Istanbul Technical University

Institute of Science and Technology

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
FEASIBILITY OF MONORAIL IN KHARKIV

!
!

!
!
!

!
!

Performed:

Verified:

special student

Yrd. Do .Dr. Pelin Alpkokn

Transportation Engineering
Department
Galychyn O.S.

!
!
!
!
Istanbul 2015
1

Content

!
Introduction.3
1. E s t i m a t i o n o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c a p a c i t y . . . . 4
2.Estimation of passenger turnover.5
3. Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle .. 6
4. Estimation of amount go rolling stock for Kharkiv City..8
5 . Feasibility of Monorail Line in the Kharkiv between Leninskyi district and
retail sector in the North of Alekseyevskaya micro district8
C o n c l u s i o n . 12
List of literature13

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
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 hervonozavodkyi districts-93000), east part

(Frunzenskyi district -144.200) 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 hadn't

industrial districts,and therefore, those districts

that

incorporated

have been left outside of

subway system despite of 473.050 population[1]. Currently we be reviewed option

for Monorail Line to connect Leninskyi
housing) with employment

former industrial district ( now public

(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 haven't incorporated retail
sector. Thus, the monorail wasn't 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, i.e. 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 3.5 persons / m2 for rail transport - 2 persons / m2.
T= N, where the N-traffic capacity[3];
-filling rate of rolling stock.
The population of Kharkiv is expected to reach 1.5 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 = 0,102 .16,67 =28,34 ( );
l n = 1.16,67 = 16,67 ( );
L = 4,5 + 16,67 + 28,34 + 3 = 52,51 ( ).
Based on the dynamic clearance the traffic capacity of single traffic lane can be
determined as follows:
4

N auto=460016,67/52,51=1460(vehicles per hour);

T auto=14601,7= 2,482 ( thous.passengers per hour);
T subway=102040= 40,8 ( thous. passengers per hour);
T trol=13990=12, 51 ( thous. passengers per hour);
T bus=123120=14,76 ( thous. passengers per hour).

!
Table 1. 1. Indicators of transport modes for Kharkiv
TYPE OF
TRANSPORT

FILLING RATE OF
ROLLING STOCK
(1m

TRANSPORTATION
CAPACITY
(1m

Subway, 6 wagon
train

1020

40800

Biaxial trolleybus
articulated

139

12500

Articulated bus

123

14800

Automobiles

1.7

2482

!
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 1.5 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 (1,1-1,14);
Calculating the annual passenger turnover (Q):
Q=Hp PLav.=1400,00080011,4=12768000,000 thousand pass\year.
5

The transition from of annual passenger turnover to daily passenger

turnover is carried by the formula[4]:

!
Qd=Q ki\365, where

!
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand pass.km / day;
ki- factor in a daily irregularities in the passenger flows
in directions (1.2-1.6), for Kharkiv ki=1,4;
- coefficient of seasonal irregularities of ( = 1,07-1,1), Kharkiv, = 1,1;

!
Qd=Q ki\365=12768000,0001,011,4\365=49462,882 thous. pass./day

!
3. Estimation of daily productivity of vehicle

!
Daily productivity of vehicle is determined by the formula[5]:

!
Pd = V h , where

!
-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)
- filling ratio of rolling stock (0.35-0.45), Kharkiv = 0,25
Thus, based on data daily productivity of vehicle can be determined:
1)Pd bus= 8018140,25=5040 pass./day
2)Pd trol.= 11417140,25=6783 pass./day
3)Pd tram.= 10016140,25=5600 pass./day
6

4)Pd metro= 125040140,25=175 000 pass./day

5)Pd auto=P h=324820,25=1862 pass./day
Pd.=Pd.=5040+6783+5600+175000+1862=194285 pass./day
Table 3. 1. Daily productivity in Kharkivs case
MODE OF TRANSPORT

