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