A PLACE COMMUNITY
WORK

Figure 94: Enhancing urban livability

Source: Urban Design Guidelines, California High-Speed Train Project,
illustration by IMA

Public Transport page 81

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a significant investment towards building sustainable and
environmentally conscious communities, cities and after all, preserving a healthy planet for future
generations. TOD is also a visible representation of the commitment to sustainability, any by
displaying so clearly visibly, even in the smaller details, it has the potential to encourage residents
to adopt other sustainable practices in their live choices as well.

Including sensible landscaping practices (use of drought resistant or local vegetation, for
instance), the recycling of rainwater or the use of permeable pavements to reduce runoff and
increase infiltration, the integration of renewable energies, the positive impacts towards
sustainability of a transportation project can go far beyond transport itself.

Creating a safe neighborhood is also a step towards a more sustainable tomorrow. Considering
principles of public safety when designing stations and spaces, such as adding visibility, avoiding
dead end zones or areas that lend themselves to wrongful uses and so on, are critical to prevent
crime itself, but also to prevent the association of public transportation with crime and unsafety,
hence helping nurture a more transit friendly society.

Sustainability is primarily about what we do today to help create a better future, in every possible
way, and clean public transport has a massive role to play.

Public Transport page 82

2.3 Operations

For the purpose of this guidance document, the term ‘Operations Concept’ is used to imply a
strategic level document which is developed and used at the feasibility, design development and
build stages of the project.

Brief details of the contents of the operation concept document are presented below.

Monorail operations and maintenance (O&M) is the sum total of all processes and organization
dedicated to delivery of the transport services and customer service and efficient management of
all the assets. It involves managing interfaces between the eight subsystems as shown below.

Figure 95: Railway Subsystems

Source: Illustration by IMA

2.3.1 Operating Concept

Operating concept (OC) is aimed to provide designers and stakeholders an understanding of what
services are expected to operate, when, where, and who will do what over the operations and
maintenance stage.

2.3.2 Links to Other Key Documents

The operating concept document draws from the travel demand forecasts and from the feasibility
studies. It supports and enhances the business case for monorail.

2.3.3 Parties Involved

The development of OC is led by a small team of operations and maintenance professionals. They
are supported by the system's designers and, where possible, by the vendors of the monorail

Public Transport page 83

systems. Key inputs are provided by the Public Transport Authority / Agency (PTA) who are
responsible for setting the broad performance objectives from the transit system. There is a close
working with Architects and other Engineering team for the finalization of the OC.

2.3.4 Stages of Operating Concept

The operating concept document evolves over time, with the project lifecycle. As more
information becomes available, more details are added to the document about the system
operations and the interfaces. The following graph illustrates the evolution from the Feasibility
Study phase to the Testing and Commissioning (T&C) phase:

Feasibility study /
Design development
business case Build stage including T&C
stages
Initial Operating concept Final OC
Revised (OC)
(OC)

Figure 96: Stages of operating concept

2.3.5 Objectives of the Operations Concept Document

Main objectives of the operations concept document are as follows

1. To explain the various monorail systems (stations, depots/OMSF, train control,

communication, power, services, operations control center etc.) and explain how they work
together to develop the transit system.
2. To manage risks As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).
3. To be able to control change in a manageable way over time.
4. To ensure that planners can identify missing or conflicting requirements.
5. To describe outline maintenance concepts, principles and organization.
6. To Describe Operator and Maintainer roles and responsibilities.
7. To describe the key operational and maintenance activities during normal, degraded and
emergency situations.

Public Transport page 84

2.3.6 Typical Contents of OC

Topic Contents
System Functional level description to be included in this section. Details of the systems
description are typically provided in Basis of Design and other Engineering documents.
However, the OC includes a high-level description of the monorail system with
main focus on their functions so that stakeholders can understand the system and
the constituent elements that together constitute the whole transit system.
Train service Generally, the public authority will specify the service levels it wants to procure in
planning a project. Train service plan is usually expressed as
­ Hourly service for weekday, weekend, peak, off peak and night services
This could provide sufficient information to calculate yearly train kilometers which
would influence the maintenance costs as well traction power consumption. The
train service plan has a direct correlation to the travel demand projections. The
capacity required to meet the demand is usually determined by the transit
authority which is reflected in the service plan. Therefore, the seating and
standing capacity of the vehicles and the maximum passenger density per square
meter are important factors to determine the train service plan.
The train service plan should be consistent with other transit lines, so that waiting
time is minimized for passengers who are required to interchange to other lines /
modes.
Operation Monorail are driverless systems usually operated without any staff member on
control center board the train. As a result, the OCC assumes a very important role in the traffic
(OCC) management but also in safety of the system. This section describes the role of
the OCC and its general arrangement. For some public authorities who have
existing transit lines, there could be strategic objective to co-locate all OCC
functions under one management.
Station Monorail stations can be either staffed or remotely managed with the help of the
management OCC and mobile unit. This section should describe the strategy that is adopted for
the specific project. The strategy should be aligned with the systems design to
support it.
Operation, There could be one or more OMSF which includes stabling, train washing and
Maintenance, cleaning, maintenance and storage depots. In addition, it is common for OMSF
Storage Facility site to include OCC and Admin facilities for the management of the transit. The
(OMSF) and OMSF plan is based on the long-term requirements and is future proofed. This
depots section should describe the high-level functions that will be performed at OMSF
along with staffing strategy.
Service Monorail systems are usually operated at Grade of automation level 4 (GoA4)
operations which equates to unattended train operations. This section should explain how
the critical safety functions are performed at this level of automation, and how
the risks are mitigated.
Detrainment Monorail systems are predominantly built on elevated corridors. This presents the
and evacuation operators with a unique risk of passenger detrainment and evacuation specifically
between station. This section should describe the strategy that is adopted for the
specific project with respect mitigation of this risk and the associated solutions.
These require close coordination between the design team, the O&M team and
the safety regulators.
Maintenance This section should be focused on the running maintenance which includes
preventative and corrective maintenance of all monorail assets. In specific cases,
where the life cycle responsibility is also handed over to the O&M agency, this
section should outline the asset replacement strategy and whole life cycle
approach to assets. OEMs have an important input to provide with respect to the
maintainability of the assets; this section could use some of the material provided
by them. section on maintenance could include approach to automation and
application of latest trends in predictive and risk-based maintenance.

Public Transport page 85

 Topic Contents
Customer This section should outline the approach, principles and organization for
experience customer service. The wider context could be provided by the public transit
agency including multimode integration, fare and revenue collection systems etc.
In general monorail systems are designed bearing in mind a fairly autonomous
customer who is able to navigate through the system without aid and assistance.
However, the principles of customer service are more relevant when there is a
breakdown and equipment degradation.
Performance Performance targets are specified by the public authorities and very often
management contractually binding between them and the operator. This section should outline
how the operator proposes to meet the performance targets. It should identify
some high-level risks associated with performance and suggest some mitigation
measures.

2.3.7 Operations Plan

A high-level operations (and maintenance) plan follows the OC. The plans are developed when
the monorail system design and construction are complete, and the transit system is ready for
hand over to operations.

Further risks and hazard analysis helps develop operating procedures which are step-by-step
guidance to operate the systems. Rules and processes are built on the principles developed by OC
document.

2.3.7.1 Dimensioning the Project

It is expected from the O&M to help to dimension the project using the optimized train service
plan. The operations concept / plan determines the fleet size and other systems that go with it;
OMSF, Traction power system and station footprint. Therefore, the OC (or Plan) is an important
input in the project's planning and development stage.

Operations planner or engineers work with designers of the systems to determine the end to run
time, dwell time, turn back time and the necessary margins for performance management. This is
required to calculate the fleet size as below

Total trains = total round-trip time /headways

Therefore, for example, if the total round-trip time is 60 mins, and the headway is 5 mins, the total
fleet needed will be 12. There is a need to add operations and maintenance reserve to this number
to get to a final estimate of the number of trains. The reserve train sets provide the maintenance
organization to plan for major overhauls without affecting the passenger service.

The number of cars for each train is derived from the passenger demand that needs to be met
and is generally expressed at passengers per hour per direction (pphpd). For example, if the
required pphpd is 12,000, and we have 12 trains in the peak, each train should have sufficient cars
to carry 1,000 passengers.

Sometimes with projects which have multiple routes and lines, there is a sequence for
commissioning the system. This needs to be highlighted and will have bearing on the fleet
requirement over time.

Public Transport page 86

2.3.7.2 Typical Content of Operation Plan

Part 1 – System Descriptions

Topic Contents
Introduction State the purpose of the document and its intended use. Ideally,
we should mention the responsibility, accountability etc. for the
Purpose
document – RACI matrix. Introduce the fact that the document
Responsibility for Operations will evolve over a period of time as the design development
Planning progresses or the requirements undergo any changes.
Updates and Changes to the
Operations Plan
Reference Documents Mention all the other documents that are linked or have an input –
output relationship with the Operations Plan
Standards Make a list of all the national, and international standards that will
apply to the operations and Maintenance management of the
monorail system
Definitions and Acronyms
Network Description This must be consistent with the design documents and updated
every time there are changes to the alignment or the network.
Overview
Network description mainly includes the civil infrastructure such
Infrastructure alignment, station locations, track layouts including terminal
station, location of switches and crossings. Schematic drawings
Alignment
can be used where available for illustration. Interchange with
Tracks and Structures other transit lines can be shown (or with mainline services).
Crossovers between Lines
Operations Planning – travel time This is covered in paragraph 2.3.6.1 above. It is a critical input for
simulation planners and designers. The starting point is a detailed assessment
Passenger Demand Forecast of the travel demand forecasts. In most projects (if not all), the
travel demand projections are given for each section for each
Capacity Planning hour, along with station wise boarding and alighting. This gives the
Operational Headway basis for devising the hourly train service plan.
Travel time (includes turn back operations for calculation of round-
Fleet sizing trip time) is calculated with the help of OEMs and the transit
Travel Times authority.
It is usually the public transit authority (PTA) that sets the
Turn back operation during Normal performance requirements at the O&M stage. These need to be
Operation supported by the OEMs through their work on RAMS. In almost all
System Performance Requirements cases, the key performance indicators associated with system
performance are put in the contract for O&M services.
Grade of Automation Monorail systems are generally designed for unattended train
operations (UTO), or grade of automation level 4 (GoA4 – see
Future Proofing
UITP for definitions). Selection of the grade of automation has a
Performance Monitoring direct bearing on staffing and plans and on future proofing of the
system.
System Capability
In addition, the Operations Plan document should briefly touch on
Hours of Operation the OCC and the stations' performance monitoring strategy. The
document should list the hourly service plan and explain how the
Peak Hours
transition takes place between operations and maintenance
Operation Hours, Maintenance hours.
Hours & Transition Time
First and Last Trains

Public Transport page 87

 Topic Contents
Level of Service
System Availability
Operations and Maintenance Even the highest level of automation requires staff presence for
Organization oversight and for dealing with perturbations and unexpected
Management Philosophy events. The project should describe its approach to management
of the transit at the O&M stage, the staffing levels for different
Training functions and the organization required to operate the services.
Management and Administration
Center
Operations Control Philosophy OCC plays a very crucial role in GoA 4 level operations. This is why
a section should be dedicated to the OCC working. It should
Automation Philosophy
include the key functions to be performed from the OCC and the
Operations Control Center (OCC) staffing of the facility.
Every transit should have a backup control center for resilience
Emergency Control Center (ECC)
and business continuity. Attached to the main OCC, there needs to
Emergency and Crisis Room
be a crisis room for senior managers to deal with emergencies.
However, some transit authorities may have a unified crisis center
to have a holistic response.
Functionality during Testing and This section is not about testing and commissioning but about the
Commissioning role of the OCC and the station control during the T&C. It is
possible that the transit is operated under a set of safety rules and
procedures that are prepared by the construction organization.
Station Control Room If the stations are equipped with a local control center equipment
for managing issues at the station, these need to be summarized in
this section.
Modes of Train Operation Please refer to the OEM manual for a description of these modes
of operation as the terms may differ between manufacturers. The
­ Automatic Mode (AM)
expected mode of operation is fully automatic mode, but there are
­ Manual Mode with ATP support other modes possible associated with equipment degradation.
(MATP) Operational procedures, which are based on risk and hazard
assessment provide additional safety for the system.
­ Washing Mode (WM)
­ Sleep Mode
­ Depot Shunting Mode
­ Restricted Manual Mode
Depots and Stabling Areas This section is dedicated to describing the OMSF and all the
associated functions and activities at the O&M stage. These have a
Depots (OMSF)
direct bearing for the planning and design team at the
Depot Control development stage of the project.
The OMSF has stabling lines to park the trains during off peak and
Designation of Areas and Tracks
non-revenue hours; workshop to maintain trains, wash plants and
Train and Maintenance Vehicle other maintenance related facilities. It has a test track to test the
Movements within the Depot trains and on-board equipment for commissioning of new trains
Train and Maintenance Vehicle and after major overhauls.
Launch and Reception Usually, a depot control center is provided for managing interface
between the depot / workshop and the OCC. Sometimes the
Train Cleaning
depot controller is located within the OCC area.
Depot Degraded Mode Operations Safety aspects associated with depot (OMSF) working needs to be
described in this section.
Depot Emergency Preparedness
Measures

Public Transport page 88

 Topic Contents
Stabling Areas
Test Track
Rolling Stock This section is dedicated to the fleet that will be used for
transporting passengers once the transit system is commissioned
Train Specifications
and brought into revenue service.
Multiple Unit Operation
The chapter describes the trains at a functional level rather than
Coupling and Uncoupling
technical. All aspects are orientated towards operability and traffic
Doors, Evacuation and Access transportation outputs.
Management of Rolling Stock
Safety features and passenger interfaces and touch points are
Train Capacity included in this section. Passenger handling during abnormal
events is briefly described without getting to the level of details
Train Orientation
contained in procedures.
Train Stopping Position
Safety equipment such as smoke detectors, CCTV, passenger
Diagnostic and Status Monitoring
information and announcements systems are described. There is
Facilities
reference to the role of different O&M staff with respect to the
Maintenance Vehicles management of incidences.
Train Door Operation The section should be closely aligned with the design offered by
the OEMS so that there is consistency across different project
Communication Systems documents.
Emergency Facilities
Identification System
Energy Systems This chapter describes the energy (traction power) system which
SCADA includes the current collection system and traction substation. The
Third Rail System traction system is managed from the OCC through SCADA system
which has ability for remote switching (so that maintenance
Signaling and Train Control System personnel can carry out work on the section).
Also, there should be a separate section with a high-level function
description of the train control and signaling system. Most of the
modern monorail system may go for communications-based train
control system (CBTC) because of its many advantages.
Communications management and Communication systems are provided at stations, OCC, depot,
systems Admin centers etc., to be able to communicate urgent, necessary
­ Verbal Communication and required messages to passengers and stakeholders. There are
a number of different communication tools ranging from
­ Written Communication dedicated radio, bespoke emergency communication systems and
­ Communications Systems normal telephones.

