feasibility of monorail in kharkiv
Post on 12-Jul-2016
56 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Istanbul Technical University
Institute of Science and Technology
FEASIBILITY OF MONORAIL IN KHARKIV
Performed Verified
special student Yrd Doccedil Dr Pelin Alpkokın
Transportation Engineering
Department
Galychyn OS
Istanbul ndash 2015
1
Content
In t roduct ionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3
1Es t imat ion of t ranspor ta t ion capaci tyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4
2Estimation of passenger turnoverhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 6
4 Estimation of amount go rolling stock for Kharkiv Cityhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district and
retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro districthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8
Conclus ionhellip helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
List of literaturehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13
2
Introduction
Kharkiv is the second city by population in Ukraine and the first by industrial
output which located in North-East Part of the country In end of 1980s due to
increase residential population in western( Leninskyi district-89000) south part
(Kominternovskyi- 146850 and Сhervonozavodkyi districts-93000) east part
(Frunzenskyi district -144200) and of Kharkiv due to construction of industrial
districts were planned semi-circular line in the center of the city with the access to the
radial directions and later on to transform it in shared circle or several lines one of
which surrounds the circular line completely while others use only the ring
segments[1] The goal in short-term perspective was to offload interchange hubs in
the central part of the city and reduce the excess length of the path of passengers on
the radial directions to increases the density of the network and the area of pedestrian
accessibility of subways stations in industrial districts and western and southern
districts of Kharkiv to be possible to incorporate with existing radial directions
However due to local budget deficit and strong vertical government system formed
during Soviet Union times in 1986 this plan suspended permanently without its
adequate replacement General Plan of Kharkiv in 2025 hadnt incorporated
industrial districtsand therefore those districts that have been left outside of
subway system despite of 473050 population[1] Currently we be reviewed option
for Monorail Line to connect Leninskyi former industrial district ( now public
housing) with employment (retail sector located on the North of Kharkiv) That
district has been chose because of its remote location and therefore the longest time
commuting by residents in the city to employment location representing retail sector
As this district had a single-use zoning system therefore havent incorporated retail
sector Thus the monorail wasnt planned due to the same reasons stated above In
this short article feasibility of Monorail Line connecting Leninskyi district located
the South -East of the city with retail sector situated in the North will be evaluated
and conclusion regarding the feasibility will be provided
3
1 Estimation of transportation capacity Transportation capacity - the maximum number of passengers that can be
transported by vehicle in a unit of time (usually calculation conducted for the most
intense peak hours) in one direction The transportation capacity of the different
modes of transport in general parameters of devices and structures are determined
the rate of filling rolling stock according the estimated period - 4 pers m2 free floor
area passenger compartment for conventional ground transportation and 3 pers m2 -
for high-speed transport Transportation capacity for urban highways is determined
by the traffic capacity and capacity of the vehicles buses trolleybuses electric trains
underground trains tramways[2]
Transportation capacity of highway in the rush hour is calculated for values of
maximum passenger capacity of vehicles ie filling in cabin of the rolling stock of
all seats as well as places for standing calculated on the basis of norms of filling per
square meter of usable area For subway trains trams buses and trolleybuses used
filling rate of 35 persons m2 for rail transport - 2 persons m2
T= Ώ middot N where the N-traffic capacity[3]
Ώ-filling rate of rolling stock
The population of Kharkiv is expected to reach 15 million people by 2026 year
Such cities served by subway trolleybuses and articulated buses Amendment for
automobiles in Kharkiv case- 3 persons per 1m2 Then the dynamic clearance of
automobile can be determined as follows[3]
l = 0102 1667 =2834 ( м)
l n = 11667 = 1667 ( м)
L = 45 + 1667 + 2834 + 3 = 5251 ( м )
