Queensland UTC +10
Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Links

Author Topic: Mono-rail  (Read 8650 times)

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 78604
    • RAIL Back On Track
Mono-rail
« on: March 25, 2011, 02:18:38 PM »
Many people when confronted with the notion of a mono-rail system think it is not suitable for a mass transit role.

I have been reading for a while now on mono-rails around the world.  There has been a real evolution and a realisation of the considerable economic benefits of such systems.

Mono-rails used for mass transit are not the amusement park, Darling Habour type systems.  They are actually most efficient and can move pax loads comparable to a light railway/metro system, at a lot less cost particularly construction.

Be informed rather than just dismiss outright monorails.  If you note the main background image of RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org there has always been a mono-rail image.  That is just a recognition that in some parts of the world they are used.

Some background links:

http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/ryanrkennedy.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail

http://www.newaustralia.net/transport_monorail.html



Video: Chongqing Metro, a Hitachi 'large' monorail.


« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 08:31:52 AM by ozbob »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

colinw

  • Guest
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2011, 04:46:37 PM »
Those Japanese style monorail systems (like the Hitach technology in the video) are the only kind of monorail I'd like to see used in Australia.  They would perform an acceptable job as a light metro, and I believe are amenable to full automation (driverless operation).  The real beauty of them is you can put them into extremely dense inner city areas with a minimal amount of disruption.

However, what Monorails really need to (pardon the pun) gain traction is a set of inter-operable standards, so that building a monorail doesn't result in a vendor lock-in as it does now.

For Gold Coast I would still prefer standard light rail, however if a monorail system were to go in somewhere like GC I wouldn't be protesting if it was the high capacity Japanese style stuff.  Don't want to see any more useless tinker toys like that joke of a thing in Sydney 'though.

I'd rather see Gold Cost just go ahead as standard light rail as planned.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 04:48:30 PM by colinw »

Offline BrizCommuter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2947
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2011, 05:48:27 PM »
An older post, but still relevant.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/10/monorail-monorail-monorail_12.html

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2011, 05:52:28 PM »
The other question is do we really need more train and bus stations? There are heaps already. What needs to be fixed is frequency!
Why can't we fix that first?

And monorail is not going in the busway...
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2011, 06:52:58 PM »
Quote
The other question is do we really need more train and bus stations? There are heaps already. What needs to be fixed is frequency!
Why can't we fix that first?
Because despite this large number, there are many parts of the city a long way away from a fast line haul route.
What good is high frequency on the rail/busway network to people in place like Carindale, who are miles away from the nearest rail or busway station...hence the need to deliver class A corridors to them (As is being done)
Not that I don't disagree that frequency needs to be fixed, but its only half the equation in some parts of the city...Even if the frequency was high, it would still be a slow and torturous bus ride, so its going to struggle to win market share against the private car.

I've mentioned this in the past, but I reckon a good long term goal is to have everyone within 2-3km of a class A route...Go check out the reach of the rail network in Melbourne...apart from the known obvious gaps (Eg Doncaster) most people are quite close to the heavy rail network....In particular the northern suburbs are well served, with the Upfield, Craigeburn and Hurstbridge lines never more than 5km apart (So a max 2.5km journey or so to actually get to the track)

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2011, 07:00:39 PM »
Quote
Because despite this large number, there are many parts of the city a long way away from a fast line haul route.
What good is high frequency on the rail/busway network to people in place like Carindale, who are miles away from the nearest rail or busway station...hence the need to deliver class A corridors to them (As is being done)
Not that I don't disagree that frequency needs to be fixed, but its only half the equation in some parts of the city...Even if the frequency was high, it would still be a slow and torturous bus ride, so its going to struggle to win market share against the private car.

Which part of the city are you specifically talking about. I think physical barriers to proper bus routes would only be a problem in some areas.
Brisbane already has many arterial roads. Bus lanes and T2 are good, but just higher frequency would be acceptable. If more BUZ routes were put on and a consolidation/re-organisation of existing bus routes, half the problem would be solved.
Much of the problem is in the OFF-PEAK when congestion is much less of an issue. The problem is the service simply isn't there.
Quote
I've mentioned this in the past, but I reckon a good long term goal is to have everyone within 2-3km of a class A route...Go check out the reach of the rail network in Melbourne...apart from the known obvious gaps (Eg Doncaster) most people are quite close to the heavy rail network....In particular the northern suburbs are well served, with the Upfield, Craigeburn and Hurstbridge lines never more than 5km apart (So a max 2.5km journey or so to actually get to the track)

I disagree with this. Class A is the most expensive ROW and would take forever to put everywhere (or even close to it). You are looking at something that is going to cost $100+ million per kilometre at least. That means the coverage is going to be much smaller. The "Paris model" which is simply "forget about planning, put metro EVERYWHERE" like some kind of brute-force approach is so costly and slow to do. Melbourne (and Brisbane) has a lot of infrastructure, but the frequency on that infrastructure is still generally worse than Perth. What we need is SERVICE not CONCRETE. I can't catch a bag of concrete into the city! And this is the problem. People say "Public transport is not convenient" and the authorities interpret this to mean "Oh, they need a sign to tell them when the bus is next."  :-r