­ Digital Transmission System Communication can be vocal or written; they can be displayed
­ Time Distribution and Clock publicly and can be automated with the possibility of manual
override.
System
­ Telephone System The systems being provided for the project along with the
­ Voice and Data Radio different forms of communication as described in this chapter.

­ Emergency Call System

­ Public Address System
­ Passenger Information Systems
CCTV System

Public Transport page 89

 Topic Contents
Access Control System The CCTV, Access Control and intrusion detection systems are
sometime bespoke to the project. They should be described in this
Intrusion Detection System
section with support from preferred vendors.
Signage Architects are responsible for developing the signages for the
benefit of customers and staff.
General
Trackside Signage Fare collection systems include the approach for vending of tickets
Fare Collection Station Equipment and their validation. There are extraneous factors which may
influence the choice for fare collection system such as multi modal
integration, consistency with other transit lines in the city, open v
close stations et.

Part 2 – The approach to operate and maintain the monorail system

This part describes how the O&M team plans to operate the monorail under normal, perturbed
and emergency situations. As stated earlier, this is a high-level strategic document which contains
the principles and the approach rather than the detailed step by step procedure for operations
and maintenance.

Topic Contents
Normal Operation The section under normal operation presents how the system is
made ready to launch the services in the morning and goes
­ Revenue Operation
through the different stages that are typically expected in an
­ Timetable Loading automated monorail operation.
­ Transition from Maintenance to
At the start of the day, there is transition from maintenance to
Revenue Operations Time operations with the necessary safety protocols; in the night it is
­ Train wake up and launching the converse. Different projects apply a range of tools to manage
the tasks and risks associated with the daily normal operations.
­ Station Opening
After the advertized revenue service hours, the stations are closed
­ Sweep Operations for public access.
­ Revenue Operations and
The trains are stabled (mostly) at the OMSF so that they can be
Management of Perturbations cleaned, and light maintenance can be performed where required.
­ Stabling of Trains
­ Station Closure
­ Transition from Revenue
Operations to Maintenance
Operation
Event Operation The O&M team should anticipate special events which would
require a different level of service, organization, coordination and
­ Crowd Management
delivery than the normal operations described above.
­ Potentially Crowded Stations
A different transportation capacity is needed for special events.
­ Event Stations
This requires a higher level of mobilization of resources including
­ Event Operation Boarding trains and staff. Expected number of passengers need to be
ascertained to plan the event carefully.
­ Event Plans
Engineering Work
­ Maintenance of infrastructure

Public Transport page 90

 Topic Contents
­ The Safe Conduct of Maintenance This section should briefly describe how maintenance activities will
Activities be carried out in a safe and economic manner. It will include when
the maintenance activities will be undertaken.
­ Maintenance during Maintenance
Hours Principles of preventative and corrective maintenance will be
­ Maintenance Considerations highlighted to state the objectives for the different types of
maintenance interventions.
­ Maintenance Metrics
­ Maintainability Benefits and Maintenance organization can be described in this section, along
Features with the facilities, tools and equipment that will be provided to
carry out the maintenance obligations.
­ Maintenance Planning
­ Control of Access for There are several maintenance related performance indicators
Maintenance that need to be agreed between the transit agency and the O&M
organization. These can be listed here.
­ Maintenance Vehicle Operations Most O&M organizations rely upon Computerized Asset
­ Worksite Protection Systems Management Systems (CAMS). There are advances in Remote
Condition Monitoring (RCM) which can be applied. These are
­ Conclusion of Maintenance included in the maintenance chapters.
Period
Degraded Operation There are situations under which equipment degradation affects
the normal operation. These may not be life threatening to the
­ Communication of Failure
passengers or to the staff but require urgent attention to restore
­ Reporting the system back to normalcy, as they may have impact on the
system safety.
­ Recording
­ Scenarios This chapter should define (identify) some of these degraded
conditions and the strategy to respond to these conditions. Once
­ Speed Restriction
again, this description is not to the level of detail of Standard
­ Dwell Time Extension Operating Procedure (SOP) but kept at a high level.
­ Fall Back Operations
This chapter can elaborate the strategy for single line working,
­ Single Line Operations short loop or short termination, using schematic diagrams to
illustrate the strategy.
­ Headway during Single Line
Operation
­ Loop Operations
­ Event Operations or Total Line
Blockage
­ Replacement by Bus I Taxi
­ Recovery
Recovery Scenarios This chapter also includes equipment degradation which can cause
inconvenience to passengers or delays to the system.
­ General
­ Train Door not closing/ failure For all the scenarios included in the list, the operational response,
mobilization of staff and adjustment to the services should be
­ Turnout failure
described.
­ Train can be reset and is able to
continue journey
­ Train cannot be reset and needs
to be rescued; automatic coupling

Public Transport page 91

 Topic Contents
­ Train cannot be reset and need to
be rescued; manual coupling
­ System wide Scenarios
­ Total Loss of Power
­ Partial Loss of Power
­ Total Loss of CBTC
­ Partial loss of onboard CBTC
­ Partial loss of wayside CBTC
Emergency Operation Emergency operation occurs where operation is stopped due to
an emergency situation. The line (or the relevant section of the
­ Response
line) cannot be operated in normal mode or in degraded mode. In
­ Safety Measures the emergency situations, operation shall be stopped, and
passenger safety shall be ensured. The passengers are removed to
­ Incident Manager (IM)
a place of safety and response is initiated as per the established
­ Rescue and Recovery Team procedures.
­ Facilities
­ Rescue Equipment
­ First Aid Equipment
­ Fire Fighting Equipment
Evacuation There could be emergency situations when it becomes necessary
to evacuate passengers from the train
­ Controlled Evacuation
­ Emergency Evacuation If the train cannot be rescued (it has failed between stations) -
­ Facilities Supporting Emergencies
In extreme situations, and the passengers have to be evacuated, a
­ System Operation In Case of rescue train (potentially operating on battery) can be used to
Emergency transfer passengers. There could be other options to transfer
passengers between trains
For non-urgent evacuation, the passengers could be guided by
OCC and supported by staff who will reach the site by the quickest
possible means (next train on adjacent line for example)

Interfaces to Operation This section briefly describes the different interfaces and
interdependencies between operations and other key functions
­ Safety
within the monorail organization.
­ Rail Safety Policy
­ Safety Management System
­ Safety Critical Position
­ Security
­ Incident Management

2.3.8 Health and Safety

Health & Safety is monorail project’s number one priority. Starting with the opening of the transit
for passengers, the monorail O&M organization should foster a culture of personal accountability,

Public Transport page 92

in which all employees are motivated to be focused on health and safety outcomes when making
decisions.

The monorail should always achieve compliance with all relevant Health & Safety legislation. The
O&M safety team should identify Health & Safety hazards and adopt a risk-based approach to
managing the risk from all hazards. They should encourage all staff to seek a better way of
working which improves safety and eliminates risk.

The safety management system must contain and apply plans to monitor compliance with the
pre-defined processes and ensure continual improvements through regular audits and control
verifications.

The most common standard is ISO 45001, which although not transport-specific, is widely used in
industry. The application of this standard offers an expedient enhancement to the laws.

O&M safety team should have a single Safety Policy and develop a common and positive safety
culture that encourages all its employees, contractor and subcontractor employees to engage
and manage both health and safety in the workplace and the health and safety of all persons
exposed to the operation of the railway.

2.3.9 Total Cost of Ownership Models

Introduction

Total Cost of Ownership models (TCO) in this guidance document is used loosely to mean Whole
Life Cycle Costs (WLCC) of the assets, even though the two terms are different. Broadly speaking,
assets are created by the construction team and handed over to the O&M. The amount spent in
the creation of the assets at the point of handover represents the capital expenditure (Capex).
The assets are then put to use to transport passengers and generate income for the transit
authority. In this process there is wear and tear which needs regular attention. Some of the assets
/ systems undergo technological obsolesce because of advancement of technology and other
factors. Sometimes, there are incidents which result in damages to the assets and needs repair.
Finally, over a period of time, some assets, or their critical parts reach the end of their useable life
and need renewals, replacement or life extension. Life extension, renewals or replacement costs
are generally accounted for as Capex for obvious reasons, rest of the interventions are classified
as operating expenditure (Opex) and include preventative and corrective maintenance.

There are many factors that affect the overall costs involved in operating a system. While some of
these factors are out of the operator’s control, many can be influenced and should therefore be
monitored continually.

An effective way of achieving an end-to-end approach to total cost of ownership is to be involved

in designing the system and the building in the initial phases. In many cases, an initial capital
expenditure or a decision on the installation design can help to minimize long term the resources
required for operation (such as staff, tools, materials). These decisions can have far-reaching
implications for the total cost of ownership.

Public Transport page 93

The main parameters influencing the total costs of a system are

▪ the location of the system and its surroundings,

▪ the configuration of the technical components,
▪ the number of stations,
▪ the number of operating hours,
▪ the operating speed, and
▪ the energy costs.

TCO models

TCO models guide transit authorities to effectively manage the assets, costs, risks and
performance. They provide good practice investment decision making, including the impact of
constraints such as funding. These models are developed to help the authorities or the operators
to respond quickly with agility and efficiently so that the right decisions are taken with respect to
the interventions with the assets. The main objectives for these models are as follows:

▪ Help to develop long term asset management plans

▪ Reduce costs and risks over a period of time
▪ Develop efficient strategies by capturing the asset condition and behavior under use
▪ Test different options for interventions under a range of funding scenarios
▪ Develop strategies to deal with obsolescence

Initial investment is a key driver to the whole life cost; other significant factors are usage and
technology.

The development of TCO models is a specialist topic which requires multi-disciplinary team.
Normally these are outsourced to external consultants with a heavy participation of internal
teams.

Whole life costs are broader than TCO of assets, as they include system expansion, additional
fleet to cater to increased demand etc.

2.4 Investment and Funding

2.4.1 Monorail System Procurement and Finance Models

Once the Monorail system has been properly defined and a final check on feasibility has been
performed, the resulting project is ready to be procured. In this chapter, post-planning
procurement activities are described. For each step, there are decisions about options within the
project's procurement, implementation, and operations phases.

This chapter defines the typical standard procurement contracting approaches and procurement
processes.

The contracting approach is the way the work is divided into packages (contracts) that best suit
the nature of the project and the parties expected to carry it out. The procurement methodology
is the procedure used to select the team that will do the work defined in the contract approach.
TCRP Report 131: A Guide- book for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods is an excellent
resource on this topic.

Public Transport page 94

The contracting approach is the way the work is packaged in contracts that best suit the nature of
the project and the parties expected to carry it out. The work of a Monorail project can best be
divided into two general areas:

Operating system—The operating system includes all of the mechanical and electrical equipment
that make up the Monorail system (vehicles, automatic train control system, communications
systems, power distribution system, station equipment, guideway equipment, safety equipment,
other equipment, and the maintenance equipment and tools).

Fixed facilities—Fixed facilities are the buildings, spaces within buildings, building mechanical and
electrical systems, guideway structures, stations, power substations, and other structures and
civil works associated with and in support of the Monorail.

Assigning the work should be based on ‘who does what the best’ and ‘who can best control the
risks’ of that part of the project.

The operating systems of Monorails are typically proprietary, often with patented designs, and
are usually available only as unique complete packages. Therefore, it is best that at least the
operating system be delivered through a single contract with a qualified supplier.

Minimizing interfaces, conflicts, and contractor dependencies should be among the deciding
factors in assigning the work of the fixed facilities. Facility work that is not involved with other
construction (such as commercial spaces, landscaping, or other disconnected builds) and that is
related only to the Monorail can be packaged with the operating system or designed and built
separately. Having different contractors working in the same spaces can create conflicts. Where
there are interfaces between the work of separate contractors, they will be dependent on each
other for the correctness of the interfaces and the schedule. Such conflicts, disagreements over
interfaces, and schedule delays can lead to claims being filed by the contractors and an increase in
costs. More contracts mean more coordination and management effort and increased risks
associated with managing and controlling the interfaces.

Typically, the Monorail system supplier is not familiar with or qualified to design and construct the
other Monorail facilities, although the supplier must provide system–facility interface information
during both the design and construction phases. Some Monorail system stations are integrated
into other commercial buildings or transportation hubs and other facilities.

This will affect the approach taken to procure and implement the Monorail. Often the project is
separated into two or more contracts: one for the operating system and one or more for the
facilities (which may be part of larger facility projects).

The infrastructure owners rarely want to operate and maintain an actual train system, unless they
have experience operating and maintaining a train system. However, many times, the Monorail
system supplier is perceived as the organization that best knows the system, including its O&M
and the owning entity usually wants to ensure that the system operates as required for a
significant period of time, particularly as it is proprietary and the detailed design and
implementation is usually done by the supplier, with any problems being solved by the supplier.
Finally, if the procurement process includes pricing an O&M period, the owning entity can receive
a competitive package for the system and its O&M.

Thus, it is frequent that clients will opt to have the system supplier perform all O&M services for
at least several years. Three to 5 years is typical, and usually the contract is renewable for at least
one more term at the owner’s option. Subsequent periods are often negotiated, but occasionally

Public Transport page 95

they are competed among the supplier and third parties. Variations on this include the public
transportation operator staff overseeing the operations and the supplier performing
maintenance. A few owning entities do both or have contracted with a third party for both or for
maintenance, usually after an initial period undertaken by the supplier.

2.4.2 Procurement Methodology

Many procurement methodologies can be used for Monorail systems. Typical procurement
alternatives include:

▪ Design-bid-build
▪ Limited design-build
▪ Split design-build
▪ Design build
▪ Design-build-operate-maintain

These broad categories are discussed in the subsequent sub-sections. There can be variations to
each approach; only the basic procurement concept is discussed in these subsections.

Conventional Design-Bid-Build (DBB)

DBB is the conventional project procurement approach under which the owning entity contracts
separately with a designer(s) and construction contractor(s). The design entity provides detailed,
prescriptive design (plans and specifications) documents. The owning entity subsequently solicits
fixed price bids from construction contractors to perform the work provided in the design
documents. The contractor is usually selected on the basis of the lowest price. The owning entity
and design entities may separate the project design documents into multiple specialty contracts.