Based on the dynamic clearance the traffic capacity of single traffic lane can be
determined as follows
4
N auto=4600middot16675251=1460(vehicles per hour)
T auto=1460middot17= 2482 ( thouspassengers per hour)
T subway=1020middot40= 408 ( thous passengers per hour)
T trol=139middot90=12 51 ( thous passengers per hour)
T bus=123middot120=1476 ( thous passengers per hour)
Table 1 1 Indicators of transport modes for Kharkiv
2 Estimation of passenger turnover Annual passenger turnover estimated as follows[4]
Hp- prospective population rate for Kharkiv proposed by Master Plan For Kharkiv
prospective population rate of 15 million people as proposed by master plan
P- index of account transport mobility of the population in a mass passenger
transportation the number of trips per year per person ( over 700-900 million trips
per year)
Lav- average trip distance passengers ( km)
ki- coefficient of seasonal irregularities of traffic (11-114)
Calculating the annual passenger turnover (Q)
Q=Hp PLav=1400000800114=12768000000 thousand passкмyear 5
TYPE OF TRANSPORT
FILLING RATE OF ROLLING STOCK
( 1 m
TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ( 1 m
Subway 6 wagon train
1020 40800
Biaxial trolleybus articulated
139 12500
Articulated bus 123 14800
Automobiles 17 2482
The transition from of annual passenger turnover to daily passenger
turnover is carried by the formula[4]
Qd=Q βki365 where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
ki- factor in a daily irregularities in the passenger flows
in directions (12-16) for Kharkiv ki=14
β - coefficient of seasonal irregularities of (β = 107-11) Kharkiv β = 11
Qd=Q βki365=1276800000010114365=49462882 thous passкмday
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle
Daily productivity of vehicle is determined by the formula[5]
Pd = Ω Vэ h ccedil where
Ώ-normal filling rate of rolling stock
Vo- operating speed (tramway - 16-17 km h trolleybus 17 km h
the bus - 18 km h)
h - the duration of operation of the vehicle has taken into account h = 16 hours
(for the car 3 hours)
ccedil - filling ratio of rolling stock (035-045) Kharkiv ccedil= 025
Thus based on data daily productivity of vehicle can be determined
1)Pd bus= 801814025=5040 passкмday
2)Pd trol= 1141714025=6783 passкмday
3)Pd tram= 1001614025=5600 passкмday
6
4)Pd metro= 12504014025=175 000 passкмday
5)Pd auto=P hccedil=32482025=1862 passкмday Pd=ΣPd=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 passкмday
Table 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
Diagram 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
7
MODE OF TRANSPORT DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
Subway 6 wagon train 90
Biaxial trolleybus articulated high capacity
35
Articulated bus 26
Articulated tramway 29
Automobiles 1
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
Content
In t roduct ionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip3
1Es t imat ion of t ranspor ta t ion capaci tyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip4
2Estimation of passenger turnoverhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip5
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip 6
4 Estimation of amount go rolling stock for Kharkiv Cityhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district and
retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro districthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip8
Conclus ionhellip helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
List of literaturehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13
2
Introduction
Kharkiv is the second city by population in Ukraine and the first by industrial
output which located in North-East Part of the country In end of 1980s due to
increase residential population in western( Leninskyi district-89000) south part
(Kominternovskyi- 146850 and Сhervonozavodkyi districts-93000) east part
(Frunzenskyi district -144200) and of Kharkiv due to construction of industrial
districts were planned semi-circular line in the center of the city with the access to the
radial directions and later on to transform it in shared circle or several lines one of
which surrounds the circular line completely while others use only the ring
segments[1] The goal in short-term perspective was to offload interchange hubs in
the central part of the city and reduce the excess length of the path of passengers on
the radial directions to increases the density of the network and the area of pedestrian
accessibility of subways stations in industrial districts and western and southern
districts of Kharkiv to be possible to incorporate with existing radial directions
However due to local budget deficit and strong vertical government system formed
during Soviet Union times in 1986 this plan suspended permanently without its
