Planning of Railway Mass Transit

(What’s different ?)

Line Characteristic
Heavy Rail

assenger Railway
High Speed Rail

Inter-City
Ordinary Rail
Subway
(Heavy)

Main
Commuter
Line BTS
Subway
(Light)
commuter
Mass
Transit
C
ity
System
of
e
or
C

Tram Car

Monorail
 Representative Capacity and Speed

60,000+
Source:
Study Team

50,000
Capacity (Persons/hr/lane or track)

Mass Rapid Transit

40,000

Bus
30,000
Rapid
Transit
(2 lanes)
Light Rail
20,000 Transit
Bus Priority

10,000 Tram
Bus in
Mixed Traffic Monorail
One Motorway Lane

0 10 20 30 40 50 60+
Operating Speed (km/hr)
Monorail Systems
Newark Chiba

Wuppertal Osaka

Sydney Seattle
4
 Example of Monorail System
System Number
System length of Daily pax
(km) stations

Wuppertal (opened 1901) 13.3 18 70,000

Dortmund (university area) 2.4 4 6,000

Las Vegas (Phase I along “The Strip”) 1.2 2 20,000

Osaka (connects outer communities) 21.2 14 150,000

Tokyo (Haneda Airport-central rail

19 10 170,000
loop)

Sydney (CBD-Darling Harbour) 3.6 8 30,000

5
 Planning Considerations for Monorail

Application  Most applications are linear or loop systems, generally within limited
areas of activity or for a specific urban function.
 Network extension problematic due to cross-over switching
constraints, line intersections and vertical clearances.
 Monorail generally viewed as a special function, not generic urban
mass transit, mode.
Capacity  Observed demand is low compared to other public transport modes.
Among highest observed is some 10,000 hourly persons per direction.
 Capacity of the system is limited by number of stops, end-of-line
turnaround and system speed.
Environment  Electric propulsion is cleaner to operate and maintain than diesel
and Safety engines. Overhead alignment may be seen as objectionable by some.
 Passenger safety during emergencies is a concern as all train
evacuation must be accomplished along elevated alignment.
Cost  High cost system. While the right-of-way footprint is reduced, cost
escalates in that all tracks, stations, safety systems and (likely) depot
facilities are above ground.

Technology  A variety of options and configurations possible.

6
Tram Systems
Montpellier Strasbourg

Lisbon Brussels Leipzig

Vienna Cairo
7
 LRT Systems
Dallas Denver

Portland Rotterdam Calgary

Lille
Clermont-Ferrand

8
 Principal Characteristics: Tram and LRT

Indicator TRAM LRT

At/above/ below
Typical Alignment At grade
grade
Average length of train (m) 15-40 30-70
Vehicle width (m) 2.10-2.65 2.20-2.90
Comfortable train capacity (persons) 120-250 200-600
Peak train capacity (persons) 150-320 300-800
Hourly capacity (pax per direction) 2,000-13,000 10,000-30,000
Catenary/ Third
Energy capture Catenary
Rail
Maximum grade (percent) 4-6 5-8
Maximum speed (km/hr) 50-80 80-100

9
Integrated operating profile (Denver)

Outside CBD: separate alignment (higher speed LRT)

Within CBD: shared alignment (pedestrian-friendly urban tram)

10
 Planning Considerations for Tram/LRT
Application  Strong potential within developed centers, between centers of
activity, between such centers and residential concentrations or as
feeder for higher-order rail system.
 LRT trains tend to be faster and longer than trams, feature bi-
directional operation and can be adapted to various platform heights.
Capacity  LRT will function most effectively in corridors exhibiting a directional
demand in excess of 20,000 persons per hour. Trams can be applied
to serve lower demand in a pedestrian friendly and convivial setting.
 The capacity of tram/LRT service is determined by the number of
stops, end of line turn-around and degree of separation from traffic.
Environment  Electric propulsion is cleaner to operate and maintain than diesel
and Safety engines. Overhead wires may be seen as aesthetically objectionable
by some. Issues of community separation may arise in segregated
alignments.
 Safety will be high, particularly if system is separated from traffic.
Cost  Intermediate cost system, with significant part of capital cost
represented by rolling stock. Degree of grade separation from traffic
also a noted contributor to system cost.
Technology  LRT/trams have enjoyed a renaissance in recent years, particularly in
western Europe and North America.
 New generation vehicles with low floor design and independent wheel
operation are gaining acceptance, although they are costly.
11
Mass Rapid Transit System
Caracas Taipei

Tokyo Bangkok Paris

New York City Cairo

12
 Characteristics of Selected MRT Systems
Number of
Headway Demand
System Carriages x unit Width (m)
(sec) (pax/hr/dir)
length (m)

Cairo (Line 1) 210 68,000 9x24 2.91

Paris (RER A) 120 69,000 9x23 2.80

Paris (RER B) 120 45,000 9x26 2.80

Caracas (Line 1) 134 41,000 7x21 3.05

Mexico City (Line 1) 129 42,000 9x16 2.50

Mexico City (Line 3) 138 35,000 9x16 2.50

Santiago (Line 1) 104 33,000 7x16 2.50

13
 Planning Considerations for MRT
Application  Strong potential in highest demand corridors, such as between high
density core and more outlying business districts or suburban centers.
 MRT can operate within a variety of alignments but is almost always
completely separated from other modes.

Capacity  MRT will function most cost-effectively in corridors exhibiting a

directional demand in excess of 30,000 persons per hour. Observed
demand can approach 100,000 persons per hour (Yamanote Line).
 The capacity of MRT is determined by number of stops, train
configuration and length of station platforms.
Environment  Electric propulsion is cleaner to operate and maintain than diesel
and Safety engines. Issues of community separation may arise along at-grade
alignments.
 Safety will be high.

Cost  High cost system, although per passenger cost is low compared to
other modes for high-demand MRT lines. Below grade and above
grade alignments tend to be most costly.
Technology  A variety of options and configurations possible. Typically third rail
electric propulsion with sophisticated and automated signaling and
control. Steel or rubber wheels possible.
14
 Three Patterns of Railway Construction
1. New Line 2. Extension 3. Connection

Project
Pattern

New Rail Existing Rail

Key
Future plan, OK? Enough capacity ? Major rules, same ?
Issues

There may be some

It is much regret if the
regret after the project
There will be no regret. major rules of two
Regret Everybody is delighted. is over due to its small existing rails are
capacity and low
different.
speed. BTS is OK ?

History of railway is history of new line, extension and connection.

Thank you
Very Much

16