This approach requires the owning entity to award and administer separate contracts to each
contractor. This alternative allows the owning entity to retain maximum design control, but also
carries the responsibility and risk for designs, contractor coordination, integration, and
scheduling. The owning entity would need a large staff or set of consultants for detailed design,
contract administration, and project/construction management to assume the responsibility for
these multiple contracts. It would be responsible for the cost, schedule, and technical risks of the
project and the integration and interfaces among the many contracts. With such a separation of
project aspects, the owning entity usually undertakes the O&M functions as well.

This approach is often followed for urban rail transit projects.

Limited Design-Build
With a limited design-build (sometimes called limited turnkey) project approach, the owning
entity and its system consultant develop performance specifications for the system elements,
usually as a complete system. The owning entity and its architectural and engineering consultants
develop detailed design plans and specifications for the facilities. The owning entity then
contracts with a single entity to perform all Monorail operating system design, manufacture,
implementation, and tests under a single design- build contract. The facilities are each designed,
procured, and built separately using the conventional design-bid-build method.

This alternative allows the owning entity to retain facility design control, but transfers most of the
system integration responsibility to the Monorail contractor, except possibly for the interfaces

Public Transport page 96

among the operating system and facilities. Interfaces can be led by the owning entity and its
system and project management consultants, or this responsibility can be assigned contractually
to the system contractor.

Split Design-Build
The split design-build (sometimes called split turnkey) approach is the same as the limited turnkey
alternative with respect to the operating system. However, with this approach, all the Monorail
facilities are contracted to a single entity that will perform all final design and construction under
a second design-build contract. This consolidates all facilities’ design and construction into a
single point of contact.

These alternative transfers most of the integration to the contractors and limits much of the
owning entity’s risk. The owning entity can retain the responsibility for integration of the
operating system and facilities, which are usually done with the assistance of its system and
project management consultants, or the responsibility can be assigned to the system or facilities
contractor.

Design-Build
The DB approach, sometimes called a turnkey approach, allows the owning entity the maximum
opportunity to reduce costs and schedule risks by contracting with a single entity for design and
construction of the entire project, for both system and facilities. With this alternative, the
contractor assumes responsibility for all the detailed design, construction, integration, schedule,
and cost risks, and the owning entity has one organization to go to.

The single procurement and internalized project integration can result in a shorter overall
schedule. The owning entity has a large, consolidated package for procurement. The owning
entity and its system and facility design team take the design to about the 30% level, enough to
define the project thoroughly and obtain valid prices. The owning entity subsequently loses some
control of the detailed design and construction packaging and implementation. It will want to
retain some design and schedule control over the project due to specific operational needs; this is
possible with proper use of design reviews and payment milestones and the use of an overall
project management team.

Because no single contractor has all the needed expertise in Monorail systems and facilities, the
owning entity selects a team with all the requisite capabilities. Particularly if a low-bid process is
used, the winning team might not include the best Monorail technology, the best designers and
the best construction contractors. To obtain the best of each category, the owning entity could
procure each major contractor separately and then require that the separate winning contractors
form a team. This approach has the potential problem of contractors that are not compatible, and
thus increases the owning entity’s risks and integration responsibilities, partly negating the
possible advantages of having a single team. With this approach, the contractor team leader is
often the construction contractor because it has bonding and management capabilities. The
owning entity or a third party would have O&M responsibilities. Construction and design
contractors typically want to do their work, be paid, and move on; they do not want to retain
longer-term responsibilities such as for O&M. If the system is supplied by a Monorail supplier, it
could be retained to provide O&M services.

Public Transport page 97

Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM)
The DBOM (sometimes called super turnkey) approach transfers the operations and maintenance
of the system to the contractor in addition to the design and construction of the operating
system and facilities.

The advantage to the owning entity is that the contractor will be responsible for all aspects of the
Monorail design and construction, as well as the operations and maintenance of the system.
Typically, however, the O&M contract will be with the system supplier and not the entire
contractor team.

A possible advantage of this approach is that the schedule for procurement and construction
might be reduced.

The owning entity gives up considerable control of all aspects of the project. This makes the
contractual and procurement documents and phases critical to the success of the project.

A variation of the DBOM approach is where the owning entity operates the Monorail system
while the contractor maintains the system. This approach is abbreviated as DB-M.

Public-Private Partnership (PPP)

In the past several years, this approach, also called P3 (or in FTA parlance, Penta-P), has become
more prevalent in the United States. This approach is similar to the DBOM/super turnkey
approach but with a mix of public and private funding. The public agencies control the project in
terms of procurement, general design (approximately 30%), environmental clearances,
jurisdictional coordination, project oversight, and considerable percentage of the construction
cost. Private funding is used to cover the remaining construction cost and repayments are usually
made via operating budget.

This approach may be considered for other Monorail projects if the required funding is not initially
available and other conditions are conducive. It is, however, only an alternate funding
mechanism.

2.4.3 Procurement Process Alternatives

This section discusses two procurement process alternatives: sole source and competitive.

Sole Source Procurement

In a non-competitive, sole-source procurement, the owning entity determines that only one
supplier is capable of or is strongly preferred for the delivery of the Monorail system. State and
local statutes/ordinances usually permit agencies to make this determination if they can
demonstrate that a sole- source procurement is in the best interest of the project (due to existing
conditions, budget, and/or schedule) and that a competitive procurement process would not yield
any greater benefits. In such a case, the owning entity enters into negotiations with the selected
supplier, and when the contractual terms, scope of work, and price are agreed, a contract is
awarded. Usually this is used for an extension to an existing system that the selected supplier
installed initially, and due to the proprietary nature of the technology, no other supplier can do
the work.

In almost all cases when the Monorail will be newly built and is not an expansion or addition to an
existing system, there are multiple technologies that can provide the required service. Thus, a

Public Transport page 98

sole-source procurement is not justified, and a competitive procurement approach should be
pursued.

Competitive Procurement
Many different competitive procurement processes have been used successfully for public
procurements of transit systems. Three basic types are:

▪ Competitive one-step
▪ Competitive two-step (low bid)
▪ Competitive negotiated procurement (best value)

These types are explained in the following subsections. There are many variations involving these
approaches. The exact procedure should be developed in compliance with the owning entity’s
customary contracting and procurement procedures and applicable laws and regulations.

In all of these, an owning entity can first use a request for information/interest (RFI) to determine
the potential suppliers that might participate in the procurement.

Typically, the RFI will include a summary description of the project (initial and ultimate), and a list
of information requested, such as general information about the supplier’s technology(ies),
specific technical solutions with the supplier’s technology for the project, experience with similar
projects, financial capabilities and strengths, project management approaches and tools, and the
like.

This can be the initial formal step of a procurement or an informal seeking of information. As part
of the formal process, there will also be information about screening criteria to select a shorter
list for the next step in the process. In this case, some suppliers that express interest might be
removed from consideration, either because they and/or their technology did not meet project
requirements, or they did not respond to the RFI.

The RFI should be sent to all known suppliers and advertised in trade journals and other media
that will reach the widest audience. Typically, this is a two- to three-month-long step, depending
on the administrative and legal requirements of the owning entity.

The next step (or possibly first step) in the process can be a request for qualifications (RFQ).

This is always a part of the formal procurement process. It is used to pre-screen potential
proposers and technologies to focus the list to a set of well-qualified ones.

The RFQ contains the same sort of information and response requirements as an RFI. This formal
pre-qualification process can save the owning entity the time and expense of evaluating
proposals from unqualified proposers/technologies, as well as saving prospective proposers who
are not qualified the cost of preparing a proposal. Because the RFQ is an additional step, it
normally extends the length of the procurement process by several months. Alternately, the
owning entity can go directly to the proposal stage without any such screening.

If an RFI or RFQ is not used, then the owning entity should notify all known suppliers and give the
RFP extensive advertising/publicity.

Public Transport page 99

Competitive One-Step
The competitive one-step procurement approach is characterized by a solicitation by the owning
entity to which potential contractors submit their qualifications (if no RFQ) and technical,
management, commercial, and price proposals all at one time. The RFP is developed in detail by
the owning entity and its consultant. This package includes everything the proposers need to
submit a complete and responsive proposal:

▪ The instructions to proposers (which includes summary evaluation criteria as well as a list of
everything required to be included in the proposal),
▪ A detailed description of the project (plans and drawings to the 30% design level):
1. The contract:
­ General terms and conditions [often standard for the owning entity, but modified
for a design-build type (DB, DB-M, DBOM, etc.) contract],
2. Special (management) provisions.
­ Technical provisions (performance specifications),
3. O&M provisions (often a separate O&M contract), and
4. Project reference drawings.

The RFP specifies precisely the information required in the proposal. Typically, these instructions
and the format are detailed so that the owning entity can clearly compare and evaluate each
proposal against the criteria and against other proposals.

The owning entity evaluates the responses using a detailed evaluation plan, which is important in
order to avoid or defend against challenges to the selection. The evaluation plan includes detailed
evaluation criteria (and weightings as appropriate) and is established in advance. The criteria
normally include such items as demonstrated successful experience in designing, implementing,
and operating systems similar to the project; evidence that equipment is technically mature and
capable of satisfying the availability and other performance requirements; compliance with
provisions in the contract; corporate resources sufficient to back up performance guarantees and
warranties; demonstrated ability to complete projects of similar size and complexity on time and
within budget; experience and capabilities of key personnel; aesthetic compatibility and physical
and structural fit of the system in the provided facilities; and ability to accomplish future
expansion.

Based on the evaluation and comparison of proposals, the owning entity makes a determination
on responsibility and responsiveness and then selects the lowest price or best value.

At any point in any of these processes, the owning entity may decide to award the contract,
cancel the procurement, or re-advertise the procurement.

Competitive Two-Step
The competitive two-step procurement approach can be used when the potential suppliers or
their products or services being solicited might not be considered equal in terms of technical
merit, quality, or price.

Step one. This step consists of a partial RFP being sent to the list of potential proposers. The
partial RFP includes all aspects of a full RFP except for pricing. (Any pricing data will typically
disqualify a proposal in step one). The technical, management, and qualifications information are
then evaluated in accordance with the evaluation plan to determine the acceptability and ranking

Public Transport page 100

of the proposers. There can be one or more iterations for clarification questions, with updated
proposals being submitted by each proposer. Addendums to the RFP can be issued; final,
conformed proposals are submitted and evaluated. The final, complete proposal must be in
conformance with the RFP, including all clarifications and addenda. Final non-priced proposals are
categorized as either qualified or not qualified for price proposals.

At the end of this (single or iterative) step, proposers deemed by the owning entity to be qualified
for the project are invited to participate in step two. Those proposers found to be not qualified
will be notified of the reason(s) for this determination and will not be permitted to proceed
further.

Step two. Upon successful completion of step one, an invitation to submit price proposals will be
issued to those firms whose step one proposals have been qualified (the competitive range). This
could be all or a few of the step one proposals. Typically, two or three proposals are wanted in
the competitive range.

The owning entity then evaluates the price proposals, again based on the evaluation plan, which
includes reasonableness. If a low-price approach is used and the competitive range has been
judged in step one to be essentially equal, then the owning entity selects the proposer submitting
the lowest total fixed-price bid for the Monorail procurement and the Monorail O&M contract. If
there are options included in the RFP, the prices for these options can also be included, but the
selected options should be determined in advance.

If a best-value approach is used, then the weighted scores from step one and the step two
proposals are summed and the proposer with the highest score is selected. The best-value
approach considers price and other factors to arrive at the proposer that offers the best overall
value to the owning entity. The evaluation criteria must be clear, as must the process to arrive at
the final score. There are multiple ways of doing this given in the literature. One that has been
used successfully in several transit procurements is based on a numerical approach. Each
evaluation criterion is disaggregated into a number of specific categories or requirements. Each is
weighted. Numerical ratings are given to each proposer on each item (typically a 5-scale: 0, 1, 2, 3,
4), depending on whether and how well the item is met. The ratings and weightings are applied to
technical, management, qualification, and price aspects of the proposal. The sum of these ratings
and weightings is then used to select the best value proposal.

Again, at any point in the process, the owning entity may decide to award the contract, cancel the
procurement, or re-advertise the procurement.

Competitive Negotiated Procurement

The competitive negotiated procurement approach is a method whereby the contract award is
made based on price and other evaluation factors considered in the best interest of the owning
entity. The owning entity has the ability to negotiate with multiple proposers at the same time in
strict confidence on all matters in the proposals.

In the approach, the owning entity solicits proposals via the RFP process. The respondents are
required to submit their qualifications and technical, management, and price proposals at the
same time but in separate envelopes. No cost, price, or financial information is to be included in
the technical or management proposals. Initial evaluations of these proposals are completed
without knowledge of price and financial data in order to ensure that such evaluations are

Public Transport page 101

objective and free from any low-price bias. Proposers and proposals are rated and ranked based
on these non-price proposals, by either a quantitative or qualitative procedure.

After opening the price proposals, in confidence, the owning entity evaluates them; then, in
conjunction with the technical, management, and qualifications parts of the proposals, it
determines the competitive range. The owning entity can then conduct separate negotiations on
technical, management, pricing, and other matters, in strict confidence with each of the suppliers
with proposals found to be in the competitive range.

Upon completion of negotiations, the owning entity requests best and final offers (BAFOs). The
BAFO follows the same format as the initial proposals and can include updates on any or all
aspects of the proposal requested by the owning entity. BAFOs are evaluated in accordance with
the same criteria and procedures as the initial proposal. The best-value award is made on the basis
of price and other evaluation factors that are considered to be in the best interest of the owning
entity. As with the other approaches, at any point in the process, the owning entity may decide to
award the contract, cancel the procurement, or re-advertise the procurement, including using a
different approach.

The term ‘bid’ is not used in the competitive negotiated procurement method. The acceptability
and quality of a proposal is assessed in terms of a set of requirements and evaluation criteria.
Most competitive negotiated procurements score the qualifications of the suppliers as part of the
basis for the award. Even with a best-value approach, price is usually considered the key
evaluation factor because it is the determinant of project affordability and proposal value.

Before soliciting proposals, the owning entity must determine whether to evaluate the
responsive proposals on the basis of the lowest price or to score them using predetermined
criteria to identify the best overall value to the owning entity. The best value may be based on a
predetermined weighted combination of the price, technical merit, management, qualifications,
and/or commercial scores or a ranking.

2.4.4 PPP Models

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) are collaborative agreements between government entities and
private sector companies to finance, build, and operate mass transit projects. These partnerships
leverage the strengths of both sectors to deliver efficient and effective transit solutions. Here are
some concise PPP models commonly used in mass transit:

Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)
Description: The private sector designs, finances, builds, and operates the transit system for a
specified period. After the contract ends, ownership is transferred to the public sector.