Nowhere has this "have a bag of concrete" approach been more glaringly obvious than say, Richlands. First class infrastructure. TERRIBLE service frequency that is not much better than a bus route!!!
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 07:07:40 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 78604
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2011, 07:31:07 PM »
An older post, but still relevant.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/10/monorail-monorail-monorail_12.html

Some would argue that the Gold Coast is actually a good location for mono-rail.  Elevation means no crossings ( huge pedestrian/tourist numbers ), flood resilience to some extent, structures to access the stations would still be vulnerable, but less so than a surface system.  I expect though that mono-rail was dismissed when the light rail was confirmed.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

Offline BrizCommuter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2947
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2011, 08:53:11 PM »
An older post, but still relevant.
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/10/monorail-monorail-monorail_12.html

Some would argue that the Gold Coast is actually a good location for mono-rail. Elevation means no crossings ( huge pedestrian/tourist numbers ), flood resilience to some extent, structures to access the stations would still be vulnerable, but less so than a surface system.  I expect though that mono-rail was dismissed when the light rail was confirmed.

I would agree, Monorail may have suited the Gold Coast well. However, politically it could have been seen as too radical.

Brisbane is a different story. As soon as it leaves an existing transport corridor into a low density residential area, a monorail would be an eyesore.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2011, 08:56:45 PM »
Well Vancouver has SkyTrain... its not monorail but it is elevated RT.
Although imagine peering into everyone's backyard twice a day...
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2011, 09:21:56 PM »
Quote
Which part of the city are you specifically talking about. I think physical barriers to proper bus routes would only be a problem in some areas.
Brisbane already has many arterial roads. Bus lanes and T2 are good, but just higher frequency would be acceptable. If more BUZ routes were put on and a consolidation/re-organisation of existing bus routes, half the problem would be solved.
Much of the problem is in the OFF-PEAK when congestion is much less of an issue. The problem is the service simply isn't there.

Ok, To be fair, if SEQ2031 came to fruition a lot of these under served areas would be covered...Eg Northern and Eastern Busways, Trouts Rd Line, Line through Browns Plains and Greenbank etc.

Quote
I disagree with this. Class A is the most expensive ROW and would take forever to put everywhere (or even close to it). You are looking at something that is going to cost $100+ million per kilometre at least. That means the coverage is going to be much smaller. The "Paris model" which is simply "forget about planning, put metro EVERYWHERE" like some kind of brute-force approach is so costly and slow to do. Melbourne (and Brisbane) has a lot of infrastructure, but the frequency on that infrastructure is still generally worse than Perth. What we need is SERVICE not CONCRETE. I can't catch a bag of concrete into the city! And this is the problem. People say "Public transport is not convenient" and the authorities interpret this to mean "Oh, they need a sign to tell them when the bus is next."  :-r
Hence me saying "a good long term goal"
Is it really good for the city in the long term to have areas at a comparitive disadvantage just because they don't sit on the legacy rail network or the busways?

Quote
Nowhere has this "have a bag of concrete" approach been more glaringly obvious than say, Richlands. First class infrastructure. TERRIBLE service frequency that is not much better than a bus route!!!
But there comes a point when you do inevitably have to improve the infrastructure to accommodate demand. If we could just get by with Buses in T2 lanes then we wouldn't need to upgrade the west end routes to Light Rail would we?

I mean, we've got a long way to go in terms of getting existing routes up to high frequency, but with the population growth projected, there will be a need to increase the number of 'arteries' that actually exist rather than just redistributing the use of the ones we have (By bus lanes etc)...Remember, many of our main roads are still drop down to one lane in each direction at some points, so buses are going to get tangled up in it too in the long term at these choke points. The long term vision should be to cut through the mess with an increased rail network that doesn't have to touch this congestion.

And like it or not, concrete does play a role...We cant have a good service on the full length Doomben, Cleveland, Sunshine Coast and Beenleigh lines because of a lack of 'concrete'.

As for the topics of Monorails...They are indeed cheaper, but I reckon elevated heavy rail would be pretty comparable too.
Granted, it was 10 years ago and largely single track, but Airtrain was $25 Million per kilometre...Not bad really.
The thing is, elevated suburban railways are built so rarely in western countries, so I'ts hard to get a good comparative cost.

With respect to the visual impact of Monorails, any new system built for a mass transit purposes actually would need a safety walkway down the middle (eg  http://photos.lasvegassun.com/media/img/photos/2010/01/15/MonorailFile_t653.jpg?214bc4f9d9bd7c08c7d0f6599bb3328710e01e7b ) So you'd lose some of the advantage of it being two simple 'thin' beams...Having a monorail wouldn't phase me though,  and I think the public could come to accept them (Why is it ok to build concrete spaghetti at the ICB/Clem7/Airport link junction, but a monorail is considered ugly)

In conclusion, I'm not oppose to Monorails, but I do think there are more advantages to an elevated train using steel on steel technology...Better ride, no vendor lock in, and less engineering legwork when it comes to things like points (On a railway, you can install a set of points over a weekend, and in day to day operation they can change in 3 seconds, on a monorail a set of points is a major engineering undertaking and take extra land, and in operation they take as long as 30 seconds to switch)