adequate replacement General Plan of Kharkiv in 2025 hadnt incorporated
industrial districtsand therefore those districts that have been left outside of
subway system despite of 473050 population[1] Currently we be reviewed option
for Monorail Line to connect Leninskyi former industrial district ( now public
housing) with employment (retail sector located on the North of Kharkiv) That
district has been chose because of its remote location and therefore the longest time
commuting by residents in the city to employment location representing retail sector
As this district had a single-use zoning system therefore havent incorporated retail
sector Thus the monorail wasnt planned due to the same reasons stated above In
this short article feasibility of Monorail Line connecting Leninskyi district located
the South -East of the city with retail sector situated in the North will be evaluated
and conclusion regarding the feasibility will be provided
3
1 Estimation of transportation capacity Transportation capacity - the maximum number of passengers that can be
transported by vehicle in a unit of time (usually calculation conducted for the most
intense peak hours) in one direction The transportation capacity of the different
modes of transport in general parameters of devices and structures are determined
the rate of filling rolling stock according the estimated period - 4 pers m2 free floor
area passenger compartment for conventional ground transportation and 3 pers m2 -
for high-speed transport Transportation capacity for urban highways is determined
by the traffic capacity and capacity of the vehicles buses trolleybuses electric trains
underground trains tramways[2]
Transportation capacity of highway in the rush hour is calculated for values of
maximum passenger capacity of vehicles ie filling in cabin of the rolling stock of
all seats as well as places for standing calculated on the basis of norms of filling per
square meter of usable area For subway trains trams buses and trolleybuses used
filling rate of 35 persons m2 for rail transport - 2 persons m2
T= Ώ middot N where the N-traffic capacity[3]
Ώ-filling rate of rolling stock
The population of Kharkiv is expected to reach 15 million people by 2026 year
Such cities served by subway trolleybuses and articulated buses Amendment for
automobiles in Kharkiv case- 3 persons per 1m2 Then the dynamic clearance of
automobile can be determined as follows[3]
l = 0102 1667 =2834 ( м)
l n = 11667 = 1667 ( м)
L = 45 + 1667 + 2834 + 3 = 5251 ( м )
Based on the dynamic clearance the traffic capacity of single traffic lane can be
determined as follows
4
N auto=4600middot16675251=1460(vehicles per hour)
T auto=1460middot17= 2482 ( thouspassengers per hour)
T subway=1020middot40= 408 ( thous passengers per hour)
T trol=139middot90=12 51 ( thous passengers per hour)
T bus=123middot120=1476 ( thous passengers per hour)
Table 1 1 Indicators of transport modes for Kharkiv
2 Estimation of passenger turnover Annual passenger turnover estimated as follows[4]
Hp- prospective population rate for Kharkiv proposed by Master Plan For Kharkiv
prospective population rate of 15 million people as proposed by master plan
P- index of account transport mobility of the population in a mass passenger
transportation the number of trips per year per person ( over 700-900 million trips
per year)
Lav- average trip distance passengers ( km)
ki- coefficient of seasonal irregularities of traffic (11-114)
Calculating the annual passenger turnover (Q)
Q=Hp PLav=1400000800114=12768000000 thousand passкмyear 5
TYPE OF TRANSPORT
FILLING RATE OF ROLLING STOCK
( 1 m
TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ( 1 m
Subway 6 wagon train
1020 40800
Biaxial trolleybus articulated
139 12500
Articulated bus 123 14800
Automobiles 17 2482
The transition from of annual passenger turnover to daily passenger
turnover is carried by the formula[4]
Qd=Q βki365 where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
ki- factor in a daily irregularities in the passenger flows
in directions (12-16) for Kharkiv ki=14
β - coefficient of seasonal irregularities of (β = 107-11) Kharkiv β = 11
Qd=Q βki365=1276800000010114365=49462882 thous passкмday
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle
Daily productivity of vehicle is determined by the formula[5]
Pd = Ω Vэ h ccedil where
Ώ-normal filling rate of rolling stock
Vo- operating speed (tramway - 16-17 km h trolleybus 17 km h
the bus - 18 km h)
h - the duration of operation of the vehicle has taken into account h = 16 hours
(for the car 3 hours)
ccedil - filling ratio of rolling stock (035-045) Kharkiv ccedil= 025
Thus based on data daily productivity of vehicle can be determined
1)Pd bus= 801814025=5040 passкмday
2)Pd trol= 1141714025=6783 passкмday
3)Pd tram= 1001614025=5600 passкмday