Example: A private company constructs a new monorail line and operates it for 20 years before
handing it over to the city government.

Public Transport page 102

Build-Own-Operate (BOO)
Description: The private entity designs, builds, owns, and operates the transit system indefinitely.
The government might regulate service standards and fares.

Example: A private firm develops and runs a monorail system, retaining ownership and operation
rights.

Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO)
Description: The private sector is responsible for designing, building, financing, and operating the
project. The public sector retains ownership and may provide payments based on performance.

Example: A consortium constructs a monorail system, operates it, and receives payments tied to
service quality and ridership levels.

Concession Agreement
Description: The government grants a private company the right to operate and maintain an
existing transit system, usually involving significant upgrades and expansions.

Example: A private operator takes over a city's aging metro system, invests in modernization, and
manages operations under a long-term concession.

Lease-Develop-Operate (LDO)
Description: The public sector leases existing infrastructure to a private company, which then
develops and operates the system.

Example: A private entity leases a monorail line, upgrades it, and runs passenger services, sharing
revenue with the government.

Joint Venture
Description: Both public and private sectors jointly invest, develop, and manage the transit
project, sharing risks and rewards.

Example: A city government and a private company co-invest in a monorail project, jointly
managing construction and operations.

Benefits of PPP Models

▪ Efficiency: Leveraging private sector expertise can lead to more efficient project delivery
and operations.
▪ Risk Sharing: Risks are distributed between public and private partners, reducing the
financial burden on the public sector.
▪ Innovation: Private companies often bring innovative solutions and technologies to transit
projects.
▪ Financing: Access to private capital can accelerate project timelines and reduce the need for
public funding.

Public Transport page 103

Conclusion
PPP models in mass transit offer a variety of structures to suit different project needs and
contexts. By combining public oversight with private sector efficiency, these models aim to
deliver high-quality transit solutions that are sustainable and responsive to public needs.

2.5 Future Expansion Consideration

Effective expansion of mass transit systems requires analyzing population growth and economic
trends, incorporating green technologies, and planning for equitable access. In this way,
incorporating future transit projects allows expansions to meet rising demands while reducing
environmental impact and enhancing community satisfaction. This multifaceted approach ensures
that the transit systems remain efficient, adaptable, and sustainable in the face of evolving urban
needs.

2.5.1 Key Considerations for System Expansion

Performance of the Existing Fleet: Evaluating the current fleet's performance is crucial in
deciding when to expand the system. The factors driving the need for expansion or extension are
similar to those for establishing a new system.

Fleet Expansion and Increased Passenger Demand: Fleet expansion becomes necessary when
passenger demand exceeds the current system capacity. To increase capacity, the system can:

▪ Increase the frequency of trains (reduce headway).

▪ Increase the length of trains (add more vehicles per train).
▪ Implement a combination of both strategies.

When operating at maximum capacity, these changes will require a larger fleet and potentially
more maintenance resources, which may also necessitate an expansion of the Maintenance and
Storage Facility (MSF).

System Extension and Adding New Stations: System extensions involve expanding the guideway
to serve additional stations. This process includes:

▪ Installing new guideway and associated equipment (e.g., power rails, control elements,
switches).
▪ Equipping new stations with necessary infrastructure.

Fleet Considerations: Extending the system may require additional vehicles, although sometimes
the existing fleet may be sufficient. If more vehicles are needed, they must be procured.
Additionally, the MSF may need to be expanded or relocated depending on the extension details.

Process for Reviewing and Selecting Expansion Options

When considering either fleet expansion or system extension, a thorough multi-step process is
essential to review options and select the best approach. The steps in this process are as follows:

1. Assess Current System Performance: Evaluate the existing fleet and system capabilities.
2. Identify Demand and Capacity Needs: Analyze passenger demand and determine necessary
capacity increases.

Public Transport page 104

 3. Develop Expansion Plans: Create detailed plans for either fleet expansion or system
extension.
4. Evaluate Infrastructure Requirements: Assess the need for additional guideway, equipment,
and station infrastructure.
5. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Conduct a comprehensive analysis of costs and benefits for each
option.
6. Procure Additional Resources: If needed, acquire additional vehicles and expand
maintenance facilities.
7. Implement Expansion: Execute the chosen expansion strategy efficiently.
8. Monitor and Adjust: Continuously monitor system performance and make necessary
adjustments.

This structured approach ensures that any expansion or extension of the monorail system is
thoroughly evaluated and effectively implemented, meeting the growing needs of the passenger
demand.

Typical fields of investigation

Topic Contents
Demand Forecasting ▪ Analyze current and projected population growth, urbanization
trends, and economic activity.
▪ Utilize data analytics and modelling to predict future ridership
and transit needs.

Sustainability ▪ Integrate green technologies such as electric or hydrogen-

powered vehicles.
▪ Plan for reduced carbon emissions, energy efficiency, and
environmental impact.

Funding and Financing ▪ Explore diverse funding sources, including public funds, private
investments, and international grants.
▪ Implement innovative financing mechanisms like value capture
and congestion pricing.

Technology Integration ▪ Incorporate smart technologies for real-time tracking, fare

collection, and passenger information systems.
▪ Plan for autonomous vehicles and other emerging transit
technologies.

Infrastructure Scalability ▪ Design adaptable and modular infrastructure that can be

expanded or upgraded with minimal disruption.
▪ Ensure that new transit lines are compatible with existing
systems.

Community Impact ▪ Engage with local communities to address concerns and

incorporate feedback.
▪ Plan for equitable access, considering underserved and low-
income areas.

Public Transport page 105

 Intermodal Connectivity ▪ Enhance connections between different modes of transport
(e.g., buses, trains, bikes, and pedestrian pathways).
▪ Develop integrated ticketing and seamless transfer systems.

Regulatory and Policy ▪ Update regulations to accommodate new technologies and

Framework operational models.
▪ Ensure policies support long-term transit development and
operational efficiency.

Risk Management ▪ Identify and mitigate potential risks, including financial,

operational, and environmental risks.
▪ Develop contingency plans for unexpected challenges.

Operational Efficiency ▪ Optimize route planning, scheduling, and resource allocation.

▪ Implement maintenance strategies to ensure reliability and
longevity of transit assets.

By considering these factors, mass transit systems can be effectively expanded to meet future
demands, ensuring sustainability, efficiency, and community satisfaction.

2.5.2 Strategies for Fleet Expansion vs. Longer Trains

In the context of urban rail transit systems, expanding capacity to accommodate growing
passenger demand is a critical challenge. Two primary strategies for fleet expansion are
commonly considered: operating shorter trains at higher frequencies or using longer trains at the
same frequency. Each approach has distinct advantages and considerations from the perspectives
of passengers, operators, and system owners.

Shorter Trains with Higher Frequency

Passenger Point of View:

1. Reduced Wait Times: Increasing the frequency of shorter trains means passengers spend
less time waiting at stations. This can significantly improve the overall journey experience.
2. Flexibility: More frequent trains can provide greater flexibility for passengers, allowing
them to plan their travel more conveniently and reducing the impact of missed
connections.
3. Perceived Reliability: Frequent service often translates into a perception of higher
reliability and efficiency, which can boost passenger satisfaction and encourage public
transit use.

Public Transport page 106

Owner Point of View:

1. Asset Utilization: Operating more frequent trains might require a higher number of trains
in service, increasing initial capital expenditure on rolling stock. However, this can lead to
better utilization of infrastructure and rolling stock.
2. Operational Costs: Increased frequency may result in higher operational costs, including
staffing, maintenance, and energy consumption. Careful calculation and planning are
needed to balance these costs with expected revenue from increased ridership.

Operator Point of View:

1. Operational Flexibility: Shorter, more frequent trains provide greater operational

flexibility to respond to varying demand throughout the day, such as peak and off-peak
periods.
2. Signaling and Scheduling: Implementing higher frequency services requires robust
signaling systems and precise scheduling to ensure trains run smoothly without delays.
This can necessitate investment in advanced train control systems.

Infrastructure Considerations:

1. Platform Availability: Stations must be capable of handling the increased frequency of

trains, including sufficient platform space and facilities to manage passenger flow.
2. Signaling Impacts: Enhanced systems are required to safely manage shorter headways
between trains, ensuring safe and efficient operations.

Case Study: Okinawa

The Okinawa Urban Monorail system initially operated 2-car trains but expanded with additional
3-car trains to meet the rising demand. Alongside the increase in train length, service frequency
was also enhanced, providing a dual approach to capacity expansion.

Longer Trains with the Same Frequency

Passenger Point of View:

1. Capacity: Longer trains can carry more passengers per trip, reducing overcrowding,
especially during peak hours.
2. Consistency: Maintaining the same frequency ensures that passengers can rely on a
consistent schedule, which can be crucial for daily commuters.

Owner Point of View:

1. Capital Investment: Extending train length typically requires substantial investment in

purchasing additional vehicles and potentially upgrading existing infrastructure, such as
platforms and maintenance facilities.
2. Efficiency: While longer trains can carry more passengers per trip, this approach might
optimize the use of existing infrastructure without necessitating a significant increase in
the number of trains.

Public Transport page 107

Operator Point of View:

1. Operational Consistency: Running longer trains with the same frequency can simplify
scheduling and reduce the complexity of operations, as the headway between trains
remains unchanged.
2. Maintenance and Energy Efficiency: Longer trains might lead to higher individual train
maintenance costs but can be more energy-efficient on a per-passenger basis compared
to more frequent, shorter trains.

Infrastructure Considerations:

1. Platform Extensions: Stations need to have platforms long enough to accommodate

longer trains, which may require upgrades and investment.
2. Capacity Utilization: The effectiveness of longer trains depends on high occupancy rates;
underutilized long trains can lead to inefficient operations and higher per-passenger costs.

Case Study: Cairo

The Cairo Metro started with 4-car trains and expanded to 8-car trains as demand increased. This
strategy allowed the system to significantly boost capacity without altering the frequency of
service, leveraging existing infrastructure and scheduling frameworks.

Custom-Based Solutions
The choice between shorter, more frequent trains and longer trains at the same frequency is not
one-size-fits-all and must be tailored to the specific needs of the transit system, passenger
demand, and operational capabilities. Factors such as platform length, signaling system
capabilities, ridership patterns, and financial resources all play a role in determining the most
appropriate strategy. The ultimate goal is to balance capacity enhancements with cost-efficiency,
operational flexibility, and passenger satisfaction, ensuring that the chosen approach aligns with
the long-term vision and growth of the transit system.

Public Transport page 108

3 Urban Transit Technology Selection
When an owner/operator plans a transit line there are many urban transit technologies to choose
from including bus, tram or LRV, APM, Monorail, light metro (LRT), and heavy metro (MRT) for
mass transit applications. Each technology offers a range of system capacity and operating
speeds, and each has advantages and disadvantages in terms of capital cost, operation and
maintenance cost, and so on. Often more than one technology may be suitable for a particular
application, and the process of selecting the right technology is complex and time consuming.

This chapter (Urban Transit Technology Selection) discusses each of the technologies; their target
application, cost impact, quality of service impact and so on. Guidelines for selecting a technology
are provided; for example, under what conditions an owner/operator or application user should
select monorail as the best fit technology for their requirements.

It is important to make a technology selection in the early stages of a project to avoid wasting
resources in evaluating clearly sub-optimum solutions. The ideal process is for an owner/operator
to select the technology that meets its needs and preferences, and then optimize that technology
for the application. Early selection of the right technology will make a city’s project more viable in
planning, more successful in implementation, and less expensive for the total turnkey system.

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to offer guidelines on urban transit technology selection. The
selection process should occur in the earliest stages of urban transit system planning, providing
guidance for a more successful transit project implementation. This will encourage more buy-in
from public and political parties and attract funding. The benefits of early technology selection
include:

▪ Early planning of marketing and communications for the transit project,

▪ Better acceptance by politicians, the public and potential special groups (e.g. minorities),
▪ Lower cost through early focus on the most efficient technology for the application,
▪ Better integration with the existing transit network and city infrastructure, resulting in
better connectivity and less travel time for commuters,
▪ Early investigation of needs and sources of funds, with potential for early funding.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 109

 Table 3: Key characteristics of transportation modes comparison
Autonomous
Monorail APM Light Metro Metro
GRT 1 Bus/BRT LRV / Tram
Item Primarily Elevated & Elevated & At Grade &
Repurposed Shared Street Shared Street
Elevated Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel
Street
System < 500 typical < 2,000 < 5,500 2,500 < 25,000 2,500 < 25,000 8,000 < 40,000 30,000 <
Capacity < 1,500 per 100,000
[PPHPD] berth
Construction Very Low Very Low Low Medium Medium Medium High
Cost
Construction Very Short Very Short Medium Short Medium Medium Long
Schedule (repurpose street) (Existing street) (utilities relocation) (Light precast beam) (Elevated Deck) (Elevated Deck) (Tunneling)

Commercial 10 < 15 km/h Typically below Typically below Typically from Typically from Typically from Typically from
Speed mixed 20 km/h 20 km/h 30 to 40 km/h 25 to 40 km/h 30 to 40 km/h 30 to 40 km/h
<20+ km/h
exclusive
Headway Typical 2–5 Typ.10 minutes Typ10 minutes Typ 2-5 Typ 2-5 Typ 2-5 Typ 3-5
Typical / minutes min. 5 minutes min. 5 minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes
minimum minimum 30- min. 90 sec min. 90 sec min. 90 sec min. 120 sec
60 sec
Urban Fit Follows Street Follows Street 25 m curves 46 m curve 22 m curves 140 m / 4% 140 m curves
Winter Winter 6% grades 6% grades 6% grades (Rotary) 4% grades
limitation limitation (sand) 35 m / 6%
(LIM)2
Relief of Traffic Limited - Limited – Limited – Excellent - Excellent – Excellent - Excellent -
Congestion adds adds adds Elevated Elevated Elevated Underground
congestion congestion congestion
Noise and Low – Electric High – Diesel High – steel rail Low – rubber Low – rubber Medium Medium
Vibration & at grade tire & elevated tire & elevated (conventional) (non-steered
Low – Electric Low (steered bogie)
LIM bogie)2
Energy Medium to High Medium to High Medium Low Low Low Medium
Consumption (weight/pass space, (weight/pass space, (weight/pass space) (weight/pass space) (weight/pass space) (weight/pass space) (weight/pass space)
tires) tires)
Safety Limited - SIL2 / Accidents Accidents SIL4 - Very SIL4 - Very SIL4 - Very SIL 4 - Very
SIL3 common. common. safe. safe. safe. safe.
Speed Fatalities occur Fatalities occur Segregated & Segregated & Segregated & Segregated &
limitations ATO ATO ATO ATO
Life Cycle Medium to High High – Medium to High Medium to High Medium to High Medium Medium -
Costs Per – (Driver, tires, diesel, – (driver, (Driverless, tires) (Driverless, tires) (Conventional) (Driverless,
design life) Low (driverless, conventional bogie)
passenger (Tires, batteries, conventional bogie,
design life) track) steered LIM bogie)2

FAIR BETTER BEST

1: Autonomous GRT is a developing technology

2: LIM - Linear Induction Motor powered light metro with steered bogie technology
Source: International Monorail Association 2015 Monorailex Conference, Las Vegas
Urban Transit Technology Selection
Tim Zhang1, Peter Timan2, Régis Grattard3

The table explains the different modes of transportation for mass transit and provides a relative
comparison of key performance characteristics. One of the leading criteria is the passenger
capacity as it defines the lead input measure for further evaluation. This measure will focus
quickly on the system that will make sense for a particular application. One further important
characteristic is the total life cycle cost as it impacts long-term aspects. Other characteristics may
be weighted different depending on specific priorities.