Some modern elevated conventional railways:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Thames+Barrier+Park,+London,+United+Kingdom&aq=0&sll=51.509911,0.008293&sspn=0.004988,0.016512&ie=UTF8&hq=thames+barrier+park&hnear=Thames+Barrier+Park,+Barrier+Point+Rd,+LONDON+E16+2HP,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.502278,0.029636&spn=0.001199,0.004128&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.502292,0.029853&panoid=vTTY8D4kSD0C7RW73YbjLQ&cbp=12,105.21,,0,-5.09

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vestamager&aq=&sll=55.662268,12.580762&sspn=0.139046,0.528374&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vestamager&ll=55.631218,12.579694&spn=0.00225,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=55.631264,12.579507&panoid=H9xvlXAW-xq0lTwy68NUJg&cbp=12,129.3,,0,4.5
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 10:03:33 PM by Gazza »

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2011, 09:49:18 PM »
Quote
Hence me saying "a good long term goal"
Is it really good for the city in the long term to have areas at a comparitive disadvantage just because they don't sit on the legacy rail network or the busways?

I don't know, this sounds a lot like trying to put a bus from everywhere to everywhere, except now only in rail form.
Efficiency is doing the most with the least. Even London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong has bus.

Quote
But there comes a point when you do inevitably have to improve the infrastructure to accommodate demand. If we could just get by with Buses in T2 lanes then we wouldn't need to upgrade the west end routes to Light Rail would we?

There does but I feel that this doesn't validate your point still, or at least for a very long long time. http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/is-being-%E2%80%9Cvisionary%E2%80%9D-sufficient-to-justify-new-infrastructure/

Is being “visionary” sufficient to justify new infrastructure?

Quote
All the talk around at the moment about ‘visionary’ infrastructure projects like High Speed Rail (HSR), the National Broadband Network (NBN) and a rail link to Melbourne Airport, reminds me how much Australians love to gamble.

Big and costly projects that don’t stack up on conventional evaluation criteria are often justified as being in the ‘national interest’; or the result of ‘big thinking’; or comprehensible in the “big picture’; or contributing to ‘nation building’.

Proponents frequently resort to the Field of Dreams argument: “if it’s built, they will come”*. Some cite ambitious projects like the Snowy Mountains Scheme, the Ord River Scheme and the Sydney Opera House, contending that they would not have been built if it weren’t for some big thinking. However they conveniently omit to mention the downsides of these projects, or any ‘visionary’ schemes that are widely thought to be disappointments (let alone any that were unmitigated disasters).

Hmm... Clem 7 "for future traffic increases"... LOL!!!
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 09:51:29 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2011, 10:25:44 PM »
Quote
I don't know, this sounds a lot like trying to put a bus from everywhere to everywhere, except now only in rail form.
Red herring.

I never said we go and criss cross the city to produce maze like the London Underground map, what I'm saying is that even looking at it in terms of a bare bones hub and spoke network, there are still a number of spokes missing (let alone the links between these hubs) Go pull up a map of Brisbane, and examine just how big the gaps get in some areas.

If these areas still are served only by bus, where are the 6 King George Squares being built to service the buses originating from these areas in a couple of decades time?

Perhaps I should map out my point...stand by.

Quote
Efficiency is doing the most with the least. Even London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong has bus.
But they aren't used for long distance/cross city travel are they?

If bus alone could do it, why build rail at all?

Quote
Hmm... Clem 7 "for future traffic increases"... LOL!!!
Quote
or at least for a very long long time
I can see your points, but I place a lot of value in thinking ahead, it saves money in the long term and better meets the needs of society.

It's like with CRR...They knew all along that the rail network would reach capacity, but they mucked around so much that even the original completion date was going to cut it so fine that it would only be ready right when the rail network hit crisis point (heaven help if there was any sudden spike in demand that brought this date forward) But now it has been delayed its going to cost us dearly.

Another example is the GC line...They only built it single track, and have progressively spent much more than the original amount duplicating it so it's actually fit for purpose (And the job still isn't done)...The line is only, what 15 years old, and it's had to have so much spent on it already fixing it up. 15 years is a baby in infrastructure terms, and I expect not only as a PT user, but a taxpayer that money isn't wasted fixing up half arsed jobs.
The Busway, again, nice, but it hasn't 'lasted' long enough for my liking.

Its only recently they have been able to shake out this mindset (Springfield was built double track, so will Kippa Ring)

This is the value of thinking ahead. Instead of just thinking/building for 'now', build it properly once so it can be left alone and work properly with ease.
And actually think about what the city actually needs in advance, and have it built in time, rather than making people suffer until they get their act together.

Sure, it might be a 'loss leader' in its first decade or so of operation when its not at capacity, but down the track having something that can smoothly ramp up to cater to demand will be invaluable to the city.

Quote
Is being “visionary” sufficient to justify new infrastructure?
Be careful with the type of project you are talking about.

