SE Corridor Monorail Revised Final Report 020215

MONORAIL ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE
I-24 SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
Tennessee Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
January 2015
FOR THE I-24 SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR
Table of Contents
OVERVIEW SUMMARY ............................................................................................. OS-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................... OS-1
2.0 MONORAIL TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ............................................................... OS-2
3.0 KEY OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ OS-3
3.1 Speed .................................................................................................................... OS-4
3.2 Ride ....................................................................................................................... OS-4
3.3 Switching ............................................................................................................... OS-4
3.4 Safety and Evacuation .......................................................................................... OS-4
3.5 Evacuation ............................................................................................................ OS-4
3.6 Rubber Tired Traction and Guidance ................................................................... OS-5
3.7 Energy Consumption ............................................................................................ OS-5
3.8 Acceleration and Breaking.................................................................................... OS-5
3.9 Gradients............................................................................................................... OS-5
3.10 Noise ..................................................................................................................... OS-6
4.0 GENERAL CONCERNS REGARDING MONORAIL TECHNOLOGIES ............... OS-6
4.1 Proprietary Nature of Monorail Technology ......................................................... OS-6
4.2 Incompatibility with Existing Systems ................................................................... OS-7
4.3 Limited Capacity of Monorails .............................................................................. OS-7
4.4 Safety and Reliability ............................................................................................ OS-7
5.0 MONORAIL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR..................................................... OS-8
5.1 Prior Planning and Corridor Growth ..................................................................... OS-8
5.2 Alignment Considerations................................................................................... OS-10
5.3 Projected Ridership............................................................................................. OS-13
5.4 Capital Costs ....................................................................................................... OS-14
5.5 Operations and Maintenance Costs ................................................................... OS-15
6.0 FINANCING THE PROJECT.................................................................................. OS-16
7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. OS-17
MONORAIL ASSESSMENT REPORT.........................................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................1
2.0 MONORAIL TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW............................................................................. 2
3.0 MONORAIL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................9
3.1 Systems in Operation ..................................................................................................9
3.2 Systems in Development .............................................................................................9
4.0 VENDOR SYSTEM REVIEW ....................................................................................... 10
ii
4.1 Hitachi ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.1.1 Existing Locations ............................................................................................ 10
4.1.2 Vehicle, Guideway, and Station Description ................................................... 11
4.1.3 Capacity ........................................................................................................... 12
4.1.4 Costs ................................................................................................................ 12
4.1.5 Feasibility ......................................................................................................... 12
4.1.6 Emergency Operations.................................................................................... 13
4.1.7 Environmental Considerations ........................................................................ 14
4.2 Bombardier................................................................................................................ 14
4.2.3 Capacity ........................................................................................................... 15
4.2.4 Costs ................................................................................................................ 15
4.2.5 Feasibility ......................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Owen Transit Group HighRoad ................................................................................ 16
4.3.3 Capacity ........................................................................................................... 16
4.3.4 Costs ................................................................................................................ 16
4.3.5 Feasibility ......................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Futrex ........................................................................................................................ 18
4.4.3 Capacity ........................................................................................................... 19
4.4.4 Costs ................................................................................................................ 19
4.4.5 Feasibility ......................................................................................................... 19
5.0 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................. 20
5.1 Power ........................................................................................................................ 21
5.2 Speed ........................................................................................................................ 21
5.3 Ride ........................................................................................................................... 21
5.4 Switching ................................................................................................................... 21
5.5 Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 21
5.6 Safety and Evacuation .............................................................................................. 22
5.7 Evacuation ................................................................................................................ 22
5.8 Seismic Codes .......................................................................................................... 22
iii
5.9 Rubber Tired Traction and Guidance ....................................................................... 22
5.10 Energy Consumption ................................................................................................ 22
5.11 Acceleration and Breaking........................................................................................ 23
5.12 Gradients................................................................................................................... 23
5.13 Weather..................................................................................................................... 23
5.14 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 23
6.0 STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................ 24
6.1 Guideway .................................................................................................................. 24
6.2 Columns .................................................................................................................... 25
7.0 AUTOMATION .............................................................................................................. 26
8.0 GENERAL CONCERNS REGARDING MONORAIL TECHNOLOGIES ................... 27
8.1 Proprietary Nature of Monorail Technology ............................................................. 27
8.2 Incompatibility with Existing Systems ....................................................................... 27
8.3 Limited Capacity of Monorails .................................................................................. 28
8.4 Safety and Reliability ................................................................................................ 28