Comparison of Technology
Table 3 compares the technologies mentioned, in terms of the major features that can help a
customer decide which technology is optimal for its applications.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 110

Major Criteria of Technology Selection
There are many factors that affect technology selection, including:

▪ System design capacity,

▪ Capital cost,
▪ Urban fits or alignment limitation (curve, grade, availability of space, etc.),
▪ Type of line (number of stations, distance and time between 2 stations…),
▪ Construction time,
▪ Aesthetics,
▪ Service quality (travel time, headway, connectivity),
▪ Owner/operator preference,
▪ Safety and driverless consideration,
▪ Passenger acceptance,
▪ Operation and maintenance cost,
▪ Funding availability.

Urban Fit and Alignment Limitations

Elevated intermediate capacity transit technologies, such as APM, monorail and light metro, offer
economical mass transit solutions for cities that cannot afford a heavy metro system. They are
also sustainable solutions for cities with lower ridership demand than heavy metro.

The benefit of small curve and steep grade capabilities is that a transit line can be planned around
existing buildings or along exiting streets, resulting in low land acquisition and relocation costs.
These features of elevated technology should be considered when planning a transit system.

Other Factors
Other important factors include a city’s, or its residents’, preferences, acceptance and service
quality requirements.

The following section of this chapter offers an evaluation matrix to take into consideration those
factors or any other factors an owner/operator may wish to include.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 111

3.2 Process of Technology Selection

The planning process of urban transportation can be described in a stepwise approach:

▪ Identify key principles in your urban planning policy that would be enabled by the proposed
project
▪ Identify key parameters from the planning policy that the project will need to address
▪ Consider what a successful complete mobility solution might look like
▪ Evaluate present and potential movement of goods and services in the intended corridor
▪ Prepare transportation studies to identify high level requirements for technology selection
process including inter connectivity with other modes of transportation.

Figure 97: Requirements environment for mobility solutions

Source: Bombardier Transportation, illustration by IMA

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 112

3.2.1 Technology Selection - Step 1
Functional Requirements

Core or must-have functional requirements.

The following table identifies essential system parameters required to ensure a successful project.

The hypothetical project data is shown as an example, however for each specific application the
system requirements might be different.

Hypothetical Project

System Parameter System Requirement Comments

System Capacity Ultimate 15,000 [PPHPD] Initial 5,000 [PPHPD]
System Length 20 km Dual Lane
System Capital Budget 400 MUSD, Initial System 20 MUSD/km,
RFP Key Parameters Life Cycle Cost 30-year system planning life
System Safety GAO4 ATO Service Proven History
System Route Existing Urban Core Dense, extensive utilities
Grades at surface Up to 6% Hilly terrain
Avoid infrastructure
Curve Radii 50 meter in key locations
destruction
Sensitive cultural
Aesthetics Critical Aesthetics
infrastructure
Climate 5 C to 40 C Temperate
Other Key Parameters…

Other key parameters might be system availability or combined functionalities such steep grade
with capacity.

In addition, a key consideration might be service frequency particularly when inter-connecting

with other lines.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 113

3.2.2 Technology Selection – Step 2
Limit Potential Technologies Based on Capacity

Determine required system initial and ultimate capacity [pphpd] (maximum capacity between any
two points)

Focus on those technologies that can best accommodate projected capacity requirements.

1
[pphpd] : Passengers Per Hour Per Direction
2
Commercial speed : average round trip time (including station dwell, charging time, travel time) divided by distance for a typical route

Figure 98: Capacity and commercial speed of transit technologies

Source: International Monorail Association, Monorailex Conference 2015, Las Vegas
Urban Transit Technology Selection

Capacity
System design capacity should be the first factor to consider when selecting a transit technology.
Typically, if the system capacity required is over 40,000 pphpd it is economical to consider heavy
metro from the beginning. Unless there are issues such construction time or geotechnical
limitations, other technologies may not even need to be considered. The previous chart (Figure
98) offers a general guideline on how to select technology based on capacity. The capacity range
here is a typical optimum range for each technology, but there may be exceptions.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 114

3.2.3 Technology Selection – Step 3
Confirm Selected Technology Options are Affordable

Align technology options with local affordability.

Differentiation can be made between initial cost and total life cycle cost.

Establish appropriate budgetary planning and financing.

1
[pphpd] : Passengers Per Hour Per Direction
2
Commercial speed : average round trip time (including station dwell, charging time, travel time) divided by distance for a typical route

Figure 99: Capital Cost of Technologies

Source: International Monorail Association, Monorailex Conference 2015, Las Vegas
Urban Transit Technology Selection

This data shows previous typical project costs and is appropriate to compare relative costs.
However, absolute values need to be adjusted to reflect present day and regional condition.

Based on these cost ranges an owner/operator can decide what is affordable or seek more
funding if the transit need is urgent.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 115

3.2.4 Technology Selection – Step 4
Consider ‘Firm’ System Requirements Using a Decision Tree

This step can be used to identify the range of potential technologies for further evaluation.

This decision tree allows a more detailed assessment if multiple technologies can be considered.

Multiple Technologies Comparison Process

Urban fit means considering what could be possible in an application to best meet the
requirement to minimize disruption of existing infrastructure and services.

Urban Fit – At Grade, Elevated, Underground – Gradient, Curve Radii

Environment – Winter Operation, Noise, Safety, Automated Operation

Figure 100: Exclusion procedure based on core requirements - sequence of decision for hypothetical project
Source: International Monorail Association, Monorailex Conference 2015, Las Vegas
Urban Transit Technology Selection

The green marked areas highlight the technologies that meet the specific project requirements.

Figure 100 illustrates part of the technology selection process. The key factor to start with is
capacity. If the required capacity is below 5,500 pphpd, an owner/operator should consider an ‘at-
grade’ type alignment such as bus, BRT, tram or LRV. For capacities between 30,000 and 100,000
pphpd, an owner/operator can consider underground heavy metro. For capacity in the middle
range, from 2,500 and 40,000 pphpd, an elevated alignment for technologies such as APM,
monorail and light metro can all be suitable and other factors should be evaluated to differentiate
between these three technologies. The table above suggests using grade as the next factor to
filter the technology. If the grade is between 4% and 6%, the technology can be APM, monorail or
LIM-powered light metro. Rotary-powered light metro should only be considered for systems
with grades less than 4% for reliable operation.

The next factor is curving capability. APM, monorail, and LIM-powered light metro with steering
bogies can all handle small radius curves (50 m). Conventional light metro can typically only

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 116

negotiate curves down to 120 m. It is possible for conventional steel-wheel rotary motor power
technology to go around smaller curves, but the expectation is that you will have higher wear on
rails, wheels and bogies, the noise level may be unacceptably high, and derailment risk in sharp
curves may become a concern.

The table also lists other factors. The matrix in the next step can be used to rate those factors to
evaluate which technology in the end is the best technology for a specific application.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 117

3.2.5 Technology Selection - Step 5
Add ‘Softer’ Requirements Using Evaluation Matrix

The following weighted table provides a more objective approach to softer requirements.

This matrix is intended to be flexible - configured to fit the specific client and project key
requirements including ‘softer’ requirements.

This 1, 3, 9 weighting method will quickly differentiate those technologies that are better fits for
the specific project application

Other criteria that might be considered may be the following: Ability to attract investment,
carbon footprint, air pollution, etc.
Table 4: Technology evaluation matrix of hypothetical project

Hypothetical Project – Medium Capacity Technologies

Medium Capacity Technologies

Weight APM Monorail Light Metro - LIM

Factors (0-100) 1, 3,9 (1) weighted 1, 3, 9 (1) weighted 1, 3, 9 (1) weighted

Customer
15 9 135 9 135 3 45
preference
Capital cost 25 9 225 9 225 9 225
Construction
20 3 60 9 180 3 60
time
Aesthetics 10 3 30 9 90 3 30
Life cycle
20 3 60 3 60 9 180
cost
Other 10 3 30 3 30 3 30

Total 100 540 720 570

Source: International Monorail Association, Monorailex Conference 2015, Las Vegas
Urban Transit Technology Selection

Many other factors are also important for transit technology selection such as feasibility,
customer preference, public acceptance, capital and O&M costs, construction time, and so on. An
owner/operator can have a rating system to evaluate which technology best fits its needs. The
example in Other criteria that might be considered may be the following: Ability to attract
investment, carbon footprint, air pollution, etc.

Table 4 uses a weighted rating system to compare the three medium capacity technologies. In
this table, an imaginary project is assumed, and each technology is rated in each category
assigning a 1, 3, or 9 based on ‘not suitable’, ‘moderately suitable’ and ‘definitely suitable’
respectively.This method allows the factors that are important to a particular customer to stand
out in the overall evaluation. Customers may use these factors, or add others, and will have a
different weighting priority depending on specific needs. The idea is that this table is flexible and
is offered to provide a reasonably objective evaluation of the potential technologies according to

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 118

a particular customer’s needs.

3.3 Key Project Success Factors is Turnkey Procurement Process

Use turnkey procurement including significant period of operations and maintenance.

One proven success factor for a project is the use of a turnkey system procurement approach as it
is integrating all functions with less risk, optimized interfaces and cohesive supply for all elements
of the civil, wayside, rolling stock, signalling, communication, power supply and distribution,
central control, service and maintenance and operation.

Figure 101: Turnkey procurement approach

Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bombardier Transportation

Include performance-based requirements and one single point of contact.

The turnkey procurement approach can be based on performance-based requirements in order to

achieve the desired results and have the best system delivered. There are different types of
procurement e.g. Design, Build, Operate and Maintain, but Finance could be added.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 119

Figure 102: Simplification through turnkey procurement approach
Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bombardier Transportation

With this approach there is only the need of a single entity contract, which simplifies the whole
process. This ensures a successful full mobility solution on time and on budget.

Figure 103: Advantages of turnkey procurement approach

Source: Illustration by IMA based on Bombardier Transportation

The advantages of this type of procurement are to have a fixed price, shorter implementation
time, a reliable schedule, streamlined procurement with an entrepreneurial mindset, an optimized
complete system, reduced risk and only one responsible party for the delivery session.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 120

3.4 Driverless Technology and its Benefits

Fully automated driverless technology is widely used in urban rail transit systems, with the earliest
driverless system starting operation on the small LRT in the 1967 for London’s Victoria Line.

The first commercial application of an APM started in Tampa in 1971 using APM technology. Light
metro LIM technology started driverless operation in Vancouver in 1986. The first driverless
rubber-tired metro started operation in Paris in 1998 (line 14). The first driverless heavy metro
started operation in Singapore in 2003 (Northeast Line). Many transit authorities have now
adopted driverless technology for new lines, and a number have converted their existing
manually driven systems into driverless systems.

UITP (International Association of Public Transport) tracks driverless ‘metro’ systemgrowth.

Below is a chart from UITP that shows exponential growth of driverless urban transit systems.
These fully automated and driverless systems include not only driverless metro, but also driverless
urban monorail and APM systems.

Figure 104: Total growth in automated metros, measured as km in operation

Source: Illustration by IMA based on World Report on Metro Automation, UITP, 2018

There are significant benefits associated with driverless systems.

▪ Improved safety: Most train accidents are caused by human error.

▪ Shorter headway operation: Computerized, driverless trains do not require human
intervention and are thus not reliant on the slower reaction times of human operators
compared to those of a computer.
▪ Increased system efficiency: Shorter headways are possible resulting in improved ridership
and increased revenues.
▪ Increased system capacity: Trains can be operated more frequently (i.e., at shorter
headways) which allows the system to provide higher capacity with the existing
infrastructure, in particular in the case of special events.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 121

 ▪ Improved customer service quality: Shorter headways provide a more customer-friendly ride
schedule for passengers.
▪ Fully automated systems provide higher commercial speed and thus permitting reduced
fleet size to provide the same required capacity.

Reduced capital cost: Reduced headways permit shorter trains, resulting in shorter station platforms,
and shorter maintenance workshops while offering the same, or better, system capacity than their
longer counterparts. Shorter platforms also mean less station equipment (for example, a reduced
platform screen door system). A shorter maintenance workshop means the maintenance facility and
associated lifting and other equipment will be reduced. Fewer trains means that the overall
maintenance facility size and scope can be reduced. Corrective and preventative maintenance can
also be better planned due to the short trains.

Reduced operation and maintenance cost: Driverless trains do not require onboard personnel or
personnel hosting trains on the storage lines. Removing personnel from the yard improves safety
and efficiency and reduces costs.

Increased flexibility in operation: Without the need for drivers, the control center operator can
change the number of operating trains based on passenger demand without the need to adjust
staffing.

Reduced energy consumption: Driverless systems can optimize the travel time automatically by
maintaining perfectly accurate acceleration, coasting, and braking while also regulating station dwell
times to the exact preferred timing and performing turnback operations in the least amount of time.
They can also incorporate scheduled make-up time in the speed profile which results in trains
conserving energy while having the ability to respond to perturbations caused by passengers.

3.5 Rationale for Selecting each Technology

The following section discusses where each technology might best fit a particular application and
technology limitations are explained.

Why Select Bus?

Bus and BRT are the lowest capital cost and lowest capacity public transit mode assuming the use
of existing roads. They are ideal for small cities or low-capacity transit lines in big cities. BRT’s
system capacity is typically limited to a 2,000 pphpd range. It can be higher with double lanes and
very low headway.

A double lane BRT would take significant road space away and increase congestion for other road
traffic. Another reason that a lower headway is not practical is that each bus requires a driver,
which is also the major component of operational costs.

Today, more and more buses operate with either batteries, hydrogen or biofuel. These buses are
called ‘clean buses’ and they are used in many cities to address the pollution generated by
traditional fossil fuel buses.