Things like the NBN, HRS, Train to MEL etc have that la di da da factor
La di da da, with the NBN kids can use it for education, and doctors can treat patients in remote areas (Translation, people can download cat videos off Youtube 10 times faster)
La di da da, with HSR we wouldn't need planes!
Etc.
(Disclaimer, I don't think either of these projects are especially bad or anything)

But with things like rail expansion in the cities, its not la di da da, its more of a blunt statment.
For CRR for instance its not "La di da da, i can catch a train right into albert st, undergound, we'll be just like Europe, wouldn't that be wonderful?"

Its more like "If we don't build this, the whole region will @##%$#^$#% !"

So, there's a difference between the mega projects you want to do because it would make life nicer, and the mega projects you have to do as a matter of course for responsibly catering to needs of society. (Other types of expensive infrastructure, like Hospitals and Dams sit in this category too)

On the other hand, Clem7 and the rest of transapex is indeed La di da da. You can tell they sort of got a map of Brisbane, drew a triangle of roads that was pleasing to the eye, wet themselves over what they had just done, and then sort of co-erced the traffic figures to justify building it (Oooh, wont it be nice, we can drive from one side of the city to the other in only minutes!)

It wasn't actually borne out of sitting down and getting back to first principles and answering the question "X number of people will need to move around the city in 20 years time, how should we do it?".
 

« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 10:52:39 PM by Gazza »

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2011, 10:51:08 PM »
Quote
I never said we go and criss cross the city to produce maze like the London Underground map, what
I'm saying is that even in a bare bones hub and spoke network, there are still a number of spokes
missing. Go pull up a map of Brisbane, and examine just how big the gaps get in some areas.

And the metro/monorail in the inner city isn't meant to be this? Yes, let's see that map then of
where these services are proposed.

Quote
If these areas still are served only by bus, where are the 6 King George Squares going to service
the buses originating from these areas?

Most of the buses entering the CBD are coming off the busways. Upgrade the busway to some form of rail
and problem is solved. That is an upgrade of existing infrastructure, which I have no problem with.
Remember, Connecting SEQ 2031 IS NOT MEANT TO BE FULLY FUNDED. Anything that adds to to that is pushing
just cannot be funded unless something else is sacrificed.
Quote
Perhaps I should map out my point...stand by.
Yes, that would be helpful.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2011, 10:53:09 PM »
Quote
But they aren't used for long distance/cross city travel are they?
If bus alone could do it, why build rail at all?

We have an extensive network of rail and busways already. Maybe there can be upgrades to that.
We have a lot of arterial roads that can be put into operation NOW, such as Coronation Drive bus lane.
None of this prevents future upgrades. But if you want to build Class A grade separated infrastructure, I feel that it would be better spent in Brisbane
on more services, which is the root of the problem in SEQ I feel, SERVICES and FREQUENCY.

I am on record as supporting a Core Frequent Network of services that is mode-blind. So that means core frequency on existing bus, rail and ferry services. There is much capacity to be unlocked if funds for new infrastructure were spent on fixing up and making better use of what we have already.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2011, 10:56:08 PM »
Quote
I can see your points, but I place a lot of value in thinking ahead, it saves money in the long term and better meets the needs of society.

No, not always.
People are confusing SYMBOLS of improvement
with ACTUAL improvements to mobility. Does anyone actually believe CityCycle has done anything much
for Brisbane other than look pretty (at 8 million dollars cost)? Or that the $770 million dollars that Clem 7
is the best and highest purpose use for those funds? Or that Route P88 and 77 serves some essential need?

Sydney's monorail is also a white elephant project- built for futuristic needs, total flop.
Same with the millennium stadium in the UK as well. Adelaide to Darwin railway...

Sorry to dissent, but my train is still coming every 30 minutes.
It would be nice to have something of UTILITY rather than something that looks pretty.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 10:58:51 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2011, 11:03:29 PM »
Quote
We have an extensive network of rail and busways already. Maybe there can be upgrades to that.
We have a lot of arterial roads that can be put into operation NOW, such as Coronation Drive bus lane.
None of this prevents future upgrades. But if you want to build Class A grade separated infrastructure, I feel that it would be better spent in Brisbane
on more services, which is the root of the problem in SEQ I feel, SERVICES and FREQUENCY.
Absolutley do that first
as I've said in the past, ramping up existing routes should be #1,

But in 20 years time......

Quote
Connecting SEQ 2031 IS NOT MEANT TO BE FULLY FUNDED. Anything that adds to to that is pushing
just cannot be funded unless something else is sacrificed.
That statement has been brought up a lot. My interpretation is that they have said "It's what we want, but we aren't committed to funding it" (They're pollies, can 'o' worms to actually commit to it!),
not "It's what we want, but we can only pick and choose x percent of them to actually carry through with".

They could well build the whole lot if they wanted to, but they're just not promising to.

Also, the document covers all transport infrastructure, including freeways and the like. There's no reason they couldn't just built the rail components in preference to other aspect.

Quote
That is an upgrade of existing infrastructure, which I have no problem with.
How did the Busway come to exist in the first place? Because they decided to pour concrete!