8.5 Weather Related Reliability ...................................................................................... 29
9.0 MONORAIL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR......................................................... 29
9.1 Prior Planning Relevant to the Southeast Corridor .................................................. 29
9.2 Southeast Corridor Demographics and Land Use ................................................... 33
9.3 Potential Transit Alignments and Stations................................................................ 35
9.4 Corridor Transit Ridership......................................................................................... 46
10.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS COSTS ....................................................................... 49
10.1 Capital Costs ............................................................................................................. 49
10.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs ......................................................................... 55
11.0 FINANCING THE PROJECT........................................................................................ 56
11.1 Federal Funding ........................................................................................................ 57
11.2 Public-Private Partnerships Utilizing Availability Payments ..................................... 58
11.3 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Credit Assistance ......... 59
11.4 Value Capture ........................................................................................................... 61
11.5 Local Option Revenues ............................................................................................ 62
11.6 Case Study: Eagle P3 Project .................................................................................. 63
12.0 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 65
Figures
Figure OS.1: Potential Southeast Corridor Premium Transit Alignment and Stations.... OS-11
Figure 1: Southeast Corridor Study Area ..................................................................................3
Figure 2: Schwebebahn in Wuppertal, Germany......................................................................4
Figure 3: Townliner Suspended Monorail in Chiba, Japan.......................................................5
Figure 4: Suspended Monorail Bogie ........................................................................................6
Figure 5: Different Ways of Suspending a Suspension Monorail .............................................6
iv
Figure 6: Seattle ALWEG Straddle Monorail ............................................................................7
Figure 7: OTG Transit Cantilevered Monorail ...........................................................................7
Figure 8: The Transrapid Levitating Monorail ...........................................................................8
Figure 9: Okinawa Monorail ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 10: Train Yard and Storage Layout............................................................................. 13
Figure 11: 2007 Study Area and Transit Alignments ............................................................. 30
Figure 12: Regional Transit Vision ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 13: Existing and Projected Households and Jobs ...................................................... 34
Figure 14: Potential Southeast Corridor Premium Transit Alignment and Stations .............. 36
Figure 15: Potential Southeast Corridor Premium Transit Alignment and Stations
Downtown Inset ..................................................................................................... 37
Figure 16: Station Configurations ........................................................................................... 42
Figure 17: View Northbound on Lafayette Avenue at I-40..................................................... 44
Figure 18: View Southbound on Murfreesboro Road at Airport Runway Underpass ........... 44
Figure 19: 2040 Projected Rapid Transit Service Ridership by Hypothetical Station
Location for Trend Land Scenario......................................................................... 48
Tables
Table OS.1: Summary of Public Chapter 1009 (2014) Provisions .................................... OS-2
Table 1: System Load Capacity ............................................................................................. 12
Table 2: Hypothetical Southeast Corridor Station Locations ................................................. 38
Table 3: Potential Southeast Corridor Monorail Configuration .............................................. 39
Table 4: Projected Transit Ridership for “Urban Rail” Technology ........................................ 46
Table 5: 2040 Projected Rapid Transit Service Ridership by Hypothetical Station
Location for Trend Land Use Scenario .................................................................... 48
Table 6: Summary of Monorail Capital Costs ........................................................................ 55
v
MONORAIL ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE I-24 SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR
OVERVIEW SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This report provides the results of a technology assessment of monorail systems, and explores
the feasibility of a monorail system operating in the 33.7-mile long Interstate 24 (I-24) Southeast
Corridor Regional Rapid/Urban Rail Transit Corridor (Southeast Corridor), as identified by the
Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO’s 2035 Regional
Transportation Plan, adopted in December 2010, recommended rapid transit but did not identify a
specific technology for the Southeast Corridor. This report was prepared as directed under Public
Chapter 1009 (2014); its language is provided as follows, and its provisions and their coverage within
this document are shown in Table OS.1.
SECTION 1. The department of transportation is directed to conduct a preliminary study to

determine the feasibility of a monorail public transportation system along the Nashville
Southeast Corridor that connects downtown Murfreesboro to downtown Nashville along
Interstate 24. The study shall identify all public and private funding sources, including
amounts, that can reasonably be anticipated and estimated costs and revenues. The
department shall report its findings and any recommendations resulting from the study to the
transportation and safety committee of the senate and the transportation committee of the
house of representatives on or before February 1, 2015.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.
The Southeast Corridor includes the region’s largest employment destinations: downtown
Nashville, the Vanderbilt-West End area adjacent to downtown Nashville, and the Murfreesboro
area. Other destinations within the corridor include Nashville Airport, Dell, Interchange City,
Starwood Amphitheater, the Nissan automobile plant, Treveca Nazarene University, Middle
Tennessee State University, and the downtowns of LaVergne and Smyrna.
The intent of this monorail assessment is to assist the Tennessee Department of Transportation
(TDOT) in answering the question of whether it is feasible to construct, operate, maintain, and
finance a monorail system in the Southeast Corridor. It is important to note that this report is not
an assessment of all possible public transit technologies nor does it provide an overview and
comparison of premium transit technologies based on vehicle types, performance, stations,
alignments, amenities and costs. It is not a sufficient document for the implementation of a
monorail system, but it does provide an analysis of the conceptual feasibility of a monorail
technology as a premium guideway transit service. It is also noted that transportation planning
is a cooperative process designed to foster involvement by all users of the system, such as the
business community, community groups, environmental organizations, the traveling public,
freight operators, and the general public, through proactive public participation and technical
OS-1
coordination processes conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization with TDOT, local
and regional jurisdictions, area transit operators, and other partners and stakeholders.
Table OS.1: Summary of Public Chapter 1009 (2014) Provisions
Public Chapter 1009 (2014) Location Where Provision Is Comments

Provision Addressed in the Report
SECTION 1. The department This study in its entirety This feasibility study utilized a
of transportation is directed to constitutes the response to the hypothetical alignment for
conduct a preliminary study to direction to assess at a premium transit service in the
determine the feasibility of a preliminary level the feasibility of Southeast Corridor under
monorail public transportation a monorail service in the exploratory analysis by the
system along the Nashville Southeast Corridor from Nashville Area MPO so as to
Southeast Corridor that downtown Nashville to utilize its conceptual forecasts of
connects downtown Murfreesboro. premium transit ridership.