Why Select Tram/LRV?

Trams and LRVs are typically low-capacity rail transit systems. The design capacity is in the 5,000
pphpd range. A tram and LRV are an ideal solution for short frequent trips in a city core because

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 122

they operate on the surface. Construction cost is relatively low compared to elevated and
underground systems. Trams only require simple, or no platforms, and passenger accessibility is
most simplified. However, when planning for a tram or LRV project, it is important to know how
much utilities relocation is needed. For some old cities there can be very significant relocation
work, which will significantly drive up construction costs and delays.

Street level systems take already crucial lane space, have multiple traffic interactions, and can
result in many accidents.

Why Select Monorail?

A monorail systems’ ideal application is for capacity in the range of 2,000 - 25,000 pphpd. A
monorail is capable of higher capacity because it uses a grade separated guideway and trains can
be longer and the headway can be lower. There are cities that prefer to use monorails at the
upper end of its capacity because of certain requirements that other technologies cannot meet.
An example is São Paulo Line 15, in the east area of the city. A natural option would have been to
extend the metro line, but the cost of construction of the underground tunnel would be too high
to be viable and construction time would be too long. The monorail alignment follows the
existing road using the median, thus saving significantly in land acquisition compared to other
elevated or at-grade technologies.

Urban fit is another major reason for selecting monorail. Monorail systems can accommodate
grades of up to 6% and curve radii down to 50 meters, permitting the guideway alignment to
optimally follow existing rights of way such as roadways, and a system can be built without the
need to tear down existing infrastructure. The line can also be placed close to buildings due to the
low noise of monorail technology. The narrow guide beam provides minimum visual intrusion
compared to other elevated technologies.

Adding a monorail in a town where little spare road space is available permits cars and vehicles to
continue to use the existing road. The monorail line is built above the street along the exiting
alignment, which generates extra transportation capacity and attracts new riders.

Another key reason for selecting monorail is tourism. With its very large windows and aerial
image, monorail is known for its sleek and futuristic look and is often associated with amusement
park attractions while still providing medium capacity mass transit. For cities where tourism is one
of the major revenue sources, monorails can offer a good transit solution and at the same time
attract more visitors to the city.

Why Select APM?

APM systems offer similar design capacity as monorail – ideally in the 2,500 to 25,000 pphpd
range. APM has similar urban fit features as monorail including small curve, high grade and low
noise, however APM requires larger elevated guideway structure than monorail.

APM is designed for reliable frequent operations such as airport and urban circulators. Today’s
APM technology is also designed for medium capacity urban applications.

Why Select Light Metro?

Light metro offers capacity higher than APM and Monorail but lower than heavy metro. Design
capacity can be up to 40,000 pphpd. If an alignment is relatively straight and flat without sharp
curves or steep grades, light metro may be the ideal solution.

Another advantage of light metro, especially light metro using linear induction motor (LIM)
technology with steered steel-wheel bogies, is that it can operate reliably in sharp curves and

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 123

steep grades under snow and ice conditions without the need for guideway heating while
minimizing wheel and rail wear. This adhesion independent technology guarantees schedules
under any weather condition. For rubber- tired technology such as APM or monorail guideway
heating or other means of mitigation would be needed for harsh winter operation.

Why Select Heavy Metro?

The primary consideration of heavy metro is system capacity. If an owner/operator ’s required
capacity exceeds 40,000 pphpd, heavy metro should be the first option. Heavy metro does
require higher investment and takes a long time to build, but it is the most efficient solution for
high density cities. If the cost of a heavy metro system is impossible for an owner/operator to
afford then it can consider an elevated light metro, APM or monorail in combination with other
modes such as buses.

Discussion of Other Technologies

The technology selection discussion in this chapter does not address some other urban
technologies such as urban Maglev, suspended monorail or PRT (Personal Rapid Transit). Some
considerations of other technologies for urban transit application are as explained below.

Maglev
Capital cost and energy consumption are the two biggest hurdles for urban low speed maglev
technology. The drive system of maglev can be very complicated which may result in very high
costs. The levitation system consumes significant energy, which is not considered
environmentally friendly when compared to other transit technologies.

Figure 105: Maglev in Nagoya, 2024

Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 124

Suspended Monorail
Suspended monorail uses vehicles hanging below a beam. The significant disadvantages are:

▪ Ride comfort may not be ideal because the monorail can swing as it travels, or even in
stations when the train stops.
▪ Windy conditions can limit the operation.
▪ Not suitable for level boarding. Typically, vehicle floor height is above the platform to avoid
collision between the vehicle and the platform due to the dynamic movements (swing) of
the train.
▪ It is not possible to add an emergency walkway to the guideway, posing significant
evacuation safety risk.

Figure 106: Suspended Monorail in Wuppertal, Germany

Source: Photo courtesy of WSW Mobil GmbH

PRT
PRT operates on its dedicated guideway with small capacity vehicles (2-4 passengers/car). System
capacity is low due to the size of the vehicle. The investment in a guideway is not justified because
of the low system capacity. Driverless automobiles under development, such as Google cars, offer
much better economic solutions for low-capacity transit than PRT, because these cars use existing
roads.

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 125

Figure 107: PRT System at Heathrow Airport, London, 2018
Source: Photo by Marko Kroenke

High Speed Metro

High speed metro is a heavy metro system that operates at higher maximum speed such as 100
km/h or 120 km/h. The application of this technology is for fast connection of major centers in the
city, or extend the travel to suburban areas quickly. An owner/operator can consider this
technology if it needs faster speed with longer station spacing (express type of service) and there
is enough ridership to support the investment.

Figure 108: High Speed Metro in Germany, 2023

Source: Deutsche Bahn AG / Uwe Miethe

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 126

This chapter does not cover unproven transit technologies such straddling buses, which are in the
early stage of development. It is not certain that they will become urban transit alternatives in the
future.

Other Consideration

Operation and Maintenance

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is a very important factor in transit technology selection. as
thecost of O&M over a 20- or 30-year period is very significant. This paper does not expand on the
details of O&M because it is a very complicated topic. This could be the subject of a future paper.

Open technology procurement

As mentioned in this paper, for certain capacity ranges and applications, there may be multiple
suitable technologies, especially in the intermediate capacity range where a light metro, APM and
monorail can all be possible solutions. An alternative to making technology selection before
project implementation is to specify an elevated alignment and leave the bidders to offer their
most efficient and low-cost technology solution. This would require a performance-based RFP
allowing each technology to compete on an equal basis. Ideally the RFP should also include a long
period of O&M (e.g. 20 or 30 years) to ensure that the proposed solution has the best life-cycle
cost. The benefit of this procurement approach is that the owner/operator takes advantage of the
lowest cost solution, including lifecycle costs, and minimizes overall project risk and potential for
contract disputes.

3.6 Conclusion

It is important to make a technology selection in the early stages of defining the mobility needs.
The ideal process is for an owner/operator to select the optimum technology, or range of
technologies, to meet its needs and preferences. The right technology selection will make an
owner/operator ’s project more viable in planning, and more successful in implementation.

This chapter outlines some guidelines on how to make a good technology selection. There are
clear principles to follow in areas such as system design capacity, commercial speed and cost, as
well as more subjective factors that would require qualitative analysis, such as the owner/operator
’s preferences and public acceptance.

This process will provide both an early detection of unsuitable technologies, and identify
technologies that are a potential good fit including those technologies that may not have been
considered. It’s important to keep the process open and unbiased to the greatest extent possible.
By allowing multiple technologies during the entire bidding process based on total turnkey
performance-based specification the client will benefit from the best-fit solution for the
application.

Ideally the bidding process will also include a significant period of operations and maintenance to
ensure that total life cycle cost is considered in the final selection.

In order to minimize the risk for the owner/operator, it is recommended that the ‘Request for
Proposal’ is extended to a single entity (which can be a consortium) for the complete turnkey

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 127

project, thus making the project easily accountable and avoiding errors in assigning
responsibilities.

In summary:

▪ Perform robust transportation studies and urban planning activities to clearly define your
project unique requirements
▪ Evaluate potential solutions early to understand best fit technology choices.
­ Follow clear principals such as capacity, affordability, topography, environment.
­ Consider subjective factors such as owner/operator preferences, aesthetics, and public
acceptance.
­ Maintain a process which is open to multiple technology options.
▪ An objective technology selection process will enable an appropriate and viable solution
▪ Use a turnkey system procurement to ensure a best-fit successful project.
­ Single entity contract
­ Performance Based Specification
­ Cover the complete mobility solution
­ Design, Build, Operate, Maintain
­ Include a significant period of Operations and Maintenance to account for total system
Life Cycle Cost

Urban Transit Technology Selection page 128

4 Success Stories about Monorails
4.1 Opportunities and Challenges

Monorails offer several opportunities and face various challenges in transportation and urban
planning.

Opportunities

Urban Mobility Solutions: Monorails provide an efficient means of urban transportation,

especially in densely populated areas where space is limited. They can ease congestion and offer
an alternative to traditional modes of transportation like buses and trains. More recently,
monorails have been used in projects with longer systems between urban centers. Monorails,
being elevated, are not exposed to the disturbances of other systems that are at-grade, running
on congested streets, or with the presence of animals or pedestrians. They are economical to
build compared to heavier systems.

Environmental Benefits: Monorails are often seen as environmentally friendly due to their use of
electricity and lack of direct emissions. They can contribute to reducing air pollution and
dependence on fossil fuels in urban areas. They are the elevated system with the minimum use of
concrete compared to other mass transit elevated systems.

Scenic Views: Elevated monorail mainline structures can offer passengers panoramic views of the
cityscape, enhancing the overall travel experience and potentially attracting tourists. Examples of
monorail scenic views are the Tama and Shonan monorails in Japan, where people can see the Fuji
Mountain by the train.

Figure 109: Picture of Tama Monorail and Mt. Fuji at a station, 2024
Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Success Stories about Monorails page 129

Integration with Existing Infrastructure: Monorail systems can be integrated with existing
transportation networks, including metro lines and bus routes, providing seamless connections
for commuters. Having a new mode in a metro ‘system’ might be considered a downfall for metro
operating systems, however it is very rare to have metro systems with the same rolling stock
supplier across lines, which exposes the operator to the same lack of uniformity. Monorails can be
used as feeder lines to connect existing infrastructure or existing or future buildings or
developments, in the same way the subways were used in London to extend the city into future
developments away from the city core, in more affordable metropolitan areas.

Other integrations are with cable lines, airports and cycle paths that demonstrate the flexibility of
the modal. A sample of integration is shown below with the Kitakyushu monorail, in Fukuoka
Prefecture, Japan, which has part of the line and a station located under an elevated highway.

Figure 110: Kitakyushu monorail with an elevated highway, 2024

Source: Photo by Rodolfo Szmidke

Flexibility of Elevated Track Beams: Monorails are a lightweight transportation system compared
to other elevated transportation systems. Monorails are composed of guideway beams typically
supported on one column, which is then supported on a monopile in most places. This system
results in many advantages:

▪ Monorails can be erected faster with less cost.

▪ Different types/shapes of columns can be used; rectangular, circular, etc.

Success Stories about Monorails page 130

 ▪ Reduced cost of construction by using a few types of molds for construction of supporting
elements within most of the alignment.
▪ Monorail systems require a small area on the ground for columns only.
▪ High quality control is achievable due to using precast elements such as guideway beams.
▪ Monorails have strong grade capabilities and a small turning radius, providing adaptability
to existing terrain.
▪ Monorails utilize 40 to 50% less concrete than any other elevated transportation system,
thereby diminishing their environmental impact.

Therefore, monorail systems can play an important role in public transport in the future because
of their unique advantages.

Capacity Flexibility: Monorails, like many transportation systems, can be designed and configured
to accommodate varying levels of capacity based on factors such as train frequency, car design,
and station layout. The capacity can range from 2,000 pphpd to systems like Line 15 in São Paulo
and the planned Cairo monorails, both boasting capacities of more than 40,000 passengers per
hour per direction (pphpd). This capacity demonstrates the potential of monorail systems to
efficiently move varying volumes of passengers, contributing significantly to urban transportation
networks. As urban populations continue to grow, and cities face increasing pressure to develop
sustainable transportation solutions, the capacity of monorail systems can play a crucial role in
meeting the mobility needs of residents while reducing congestion and environmental impact.

Development Opportunities: The construction of monorail systems can stimulate economic

development along their routes, leading to increased property values and commercial activity in
adjacent areas.

Challenges

Initial Costs: The construction of monorail infrastructure requires significant investment in terms
of capital and resources over most at-grade systems, however it offers one of the smallest costs
of development compared to other elevated and underground transportation systems depending
on the application. Another advantage of elevated systems is that they provide natural isolation
to the stray currents prevalent in at-grade systems.

Safety Concerns: Safety is a critical issue for monorail systems, especially in the event of accidents
or technical failures. Ensuring the safety of passengers, personnel, and citizens and property
below them requires rigorous maintenance and monitoring protocols and emergency walkways
provide that assurance. Elevated structures provide the highest level of safety for vehicles and
citizens compared to any at-grade system.

Perception and Acceptance: Some people perceive monorails as unconventional or impractical

forms of transportation. Overcoming public skepticism and gaining acceptance for monorail
projects may require extensive public outreach and education efforts. The labor of the
International Monorail Association provides the industry a common platform to help overcome
poor perception of the system.

Limited Flexibility: Like all rail-bound systems, monorails are difficult to relocate or modify, once
the mainline structures are installed. This lack of flexibility can be problematic in dynamic urban
environments where transportation needs may change over time.

Success Stories about Monorails page 131

Despite these challenges, monorails remain a viable option for improving urban transportation
systems and addressing the mobility needs of growing cities. With careful planning, investment,
and innovation, monorail projects can contribute to sustainable urban development and
enhanced quality of life for residents.

4.2 World Market for Monorail Systems

Decisions in planning new or expanded transport systems are influenced by many economic,
political, socio-cultural, ecological, and technical factors. The individual circumstances of each city
pose a challenge in quantifying the potential for monorail systems. The International Monorail
Association and SCI Verkehr (2022) performed a comprehensive world market study on monorail
systems. Several factors were considered in this study such as: status quo of monorail systems
worldwide, purpose of operation, and expected market growth.

A brief discussion of some of these factors is presented below and then, lessons obtained from
this discussion are concluded.

4.2.1 World

Status Quo of Monorail System worldwide

The figure below shows the distribution of mass transit and theme park monorail systems in
operation and in construction worldwide. Generally, they concentrated in Asia, Europe and North
America.