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2011, 11:04:05 PM »
Quote
It's like with CRR...They knew all along that the rail network would reach capacity, but they mucked around so much that even the original completion date was going to cut it so fine that it would only be ready right when the rail network hit crisis point (heaven help if there was any sudden spike in demand that brought this date forward) But now it has been delayed its going to cost us dearly.

Another example is the GC line...They only built it single track, and have progressively spent much more than the original amount duplicating it so it's actually fit for purpose (And the job still isn't done)...The line is only, what 15 years old, and it's had to have so much spent on it already fixing it up. 15 years is a baby in infrastructure terms, and I expect not only as a PT user, but a taxpayer that money isn't wasted fixing up half arsed jobs.
The Busway, again, nice, but it hasn't 'lasted' long enough for my liking.

Yes, but in these statements, you have revealed more about the need to fix CURRENT infrastructure rather than engage in creating more brand new infrastructure that must be operated and maintained. My view is that we should aim to build LESS infrastructure but work that infrastructure much harder. There is not much point spending a whole heap of money on new infrastructure if you come out of that process only to find that you no longer have money left over to run SERVICES. This is why I am very skeptical of new trunk subway lines in Brisbane unless they have a demonstrated purpose and utility. At $100 million anywhere up to $400 million per kilometre (price range as per Mass Transit Report 2007 Appendixes) it should be thoroughly examined.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2011, 11:07:02 PM »
Quote
That statement has been brought up a lot. My interpretation is that they have said "It's what we want, but we aren't committed to funding it" (They're pollies, can 'o' worms to actually commit to it!),
not "It's what we want, but we can only pick and choose x percent of them to actually carry through with".

They could well build the whole lot if they wanted to, but they're just not promising to.

Also, the document covers all transport infrastructure, including freeways and the like. There's no reason they couldn't just built the rail components in preference to other aspect.

Yes, but the RACQ exists. The costs of SEQ 2031 are also just unbelievable to begin with anyway, if that was a private company, Fair Trading would be having a look-in. You just can't plug in 'unconstrained budget' and use that for future planning purposes. Rubbish in, Rubbish out
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #18 on: March 25, 2011, 11:10:51 PM »
Quote
It would be nice to have something of UTILITY rather than something that looks pretty.
So you're basically lumping all concrete into the same category?

What about projects such as the Perth Mandurah railway?

Or the Northern Busway?

Or the Green Bridge to UQ?

Etc

None of these were upgrades of existing infrastructure.

Quote
with ACTUAL improvements to mobility. Does anyone actually believe CityCycle has done anything much
for Brisbane other than look pretty (at 8 million dollars cost)?
Again, that is a la di da project (Yay, we can cycle to our appointments across the CBD!)

But for every bad bit of 'concrete' you try and cite, I'll be able to come up with 10 more good projects that have actually done the job they intended.

Lets cite one proposed project for instance....CAMCOS. Would that be la di da, or would it do a job?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 11:18:34 PM by Gazza »

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #19 on: March 25, 2011, 11:18:23 PM »
Quote
How did the Busway come to exist in the first place? Because they decided to pour concrete!

I actually like the busway, but you will notice that it is not class A all the way. If is fed by buses that run in Class C for most of their journey length and then and only then do the buses enter Class A ROW. This was to save on multi-billion dollar tunnel costs through the CBD-South Bank under the Brisbane River that would have reduced the busway we know today to a twig rather than a trunk and branch we know today.

The second thing is that your argument is invalid because we do not have a counterfactual to compare to- the "what would Brisbane be like without the busway" scenario. That scenario is purely theoretical now, but some insight from Transport for Suburbia by Dr Paul Mees (page 123) and public works department committee reports from 1997:

"Their analysis [the public works committee] was even more consistent with the approach of cities such as Zurich, Toronto, Vancouver and even Ottawa than that of the local experts." [...]

"The committee does not agree. It would like to see more work go into looking at an improved rail service. It would like to see a comparison between the increase in public transport patronage caused by either $1,000,000 spent on busways and $1,000,000 spent on improving CityTrain services"

A dollar spent on project X is not a dollar spent on alternative project Y. Now I think the busway is a great piece of infrastructure that is now reaching capacity, but I ask that you consider the spirit of what that public works committee then was trying to day. There are 22 busway stations in Brisbane now... there are 149 train stations all over SEQ, 5 times the number of busway stations. There must be a very good reason as to why money was not available to upgrade my train service....
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #20 on: March 25, 2011, 11:20:20 PM »
Quote
There must be a very good reason as to why money was not available to upgrade my train service....
Because money for infrastructure, and money for running services, comes from different pots.

Quote
The second thing is that your argument is invalid because we do not have a counterfactual to compare to- the "what would Brisbane be like without the busway" scenario
Isn't there that usual department of transport quote spruiking the project: "If the busway didn't exist, the SE Freeway would have to be 10 lanes wide" or similar.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 11:23:52 PM by Gazza »

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2011, 11:23:46 PM »
Quote
So you're basically lumping all concrete into the same category?

What about projects such as the Perth Mandurah railway?

Or the Northern Busway?