Murfreesboro to downtown
Nashville along Interstate 24.
The study shall identify all Section 11 of the report Certain funding sources
public and private funding beginning on Page 56 discussed in the report are not
sources, including amounts provides discussion of various yet established, but are
that can reasonably be transit funding sources. addressed to provide coverage
anticipated and estimated Estimated costs (capital and of all potential sources.
costs and revenues. operating/maintenance) for
monorail are discussed in
Section 10 beginning on Page
49.
The department shall report its The study findings are covered No additional comment.
findings and any in Section 12 beginning on
recommendations resulting Page 65. The delivery
from the study to the schedule requirement has
transportation and safety been satisfied.
committee of the senate and
the transportation committee
of the house of representatives
on or before February 1, 2015.
SECTION 2. This act shall Not applicable to this study. No additional comment.
take effect upon becoming a
law, the public welfare
requiring it.
2.0 MONORAIL TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
The first generally recognized monorail was the Schwebebahn (“swaying railroad”) in
Wuppertal, Germany. A single steel rail is suspended from an elevated structure along which a
single rail runs. In this instance, the vehicle weight is both supported by the rail and guided by it.
Modern versions of the Schwebebahn monorail look similar in that the monorail is suspended
OS-2
from above. However, instead of using a single rail for support and guidance, the single rail is
replaced by a hollowed-out concrete or steel beam, and rubber tires are used instead of metal
wheels. Although this is the most common configuration, numerous combinations of steel or
concrete running surfaces and rubber tires or steel wheels—both singly and doubly flanged
have been proposed.
The straddle monorail is by far the most common monorail type that has been put into
operation. It is visually probably the most pleasing type and fits into urban environments better
than suspended monorails which normally need to be taller to allow for the necessary vehicular
clearance under the train. The straddle monorail is consists of a train running on a concrete or
steel guideway. The train’s load bearing tires run on top of the guideway beam while the
guidance tires run along the two sides of the beam. Proposals for high speed straddle monorails
that use the straddle principle use slightly different configurations but the principle is roughly the
same.
Currently, the primary transit-grade straddle monorail systems are manufactured by Hitachi of
Japan and Bombardier of Canada. All transit-grade straddle monorails are descendents of the
monorails of the now defunct German company, ALWEG, which built the Seattle monorail for
the 1962 world’s fair. Hitachi bought the rights from Alweg to manufacture straddle monorail
systems. Hitachi is by far the most successful monorail manufacturer having built several
systems and having invested heavily in the development and adaptation of the straddle
monorail technology.
The Canadian transportation giant, Bombardier, readapted the Walt Disney World Monorail for
its transit monorail, which was built in Las Vegas and which has been proposed for other
American cities. Bombardier has built monorail systems in Germany, England, Brazil, Saudi
Arabia, and Australia.
3.0 KEY OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Monorail operates solely on exclusive right-of–way. In this respect monorail operates as a “rapid
transit” system. Monorails cannot operate in mixed traffic as buses or trams do, because the
guideway beams cannot be crossed by other vehicular or pedestrian traffic at ground level
unlike rail tracks which can be imbedded into the street. However monorail guideways placed on
aerials allow for unimpeded traffic flow below. Monorails are served by stations most commonly
elevated, but also underground or a few feet above ground level. Although stations require
considerably more investment than simple street level light rail platforms, stations do add to the
public “visibility” of the transit system. A station can also provide other services, such as retail
space that make public transportation a more pleasant and convenient method of travel.
OS-3
3.1 Speed
Transit-grade monorails generally operate at maximum speeds of 40 to 55 mph, which is comparable

to most applications of rail technology within urban areas. Average operating speeds of monorails are
comparable to subways due to the fact that they are likewise grade separated and use similar station
spacing distances. Speeds are generally in the range of 20 to 30 mph, very high for urban mass-
transit.
3.2 Ride
Monorails’ ride is superior to cars and buses and similar to that of wielded rail. Suspension is usually
provided by air-springs. Forces exerted in curves are reduced by banking the guideway slightly in
straddle-systems. Suspended monorails can sway several degrees in curves, reducing forces. Both
straddle and suspended monorails provide passengers with the sensation of smooth flight, especially
since passenger’s visual cues support the sensation.
3.3 Switching
One of the most common misconceptions about monorails is that monorails do not, or cannot,
employ switches. In reality, switching is extremely important to monorail operations. The Shonan
suspended monorail in Japan employs switches at stations so that a single guideway between
stations can be used for bi-directional operation. Even the Disney monorails which operate in a loop
must have switches to move trains to and from the maintenance yard. There are a wide range of
switches for different purposes. For example, the straddle-type Las Vegas monorail utilizes turnout,
crossover and pivot switches in its operation. Due to the weight and size of concrete or steel beams,
the switching is slower—roughly 15 seconds compared to 0.6 seconds for traditional rail. This
increase in switching time would likely result in increased minimum headways over traditional rail if
the switching is to be used regularly in line operation.