6
4)Pd metro= 12504014025=175 000 passкмday
5)Pd auto=P hccedil=32482025=1862 passкмday Pd=ΣPd=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 passкмday
Table 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
Diagram 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
7
MODE OF TRANSPORT DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
Subway 6 wagon train 90
Biaxial trolleybus articulated high capacity
35
Articulated bus 26
Articulated tramway 29
Automobiles 1
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
Introduction
Kharkiv is the second city by population in Ukraine and the first by industrial
output which located in North-East Part of the country In end of 1980s due to
increase residential population in western( Leninskyi district-89000) south part
(Kominternovskyi- 146850 and Сhervonozavodkyi districts-93000) east part
(Frunzenskyi district -144200) and of Kharkiv due to construction of industrial
districts were planned semi-circular line in the center of the city with the access to the
radial directions and later on to transform it in shared circle or several lines one of
which surrounds the circular line completely while others use only the ring
segments[1] The goal in short-term perspective was to offload interchange hubs in
the central part of the city and reduce the excess length of the path of passengers on
the radial directions to increases the density of the network and the area of pedestrian
accessibility of subways stations in industrial districts and western and southern
districts of Kharkiv to be possible to incorporate with existing radial directions
However due to local budget deficit and strong vertical government system formed
during Soviet Union times in 1986 this plan suspended permanently without its
adequate replacement General Plan of Kharkiv in 2025 hadnt incorporated
industrial districtsand therefore those districts that have been left outside of
subway system despite of 473050 population[1] Currently we be reviewed option
for Monorail Line to connect Leninskyi former industrial district ( now public
housing) with employment (retail sector located on the North of Kharkiv) That
district has been chose because of its remote location and therefore the longest time
commuting by residents in the city to employment location representing retail sector
As this district had a single-use zoning system therefore havent incorporated retail
sector Thus the monorail wasnt planned due to the same reasons stated above In
this short article feasibility of Monorail Line connecting Leninskyi district located
the South -East of the city with retail sector situated in the North will be evaluated
and conclusion regarding the feasibility will be provided
3
1 Estimation of transportation capacity Transportation capacity - the maximum number of passengers that can be
transported by vehicle in a unit of time (usually calculation conducted for the most
intense peak hours) in one direction The transportation capacity of the different
modes of transport in general parameters of devices and structures are determined
the rate of filling rolling stock according the estimated period - 4 pers m2 free floor
area passenger compartment for conventional ground transportation and 3 pers m2 -
for high-speed transport Transportation capacity for urban highways is determined
by the traffic capacity and capacity of the vehicles buses trolleybuses electric trains
underground trains tramways[2]
Transportation capacity of highway in the rush hour is calculated for values of
maximum passenger capacity of vehicles ie filling in cabin of the rolling stock of
all seats as well as places for standing calculated on the basis of norms of filling per
square meter of usable area For subway trains trams buses and trolleybuses used
filling rate of 35 persons m2 for rail transport - 2 persons m2
T= Ώ middot N where the N-traffic capacity[3]
Ώ-filling rate of rolling stock
The population of Kharkiv is expected to reach 15 million people by 2026 year
Such cities served by subway trolleybuses and articulated buses Amendment for
automobiles in Kharkiv case- 3 persons per 1m2 Then the dynamic clearance of
automobile can be determined as follows[3]
l = 0102 1667 =2834 ( м)
l n = 11667 = 1667 ( м)
L = 45 + 1667 + 2834 + 3 = 5251 ( м )
Based on the dynamic clearance the traffic capacity of single traffic lane can be
determined as follows
4
N auto=4600middot16675251=1460(vehicles per hour)
T auto=1460middot17= 2482 ( thouspassengers per hour)
T subway=1020middot40= 408 ( thous passengers per hour)
T trol=139middot90=12 51 ( thous passengers per hour)
T bus=123middot120=1476 ( thous passengers per hour)
Table 1 1 Indicators of transport modes for Kharkiv
2 Estimation of passenger turnover Annual passenger turnover estimated as follows[4]