Or the Green Bridge to UQ?

Etc

None of these were upgrades of existing infrastructure.

Gazza, you are welcome to disagree with me as much as you like. I'm not Campbell Newman incognito or someone from TransLink or whatever. None of what you are saying is going to accelerate these projects because of (1) TIME and (2) COSTS. Class A everywhere has the highest benefits but also the highest costs, that's why it is so slow to get these things going and why RAILBOT always wonders why the construction pipeline is so constipated. Look at the RAILBOT wishlist of projects for Sunshine Coast, Kippa ring, Cross River Rail etc. You have a budget crisis already there.

Perth Mandurah railway- replaces existing infrastructure which was the pre-existing bus lanes and busway on the Kwinana Freeway.

Northern Busway- is an upgrade to exisiting infrastructure in the form of BUZ 333 and other high frequency bus routes. It is being delivered in stages with sections in Class C or Class B as I understand it.

Eleanor Schonell Bridge- replaces pre-existing Dutton Park ferry service which ended in December 2006. The ferry was put on in the 1970s IIRC as the Eleanor Schonell Bridge ('a river crossing', it didn't have a name then) has been promised since the 1920s or 1930s for that area.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 11:30:11 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2011, 11:28:27 PM »
Quote
Because money for infrastructure, and money for running services, comes from different pots.
The point Mees was making was this- the money that could have been spent on rail upgrades on 149 stations across the entire SEQ region
was instead spent on a busway for 22 stations on the southside of Brisbane...

Even today, Somebody and David have extreme difficulty in trying to schedule 15 minute trains bi-directionally in the off peak. And this is true for many locations on our incapacitated rail network. I am not against metro or monorail per se, I am just asking that $$$ be spent on maximum benefit achievable in the minimum time frame. Hence the core frequent network.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2011, 11:30:18 PM »
]
Quote
Perth Mandurah railway- replaces existing infrastructure which was the pre-existing bus lanes and busway on the Kwinana Freeway.
Was there pre existing infrastructure south of Kwinana?

Quote
Eleanor Schonell Bridge- replaces pre-existing Dutton Park ferry service which ended in December 2006. The ferry was put on in the 1970s IIRC as the Eleanor Schonell Bridge ('a river crossing', it didn't have a name then) has been promised since the 1920s or 1930s for that area.
So replacing one mode with another counts as an upgrade by your definition.
Cool, Brisbane can have its metro in 30 years time once the Core Freq Net is done, because it will be upgrading the nearby bus routes into a train  :)

Quote
I am not against metro or monorail per se, I am just asking that $$$ be spent on maximum benefit achievable in the minimum time frame. Hence the core frequent network.
Please, don't keep bringing this up as a counter point.

Remember what i said in another thread:

Quote
I don't know why you keep repeating this point. Nobody on here has suggested they prioritise otherwise (Unless Campbell Newman has a secret account  rofl )
Remember, a Metro or whatever is a good couple of decades away, and by then CRR would be done, along with the rest of the network upgrades shown on long term planning documents (Eg Triplication to Kingston), Cleveland and Shorncliffe duplications etc)

We're talking about a Metro here, so I shouldn't have to keep reassuring that the QR network would be sorted out first...That should be implied.


« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 11:35:08 PM by Gazza »

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2011, 11:41:56 PM »
Quote
Was there pre existing infrastructure south of Kwinana?
Bus stations as I understand it. Do you have information contrary to this?

Quote
So replacing one mode with another counts as an upgrade by your definition.
Cool, Brisbane can have its metro in 30 years time once the Core Freq Net is done, because it will be upgrading the nearby bus routes into a train  Smiley

But only where absolutely necessary. The busways have been placed in the gaps where there is not rail. As for a metro system, the busway is reaching capacity, so it would be prudent to look at a metro there, probably sooner than later, but elsewhere in the city I am much more skeptical.

The idea for a Toowong-West End-Newstead metro service seems like total overkill and marginal improvement to mobility and would be better served by light rail at a cheaper cost IMHO. Monorail in West End and New Farm, travelling above Adelaide Street is interesting, it would look nice and be a good fit for within the CBD area, but put that in New Farm and West End and the NIMBYs will eat you alive.

Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2011, 11:44:30 PM »
Quote
I don't know why you keep repeating this point. Nobody on here has suggested they prioritise otherwise (Unless Campbell Newman has a secret account  rofl )
Remember, a Metro or whatever is a good couple of decades away, and by then CRR would be done, along with the rest of the network upgrades shown on long term planning documents (Eg Triplication to Kingston), Cleveland and Shorncliffe duplications etc)

We're talking about a Metro here, so I shouldn't have to keep reassuring that the QR network would be sorted out first...That should be implied.

Yes, I know, and I keep pressing it. But it needs to be clear, infrastructure must be much more than a SYMBOL of improvement. The higher the price, the LESS of that thing you are going to have. Its just like shopping on a giant scale- the higher the price, the less of that thing you can afford to get. Or you look for substitutes without the frills that might also do the job.