Figure 111: Monorail systems worldwide (by status)

Source: SCI Verkehr GmbH / International Monorail Association

Almost all new systems that are being constructed are in Asia and in emerging countries like
Egypt (start of revenue service planned for October 2024) or Brazil, Panamá, Dominican Republic,
or Mexico.

The following table summarizes the main information of monorail systems on the regional level,
while the figure below shows the percentages of number of system and length relative to the
total value.

Success Stories about Monorails page 132

 Number of Number of average length
Region Length in km
systems stations (km)
A B A B A B A B
Asia 36 10 511 394 366 259 14.19 39.40
Europe 23 0 46 0 61 0 2.00 0.00
North America 14 1 56 16 41 14 4.00 16.00
Other 7 3 35 145 37 72 5.00 48.33
Total 80 14 648 555 505 345 8.10 39.64
A= In operation, B= under construction
*Average length (km) = length/Number of systems

Source : https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Statistics-Brief-Metro-Figures-2021-web.pdf

Figure 112: Regional shares worldwide (by number of systems)

Figure 113: Regional shares worldwide (by length of systems)

Success Stories about Monorails page 133

Figure 114: Average length of monorail system (km)= total length / number of systems

The average length of current systems is about only 7 km, while the systems under construction
are on average 29 km long. A lower average length of systems indicates a larger number of
systems with the purpose of the airport or theme park. Conversely, a higher average length
suggests more usage in public transport. Hence, this signals a shift in the usage of monorails
systems more towards public transport – which can be confirmed by current projects being under
construction.

The average length of (in operation/under construction) systems is about (14/39) km in Asia, (2/0)
km in Europe, (4/16) km in North America and (5/48) km in the other regions. This shows how
much ahead Asia, and the other regions are in the application of monorails for public transport.

Purpose of operating lines worldwide (number of lines)

The general use of monorail can be classified into three categories:

▪ Public transport
▪ Passenger transportation in airports
▪ Amusement in theme parks and tourist areas.

The figure below shows the use of monorail system in different regions, while the following table
shows the total length of each use worldwide. The following points can be clearly obtained from
these figures:

▪ Asia is ahead of Europe and North America in terms of utilizing monorail systems in public
transit.
▪ the prevailing significance of monorail systems is in public transport
▪ theme parks or tourism lines are mainly quite short.

Success Stories about Monorails page 134

Figure 115: Total length of share of line Purpose worldwide

Table 5: Currently the top 10 longest monorail lines in operation worldwide (SCI Verkehr, 2022)
Rank Country City Line Length (in km)
1 China Chongqing Line 3 66
2 China Chongqing Line 2 31.36
3 China Shanghai Shanghai Maglev Train 30.5
4 China Wuhu Line 1 30.46
5 Japan Osaka Main Line 28
6 South Korea Daegu Line 3 23.95
7 USA Bay Lake Walt Disney World Monorail System 23.66
8 India Mumbai Mumbai Monorail 19.54
9 China Changsha Changsha Maglev Express 18.55
10 Japan Tokyo Tokyo Monorail Haneda Airport Line 17.8
Total 290

4.2.2 Regional Distribution of Monorail Systems

Asia
In Asia, 36 monorail systems are in operation with total length equals 512 km, and 10 system are in
construction with total length 421 km, around 93% of them (in length) are for urban transit.

In Asia monorail systems are quite well-established as a public transport solution. Japan has the
highest density of monorails in the world with eleven urban transit lines in eight different cities.
China is the country with the most monorail lines in operation of which twelve are used for urban
transit.

Success Stories about Monorails page 135

Europe
Monorail is not well-established as a public transport solution in Europe’s urban areas, where light
rail and metro transit prevail. Many European cities are historic with a view of the city that is
considered a cultural heritage. This makes it harder for an elevated system, which monorails
usually are, to gain acceptance as the impact on the aesthetics of the city is stronger compared to
light rail or metro. 26 monorail systems are in operation in Europe with total length equals 54 km.
About 73% of them are used in theme parks or for touristic purposes.

The shares of purposes weighted by line length reveal that public and airport transport in Europe
still account for around 45% of the total usage.

North America
In North America, 14 monorail systems are in operation, one in Canada and 13 in the USA. In USA,
five lines have an urban transit purpose, while the rest are used in theme parks or for touristic
purposes.

Other Regions
Outside of the focus regions, seven monorail systems are in operation. Five of these are used for
public transport. The largest one is Line 15 in São Paulo with a length of around 15 km which is
currently being expanded. This line also has one of the largest capacities in the world designed for
48,000 pphpd with trains at 75 seconds headway which can keep up with the world’s largest
monorail system in Chongqing.

4.2.3 Monorail Projects in Planning Phase

Across the world several monorail projects are in a planning process or under discussion. The
status varies and sometimes projects are stopped for economic or political reasons – on the other
hand, new projects arise when the strengths of monorail systems cover the transport needs in a
metropolitan area and are better suited in comparison to other modes of transport. SCI Verkehr
expects 25 to 40 new systems to be implemented worldwide between 2025 and 2035. The largest
share of this potential is attributed to China, rest of BRICS countries (Brazil and India) as well as in
emerging markets.

4.2.4 Summary of Survey Results

▪ Asia is leading the world in the use of monorail systems, and is ahead of Europe and North
America in terms of utilizing them in public transit applications.
▪ In Europe, the use of monorail systems is mainly for touristic purposes and theme parks.
▪ With the trend moving towards more monorail lines for public transport, monorail use will
become more widespread and is expected to become more evenly distributed around the
globe. SCI Verkehr expects 25 to 40 new systems to be implemented worldwide between
2025 and 2035.

Success Stories about Monorails page 136

4.3 Description of Selected Implemented Systems

The following chapter presents cases where the monorail has been a success story in different
places worldwide.

Success Stories about Monorails page 137

4.3.1 Tokyo-Haneda Monorail

Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024

Total Length of Line: 17.8 km 11 Stations

City: Tokyo
Country: Japan

Straddle Beam Type

1964
Start Operation

Figure 116: Tokyo Haneda Monorail, 2024

90,957 pass/day
Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke
(2022)

6 cars per train

1 depot

Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 138

 • System configuration: pinched loop

• It was inaugurated to the Olympic Games in 1964

• First straddle beam type urban monorail in the world

• Has elevated and tunnel sections

• Connect the Haneda Airport to the railway system

• Completed 60 years of operation in 2024

Figure 117:Tokyo Haneda Station and Depot, 2024

Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke

Success Stories about Monorails page 139

4.3.2 São Paulo, Line 15 Silver

Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke, 2014

In Operation: 15.236 km 11 Stations
2.163 km Under Construction: 6.272 km 4.109 km 3 Stations
Total Length of Line: 26.632 km 18 Stations

City: São Paulo

Country: Brazil

Straddle Beam Type

2014
Start Operation

27 trains
7 cars per train Figure 118: Line 15 – Silver, 2014
Source: Photo courtesy of São Paulo Metro
1 depot
(1 under construction)

500.000 pass/day
(project demand)

139.000 pass/day
(2024)
Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 140

 ▪ System configuration: pinched loop

▪ First mass transport monorail in Latin American

▪ Index of satisfaction above 78% from passengers

▪ Cycle path along the extension of the line

▪ Among all the lines in the São Paulo network system, this is the only one that has
exceeded pre-pandemic demand levels

Figure 119: Line 15 station and depot 2024

Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke

Success Stories about Monorails page 141

4.3.3 Chiba Urban Monorail

Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024

Total Length of Line: 15.2 km 18 Stations

City: Chiba
Country: Japan

Suspended SAFEGE Type

1988
Start Operation
Figure 120: Chiba Monorail, 2024
Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke
trains
2 cars per train

1 depot

Over 48,000 pass/day

Map of the Line

Success Stories about Monorails page 142

 ▪ System configuration: pinched loop

▪ Biggest suspended monorail

▪ Has a main and a branch line

▪ Has new trains

▪ Transported 48.949 passengers per day in 2023 (largest number of passengers in

the world of suspended monorail)

▪ Connect some train lines.

Figure 121: Station and Depot, 2024

Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke

Success Stories about Monorails page 143

4.3.4 Osaka Monorail

Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024

In Operation: 21.2 km 15 Stations

Under Construction: 9km 4 Stations
Total Length of Line: 30.2 km 19 Stations

City: Osaka
Country: Japan

Straddle Beam Type

1988
Start Operation Figure 122: Osaka Monorail, 2024
Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke
trains
4 cars per train

1 depot

Over 100,000 pass/day

Map of the Line

Success Stories about Monorails page 144

▪ System configuration: pinched loop

▪ It was inaugurated for the 1970 Expo

▪ Has a connection to the airport and other subway and train lines

▪ Has a main and a branch line

▪ Very famous track switch at Kadoma-shi Station

▪ Nowadays in expansion

▪ Different type of structures along the line (bridges)

▪ Transported 121.441 passengers per day in 2023 (second largest number of

passengers for monorails in Japan)

Figure 123: Station and Depot, 2024

Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke

Success Stories about Monorails page 145

4.3.5 Chongqing Monorail

Photo courtesy of Paulo Meca, 2024

Extension of Line 2: 31.4 km 25 Stations
Extension of Line 3: 67.1 km 45 Stations
Total length of monorail network: 98.5 km 68 Stations

City: Chongqing
Country: China

Straddle Beam Type

2005
Start Operation
Figure 124: Chongqing Line 2, 2024
Source: Photo courtesy of Paulo Meca
6 cars per train (Line 2)
4 cars per train (Line 3)

4 depots

1,075,000 pass/day

Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 146

 ▪ System configuration: two lines, pinched loops

▪ Mainline with concrete and steel beams

▪ Line 2 has 400,000 passengers per day, Line 3 675,000 passengers per day (2023)

▪ Variety of features: station inside a building, tunnels, connection to airport

▪ Added new trains

▪ Useful in a mountainous urban environment

Figure 125: View of station and track, 2024

Source: Photo courtesy of Paulo Meca

Success Stories about Monorails page 147

4.3.6 Walt Disney World Monorail System

Photo courtesy of Virginia Moura Clementino, 2023

Extension of Resort Line 2: 6,5 km 5 Stations
Extension of Epcot Line 3: 17,2 km 2 Stations
Total length of monorail network: 23.7 km 6 Stations

City: Orlando
Country: United States

Straddle Beam Type

1971
Start Operation

Figure 126: Walt Disney World Monorail, 2023

6 cars per train
Source: Photo courtesy of Virginia Clementino

1 depot

150.000 pass/day

Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 148

 ▪ System configuration: pinched loop and double loop

▪ Biggest monorail in an amusement park

▪ Three different lines: Magic Kingdom Express, Magic Kingdon Resort, EPCOT

▪ One of the few monorails in the USA

▪ Started operation in 1971 (more than 50 years ago)

▪ In 2021 was opened a new station in the middle of the line (Disney's Polynesian
Village Resort)

Figure 127: Walt Disney Monorail entrance and Column Detail, 2023
Source: Photo courtesy of Virginia Clementino / Carlos Banchik

Success Stories about Monorails page 149

4.3.7 Nagoya Linimo Line

Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke, 2024

Total length of monorail line: 8.9 km 9 Stations

City: Nagoya
Country: Japan

Maglev Type

2005
Start Operation Figure 128: Linimo Line, 2024
Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke
3 cars per train

1 depot

23.400 pass/day

Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 150

 ▪ System configuration: pinched loop

▪ Top speed of 100 km/h

▪ Can accelerate 1.5 times faster than a bullet train

▪ Automatic operation without conductors

▪ Distance from the electromagnets and rail is maintained at a constant 8 mm

Figure 129: Linimo Line station, 2024

Source: Photo courtesy of Rodolfo Szmidke

Success Stories about Monorails page 151

4.4 Description of Selected Systems under Construction

4.4.1 Cairo, East of Nile (EoN) and West of Nile (WoN) Monorails

Photo courtesy of Maxim Weidner, 2022

West of Nile (Gizah - 6th October) Line - Under Construction 43.8 km 13 Stations
East of Nile Line (Cairo – New Administrative City)- Under Construction 56.5 km 22 Stations
Total Length of Cairo Monorail: 100.3 km 35 Stations

City: Cairo
Country: Egypt

Straddle Beam Type

2024
Figure 130: Cairo Monorail, 2022
Preview Start Operation
Source: Photo courtesy of Maxim Weidner

70 trains
4 cars per train

2 depots
Map of 6th October Line
45.000 pass/h
(project demand)

Map of East Nile Line

Success Stories about Monorails page 152

 ▪ First mass transport monorail in Africa

▪ Maximum velocity of 80 Km/h

▪ 90 seconds frequency per train

▪ Each four-car train can carry up to 600 passengers

Figure 131: Cairo Monorail, 2022

Source: Photo courtesy by Maxim Weidner

Success Stories about Monorails page 153

4.4.2 Panama City Line 3

Image courtesy of Metro de Panamá S.A.

Under Construction: 24.6 km 11 Stations

City: Panama City

Country: Panama

Straddle Beam Type

2027
Preview Start Operation

26 trains
6 cars per train Figure 132: Panama City Monorail tunnel construction, 2024
Source: Photo courtesy of Metro de Panamá S.A.
1 depot

20.000 pass/h
(project demand)

Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 154

 ▪ First mass transport monorail in Central America

▪ 20.000 passengers by hour on rush time

▪ 200 seconds frequency per train

▪ 160.000 passengers by day demand

▪ 5.3 km of underground line under Panama Channel with 13m diameter tunnel

▪ Capacity of 1.000 passengers per train

Figure 133: Panama City Line 3 Monorail Construction, 2024

Source: photos courtesy of Metro de Panamá S.A.