Hp- prospective population rate for Kharkiv proposed by Master Plan For Kharkiv
prospective population rate of 15 million people as proposed by master plan
P- index of account transport mobility of the population in a mass passenger
transportation the number of trips per year per person ( over 700-900 million trips
per year)
Lav- average trip distance passengers ( km)
ki- coefficient of seasonal irregularities of traffic (11-114)
Calculating the annual passenger turnover (Q)
Q=Hp PLav=1400000800114=12768000000 thousand passкмyear 5
TYPE OF TRANSPORT
FILLING RATE OF ROLLING STOCK
( 1 m
TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ( 1 m
Subway 6 wagon train
1020 40800
Biaxial trolleybus articulated
139 12500
Articulated bus 123 14800
Automobiles 17 2482
The transition from of annual passenger turnover to daily passenger
turnover is carried by the formula[4]
Qd=Q βki365 where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
ki- factor in a daily irregularities in the passenger flows
in directions (12-16) for Kharkiv ki=14
β - coefficient of seasonal irregularities of (β = 107-11) Kharkiv β = 11
Qd=Q βki365=1276800000010114365=49462882 thous passкмday
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle
Daily productivity of vehicle is determined by the formula[5]
Pd = Ω Vэ h ccedil where
Ώ-normal filling rate of rolling stock
Vo- operating speed (tramway - 16-17 km h trolleybus 17 km h
the bus - 18 km h)
h - the duration of operation of the vehicle has taken into account h = 16 hours
(for the car 3 hours)
ccedil - filling ratio of rolling stock (035-045) Kharkiv ccedil= 025
Thus based on data daily productivity of vehicle can be determined
1)Pd bus= 801814025=5040 passкмday
2)Pd trol= 1141714025=6783 passкмday
3)Pd tram= 1001614025=5600 passкмday
6
4)Pd metro= 12504014025=175 000 passкмday
5)Pd auto=P hccedil=32482025=1862 passкмday Pd=ΣPd=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 passкмday
Table 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
Diagram 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
7
MODE OF TRANSPORT DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
Subway 6 wagon train 90
Biaxial trolleybus articulated high capacity
35
Articulated bus 26
Articulated tramway 29
Automobiles 1
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
1 Estimation of transportation capacity Transportation capacity - the maximum number of passengers that can be
transported by vehicle in a unit of time (usually calculation conducted for the most
intense peak hours) in one direction The transportation capacity of the different
modes of transport in general parameters of devices and structures are determined
the rate of filling rolling stock according the estimated period - 4 pers m2 free floor
area passenger compartment for conventional ground transportation and 3 pers m2 -
for high-speed transport Transportation capacity for urban highways is determined
by the traffic capacity and capacity of the vehicles buses trolleybuses electric trains
underground trains tramways[2]
Transportation capacity of highway in the rush hour is calculated for values of
maximum passenger capacity of vehicles ie filling in cabin of the rolling stock of
all seats as well as places for standing calculated on the basis of norms of filling per
square meter of usable area For subway trains trams buses and trolleybuses used
filling rate of 35 persons m2 for rail transport - 2 persons m2
T= Ώ middot N where the N-traffic capacity[3]
Ώ-filling rate of rolling stock
The population of Kharkiv is expected to reach 15 million people by 2026 year
Such cities served by subway trolleybuses and articulated buses Amendment for
automobiles in Kharkiv case- 3 persons per 1m2 Then the dynamic clearance of
automobile can be determined as follows[3]
l = 0102 1667 =2834 ( м)
l n = 11667 = 1667 ( м)
L = 45 + 1667 + 2834 + 3 = 5251 ( м )
Based on the dynamic clearance the traffic capacity of single traffic lane can be
determined as follows
4
N auto=4600middot16675251=1460(vehicles per hour)
T auto=1460middot17= 2482 ( thouspassengers per hour)
T subway=1020middot40= 408 ( thous passengers per hour)
T trol=139middot90=12 51 ( thous passengers per hour)
T bus=123middot120=1476 ( thous passengers per hour)
Table 1 1 Indicators of transport modes for Kharkiv
2 Estimation of passenger turnover Annual passenger turnover estimated as follows[4]
Hp- prospective population rate for Kharkiv proposed by Master Plan For Kharkiv
prospective population rate of 15 million people as proposed by master plan
P- index of account transport mobility of the population in a mass passenger
transportation the number of trips per year per person ( over 700-900 million trips
per year)
Lav- average trip distance passengers ( km)