Mobility is what should be improved, along with capacity increases where justified. I would be rather annoyed if we have a metro and my bus and train still comes at yuck frequency. I'm sure you understand and agree with this point.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 11:47:44 PM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2011, 11:47:44 PM »
Quote
But only where absolutely necessary. The busways have been placed in the gaps where there is not rail.

So through all this, you've basically agreed with what I said at the beginning.

Quote
there are many parts of the city a long way away from a fast line haul route.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #27 on: March 25, 2011, 11:54:58 PM »
Do you agree or disagree that before we build Class A ROW rapid transit (metro) in the inner city, we should have Feeder BUZ and improved frequency to existing QR train stations and more BUZ routes before a single metro/monorail station is built? (Bar the busway- that needs capacity improvement now. http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/11/21/melbourne-v-toronto/


http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/melbourne-toronto.jpg

Melbourne patronage collapsed, but Toronto's held up; Despite the fact that Melbourne has about 200+ train stations and
Toronto has something like 80 or so.

Toronto used buses (running in Class C ROW I might add!) to ferry passengers to stations and extend the train network. Melbourne used "brute force" method to cover the entire city
in train stations (and probably forgot about bus connections too). Covering the entire city in stations is not a guarantee of better PT.
Heavy infrastructure system extension does not automatically mean PT improvement either. Look how tiny Toronto's system is!!! It consists (in 1991) of just two lines!


http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/pt-patronage.jpg
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 12:13:26 AM by tramtrain »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2011, 12:19:52 AM »
Quote
Do you agree or disagree that before we build Class A ROW rapid transit (metro) in the inner city, we should have Feeder BUZ and improved frequency to existing QR train stations and more BUZ routes before a single
Quote
I'm sure you understand and agree with this point.
I do agree, but it just bugs me a bit that we can't have open discussions on here about metros or monorails or whatever without having it shoved down our throats that BUZzing or upgrades to existing routes/lines needs to happen first.

Yes, we get it.

Remember:
Quote
Nobody on here has suggested they prioritise otherwise

And

Quote
I shouldn't have to keep reassuring

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2011, 12:20:32 AM »
 :is- :-t
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19485
  • DON'T SIGN! DON'T RENEW!!
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2011, 12:46:08 AM »
My contribution to the monorail thread...


« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 08:19:39 AM by ozbob »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Online ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 78604
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2011, 05:58:33 PM »
From Railway Express click here!

Scomi wins Line 17 monorail project in São Paulo

Quote
Scomi wins Line 17 monorail project in São Paulo
07 June 2011
Mumbai monorail on test

BRAZIL: Metro São Paulo awarded the Monotrilho Integracao consortium of Scomi, Andrade Gutierrez, CR Almeida and Montagens e Projetos Especiais a R$1·4bn turnkey contract to build the Line 17 monorail on June 2.

The 18 km elevated Gold Line with 18 stations will link São Paulo-Morumbi on Line 4 with Jabaquara, the southern terminus of Line 1. Interchange will be provided to Line 9 at Morumbi and the future Line 5 eastern extension at Agua Espraiada. The route is expected to carry 252 000 passengers/day.

The consortium will be responsible for design, supply, installation and commissioning of the Sutra straddle monorail, including 24 three-car trains to be provided by Scomi. Work should commence in July and is expected to take 42 months.

Scomi, in consortium with Larsen & Toubro, is currently building a 19·5 km monorail with 18 stations connecting Gadge Maharaj Chowk (Jacob Circle) to Wadala and Chembur in Mumbai; work is due for completion by the end of this year.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
  Bob's Blog

colinw

  • Guest
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #32 on: October 06, 2011, 09:37:36 AM »
Railway Gazette International -> click here

This is no fair ground ride.  :-w

Quote


05 October 2011

CHINA: Chongqing Rail Transit has begun trial operations on its first conventional metro and second straddle monorail lines, expanding the city's urban rail network. The first route to be completed was Line 2, which opened in 2005 using straddle monorail technology from Hitachi.

Monorail Line 3 services began running at 14.00 on September 29, with trains operating every 8 min from 07.30 to 20.30. The initial section of the line runs for 17·3 km from Lianglukou to Yuanyang with 15 stations. The line will be fully opened by the end of the year, taking it to 39·1 km and 29 stations. Construction began in April 2007, and trial running without passengers began on June 18 this year. The total cost is put at 13·8bn yuan.

Limited services began on July 28 on the initial Shapingba – Jiaochangkou section of conventional underground metro Line 1, which will eventually run for 16·4 km with 14 stations.

CRT is currently reviewing an expansion plan commissioned from Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Rail Transit Design & Research Institute which envisages the construction of a further 295·7 km of metro lines or monorails with 154 stations during 2012-20.

  • CRT has signed a 15-year agreement granting JC Decaux exclusive rights to manage outdoor advertising on the network.

