Proposal Towards the Development of an Overhead Monorail System for the Greater Dublin Area

8/2/2019 Proposal Towards the Development of an Overhead Monorail System for the Greater Dublin Area

1/14

Proposal towards the development of an

overhead monorail system for the greater

Dublin area

Neville Lawless

School of Mechanical and Manufacturing engineering

DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY

Glasnevin, Dublin 9,

Ireland


2/14

Neville Lawless Page II

Contents

CONTENTS II1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 12 INTRODUCTION 23 NEEDS ASSESSMENT 34 PROPOSAL 5

4.1 Why select a monorail system? 54.2 Identify route options 64.3 Route selection 64.4 Line and stop design 8

5 COSTING ANALYSIS 106 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 117 FINAL RECOMMENDATION 128 REFERENCES 12


3/14

Neville Lawless Page 1

1 Executive summaryThe following proposal sets out the development of a two line orbital

monorail system which serves to unite the greater Dublin area and commuter

towns with an integrated, efficient, and environmentally friendly

transportation system. Akin to the M50 motorway the rail system encircles

Dublin city centre at a radius of approximately 11 km, it is served from CBD

by two radial lines, one northbound extending through Dublin airport

terminating in swords, and one western line terminating in Maynooth.

Needs assessments have been carried out in this work and predictions madein previous research have shown there is a necessity for the construction of a

railway system analogous to the one proposed therein. Having deemed this, a

costs analysis based on a similar Monorail system used Kuala Lumpur was

carried out. It has given 1.67 billion as an initial rough estimate for the scope

of the project. Passenger usage estimations follow this; it is deemed that the

annual revenue generated would be in the order of 40 million, A 50 year debt

repayment timeline. Further tax revenues are proposed by means of a land tax

on commercial sites which benefit. And also a city centre car tax is envisagedduring peak hours

Figure 1: ref: http://oc.metblogs.com/2009/08/01/m-o-n-o-r-a-i-l/


4/14


2 IntroductionThe need for an efficient, world class, fully integrated, urban transport systemfor the greater Dublin environs has come to a head in times of late. The

current economic climate has led to an increased pressure on the residents of

Dublin city and county to incorporate cost saving measures into their

financial planning, and so, the increased expenditure on personal vehicles has

led to a higher dependence on the citys public transportation system.

From an environmental point of view this is a positive, however, this has not

reduced the chronic traffic congestion that is found throughout Dublins

roads and motorways to any dramatic extent as with rising population will

always come with increased vehicle numbers.

This proposal document aims to deliver an alternative solution to those which

has been published in the Dublin Transportation Offices report, A Platform

for Change Outline of an integrated transportation strategy for the Greater

Dublin Area - 2000 to 2016[1]. In it, the strategy has pointed out the

development of a higher capacity, segregated, light rail network (Metro) as

viable addition to the transport network.

The Dublin swift is the name given to the light rail system being set out in this

document. It is proposed that the monorail system will serve a number of

County Dublins densely populated residential boroughs with zones of high

employment, four Universities, retail outlets and hospitals. This would consist

of one orbital, dual track line,beginning in Coolock in Dublins north east and

running through major areas such as Santry, finglas, castleknock,

palmerstown, tallaght, templeouge, dundrum, UCD and ending just north of

booterstown where it intersects the dart line. This line has a combined length

of 37.69 km. In addition, 2 radial lines, one Northern and another Western, are

proposed to act as interconnectors and serve as a means of easing traffic


5/14


congestion on well-known college/school/city centre vehicular routes. The

northern line extends north from Westmoreland Street/college green (Trinity

College), through the north inner city, Drumcondra, DCU, Ballymun, Dublin

airport and ending in Swords, having a total length 15.9 km. The western line

shall serve Dame Street, Kilmainham, Ballyfermot, Leixlip and Maynooth

with a length of 23.6 km. In total this accumulates to 77.2km of new rail lines.

3 Needs AssessmentThe single person occupancy of vehicles on the daily trek to the workplace is

the single biggest contributor to traffic congestion, fuel consumption and CO2

emissions in Ireland. The financial boom experienced by the country in the

times of The Celtic Tiger , sustained stable economic development and a

high quality of life, leaving finances available to families and younger people,

to purchase vehicles or multiple vehicles where once they would have not

been in such a position. In recent years however, whilst the majority of

vehicles have remained on the countries roads, there has been seen a slight

decrease in the percentage of private car usage out of the total transportation

trips. This has led to a much increased demand on the public transportation

system [2].

As this proposal is concerned with the needs of the greater Dublin area,

transportation methods within a 5 to 6 km radius of Dublins city centre or

CBD shall be left to further works. This is because the current operation of the

inner city public bus system operates efficiently and meets demand at the

current time.