ki- coefficient of seasonal irregularities of traffic (11-114)
Calculating the annual passenger turnover (Q)
Q=Hp PLav=1400000800114=12768000000 thousand passкмyear 5
TYPE OF TRANSPORT
FILLING RATE OF ROLLING STOCK
( 1 m
TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ( 1 m
Subway 6 wagon train
1020 40800
Biaxial trolleybus articulated
139 12500
Articulated bus 123 14800
Automobiles 17 2482
The transition from of annual passenger turnover to daily passenger
turnover is carried by the formula[4]
Qd=Q βki365 where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
ki- factor in a daily irregularities in the passenger flows
in directions (12-16) for Kharkiv ki=14
β - coefficient of seasonal irregularities of (β = 107-11) Kharkiv β = 11
Qd=Q βki365=1276800000010114365=49462882 thous passкмday
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle
Daily productivity of vehicle is determined by the formula[5]
Pd = Ω Vэ h ccedil where
Ώ-normal filling rate of rolling stock
Vo- operating speed (tramway - 16-17 km h trolleybus 17 km h
the bus - 18 km h)
h - the duration of operation of the vehicle has taken into account h = 16 hours
(for the car 3 hours)
ccedil - filling ratio of rolling stock (035-045) Kharkiv ccedil= 025
Thus based on data daily productivity of vehicle can be determined
1)Pd bus= 801814025=5040 passкмday
2)Pd trol= 1141714025=6783 passкмday
3)Pd tram= 1001614025=5600 passкмday
6
4)Pd metro= 12504014025=175 000 passкмday
5)Pd auto=P hccedil=32482025=1862 passкмday Pd=ΣPd=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 passкмday
Table 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
Diagram 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
7
MODE OF TRANSPORT DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
Subway 6 wagon train 90
Biaxial trolleybus articulated high capacity
35
Articulated bus 26
Articulated tramway 29
Automobiles 1
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
N auto=4600middot16675251=1460(vehicles per hour)
T auto=1460middot17= 2482 ( thouspassengers per hour)
T subway=1020middot40= 408 ( thous passengers per hour)
T trol=139middot90=12 51 ( thous passengers per hour)
T bus=123middot120=1476 ( thous passengers per hour)
Table 1 1 Indicators of transport modes for Kharkiv
2 Estimation of passenger turnover Annual passenger turnover estimated as follows[4]
Hp- prospective population rate for Kharkiv proposed by Master Plan For Kharkiv
prospective population rate of 15 million people as proposed by master plan
P- index of account transport mobility of the population in a mass passenger
transportation the number of trips per year per person ( over 700-900 million trips
per year)
Lav- average trip distance passengers ( km)
ki- coefficient of seasonal irregularities of traffic (11-114)
Calculating the annual passenger turnover (Q)
Q=Hp PLav=1400000800114=12768000000 thousand passкмyear 5
TYPE OF TRANSPORT
FILLING RATE OF ROLLING STOCK
( 1 m
TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ( 1 m
Subway 6 wagon train
1020 40800
Biaxial trolleybus articulated
139 12500
Articulated bus 123 14800
Automobiles 17 2482
The transition from of annual passenger turnover to daily passenger
turnover is carried by the formula[4]
Qd=Q βki365 where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
ki- factor in a daily irregularities in the passenger flows
in directions (12-16) for Kharkiv ki=14
β - coefficient of seasonal irregularities of (β = 107-11) Kharkiv β = 11
Qd=Q βki365=1276800000010114365=49462882 thous passкмday
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle
Daily productivity of vehicle is determined by the formula[5]
Pd = Ω Vэ h ccedil where
Ώ-normal filling rate of rolling stock
Vo- operating speed (tramway - 16-17 km h trolleybus 17 km h
the bus - 18 km h)
h - the duration of operation of the vehicle has taken into account h = 16 hours
(for the car 3 hours)
ccedil - filling ratio of rolling stock (035-045) Kharkiv ccedil= 025
Thus based on data daily productivity of vehicle can be determined
1)Pd bus= 801814025=5040 passкмday
2)Pd trol= 1141714025=6783 passкмday
3)Pd tram= 1001614025=5600 passкмday
6
4)Pd metro= 12504014025=175 000 passкмday
5)Pd auto=P hccedil=32482025=1862 passкмday Pd=ΣPd=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 passкмday
Table 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
Diagram 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
7
MODE OF TRANSPORT DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
Subway 6 wagon train 90
Biaxial trolleybus articulated high capacity
35
Articulated bus 26
Articulated tramway 29
Automobiles 1
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
The transition from of annual passenger turnover to daily passenger
turnover is carried by the formula[4]