3.4 Safety and Evacuation
Monorails have been shown to be one of the very safe forms of transportation. Grade-separated
operation generally rules out collisions with automobiles, trucks and pedestrians. Since nearly all
monorails built since the original Schwebebahn have not used a single rail as the term “monorail”
would imply, and have instead used concrete guideways, derailment is extremely unlikely. The
straddle monorail, in particular, hugs the guideway in such a way to almost rule out such a possibility.
3.5 Evacuation
The fact that monorail is usually elevated poses some evacuation challenges. Suspended monorails
usually have doors in the floor linked to stairs or a slide as on commercial aircraft. Japanese straddle
monorail standards require fully articulated vehicles to allow longitudinal evacuation through the front
OS-4
and rear of the train onto a waiting train. The Malaysian system uses lateral evacuation to a waiting
train on the guideway that supports trains in the other direction. Older American monorails use
another train to push the stranded vehicle to the next station but when that is not possible, rescue via
ladder from the ground is necessary. The Las Vegas monorail provides an emergency walkway
between dual monorail beams which is more in line with most rapid transit systems.
3.6 Rubber Tired Traction and Guidance
With few exceptions, like the Schwebebahn, monorail systems use rubber tires for traction. Aside
from the guideway, this is the main technological difference between monorail and traditional rail.
While rubber traction on steel rails is found on at least one monorail system (Aerobus), most systems
with rubber tires run on concrete surfaces. In this regard, most monorail vehicles run more like road
vehicles than railway trains. To be sure, such rubber on concrete traction can be found on the Paris,
Montreal and Sapporo Metros as well as on most Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) systems.
There are both advantages and drawbacks to this method.
3.7 Energy Consumption
Energy consumption is somewhat higher with rubber tired traction. Rubber tires on concrete (as well
as rubber tires on steel) have a greater rolling resistance and rotational inertia than steel on steel rail
technology. Common rail operation tactics such as coasting can be much less utilized by monorails.
Since energy consumption varies with the particular operating regime of a line, exact figures are not
possible. However, an estimate of 25 to 30 percent greater energy consumption over rail technology
is given.
3.8 Acceleration and Breaking
Rubber tired vehicles can achieve a much higher rate of acceleration and breaking than steel tired
ones. For monorail systems, however, this is usually not a significant advantage since acceleration is
limited much more by passenger comfort, especially by the passenger comfort of standing
passengers. Also, high breaking rates are less necessary where exclusive right-of-way generally
rules out collisions with street traffic, which happens to be the case for monorail.
3.9 Gradients
Theoretically, rubber tired traction can overcome gradients of more than 15% whereas rail technology
cannot safely exceed 10%. In reality, steep gradients require very powerful motors and are
uncomfortable for standing passengers. This means that rubber tired technologies do not have quite
as strong an advantage over rail in this respect. In difficult alignments, however, monorail’s climbing
ability does stand out. An example of this is the Shonan suspended monorail in Japan, where 10 %
gradients are found. And the authority responsible for designing Seattle’s proposed system found
OS-5
that steeper gradients over water crossings would shorten bridges and thus lower bridge costs
significantly.
3.10 Noise
Rubber tired systems are generally quieter in sharp curves than the best rail technology. When rail
maintenance is lacking or postponed, as is far too often the case, the benefit of rubber tires can be
appreciable. In addition, both straddle and SAFEGE-type monorail systems shield the tire noise
unlike other rubber tired applications. Straddle monorails trains shield the tires since the train side
stretches beneath the wheels to access the electric catenary, whereas SAFEGE-type monorails have
the wheels shielded within the guideway. Rubber tired vehicles produce much less vibration than
vehicles with steel tires. Furthermore, since rubber tired monorails produce basically no
electromagnetic “pollution”, they can be run near hospitals and scientific institutes without concern.
In general, monorail technology is suited to urban transit applications. It compares favorably to

traditional rail technology on the whole. While monorails do have several significant disadvantages
that cannot be outright dismissed—like somewhat higher energy costs (for rubber-tired systems) and
slower switching as compared with similar rail systems, it is rare that these considerations would
amount to a “fatal-flaw”. In fact, these considerations should, more often than not, be minor in the
general exercise of mass-transit planning. Indeed, it is in those very areas where monorail technology
holds the advantage over steel-rail technology—most notably in its lower noise production and
greater grade-climbing abilities—where monorail has the ability to make a fixed transit line feasible
where it would not be otherwise.
4.0 GENERAL CONCERNS REGARDING MONORAIL TECHNOLOGIES
There are concerns usually expressed about monorail systems when undertaking a corridor
study and attempting to identify the “ideal mode” for a specific corridor. Those concerns are
noted below with a brief description of the nature of the concern followed by a response to the
concern.
4.1 Proprietary Nature of Monorail Technology
Concern: It was believed that the specialized components needed for monorails would be hard
to find or only available from a limited number of distributors. The operator of such a system
would be tied to that supplier or manufacturer. Introducing new technology into the study area
would require a new, specialized work force or additional training for existing workers.
Maintenance shops already in place would possibly not be able to provide service to the new
technology if it required different parts than the existing systems.