6/14


In a symposium report published in 2003 [3], data is presented showing

morning peak hour trips in the greater Dublin area between 1991 and 2001. In

the work, predictions are also offered by the Dublin transport office from

various reports, of the breakdown of numbers and modes of transports up to

the year 2016. It can be seen in table 1 that from 1991 to 1997 there is an

increase of 78000 trips, leaving a 7% increase per year. This then jumps

dramatically from 250,000 to 488,000 predicted trips for 2016. This yields an

increase of 95%, which is an astonishing step and can only lead to increased

trip times.

Table 1: Actual and Projected Morning Peak Hour Trips (000s) in Greater Dublin. [3]

The breakdown of modes of transport and their corresponding trip numbers

is set out in table 2.The data holds assuming that the report A Platform for

change [2] has correctly assessed the situation and that the methods set outin it are implemented. Nevertheless, the numbers in table 2 are representative

of what is required by the greater Dublin area to thrive as a modern

metropolis, regardless of what implementations are made.

Table 2: Breakdown of Morning Peak Hour Trips by Mode 1991 to 2016 [3]

From above, the need for an efficient rail system to connect the industrial

centres, shopping complexes, universities and commuter towns cannot be

questioned. This operating in hand with a reliable investment in bus feeder


7/14


services which are already operable is envisaged and a method of achieving

this is proposed in the following section.

4 ProposalPrevious research has led the author of this work to formulate the proposal of

a modern elevated monorail as a means of meeting the transport

requirements for the greater Dublin environs over the next 20 years.

4.1 Why select a monorail system? Monorails have been shown to be the cheapest method of adding an

efficient, large capacity transport system to a city.

Monorails are a safe means of transport as they are grade-separatedand do not interfere with existing infrastructure.

They are inherently more environmentally friendly as they maintaingood energy efficiency whilst requiring a lot less construction costs at

all points during the construction project.

They can serve as short range operators akin to the luas system or canserve longer stop ranges with speeds in the range of 80km/h

The cost requirements are significantly less than those associated withunderground subways or ground level trams. Underground

uncertainties give rise to a greater level of complexity for the planning

and construction stages.

Timelines for the development of monorail systems can be smaller thanthose for subway /metro systems.


8/14


4.2 Identify route optionsThe selection of a route for this proposal came from a need for people of

Dublin and surronding areas to have an alternative to driving, that will enable

all the flexability associated with it, whilst providing a cost saving to the

everyday commuter which is financially viable to the government. The

success of the M50 motorway in linking the outskirts of the city centre has

been identified as a platform from which a route could be planned. An orbital

track, having two lines serving major areas in a region similar to the M50 is

felt as the best option. This is to be interlinked by radial lines serving the

north to swords and to the west to Maynooth.

4.3 Route selectionBelow in red is the proposed monorail line. Figure 1 shows orbital route andthe north and west lines. Figure 2 gives a wider view of the final proposedroute.

Figure 2: Orbital line with north and west lines marked in red.


9/14


Figure 3: Wider view of the proposed monorail with terminating stops swords and Maynooth

The proposed stops below only serve as an indication of the major

destinations which will be served, further detailed needs analysis, outside the

scope of this proposal, and is required to adequately determine the detailed

Stop locations.

Major stops on orbital line Major stops on Northern line:

1 Coolock 6 Tallaght

2 Santry 7 Templeouge

3 Finglas 8 Dundrum

4 Castleknock 9 UCD

5 Palmerstown 10 Booterstown

Major stops on western line:

1 Dame street 4 Leixlip

2 Kilmainham 5 Maynooth

3 Ballyfermot

1 Westmoreland Street 5 Ballymun

2 North inner city 6 Dublin airport

3 Drumcondra 7 Swords

4 DCU


10/14


4.4 Line and stop designA numerical analysis has been carried out to make a predictive comparison of

schedule speeds between the proposed Dublin swift and commuters on the

m50 during peak times.

Below is a formula taken from a report published by the Railway technical

society of Australasia [4]. It serves as a tool for estimating schedule velocities

for travel times between stops, with incorporated accelerations, deceleration

and wait times. A comparisons was made between a section of the m50 (N7-

M1) and the orbital monorail line with stops at 2km intervals.

[ ( ) ]

Where V = schedule speed along the route,

d = distance between adjacent stops,

ts = time a vehicle spends at a stop,

v = running speed between stops,

a = acceleration from zero to v, and

b = deceleration from v to zero speed,

Using real time travel information from NRA website, figure 4, schedule time

for a car to travel the N7 to M1 was simply calculated as 18.5 m/s, this can fall

to as low as 9m/s at peak times.

Figure 4: NRA website live times [5]


11/14


Below is a table containing the schedule speeds obtained from the above

equation for the monorail and also for the m50 which was simply calcuated

above as an average of 18.5m/s.