DAILY PRODUCTIVITY, %

Subway, 6 wagon train

90

Biaxial trolleybus articulated high

capacity

3.5

Articulated bus

2.6

Articulated tramway

2.9

Automobiles

Diagram 3. 1. Daily productivity in Kharkivs case

!
!
!
7

4. Estimation of amount of rolling stock for Kharkiv City

!
Based on determined daily passenger turnover amount of rolling stock in Kharkivs
case can be determined. Amount of

daily

rolling stock is determined by the

formula[6]:

!
Nrs= Qd\Pd, where

!
Qd- daily passenger turnover thousand pass.km / day;
Pd- daily productivity of vehicle, pass.km/day

!
Nrs1=49462,882\5040=9814 bus\day
Nrs2= 49462,882\ 6783=7292 trolleybus/day
Nrs3= 49462,882\5600=8832 tramways\day
Nrs4= 49462,882\ 175000=265 wagons\day
Nrs5= 49462,882 \1862=26564 automobiles\day
Amount of rolling stock in hour is determined as follows:
Nh1=9814\ 14= 5600 bus\hour
Nh2= 6763\ 14=483 trolleybus\hour
Nh3= 8832\ 14=631 tramway\hour
Nh4=265\ 14=19 wagons\hour
Nh5=26654\ 14=1904 automobiles\hour

!
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 standardized.The 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 = 264060160,25=633 600 pass./day

!
!
9

!
!

Image 4.1. Monorail in Chiba (Japan)

Table 4.1. Comparison of different modes of public transport for Kharkiv[8],[9]
Parameter

Subway
( light)

Monorail

High-speed
tramway

Tramway

Trolleybus

Bus

Maximum
passenger
traffic, 1000
pass./hour

30

30

18

Minimum
recommende
d passenger

15

0,1

Construction
cost of 1 km
track, 1000

20.000

15.000

2.000

1.400

400

150

Net Present
Value, /
pass. per year

50

500

80

80

80

120

traffic, 1000
pass./hour

!
10

Continuation of table 4.1

Parameter
Coefficient
of efficiency
and
utilization of
roadway

Subway
( light)

Monorail High-speed
tramway

Tramway Trolleybus Bus

~6

~4,2

~4,1

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

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Image 4.2. Monorail line in Kharkivs Map Fragment (Google Earth )

11

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 sectors concentration. However, due to lack finances in local government
budget and strong vertical government system as well as

Kharkivs 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 branch plant economy 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 1,000 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 systems 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 0.75 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. Master Plan of Kharkiv Citys Development, 1986-2005, Main Provisions,
Transport Kharkiv, http://gortransport.kharkov.ua/misc/genplan/1986/
2. M i r o n e n k o V. , P o d t e l e s h n i k o v a I . , 2 0 1 2 , Transportation problems of
big city ,

Communal economy of cities

103 550-555,http://

eprints.kname.edu.ua/25686/1/550-555%20%20.pdf
3. Lobanov E., 1990, Transportation planning of cities, Textbook for students.Moskow Transport 39-56
4. 2006, Passenger transportation and turnover, National Statistical Service of the
Republic of Armenia, 23-25 http://www.armstat.am/file/article/tr_r_06_7.pdf
5. Safronov. E. ,Sheihon T., 2007, Improvement of transportation system of big
city, the Siberian Automobile and Highway Academy (SIBADI) 13-16, http://
bek.sibadi.org/fulltext/ED1535.pdf
6. Lanskikh V., Denisov G., Dyachkova O., 2013, Regulation of the quantity of
rolling stock on the route network of the city, Pacific Oceans University 4
1376-1379
7. 2012, Monorail: Pros and Cons,

general overview,

http://

transport.kaketoustroeno.ru/a_transport&monorels&2.htm
8. 2008, Suspended Monorail System MIRAX LRS: Feasibility study, 26-54
9. Transport Kharkiv, http://gortransport.kharkov.ua
13