 Response: It appears Hitachi and other vendors proprietary system used in their
monorail systems is limited, i.e., Hitachi’s track switching system. While this is a
OS-6
significant element of the total system, the fact that the remaining portions of the system
are non-proprietary indicates that the availability of parts and support for the system may
not be as great as feared.
4.2 Incompatibility with Existing Systems
 Concern: There were concerns about the idea of introducing another transit mode in a
region - where other rail modes already exist.
 Response: While the introduction of a new technology to the regional transit network will
require an investment in new systems, vehicles, and maintenance resources, similar
investments would be required to expand any of the existing rail systems.
With regards to the compatibility of monorail technologies with existing stations: where a transit
line is being extended, it does make more sense to extend the existing mode rather than
introducing a second mode to the line. However, where a new transit service is being used to
provide an intermodal link between two or more existing transit lines, the reduced guideway
requirements of monorail technologies may make it easier to integrate a new service into the
site design of existing stations.
4.3 Limited Capacity of Monorails

Concern: Monorails have much smaller capacity than what might be needed.
 Response: The systems reviewed have demonstrated passenger capacities of up to

49,000 passengers per hour per direction. Used in the appropriate corridors, a monorail
system should be ample for the needs of ridership demand in most transit corridors.
4.4 Safety and Reliability

Concern: The safety and reliability of monorail systems has not been proven. A concern about
monorail technology involved the ability of trains to execute a track switch when necessary. This
raised questions about the safety of passengers in the event of an emergency and the reliability
of the system in the event of a vehicle breakdown.
 Response: The National Fire Protection Association 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway
Transit and Passenger Rail Systems code must be met in order to operate a rail system in
the United States. Additionally, there are other standards that must be met in the United
States.
 Existing monorail technologies may require additional research and development in order to
adapt them to federal, state, and local safety requirements. The reliability of monorail services
varies considerably among the technologies reviewed. The side straddle systems on the
OS-7
market today may require additional right-of-way for turn back loops in order to preserve
service around disabled vehicles. As with other conventional rail services, the ability to
preserve service will be dependent on the availability of crossovers and other system
elements necessary to move around disabled vehicles.
In addition to the regulatory safety requirements of a system, there are two other practical
issues which need to be taken into consideration:
 Evacuation Procedures: Both the vehicle and the guideway must allow passengers to
exit the system in the case of emergency. This is an especially important point with
automated systems since there may not be transit personnel on board a vehicle during
the time of an accident.
 Operating Recovery Plans: In case of a disruption of service, it is crucial for a system to

have mechanisms and procedures in place which would allow regular service vehicles to
bypass the affected section of the system.
5.0 MONORAIL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR
This study reviewed prior transit planning in this corridor, examined alignment and station locations,
considered recent transit ridership forecasting, and developed capital and O&M cost estimates for the
monorail technology in this corridor.
5.1 Prior Planning and Corridor Growth
As a frame of reference, it is useful to summarize prior transportation planning relevant to the

Southeast Corridor running generally along I-24. This planning has been led by the Nashville
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
The Nashville Southeast Corridor High-Performance Transit Alternatives Study (August

2007) was conducted by the MPO to address the future transportation needs of this growing
corridor. The study considered initially a broad range of transit technologies, including: bus
rapid transit – light, bus rapid transit, light rail transit, heavy rail/subway transit, monorail,
commuter rail and high speed rail. The study steering committee screened alignment and
technology combinations to a reduced set of options which included commuter rail, light rail
transit and bus rapid transit. After final screening, the Locally Preferred Alternative selected for
the corridor was a combination of phased bus service enhancements, including development of
express bus and skip stop bus services on I-24 and Murfreesboro Road (US 41) and extended
local bus service on Murfreesboro Road.
The Nashville Area MPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (December 2010) contained an
expanded vision for public transportation in the greater Nashville region. This plan is the result
OS-8
of a cooperative process designed to foster involvement by all stakeholders, such as the
freight operators, and the general public, through a proactive public participation process
conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, TDOT, and the area transit operators.
The plan identified a range of potential transit technologies and service configurations, but did
not include the monorail technology. The long-range vision for transit incorporated commuter
rail, rapid transit (either BRT or LRT), and express bus, in addition to standard fixed route bus
service and supporting transit circulator services. For the Southeast Corridor, the plan called for
in the short-term to develop express coach service from Murfreesboro to downtown Nashville
using the I-24 High Occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, in the mid-term for enhanced and bus rapid
transit service as delineated in the prior 2007 study, and in the long-term for further upgrading of
bus services, and the reevaluation of the corridor within 5-10 years for possible fixed-guideway
transit investments.
The Regional Transit Vision was an integral component of the 2035 transportation plan. It
included supporting documentation and a stylized depiction of future transit services across the
region. The vision was not intended to depict exact alignments and station locations, but rather
convey a sense of the transit coverage and hierarchy of transit services that conceivably could
serve the Nashville region of the future. For the long-range vision of the Southeast Corridor, the
map identified a Bus Rapid Transit – Lite line extending from downtown southeasterly to the
Hickory Hollow district, and a Rapid Transit Line (either LRT or BRT) extending from downtown
to Murfreesboro.