Success Stories about Monorails page 155

4.4.3 Santiago de los Caballeros (SdC)

Photo courtesy of Lucas Bernardi, 2024

Under Construction: 13.2 km 14 Stations

City: Santiago de Los Caballeros

Country: Dominican Republic

Straddle Beam Type

2025
Preview Start Operation

20 trains Figure 134: Santiago de Los Caballeros, 2023

4 cars per train Source: Photo courtesy of Maikel Garcia

1 depot

20.000 pass/h
(project demand)

Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 156

 ▪ First mass transport monorail in the Caribbean Islands

▪ Maximum velocity of 80 Km/h

▪ 90 seconds frequency per train

▪ Trains of 590 passengers of capacity

▪ Intermodal integration with cable cars, BRTs and cycle paths

Figure 135: Santiago de Los Caballeros Monorail Construction, 2023

Source: Photos courtesy of Maikel Garcia

Success Stories about Monorails page 157

4.4.4 Monterrey Lines 4 and 6, Nuevo León, México

Photo courtesy of Wilberth del Castillo, 2024

Line 4 – Under Construction 7.5 km 10 Stations
Line 6 – Under Construction 17.6 km 18 Stations
Total Length of Monterrey Monorail: 25.1 km 27 Stations

City: Monterrey
Country: Mexico

Straddle Beam Type

2025
Preview Start Operation
Figure 136: Monterrey Monorail, 2024
trains
Source: Photo courtesy of AECOM
6 cars per train

2 depots

10,000 pass/h (L4)

15,000 pass/h (L6)
(project demand)

Map of the line

Success Stories about Monorails page 158

 ▪ First mass transport monorail in Mexico

▪ Maximum velocity of 80 Km/h

▪ More than 1,600 guideway beams

▪ Trains of 1,108 passengers of capacity

▪ Project using BIM 3D models

Figure 137: Monterrey Monorail Construction

Source: Photos courtesy of AECOM

Success Stories about Monorails page 159

5 Certification of Monorail Projects
5.1 Regulatory Framework

5.1.1 Introduction

When developing a monorail project, the regulatory applicable framework should be known at a
very early stage and continuously developed within the project's progress. The regulatory
framework is in general specified by the national authorities and the owner/operator, and it is
usually also part of the tender. Regulatory frameworks are legal mechanisms that exist on
national and international levels. In general, the regulatory framework is distinguished between
laws and standards. The application of standards is generally voluntary whereby the application
of laws is mandatory. Standards are not binding but can become legally binding when laws or
ordinances refer to them. In addition, the client and contractual partners can also stipulate the
binding application of standards in agreements or provide project-specific or operational
standards.

*)As monorail systems generally do not cover two or more countries, there are currently no applicable international laws (such as e.g.
the TSI in Europe)

5.1.2 Responsibilities of the National Authorities and the Client

In general, the national (urban) railway authority checks which laws must be applied for
the commissioning of a Monorail and can also specify the applicable safety standards
(e.g. EN 50126). The national authority is responsible for issuing the building permission
and the final commissioning authorization. For this reason, the client must deliver all the

Certification of Monorail Projects page 160

relevant documentation together with the request for approval to the national authority.
The national authority checks the documentation - and may commission external
verification services (third parties) - for checking compliance with the law and defined
specifications.
The client applies to the national authorities for building permission and final
commissioning and submits all the related documentation required for approval giving
evidence that the valid laws and specifications are fulfilled. The client commissions also
further parties (designer, manufacturer, internal verifier) who are involved in the project.
It is also possible that the external verifier is commissioned by the client.
Note: Depending on the country in which a monorail is approved, there may be a deviation
from the above-mentioned process.

5.1.3 Regulations for Monorails

The following table shows examples of the applicable laws for Monorail systems in the
respective countries.
Table 6: Example of applicable laws for monorail system

Country Applicable Laws for Monorails

Brazil ▪ Law 14.273/2021 – New Legal Framework for Railways
▪ ABNT NBR 150309 – Measurement Methods for Building Setting Out and
Dimensional Control of Underground Railway Works and Similarly Works -
Procedure
Egypt ▪ Law 152/80
▪ Law 20/2018 is the updated version of law 152/80
Note: The first monorail in Egypt is currently under construction in Cairo.

Germany ▪ BOStrab - Ordinance on the Construction and Operation of Street and

Light Railway Regulations
Note: The BOStrab regulations apply not only to trams and elevated and
underground railways, but also to monorails such as the Wuppertal suspension
railway, automatic people movers such as the Dortmund H-Bahn or the SkyLine at
Frankfurt Airport.

India ▪ Indian Railway Act 1989

Thailand ▪ Thailand Railway Act
Note: The Thailand Railway Act is currently under review.

United States There are several regulations for railways in the United States. The following
link represent the official website of the US Department of Transportation:
https://railroads.dot.gov/legislation-regulations/regulations-
rulemaking/regulations-rulemaking

Certification of Monorail Projects page 161

5.1.4 Common Specifications for Monorails

The applicable standards and specifications are project specific and are in general hierarchically
defined in the tender document from the owner/operator, also called ‘Operator Requirements’. In
these requirements as well from the authority specified standards are included. For common
applicable International Standards for Straddle-Beam Monorails see Appendix 1 of the IMA
‘Performance Specification for a Turnkey Mass Transit Monorail System’, First Edition 2022.

5.1.5 Required Documentation for Construction and Final Commissioning

Figure 138: Documentation scheme for construction and final commissioning

Source: Illustration by IMA based on Constructability Analysis of Monorail Project,
CIV. 1278 F, Prof. El-Diraby, March 24th, 2003, page 9

For all subsystems

General documents
General project description
Overview plans

Documents required for the RAMS assessment according EN 50126

Hazard log
Interface Management Plan
Design Safety Report
Safety Case

Certification of Monorail Projects page 162

Station
Building permission Final commissioning
Cross sections Acceptance reports
Design Safety permission As-built plans
Execution plans Delivery notes of components
Safety plan preliminary design stage Reports
Static calculations
Technical reports

Guideway
Building permission Final commissioning
Cross sections Acceptance report
Execution plans As-built plans
Alignment plans Delivery notes of components
Permissible speeds or design speeds Reports
Static calculations
Technical reports

General Control System

Building permission Final commissioning
Circuit diagram Acceptance report (3.1 certificates)
Factory acceptance test As-built plans
Delivery notes of components
Reports

Vehicle
There are no requirements for building permission.

Final commissioning
Technical documents Vehicle data sheet, vehicle overview drawing,
bogie overview drawing
Test reports For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle
Calculations For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle
Design drawings For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle
Cyber security plan For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle
Fire safety and evacuation concept For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle
Functional safety proof For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle
PRM verification Consideration of the issues of persons with
reduced mobility
Acceptance report (3.1 certificates) For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle
Delivery notes of components For all relevant subsystems of the vehicle

Certification of Monorail Projects page 163

Note: The following link: https://www.brd.nrw.de/system/files/media/document/2023-
06/230601_2_25_OePNV_TAB_Checkliste_Fahrzeuginbetriebnahme_Version6.pdf represents the official site of
the technical supervisory authority for the tram and trolleybus companies in North-Rhine Westphalia
(Germany). The requirements for the final commissioning are shown in the table.

Operation, Maintenance and Storage Facility

Final commissioning
Maintenance Plan
Operating Instructions

Emergency Evacuation
Final commissioning
Passenger Emergency Evacuation Concept

5.2 Safety Regulations

5.2.1 Introduction

The realistic goal is to develop a monorail system with an acceptable accident risk profile. This is
accomplished by seamlessly integrating the safety concept into the Monorail system life cycle
which comprises the concept, design, manufacturing, testing and commissioning, operation and
maintenance, and finally disposal of the Monorail system, subsystem and component.

Monorail Transit System Safety (MTSS) is a system attribute intentionally designed into the
Monorail system including the product design and development, operation and maintenance
procedures, emergency evacuation plan, etc.

A proactive preventive approach to safety during the system design and development is much
more cost effective than attempting to add safety into a system after the occurrence of an
accident or mishap. Therefore, MTSS is the initial investment that saves future losses that could
result from potential mishaps.

MTSS is a systematic process to the mishap risk management which can be accomplished by
eliminating or mitigating the hazards that can result in death, injury, system loss and damage to
environment throughout the Monorail system life cycle.

There is no published safety standard particularly for the Monorail system. Although there are
various safety standards published for the diverse industries and some of them are published in
particular for railway applications. Nonetheless, some of these safety standards can be applied in
the Monorail transit system. Among these safety standards, the US Department of Defense
published MIL-STD-882, which is sometimes called the ‘mother’ of all safety management
standards.

Another safety management standard utilized in military industries is DEF-STD-00-56 which was
published by the UK Ministry of Defense. Both MIL-STD-882 and DEF-STD-00-56 were originally
developed for military industries, then commonly utilized by other industries including railway and
public transit industries.

Certification of Monorail Projects page 164

In North American countries, MIL-STD-882 is still the commonly applied safety management
standard for the railway and public transit systems which also include the Monorail transit system.

Further safety standards regarding infrastructure:

▪ EN 50126 - RAMS
▪ EN 60812 - Technical standard for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
▪ MIL-STD-1629A – Another standard for Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis
(FMECA)
▪ ASCE 21 - Automated People Mover
▪ NFPA - 130 - Standard for fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems
▪ DIN 5510 - Preventive protection on railway vehicle

5.2.2 Safety verification of the infrastructure

In order to show evidence that systems, subsystems or the individual single components fulfil the
requirements specified in the tender, the following safety verifications are a helpful tool to
increase the safety level or the infrastructure. In addition, an independent safety assessment for
the infrastructure should also be conducted, see chapter 5.2.4.

5.2.2.1 Comparative calculations

For structural calculations, independent calculations should be conducted by an authority

approved structural engineer. A recognized structural engineer checks the structural engineer's
calculations on behalf of the responsible building supervisory authority or the building owner. In
other words, independent checks are done by a structural engineer to avoid errors. The results
are summarized in test reports.

Note: The decision as to whether tests reports are required is usually the responsibility of the
authority and/or the client.

5.2.2.2 Certification of safety-relevant components

For safety-relevant components manufactured in the factory and installed on the construction
site or vehicles, a certification should be conducted. Manufacturers can thus provide proof of
fulfilment of the requirements of specified standards by an independent certification body (e.g.
inspection body accredited by EN 17020). A certification of components ensures reliability, safety,
quality and efficiency.

Note: The decision as to whether certificates are required is usually the responsibility of the
authority and/or the client.

Certification of Monorail Projects page 165

5.2.3 Safety verification of the vehicles

For new rolling stocks, an independent safety assessment (ISA) should be conducted, see chapter
5.2.4. The decision about the applicable standards and whether an ISA should be conducted is in
general the responsibility of the national authority and/or the client.

5.2.4 Independent Safety Assessment

Like most industries, railway technologies have become increasingly complex over time. These
developments have made railway safety assessments not only more necessary but more
challenging. While this is generally true for all subsystems, it is particularly the case for large
railway infrastructure projects. The complexity of a complete railway system makes it difficult to
accurately analyse and ensure system safety. The risks resulting from this increase in complexity
can be mitigated by an Independent Safety Assessment (ISA).

ISA is the formation of a judgement, separate and independent from any railway engineering
design, development or operational personnel, that the safety requirements for the railway
project are appropriate and adequate for the planned application and that all the systems and
civil works assets as well as Operation and Maintenance (O&M) processes are compliant with
those safety requirements.

The Independent Safety Assessor’s role is to verify whether the relevant technical and operational
risks have been reduced to an acceptable level.

Independent Safety Assessment helps suppliers, operators and system integrators prevent
failures before they occur and ensure their systems comply with the safety requirements and
global railway standards. An independent safety assessment ensures:

▪ Independent judgements and opinions are free from project constraints

▪ A completely independent final judgment based on the acceptability of the safety
justification (including deviations) given by the project in the Safety Case. This includes
checking that the required constraints are captured in safety-related application conditions
and are sufficient to control the risk.
▪ Reduction of project risk due to competent third-party opinion
▪ Safety arguments as well as the treatment of railway hazards and risk have been
appropriately and effectively addressed
▪ The project is delivered in compliance with international railway standards regarding safety
targets
▪ Operators are given increased confidence independent from potential supplier constraints
▪ Technical and commercial stakeholders as well as regulatory bodies are assured that the
project is being managed professionally and the safety targets are being met throughout
the life cycle

According to cl. 6.8.1 of the EN 50126-1:2017:

‘Independent safety assessment is an important means to provide additional confidence about the
avoidance of systematic failures of the system under consideration which can adversely influence
safety. Independent safety assessment includes an evaluation and judgement that specified aspects
of the safety management process have been adequately undertaken and/or specific requirements

Certification of Monorail Projects page 166

about the system or part of the system are fulfilled. Independent safety assessment is also based on
the evaluation of the verification and validation already undertaken.’

Note: The decision as to whether an independent safety assessment is required is usually the
responsibility of the authority.

The typical phases and stages of the project according to the EN 50126 are:

▪ Concept, System definition and operational context

▪ Risk analysis and evaluation
▪ Specification of system requirements
▪ Architecture and apportionment of system requirements
▪ Design and implementation
▪ Manufacture
▪ Integration
▪ System Validation
▪ System acceptance
▪ Operation, maintenance and performance monitoring
▪ Decommissioning

5.2.5 Proof Checking

Another tool used by the client to check that all the documentation issued by the designers is
complete and fulfils the requirements of the specified standards from the tender is so called
proof checking. Proof checking in general is conducted before the Independent Safety
Assessment and is a very helpful tool for the client to save costs and time before the external
(cost intensive) verification. The scope of Proof Checking is to conduct the assessment of the
boundary conditions, fulfilment of requirements of applicable standards, correctness of reports,
plans and calculations.

Note: The decision as to whether a proof check is required is usually the responsibility of the client
and is in general conducted during the design phase.

Certification of Monorail Projects page 167

List of Sources and Useful Literature
▪ General Guidelines for the Design of Light Rail Transit Facilities in Edmonton, Robert R. Clark,
1984

▪ Guidebook for Planning and Implementing Automated People Mover Systems at Airports,
ACRP Report 37 (2010)

▪ LRT Design Guideline, City of Edmonton, 2017

▪ Manual for Standards and Specifications for Railway Stations, Ministry of Railways, India,
2009

▪ Monorails (brochure), Japan Monorail Association, 2019

▪ Monorail Assessment Report for the I-24 Southeast Corridor, Tennessee Department of
Transport, 2015

▪ Performance Specification for a Turnkey Mass Transit Monorail System, IMA, 2022

▪ Preparatory Survey for New Integrated Urban Public Transport System Introduction Project,
Japan International Cooperation Agency/Ministry of Transport, The Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka, 2015

▪ Rail to UBC Rapid Transit Study – Alternatives Analysis Summary & Update,
McElhanney/TransLink, 2019

▪ The Preparatory Survey for Urban Transport Development Project in Sao Paulo, Japan
International Cooperation Agency/ São Paulo Transport S.A./The Federative Republic of
Brazil, 2010

▪ The Urban Rail Development Handbook, World Bank Group, 2018

▪ Transport Analysis Guidance, Department of Transport, UK, 2018

▪ Urban Transit Technology Selection, Timan/Zhang, Bombardier Transportation, 2018

▪ World Market Study on Monorail Systems, SCI Verkehr/IMA, 2022

List of Sources and useful Literature page 168

INTERNATIONAL MONORAIL ASSOCIATION

„
IMA
Planning Guide for
Monorail Systems
First Edition, 2024

International Monorail Association

Schützenstrasse 19
3627 Heimberg
Switzerland

tel. +41 (33) 439 80 85

fax +41 (33) 439 80 81

[email protected]

www.monorai ex.org