It is evident that at stop sizes of roughly 2km, the schedulde speeds obtained

by the monorail sytem begin to increase greatly above that for a commuter

car. This leads to a much reduced travel time for passengers and so it is felt

that this proposal, if successful will enitice the predicted number of

passengers to leave their vehicles and make use of the public rail system.

The proposed system is to use a two car monorail, based closely on the Kuala

Lumpur MTrans which has been built at a cost of 24.43M per km. The

successful system combines an effective approach to the monorail system

with a slimmer size carriage suitable for areas already built up with

infrastructure. Figure 5 below shows the layout of each 2 carriage train.

Services are proposed to operate between 6.00am and 1.00am on weekdays

with late night services operating on Fridays and Saturdays. Service hours

would be shorter on Sundays and bank holidays. At peak times the headway

for each train is 3 minutes and at off peak times is increased to 15mins. There

is no need for a detailed timetable as the trains leave at the quarter hour

precisely.

factors Dublin Swift Circular line M50 road journey

d (m) 2000 18000

Vmax 146 80

Vop m/s 33.3 22.2 (0-80kph)

t (sec) 20 35

a (m/s^2) 1 7

b (m/s^2) 1.2 1.2

Vsched (m/s) 16.13 11.18

Vsched (kph) 44.80 31.05


12/14


Figure 5: Kuala Lumpur MTrans schematic

5

Costing AnalysisThe total cost of construction, deemed to be a rough estimate and based

loosely on the Kuala Lumpur system is set out in table 3 below.

Table 3: Estimated costs

M km M

Orbital line 25.43 26.43 672.1149

North line 25.43 15.9 404.337

Western line 25.43 23.6 600.148

1676.5999

1.676 Billion

Table 4: Passenger trip estimations

Max Capacity: 420 passengers

off peak capacity: 250 passengers

7am-9am peak: every 3min2 car trains at 3 min headways: 8,400 pphpd

Both directions: 16800 total passengers

9am-4pm: every 15min

2 cars trains at 15 min headways: 1000 pphpd


4pm-6pm peak: every 3min

2 car trains at 3 min headways: 8,400 pphpd



13/14


6pm-1am: every 15min

2 cars trains at 15 min headways: 1000 pphpd


Total per day: 37600 passengers per day

Table 5: Yearly estimated revenue

passengers per day 37600

average ticket cost 2.50

Daily revenue 94,000.00

Yearly revenue 360 days 33,840,000.00

At this current esitmated yearly revenue the debt repayment time is currently

50 years. This is deemed far too long so it is propsed that a land tax rise be

imposed on industrail and commercical site that will benefit from the

integreation of this system.

A tax on entry to the city centre for non commerical vehicle is also proposed

during peak hours to reduce the debt replayment period.

6 Environmental ImpactThe prevention of any environmental damage is of major concern during anycivil constuction project.

The following factors shall be tackled once this proposal has been accepted:

Impact on Human welfare:

Landuse Socio-economics Noise Vibration Radiation and stray current Traffic

Impact on Natures welfare:

Flora and fauna Soil and geology Groundwater


14/14


Surface water Air and climate factors Landscape

Impact on coutries assets:

Archeology Cultural heritage

7 Final Recommendation It should be acknolowedged that this project is not envisaged as a

standalone one. All transport and infrastrucal planning should be done

with a sense of unity to join the greater dublin area. Prior to the begining of construction it should be ensured that legal

meaures can be put in place to allow 24/7 construction to speed up thedelivery process.

All platform stops should be designed to allow for growth of carriagenumbers in the future.

All work being carried out for the dublin swift is to comply withcurrent EU legislation and international practice.

The efficient operation of stations is a necessity and so further work isneeded to determine whether, turnstile, prepay or ticketless systems

should be put in place.

8 References[1] A Platform for Change Outline of an integrated transportation strategy for

the Greater Dublin Area - 2000 to 2016.http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf

[2] A Platform for changehttp://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf

[3] Keegan, O.P, Symposium on traffic congestion in Dublin: policy options,

Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland Vol. XXXII

[4] C L Fouvy, BEE, MS (CivEng), MIEAust, MCIT, MAAS The Melbourne

regions opportunity and need for rapid transit, Railway technical society of

Australia.

[5] NRA website. (Accessed 11/5/11)http://www.nratraffic.ie/traveltimes/default.asp?RegionId=1
http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdfhttp://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdfhttp://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdfhttp://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdfhttp://www.nratraffic.ie/traveltimes/default.asp?RegionId=1http://www.nratraffic.ie/traveltimes/default.asp?RegionId=1http://www.nratraffic.ie/traveltimes/default.asp?RegionId=1http://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdfhttp://www.dto.ie/platform1.pdf

Proposal Towards the Development of an Overhead Monorail System for the Greater Dublin Area

Documents