The ongoing Southeast Area Transportation and Land Use Study is developing a preferred
vision for growth and development in the area paralleling I-24 between I-40 and I-65 in
Davidson and Rutherford Counties. The study initially focused on land use trends and
alternative land use scenarios, arriving at a consensus for an alternative land use configuration
that would be more supportive of transit. The study is now engaged in examining premium
transit service alternatives, continuing to look at rapid transit service – either light rail transit or
bus rapid transit service in the corridor. Preliminary transit ridership forecasts to the year 2040
for Southeast Corridor transit service, including rapid transit service along a hypothetical
alignment and a 13-station configuration traversing from downtown Nashville to Murfreesboro
along Murfreesboro Pike, Bell Road, and I-24 have been developed.
The Nashville Area MPO service area, including Davidson, Maury, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner,
Williamson, and Wilson Counties, has a population of nearly 1.6 million, per the US Bureau of the
Census 2013 estimate. Population in Davidson and Rutherford Counties along the Southeast
Corridor was estimated by US Bureau of the Census as 939,631 persons in 2013, and is forecast to
grow to 1,163,312 persons by 2035, according to the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, and
continuing a trend of continued growth over recent decades. The MPO is in the process of updating
OS-9
regional demographic forecasts as part of developing the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan,
adopted in December 2010, to the year 2040.
Finally, it is noted that there have been high-level corridor studies of an Atlanta-to-Chattanooga high
speed rail service (HSR), with a potential connection to Nashville along the I-24 corridor. HSR
technology has not been and should not be considered for commuter-type service within the
Southeast Corridor. HSR is intended for long-distance, intercity travel, and the proximity of stations
within a suburban commuter corridor would defeat the intended benefit of high speed travel, as well
as the economic and societal benefit expected from an HSR project.
5.2 Alignment Considerations

The prior 2007 Southeast Corridor transit study considered three final options, each coupled with a
unique transit technology (along with a lower cost Transportation Systems Management phased bus
service alternative). Those options were commuter rail on the CSX rail line, bus rapid transit along I-
24, and bus rapid transit along Murfreesboro Road. The ongoing Southeast Area Transportation and
Land Use Study is initially investigating a hypothetical Rapid Transit Service that extends
southeasterly from downtown Nashville along Lafayette Street and Murfreesboro Road to Bell Road,
where the path turns south along Bell Road and Mountain View Road to I-24, and thence
southeasterly along I-24 to Murfreesboro. In this study, Rapid Transit Service being studied would be
either bus rapid transit or light rail transit. In its travel demand modeling work thus far for the current
corridor study, the MPO has coded this premium transit service corridor as “urban rail/light rail
transit”.
It is also noted that the MPO has not addressed at this time the configuration of light rail transit that
would be utilized to insert the service into the arterial street segments of the hypothetical alignment.
That is to say, it is not yet been analyzed if portions of the light rail transit alignment would be at-
grade or elevated, in the median of the street or to the side, in mixed traffic flow or segregated from
vehicular traffic. These are considerations of some importance as they can affect station
configuration, extent of street reconstruction, need for right-of-way, utility impacts (both underground
and overhead), and ultimately the capital cost of the facility.
The hypothetical Southeast Corridor alignment and hypothetical station locations in the MPO travel
demand modeling work are shown in Figure OS.1. This configuration of hypothetical alignment and
station locations is assumed for the monorail technology scenario examined in this study for
consistency with current MPO transit corridor planning, including initial transit ridership forecasting.
OS-10
Figure OS.1: Potential Southeast Corridor Premium Transit Alignment and Stations
It is assumed the monorail alignment would be located within the median of the surface streets
between downtown Nashville and I-24, elevated on support columns. Along I-24, the monorail
would run along the eastern edge of the I-24 right-of-way, with its profile elevated over
roadways which cross I-24 and at station locations, and the profile following the topography
along the freeway in an at-grade configuration.
Mention had been made of the monorail technology being applied to the I-24 corridor in an elevated
configuration within the median of that roadway. It is noted that from I-40 southward to Rock Springs
OS-11
Road just south of the Sam Ridley Parkway, a distance of 14.6 miles, the median of I-24 is
approximately 21 feet wide with a separating barrier. Options for placement the monorail in the I-24
median were explored but not adopted as they are more costly with maintenance of traffic issues,
and create station locations that are not adjacent to transit supportive land uses or park-and-ride
facilities. Conceivably, monorail could be installed in the median of I-24 either in an elevated
configuration, or at-grade in the median area of the freeway.
It is assumed that monorail stations will be elevated with center platform configurations. The
monorail system requires a continuous separation from other crossing movements, whether vehicular
or pedestrian. Transit users cannot cross the monorail guideway at-grade, so grade separation
between the monorail and transit users is necessary. This need is generally better accommodated
with the monorail elevated as that is a general condition for this technology. A center platform
configuration allows for a single set of vertical circulation elements - stairways, elevators, and
possibly escalators – to serve both directional guideways.
For stations within the street median, it is likely that the directional roadways would need to be flared
approximately 15-25 feet further apart toward the outside of the roadway to create sufficient room in
the median for supporting columns as well as vertical and horizontal pedestrian circulation. From this
median station location, users would pass to the outside edge of the roadway by way of crosswalks
at signalized intersections. Connecting buses would utilize bus bays on the side of the roadway at
the station locations. This configuration could require right-of-way acquisition along the roadway in
the station vicinity.