Offline BrizCommuter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2947
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2011, 08:20:42 AM »
You may be interested in this website
http://www.monorails.org/index.html

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2011, 10:54:11 PM »
Quote
This is no fair ground ride
True, but I don't see what technological/visual advantage there is to build that compared to this:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Lomandra+Drive,+Brisbane+Airport,+Queensland&hl=en&ll=-27.410401,153.059386&spn=0.003953,0.008256&sll=-34.016242,18.457031&sspn=58.849107,135.263672&vpsrc=6&hnear=Lomandra+Dr,+Brisbane+Queensland+4009&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-27.410401,153.059386&panoid=Kk0ZNGn-t-2mVVIfHcrNtg&cbp=12,72.37,,0,-10.82

Offline BrizCommuter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2947
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2011, 08:29:57 AM »
Quote
This is no fair ground ride
True, but I don't see what technological/visual advantage there is to build that compared to this:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Lomandra+Drive,+Brisbane+Airport,+Queensland&hl=en&ll=-27.410401,153.059386&spn=0.003953,0.008256&sll=-34.016242,18.457031&sspn=58.849107,135.263672&vpsrc=6&hnear=Lomandra+Dr,+Brisbane+Queensland+4009&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=-27.410401,153.059386&panoid=Kk0ZNGn-t-2mVVIfHcrNtg&cbp=12,72.37,,0,-10.82

The AirTrain structure (mainly single track in the photo) is much more of an eyesore than a double beam monorail structure (even with a metal emergency walkway between beams). Monorails also require much narrower supports (in locations where is there is no earthquake risk), and thus have a smaller ground footprint than heavy rail.

However, there is also a lot that is not in favour of monorails - lack of standardisation of beam and bogie technology (and thus you are pretty much locked in with a manufacturer), heavy duty switches, relatively poor emergency access, increased risk of falling debris, inability to run on existing rail network.

colinw

  • Guest
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2011, 02:02:29 PM »
Horses for courses. It would have been nuts to build the Airport line as anything other than a 3'6" QR type line (although I still think it should have gone via Doomben).

OTOH for a new metro line in a dense urban environment a monorail could work very well indeed.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2011, 11:37:00 AM »
Quote
The AirTrain structure (mainly single track in the photo)
Just thought I'd point out I deliberately picked a streetview double track section of the Airtrain so it would be fair example.

Perhaps this angle is better though, its looking back the other way, so it is 100% double track in the pic: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=Lomandra+Drive,+Brisbane+Airport,+Queensland&hl=en&ll=-27.410686,153.05971&spn=0.003934,0.008256&sll=-34.016242,18.457031&sspn=58.849107,135.263672&vpsrc=0&hnear=Lomandra+Dr,+Brisbane+Queensland+4009&t=h&layer=c&cbll=-27.410401,153.059386&panoid=Kk0ZNGn-t-2mVVIfHcrNtg&cbp=12,298.69,,0,-12.4&z=18

Quote
is much more of an eyesore than a double beam monorail structure (even with a metal emergency walkway between beams). Monorails also require much narrower supports (in locations where is there is no earthquake risk), and thus have a smaller ground footprint than heavy rail.
Thing is, I think Monorail would be say 80% of the 'eyesore' value of a heavy rail structure.
 It is an improvement, but it's not like NIMBYs would say no to heavy rail but suddenly say yes to a monorail looking like the one in Chongqing.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #38 on: October 28, 2011, 08:27:16 PM »
How's this for an attractive non-monorail elevated line:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/RandstadRail_Den_Haag_netkous.jpg/800px-RandstadRail_Den_Haag_netkous.jpg

colinw

  • Guest
Re: Mono-rail
« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2012, 10:00:07 AM »
48000 pphd.

Railway Gazette International -> Bombardier opens Hortolândia monorail factory

Quote


17 April 2012
Sao Paulo monorail train.

BRAZIL: Bombardier Transportation inaugurated a US$15m monorail train manufacturing plant at its Hortolândia site in São Paulo state on April 13. The US$15m facility has been developed over 18 months as the company's global centre for monorails, and will serve local and export markets.

Technology has been transferred from Bombardier's plants at Kingston and St Bruno in Canada and Pittsburgh in the USA. Bombardier said the new facility will create 250 direct and 500 indirect jobs.

Its first project is to supply 54 seven-car Innovia Monorail 300 trains for the US$1·44bn Expresso Tiradentes monorail which will link Vila Prudente and Cidade Tiradentes in São Paulo. An initial trainset will be assembled and tested in Kingston, but the rest will be produced in Brazil with the first expected to roll out later this year.

The first section of the monorail between Vila Prudente and Oratorio is expected to open at the end of 2013, followed by a second section in 2014 and completion in 2016. The 23·8 km line with 17 stops is being built by the Express Monotrilho Leste consortium of civil contractor Queiroz Galvao, construction firm Construtora OAS and Bombardier Transportation, which is to supply the trains and Cityflo 650 automatic train control.

'This new monorail manufacturing site represents the second phase of Bombardier's industrial expansion initiated in 2009 that aims to triple our number of employees in Brazil to 600 people and to quadruple the industrial area in Hortolândia', said Andre Navarri, President & Chief Operating Officer of Bombardier Transportation.

With a capacity of up to 48 000 passengers/h per direction, the monorail being supplied to Sao Paulo 'offers a transportation capacity similar to a metro, yet the light infrastructure required reduces the construction price and the implementation schedule by up to one half'.

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan