MULTI–CRITERIA FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE MONORAIL

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN METU CAMPUS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

AMIN TARIGHI

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT

FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

JANUARY 2011
MULTI–CRITERIA FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE MONORAIL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN METU CAMPUS

submitted by AMIN TARIGHI in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science in Industrial Engineering
Department, Middle East Technical University by,

Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen ____________________

Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences

Prof. Dr. Sinan Kayalıgil ____________________

Head of Department, Industrial Engineering

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erol Sayın

Supervisor, Industrial Engineering Dept., METU ____________________

Examining Committee Members:

Prof. Dr. Canan Çilingir _____________________

Indusrial Engineering Dept., METU

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erol Sayın _____________________

Indusrial Engineering Dept., METU

Assist. Prof. Dr. Serhan Duran _____________________

Indusrial Engineering Dept., METU

Assoc.Prof. Dr. Zafer Bozkuş _____________________

Civil Engineering Dept., METU

Göksal Cülcüloğlu, M.Sc. _____________________

Campus Planning Manager, METU

Date: 28/01/2011
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained
obtai
and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I
also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully
cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this
work.

Name, Last name : Amin TA

TARIGHI
RIGHI

Signature :

iii
 ABSTRACT

MULTI-CRITERIA FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE MONORAIL

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN METU CAMPUS

Tarighi, Amin

M.Sc., Industrial Engineering

Supervisor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erol Sayın

January 2011, 188 pages

The overall objective of this thesis is to assess the financial, technical and

social feasibility of investing in modern Automated People Movers (APM)

transportation systems, generally known as monorails, in METU campus

which presents a unique opportunity to fulfill the modern-day

transportation needs of METU campus. This study complements the

Presidency Office’s long term goal to integrate environmental, social and

economic sustainability into the policies, practices and culture of the

university and ultimately reduce the consumption of all resources on

campus and traffic congestion and accidents.

In this context, the consequent cost-benefit effects of the proposed monorail

system on campus life were quantified in monetary expressions and the

corresponding multi-criteria feasibility assessment including: Break-even

Analysis, Cost Effectiveness Assessments and Cost Benefit Analysis have

iv
been done successfully. According to these analyses the overall capital cost

of system is $46.5 million which covers the 24 months project construction

period, and an additional annual operating and maintenance cost of $2

million will span the 30 year project life time. Three different scenarios

were proposed for financing the project and relevant break-even points

were determined for each of the scenarios. Eventually, it appears that

based on the evaluations, constructing such a transit system in METU

campus will be cost effective and will certainly enhance the transportation,

and will contribute to the institutional improvements and environmental

preservation schemes of METU campus.

Key words: Feasibility Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Monorail, METU

campus, Mass transportation

v
 ÖZ

ODTÜ KAMPUSÜNDE BİR TEKRAYLI ULAŞIM SİSTEMİ İÇİN

ÇOK-KRİTERLİ OLURLUK DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Tarighi, Amin

Yüksek Lisans, Endüstri Mühendisliği

Tez Yöneticisi : Doç. Dr. Erol Sayın

Ocak 2011, 188 sayfa

Bu tezin genel amacı, genel olarak Monoray olarak adlandırılan

Otomatikleştirilmiş İnsan Taşıyıcı(OİT) sistemlere yatırım yapmanın

ODTÜ kampusunun günlük ulaşım ihtiyacını özgün bir şekilde karşına

yönelik finansal teknik ve sosyal yapılabilirliğini değerlendirmektir. Bu

çalışma üniversite yönetiminin uzun süreli hedeflerinden biri olan çevresel,

sosyal ve ekonomik sürdürülebilirliği sağlamayı amaclıyan üniversitenin

politikalarıyla, uygulamalarıyla ve kültürüyle bütünleştirmek ve böylelikle

kampusun toplam kaynak kullanımını trafik yoğunluğunu ve kazaları

azaltmak amacını tamamlamaktadır.

Bu bağlamda, önerilen monoray siteminin kampus yaşamı üzerindeki

maliyet-kazanç etkileri finansal ifadelerle sayısallaştırılmış ve Başabaş

Analizi, Maliyet Verimliliği Değerlendirmesi ve Maliyet Kazanç Analizi

gibi analizleri de içeren çok-kriterli fizibilite değerlendirmelerinden uygun

vi
olanlar yapılmıştır. Bu analizlere göre sistemin toplam maliyeti 24 aylık

proje inşa periyodunu da kapsayan 46,5 milyon USD dir. Buna ilave olarak

2 milyon USD olan yıllık işletme ve bakım maliyetleri 30 yıllık proje

ömrüne yayılacaktır. Projeyi finanse etmek için uç farklı senaryo

sunulmuştur ve her senaryo için ilgili başabaş noktaları belirlenmiştir.

Sonuç olarak, ODTÜ kampusuna böyle bir sistem kurmanın maliyet

açısından etkin olduğu anlaşılmıştır, ODTÜ nün ulaşımsal, kurumsal ve

çevresel politikalarını gerçekleştirmeye katkı sağlayacağı beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Fizibilite Analizi, Maliyet-Fayda Analizi, Monoray, ODTÜ

kampusu, Toplu taşıma

vii
 To My Parents

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my

advisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erol SAYIN for supporting me with his guidance,
advice, criticism, encouragement and excellent patience and insight during
the study, through a perfect balance of guidance and free reign.

Great thanks to Prof. Dr. Ahmet ACAR, President of METU and Mr. Cemal
YAVUZ, Head of METU Directorate of Vehicle Management for his
extremely helpful information and comments.

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ iv

ÖZ ........................................................................................................................... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... viii

CHAPTERS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Problem .............................................................................................. 2

1.2 Methodology ..................................................................................... 3

1.3 Objective ............................................................................................ 5

1.4 Scope ................................................................................................... 5

2. TRANSPORTAION ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES............................ 7

2.1 Environment Preservation and Sustainable Transportation on

Campuses................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Sustainable Transportation Systems : Starting Out From

Campuses................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Alternative Modes of Transportation on Campuses ................. 10

2.3.1 Automobiles ........................................................................ 10

2.3.2 Walking and Bicycling ....................................................... 16

2.3.2.1 The Future of Walking and Bicycling on

Campuses....................................................................... 18

viii
 2.3.2.2 University of Washington Brings e-Bikes to

Campus, Seattle............................................................. 19

2.3.3 Buses ..................................................................................... 23

2.3.3.1 Investing in Bus Shuttle Transit, Not Parking,

Stanford University, Palo Alto, California ................ 24

2.3.4 Para Transit (Dolmuş) ........................................................ 28

2.3.4.1 Meeting Community Needs through Private

Transit, MASCO, Boston, Massachusetts .................. 29

2.3.5 Trolleybuses ........................................................................ 31

2.3.6 Light Rail Transit (LRT) ..................................................... 34

2.3.6.1 A Modern Central Corridor LRT on Twin

Cities Campus of University of Minnesota ............... 35

2.3.7 APM Systems (Monorails)................................................. 38

2.3.7.1 Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit, West

Virginia University, USA............................................. 39

3. APM SYSTEMS: The Modern and Smart Solutions ............................... 44

3.1 Monorail as an APM System......................................................... 47

3.1.1 Basic description ................................................................. 47

3.1.2 Straddle Type Monorails: Capacity and Body Outline 48

3.1.3 Suspended Type Monorails: Capacity and Body

Outline ........................................................................................... 52

3.1.4 Guide–way Structure ......................................................... 54

3.1.5 Vehicle Safety and Passenger Comfort............................ 57

3.1.6 Propulsion System, Grade and Traction ......................... 58

ix
 3.1.7 Switching and Steering ...................................................... 60

3.1.8 Control, Reliability, Related Information ........................ 62

3.1.9 Environment and Energy Issues ...................................... 65

3.1.9.1 No Emissions…………………………………..66

3.1.9.2 Greenery along Route……….………………..67

3.1.9.3 Friendly to the Natural Environment……….68

3.2 Monorail: The Smart APM Systems on Campuses .................... 68

3.3 METU Campus Monorail System ................................................ 68

3.3.1 Site Characteristics ............................................................. 68

3.3.2 Urban and Mobility Context ............................................. 69

3.3.3 Campus Facilities and Population ................................... 72

3.3.4 Expected Demand............................................................... 74

4. FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF METU MONORAIL

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .................................................................... 77

4.1 Project Description ......................................................................... 77

4.1.1 Project Summary................................................................. 77

4.1.2 Historical Development of Project ................................... 78

4.1.3 Necessity of Project Evaluation and Feasibility Study .. 80

4.2 The Proposed Monorail System’s Characteristics ..................... 81

4.2.1 An overview of the Current Transportation system ..... 81

4.2.2 General Features of the Monorail System ....................... 84

4.2.3 Route Alignment................................................................. 86

4.2.4 Technical Planning ............................................................. 90

x
 4.2.5 Facility Sustainability Features ......................................... 91

4.2.5.1 Environment Friendly Mobility………..…….....91

4.2.5.2 Reduced Noise Pollution…………………...…...93

4.2.5.3 Efficient Land Use…..……………………………93

4.2.5.4 Higher Safety Features……………..………........95

4.2.5.5 Social and Academic Durability………………..95

4.3 Economic Effects of Proposed Monorail System ....................... 97

4.3.1 Estimated Cost Values ....................................................... 97

4.3.1.1 Capital Costs……………………………………...97

4.3.1.2 Operating Costs…………………………………105

4.3.2 Estimated Benefit Values ................................................. 105

4.3.2.1 Benefits to Passengers Transferring from existing

services…………………………………………………...109

4.3.2.2 Benefits to New Users… ………………………110

4.3.2.3 Non-User External Benefits…............................111

4.3.2.4 Residual Values…………………………………113

4.3.3 Potential Intangible Benefits Not Considered Directly113

4.3.3.1 Social Equity…………….………………………113

4.3.3.2 Regional Business Growth and Academic

Impacts ……………………………….............................114

4.3.3.3 Landscape Related Benefits and Tourism

Impacts…………………………………………………...114

4.4 Cost Benefit Analysis ................................................................... 118

4.4.1 Underlying Economic Concepts and backgrounds…..118

4.4.1.1 The concept of consumer surplus……………..118

4.4.1.2 Changes in Consumer Surplus……...…………120

xi
 4.4.2 The Key Steps of Cost Benefit Analysis……………….121

4.4.3 METU Monorail Cost Benefit Analysis………………..123

4.5 Cost Effectiveness Assessment ................................................... 142

4.6 Project Business Plan .................................................................... 144

4.6.1 Scenario A………………………………………………...144

4.6.1.1 Break-even Analysis…………………………....145

4.6.2 Scenario B.………………………………………………...147

4.6.2.1 Break-even Analysis…………………………....147

4.6.3 Scenario C………………………………………………...149

4.6.3.1 Break-even Analysis…………………………....150

4.7 Project Schedule ............................................................................ 152

5. CONCLUSION......................................................................................... 154

REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 161

APPENDICES

A. APM & PRT: Differences and Rationale ............................................. 169

B. TYPICAL COST BREAKDOWN OF SHUTTLE - TYPE APM

SYSTEMS……………………………………………………………………171

C. TYPICAL COST BREAKDOWN OF LOOP-TYPE APM

SYSTEMS……………………………………………………………………172

D. LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN

ACCESSED DURING THIS REASEARCH…………………………...…173

E. APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: AUSTRANS ....................................... 174

F. APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: AUTRAN ........................................... 177

G. APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: CYBERTRAN.................................... 180

H. APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: MEGARAIL ...................................... 183

xii
I. APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: T2.......................................................... 186

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES

2.1 Automobiles: Reasons to support VS exercise causation…………... 14

2.2 Walking: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise

causation………………………………………………………………... 17
……...
2.3 Bicycling: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise
causation………………………………………………………………... 22
……...
2.4 Buses: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation..... 26

2.5 Para Transit: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise

causation……………………………………………………………….. 30
……...
2.6 Trolleybus: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise
causation………………………………………………………………... 33
……...
2.7 LRT: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise
causation…..……………………………………………………………. 37
2.8 Monorails: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise
causation……………………………………………………………….. 43
……...
3.1 Operating automated people movers world statistics………… 46

3.2 Small type straddle monorail train specifications……………... 50

3.3 Medium type straddle monorail train specifications…………. 51

3.4 Large type straddle monorail train specifications……………... 51

3.5 Approximate travel demand of METU population groups.….. 76

4.1 Costs of Various Line Haul Systems……………………………... 98

xiv
4.2 Cost figures of monorail systems (Asia, Middle East)…………. 100

4.3 Cost figures of monorail systems (North America, Europe)….. 101

4.4 Justified present cost values of proposed monorail project…… 104

4.5 Operating cost comparison Bus, LRT (per passenger-mile ….... 106

4.6: Energy demand factor relative comparison……………………. 107

4.7: Comparison recurrent costs summary for Bus, LRT,

Monorail………………………………………………………………… 108

4.8 Annual Approximate Costs of METU Bus services (2010

prices)…………………………………………………………………… 112

4.9 Estimated benefits of monorail project (11% discount rate)…… 116

4.10 Estimated benefits of monorail project (7% discount rate)…… 117

4.11 Hypothetical price of travel……………………………………... 119

4.12 Cost Benefit Analysis Results…………………………………… 125

4.13 Cost Benefit Analysis for Monorail Project (11% discount

rate)……………………………………………………………………… 126

4.14 Cost Benefit Analysis for Monorail Project (7% discount

rate)…….………………………………………………………………... 134

D.1 Individuals and Org. Name List………………………………… 173

E.1 Contact info of Bishop Austrans Pty Ltd………………………... 174

E.2 Design specification of Austrans……………………………..….. 175

xv
F.1 Contact info of Autran Corp……………………………………... 177

F.2 Design specification of Autran…………………………………… 178

G.1 Contact info of Cybertran Int’l Inc…………………………….... 180

G.2 Design specification of Cybertran………………………………. 181

H.1 Contact info of Megarail Transportation Systems Inc……….... 183

H.2 Design specification of Megarail………………………………... 184

I.1 Contact info of T2 Corp……………………………………………. 186

xvi
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

1.1 Extended metabolism model of human settlements …………… 4

2.1 Electric Trolleybus Vehicle, Bologna, Italy……………................ 32

2.2 Disneyland straddling Monorail Red, Anaheim, CA,

USA………………………………………………………………………. 41

2.3 Düsseldorf Airport suspended Skytrain Monorail, Düsseldorf,

Germany…………………………………………………......................... 42

3.1 A schematic view of a monorail control and maintenance

System……………………………………………………………………. 48

3.2 Support system of Straddle type monorail……………................ 49

3.3 Four-car straddle monorail………………………………………... 50

3.4 Suspended type monorail…………………………………………. 53

3.5 The oldest monorail in continuous service, in Wuppertal,

Germany…………………………………………………......................... 54

3.6 Typical straddle monorail structure……………………………... 55

3.7 Concrete and steel guideway structure, Palm-Jumeirah

monorail train, Dubai, UAE…………………………………………… 56

3.8 Interior view of a straddle monorail train ……………………… 58

3.9 ATO vehicle management system configuration………………. 60

xvii
3.10 Flexible monorail switching system in three different
situations………………………………………………………………… 61

3.11 monorail’s load tires (left) and steering guide tires

(right)…..………………………………………………………………… 62

3.12 An ultra-modern control room allows technicians to monitor

all aspects of operations…………………………………….................. 63

3.13 Dual transmission network system applied for train

operation control command signal…………………………………… 64

3.14 Las Vegas Monorail, Nevada, USA……………………………... 66

3.15 Kitakyushu Monorail, Fukuoka, Japan………………………… 67

3.16 The Green monorail at Disneyland, Florida, USA…….………. 67

3.17 Location of the METU Campus in Ankara…………….……….. 70

3.18 The nine population zones of METU campus…………………. 73

4.1 Digital elevation model (left) and Slope map of METU campus
(right)………………………………………………………….................. 79
4.2 Yellow Campus Ring service path (right), Red Campus Ring
82
service campus service path (left)……………………………………..

4.3 Metro System, which will pass through to A1 and A2 gates, is

83
under construction………………………………………………………

4.4 Various monorail network routing systems…………………….. 88

4.5 Proposed METU Monorail Guideway Path……………………... 89

4.6 Passenger Transport CO2 Comparison………………………….. 92

xviii
4.7 Comparison of maximum capacity of urban transportation
modes per meter of infrastructures…………………………………… 94

4.8 Land take of the guide way in m² per m track length………….. 94

4.9 Hypothetical demand for a half-hour tram trip…........................ 119

4.10 Hypothetical illustration of the demand curve for tram

route……………………………...………………………………………. 120

4.11 30 years break-even point for Scenario A (11% discount rate).. 146

4.12 30 years break-even point for Scenario A (7% discount rate).... 146

4.13 30 years break-even point for Scenario B (11% discount rate)... 148

4.14 30 years break-even point for Scenario B (7% discount rate)… 149

4.15 30 years break-even point for Scenario C (11% discount rate).. 150

4.16 30 years break-even point for Scenario C (7% discount rate)… 151

4.17 The Best Guess Schedule for Proposed Monorail

Project……………………………………………………………………. 153

B.1 Pie diagram of total cost breakdown of shuttle-type APM

system……………………………………………………………………. 171
C.1 Pie diagram of total cost breakdown of loop-type APM

system……………………………………………………………………. 172

E.1 Austrans Guideway Specifications………………………………. 176

F.1 Autran Guideway Specifications………………………................. 179

xix
G.1 Cybertran Guideway Specifications……………………………... 182

H.1 Megarail Guideway Specifications………………………………. 185

I.1 Schematic view of Taxi 2000 vehicles and guideway…………… 187

I.2 T2 Guideway Specifications Taxi 2000……………………………. 188

xx
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary societies heavily depend on transportation and modern

social life is possible only if people have mobility on a daily basis—the

ability to move around so that they can do what they have to do or like to

do (Grava, 2004). The problem of how to accommodate inexorably rising

travel demands in cities around the world is one of the most difficult of all

for planners. On the one hand, high personal mobility and the lifestyle

choices are features of modern societies but costs and constraints involved

in meeting this demand threaten communities in important ways via

financial impositions; increases in pollution and greenhouse effects and

reduction of local amenity; promotion of dispersed development and the

take up of farm or bush land; and depletion of scarce fossil fuel reserves

(Searle, 1999). Cities respond to this dilemma in various ways considering

different factors; geographic coverage and grain of access, carrying

capacity, speed, reliability, safety and security, conservation of the natural

environment and fuel, technological applicability, costs and civic image as

it is extensively accepted, university campuses1 share key transportation

characteristics with other urban communities (Balsas 2002) and any.

1 the scope of inquiry of this research is definitely directed to North America and

Australia Integrated type of campuses

1
university that is attempting to make the transition toward sustainability

must confront the issue of transportation ( Havlick, 2004). To this end, the

scope of this study encompasses research from a broad overview of various

public transportation modes to specific applicable choices in the context of

the Middle East Technical University (METU) campus.

1.1 Problem

Middle East Technical University (METU) was founded in a government

provided 4250 hectare land piece in South West of Ankara City Centrum in

1960, which is now roughly surrounded by Eskişehir Blv. in North,

Mevlana Blv. and 100.Yil district in East, İncek Blv. in South and Bilkent

Blv. in West. In a competition for METU architecture plan, the winning

project proposed a “redburn” system for vehicle transportation (a service

ring and cul de sacs) and an alley for pedestrian transportation. In this

structure, a pedestrian can walk around the campus without being

hindered by any obstacles (Erpi, 1999; Gökbulut, 2003). Nowadays [almost

half a century after METU establishment] automobiles not only are the

focus of transportation systems but they very often push the planning

decision making processes (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999). By recent

population growth of university and spatial extensions during the last

decades which is due to a number of factors including:

1. Development of new graduate and undergraduate programs

which draw more students and require more faculties,

2. Physical expansion along with the economic growth of the

Technology Park on campus (METU Teknokent), and

2
 3. New constructions especially in western area of campus; ODTÜ–

Kent Residential Zone, Faculty of Education, Faculty of

Information Systems, METU Elementary and High school, and

Demiray dormitories.

There are some serious problems with pedestrian accessibility and

motorized traffic load in campus. In other words, these factors have

required the expansion of the land used to house the buildings and

programs, requiring students and faculty to travel longer distances on

campus. Any successful campus transit systems include factors such as

careful planning, understanding user preferences, efficient design of

system services, and coordination with existing city transit service. In this

context, it seems necessary to recognize the changes in transit facilities as

an effective mode for meeting campus mobility and to revise transit

systems to serve the upcoming needs of METU campus in the light of

emerging modern alternative transportation modes.

1.2 Methodology

Addressing these problems, the ‘system thinking’ approach will be applied

to conduct this research. In other words, the methodology of this study

primarily based upon considering the whole campus of METU as a

dynamic system. This system, like the other human communities (Figure

1.1, Newman, 1999), actively interacts with its environment and processes

various resources according to its priorities, to create livability (educational

goals and objectives of METU) and gives off wastes. In this approach

problems are viewed as parts of the overall system, rather than reacting to

specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributing to further

3
development of unintended consequences
consequences (Wikipedia E., 20
2010). Hence, the
t

efficiency and feasibility of proposed Monorail system will be analyzed

through different aspects of effects on the whole system in the context of

relationships of system components with each other, and the system’s

system

interaction
eraction with its environment.
environment In this framework,
framework, this study will not

only focus on financial aspects of feasibility of nominated system, but also

evaluates on campus environmental,

nvironmental, organizational and social advantages.
advantages

Figure1.1: Extended metabolism

metabolism model of human settlements

4
1.3 Objective

The overall objective of this thesis is to assess the financial feasibility of

investing in modern public transportation mode choices at METU campus

which presents a unique opportunity for METU to assume a leadership

role in such a venture in Turkey. In order to mollify the inefficiency in the

transportation on and around METU campus, a system must be installed

that will provide the following:

An economical and consistent system that links the university

campus and its surroundings to other parts of the Ankara city

Access to a daily high frequency transportation services with

minimal traffic lag time and construction delays

o Increase use of the system by students, staff, and

o General commuters who arriving by private car who park far

from the main buildings

Enhance the limited mobility inside the campus, because of the long

walking distances with slightly sharp slopes

Minimal toll to ride the transport system

Leisurely and scenic trip around town that will attract tourist and

prospective students

1.4 Scope

The study complements the University Headcounters Office’s long term

goal to integrate environmental, social and economic sustainability into the

policies, practices and culture of the University and ultimately reduce the

consumption of all resources on campus. To perform this study, after

5
reviewing some of the innovated modern approaches have been conducted

in university campuses to provide economical, environment friendly,

efficient and effective transportation services to university populations, the

extent and context of transportation services at METU Campus was

clarified through an examination of data provided by Municipality of

Ankara City, Campus Departmental data, planning documents, and

campus maps.

This thesis is composed of five chapters; secondary relevant literature

review was the first methodological step in the research. This process

allowed me to consolidate available information and determine the case

studies to be used for the primary research (Chapter 2). An investigation

into the current Monorail system features along with the present state of

transportation services at METU and demand analysis of the campus is the

subject of Chapter 3. Consequent financial and environmental feasibility

studies through Cost Benefit Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Assessments,

for proposed Monorail system in METU campus is covered in Chapter 4

and in Chapter 5 (conclusion) all these data will lead to the selection of a

Monorail system as the preferred public transit system for METU campus.

6
 CHAPTER 2

TRANSPORTAION ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

Community is a process of people acting collectively with others who share

some common concern, whether on the basis of a place where they live, of

interests or interest groups that are similar, or of relationships that have

some cohesion or continuity (Checkoway, 1997) and university campuses

are very distinct communities (Baslas,2002). University communities and

student populations typically possess many of the characteristics that make

the use of alternative modes of transportation both convenient and

essential. Unlike other parts of modern communities, a densely populated

residential area where a large portion of student, and even faculty and

staff, reside generally surrounds universities. Various forms of commercial

development may also locate close to campus to serve the university

population's needs. This density of population presents challenges and

opportunities for both the university and the community's transportation

systems. Traffic congestion, accidents, high parking demand, and modal

conflict are among the many transportation problems that are manifested

in this type of environment. In fact, transportation planners often see a

degradation of the automobile level of service when universities reach a

certain population threshold and density. A number of universities and

institutional communities have tried, with varying degrees of success, to

address these problems through innovative ways of providing and

financing mobility services on and around university campuses.

7
This chapter examines a number of the approaches have been conducted in

university campuses to provide economical, environment friendly, efficient

and effective transportation services to university populations.

2.1 Environment Preservation and Sustainable Transportation on

Campuses

In many communities, college campuses are very often among the area’s

largest employers. They have their own energy plants and water treatment

facilities. Besides energy, water and waste, college campuses are also major

traffic generators, which require extensive parking areas (Baslas, 2002), and

the major environmental impacts of transportation on college campuses

include disturbance to teaching, loss of natural environment and greenery,

despoliation of the visual environment by parking provision, and health

effects on staff and students (Tolley, 1996).

In an attempt to reduce both the demand for parking and the

environmental impacts of commuting, universities around the world are

implementing strategies to reduce dependence on private vehicles and

increase the use of alternative modes of transport (Shannon et al., 2005). A

sustainable transportation system has been defined as one that satisfies

current transport and mobility needs without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own (Black, 1997; Richardson, 1999). On

campus grounds sustainable transportation planning can be seen as

providing incentives for walking, bicycling, taking mass transit,

ridesharing, discouraging the use of single-occupancy cars by passing on

8
the full costs of parking to drivers, and linking transportation planning to

land-use planning (Baslas,2002).

2.2 Sustainable Transportation Systems: Starting Out From

Campuses

The university campus is a microcosm of the city, at once interdependent

yet distinct from its surroundings. Its transportation patterns are

monitored and managed by municipal policy as they impact the

functioning of surrounding neighborhoods and the city’s transportation

infrastructure. One aspect often overlooked by campus administrators and

planners is the college’s potential to affect not only the transportation

behavior of the campus population in the present but also the

transportation habits and the environmental awareness that students can

develop in the long term, as “they will progress to occupy influential roles

in government, companies or other organizations” (Tolley, 1996). In this

way, innovative transportation approaches are likely to diffuse from higher

education to other parts of society. One of the main problems is that

campus planners and administrators were trained when the ‘automobile

was king’ and ‘are reluctant to embrace change’ (Poinsatte and Toor, 2001).

However, since students are more open-minded and have the potential to

become ‘movers and shakers’ if properly motivated, they can become

powerful forces for the establishment of bicycle and pedestrian friendly

communities (Weerts, 1992).

In this context, the most widely implemented solutions are parking

management, car sharing, park and ride schemes, mass transit, vehicle

technology and alternative fuels, and the use of the internet and video to

9
provide online classes and transportation information (Markowitz and

Estrella, 1998). The partial replacement of university fleets with alternative

fuel vehicles and technologies such as compressed natural gas on campus

buses or electricity (monorail, trolley-bus, etc) is also being attempted by a

growing number of universities (Keniry, 1995). In the forthcoming sections,

some brief explanations including advantages and disadvantages of each

popular private and public transportation modes on university campuses;

automobiles, walking and bicycling, buses, minibuses, trolleybuses, light

rails and monorails – will be reviewed and case studies of successful

applications of each mode on campus communities will be given in brief.

2.3 Alternative Modes of Transportation on Campuses

2.3.1 Automobiles

Automobiles dominate the transportation picture today, both inside and

outside cities. They have given an unprecedented level of mobility to the

larger part of this society, but they also threaten to choke our center cities,

and they consume resources at a disproportionate rate (Grava, 2004).

Whereas, the daily movement of people back and forth to campus in

automobiles burning fossil fuels is one of largest impacts a typical

educational institution imposes on the life of the planet (Havlick, 2004).

Car-based transportation has many hidden costs (Balsas, 2001). It is

expensive and inefficient over short distances and is a major contributor to

global warming. The environmental, financial, and social pressures exerted

by current levels of automobile dependence include greenhouse gas

emissions, rapid land consumption, air quality and public health

degradation, and deteriorating overall welfare and quality of life of urban

10
populations (Hatzopoulou & Miller, 2008). However, the major problem

with automobility is the amount of parking it requires (Dober, 2000).

Parking pricing is a crucial issue for university administrators not only for

reasons such as faculty and staff recruitment but also because of the very

high cost of constructing and maintaining parking (Poinsatte and Toor,

1999). Universities can expect to pay between $15,000 and $30,000 per net

new parking space constructed on campus, a figure that is independent of

the cost for ongoing operations and maintenance (Toor, 2003).

2.3.1.1 Handling the Problems with Automobiles

Institutions of higher education have recently begun to implement

increasingly more aggressive strategies for reducing vehicle emissions and

enhancing opportunities for campus access by modes other than single-

occupant vehicles (SOVs). For example, many campuses have begun to

switch to cleaner fuels such as biodiesel, which can be used in existing

diesel burning vehicles (Toor 2003). Other types of alternative fuels as well

as hybrid vehicles offer promise. Others have begun to implement campus-

owned vehicle programs (for institutional use) or car-sharing programs (for

all uses, including personal use).

it seems that a balance between price and supply will result in a more

efficient use of available facilities, since commuters with good alternatives

available will switch if the price to park becomes sufficiently high. The cost

to park, therefore, has a strong influence on the overall transportation

network. Moreover, pricing parking to reflect the real cost to build and

maintain parking means that drivers more closely pay for what they use.

Some of the parking management strategies universities can employ (in

11
addition to basic price-increase strategies) are regulatory measures,

including parking bans for certain groups such as freshmen or other class

years and on campus car share and campus car rental programs. Others are

economic incentives: financial incentives for affiliates to drive less, such as

parking cash-outs, or to drive more efficiently, such as preferential/lower-

cost carpool and vanpool parking; and transportation demand

management measures, such as enhancements to facilities for other modes

of travel or subsidy of transit (Poinsatte and Toor 1999; Toor 2003). These

programs act as a way not only to enhance transportation as an end in

itself, but also to enhance the campus environment and increase livability,

including people who cannot or do not wish to drive.

2.3.1.2 Travel Demand Management to Cutting down Parking Lots,

University of California, Santa Cruz, California

The Santa Cruz campus is nested amidst a redwood forest with campus

population of 17,000, but with only 5,000 parking spaces. Enrollment at

UCSC has increased 30 percent since fall 2000, but average daily vehicle

traffic on campus has remained about the same. Wes Scott, director of

transportation and parking services (TAPS) at University of California-

Santa Cruz, has implemented an array of TDM practices as an alternative

to cutting down redwoods for car lots and as an economically wise

decision.

The UC-Santa Cruz implemented tools include carpools – Hybrid vehicles

may be available to further promote the University’s sustainability efforts –

that carry 300 people per day, vanpools transporting 100 per day, a transit

pass system that moves 525 students each day, and a differential pricing

12
system for parking permits. The TAPS parking permit for close-in parking

costs $684 per year and the remote lots cost $384 annually. Freshmen and

sophomores are not permitted to have cars on campus. Scott reports, “we

stack vehicles in the aisles of remote parking lots and have created 400 new

‘Virtual’ parking place.” Like many other progressive campuses, Santa

Cruz has a comprehensive web page that displays all the alternative mode

options, parking regulation, and penalties. Because there is a buffer zone

between the scenic campus and the city, there is not an aggregated

condition of campus overspill.

Biking is heavily prompted in the Santa Cruz tools portfolio and bike paths

are abundant on the campus and in the town. To make the bicycle a

favorite mode, TAPS has created a bike shuttle service. Cyclists load their

bikes on a trailer, jump on the van, and are taken to related drop off pints

on the Santa Cruz campus. One hundred faculty, staff and students use this

bike shuttle service daily (Toor & Havlick, 2004).

13
 Table 2.1: Automobiles: Reasons to support VS exercise causation

AUTOMOBILES2
Loosening the geographic Excluded population:
constraints: - Not everybody has access to a

- Not to being constrained by the car, can drive a vehicle

limited range of walking distances

or the alignment of transit

Congestion and space
services
consumption:
- Great extension of the radius of
- Traffic congestion and loosing
daily operations
Reasons to exercise caution time and fuel
- Potential availability of all job
- Parking problems
locations and all service nodes and
Reasons to support

entertainment /cultural centers

within a metropolitan

Air pollution:
- Approximately one third of

greenhouse gas emission in

Freedom from schedules:
industrial countries is by private
- Any travel for any purpose can be
automobiles (dot, 2004)
done at any time (at least
- Automobiles mostly are source of
theoretically)
seven toxic ingredients in urban
- Travel times are become shorter
areas: ozone (o3), carbon
because there is no waiting time,
monoxide (co), nitrous oxides
no delays due to transfers, and no
(nox), sulfur dioxide (so2), lead
stops to accommodate fellow
(pb), volatile organic compounds
travelers
(vocs), and particulate matter

(particularly microscopic

particles, pm10).

2This Table is adapted from chapter 5 of “Urban Transportation Systems written by S.

Grava, 2004”

14
Table 2.1 (continued)

Sound pollution:
Privacy:
- Automobiles and other motor
- The car is an exclusive and
vehicles are source of various
private capsule that requires no
noise and sound pollution
sharing of space with strangers
problem in cities
- It has extra privacy and security
Accidents:
benefits (listening to music,
- Property damage, personal
adjusting the thermostat, or
injury, and fatalities are among
smoking!

Reasons to exercise caution

the most common problems
Reasons to support

Depletion of petroleum

resources:
- Valuable and finite oil supply

that has been generated through

slow natural processes over

millions of years in underground

Social status:
strata are refined to petroleum
- Known as an opportunity to
and gasoline used in motor
express one’s individuality or level of
vehicles
achievement

Disposal problem:
- Every year tens of millions of

motor vehicles have to be

scrapped in the world.

15
2.3.2 Walking and Bicycling

We are all pedestrians; any trip by any means includes at least a small

distance covered on foot at the beginning and end of each journey. Walking

is efficient, healthful, and natural and it is the basic urban transportation

mode that has allowed settlements and cities to operate for thousands of

years (Grava, 2004). Walking is the primary mode of transportation for

many people, although few of us may realize how it is a big part of our trip

(Blomberg et al., 2000). Walking is fast, direct, and has no costs involved.

And, bicycles are the most efficient form of transportation (with energy

consumption of about 0.15 cal/g.km), with the lowest energy input and

lowest output of pollutants and greenhouse gases. Apparently, the

mechanical assemblage of pedals, a chain, and wheels, in combination with

the powerful thigh muscles of the human body, is the best arrangement to

achieve forward motion. It beats a salmon swimming, a jet plane or seagull

flying, or a train or a horse running (Grava, 2004). Besides, the bicycle

offers riders speed and flexibility over short distances, it produces no

pollution, uses no energy, is silent, can be accommodated with relatively

little space, is fast and cheap, and is also accessible to many people who

cannot drive, especially the young (Tolley, 1996). In a broader view, active

transportation – bicycling and walking– can also contribute to the health of

the campus population (Toor, 2003).

However, regarding bicycling and walking, many college campuses lack

proper and adequate facilities, including bicycle and pedestrian paths and

lanes, intersection treatments, signage and parking (Dober, 2000). Many

times a destination on campus is out of walking access ranges and

bicycling on campus can be dangerous. Accidents can occur because of

speeding, mixing types of traffic, poor right-of-way design, and college-age

16
youth’s propensity to ride outside the routes designated for bicycles and to

ignore traffic rules and regulations.

Table 2.2: Walking: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation

WALKING3
Economy:
Distance:
- Involves very little expense, either
- A quarter mile (1320 ft; 400 m) is
public or private
a range within which just about
- The paths themselves, are usually
everybody will walk
built together with normal street
- eighty percent of walking trips
construction, and the specific
are less than 3000 ft (0.9 km)
expense is rather minimal
Reasons to exercise caution

Health: Speed:
Reasons to support

- Walking the most basic and - A regular walking speed is just 4

natural form of exercise or 3 mph (6.4 or 4.8 kmph).

Availability: Change in elevation:

- the mode is always present and - People are reluctant to change

ready for use elevations, because we know

- No need to wait for a transit instinctively that this involves

vehicle or to turn on the ignition significant energy expenditure

Weather conditions
Cognition :
- Adverse weather, whether it is
- the act of walking is automatic
rain, snow, high wind, or broiling
and does not require deliberate
- Sun, will significantly reduce
attention or even too much care to
considerably any propensity for
avoid obstacles and dangers
walking

* This Table is adapted from chapters 2 of “Urban Transportation Systems written by S.

Grava, 2004”3

17
Table 2.2 (continued)

Carrying goods:

- pedestrians have limitations,

including how much weight they are

Reasons to exercise caution

able or willing to carry with them
Reasons to support

Impaired personal mobility:

- any community has a certain

percentage of people who have larger

Environmental protection:
or smaller disabilities that will
- walking is the ultimate
reduce the extent of their
environmentally friendly
participation in the walking mode
transportation mode
Safety and security:
- Usually pedestrians are victims of

pedestrian–vehicle conflict!

2.3.2.1 The Future of Walking and Bicycling on Campuses

Having dealt with providing fair and sustainable transportation services on

campuses, a growing number of campuses in addition to investing in

modern transit services, are now focusing on enhanced infrastructure for

pedestrian and bicycle travel. At a growing number of schools, biking is

deeply rooted in local culture and transportation to, from, and around

campus is programmed comprehensively with recognition of the benefits

of accommodating different means of access (Poinsatte and Toor 1999).

Some schools, such as the University of California at Davis, employ a full-

time bicycle and pedestrian coordinator (Balsas 2003). In this context, the

18
most important priority for any campus is the separation of vehicles and

pedestrians. The presence of a dedicated staff person and modal advisory

committees, argues Balsas, increases opportunities for consideration during

the campus planning process. A bicycle infrastructure can range from

basic provision of safe routes and bicycle racks, to refined amenities such

as grade-separated crossings, covered bicycle parking, bicycle signals at

intersections, and programs such as free bicycle check out to students and

employees.

2.3.2.2 University of Washington Brings e-Bikes to Campus, Seattle

The University of Washington’s (UW) U-PASS program encompasses a

broad suite of TDM programs, of which the unlimited transit pass is just

one component. Although the school has made significant strides in

reducing SOV commute mode share to campus, for some drivers, having a

car on campus means having the mobility at midday to complete errands,

attend meetings, or go out for lunch. To address this critical barrier to

achieving further reduced vehicle trips, UW has recently announced that a

self-service electric bicycle rental program for its Seattle campus will be

launched in autumn of 2008. The program, funded primarily by a

performance-based grant from the Washington State Department of

Transportation (WSDOT), will bring 40 electric bikes to campus at 10

station locations. These “pedal-assist” cycles supplement the rider’s own

pedaling with electric assistance, a particularly useful feature on Seattle’s

hilly terrain. Bicycles are unlocked from the station using a personal key

fob called a GoKey™ (in combination with a typed personal security code)

and can be returned to the same station from which they were rented or to

19
another station location. Each station has five extra slots to accommodate

an excess of bikes in one place. The per-hour fee is yet to be determined,

but is likely to be in the range of about $5/h, with a $1/h discount for U-

PASS holders; partial-hour fees will also be available.

The system is operated in partnership with Intrago Mobility Corporation,

the vendor who will provide the bicycles and station facilities. UW and

Intrago Mobility partnered to write the grant application and were

awarded up to $225,000 to establish the system, a figure that will be

supplemented with in-kind operations and administration contributions

from the university. Fifty percent of the funding ($112,500) is available

immediately for infrastructure investments, while the remaining 50% is

paid based on the number of commute trips reduced. WSDOT defines a

commute trip reduction as one round-trip commute no longer made by an

SOV, 5 days per week, for a period of 1 year, and values a commute trip

reduction at $375. The total goal for the project is the reduction of 534 SOV

commute trips (as defined by WSDOT). With the first 50% of the funding

used for infrastructure costs, WSDOT will begin paying from the

remainder of the award when the number of commute trips reduced

exceeds 267. WSDOT bases the goals for this grant program, called the Trip

Reduction Performance Program, on a 1-year timeline.

The program is available for all university faculty, staff, and students, who

must register directly with Intrago Mobility; eligibility verification is

provided by UW, but the relationship is between the client and the vendor.

To start service, riders watch a training video and pick up a member packet

that includes the key fob. When it launches, the pilot program will be the

first self-rental electric bicycle system in the world. Some operational

aspects are still in the planning phases:

20
Since the system permits one-way rentals, periodic rebalancing of the bikes

to keep even numbers at each station is necessary; initially, this will take

place daily at the end of the day. Additional rebalancing will be done as

needed. Intrago subcontracts to a local scooter rental company, Scoot

About, for routine vehicle maintenance as well as the rebalancing.

Riders must supply their own helmets in accordance with Seattle safety

law. UW had initially considered providing helmets as a part of the rental,

but found that concerns over sanitation and the possibility of imperceptible

damage to the helmets that could compromise safety were significant

barriers.

Users will not be able to make a reservation to rent the bikes; this first-

come first-serve policy may be modified at a later date. (Kruger et al –

TCRP Report, 2008: 26)

21
 Table 2.3: Bicycling: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation

BICYCLING4
Traffic compatibility:
Direct access
- Bicycles are quite different from
- Except for walking, bicycles,
motor vehicles in their size, speed
because of their small size and
and there may be constant friction
weight, can provide the most
and occasional danger, mostly to
direct door-to-door service
the unprotected cyclist
compared
- Bicycles are even less compatible
To all other mechanical modes
with pedestrians
Reasons to exercise caution Human capabilities and attitudes:

Low energy consumption: - To pedal a bicycle requires a

Reasons to support

- It is the most efficient manmade certain amount of strength,

machine in the world (35 calories stamina, and agility, which are not

/ passenger mile) possessed in equal amounts by all

people

Low private expense: Official attitude:

- A reasonable buy price range - Cycling, particularly for

($100 - $500) commuting to work, is not among

- No fuel to buy or tolls to pay the normal patterns of operation in

most communities

The natural environment:

- Any street with a gradient steeper

Healthful exercise:
than 3 to 5 percent will bother
- Cycling is a sport and also a
most regular riders
healthful exercise
- Dteep downgrades present a

potential safety problem.

- Climate is a concern as well

4This Table is adapted from chapter 3 of “Urban Transportation Systems written by S.

Grava, 2004”

22
Table 2.3 (continued)

Reach and speed:

- For a normal person any distance

Space conservation:
below 5 mi (8 km) can be
- It occupies just about 22 ft2 (2
considered a comfortable distance

Reasons to exercise caution

m2) when standing and 55 ft2 (5
Reasons to support

and 10 mi (16 km) is the ultimate

m2) when in motion (about one
range.
tenth of a normal automobile)
- While almost all cyclists can

maintain a 12-mph speed over

extended distances, many will

usually ride at 6 mph (10 km/h)

Low public investment:

- Even under the most elaborate

plans, a bike system is a low

Storage place:
capital investment.
- Space to store equipment may not
- There could be right-of-way
exist or be very inconvenient.
acquisition, but in most cases

recreational bike trails would be

fitted into already designated open

spaces

2.3.3 Buses

Buses are without question the workhorses of the transit world. There are a

great many places where they are the only public service mode offered; to

the best of the author’s knowledge, no city that has transit operates without

a bus component. Nevertheless, buses provide the base service in most

23
places, they can carry considerable passenger loads, and the service can be

significantly expedited if proper attention is paid. No advanced

engineering or special skills are required to run them, they are economical.

Buses are one of the available options to decrease on campus traffic

congestion problems and to maintain efficiency and availability of fair

transportation services. In the last decade of 20th century, many universities

have started to establish and develop services under different named such

as “ Student Bus Pass” or "U-PASS” programs as a response to student

demand, local community concerns with regards to traffic, parking and

pollution problems and increasing pressures with the high cost of parking

structures (Toor, 2004). These programs offer students access to local

transportation services but also includes unlimited access to regional

services around campuses. The Student Bus Pass program is a mandatory

universal pass which is paid for as a part of a student’s tuition (Toor &

Havlick, 2009). Though having some deficiencies concerning the nature of

bus-based transportation systems – limited work hours, air and sound

pollutions, etc – these kinds of transportation systems are still among the

most successful transportation management programs in heavily clogged

university campuses.

2.3.3.1 Investing in Bus Shuttle Transit, Not Parking, Stanford

University, Palo Alto, California

In the late 1980s, Stanford University set out to expand the campus by

25%—or over 2 million sq ft of new development. Stanford’s host

community, Palo Alto, was very concerned about the potential traffic

impacts and was prepared to delay build-out through a detailed

24
Environmental Impact Report process for each new building. So in 1989,

Stanford agreed to abide by a General Use Permit for the campus that

allowed 2.4 million additional sq ft on the condition that no new

automobile commute trips would be produced. Stanford began a detailed

annual monitoring program.

To meet this goal, Stanford undertook a unique and simple calculation. To

displace surface parking for new buildings and build replacement parking

structures, the university realized that each new garage space added costs

of over $150 per month, every single month for the 40-year useful lifetime

of each parking structure. With land valued at $1 million per acre, building

new surface lots wasn’t much cheaper and had greater environmental

impacts. Instead, Stanford followed four main strategies to avoid replacing

the parking supply: adding transit, adding housing, adding bicycles, and

most importantly, just paying people not to drive—a “parking cash-out.”

Stanford expanded its Marguerite shuttle from a small commute- hour

shuttle to a free, all-day transit system, running every 12 to 15 min with

over 100 timed transfers to commuter rail trains every day. Its budget

increased 70% to almost $1 million per year. However, Stanford realized

that the subsidy of $2 per commuter per day on the shuttle was far less

than the average cost of $7 per commuter per day to build and operate

parking garages. Marguerite shuttle ridership quintupled in 10 years from

700 per day to 3,500 per day. Stanford’s savings on parking construction

enabled the university to build other transit amenities including a new

transit mall, which runs for 1-1/2 mi through the heart of the campus. Over

5 mi of campus streets were closed to cars. (Kruger et al – TCRP Report,

2008: 23)

25
 Table 2.4: Buses: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation

BUSES5
Labor-intensive operations:

Ready availability: - The ratio between operating

- Buses do not depend on advanced personnel and number of

technology, and they can be (and are) passengers carried is considerably

produced by numerous for buses than for those modes

manufacturers in many countries that depend on large units and

automation.

No research and development

required: Reasons to exercise caution Pollution:

- Technical improvements and - Gasoline and diesel internal

Reasons to support

introducing new elements for buses combustion

are relatively slow Engines can seriously damage the

- No evolutionary process, with no urban environment.

major breakthroughs anticipated or

sought in the near future

No special workforce or skills

required: Street congestion:

- The bus and the diesel engine have - Buses get caught in street

been around for a long time congestion, and they contribute

- Any truck mechanic who substantially to it in turn.

understands engines can take care of - Street congestion makes bus

buses with little additional training service slow and unreliable in

- Anyone who has a regular driver’s such instances, sometimes

license can learn to operate a bus destroying its viability entirely.

with a little training and practice

5 This Table is adapted from chapter 8 of “Urban Transportation Systems written by S.

Grava, 2004”

26
Table 2.4 (continued)

Low investment: Slow service:

- Since buses almost always use - In addition to the congestion

existing city streets, there is no problem, the smooth operation of

additional construction expense for buses can be seriously retarded

the transit channel. by fare collection practices.

Energy consumption: Public image:

- The bus offers significant fuel- - Buses appear to have a negative

saving opportunities compared to public image; many people seem

Reasons to exercise caution

other modes, due to the efficiency of to believe that their social status

the power plant and the relatively would be impaired if they were to

light weight of the vehicle be seen using a bus.

Flexible operations: lower capacity:

- Since the vehicles are not tied to a - Each bus unit is considerably
Reasons to support

track or a guide-way of any kind, smaller than any rail vehicle.

buses can move on any solid street - Street conditions and loading

surface. demands do not allow running

Line-haul ability: them as a continuous chain.

- Buses can make frequent stops to

pick up and discharge passengers,

- But they can also move relatively Comfort and ride quality:
fast without stops. - Transit users have an instinctive

Maneuverability: preference for rail-based modes

- While buses are large vehicles, they as compared to buses.

can negotiate almost all street

configurations with narrow rights- - Rail provides a stable and steady

of-way and tight turns ride,

Temporary diversions unlike :

- Rail vehicles& buses have the - The bus wobbles, shakes, and

ability to avoid temporary obstacles sometimes hits potholes or

that may appear on city streets and uneven pavement.

to bypass a disabled bus in front

27
2.3.4 Para Transit (Dolmuş)

Mobility will not be denied to people who need transportation services if

they have some resources to spend or if the society in which they live

recognizes its obligations. A way will be found everywhere, except in

places in the most desperate economic state, to move urban residents, even

if the systems have to be improvised and generated through local

entrepreneurship.

If city buses do not or cannot reach all districts, or if the service is very

sparse, neighbors will start running their own cars along obvious routes

and offer rides to others (for an affordable fee). If low-wage, but essential,

employees cannot reach job places by themselves, employers will have to

pick them up with their own vehicles.

All this is paratransit—a service that is not quite full public transit and that

has some of the convenience features of private automobile operations. It is

most often smaller in scale than real transit, utilizing smaller vehicles, and

it can be legal or illegal as defined by local rules and regulations. In many

respects there is nothing much new about paratransit. Names such as

shuttle service, minibus, jitney, domuş and downtown circulator describe

operations that are quite well known and have been around for some time.

28
2.3.4.1 Meeting Community Needs through Private Transit,

MASCO, Boston, Massachusetts

The Longwood Medical Area (LMA) of Boston has long been a dense

community of private medical and academic institutions, but it is situated

about 3 mi from downtown Boston and the hub of most regional transit

services. Access has long been an issue. In 1972, five major LMA hospitals

and the Harvard University Medical School jointly asked MASCO to

provide joint support and planning services—chief among them was bus

and minibus service to remote park-and-ride lots for employees and

faculty. Harvard also sought to connect its Medical School to the main

Harvard campus across the Charles River in Cambridge, and MASCO

began running the first “LMA Bus and Minibus Shuttle.” This route, the

M2, was an instant success as it provided a critical cross-town express

connection that was not available through the regional transit provider, the

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (the “T”). Over the years, the M2 has

evolved into a commuter shuttle for university staff, faculty, and students

that is also open to the public for a fare (currently $2.35), operating

frequent peak and daily service with up to six 40- and 60-passenger buses

and minibuses. MASCO’s commuter mission has grown over the years

with the addition of similar successful commuter shuttles to the Ruggles

Orange Line “T” stop and most recently to the JFK Station “T” stop.

MASCO’s operates over 2,700 remote spaces serving 22 member

institutions in the LMA, comprising over 37,000 employees and 13,000

students. MASCO operates 29 minibuses and buses on 8 routes with a

$5.3M annual budget that is financed by $325 per-space-per-month

member fees to park in its lots and institutional contributions for the

commuter shuttles based on their percentage of ridership. Members fully

29
recognize the value of the shuttle services and continue to approve annual

parking rate increases of approximately $25 per year.

Over the years, other academic institutions have become a part of MASCO

and benefit from its transit station commuter shuttles and TDM programs,

including Emmanuel College, Massachusetts College of Art, Massachusetts

College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Simmons College, Wentworth

Institute of Technology, Wheelock College, and the Windsor School

(Kruger et al – TCRP Report, 2008: 27-28).

Table 2.5: Para Transit: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation

PARATRANSITS(DOLMUŞ)6
Communal transportation:
Cost considerations:
- Without parastansits streets would
- Each small vehicle carrying few
be completely overwhelmed by
passengers requires a drive ,and
Reasons to exercise caution

single occupancy automobiles.

support staff.
Reasons to support

- This saves space, conserves fuel,

- Generally, private jitneys can’t
reduces air-quality impact, and
compete with subsidized buses in
gives more choices in individual
the same route.
mobility.

Use of motor vehicles:

Mobility for all:
- Problems with street congestion,
- Paratransit services is to
safety, and air quality concerns
accommodate all those members of
accident rates can be very high if
society who do not, cannot, or do
driver behavior is not well
not wish to drive.
controlled

6This Table is adapted from chapter 6 of “Urban Transportation Systems written by S.

Grava, 2004”

30
Table 2.5 (continued)

Driver behavior:
Ease of implementation:
- If the driver’s income depends on the
- The start of a paratransit service
number of fares that are collected,
does not require large initial
there is a natural inclination to
lumpy investments.
hustle and cut corners.

Agility: Profit motivation:

Reasons to exercise caution

- Because the vehicles carry few - There simply is no natural incentive
Reasons to support

passengers and make stops only for an operator to run services where

on demand, any comparable trip the income does not cover costs, or to

duration will be less than on do it during low-demand hours.

regularly scheduled transit.

Service quality:

- Jitneys offer a service at least one

comfort level higher than Institutional issues:

conventional transit. - In some cases there may be not

This is due to the smaller vehicles enough control on the drivers

used, the frequency, the quality of attitudes (i.e., strife) by municipality

the vehicles themselves, and the or local governments.

relationship of the driver to

passengers.

2.3.5 Trolleybuses

The trolleybus (or trolley coach or trackless trolley) as an electrically

powered transit mode running on streets has several interesting features,

but it has never reached the top ranks among service choices. It is a cross

between a bus and a streetcar, and not necessarily only the best

31
characteristics of those two are to be found in the resulting vehicle. It looks

and acts almost like a bus, except that it is tied to an overhead network of

wires for power supply; it operates somewhat like a streetcar, but the reach

of the power pickup poles allows it to move across several lanes. Figure 2.1

shows a newly operated electric trolleybus vehicle in Bologna, Italy using

modern physical, electromagnetic, and optical guidance systems protect

the vehicles from scratches and make the bus systems more accessible and

attractive.

Figure 2.1: Electric Trolleybus Vehicle, Bologna, Italy (picture gotten from

tbus.org.uk last accessed on 12/04/2010)

32
 Table 2.6: Trolleybus: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation

TROLLEYBUSES7

No exhaust:

- By the electrical motor no exhaust Unsightliness:

is emitted, and thus no air - Is the most often cited problem in

pollution is generated directly by public evaluations of this mode, as

the vehicle (excluding power expressed by the overhead wires.

plan).

Quiet running :
Not flexible:
- Trolleybus operates by pneumatic
- The vehicles are tied to the lines
Reasons to exercise caution
tires and electrical motors, which
without much flexibility in
Reasons to support

are not noisy even when surge

selecting a path.
power demands are placed upon

Acceleration: Wires:
- Acceleration is quick because of - The wires may be obstacles to other
the traction of rubber tires, and activities, such as vehicles with
there are sufficient power reserves high loads, fire ladders, parades,
to climb steep grades, (beyond the etc.
capabilities normally shown by

regular buses). Power pickup:

Durability and ease of - The power pickup shoes frequently

maintenance: lose contact since there is little to

- Claims are being made that keep them in place except a groove

standard trolleybuses are durable and the pressure of a spring on the

and easy to maintain because of pole.

the simplicity of the components.

Table 2.6 (continued)

7This Table is adapted from chapter 10 of “Urban Transportation Systems written by S.

Grava, 2004”

33
 High vehicle price:

- The purchase price of a trolleybus is

high as compared to a regular

bus.(almost as double as a normal

Energy resource preservation: bus with same capacity)

- Petroleum-derived fuels are not Costly infrastructure:

used and thus the scarcer energy - Including overhead wires, poles,
resources are conserved. feeders, substations, etc.

- This could be readily adapted in the

early days. It is, however, a major

consideration if a new network has

to be created.

2.3.6 Light Rail Transit (LRT)

The defining images of the modern city in the early twentieth century were

traffic-choked streets where the streetcar offered the only real promise of

mobility and blossoming suburban enclaves that were accessible only

because a trolley line was in operation. There never was any question

about the technical quality of this mode (as was the case with cable cars) or

any doubts about its environmental characteristics (as was the case with

coal-burning steam locomotives) or its carrying capacity (as is the case with

automobiles today). Actually, the development of light rail systems

toward the end of the twentieth century in our communities is being

judged a major success and much constructive activity has taken place.

34
2.3.6.1 A Modern Central Corridor LRT system on The Twin Cities

Campus of University of Minnesota

The University of Minnesota is working with the Metropolitan Council and

other agencies to bring to life a light rail transit line that will service the

Twin Cities campus. The Metropolitan Council started first round of road

construction on the East Bank campus to accommodate the Central

Corridor light rail line in preparation for construction of the line and to

prepare alternate routes in and around campus in lieu of Washington

Avenue, which will be closed to auto traffic beginning in Spring 2011 and

In May 2010, construction on the Central Corridor light rail transit main

line is scheduled to begin.

The University of Minnesota is strongly committed to transportation

alternatives and it has invested heavily to enhance service and accessibility

where 20,300 University students and 2,000 faculty and staff use

discounted bus passes, 68 percent of students, staff, and faculty use

transportation alternatives to get to campus each day and the university is

the largest user of E85 (ethanol) in the United States. In fact, the University

of Minnesota–Twin Cities was selected as one of the "Best Workplaces for

Commuters" by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

The project has an estimated cost of $914.8 million, with the FTA funding

50 percent of the capital costs. The other 50 percent will be paid with state

and county funds: the metro county transit sales tax will provide 30

percent of the cost, the state will provide 10 percent, Ramsey will provide 7

percent and the remaining 3 percent will be provided by Hennepin

County. The Central Corridor line will run along Washington and

University Avenues attracting 80,000 people on a typical day and will link

35
three of the greatest traffic generators in the region: downtown

Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and downtown St.

Paul. Washington Avenue is the hub for University residence halls,

Coffman Memorial Union, the graduate and professional schools, the

Institute of Technology, the Academic Health Center, the University

libraries, and dozens of heavily used class rooms. Vital research also takes

place along the corridor, with over 80 University labs in nearby 17

buildings. Tim Mulcahy, the U's Vice-President for research, tells viewers:

"We’ve been working with the light rail project now for a number of

months to try to identify adequate solutions that will allow a win-win

outcome - protect our research while preserving the opportunity to put the

light rail line along Washington Avenue." (lightrail.umn.edu)

36
 Table 2.7: LRT: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT8

Flexibility in design and

Fixed character:
implementation:
- Any rail system is fixed in place
- There are reasonable shortcuts
and any major modifications are
that can be taken in structuring a
unlikely unless drastic changes in
system
land use and activity distribution
- There are opportunities for cost
occur.
saving since standards are flexible

Mechanical efficiency and

power conservation:
Reasons to exercise caution

- As a rail mode, LRT preserves the

Reasons to support

Interference with street traffic:

capability of moving considerable
- Experience shows that motorists
weight with relatively little power
are fully aware that reserving lanes
consumption
for exclusive or partial LRT use
- Petroleum-based fuel is not
- This will reduce vehicular capacity
consumed, and the necessary
and constrain automobile use.
electrical power can be produced

at remote locations relying on a

variety of energy sources.

Reliability and safety of

operations: Overhead wires:

- The track gives stability and - It has some sort of visual concern

control of movement, and, about the appearance of LRT

consequently, the chances for system

collision and running “off the

road” are minimized.

8 This Table is adapted from chapter 11 of “Urban Transportation Systems written by S.

Grava, 2004”

37
Table 2.7 (continued)

Labor productivity: Maintenance attention:

- Each light rail vehicle, no matter - This visual concern appears to be

how large, requires only one person a matter of first, LRT operators

to operate it. have to exercise continuous

Reasons to exercise caution

- Maintenance tasks are not difficult vigilance to ensure uninterrupted
Reasons to support

or too complicated service

Quality and attractiveness of ride:

- On a well-maintained track, with Feasibility thresholds:

good vehicles having resilient - It has been suggested by urban
wheels and advanced suspension analysts and transit system
systems, the movement is smooth planners at various times and in
and without vibrations. different places that LRT is

Environmental characteristics and appropriate for communities

capacity and cost: starting with a population size of

- No local air pollution, 250,000 (preferably 500,000)

- Under heavy and large capacities

usage it is so cost effective

2.3.7 APM Systems (Monorails)

With increased population and congestion, we have a corresponding

increase in the need for fine-grained, high-quality systems of circulation

within major activity centers and for connections between these centers

and longer-distance modes. Automated People Movers – APMs – are well

suited for this purpose; their exclusive rights-of-way and driverless

38
operation allow unimpeded, frequent service on an around-the-clock basis,

attributes that vastly enhance their attractiveness to riders. There are many

variations among monorail type APMs, but their one common element, of

course, is a single rail, beam, or channel that supports or carries the

passenger container. The vehicle may be large—comparable to a subway

car—or small—a cabin for a few passengers. The principal difference is

whether the passenger compartment hangs from an overhead beam or

channel, representing a suspended monorail, or sits atop a single horizontal

beam, representing a straddling monorail (Grava, 2004).

APM technology has, over the past 40 years, already proven its merit at

many airports and amusement centers, health care complexes and

universities (Warren, 2002). In Japan, the first APM system, Tokyo

Monorail, was put into operation in 1964. Also the first commercial APM

in USA was constructed in 1971 for Tampa International Airport. Today

there are almost 100 transportation systems around the world supplied

with electronic mechanisms that allow them to be fully automated. Half of

those systems are in airports and leisure areas. One quarter are providing

mass transit. Institutions such as hospitals, retail malls, universities, special

districts and others use the rest (Dunning et al, 2003).

2.3.7.1 Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit, West Virginia

University, USA

Morgantown is a small city with a population of about 30,000 permanent

residents and the WVU adding another 28,000 seasonally. West Virginia

University’s campuses - Downtown, Evansdale, and Health Sciences are

distributed so, the Personal Rapid Transit system, was built to link them.

39
Boeing began construction on the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system

with original estimates of $15 to $20 million. But there were large cost

overruns during the initial development of the system and The "Phase I"

system consisted of 5.2 miles (8.4 km) of guideway, 45 vehicles, 3 stations

and a maintenance/control facility and cost $62 million began operations in

1975, four times over the estimate. The expansion, "Phase II" during the

1978–1979 school year, expanded the system to 71 vehicles, 8.65 miles

(13.92 km) of guideway, and 5 stations. One station was expanded and a

second maintenance facility was added as well bringing the total for the

entire system to $130 million.

Although the system was massively over-budget, it proved itself to be

what its designers had claimed: a reliable system of automated transit that

was inexpensive to operate. In the years since construction, the system has

had no injuries and offered on-time service rates far surpassing the bus

services it replaced while eliminating the gridlock that had locked up the

city center. From July 2005 to June 2006, about 2.25 million rides were taken

on the PRT. As of November 2007, the PRT transports about 16,000 riders

per day. The record for most riders in a day is 31,280, set on 21 August

2006. Students currently pay $60 for four months of service, which

provides PRT with 50 to 60 percent of its total operating costs.

The unique aspect that makes the system "personal" is that a rider can tell

the system which station is the destination and then he/she will be directed

to a car that is bound only for that station. The PRT cars are painted in the

school colors (blue with gold trim) and feature the University name and

logo on the front. Inside, the seats are light beige fiberglass and the

carpeting is blue. Each car has eight seats with an overall capacity of 20

people, including standing room.

40
The National Society of Professional Engineers named the WVU PRT one

of the top 10 engineering achievements of 1972, and in 1998 The New

Electric Railway Journal picked the WVU PRT as the best people mover.
mover In

2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation

Transportation and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency dubbed WVU one of the best workplaces for

commuters. (Wikipedia, E. 2010)

20

Figure 2.2: Disneyland straddling Monorail Red, Anaheim, CA, USA

41
Figure 2.3:
2. Airport suspended Skytrain Monorail, Düsseldorf, Germany

42
 Table 2.8: Monorails: Reasons to support vs. reasons to exercise causation

MONORAILS9
Monorails are nonpolluting,
Switching is cumbersome:
quiet, andnand automated:
- While vehicles can certainly be
- All these characteristics are
switched from one line to another,
approximately the same for any
an entire section of the supporting
electrically powered modern
beam has to be moved to
transport system on a guide- way
accomplish each maneuver.
or rails.

Fragility of system:
Safety:
- Automated types of monorails are
Reasons to exercise caution

- The record has been extremely

characterized by highly advanced
Reasons to support

good, with serious operational

technology with components that
accidents not yet encountered.
can be somewhat delicate.
- Personal safety has also been

exceptional, and systems operate

Monorails can only operate in an
in controlled environments, and
elevated configuration:
extensive surveillance programs
- The lines can’t be placed on
done by monitors and safety
surface, because cross traffic can’t
personnel are in place.
be accommodated on same level.

Suitability for constrained The vehicles more expensive

spaces: The suspension or straddling

- All the dimensions of AGT mechanisms are more complex than

elements are measurably smaller regular bogies or truck sunder

than those of conventional transit standard rail cars (while the passenger

- Little noise or vibration is compartments can be identical to those

generated of any other rail car,)

9This Table is adapted from chapter 12 and 15 of “Urban Transportation Systems written
by S. Grava, 2004”

43
Table 2.8 (continued)

- Placed in tunnels), so there is no

interference with traffic on already

overloaded surface streets.

Evacuation of a stalled or
- There are better opportunities to
disabled train is a problem:
thread lines through intensely

developed districts, and even

- Since the slender beam or
buildings can be penetrated.
channel does not provide for any
Vehicles are not likely to derail:
walkway, the safe
- It is practically impossible for the
accommodation of passengers
vehicle to leave the beam or channel,
along the elevated structure
although other mechanical problems
under emergency conditions will
Reasons to exercise caution
are not precluded.
require special arrangements and
Reasons to suppose

- Suspended monorails claim to be

catwalks.
weatherproof because rain and snow

cannot enter the guide way channel.

Advanced technology image:

Cost factors:
- Monorails are associated in the public

mind with technological advancement

- Capital investments will be
and visionary concepts.
considerable because a
- This may be a considerable positive
completely new exclusive
force, possibly generating
guideway has to be created,
considerable public and civic support
- Advanced-technology vehicles
for implementation.
have to be acquired, and
Low labor input:
sophisticated maintenance
- Since there are no drivers or
facilities have to be made
conductors on the vehicles, and
available which are considerably
passengers may not see any employee
expensive.
of the operating agency, there is

considerable savings on the personnel

side of the ledger.

44
 CHAPTER 3

APM SYSTEMS: The Modern and Smart Solutions

Recently, there are encouraging examples in which public transportation is

helping to generate new vitality like never before. Beautiful, walkable town

squares combine residential, retail, office, recreation and public

transportation features to make community living easy. New Automated

People Movers (APMs) and light rail extensions improve mobility and ease

congestion. Along with easing congestion and improving air quality, the

benefits of enhancing modern public transit facilities are enormous.

APMs can be defined as a light to medium scale rail transit system using

small, light weight rolling stock running on rubber tires on a dedicated

guide-way that is usually elevated. Unmanned APM trains are controlled

by computers which help reducing staff costs. At present there are about

130 APM installations in operation around the world moving about five

million passengers daily. As shown in Table 3.1, about 30 percent of them

are within and around airports, and the rest are mostly around dense

urban centers (i.e. central business districts). About one third of them are

mass public transport of one form or another - driverless metros and

district circulators. The rest are in universities, private leisure and

institutional settings. (Yigitcanlar et al, 2008). In the forthcoming sections

first, various features and capabilities of monorail systems as one of the

most applicable APM technologies on contemporary campuses will

45
be studied and then, different characteristics of METU campus will be

evaluated to apply such a progressive transportation system.

Table 3.1: Operating APM world statistics (Fabian, 2007)

46
3.1 Monorail as an APM System

3.1.1 Basic description

Among the various types of APM systems, Monorail are one the most

efficient and applicable systems on university campuses, public and

private leisure and institutional settings. They can be divided into straddle

type, in which the vehicle sits astride the rail, and the suspended type, in

which the vehicle is suspended from the rail and both types use rubber

tires and air springs for their bogie suspension to reduce vibration and

noise. Most modern urban monorails are equipped with VVVF (Variable

Voltage, Variable Frequency) drives, composite or aluminum body shell

and ATO (Automatic Train Operation) system. In addition, because of the

special structure of the monorail system, there is no danger of derailment.

The monorail can withstand severe weather conditions, such as strong

winds, ice and snow.

Monorail Railways are a complex combination of various Electrical and

Mechanical (E&M) systems including the trains, track, track switches,

substations, substation supervising system, signals, communication

systems, operation control systems, etc. World’s famous monorail

manufactures – such as Hitachi, Bombardier, Mitsubishi, and Siemens –

supplying all of these E&M products individually and as a fully integrated

monorail system to meet the demands of urban environments.

47
 Figure 3.1: Schematic view of a monorail control and maintenance system

3.1.2 Straddle Type of Monorails: Capacity and Body Outline

The straddle type uses a high-strength concrete or steel girder as the rail. A

bogie which is equipped with traveling wheels, guide wheels and stabilizer

wheels—all made of rubber—sits astride the top and sides of the rail and

the car-body is mounted on the bogie. The car body is made of composite

or aluminum shell and they sit on top of square and round tubing-based

truss assemblies (Figure 3.2).

48
 Figure 3.2: Support system of Straddle type monorail, (Grava, 2004)

Normally, each car has 4 doors, two on each side. The trains could be fully

air conditioned on demand. Each car can carry 15-20 passengers seated and

40-50 passengers standing. Cab cars are 12-15 m long and intermediate cars

are 9 – 11 m. Train sizes are various depending on the manufacturer and

number of cars attached. Based on their size and number of cars affixed,

trains are categorized in three main types; small types have two cars,

medium types have three cars and large ones have four to six cars attached.

Tables 3.2 to 3.4 shows outline characteristics for these common types.

These tables’ data were adapted from www.hitachi-rail.com, last accessed

on 08/11/2010.

49
 Figure 3.3: Four-car
car straddle monorail

Table 3.2:
3.2 Small type straddle monorail train specifications

Small train
tr

100-120
100 120 passengers
Nominal capacity
(~4 passengers / m2)

130-150
130 150 passengers
Full loaded capacity
(~6 passengers/m2)

Train length (2-car

(2 car consist) 22 - 26 m

Train width (maximum) 2.5 - 2.7 m

Train height (full) 3.5 - 4.8 m

Train height (Beam surface

sur

to top) 2.2 - 3.8 m

Minimum curve radius 60m (recommendable)

50
Table 3.3: Medium type straddle monorail train specifications

Medium train

370 - 400 passengers

Nominal
(~4 passengers/m2)
510 - 550 passengers
Full loaded
(~6 passengers/m2)
650 - 680 passengers
Crush loaded
(~8 passengers/m2)
Train length (3-car consist) 40 - 45 m
Train width (maximum) 2.5 - 2.9 m
Train height (full) 3.6 - 4.9 m
Train height (Beam surface
to top) 2.2 - 3.8 m

Minimum curve radius 100m (recommendable)

Table 3.4: Large type straddle monorail train specifications

Large train

430 - 460 passengers

Nominal
(~4 passengers/m2)
590 - 620 passengers
Full loaded
(~6 passengers/m2)
750 -780 passengers
Crush loaded
(~8 passengers/m2)
Train length (4-6 car consist) 60 - 71 m
Train width (maximum) 2.5 - 3 m
Train height (full) 3.5 - 5.6 m

Train height (Beam to surface) 2.4 - 3.8 m

Minimum curve radius 100m (recommendable)

51
3.1.3 Suspended Type of Monorails: Capacity and Body Outline

The suspended type uses a steel track girder with an open bottom. The car

body is suspended from a bogie which is equipped with traveling and

guide wheels made of rubber. The bogie ran inside a hollow box girder on

the lower face of which was a slot through which the suspension gear

passed. The system enjoyed the same type of quiet, rapid acceleration and

braking as did the straddle type. The cars were hung on a pendulum type

suspension with pneumatic springs, giving stability and comfort even at

high speeds. The complete enclosure of the bogies inside the box protected

them from the weather, so the system was unaffected by rain, frost or

snow. Operation was electric from a third rail also enclosed in the box,

preventing accidental electrocution. The vertical support for the vehicle's

passenger compartment is by two tubular steel hangars with a pair of

hydraulic springs that are used to dampen the oscillation and permit

banking in curves (Figure 3.4). Like straddle type, various manufacturers

have different designed sizes of vehicles and guide ways but generally, the

passenger cars have 60-70 seats and are 2.5 – 3.5 m wide, 16 – 19 m long,

and 3 – 3.9 m high. An empty vehicle weighs about 25 to 30 tones.

Maximum passenger capacity is 160 - 200 people; 60 - 70 seated and 100 -

130 standing. Construction is usually aircraft composite with composite

transparent windows. The space below the floor contains a ladder that can

be lowered in case an emergency evacuation is necessary. Minimum

turning radius is about 20 meter; about a third of what is required in a

conventional light rail system. Unlike the suspended type where all of the

electrical and control systems are below the passenger compartment, in

suspended type the equipments are located above the passenger

compartment.

52
 Figure 3.4: Suspended
Suspended type monorail, (Grava, 2004
2004)

This type of monorails began its service much longer than straddle types

and the oldest monorail system in continuous service was a straddling type

monorail named “Schwebenbahn” – Schweben in German means “to hang,

to be suspended” – is constructed in Wuppertal, Germany. Opened in 1901,

Schwebebahn designed to provide service for passengers of the entire city.

This system is still in full operation today over a 13-km

13 (8-mi)
mi) track with 19

stations, and it has been recently

recently renovated with some completely rebuilt

stations.

53
 Figure 3.5: The oldest monorail in continuous service, in Wuppertal,

Germany, (Grava, 2004)

Because of some of its improper visual effects, capacity limits and slightly

high construction costs, most of the current monorail projects are straddle

type and from now on, just straddle monorail systems’ features and

characteristics will be the matter of focus in this study.

3.1.4 Guide–way Structure

The supporting columns were set on top of appropriate foundations (cast-

in-place, driven pile or spread foundations.) Most of the supporting

structure consists of T-shaped reinforced concrete columns. The columns

54
are depending on the context are 1 – 8 meter high, with about 1.5 m

embedded into the ground.

grou

Figure 3.6: Typical straddle monorail structure, (Grava

Grava, 2004)

The beamway itself consists of prefabricated, pre-stressed

pre stressed concrete beams

with or without steel shells. These were hollow girders approximately 1 m

wide and 1.5 m high, with the approximate

approximate shape of an "I" beam. In a dual-
dual

beam environment, the distance between the beams is about 3 m on

on-center.
center.

Each of the 90-ft

90 ft (27.4 m) straight beams weighs about 55 tons. The 77-ft
77

(23.4) curved beams also weigh about 55 tons, since they have slightly
slightl

55
thicker walls. Maximum span for straight beams is from 20 – 30 meters.

Curved beams of 600+-ft (182.9 m) radius can span 75 feet (22.8 m), while

curved beams of less than 300 feet (91.5 m) average 60 feet (18.3 m).The

construction procedure was very simple. After the foundations were in

place, one crane and one labor crew could set 12 columns per a day. Then,

two cranes plus one labor crew could set 18 beams per a day.

Figure 3.7: Concrete and steel guideway structure, Palm-Jumeirah

monorail train, Dubai, UAE

56
3.1.5 Vehicle Safety and Passenger Comfort

Monorails are categorized in Zero Accident or the safest public

transpiration systems. Because of their elevated design, accidents with

surface traffic are impossible. Zero accidents translates to no system down

time, less liability suits and most importantly, no injuries or deaths where

street rail systems with grade crossings (light rail, trams or trollies) can't

offer this kind of safety. Also, passenger safety is a primary consideration

in the design of modern monorail system. Various manufacturers are

trying to produce vehicles satisfying the latest transportation safety

standards to ensure passengers safety and comfort during their trips. These

kind of modern cars benefited recent interior design techniques and

modern convenience features such as fully automated air conditioning

systems, the vehicles' air spring suspension and unobstructed passageways

to bring an open atmosphere to the passengers, and to provide a pleasant

time for passengers rather than a time feeling boxed in, as they feel like

having fun walking in the air.

The straddle design provides stability as the vehicle rides along the

guideway. Passenger comfort is enhanced by and use of the latest power

traction technology to drive rubber-tired wheels offering a sure-footed,

significantly quieter and more comfortable ride compared to steel wheeled

transit vehicles. And also rubber tire system makes running vehicles less

noisy and protecting the neighborhood communities from noise pollution

with a virtually silent track system.

57
 Figure 3.8: Interior view of a straddle monorail train

(www.bombardier.com, last accessed 10/10/2010)

3.1.6 Propulsion System, Grade and Traction

The propulsion equipment usually uses Variable Voltage, Variable

Frequency (VVVF) inverters with a high power/weight ratio motors with

an average power of 100 hp for each motor, using 600 – 1500 VDC voltage.

These motors also act as brakes by turning the motors into generators and

dissipating the power into resistor banks between each car. This is called

regenerative braking. The system also provides high reliability and safety

features including safe-off state interlock with the braking system. It is also

equipped with dual media redundant network interfaced to the Vehicle

Management System.

58
The drive motors/controllers are current technology Pulse-width

modulation (PWM) AC Drive with Dynamic Braking. These are fine tuned

for smooth acceleration/deceleration and high standards of passenger

comfort. They have high torque and duty cycles as well. Besides the

motors, the brake system comprises the latest generation of electro

pneumatic systems currently available. Functions include emergency

braking, service braking, security braking, and power braking. The brake

system also controls compressors and communicates with the train

management system, as well as Automated Train Operation (ATO) or

Automated Train Protection (ATP) equipment if present. Compared to

ATP, which only controls braking, ATO controls all phases of train

operation from acceleration to precise stopping. Currently, ATO is installed

mostly in monorails and linear metro. Combined with the Platform Gates,

ATO helps the train operators to realize driverless operation. In ATO

system the train's location as it travels between stations is detected using

passive balises (passive tags). Two-way transmission using active balises at

specified station-stop positions provides station-code information and

information to enable interlocking control of platform gates. And then the

onboard equipment is mounted at one end of the train, reducing

installation costs. This system provides supervisory control, monitoring,

and diagnostic systems. Train status information is graphically displayed

to the operator via the HMI panel and allows the operator to quickly

respond to and understand all train systems’ status. This system

annunciates the train system status and abnormal conditions are

categorized and displayed in real time. It also acts as a “flight data

recorder” for further data analysis.

59
 Figure 3.9: ATO vehicle management system configuration

(www.hitachi
www.hitachi-rail.com
rail.com,, last accessed on 10/10/2010
10/10/2010)

3.1.7 Switching and Steering

Track switches are critical to the successful operation of any train based

transit system and must be highly reliable. There are three types of

switches: traverser, straight beam, and flexible beam. A traverser consists

of steel or reinforced-concrete
reinforced concrete parallel beams, each as long as a train and

spaced far enough apart to have a train on each one. The

The straight beam is a

switch capable of serving 3 monorail tracks. The other 3 supports are

movable carriages which travel laterally with the beam. Switching time is

about 9-12
12 seconds. The flexible switch (first invented by Hitachi) is used in

high-speed
speed installations. This type of switch operates in about 7 seconds.

60
Hitachi's monorail track flexible switch design has an unsurpassed record

of accident free service from 1964 at the Tokyo Monorail, which is Japan’s

first urban transit monorail system, and have been installed at all other

Hitachi urban transit monorail systems in operation. Utilizing a section of

the track beam itself, this kind of track switch provides a smooth transition

between lines (Figure 3.10).

Also, there are four steering tires per train, 2 on the front cab car and 2 on

the rear cab car (Figure 3.11). As it was mentioned before, monorail

benefited rubber tires instead of steel ones which makes the riding more

comfortable and steerable and produces less noise.

Figure 3.10: Flexible monorail switching system in three different situations

(www.hitachi-rail.com, last accessed on 10/10/2010)

61
 Figure 3.11: monorail’s load tires (left) and steering guide tires (right).

3.1.8 Control, Reliability, Related Information

The operation of safe, efficient and cost-effective monorail systems is

directly depends upon an advanced rail control and signaling system.

Today, monorail manufacturers offer a comprehensive portfolio of rail

systems including:

Autonomous integrated control systems

Computer and relay based interlocking systems

Automatic train protection and train operation systems

Radio based rail control and signaling systems

Wayside equipment

These systems are the key to increased availability, line capacity and

operational line speeds to meet the requirements of every railway operator.

They are paramount to the effective, efficient and profitable operation of

monorail systems of the future. Improvements through enhanced safety,

increased reliability and experienced comprehensive support systems and

62
processes are the vital demands from mass transit operators and

passengers.

Figure 3.12: An ultra-modern control room allows technicians to monitor

all aspects of operations,Kuala lumpur Monorail, Malaysia

63
Figure 3.13: Dual transmission network system applied for train operation

control command signal (www.hitachi-rail.com, last accessed 10/10/2010)

By the advancement of microcomputer and data transmission technologies

integrated control systems act as a spinal chord of a train. Autonomous

Integrated Control (ATI) system is a type of digital information exchange

system that integrates the information collected from the ground

equipment and the on-board devices for train control which makes train

under a live and dynamic control. Also, to retain the fail-safe transmission

functions without the increase of delay time of command signal

transmission, even if a failure occurs in the primary transmission network.

The transmission system of command signals becomes dual system, then

the transmission system of monitoring signals also become dual system at

the same time.

64
3.1.9 Environment and Energy Issues

3.1.9.1 No Emissions

Monorails are completely electric and produce zero emissions and, as

means of transpiration, monorails aid in the removal of large amount of

various motor vehicle traffics and reduced emissions by tons of carbon

monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides

(NOx) over the course of the year. Figure 3.14 shows Las Vegas Monorail

removes 2.7 million vehicle miles from Southern Nevada's major roadways

in 2009, reducing 48 tons of greenhouse gases emissions annually.

3.1.9.2 Greenery along Route

The alignment space needed for monorail is small but is big enough for

landscaping. Shown here is some of the lush landscaping that enhances the

route of the Kitakyushu City Monorail in Japan. You can't plant this much

vegetation on a street level light rail route without gobbling up more traffic

lanes. Figure 3.15 shows Kitakyushu Monorail in Japan includes a heavy

dose of landscaping below the guideway.

3.1.9.3 Friendly to the Natural Environment

Environmentalists have long sought to be rid of pollution and congestion

caused by auto traffic in every preserved natural area. There are several

examples of green monorail track through jungle areas. Since most

65
monorail trains run above the surface, wildlife and humans would be safer,

noise levels would be lower, and pollution would be greatly reduced.

Figure 3.14: Las Vegas Monorail, Nevada, USA

66
 Figure 3.15: Kitakyushu Monorail, Fukuoka, Japan

Figure 3.16: The Green monorail at Disneyland, Florida, USA

67
3.2 Monorail: The Smart APM Systems on Campuses

University campuses have unique transportation requirements that may be

characterized with a high concentration of trips during multiple peak

periods (i.e., morning, lunch, and afternoon). These campuses are often the

largest employers in small-to-medium size cities and it is therefore critical

to coordinate modern campus mobility needs with the overall

transportation system. New APM technologies offer promise to enhance

the operation of transit on campuses and in communities with a campus.

These APM systems are a top issue for transit systems that are looking both

at ways to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness, as well as to

transition transit from a mode that has historically frequently been

marginalized as a second class mode of travel. Moreover, systems hope to

appeal strongly to college students, who are often more tech-savvy and are

also more likely to use transit to get around than other groups, and who

are perceived as the “next generation” of riders that transit systems aim to

attract to habitual use (Miller, 2008).

3.3 METU Campus Monorail System

3.3.1 Site Characteristics

The potential site proposed is the METU Campus, including connections

between ODTÜ and Bilkent stations of Ankara metro, dormitories and

residential regions, Teknokent region and various on campus facilities and

buildings.

68
3.3.2 Urban and Mobility Context

Middle East Technical University (METU) was founded in a government

provided 4250 hectare piece of land in South West of Ankara City Centrum

in 1960. In the original plan, all of the academic and administrative

facilities and residential buildings, covering about only 65 hectare land,

were sited on the northern part of the campus land (Güllüoğlu, 2005).

According to Current Master Development Plan of the METU campus in

year 2025 – approved by the Metropolitan Municipality of Ankara (ABB)

on 07.02.1994 (ABB, 1994) – 418 hectare land was allocated as the gross

settlement and development area of the campus (only 220 hectare was in

use by 2009) and the remaining forests and bare lands, covering about

3,800 hectare, will be preserved as natural areas. The development plan of

the campus proposes a gross expansion of 90 % on the western side of the

campus; comprising METU Foundation Primary and High School on the

northwest, METU Teknokent on the west and METU Residences (ODTÜ

Kent) on the southwest. Thus, main development direction of the campus

is determined westwards according to the plan.

At present, Ankara is the capital city and second largest city of Turkey with

about 4,500,000 habitants and the campus is now roughly surrounded by

Eskişehir Blv. in North, Mevlana Blv. and 100.Yil district in East, İncek Blv.

in South and Bilkent Blv. in West. METU campus is connected to the other

parts of Ankara mostly by buses, as part of the urban bus network

provided by Ankara municipality (EGO Buses) and private operated urban

minibus services (Dolmuş) on prescribed routes (similar to those of the

buses). Ankara Metro is planning to start its service on A1 and A2

university entrances in 2012. Also the two radio taxi stations in the campus

69
region provide good services. In addition, METU provides organized

shuttle bus services (morning and afternoon) to the staff.

Figure 3.17: Location of the METU Campus in Ankara (Google Earth©2010)

70
Approximately 9,000 vehicles a day enter the Campus, 8,200 out of them

are private cars and taxi. (A total number of 7.688 METU entrance cards

were in use the end of 2009 where 2,959 of them were academic and staff

users). The remaining 800 vehicles are mainly pickups, minibuses and

buses. Figure 3.17 presents a schematic map of METU campus.

Campus vehicular road schema can be figured with two adjacent loops.

First loop, based on the original campus plan, encircles core campus and

main pedestrian alley and most of the public buildings serving the METU

community are located along or close to it. Second loop is adjacent to the

first loop and passes through the Teknokent and western residential and

dormitories region and shares a segment of faculties’ road. These two loops

have vital importance for the vehicular traffic in campus. These loops are

linked to campus gates; A1 and A2 gates on the north, A4 gate on the east

and A7 gate on the west. However, gate A2 is only used for service

purposes.

Campus ring services are operated for providing the circulation in campus

through working hours (from 08:25 to 16:45) on both of the mentioned

campus loops. METU District services are operated between campus and

46 different districts of Ankara; in morning rush hours (between 06:20 &

07:55, from districts) and in the evening peak (at 17:45, to districts). Unlike

campus ring services, free for everyone; METU district services are only

available for METU staff due to limited fleet capacity. In 2009, campus ring

services were reorganized and four different ring routes were determined.

Two of them (blue and orange routes) depart from west dormitories zone

at 08:25 and others (red and routes) are available from the ring stops

through working hours, between 09:00 and 16:45. There are also other ring

services as; dormitories ring service, operating between west (new) and

71
east (old) dormitories zones after 18:45 until 23:30 in weekdays during

academic year.

3.3.3 Campus Facilities and Population

According to a study conducted by the presidency office in 2003, the whole

campus is divided into nine zones (Gökbulut, 2004). In this study, Faculty

Buildings, Library, Presidency Office and Student Affairs are located along

the so-called zone A’s central alley and each of the Zones B to I are

respectively include; Zone B: Cultural Center and Cafeteria, Zone C:

Shopping Center, Zone D: Eastern Housing units, Zone E: Dormitories

No.1 to No. 9 and 3 private student housing units, Zone F: Teknokent

Residencies, Zone G: METU Primary and High schools, Zone H: University

Support Units (Telecommunication, Electrical Works, etc), office of

Constructions and Technical Works and Zone I: Teknokent Business and

Research Center (Figure 3.18).

Examining this study, in consideration of the temporarily dense areas, such

as Congress Center, Stadium, it is seen that the population is concentrated

mostly in the area where the Faculty of Physics and the Presidency Office

are located. The population of the largest and densest zone A has increased

from 15,681 in 1997 to 17,157 in 2003 to about 20,000 in 2009.

According to Presidency Statistics, in the year 2009 METU has a total

population of 30,100 persons. The detailed population figures are 24,760

students (undergraduate, graduate, postgraduate), 1,100 faculty members,

4,300 academic and administrative staff, 1,660 Teknokent staff, 2,100 METU

primary and high school and 1,300 others (campus residents, participants

in various courses, general visitors, etc).

72
Figure 3.18:
3.18 The nine population zones of METU campus (Gökbulut, 2004).

Besides, presidency of METU offers housing opportunities within the

campus for its academic and administrative staff. In the

the year 2009, METU

was offering totally 450 housing units and guest houses. 120 residences and

a guest house are located on the eastern part of the campus. Besides, 330

houses are available in the ODTÜ-Kent

ODTÜ Kent residential zone, covering 9 hectare

73
on the western side of the campus. At present from the mentioned 30,100

campus population, 6,600 students and 1,400 other residents are inhabited

in above mentioned dormitories, guesthouses and residencies inside the

campus.

3.3.4 Expected Demand

Campus trip demand can be figured as an aggregation of the following

domains;

• Trips attracted from city to campus and trips generated from

campus to city which is now served by EGO public services (via

buses), private sector services (via buses and minibuses) and

personal automobiles;

• The trip demand within the campus, arising from the trips

attracted/generated between different zones of campus which is

served by the campus ring services and, of course, by personal

automobiles for long distances.

According to the last research done in METU, the automobile usage ratio

reached from 7% in 1985 and 24% in 1996 to 39% in 2003 (Gökbulut, 2004).

For the first phase assuming that, the demand will be derived only from

students and staff who uses public transportation system to reach campus

in the morning and to return home in the afternoon, we expect at least

approximately a total of 5,000 passengers a day, based on the following

assumption: approximately 3,000 undergrad students and about 1,000

graduate and post graduate and academic staff who will use the proposed

system to reach campus, and about 1,000 students and habitants of campus

who will use the system during the day to reach A1 gate and vice versa.

74
The peak hours are 8:00 to 10:00 AM and 16:00 to 18:00 PM. These are

conservative assumptions, since they don’t take into account the normal

increase in METU population. According to METU Presidency Office

provided campus population data, daily traffic and zonal interactions in

different periods of working days are explored relative to the probable

movements of different population groups in Table 3.6.

75
 Table 3.5: Approximate travel demand of METU population groups (2009 ODTÜ Faaliyet Raporu)

(08:00– 10:00) (10:00–16:00) (16:00– 18:00) (18:00–08:00)

Estimated
Population Groups Population Morning During the Afternoon Evening
Demand
Peak Hours Day Peak Hours &Night
Preparatory School &
1 trip to
Under Graduate 15,793 N/A 1 trip to home N/A ~ 31,500
campus
Students
Graduate & 1 trip to 1 trip to 1 trip to home
7,141 N/A ~ 7,100
Postgraduate Students campus (25%) campus (25%) (50%)
Academic & 1 trip to
5,438 N/A 1 trip to home N/A ~ 10,800
Administrative Staff campus
1 city-campus 1 in-campus / 1 city-campus
METU Residencies 1 in-campus/
1,421 round trip 1 trip to round trip ~ 4,500
( Staff & Family) 1 trip to city
(25%) campus (25%)
1 city-campus
Eastern 1 in-campus 1 in-campus
5,397 N/A round trip ~ 13,000
Dormitories (Students) trip trip
(25%)
1 city-campus
Western 1 in-campus 1 in-campus
1,925 N/A round trip ~ 4,400
Dormitories (Students) trip trip
(25%)
Teknokent Region &
1 trip to
METU Primary/High 3,795 N/A 1 trip to home N/A ~ 7,500
campus
School

76
 CHAPTER 4

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF METU MONORAIL

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

4.1 Project Description

4.1.1 Project Summary

Project Type: A campus–wide Monorail System (monorail guide ways,

passenger stations, pedestrian-bicycle corridors, public facilities, and

public safety facilities)

Project Location: Middle East Technical University Campus – including:

the connections between ODTU and Bilkent metro stations, dormitories

and residential zones, campus facilities and buildings, and Teknokent

region.

Turkish Governmental District: METU, Çankaya District, Ankara

Metropolitan Area, TURKEY

Investors: Middle East Technical University Presidency Office

77
4.1.2 Historical Development of Project

In the original plan, academic and residential areas were arranged as near

as possible to each other for 15,000 students, without preventing further

spatial development. In this plan, the walking time between the academic

and residential zone was planned as 20 minutes. A pedestrian was walking

the campus area in 10 minutes (Gökbulut, 2004; Çinici, 1999). Today, as a

result of the shifting of pedestrian transportation to automobile, the spatial

structure of the campus has been transformed and has affected the walking

time around the campus.

On the other hand, METU campus has limited parking (only about 1,000

parking spaces) available for students and visitors (more than 1700 of total

2700 on campus parking spaces are assigned to faculties and academic

staff). The peripheral parking lots and also most of the student dormitories

are located far from the campus center and main buildings, resulting in

long walking distances (more than 1 km). In addition, there are quite steep

slopes inside the Campus, in some cases more than 10%. Therefore, many

students prefer to park in forbidden places, even at the risk of penalties

(fine, suspension of entry rights, etc). Especially on special days when

cultural activities are taking place, this problem is seen with the

overflowing of cars to into main streets.

Also many students prefer not to wait for the shuttle when going to their

destinations. In addition, there are some problems to reach campus from

the city centre and vice versa in the evenings, when public transportation is

very limited. An average of 8,000 students and academic staffs are living in

on campus provided dormitories and residential buildings. Furthermore

Ankara Metro plans to open two new stations at A1 and A2 entrances on

78
2011 as part of the city’s Metro system development program, integrating

campus to the current and planned heavy and light rail network of Ankara

by connecting METU campus with the downtown (Kızılay) from METU

station on A1 entrance and with the business and commerce area in Bilkent

from the west entrance station. However, neither of these stations, at gates

A1 and A2, is directly accessible by pedestrians from the built up area of

campus. Furthermore, as the new rail route starts service, the number of

EGO buses servicing METU is going to be reduced by the local

government. As Gökbulut (2003) and Güllüoğlu (2005) also stated,

sustainable solution to increase ODTÜ and Bilkent stations’ service area,

they should be connected to another public transport service operating

within the campus.

Figure 4.1 Digital elevation model (left) and Slope map of METU campus

(right) (Güllüoğlu, 2005)

79
Considering these changes and forthcoming problems, METU presidency

office accepted a project proposal by a Turkish private company to build a

1.5 km sample monorail line from A1 entrance to the Central library

building in 2004 to test the cons and pros of such a system, thus a 300 meter

guideway was built near the A1 entrance and a model vehicle was placed

there but because of some internal problems the company quitted the

project. This study, along with all previous efforts, studies the feasibility of

constructing the METU monorail system as the essential need of a pioneer

and sustainable transportation system for one of the most prestigious

technical university in Turkey.

4.1.3 Necessity of Project Evaluation and Feasibility Study

The decision to implement any new project or program must be based on a

thorough analysis of the current operation. So, the impact of

implementation of this proposed project on the future operation of the

campus transportation system must be evaluated. This feasibility study is

based on extensive research on both the current practices and the proposed

project and its impact on the campus transportation system operation. This

study will contain data related to financial and operational impact and will

include advantages and disadvantages of both the current situation and the

proposed plan. It is conducted to assist the decision-makers in making the

decision that will be in the best interest of the school foodservice operation.

The extensive research, conducted in a non-biased manner, will provide

data upon which to base a decision.

80
4.2 The Proposed Monorail System’s Characteristics

4.2.1 An overview of the Current Transportation System

Ankara the capital city of Turkey, the fastest growing country in Europe

region, with a population of over 4.5 million people is home to the campus

of Middle East Technical University, one of the most prestigious and

completive Turkish university, with an enrollment of approximately 24,700

students and employment of over 5,500. The campus, with an area of over

255 hectare, is approximately located 8 kilometers southwest of Ankara city

center. The current transportation system of campus is consisted of the

following services:

• Car dominates on campus and other regional travel patterns, with

an estimated usage ratio of 50% in all campus–city trips. It takes

approximately 15 minutes to drive from campus to downtown or

vice versa.

• A range of public transport bus services are available.

Characteristics of the services include regular short-distance bus

services that provide hourly trip options to and from at least three

regional centers: Kızılay, Sıhhiye, and the intercity bus terminal

(AŞTİ).

• Privately operated minibus services (Dolmuş) are available

during the day from three regional centers: Kızılay, Ulus, and

Ayrancı and vice versa.

• Campus ring services are operated for providing the circulation

in campus through working hours (from 08:25 to 16:45).

Currently, campus ring services were reorganized and four

81
 different ring routes were determined. Two of them (blue and

orange routes) depart from west dormitories zone at 08:25 and

others (red and routes) are available through the ring stops

through working hours, between 09:00 and 16:45. There are also

other ring services as; dormitories ring service, operating between

west (new) and east (old) dormitories zones after 18:45 until 23:30

in weekdays during academic year.

Figure 4.2: Yellow Campus Ring service path (right), Red Campus Ring

service campus service path (left),

82
 • Unlike campus ring services, free for everyone; METU has a fleet

of district services, only available for METU staff

staff due to limited

capacity. METU District services are operated between campus

and 46 different districts of Ankara; in morning rush hours

(between 06:20 & 07:55, from districts) and in the evening peak

(at 17:45, to districts).

• Two taxi stations on campus

campus provide almost 24 hours relatively

expensive services to different parts of the city.

• Ankara Metro is planning to start its service of Ankara Çayyolu

line on A1 and A2 university entrances in 2012 (Figure 4.

4.3).

Figure 4.3:
4. : Metro System, which will pass through to A1 and A2 gates, is

under construction.

83
 • An average of 7,000 students living on campus dormitories and

residential facilities are walking, biking or using ring services

daily to academic departments and other parts of the campus.

As it was mentioned on the previous chapters, there is a lack of public

transportation services for many of the students living outside the campus

during the day and also for dormitories’ students for occasional trips to

downtown in the evenings. There are some gaps in public transport supply

and service effectiveness for basic requirements such as day return travel to

campus, and the services that are provided are not always appropriately

scheduled, accessible or adequately comfortable and have a limited ability

to use public transport for inside the campus. Finally, there is a strong case

on socio – economic over usage of personal automobiles on campus

including: increasing parking demand, emission of greenhouse gases,

traffic congestion in peak hours, sound pollution and different kinds of

accidents.

4.2.2 General Features of the Monorail System

The proposed monorail transportation system would accommodate and

link public and private transportation modes (intercity EGO bus services,

on campus ring services, taxis, private para–transit services (Dolmuş),

bicycle commuters, pedestrians, and the future Ankara city metro services)

for the residents, students, facility and visitors of METU campus by

providing the following:

The new driverless monorail system will be substitute for the old

bus ring transportation with limited service schedules and

84
 capabilities, to provide high-frequency and late-night transit

services, seven days of the week.

The proposed system will significantly reduce and bypass

congestion during peak traffic hours; consequently, this will

reduce the current limitation on usage of on campus parking

spaces will be decrease for students and visitors.

Campus residents in eastern and western dormitories and

guesthouses will have the opportunity of a fair day and night

access to any part of the campus and to Ankara city’s public

transportation system.

With an at least 30 years of useful life time the proposed

monorail system will guarantee an environmental friendly,

sustainable and convenient service for the generations of

students and faculties of METU.

This system links the forthcoming two metro stations at A1 gate

(ODTU station) and A2 gate (Bilkent station) to on campus

facilities.

Equipped with twelve to fifteen modern stations, bicycle carriage

services on vehicles, the new pedestrian and bike paths to

stations, and bike lockers at the stations, the new system will

support of the new trends of biking to work culture and as an

amenity extending the range of bicycle commuting and walking

within the students and faculty members and academic staff of

METU community.

Due to its straddle-beam design it is safe and quiet, which

hinders the prospect of derailment, high maintenance cost, and

excessive frictional noise.

85

Enhances and protects the existing green spaces and preserves

the healthful natural environment of METU by reducing the

amount of greenhouse gases emitted by on campus motor

vehicles and consequent pollution and provide an energy

efficient and environment friendly form of transit system

It will be fully air-conditioned or heated with handicap accessibility, and

the passengers will enjoy a serene musical environment. It is perceived

that the system will serve 1 million riders annually; as a result, this great

incentive for tourism and increase in patrons and customers will encourage

funding for this project by METU presidency office, City of Ankara, and

other industrial businesses.

4.2.3 Route Alignment

Route alignment and locating passenger stations are among the first major

concerns in design process of any transportation system. The proposed

guide way network should connect points of heavy demand generation

with areas of consumption through the shortest technical feasible

alignment. To transit students to major academic departments, to link two

of metro stations to on campus transportation loops, and finally the

capability of future expansion should be considered carefully. Alignment

should avoid steeper slopes, intersecting crossroads, and obstructing the

vehicular and pedestrian traffic as far as possible. However, monorail

trains can tolerate steeper slopes comparing normal light rail vehicles and

besides, monorail guide ways can be elevated so they make fewer

problems interrupting other vehicles traffic. Areas of predominant demand

86
generation and consumption should be identified to generate streams of

traffic and possible routes. As it was mentioned before, in this study

demand areas are based on the 2003 study conducted by METU presidency

which has been divided the whole campus into nine population zones

(Gökbulut, 2004).

There are different hypothetical network routing systems but real-world

route networks fall into one of the following major categories (Grava,

2004):

• Single line with one vehicle shuttling back and forth between

terminals

• Single line with two vehicles operating simultaneously with a

double track in the middle to allow bypassing of the cars

• Single one-direction loop with a series of stations. The loop

should be relatively small, because otherwise movement

between two nearby stations may require a long trip if the

destination point is in the reverse direction.

• Double loop with two-directional movement and any number of

stations. This system operates like regular fixed guide way

service.

• A combination of any of these arrangements is possible, as

would be a grid network for a larger system.

The first three classes are the simplest possible systems as they are found in

various airports, shopping centers, recreation areas, between parking lots

and destination points, and on campuses (Grava, 2004).

87
Figure 4.4: Various monorail network routing systems (Grava, 2004)

88
 Figure 4.5: Proposed METU Monorail Guideway Path (Gökbulut, 2004)

After researching the different features of real network routes in urban and

campus areas, and previously proposed networks for METU monorail

systems, finally the proposed network by Gökbulut – 2004, is chosen

because as she was said it is effective in terms of volume and capacity and

be flexible for possible future growth.

This network (Figure 4.5) is a combination of two adjacent loops and three

single lines connected to them. The first loop serves to the major academic

and the most populated regions of campus – The faculties, Library,

Presidency Office, Cafeteria, Congress Centre, and Eastern Dormitories – and the

second loop serves Western part of the campus including: Residential Units,

West Dormitories, School of Foreign Language, Faculty of Education, High

School, Elementary School, Teknokent region, and the planned area for future

expansion of campus. Each of the three branches was also designed to

connect one of A1, A2, and A4 entrances to campus loops.

89
4.2.4 Technical Planning

The technical specifics of such a monorail will entail 15-second stops at

various locations across the planned routes through the heart of campus

and nearby communities. Monorail system will be installed around the

campus and through the neighboring public transit terminals to provide

commuters with an efficient and consistent mode of transportation. The

monorail will have several different routes for the academic and

educational faculties, sport centers, parking lots, shopping centre,

residential areas, and nearby metro stations; and thus will cumulatively

span a 9.5 km route. Furthermore, there are several other attractive reasons

why METU campus should embrace this specific form of transportation.

Firstly, the monorail is elevated above the ground, which will significantly

reduce and bypass congestion during peak traffic hours. In addition,

powerful electric engines installed on rubber wheels will propel the train,

will reduce sound and air pollution and provide an energy efficient and

environment friendly form of transit system. Furthermore, equipped with

the latest vehicle online monitoring technology and advanced control

systems, it will be unique experience of a safe, quiet and pleasing riding,

which also hinders the prospect of derailment, high maintenance cost, and

excessive frictional noise.

There will also be a special attraction, which will provide an extraordinary

experience of visiting the whole campus and for its surrounding natural

environment by modern monorails, for prospective students as well as

tourists. Additionally, the monorail will have a fleet of five to eight

individual cars: each car will run at 70 km/h, contain 50 to 60 seats and

several bicycles, and have dimensions of 2.5 m wide by 6 to 8 m long. It

90
will be fully air-conditioned or heated with handicap accessibility, and the

passengers will enjoy a serene musical environment.

4.2.5 Facility Sustainability Features

A critical component of the modern transportation facilities would be their

qualifications to reduce the operation region’s greenhouse gas emissions

and to reduce dependence on oil. Moreover, the facility technical design

should tackle energy and environmental issues and challenges in a

collaborative manner with sustainability and energy efficiency goals in the

final operation stage. In this case design and subsequent energy

performance during service time of the system provide a nexus between

long term outcomes and immediate returns, demonstrating that the

benefits of designing a transportation system with careful attention to life

cycle costs provide immediate and ongoing benefits. Benefits that will be

achieved in METU monorail system include:

4.2.5.1 Environment Friendly Mobility

Concerning CO2 emission in passenger transport the rail transport

(including light, heavy rail and monorails) is four times more efficient than

the car and three times more than the plane on average (Figure 4.5); also

because most of the modern light rail and monorail systems have electrical

engines, the required energy is supplied by a stationary power supply

system fed by the public power grid or a distant small size power plant.

This means, the mentioned systems does not produce any local exhaust

emissions.

91
In addition while these transit vehicles have electrical braking systems

(based on the synchronous machine respectively the eddy current brake

and a contactless levitation and propulsion system), they do not produce

any kind of respirable dusts, normally produced by automobile brakes

either.

Figure 4.6: Passenger Transport CO2 Comparison (Hellinger, 2009)

92
4.2.5.2 Reduced Noise Pollution

The proposed monorail involves 7 to 9 kms of elevated guideway. Even

though much of this would run along current road rights of way, some

would pass educational, commercial, and some residential areas. There will

likely be opposition to this design approach because of probable sound

pollutions. Actually, noise emissions of transport systems are unavoidable

but as already explained regarding the aerodynamic resistance, monorail is

designed with smooth surfaces. Compared with other light rail trains,

monorail uses rubber tires monorail systems therefore it produces lower

noise and monorail systems are satisfying the toughest European sound

emission standards (Hellinger, 2009).

4.2.5.3 Efficient Land Use

Transport infrastructure has negative influence by the actual space

requirement, as well as fragmentation and degradation of the natural or

urban landscape. A comparison of capacities of urban transport modes

show that rail has the highest capacity (Figure 4.7).

Besides, due to the maglev technology, monorail allows a high grade

ability of up to 10%. This allows a flexible alignment with a lower number

of tunnels and bridges (Figure 4.8). The monorail system can be aligned at-

grade or elevated. Especially the elevated alignment has safety and

environmental advantages: the safety advantages are no crossing traffic

and no possibility for animals to climb the guideway; the evironmental

advantage is the track is no barrier for water or animals.

93
Figure 4.7: Comparison of maximum capacity of urban transportation

modes per meter of infrastructures (Hellinger, 2009).

Figure 4.8: Land take of the guide way in m² per m track length

(Hellinger,2009)

94
4.2.5.4 Higher Safety Features

An additional feature of the proposed system is increased safety. Cars,

motorcycles, and trucks differ markedly in size, weight, maneuverability,

and crash-worthiness. But traffic accidents caused by collisions almost

always lead to damage, injury, and death. Every year, the traffic accidents

kill more people than malaria : 1.2 million dead plus 50 million injured and

traffic accidents will be the third biggest burden on global health by 2020,

predicts the World Health Organization, with an 80 percent increase in

casualties in low and middle-income countries (knowledge.allianz.com).

On the other hand, according to an international research conducted in

South Africa, in average cars caused damage costs of 33 Euro per 1000

passenger kilometers while this amount for rail transportation is only 3

Euro (Venter et al, 2001). In other words, rail transit is safer than car and

causes much less incidents. According to on campus data, a total number

of 459 traffic accidents occurred in the limits of METU campus during the

period of 2003 and 2008. 432 of these accidents only lead to physical

damages while other 23 accidents also caused some human injuries. In

average 75.6 traffic accidents take place on METU campus annually where

78.8% of these accidents are multi-sided and 5% leaded to human injuries

(Keskin et al, 2010).

4.2.5.5 Social and Academic Durability

Transport infrastructure development or change can have a range of social

impacts which can occur at both the local and regional levels (AECOM,

2010). Social durability is where the character and quality of development

95
supports and nurtures positive human interaction and healthy lifestyles,

where a sense of community and neighborhood is promoted. Constructing

monorail infrastructure in METU campus, also, can provide significant

social on campus benefits including:

Improved transit safety, accessibility and travel time savings;

Coordinated transportation system that will link not only

motorized but public transportation modes such as Ankara

metro system with campus transit system allowing for easy

connections and long term satisfaction of students, visitors, and

local residents;

Reducing movement barriers and linked pedestrian, cyclist, and

disabled paths through residential and academic zones

connecting with the fast growing, west side of campus;

Assist university master planned strategies on prioritizing and

developing academic and research facility construction within

the west side of the campus; thereby, supporting its growing

science and technology-based educational institution;

Ability to act as the catalyst to development of the Teknokent

Business District and bringing new life and services to campus

residents and visitors;

96
4.3 Economic Effects of Proposed Monorail System

Assessment of the economic effects associated with the proposed monorail

system has been divided into estimated cost values regarding construction

period of the system and estimated benefit values associated with system

services and consequent regional impact.

4.3.1 Estimated Cost Values

Cost values for APM systems like the other transportation systems are

classified in two major categories:

Capital and Construction Costs;

Operating and Maintenance Costs;

4.3.1.1 Capital Costs

Monorail systems are not cheap. They cost much more than bus systems.

However they usually cost less than light rail systems, considerably less

than heavy rail commuter railroads, and much less than underground light

rail or subway systems. Even though bus systems normally cost much less,

in the case of true bus rapid transit where specially-designed buses run on

grade separated bus-only roadways, the costs may exceed that of a

monorail line. The figures in Table 4.1 are taken from an analysis by Shen

et al, 2005.

97
 Table 4.1: Costs of Various Line Haul Systems

Cost per route kilometers ($million 2005)

System Type Low Average High

Rapid Rail Transit Systems $69.1 $126.2 $183.7

Light Rail Transit Systems $15.9 $55.5 $122

High Capacity Urban APMs $51.7 $71.2 $90.9

High Capacity Airport APMs $30.5 $81.9 $148.1

Generally, there are many variables which influence the price of building a

monorail system (and most forms of rail transit). Included Factors are as

follow:

• Total length of the system: In many cases, costs can be reduced

the longer a system is.

• Topography: Is the terrain flat or hilly, are there many roads or

rivers to cross?

• Location: What is the access for construction equipment? Will

there be heavy traffic or other impediments to construction?

• Utilities: Relocation of water mains, power lines, telephone lines,

etc. can have a significant effect on cost increases.

• Land: What amount of land needs to be purchased or easements

need to be acquired?

• Passenger requirements: What size and number of vehicles are

required? How much time will they wait at stations?

• Speed: What are the speed requirements of the system? Are there

long enough distances between stations so that a higher speed is

desired?

98
 • Number of Stations: Each additional station adds to the cost.

• Special Structures: Tunnels, bridges, overpass reconstruction or

urban structures may be a cost factor?

• Geotechnical conditions: What are the subsurface conditions?

They can have a major impact on foundation costs.

• Environmental Mitigation: Will restoration, wildlife protection

or sound walls be required?

Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 show the cost figures of various APM type

monorail systems built by the world’s famous manufacturers in South East

Asia, Middle East shows, North America, and Europe.

According to these data, by the recent progresses in modern electronics,

and communication technologies and enhancement of automated guidance

and Satellite Real-time Locating Systems, driverless monorail projects are

now cheaper and more cost effective. The average figures from the present

data [in Europe market] are $5.2million/km for the airport applications and

$5.7 million/km for the non-airport, but $9.8million/km for the

underground (Kerr et al, 2005).

99
Table 4.2: Cost figures of monorail systems (Asia, Middle East)

System Cost/Year Info Source System

type ($ million) Status

Hitachi $15 / km Tokyo-Haneda Operating

1964 Monorail

Hitachi $62 /km Kitakyushu Operating

1985 Monorail

Hitachi $27 /km Okinawa Operating

2003 Monorail

Kuala $36 /km Kuala Lumpur Operating

Lumpur 2003 Monorail

MTrans

Hitachi $73.4 /km Palm Jumeirah , Operating

2006 Dubai

Metrail $20 /km Dubai Contracted

2008

Rowin/ $10.3 /km Rowin, Korea Constructio

Urbanaut 2008 n (2008)

Scomi $27.25 /km Mumbai, India Constructio

2008 n (2008)

100
 Table 4.3: Cost figures of monorail systems (North America, Europe)

Guide-way
Capital Cost Capital Cost
System Construction Cost System
Application Length (km) $million/km $million/km
Type Year $million/km Status
(2005) (2010)
(2005)

Lille VAL 1983-89 Urban At grade 25.3 85.9 99.7 26.2 Operating

Vancouver
1986-94 Urban Elevated 28.8 51.7 60.0 15.8 Operating
Sky Train

London
1987-93 Urban Elevated 27.0 56.0 65.0 17.1 Operating
DLR

Miami
1986-94 Elevated 7.1 90.9 105.4 27.7 Operating
Metromover

Paris APM 1996 Airport 4.3 30.4 35.2 9.3 Operating

 Table 4.3 (continued)

Denver Operating
1995 Airport Tunnel 2.9 67.4 78.2 20.6
APM

Newark Operating
1995 Airport Elevated 3.1 148.1 171.8 45.2
APM

Seattle Operating
2004 Urban Elevated 22.4 55.6 64.5 17.0
Monorail

Las Vegas
2004 Urban Elevated 5.0 68.1 79.0 20.8 Operating
Monorail

Average 72.7 84.3 22.2

In this special case for METU campus, since this monorail system will

cover the existing two main loops around several localities on campus area,

the installation of Monorail System will not cause any relocations and

reconstructions of facilities in the area. However dependant on the

complete operation design of system it is estimated to construct 10 to 15

passenger stations all around the campus and also due to ample concrete

supply in Ankara, and reasonably lower prices in Turkey, the construction

cost of this monorail guide-way is estimated to be fairly low in comparison

to other monorails. Additionally, capacity of the proposed system cannot

be compared by above mentioned urban monorail systems which provide

longer and heavier services at densely populated urban communities.

Furthermore as it was discussed in detail in the previous chapter, to ensure

the safety and the effectiveness of the monorail at all time, a fair amount of

budget should be allocated to mechanical and electrical specification of the

project. This would include the hiring of technicians and engineers from

certain professional consortiums to design and implement the mechanical

and electrical components. The table below shows the estimated costs for

various specifications of the monorail system.

As the table shows, costs include the capital costs for the infrastructure

improvements, elevated stations constructions, electrification and

communication equipments and the train prices. A two-year

construction/implementation period has been assumed for those options

involving capital works. The capital cost is divided equally between the

two years preceding project opening.

103
 Table 4.4: Justified present cost values of proposed monorail project10

Estimated Present
Cost Categories
Value

Infrastructure: civil works, guide way structure

$24 million
and materials, construction and installation, rails

Rolling Stock ( Single Vehicles or Car Train) and

$7 million
stations

Mechanical and Electrical: switches, electrification

$7 million

Land Acquisition: public and private

---

Engineering Design
$3 million

Project and Construction Management

$1 million

Facilities: line Stations, parking structures,

$2.2 million
maintenance facilities, traffic control centers

Subsystems: safety, communications, traffic

$1.3 million
control, etc

Special Structures: tunnels, bridges, overpass

$1 million
reconstruction, urban structures

Total Costs $46.5 million

10see Appendix C and Appendix D for typical cost breakdown figures for APM systems
and Appendix B for relating interviewed persons

104
4.3.1.2 Operating Costs

Supporters of rail way technologies assert that operating cost savings are a

major advantage and a major reason why these mode is such an attractive

choice compared to various bus service alternatives. For moderate traffic as

well as heavier passenger volumes it's believed that rail technologies tend

to be much cheaper to operate than comparable bus service.

The major reasons why rail based technologies are cheaper to other modes

are including (LR Progress, 2001):

Train vehicles generally provide more passenger space, and in

special cases the trains’ length could be increased easily by

adding more cars.

The largest recurring cost in any enterprise are the salaries and

benefits of the employees and the significant cost advantage for

driverless APM’s is that they do not need operator/driver and

less other kind of employees, which wages make up about 70%-

80% of ongoing operating costs.

Especially in rush hour (or other peak periods, like special

events) they can handle heavy passenger loads and

accommodate and move much more rapidly and efficiently.

(even when the trains operate on public arterials, there's

significantly less conflict with other traffic than there would be if

expensive fleets of buses were used instead)

Elevated APM’s never mix with traffic, which makes them safer

and more reliable. This also means the system can be automated,

which will allow it to operate with little or no ongoing subsidy

105
Table 4.5, show passenger-mile costs for some light rail systems and the

counterpart bus system differences. Although these systems are all need

drivers to move, costs are generally lower than bus systems.

Table 4.5: Operating cost comparison Bus, LRT (per passenger-mile)11

Bus LRT Difference

($) ($) (%)
San Diego $0.38 $0.17 -55%

St Louis $0.66 $0.20 -70%

Los Angeles $0.48 $0.30 -38%

Portland $0.51 $0.35 -31%

Sacramento $0.53 $0.38 -28%

Dallas $0.74 $0.47 -36%

Baltimore $0.53 $0.48 -9%

Denver $0.53 $0.61 15%

San Jose $0.72 $0.79 10%

Buffalo $0.78 $0.86 10%

For APMs cases applying driverless systems along with the most advanced

engineering technologies, recurrent costs are much lower to LRT

technologies. Comparing other modes of transportation, three major

advantage factors which decrease energy demand for monorails and APMs

are:

Aerodynamic Drag

Mechanical Fiction

Acceleration & Deceleration

11 Totals based on vehicle/train miles for equal number of passengers

106
Table 4.6 shows relative operating indexes of mentioned factors for LRT,

heavy duty monorail, and small monorails.

Table 4.6: Energy demand factor relative comparison (Urbanaut, 2009)

Light Rail Straddle Monorail Straddle Monorail

(Heavy) (Light)

Aerodynamic
1.3 0.8 0.60
Drag

Mechanical
1.5 0.65 0.65
Fiction

Acceleration &
1.4 0.85 0.60
Deceleration

In general, automated rail technologies including APMs and driverless

monorails are superior in cost efficiency to other choices. Where bus

systems are need relatively lower capital investment, they are so costly to

operate especially in periods of longer than 10 years. Though for LRT

technologies, driver operating cost is lower than bus, still the automated

driving problem seems unsolved. So among the current urban

transportation technologies APMs are the best choice in heavy and

moderate passenger load cases (Table 4.7).

107
 Table 4.7: Comparison recurrent costs summary for Bus, LRT, Monorail

At-Grade Elevated
Operating Cost Elements HOV/Bus
LRT Monorail

Cost per Revenue $2.85 (Diesel)

$6.95 $1.55
Vehicle Km $2.70 (CNG)

Cost per Revenue $56.00 (Diesel)

$150.00 $38.00
Vehicle Hour $55.30 (CNG)

Cost per $0.04

$0.07 $0.08
Place Km (Diesel/CNG)

Total Average $8,830,000(Diesel)

$12,621,150 $4,000,000
Annual Cost $8,350,000(CNG)

To this end and according to operating context and applied technologies,

the annual infrastructure maintenance costs and the justified estimation

annual costs of operating the service options are equal to $2 million12 (3

million TLs) each year which are applicable for the 30 year operation

period of the system.

12 See Appendix B for list of relating interviewed persons

108
4.3.2 Estimated Benefit Values

Generally benefits of improved monorail transport services on METU

campus include:

Benefits to passengers transferring from existing bus/minibus

services;

Benefits to new users (transferring from other modes, or those

making trips not made previously);

Non-user benefits, such as reductions in road crash costs and

environmental externalities; and

Residual values of rail assets

4.3.2.1 Benefits to Passengers Transferring From Existing Services

This includes travel time savings, avoidance of transfers, and an amount

that recognizes people’s preference to travel by metro-monorail rather than

bus or minibus services. This system will decrease dramatically time and

money consumption for 30% of university population who use current bus

and minibus public transport to travel between home and school. By

opening the two Metro stations, it is estimated that each daily round trip

will be shorten by 30 to 40 percent. Including waiting time and travel time

this will lead to at least 45 minutes time saving each day or by a standard

value of time of $5/hour it will $3.15 million saving each year. In this case

most of the students and staff may find the new metro-monorail services

more frequent and thus more convenient for when they want to travel than

any of the existing service times. This potential benefit has not been valued.

109
4.3.2.2 Benefits to New Users

Benefits to new public transport users include the same set of benefits as

those received by passengers diverting from existing services, however

they are calculated as half the average benefit gained by existing users

based on the “rule of a half” (Kenneth A., 2007). The theory behind this is

that some of the new rail service users at the margin will be indifferent

about using the service and are assumed to obtain a negligible benefit. At

the other margin there are users who were indifferent about using the

existing public service before the re-introduction of the monorail but who

will value the benefits of the monorail compared with existing at the full

value experienced by existing users. Other new users are assumed to be

distributed on a straight line between these two extremes and so the

average benefit for new users is half the benefit for existing users (AECOM,

2010). Users who transfer from car will benefit from savings in their vehicle

operating costs.

An additional benefit in the case of new users arises from the “producer

surplus”. This is the benefit gained by the train service provider as a result

of the new users. The producer surplus earned by METU University as

service provider (revenues minus costs) is an economic benefit in the same

way that consumer surplus is for the passengers. Revenues are mainly

consisting of travel service sales. There are several strategies of service

sales. The most widely used and also the oldest method is selling ticket for

each trip, but according to various studies in USA and Canada it is not an

efficient strategy in institutional organizations like universities and huge

organizations. Because in these kind of organizations the most important

purpose of offering such services are encouraging students and employees

to use public transport services instead of personal cars and paying for

110
each trip is a big obstacle for this purpose because for most of the users

using personal automobile the differences in prices are negligible.

Selling the mandatory university transportation pass (U-PASS) to students,

faculty, and staff each semester with an unlimited right of access to

monorail and metro services during the semester. This will cause the

people to use the services more frequent and actually besides the

undoubted economic benefits for students, it is a kind of incentive for

automobile owner to use public transportation more frequent and

guarantees the annual revenue resources of the monorail system for

University administration. The proposed price for U-PASS cards for this

system is 50 TL per person for each semester. This means net revenue of 3

million TL for each academic year for university only from service price.

4.3.2.3 Non-User External Benefits

The other benefits that have been valued and included in the evaluation

comprise campus road user benefits such as reduced road traffic

congestion and parking demand, road crash/incident cost savings and

environmental benefits, including changes in greenhouse gas emissions

and noise pollution indexes.

As it was discussed in previous sections new monorail services will result

in palpable reduction in motor vehicle congestion and parking demand in

campus area. Moreover, rail transit is ten times safer than car, but assessing

in cash, these benefits are relatively small comparing the capital cost of

monorail system. In this case it has been conservatively assumed that at

least 15% of new users would otherwise have been car drivers because of

factors such as students needing their vehicle at the end of the day or after

111
visiting school. The remaining 85% of new users are thus assumed to be

entirely new trips which were previously not made.

Furthermore, this trend is also reflected in the environmental assessment.

By ceasing the current costly campus ring services and reducing the city

wide staff transit service which are based on a fleet of 56 Mercedes Benz

O302 buses with average age of 35 years, will be a major saving source for

the campus expenses and also will have a considerable effect in reduction

of diesel fuel consumption and consequently the greenhouse gases

emission. According to data received from METU Directorate of

Vehicle Management by stopping the ring services and decreasing the city

staff services by 20 percent, at least 156,000 liters of diesel fuel will be saved

each year and CO2 emission on campus area will be decreased by 421.2

tons per year (about $43/tC with 4% increase annually) and this excludes

the reduction of fuel consumption and CO2 emission caused by lower

usage of personal automobiles in campus.

Table 4.8: Approximate Annual Costs of METU Bus services (2010 prices)13

Campus Ring Service Citywide Staff Service

Cost Categories
Costs (TL) Costs (TL)

Fuel Cost 320,000 1,280,000

Maintenance and
600,000 2,400,000
operation Cost

Repair and Over-haul

200,000 800,000
Cost

13 Data provided by Mr. Cemal YAVUZ, Head of METU Directorate of

Vehicle Management, last interview on 25.12.2010

112
4.3.2.4 Residual values
New rail infrastructure assets are assumed to have a design life of 50 years.

Since the appraisal period is only 30 years, a residual value of the asset has

been added as a benefit in the final year of the appraisal. Straight line

depreciation has been assumed, such that the residual value is 20/50 years

(or 40%) of the construction cost.

4.3.3 Potential Intangible Benefits Not Considered Directly

4.3.3.1 Social Equity

The full social equity issues are not directly captured within this analysis.

Community feedback emphasized the appeal of train services compared to

buses/minibus and this has been recognized in the economic evaluation,

notwithstanding that high quality bus/minibus services may overcome

many of the issues associated with current bus/minibus services (AECOM,

2010). In addition, the supply of public transport is itself a contributor to

social equity because of its ability to enable travel that could not previously

be undertaken or shortens the current travel time. When travel times

diminish, people and specially students may increase the quality of their

housing accommodation and living environment, by increasing their

commuting journey length, without changing their commuting journey

time (Elhorst, 2008).

113
4.3.3.2 Regional Business Growth and Academic Impacts

The introduction of monorail services could stimulate a higher business

growth rate than would be expected otherwise, particularly in Teknoket

region. Ultimately, the success of the monorail system in generating new

jobs will depend on the new business opportunities developed in

Teknokent business district and other campus research centers. Projections

based on the reviewed studies in the same area in various countries in the

world suggest that a fully operated monorail system merging Ankara

metro services will add a permanent net increase of 200 professional jobs

including at least 10 percent increase in Teknokent region employees and

new research and shopping centre planned to construct in the western part

of campus also 25 jobs directly related to maintenance and operation of

monorail system. Having such a large influx of part-time and full-time jobs

across the campus region will be a tremendous boost for university

students, who work for companies in Teknokent region. While these jobs

will not be high paying, they will help lead to high paying careers as these

students graduate and enter full time employment.

4.3.3.3 Landscape Related Benefits and Tourism Impacts

Monorails with stylish and innovative designs are usually perceived as

signs of the future, high tech transportation. Along with numerous direct

and indirect economic advantages, constructing such a facility according to

the latest modern industrial design techniques will enhance the landscape

architectural and visual perspective of METU campus as the pioneer

technical university in Turkey and will certainly increase the attraction of

114
private sector companies to make further investments in the region.

Impacts on tourism, as a direct result of the introduction of monorail on

METU campus, are difficult to estimate. However, it is possible that

introduction of the rail service, combined with targeted marketing

including tourism packages such as scientific tours for high school students

and etc, will significantly encourage tourism development in the area.

115
 Table 4.9: Estimated benefits of monorail project (11% discount rate)

Estimated Present
Benefit Stream
Valuesᶧ

User Benefits

Travel time saving – existing passengers

$19.98 million
(diverted from existing public services)

Travel time (Car vehicle operating cost) saving –

$4.04 million
new trips (diverted from personal cars)

Total user Benefits $24.02 million

Non-user Benefits

Crash/incident cost savings $0.0083

Environmental externality benefits (Greenhouse

$0.0895
gases emission)

Bus Services Fuel cost savings $2.43 million

Bus Services Operation and maintenance cost

$6.07 million
saving

Total Non-user Benefits $ 8.5978 million

Fare revenue from Transit Pass Sales $12.47 million

Residual Value of Monorail Assets (End of 2043) $0.597 million

Total Benefits $58.6248 million

Intangible Benefits

Social Equity

Regional Business and Academic Impacts

Landscape and Tourism Impacts

ᶧ Values discounted at 11% to 2010 over 30 years from (2014 to 2043)

116
Table 4.10: Estimated benefit Value of monorail project (7% discount rate)

Estimated Present
Benefit Stream
Valuesᶧ

User Benefits

Travel time saving – existing passengers

$31.9 million
(diverted from existing public services)

Travel time (Car vehicle operating cost)

saving – new trips (diverted from personal $6.45 million

cars)

Total user Benefits $38.35 million

Non-user Benefits

Crash/incident cost savings $0.0106

Environmental externality benefits

$0.123
(Greenhouse gases emission)

Bus Services Fuel cost savings $3.87 million

Bus Services Operation and maintenance cost

$9.67 million
saving

Total Non-user Benefits $ 13.6736 million

Fare revenue from Transit Pass Sales $40.43 million

Residual Value of Monorail Assets (End of 2043) $2.00 million

Total Benefits $94.4536 million

Intangible Benefits

Social Equity

Regional Business and Academic Impacts

Landscape Benefits and Tourism Impacts

ᶧ Values discounted at 7% to 2010 over 30 years from (2014 to 2043)

117
4.4 Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis is a term that refers both to:

• Helping to appraise, or assess, the case for a project, program or

policy proposal;

• An approach to making economic decisions of any kind;

Under both definitions the process involves, whether explicitly or

implicitly, weighing the total expected costs against the total expected

benefits of one or more actions in order to choose the best or most

profitable option (Wikipedia E., 2010)

4.4.1 Underlying Economic Concepts and backgrounds

4.4.1.1 The Concept of Consumer Surplus [44]

Persons and households demand goods and services to increase their happiness.

For the purposes of this discussion, consider the case of tram journeys. The price

of the tram journey (or other transport trips) is described by transport economists

as the ‘Generalized Cost of Travel’. The curve representing the demand for a

half-hour tram trip will be a downward sloping curve of generalized cost against

the number of trips demanded, as shown in the graph below. A few people will

be prepared to pay a great deal, say $100, for a tram trip, as it gives them such

happiness not to drive, or to park or pay for parking, that they would be prepared

to hire a chauffeur or a limousine if a tram were not available. Others will be

prepared to pay nothing, as they prefer to walk or cycle or drive their car. Most

will be prepared to pay several dollars for the tram trip. The lower this

generalized cost of the tram trip, the more people will want to travel by tram.

118
The first three classes are the simplest possible systems as they are found in

various airports, shopping centers, recreation areas, between parking lots

and destination points, and on campuses (Grava, 2004).

Figure 4.9: Hypothetical demand for a half-hour tram trip

The consumer surplus for new patrons attracted to a half-hour tram ride is shown

by the blue striped triangle. The minimum generalised cost (the price of travel)

that will be incurred by travellers is composed as follows:

Table 4.11: Hypothetical price of travel

Tram fare, 2 hour - Zone 1 (as at 1 Jan 2010) $3.70

30 minutes of travel time at $12.50 per hour for non-business $6.25

purposes, but including journey to and from work

Total $9.95

119
4.4.1.2 Changes in Consumer Surplus [44]

The consumer surplus will increase if the tram can travel more quickly, as patrons

will save travel time and therefore benefit from a reduction in price (expressed as

generalized cost). A benefit such as a saving in travel time usually requires

capital expenditure, such as reprogramming the road traffic lights to give trams

greater priority.

Figure 4.10: Hypothetical illustration of the demand curve for tram route

The following chart shows the increase in consumer surplus due to cutting the 30

minute trips down to 25 minutes – a saving in the generalized cost of $1.04 per

trip, being a twelfth (five minutes) of the Value of Travel Time (VoTT) for a non-

working trip of about $12.50/hour. The existing 71,000 patrons each working day

will gain a total benefit of $73,840, the area of the orange rectangle ABDC. An

additional thousand new patrons induced or attracted by the quicker service

value their benefit at $520, the area of the light blue triangle CDE.

120
4.4.2 The Key Steps of Cost Benefit Analysis

Generally, eight major steps are used in a CBA process (Victoria SDT,
2010):
1. Identify the problems to be addressed and objectives to be

achieved. Policy objectives should be established in terms of

specific and measurable outcomes;

2. Develop options, including a base case or no policy change

scenario. Consider any engineering possibilities in the project

options;

3. Determine the standing or basis of the CBA. Whose benefits and

costs should be counted? Is the analysis to be conducted on a

global, national, regional or local scale?

4. Catalogue the physical impacts (inputs, outputs and

externalities) associated with Steps 1 and 2 and the appropriate

units of measurement.

5. Predict the incremental physical impacts quantitatively over the

life of the project.

6. Monetize (attach monetary values to) all impacts. This is

commonly done using present day domestic prices.

7. Discount the future benefits and costs obtained in Step 5 to

present day values.

8. Two major measures are commonly used to assess overall value:

• NPV = Present value of benefits – Present value of costs

• BCR measures the ratio of the present value of benefits to

the present value of costs of a project

121
The measures of NPV (net present value) and BCR (benefit-cost ratio) have

particular applications in assessing the overall value of a project, as

discussed below.

NPV14:

௡
൫B − ሺC + Oሻ൯୲
ܸܰܲ = ෎
ሺ1 + rሻ୲
௧ୀ଴

• If the estimated NPV > 0, then the estimated total benefit exceeds

total cost, and provides a net social benefit given a selected

discount rate, r.

• The project or option with the highest NPV would be the most

socially beneficial.

• The NPV measure does not have a project (capital expenditure)

size bias, unlike the IRR and BCR.

14 B = benefits, C = capital costs, O = operating or recurrent costs, r = the selected

discount rate

122
BCR15:

ሺB − Oሻ୲
௡
෍
௧ୀ଴ ሺ1 + rሻ
୲
‫= ܴܥܤ‬ ௡
C୲
෍
௧ୀ଴ ሺ1 + rሻ୲
Or, alternatively:

௡
B୲
෍
ሺ1 + rሻ୲
‫= ܴܥܤ‬ ௧ୀ଴
௡
ሺC + Oሻ୲
෍
௧ୀ଴ ሺ1 + rሻ
୲

• The top BCR formula only contains the present value of capital

expenditure in the denominator. This is appropriate if the

purpose is to estimate the return on capital expenditure.

• If the BCR > 1 then the NPV > 0 and vice versa.

• The BCR is useful for decision making if capital is constrained

which is usually the case. The proponent should proceed with

projects in order of BCR (highest to lowest) to maximize the

gains (NPV) from the use of scarce capital.

4.4.3 METU Monorail Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is an approach and set of procedures for

defining and comparing the benefits and costs. For transport projects, Cost

Benefit Analysis is premised on the concept of maximizing social or

15 15B = benefits, C = capital costs, O = operating or recurrent costs, r = the selected

discount rate

123
community welfare, and the full range of benefits and costs considered are

sometimes referred to as ‘social benefits’ and ‘social costs’.

This section covers the cost benefit and economic analysis of the METU

monorail service. The evaluation was carried out using “standard cost benefit

analysis” methodology which assumes that the relevant benefits and costs

can be described as continuous functions (Small, 2007). The evaluation has

been undertaken using a 30-year evaluation period from project opening

and depending on future situations, two different discount rates of 11%

and 7%. The estimation of costs and benefits of this system is covered in

previous sections of this article (Table 4.4, Table 4.9 and Table 4.10).

For 11% annual discount rate (1.0264% quarter base, Table 4.9), the

benefits include gained value by reductions in travel time ($19.98 million) ,

vehicle operating costs and crashes ($4.04 million), and also environmental

benefits such as lower emissions of noxious and greenhouse gases from

vehicles and reduced noise emissions($0.0895 million). As it was

mentioned some benefits (such as improved transport choice or access to

public transport services) are difficult to quantify and were classified as

intangible benefits. According to these estimations constructing and

operating cost of the monorail is $49.24 million (in 2010 dollars and the

exchange rate of 1.5 Liras for each dollar). This includes a total capital cost

of $36.34 million and a total discounted stream of operating costs of $12.9

million ($2 million per year), using the same discount rate (11%). Operating

costs were discounted over a span of 30 years, from 2013 through 2042.

For conservative estimation of 11% discount rates, the table results show a

BCR of 1.19, and NPV of $9.38 million for 30 year period. The main

contributors to the present value of benefits are the travel time savings to

existing passengers diverting from existing services, and the fare revenue

from new users.

124
For 7 % annual discount rate ( 1.017% quarter base, Table 4.10), the

benefits include values by reductions in travel time ($31.9 million) , vehicle

operating costs and crashes ($6.45 million), and also environmental benefits

such as lower emissions of noxious and greenhouse gases from vehicles

and reduced noise emissions($0.123 million). As it was mentioned some

benefits (such as improved transport choice or access to public transport

services) are difficult to quantify and were classified as intangible benefits.

According to these estimations constructing and operating the monorail is

$60.07 million (in 2010 dollars and the exchange rate of 1.5 Liras for each

dollar). This includes a total capital cost of $39.62 million and a total

discounted stream of operating costs of $20.45 million ($2 million per year),

using the same discount rate (7%). Operating costs were discounted over a

span of 30 years, from 2013 through 2042.

In the case of progressive estimation of 7% discount rates, the table results

show a BCR of 1.57, with the NPV over 30 years $37.38 million. Same as

the previous option, the main contributors to the present value of benefits

are the travel time savings to existing passengers diverting from existing

services, and the fare revenue from new users.

Table 4.12: Cost Benet Analysis Results

Discount Rate = 11% Discount Rate = 7%

Present Value of Benefits $58.62 million $94.45 million

Present Value of Costs $49.24 million $60.07 million

Net Present Value (NPV) $9.38 million $37.38 million

Benefit to Cost Ration (BCR) 1.19 1.57

125
 Table 4.13: Cost Benefit Analysis for Monorail Project (11% discount rate)

2012 2013 2014 2015

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.97 0.97 2.29 1.29 2.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.00 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.33 0.64 1.47 0.80 1.39 0.76
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 4.97 4.84 4.72 4.59 4.48 4.36 4.25 4.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.30
 Table 4.13 (continued)

2016 2017 2018 2019

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 1.90 0.72 1.80 0.69 1.71 0.65 1.63 0.62 1.54 0.59 1.47 0.56 1.39 0.53 1.32 0.50
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20
 Table 4.13 (continued)

2020 2021 2022 2023

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 1.25 0.48 1.19 0.45 1.13 0.43 1.07 0.41 1.02 0.39 0.97 0.37 0.92 0.35 0.87 0.33
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13
 Table 4.13 (continued)

2024 2025 2026 2027

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.83 0.31 0.78 0.30 0.74 0.28 0.71 0.27 0.67 0.26 0.64 0.24 0.60 0.23 0.57 0.22
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08
 Table 4.13 (continued)

2028 2029 2030 2031

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.54 0.21 0.52 0.20 0.49 0.19 0.47 0.18 0.44 0.17 0.42 0.16 0.40 0.15 0.38 0.14
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
 Table 4.13 (continued)

2032 2033 2034 2035

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.36 0.14 0.34 0.13 0.32 0.12 0.31 0.12 0.29 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.26 0.10 0.25 0.09
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
 Table 4.13 (continued)

2036 2037 2038 2039

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.24 0.09 0.22 0.09 0.21 0.08 0.20 0.08 0.19 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.16 0.06
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02
 Table 4.13 (continued)

2040 2041 2042 2043

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.60
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 19.89

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.16 0.06 0.15 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.11 0.79
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
 Table 4.14: Cost Benefit Analysis for Monorail Project (7% discount rate)

2012 2013 2014 2015

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 2.97 0.97 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.00 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 2.31 0.74 2.47 0.95 2.38 0.92
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 5.25 5.16 5.08 4.99 4.91 4.83 4.74 4.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.36
 Table 4.14 (continued)

2016 2017 2018 2019

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 2.31 0.89 2.23 0.86 2.16 0.83 2.08 0.80 2.02 0.78 1.95 0.75 1.88 0.72 1.82 0.70
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.27
 Table 4.14 (continued)

2020 2021 2022 2023

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 1.76 0.68 1.70 0.66 1.65 0.63 1.59 0.61 1.54 0.59 1.49 0.57 1.44 0.55 1.39 0.54
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs
0.27 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21
 Table 4.14 (continued)

2024 2025 2026 2027

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 1.34 0.52 1.30 0.50 1.26 0.48 1.22 0.47 1.17 0.45 1.14 0.44 1.10 0.42 1.06 0.41
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16
 Table 4.14 (continued)

2028 2029 2030 2031

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 1.03 0.40 0.99 0.38 0.96 0.37 0.93 0.36 0.90 0.35 0.87 0.33 0.84 0.32 0.81 0.31
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs
0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12
 Table 4.14 (continued)

2032 2033 2034 2035

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.78 0.30 0.76 0.29 0.73 0.28 0.71 0.27 0.69 0.26 0.66 0.25 0.64 0.25 0.62 0.24
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09
 Table 4.14 (continued)

2036 2037 2038 2039

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.60 0.23 0.58 0.22 0.56 0.22 0.54 0.21 0.52 0.20 0.51 0.19 0.49 0.19 0.47 0.18
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs
0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
 Table 4.14 (continued)

2040 2041 2042 2043

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Benefits
Travel Time Saving 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Car Operating Cost Saving 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
Bus Services Fuel Cost Savings 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Bus Recurrent Cost Saving 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Fare Revenue From New Users 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
Residual Values 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.60
Total Benefits 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 1.29 3.29 19.89

Costs
Capital Investment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Recurrent/Operation Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Total Costs 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Present Value of Total Benefits 0.46 0.18 0.44 0.17 0.43 0.16 0.41 0.16 0.40 0.15 0.39 0.15 0.37 0.14 0.36 2.46
Present Value of Capital Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Present Value of N-Capital Costs
0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06
4.5 Cost Effectiveness Assessment

In public projects where it is difficult to arrive at monetized measures of

the benefits from a project, the standard decision criteria of a CBA (e.g. Net

Present Value) can be biased since the present value of the benefits is likely

to be understated relative to the present value of costs. Another used

approach to economic analysis of projects is typically employed where this

is the case, known as cost-effectiveness analysis (AECOM, 2010).

Cost-effectiveness analysis differs from CBA in that benefits are expressed

in physical rather than monetary terms. For example, since there are

numerous issues relating to putting a monetary value on a life, the benefits

from health projects are usually expressed as lives saved. As a result, cost-

effectiveness analysis compares alternatives in terms of their effectiveness

in achieving an outcome and their cost to do so. In the case of this study, a

number of unique elements of the study have meant that it has been

difficult to arrive at monetary measures of the benefits from travelling by

each of the alternative modes of transport. Given that the monetary value

of the benefits is likely to be understated, we have also employed cost-

effectiveness analysis to assess the economic impact.

In order for the approach to be valid, it is important that each alternative

delivers equally effective outcomes. With ‘lumpy’ investments such as

public transport, it is often not feasible for each alternative to deliver equal

outcomes. To overcome this limitation, the effectiveness of each alternative

is defined in terms of reaching a set of minimum criteria. In this case, the

minimum criteria to be satisfied in order for an alternative to be considered

effective are:

142
 • To be accessible to the wider range of students, staff and

faculties: current bus and minibus services are not acceptable

because, they pose a barrier to use because of limited space and

amenity on board;

• Conveniently scheduled: the service is needed at a reasonable

hour and the lack of departure options during the day,

particularly from the western part of the campus, makes the

existing services unfavorable;

• Have adequate luggage and bicycle space, conveniently

available: people want to bring a reasonable amount of day-to-

day luggage and other reasonable items like bicycles, without

needing to make special arrangements.”

• Comfort and Environmental issues: the service must provide a

high standard of on board comfort befitting the journey time,

along with compromising the international environmental

friendly standard qualification;

The proposed monorail alternative identified in this study is considered to

meet the above criteria for the facility. Some the applicable indexes in cost

effectiveness analysis are as follow:

• Number of vehicles in maximum service: 4

• Total number of vehicles: 5

• Initial vehicles costs: $2,250,000

• Annual operational cost: $2 million

• Annual hours of service: more than 3,000 hours

• Annual passenger-trips: about 1 million passengers

• Approximate Cost per passenger-trip: $2

143
4.6 Project Business Plan

The Business Plans addresses the ownership, continuing control and/or

legal requirements of the Turkish government grant funded project. METU

Presidency office as the director and employer of the project may sign an

agreement with second parties on issues such as, management, funding,

revenues and expenses. As a public transportation projects, METU

monorail needs huge amount of investments and a critical component of

the project plan is ownership of the facility. For this purpose three different

scenarios have been developed to finance the project:

Scenario A: The project will be completely financed by METU

Scenario B: The project will be completely financed by the project

partner company(s) resources

Scenario C: A consortium including METU and partner company(s)

will grant and operate the facility in a 50/50 sharing scheme

4.6.1 Scenario A

In this scenario, it is assumed that METU presidency office will provide the

whole $46.5 million investment money for monorail system construction in

the period of approximately two years through its governmental or

internal resources. The consequent available decision/management policies

for this scenario are listed as follow:

• Director of the project: METU Presidency Office

• Facility Ownership: METU Presidency Office as the grantee of the

project

144
 • Facility Management/Operations: the facility management and

operation rights are exclusively will be belonged to Middle East

Technical University.

• Land Ownership: Middle East Technical University will continue to

possess the construction area lands.

4.6.1.1 Break-Even Analysis

In economics & business, specifically cost accounting, the break-even

point (BEP) is the point at which cost or expenses and revenue are equal:

there is no net loss or gain, and one has "broken even". A profit or a loss

has not been made, although opportunity costs have been paid, and capital

has received the risk-adjusted, expected return (Wikipedia E., 2011). In this

part calculations will be made to find the U-PASS selling price as the only

available source of money to recover the estimated $2.0 million operating

cost and to return of the total invested money in the period of 30 years.

In this scenario, since METU will provide the whole $46.5 million for

system construction, the approximate $1.34 million annual saving caused

by stopping the ring services and decreasing staff services by 20%, is

counted as a source of return.

Minimum price for Monorail pass system with 11% discount rates to

recover the total invested money in 30 years and also to provide the annual

operating cost is $100.2 for each of the current 30,000 campus habitants,

including: students, staff, faculties, etc in each two semester academic years

(Figure 4.11). Also, in case of 7% discount rate the minimum ticket price is

$73.5 in each year (Figure 4.12).

145
Figure 4.11: 30 years break-even point for Scenario A (11% discount rate)

Figure 4.12: 30 years break-even point for Scenario A (7% discount rate)

146
4.6.2 Scenario B

In this option, the proposed project will be funded under a private

company(s) and the company(s) will be the owner of facilities and METU

will not interfere in management and operating issues. Responsibility of

determining ticket prices and ticket selling policies are also goes to the

project funder. This type of financing the projects is the most popular in

public services and also in institutional contexts and most of the studied

campuses apply this kind of approaches in their transportation systems,

where a private company fund the project, construct it and operate it under

an agreement with university administrators. Applicable

decision/management policies for this scenario are including:

• Director of the project: METU Presidency Office.

• Facility Ownership: The grantee company(s)

• Facility Management/Operations: Middle East Technical

University abdicates its authority to the company(s) under an time

limited agreement.

• Land Ownership: The land would be owned by Middle East

Technical University and a long term lease agreement (approximately

50 years, the estimated life of the facility) would be established between

the University and The Company(s).

4.6.2.1 Break-Even Analysis

As it was mentioned above, riding right selling is the only way to recover

the costs of the project. Advertisement in riding services and other choices

are also available for this special scenario but cannot be considered as a

147
source of dependable return. As like as previous case, operating cost of

facility is $2 million per year for 30 years of operating period and total

investment amount is $46.5 million.

As it is seen in Figure 4.13, the minimum price for annual riding right with

11% discount rate is $122.5, where adding a minimum 10% fare profit for

the company, the final price is $134.75 for the second scenario. And

considering 7% discount rate (Figure 4.14), minimum break-even price is

$95.8 and minimum 10% fare price is $105.4.

Figure 4.13: 30 years break-even point for Scenario B (11% discount rate)

148
 Figure 4.14: 30 years break-even point for Scenario B (7% discount rate)

4.6.3 Scenario C

In the last scenario, METU and partner company(s) will finance the facility

in a 50/50 share. In this way, METU and partner(s) will grant $23.25 million

in two years of construction period. And by opening the facility, METU

will resign its right to project partner(s) and partner(s) will continue to

operate and manage the system through the following 30 year period.

General decisions/policies applicable in this case are as follow:

• Director of the project: METU Presidency Office.

• Facility Ownership: METU and partner(s) in a 50/50 share

• Facility Management/Operations: The partner(s) will have the full

authority under an agreement with, Middle East Technical University.

• Land Ownership: Middle East Technical University will continue to

possess the lands during the construction and operating periods.

149
4.6.2.1 Break-Even Analysis

In this context, project partner(s) and METU will continue to share the

incomes granted by riding right selling. During the operating time,

partner(s) will get the $2 million to recover the recurrent costs plus $2.675

million with 11% discount rate assumptions or $1.875 million otherwise.

METU will continue to recover its investment through the annual $1.34

million saving from reducing bus services plus $1.335 million (11%

discount) or $0.535 million with 7% discount rate.

Figure 4.15: 30 years break-even point for Scenario C (11% discount rate)

150
 Figure 4.16: 30 years break-even point for Scenario C (7% discount rate)

By adding the, 5% fare profit to break-even price of $100.2, total price will

be $110.22 in context of 11% discount rate and for 7% the minimum price

including fare profit is $80.85 for annul ridership pass.

It should be mentioned after choosing the appropriate Business Plan, a

detailed financial plan including: revenue/expense analysis should be

completed by the project partners to determine if revenues generated by

the facility through transit pass sales and/or other possible choices would

be sufficient to sustain the long-term operating and maintenance costs

associated with the monorail system over the next 30 years.

151
4.7 Project Schedule

A “best guess” schedule for the project would be included as part of this

feasibility study. To accomplish the Monorail project in a two-year period,

it’s been outlined the following milestones.

The initiation phase will consist of several steps that require about 4

months including: development and cost allocation plan and several steps

of design professional/ construction manager selection. In this schedule by

the end of Sep 2011, the selected company will start the system engineering

and design process. Performing the necessary bureaucracy processes the

physical phase of construction will begin in May 2012 and lasts for the next

18 months starts with guide-way infrastructure construction and

electrification and mechanical switch montage and ends with station and

equipment procurement and development stages.

Moreover, vehicles will be ordered simultaneously to the manufacturer

company where the estimated lead time for delivery is 15 months. By

starting the year 2014 everything will be ready to do final testing on the

guide lines using the actual trains and if everything goes well the METU

monorail will be opened for public services by the end of Apr 2014. For a

detail project scheduling please refer to the attached Gantt chart (Figure

4.17).

152
Figure 4.17: The Best Guess Schedule for Proposed Monorail Project
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

The swift evolutional technical advancements are inseparable part of our

contemporary urban societies. These ongoing evolutional modifications,

which will continue to reconstruct future cities, are inevitably leading us to

dissect the consequent influences on our lives. Within the context of

transportation, modern cities and dense compilations, such as campuses or

research institutions, require environmentally friendly, fast and convenient

commuting systems in order to function successfully. While, the

conventional public transportation does not yet provide the comfort level

of a private vehicle, probably the most sensible way to deal with the

negative effects of such transformations is to employ recent technical

enhancements in our everyday transit systems.

This research aimed at bringing together the two conflicting sides of

technological developments by planning for sustainable urban transit

using the smart transportation technologies. For this purpose a

comprehensive review of the literature was made in chapter two of this

study, in order to analyze the methods used by some pioneer institutional

campuses in North America to handle the increasing transportation

demand using hi-tech approaches. Some brief explanations including

advantages and disadvantages of each popular private and public

transportation modes on university campuses; automobiles, walking and

bicycling, buses, minibuses, trolleybuses, light rails and monorails – were

154
reviewed and case studies of successful applications of each mode on

campus communities were given in brief. It was discussed in detail that,

the car-based transportation has many hidden costs and it is expensive and

inefficient over short distances and is a major contributor to global

warming. Moreover, the environmental, financial, and social pressures

exerted by current levels of automobile dependence include greenhouse

gas emissions, rapid land consumption, air quality and public health

degradation, and deteriorating overall welfare and quality of life of urban

populations. As indicated by many scholarly articles, the most widely

implemented solutions are categorized as:

Improving infrastructure and programs to encourage walking

and biking;

Implementing parking management techniques, raising parking

rates to reduce demand, using so-called “parking cash out” to

pay employees not to drive school, and banning first- or second-

year students from bringing cars to campus;

Apply demand management methods in educational institutions

including: providing access to shared vehicles for some trips

through nonprofit or commercial “cars hare” programs or on-

campus car rentals and park and ride schemes;

Use of the telecommuting technologies such as internet and

video to provide online classes and transportation information

and allowing compressed work weeks;

Shift to alternative Biofuels like Bioethanol and Biodiesel;

Encouraging the usage of environmental friendly vehicle

technologies like Hybrid or Electric cars in campus vehicles by

economic incentives;

155

Developing high-frequency, reliable, and smart public transit

services including APM technologies and provision of transit

passes to students and employees allowing access rights to

transit services;

While various strategies are available to manage the congestion and traffic

problems in university campuses, this study specially proposes the smart

APM transit service as the best applicable solution for METU campus.

APMs are used and applied extensively to campuses and downtowns, as

an integral part of expanding communities. While providing efficient, cost-

effective circulation, building links and parking control, APMs are safe

automated transit systems that are able to serve more attractive, high

frequency, and efficient rides and air-conditioned comfort for faculty,

students, alumni, and visitors of METU campus.

As it was stated in chapter three of this article, among the various types of

APM systems, Monorail are one the most efficient and applicable systems

on university campuses, public and private leisure and institutional

settings. Monorails can carry from 2,000 to 25,000 passengers per hour per

direction with headways as short as or even shorter than 60 seconds for

small systems. They vehicles travel at speeds up to 80 km/h. The vehicles,

which are typically, comprised cars of urban transit bus size, typically in

the range of 6−12 m in length. They can be divided into straddle type, in

which the vehicle sits astride the rail, and the suspended type, in which the

vehicle is suspended from the rail and both types use rubber tires and air

springs for their bogie suspension to reduce vibration and noise. Most

modern urban monorails are equipped with VVVF (Variable Voltage,

Variable Frequency) drives, composite or aluminum body shell and ATO

(Automatic Train Operation) system. In addition, because of the special

156
structure of the monorail system, there is no danger of derailment. The

monorail can withstand severe weather conditions, such as strong winds,

ice and snow.

However, the relatively high cost of monorail construction has

undoubtedly been a factor in limiting the size of these operating systems.

Advocates are strong to defend the monorail system, including statistics

noting that no passenger accidents have ever occurred, as opposed to other

transit modes. Although, soaring costs, long construction timeframe, and

immense complexity of required design elements prevent this type of

transportation mode to be looked at seriously within the metropolitan

areas, the overall benefits make monorail as one the best solutions for

institutional usages. At present, two third of about 130 APM installations in

operation around the world are within and around airports, shopping and

entertainment centers and university campuses.

This thesis has aimed to investigate the financial feasibility of monorail

transportation services in METU and its consequent economic and

institutional impacts on campus society. For this purpose a detailed Cost

Benefit Analysis (CBA) was completed in chapter four trying to quantify

the construction and maintenance costs of the system and resultant

financial and social benefits. The predicted benefits of METU monorail

system include faster, more frequent, and more reliable transit service;

savings in automobile operating and parking costs for drivers who switch

to the monorail; and reduction in accidents. Three groups stand to benefit

from the monorail project: transit riders, former drivers who switch to the

monorail, and continuing auto users who may experience a slight decrease

in traffic delays because bus and car trips have moved off the road.

157
Geographic Scope: The monorail project affects the whole METU campus

area. The regions most immediately affected by the project will be western

part of the campus including dormitories and residential units and

Teknokent business district.

Time Period for Analysis: The time period for the analysis is from 2012 to

2042, which covers two years of construction and 28 years of operation. A

base year of 2010 is used for cost and benefit comparison, with the average

rate of lira to dollar exchange rate of 2010 and values discounted to 2010

dollars with two 11% and 7%.

Benefits, Magnitude, and Value: Travel time savings were valued at $5 per

hour. Those who switch travel modes from automobile to the monorail

benefited from auto maintenance and fuel cost savings. There is a huge

savings in university expenses and greenhouse gases emissions from

ceasing the current costly and old bus ring services in campus.

Based on 11% discount rate and the assumptions mentioned above, the

resulted Benefit to Cost Ratio is 1.42, with the present value over 30 years

$22.37 million. And for 7% discount rate with the same assumptions

Benefit to Cost Ratio is 1.60, and the net present value of the project is

$37.41 million. Furthermore as it is usual in public projects feasibility

studies, the following minimum criteria are defined within the framework

of cost effectiveness assessment for METU campus public transit system:

To be accessible to the wider range of students, staff and

faculties: current bus and minibus services are not acceptable

because, they pose a barrier to use because of limited space and

amenity on board;

Conveniently scheduled: the service is needed at a reasonable

hour and the lack of departure options during the day,

158
 particularly from the western part of the campus, makes the

existing services unfavorable;

Have adequate luggage and bicycle space, conveniently

available: people want to bring a reasonable amount of day-to-

day luggage and other reasonable items like bicycles, without

needing to make special arrangements.”

Comfort and Environmental issues: the service must provide a

high standard of on board comfort befitting the journey time,

along with compromising the international environmental

friendly standard qualification;

Based on the purposely conservative and progressive analysis, I am

pleased to report that it is advisable to expend the monies for the monorail.

I believe that this project will significantly improve the quality of

transportation at the university and landscape and environmental issues,

while at the same time, accelerates regional business growth and attract

tourists and other scholars to Middle East Technical University. The

monorail project is definitely worth further immediate consideration. The

monorail transit solution appears very promising in both solving passenger

transportation needs along the congestion problems and generating

measurable profits for METU presidency office and the campus area in

general. It will enhance university’s destination resort image, provide

unparalleled visitor convenience, and eventually improve the

transportation linkage with the rest of Ankara city.

This study provides a thorough and straightforward benefit-cost analysis

for a proposed transit investment. However, there is no one correct answer,

nor a “one size fits all” technology solution. There is no simple answer to

the “right” APM. Each project has its own set of requirements and

159
solutions in the iterative, often non-linear process of obtaining an APM.

Also, different manufacturers have their own range of technologies with

different capabilities, performance, and costs. Unfortunately, the market is

relatively small, and the number of manufactures is limited. This makes

supporting many suppliers and technologies difficult. On the other hand, a

drawback to the analysis is the lack of other transit alternatives considered.

It would have been useful to compare the benefits and costs of a monorail

system with that of a light rail system, a Trolleybus transit system, and an

increase in roadway and parking capacity.

160
 REFERENCES

[1] Grava Sigurd (2004), Urban Transportation Systems: Choices for

Communities, McGraw-Hill Professional, © 2004, ISBN 0071384170

[2] Searle G. (1999), New Roads, New Rail, Lines New Profits: Privatisation

and Sydney's Recent Transport Development, Urban Policy and Research,

1999, Vol 17; NUMBER 2, Pages 111-122

[3] Balsas C. J. L. (2002), New Directions for Bicycle and Pedestrian

Planning Education in the US, Planning Practice and Research, 2002, Vol

17; Part 1, pages 91-105

[4] Havlick Spenser W., Toor Will (2004), Transportation and Sustainable

Campus Communities: Issues, Examples, Solutions, Island Press, © 2004,

DC, USA, ISBN 1559639229

[5] Gökbulut Alev (2003), Monorail: An Alternative Transportation Mode

for METU, Unpublished Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of

Natural and Applied Sciences Of Middle East Technical University, Ankara

[6] Erpi Feyyaz (1999); Mimari Üzerine Söyleişler, Ankara: Mimarlar

Derneği

161
[7] Newman Peter, Kenworthy Jeffrey, Sustainability and Cities:

Overcoming Automobile Dependence, Island Press, © 1999, DC, USA,

ISBN 1559636602

[8] Checkoway B., Reinventing the Research University for Public Service,

Journal of Planning Literature, 1997, Vol 11; Number 3, pages 307-319

[9] Tolley R. (1996), Green Campuses: Cutting the Environmental Cost of

Commuting, Journal of Transport Geography, 1996, Vol 4; Number 3,

Pages 213-217

[10] Shannon T., Giles-Cortia B., Pikora T., Bulsara M., Shilton T., Bull F.,

Active commuting in a university setting: Assessing commuting habits and

potential for modal change, ©2005 Elsevier Ltd, Available online 27

December 2005

[11] Black W.R., North American Transportation: Perspectives on Research

Needs and Sustainable Transportation, Journal of Transport Geography,

©1997 Elsevier Ltd;

[12] Richardson B. C., Toward a Policy on a Sustainable Transportation

System, Transportation Research Record, 1999, ISSU 1670, pages 27-34

[13] Poinsatte F., Toor W. (2001), Finding a New Way: Campus

Transportation for the 21st Century, 2nd ed, University of Colorado,

Boulde

162
[14] Weerts D.(1992), Bicycling and The University—A Fertile Combination

For The Nurturing of Bicycle-Friendly Communities. In: [3] Balsas C. J. L.

(2002)

[15] Markowitz F., Estrella A. (1998), Campus Moves Planning. In: [3]

Balsas C. J. L. (2002)

[16] Keniry Julian (1995), Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship

at the Turn of The 21st Century: Lessons in Smart Management From

Administrators, Staff, And Students, National Wildlife Federation, ©1995,

ISBN 0945051573

[17] Hatzopoulou M., Miller E.J. (2008), Institutional integration for

sustainable transportation policy in Canada, Transport Policy, Vol. 15, (3),

pages 149-162

[18] Dober Richard P. (200), Campus Landscape: Functions Forms Features,

John Wiley & Sons Inc, ©2000, ISBN 9780471353560

[19] Toor Will (2003), The Road Less Traveled: Sustainable Transportation

for Campuses, Planning for Higher Education, Vol 31, 2003, pages 131-41

[20] Krueger Tara, Murray Gail, TCRP SYNTHESIS 78: Transportation

Systems Manager: A Synthesis of Transit Practice, Transportation Research

Board of National Academy, USA, ©2008, ISBN 978030909820

163
[21] Blomberg R., Jordan G., Killingsworth R., Konheim C. (2000),

Pedestrian Transportation: A Look Forward, Transportation Research

Board Business Office, available at:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00088.pdf, last accessed

on 28/08/2010

[22] A Modern Central Corridor LRT system on The Twin Cities Campus

of University of Minnesota, The University of Minnesota, MN, USA,

http://www.lightrail.umn.edu, last accessed on 25/06/2010

[23] Wikipedia E. (2010), System Thinking, Retrieved from:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking, last accessed on 09/10/2010

[24] Wikipedia E. (2010), Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit (WVU PRT),

Retrieved from:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgantown_Personal_Rapid_Transit, last accessed

on 18/11/2010

[25] Dunning Bob, Ford Ian, et al. (2003), Personal Automated

Transportation:

Status and Potential of Personal Rapid Transit, by the Advanced Transit

Association (ATRA), http://www.advancedtransit.org, last accessed on

25/06/2010

164
[26] Warren Roxanne & Associates, Architects (2002), Transportation in the

New Millennium: Automated People-Movers, Transportation Research

Board, http://www.trb.org, last accessed on 27/08/2010

[27] Yigitcanlar T., Fabian L., Coiacetto E. (2008), Challenges to Urban

Transport Sustainability and Smart Transport in a Tourist City: The Gold

Coast, Australia, The Open Transportation Journal, 2008, 2, 29-46

[28] Fabian L. (2007), Planner's Guide to Automated People Movers, The

2007 edition, Boston, USA

[29] Hitachi Rail Ltd., © Hitachi, Ltd. 1994, 2010., Various Monorail Project

information, Online Access through: www.hitachi-rail.com, last accessed

on 27/11/2010

[30] Palm-Jumeirah Monorail Ltd., Project information, Dubai, UAE,

Online Access through: www.realestatechannel.com, last accessed on

27/11/2010

[31] Bombardier Ltd., © Bombardier 1997-2011, Las Vegas Monorail Project

information, NV, USA, Online Access through: www.bombardier.com,

www.monorails.org, www.lvmonorail.com, last accessed on 27/11/2010

[32] Kuala Lumpur Monorail Ltd., KL, Malaysia, Online Access through:

www.monorails.org, last accessed on 13/10/2010

165
[33] Güllüoğlu N.C., (2005), Evaluating Public Transportation Alternatives

in The METU Campus With the Aid of GIS, Unpublished Thesis Submitted

to the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Of Middle East

Technical University, Ankara

[34] ABB, Municipality of Metropolitan Ankara (ABB), (1994), METU

Campus 1/5.000 scaled Master Development Plan approved by the council

of ABB on 07.02.1994, Ankara

[35] Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi 2009 Faaliyet Raporu, ÖDTÜ, Ankara

2010

[36] Çinici, Behruz (1999) Improvisation: Mimarlıkta Doğaçlama ve Behruz

Çinici, in Tanyeli, Uğur, ed., İstanbul: Boyut Kitapları

[37] Hellinger Rolf, Nothhaft Juergen (2009), Environmental Benefits of

Transrapid, Siemens AG, Industry Sector, Mobility Division, Erlangen,

Germany

[38] Global Climate Changes and Population Growth, © Allianz 2000-2011,

Online Access through: knowledge.allianz.com, last accessed on 04/11/2010

[39] Keskin, F., Yenilmez, F., Çolak M., Yavuzer İ., Düzgün H.S. (2010),

Analysis of Traffic Incidents in METU Campus, Unpublished Article,

Environmental Engineering Department, METU, Ankara

166
[40] AECOM Australia Pty Ltd. (2010), Mildura Rail Feasibility Study,

©AECOM Ltd. 2010, Melbourne, Australia

[41] Small Kenneth A., Verhoef Erik T., (2007), The Economics of Urban

Transportation, Routledge from Taylor & Francis e-Library, NY, USA,

©2007, ISBN: 9780203642306

[42] Elhorst J. Paul, Oosterhaven Jan (2008), Integral Cost-Benefit Analysis

of Maglev Projects Under Market Imperfections, Journal of Transport and

Land Use, 1:1 (Summer 2008) pp. 65–87, Available at http://jtlu.org

[43] Gale Jane, Williams Ian (2001), Economic Incentives to Increase Public

Transport Patronage – The Theory and The Practice, 2001:

http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/6328/1/thredbo7-workshopD-

Wallis-Gale.pdf, last accessed on 27/11/2010

[44] Victoria State Department of Transport (2010), Guidelines for Cost

Benefit Analysis, Melbourne, Australia, June 2010

[45] Shen L.D., Huang J., and Zhao F., (2005), Automated People Mover

Applications A Worldwide Review:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/technology/apm/apmrev.html, last accessed

on 03/02/2011

[46] Kerr A.D., James P.A, Arup O. (2205), Infrastructure Cost Comparisons

for PRT and APM, from Advanced Transport Systems Ltd, ASCE APM05

Special Sessions on PRT

167
[47] Wikipedia E. (2010), Cost Benefit Analysis, Retrieved from:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit_analysis, last accessed on 01/02/2011

[48] The Urbanaut® Company, Inc., © 2009 Einar Svensson, Urbanaut

Project, Online Access through: www.urbanaut.com, last accessed on

25/12/2010

168
 APPENDIX A

APM & PRT: Differences and Rationale

There are differences between Automated People Movers (APM) and

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). The similarities are numerous, which may

cause some planners to blur the distinction. The technologies are quite

similar, in terms of the guideway, vehicles, and control system. In fact, the

exact same system could conceivably be used as PRT or APM with only

software changes. The true distinction between the two is the service

offered.

• PRT service is offered to an individual or group wishing to travel

together and therefore the vehicle goes non-stop to their destination.

The existing technology that compares with this service mode is the

taxi. While people sometimes share taxi rides that occurs only by

their choice, and the same is true with PRT service.

• APM service, on the other hand, is not private. Many people may

board together, and the vehicle stops at each passenger’s

destination. It skips stops if no one needs to get off or on. An APM

service in a widespread area probably needs to use regional

boundaries and hub stations or other methods to group people

together who are going to similar destinations. The existing

technologies that compares with this service mode are the elevator

and the airport shuttle van.

169
Because of the basic service distinction, several other technology and

planning-related differences between PRT and APM arise:

• APM vehicles are generally envisioned as larger than PRT vehicles.

But, there is no exact line between the number of seats that

constitutes a PRT vehicle and one that is APM. An intermediate size

vehicle of 4-8 seats could conceivably offer either type of service.

• A guideway strong enough to carry groups (APM) is usually larger

than a PRT guideway. It may also require smaller spans between

supports. Therefore it may be more expensive to build and more

intrusive in an urban setting.

• The control software obviously has to behave differently with

respect to routing and empty vehicle management.

• Planning of the network layout would be different. A plan for APM

service would more likely follow major corridors only, while PRT

service could become a linked network with overall greater

coverage.

• Stations may be different. PRT stations need as little as one berth

regardless of the overall network size. Typically developers suggest

about three berths. APM stations in predominantly corridor-

oriented networks could also have as few as one berth, but stations

in widespread networks (particularly hub stations) would need

many berths in order to group people together by their destination

region.

170
 APPENDIX B

TYPICAL COST BREAKDOWN OF SHUTTLE-

SHUTTLE-TYPE
TYPE APM

SYSTEMS

Engineering &
Project
Command &
Management
Communication
11%
5%
Station Elevated
Equipments Guideway
4% Structure
Central & 38%
Control System
8%
Power Vehicles Elevated
Distribution 14% Stations
2%
11%

Guideway Maintanace
Equipments Facility
6% 1%

Figure
gure B.1:
.1: Pie diagram of total cost breakdown of shuttle-type
shuttle type APM system

171
 APPENDIX C

TYPICAL COST BREAKDOWN OF LOOP-TYPE

LOOP TYPE APM

SYSTEMS

Command & Engineering &

Communication Project
Management
Station 3%
10%
Equipments
2%
Central & Control
System
6% Elevated
Vehicles Guideway
8% Structure
Power
53%
Distribution
3%

Guideway
Equipments
8%
Elevated Stations
5%
Maintanace
Facility
2%

Figure C.1:
.1: Pie diagram of total cost breakdown of loop-type
loop type APM system

172
 APPENDIX D

LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE

BEEN ACCESSED DURING THIS REASEARCH

Table D.1: Individuals and Org. Name List

Provided
First and Last Organization Contact Info.
Information
Name

METU Directorate of Tel: 0312 210 2909 METU bus

Mr. Cemal
Vehicle Management Fax: 0312 210 2910 services
YAVUZ
(Head of Dept.) annual costs

Hazine Müsteşarlığı Cost benefit

Mr. Mustafa Tel: 0312 477 4868
Strategic Planning values
AKMAZ Fax: 0312 477 4832
(Head of Dept.) justifications

Özdemir Co., Email:

Mr. Ayhan Cost values
Grp Pipe Investment ayhanozdemir
ÖZDEMİR justifications
Consulting @ayhanozdemir.net

Mr. Sabahattin Türkarge Co. , Email: Capital Costs

ÇELİK Teknokent, METU [email protected] justification

Route
Tel: 0312 210 6109
Mr. Göksal METU, Campus alignment,
Email:
CÜLCÜLOĞLU Planning Manager Technical
[email protected]
details

Mr. Fehmi Ankaray LRT, Recurrent

Tel: 0312 287 0425
TOPTAŞ Ankara Costs

TCMB Araştırma ve Annual

---- Para Politikası Genel Tel: 0312 507 5474 discount

Müdürlüğünde rates

173
 APPENDIX E

APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: AUSTRANS

Table E.1: Contact info of Bishop Austrans Pty Ltd.

Bishop Austrans Pty Ltd.

Tel +61 (0) 417 752 535

Fax +61 (2) 9427 8787

Email [email protected]

Web www.autrans.com
Postal address PO Box 361

North Ryde, NSW 1670

Australia

The Austrans system is clever but not technically complicated. Slightly

larger than a car people mover, Austrans provides high frequencies that

make timetables and long waiting periods a thing of the past. This is a

system that provides a level of service that, for the first time, allows public

transport to compete with the car in many situations. The patented bogie

(wheel set) and rail design allows vehicles to climb steep grades and turn

sharp corners so that the system is easy to construct in an existing urban

environment or in difficult terrain. It carries 8-16 passengers per vehicle.

There is no local air pollution and with an automated system existing

public transport fare levels would, in many cases, be enough to cover the

operating costs. Austrans can be used to build an entire public transport

network for a small or medium sized city or, as is more probable, it can be

174
integrated into existing heavy rail, light rail and bus systems. Austrans has

markets for immediate commercial systems in the following areas:

• A medium flow, short haul, low speed shuttle (e.g. airport people

mover)

• A feeder and distributor for a line haul system

• The principal internal transport mode in a contained area such as a

university campus, hospital precinct, business park or shopping

centre

• An alternative to light or heavy rail for upgrading a service in an

existing developed urban area from bus

• A moderate capacity line haul system (e.g. extension of an existing

line haul service to a newly developed satellite new town)

• Such systems have the potential to be upgraded, expanded and

integrated into a citywide network.

Some design specifications are as follow:

Table E.2: Design specification of Austrans

Dimensions (m) Height Width Length

Vehicle 2.25 1.9 5.45

Guideway 1.05 1.1

Min. Curve Radius 8

AE Bishop, the parent company, is an established Australian engineering

firm with other products. Au$10 million has been invested in Austrans

R&D over an 11 year period. The state of development is:

• First test track at Chullora, Sydney built and operational

175
• First prototype vehicle produced and currently undergoing

development trials

• Vehicle negotiates 8 meter radius curve as designed, brakes and

accelerates as expected - about to proceed with testing ride

characteristics when negotiating chicanes

• Prototype switch constructed and undergoing development -

operates in less than one second. Notable for lack of noise.

• Station concept and specification completed and proprietary

simulation software developed

Figure E.1: Austrans Guideway Specifications

176
 APPENDIX F

APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: AUTRAN

Table F.1: Contact info of Autran Corp.

Autran Corp.

Tel +1 (0) 847 674 4947

Fax +1 (0) 847 674 4947

Email [email protected]

Web www.autrancorp.com
Postal address 9220 E Prairie RD #410

Evanston, IL 60203, USA

Autran is a supported technology that resembles the simple supported

systems, but also has pallet carriers for cars. The company envisions wide

scale networks carrying freight containers, pallets and dual-mode cars as

well as PRT/APM cabins. They assert that PRT advocates and dual-mode

advocates can help each other by using a system designed flexibly from the

start for both purposes. Each vehicle seated 8-10 passengers. The guideway

is a single box beam with a slot at the top. The wheel set is entirely inside

the box beam. Two sizes are planned: a lightweight size for PRT and light

freight, and a heavier size for auto carrying pallets. The guideway is

constructed in spans of 20 m using two prestressed concrete side beams

that support steel frame members for support of tracks. Adjustments of the

positions of frame members relative to the beams can be made to obtain

177
very smooth travel. Steel wheels on steerable front and rear bogies are

driven by an induction motor through an electronically controlled

transmission and two differentials. Steering, switching and increased

traction when necessary are all obtained through control wheels engaged

with separate tracks. The vehicle can negotiate tight radius curves because

the front and rear axles swivel on a vertical axis.

Some design specifications are as following table. The current design is for
supported vehicles/carriers, but features of the design could allow for
suspending vehicles in the future. The system includes a tilting mechanism
which improves comfort in curves. Loads are automatically tilted as a
function of speed and the radius of a curve.

Table F.2: Design specification of Autran

Dimensions (m) Height Width Length

Vehicle 1.6 1.1 4.75

Guideway 1.4 1.8 15m Sections

Min. Curve Radius 5.2

178
Figure F.1: Autran Guideway Specifications

179
 APPENDIX G

APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: CYBERTRAN

Table G.1: Contact info of Cybertran Int’l Inc.

Cybertran Int’l Inc.

Tel +1 (0) 510 215 5221

Fax +1 (0) 510 215 5225

Email www.cybertran.com

Web www.cybertran.com

Postal address 1301 South 46th St.

Building 300b

Richmond, CA 94804

The CyberTran team is led by the developer of the system, Dr. John A.

Dearien. Dr. Dearien is a Professional Engineer with degrees in Civil and

Structural Engineering and 30 years experience with the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. The Cybertran guideway is a

double steel rail, like conventional rail, with the standard gauge of 1.43 m.

Single axle propulsion bogies allow for tight turns with low wheel/rail

wear and low noise. Six of the standard steel guideway sections are field

welded together to provide an operational unit 97 m long, at the end of

which temperature expansions are handled, emergency egress to the

ground is provided, and sensor packages of system control are located. A

second type of guideway section is a pre-stressed concrete section with the

180
same dimensions as the steel section, but not rigidly connected in the field.

This guideway type is approximately 10 times heavier than the steel

version and is used where aesthetics rule out simple steel sections. The

vehicle types have different seating arrangements, but only one body size

is proposed. Seating ranges from 6 to 20. Multiple doors

provide direct access to each seat or row of seats, with easy accessibility.

Propulsion units are designed to utilize a variety of motors and power

transmission units, depending on speed range and power requirements of

application. The long 11+ m length is partly due to aerodynamic cones on

both ends.

Table G.2: Design specification of Cybertran

Dimensions (m) Height Width Length

Vehicle 1.9 1.9 11.6

Guideway 1.6 2.6 16m

Min. Curve Radius 16

181
Figure G.1: Cybertran Guideway Specifications

182
 APPENDIX H

APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: MEGARAIL

Table H.1: Contact info of Megarail Transportation Systems Inc.

Megarail Transportation Systems Inc.

Tel +1 (0) 817-367-2373

Fax +1 (0) 817-367-2373

Email [email protected]

Web www.megarail.com

Postal address P.O. Box 121728

Fort Worth, TX 76121, USA

The MegaRail guideway consists of two steel box beams side by side. Wheels are

inside the boxes, and the axle passes through slots on the sides of the beams. This

configuration provides weather protection for the traction surface,

communications, and power pick-up, and it prevents derailment. It also allows for

a very small skyprint. The rail beams are self supporting with no superstructure.

Wire mesh spans the space between the rails for use as an emergency walkway,

but this is designed to block very little light passage. MegaRail is a multifunction

concept, offering pallet transport for cars, plus APM and PRT service. Non-stop

65-mph urban, and 85-mph commuter rail passenger services with small (max 16

passenger), automated cars operate on a 24-hour, seven-day, on frequent schedule

basis for no-wait travel. The smaller individual personal transport cars travel on a

non-stop basis from local station to destination station without time-wasting and

183
trip-time extending intermediate station stops typical of conventional city buses

and light rail or monorail trains. Passengers are accommodated in spacious seats

in quiet, smooth-ride cars. The larger 16-passenger cars offer frequently

scheduled, 24-hour, seven-day service with stops only where passengers are

waiting to be picked up or let off. Some design specifications are as follow:

Table H.2: Design specification of Megarail

Dimensions (m) Height Width Length

Vehicle 2.2 2.7 6.1

Guideway 0.9 2.9

Min. Curve Radius 14.7

184
Figure H.1: Megarail Guideway Specifications

185
 APPENDIX I

APM SUPPORTED SYSTEMS: T2

Table I.1: Contact info of T2 Corp.

T2 (Taxi 2000) Corporation

Tel +1 (0) 763.717.4310

Fax +1 (0) 763.717.4310

Email [email protected]

Web www.taxi2000.com

Postal address 8050 University Avenue

N. Fridley,

MN 55432 USA

Taxi 2000 (T2) designs point-to-point (P2P) personal rapid transit systems. Our

independently verified control system is the “brain” that makes the P2P, non-stop

transportation system available now. No other personal rapid transit company

has a functioning control system. Using the specific professional services, T2

develops P2P transportation solutions. These solutions are based on ridership

studies, route analysis, station requirements, and the transportation system needs

of the client/community.

The asynchronous echo™ control system allows Skyweb Express to outperform

any other PRT system. echo communicates with each individual vehicle more

than ten times per second, continuously updating vehicle data. echo gives Skyweb

Express;

186
Complex network capability - Less congestion , faster trips, shorter wait times,

networks too difficult for other control systems are easy for echo

Figure I.1: Schematic view of Taxi 2000 vehicles and guideway

Enhanced safety - Vehicles/echo adjusts to traffic conditions in only 1/10 second,

meets current APM standards with a 1.1 second headway

Greater capacity - echo provides up to three times the service compared to other

control systems on the same size network

Ridership – The Skyweb Express system incorporates local ridership data into the

simulation process. The iterative simulation services provide our clients with

multiple route or system layouts.

Routes – TrakEdit, T2’s proprietary software, simulates many possible routes to

optimize the system layout. The layout is dependent upon ridership data and

client goals to achieve an optimal transportation system. T2 has simulated routes

as large as 300 km and 15,000 vehicles.

Fleet Size – The number of vehicles in the fleet is optimized to handle variable

volumes of traffic according to ridership demand. The size and number of

vehicles are optimized in the feasibility program. The variables affecting fleet size

187
are the route, ridership, and service goals. These inter-connected variables become

optimized using T2’s proprietary TrakEdit simulation software.

Figure I.2: T2 Guideway Specifications of Taxi2000

188