Along the I-24 right-of-way, since the alignment would be elevated over crossing roads and the five
hypothetical stations would be located at crossing roads, these stations would also be elevated.
However, it is expected that they would not be located within street medians but rather in
freestanding sites with kiss-and-ride spaces as well as bus bays for other interconnecting transit
services. Some stations would also have relatively large park-and-ride lots.
There are two particular locations along the potential monorail alignment that require further
attention: (1) The crossing of I-40 near downtown, and (2) The underpass of Murfreesboro road
at the Nashville International Airport runway and taxiway, which is approximately 1,000 feet
long. Along the proposed alignment at I-40, options are to pass under the roadways within
Lafayette Street, flyover the elevated I-40 mainline roadway with a very high structure, or shift
the alignment slightly west and cross I-40 where it is closer to ground level. The latter option
makes the most sense for monorail. To do so, the monorail could turn westerly from Lafayette
Street and run along the south edge of the I-40 freeway, and then cross I-40 in the vicinity of 5th
Avenue South or 6th Avenue South, returning to Ash Street and continuing to the end station on
Fogg Street.
OS-12
Approaching the airport runway underpass, the monorail guideway would be elevated in the
median of Murfreesboro Road. However, between McGavock Pike to the north of the runway
and Dell Parkway to the south, the monorail guideways would need to profile to existing grade
and follow the roadway profile under the runway. The existing roadway under the runway
consists of two 3-lane roadways 36 feet in width, a median of 12 feet which includes two narrow
shoulders and the central support column of the underpass, and two outer unpaved shoulders of
10 feet in width.
The monorail guideways could be configured near the median on either side of the middle
column, shifting the roadway lanes outward, or could be positioned in the outer shoulder areas,
and likewise adjusting the roadway travel lanes. The latter option is deemed preferable.
Roadway travel lanes would either need to be restriped for very narrow lanes, or one travel lane
in each direction would be given over to the monorail guideways. As the roadway in this area
has six through traffic lanes passing through traffic signals which reduce the throughput, four
traffic lanes through the tunnel operating in free flow condition would provide sufficient capacity.
It is noted that there may be issues with underground utilities, drainage and subsurface
foundation systems for the underpass that could affect the viability of this proposal. All
associated issues with this configuration of the monorail through the existing airport runway
underpass would need to be examined and approved by TDOT, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Nashville International Airport and
others.
The use of Tennessee DOT highway right-of-way for public transportation is guided by
provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 810) entitled Mass
Transit and Special Use Highway Projects. This guidance indicates that such use may be
possible, provided that the use does not restrict future needed highway improvements nor
impair highway safety. For the purposes of this analysis, it is noted that the alignment geometry
of the hypothetical Rapid Transit Service being examined by the MPO follows US 41 and I-24
corridors, and it is assumed for this assessment that such use of public highway right-of-way for
mass transit projects can be achieved.
5.3 Projected Ridership
The current MPO Southeast Area Transportation and Land Use Study has initiated examination of
potential premium transit services in the Southeast Corridor. The estimates of transit ridership in
2040 for the Southeast Corridor are tentatively based on hypothetical transit service alignments and
hypothetical station locations selected based on perceived ridership potential to test initial results and
are expected to lead to various further refinements as the transit alternatives analysis process
continues. At this point in time, only the initial transit ridership forecasts are available; for the
Southeast Corridor Rapid Transit Service concept, the MPO has tested only the “urban rail/light rail
OS-13
transit” technology thus far. In addition to Rapid Transit Service in the corridor, the study is also
examining several other transit service elements, including:
 BRT Lite service from downtown Nashville to the Hickory Hollow district,
 Route 15 standard bus service to be continued,
 Route 96 Express bus service, and
 Route 96 Community Circulator bus service.
Because monorail transit service parameters for Rapid Transit Service in the Southeast Corridor
can be considered similar for the purposes of this analysis, it is therefore assumed that ridership
on a monorail technology in this corridor would be very similar. To clarify, monorail can match
the Rapid Transit Service option in terms of service frequency and schedule, station locations,
corridor capacity, available park-and-ride facilities, and vehicle operating speed, such that it is
equally attractive to prospective transit users in terms of the mode choice decision (auto vs.
premium transit). It is also assumed that fares between Rapid Transit Service and monorail
would also be comparable.
The initial results from the current MPO study for projected 2040 ridership show that the premium
transit service in the Southeast Corridor in the form of the Rapid Transit Service (to date modeled as
urban rail/light rail transit) attracts approximately 7,100 daily boardings in 2040 under the trend land
use scenario, and 9,400 daily boardings, or about 32% higher, under the alternative land use
scenario that was tested. It is noted that in the ridership forecasting, the MPO incorporated park-and-
ride lots at several locations to support the drive access mode to transit stations. These ridership
estimates were used to determine monorail service requirements. It is also noted that the total
forecast transit ridership in the corridor is approximately 16,000 daily boardings when the other
transit service components are considered. The MPO considers this value an upper end
potential volume for the corridor, on the basis that the ridership for the other corridor services
would be absorbed into the rapid transit option.