Qd=Q βki365 where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
ki- factor in a daily irregularities in the passenger flows
in directions (12-16) for Kharkiv ki=14
β - coefficient of seasonal irregularities of (β = 107-11) Kharkiv β = 11
Qd=Q βki365=1276800000010114365=49462882 thous passкмday
3 Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle
Daily productivity of vehicle is determined by the formula[5]
Pd = Ω Vэ h ccedil where
Ώ-normal filling rate of rolling stock
Vo- operating speed (tramway - 16-17 km h trolleybus 17 km h
the bus - 18 km h)
h - the duration of operation of the vehicle has taken into account h = 16 hours
(for the car 3 hours)
ccedil - filling ratio of rolling stock (035-045) Kharkiv ccedil= 025
Thus based on data daily productivity of vehicle can be determined
1)Pd bus= 801814025=5040 passкмday
2)Pd trol= 1141714025=6783 passкмday
3)Pd tram= 1001614025=5600 passкмday
6
4)Pd metro= 12504014025=175 000 passкмday
5)Pd auto=P hccedil=32482025=1862 passкмday Pd=ΣPd=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 passкмday
Table 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
Diagram 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
7
MODE OF TRANSPORT DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
Subway 6 wagon train 90
Biaxial trolleybus articulated high capacity
35
Articulated bus 26
Articulated tramway 29
Automobiles 1
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
4)Pd metro= 12504014025=175 000 passкмday
5)Pd auto=P hccedil=32482025=1862 passкмday Pd=ΣPd=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 passкмday
Table 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
Diagram 3 1 Daily productivity in Kharkivrsquos case
7
MODE OF TRANSPORT DAILY PRODUCTIVITY
Subway 6 wagon train 90
Biaxial trolleybus articulated high capacity
35
Articulated bus 26
Articulated tramway 29
Automobiles 1
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
4 Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivrsquos
case can be determined Amount of daily rolling stock is determined by the
formula[6]
Nrs= QdPd where
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand passkm day
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle passkmday
Nrs1=494628825040=9814 busday
Nrs2= 49462882 6783=7292 trolleybusday
Nrs3= 494628825600=8832 tramwaysday
Nrs4= 49462882 175000=265 wagonsday
Nrs5= 49462882 1862=26564 automobilesday
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows
Nh1=9814 14= 5600 bushour
Nh2= 6763 14=483 trolleybushour
Nh3= 8832 14=631 tramwayhour
Nh4=265 14=19 wagonshour
Nh5=26654 14=1904 automobileshour
5 Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district
and retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district
Before moving directly to feasibility indicators general summary should be
taken a place Pros and cons will be briefly overviewed[7] Advantages of Monorail
Monorail as well as the subway does not take place on congested thoroughfares of
the city but unlike the subway much cheaper construction 8
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
Monorail composition can overcome a steep vertical biases as compared with any
two-rail transport
Speed developed by monorail in theory can significantly exceed the speed of
conventional rail trains as no danger of descent ended the rails Furthermore the
probability collisions with other objects of traffic is negligibly small Disadvantages of Monorail
In practice monorail transport is often operate with low speed and monorails can
not cope with large passenger traffic
Monorails almost never standardizedThe exception is Japan Monorail arrow (track
switch)-complex bulky structure time of shifting of monorail arrows - 30 in
contrast to conventional ones which shift in a split second
There is a potential danger of rolling stock falling from a great height (compared
with a tramway) especially with suspended trains
On some lines in the case of stopping the wagon because of an accident or
technical problems passengers can not leave the wagons
Rail assumes strong torsional stress In suspended - not just a rail but also a
structure of the wagon
Maintenance of monorail line is much more expensive than any line of other public
transport
The main advantage of the new mode of transport is the relative cheapness compared
to the traditional subway ecological safety noiseless and special design of wayside
devices which are located apart from the roadway and does not interfere with other
modes of transport operational speed and transportation capacity
Daily productivity of monorail (on average operational velocity) for Kharkiv
determined as follows[3]
Pd monoral = 26406016025=633 600 passкмday
9
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
Image 41 Monorail in Chiba (Japan)
Table 41 Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8][9]
10
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Maximum passenger traffic 1000 passhour
30 6 30 18 7 7
Minimum recommended passenger traffic 1000 passhour
15 - 5 2 1 01
Construction cost of 1 km track 1000 Є
20000 15000 2000 1400 400 150
Net Present Value Єpass per year
50 500 80 80 80 120
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
Continuation of table 41
Image 42 Monorail line in Kharkivrsquos Map Fragment (Google Earth )
11
Parameter Subway (ldquo lightrdquo)
Monorail High-speed tramway
Tramway Trolleybus Bus
Coefficient of efficiency and utilization of roadway
- - - ~6 ~42 ~41
Actual maximum life span years
20 - 40 40 13 10
Possibility of off-street movement
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mean speed maximum km per hour
25 20 24 15 12 12
Mean speed minimum km per hour
35 25 30 24 20 20
Alekseyevskaya
Pavlovo Field
Gosprom
Historical Center
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
Conclusion
Based on comparison of monorail feasibility indicators with other types of public
transport was determined that monorail is the most suitable transportation mode
between Leninskyi districts in the South-West and Alekseyevskaya micro district
with retail sectorrsquos concentration However due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as Kharkivrsquos poor
technological base it will not likely be happen in the long-term perspective The only
solution related to attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can solve both
financial and technological issues in the long term perspective like in Canada
following lsquo branch plant economyrsquo principle Because of urban planning conditions
like narrow roads in subcenters space between building less the fire safe zone
(instead of 20 m 19 to 7 m ) and noise associated effects monorail road cannot be
arranged through the subcenters Also real traffic capacity of some urban arterial
roads is 2-3 times below than objective demand Reconstructed Pushkinskaya Street
for example in the peak hours instead of the necessary 2000-2500 vehicles hour
(one way) allows no more than 1000 vehicles hour As a result of this average speed
is below 10 km hour and on the most congested areas periodically and at all about
2-3 km hour In other words most of the street in subcenters without capital
renovation of roads and micro district along them will not be able accommodate
monorail line due to congestion problems Thus the only possible solution is the
arrangement in subcenter along Klochkovskaya Street provided allocation of required
finances monorail systemrsquos technology and skilled workers or experts in working
with this technology In other words Center in Kharkov is heavily loaded and
supports on the central square and excessive noise ultimate passenger traffic during
rush hour only complicate situation And the arrangement in sub-center along
Klochkovskaya Street can be as an alternative solution
It should be arranged in the following way
Monorail should be routed along the overpass at a height of 6 m The only obstacle
is the building and structures
12
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
Between the track beams can be arranged service footpaths
The supports should have a pile foundation made from bored piles
with a diameter of 075 m and a monolithic body
Metal supports are mounted across the track
Ground conductive elements of monorail tracks provides a device of grounding
taps extending preferably within the monolithic members of supports
List of literature
1 ldquoMaster Plan of Kharkiv Cityrsquos Development 1986-2005 Main Provisionsrdquo
Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovuamiscgenplan1986
2 Mironenko V Podte leshnikova I 2012 ldquo Transportation problems of
big cityrdquo Communal economy of cities 103 550-555http
eprintsknameeduua256861550-55520Мироненко20ВПpdf
3 Lobanov E 1990 ldquo Transportation planning of citiesrdquo Textbook for students-
Moskow Transport 39-56
4 2006 ldquo Passenger transportation and turnoverrdquo National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia 23-25 httpwwwarmstatamfilearticletr_r_06_7pdf
5 Safronov E Sheihon T 2007 ldquo Improvement of transportation system of big
cityrdquo the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16 http
beksibadiorgfulltextED1535pdf
6 Lanskikh V Denisov G Dyachkova O 2013 ldquo Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the cityrdquo Pacific Oceanrsquos University 4
1376-1379
7 2012 Monorail Pros and Cons general overview http
transportkaketoustroenorua_transportampmonorelsamp2htm
8 2008 Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS Feasibility study 26-54
9 Transport Kharkiv httpgortransportkharkovua
13
top related