5.4 Capital Costs
Capital cost estimates were developed for a monorail system in a configuration within the Southeast
Corridor parameters as described previously. It is noted that this estimate was developed at the
conceptual level of project definition where many aspects of inserting a monorail facility into the
Southeast Corridor have not yet been developed in much detail. The estimating process uses the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Standard Cost Categories (SCC) worksheet tables which
include 10 general cost categories, each with two or more cost line items. Allocated cost
contingencies were added to each individual cost line item; these contingencies were set at 20%
except for utilities which was 30% and right-of-way which was 50%. A standard general unallocated
contingency of 15% was added to all cost category subtotals. It is noted that these costs are
OS-14
conceptual in nature as the monorail technology concept has not been articulated in any significant
detail at this stage of discussion. Each of the SCC elements are described below along with
pertinent assumptions:
A conceptual level cost estimate was prepared for a monorail system in the Southeast Corridor, and
summarized for project budget purposes. Unit costs used to develop the estimates were based upon
recently completed transit systems and modified as required for the monorail transit investments
envisioned for the Southwest Corridor. Source information was derived from recent available
comparable project cost estimates. The cost estimate was developed using 2014 base year costs
and escalated to 2020 (presumed opening year) at a rate of 3.0 % per year based on recent
construction cost trends. The FTA SCC spreadsheet includes an inflation worksheet that addresses
this calculation step.
Unit costs for specific project components were drawn from data available to the consultant for
project estimates for other similar recent projects. Certain costs associated specifically with
monorail are not commonly available, and reasonable unit costs were identified by the
consultant based on research and in-house estimates.
The estimated capital costs are approximately $1.63 billion ($47.0 million/mile) in 2014, and
approximately $2.06 ($60.6 million/mile) in 2020.
5.5 Operations and Maintenance Costs

There is limited data for the operations and maintenance costs for monorail systems in North
America. Information secured from selected manufacturers suggests that the operations and
maintenance costs for monorail are similar to those for light rail transit (LRT). The annual
operations and maintenance cost is a function of the proposed service plan for monorail
operations previously summarized for this corridor in terms of the hours of operation, the service
frequencies during the day, and the vehicle service requirements based on the scheduled
operating speed.
The MPO corridor travel demand modeling for the Urban Rail option in this corridor as LRT was
coded in the model with an overall operating speed of 44 mph. This speed is assumed to be the
scheduled operating speed which needs to take into account the optimum technology operating
speed adjusted for deceleration and acceleration time losses as well as dwell time losses at transit
stations, as well as adjustments for horizontal curves and vertical curves which may affect operating
speed. Typically achievable scheduled operating speeds for guideway transit in an urban and
suburban environment given station spacing distances and common alignment curvatures is in the
30-35 mph range. The northern third of this hypothetical corridor alignment and station location
layout is in the realm of prototypical corridor layouts, but the southernmost two-thirds of this corridor is
a relatively straight alignment with widely separated station locations which are more widely spaced.
OS-15
Based on this corridor characterization, the northern one-third of the corridor should operate near a
30 mph scheduled speed with its more closely spaced stations. To satisfy the overall scheduled
operating speed of 45 mph, the southern two-thirds of the corridor would need to operate at a
scheduled speed of 52.2 mph. This would require an average operating speed of 57.4 mph allowing
for station stopping delays. For the purposes of this analysis, an overall corridor schedule operating
speed of 38 mph was assumed.
This value was applied to the calculated revenue hours of service and adjusted to an annual basis,
for an estimated annual operating and maintenance cost of $17.22 million per year in 2014 dollars.
6.0 FINANCING THE PROJECT
Project finance refers to specially designed techniques and tools that supplement traditional
transit financing methods, improving governments' ability to deliver transportation projects.
Project finance typically entails borrowing money, either through bonds, loans or other financing
mechanisms. Borrowing money for project implementation helps accelerate implementation of
needed infrastructure.
Project finance has evolved at the Federal level as a product of dialogue between policy and
administrative officials at United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and partners at
the state and local levels. Most of the programs and tools have been enabled by legislative
changes to the U.S. Code, Title 23. As transportation finance needs evolve, new tools and
programs are likely to add to the field of project finance.
Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts competitive grant program is the primary
source of federal funding for fixed guideway transit construction projects, like the Southeast
Corridor project. Individual projects from throughout the country compete against each other for
limited funding. With Congress focusing on reducing federal government spending, federal
funds for New Starts projects could be reduced. As a result, fewer projects may receive federal
matching funds, and the level of federal matching funds will be less than the 50%.
Assuming the federal funds are approved for the Southeast Corridor project (whether it is a LRT
or monorail project) the federal contribution for the Southeast Corridor would be in the range of
$1.03 billion (2020 year of expenditure cost) and the remainder of $1.03 billion would fall to
State, regional, local and other funding sources.
While motor fuel taxes have been the primary revenue source at both the state and federal level
for transportation, the buying power of this revenue source has eroded significantly with inflation
and will continue to as fuel efficiency standards increase. Other traditional transportation
revenues, such as the titling tax or registration fees, have declined or stagnated in recent years
due to the recession. In response to increasing demands for new projects and maintenance of
OS-16
aging systems, and declining availability of state and federal funds, state and local governments
across the country are considering a variety of alternative strategies to finance transit project
development. Transportation financing strategies that involve public-private partnerships (P3)
continue to receive significant attention.
Four broad transportation revenue generation strategies the State could pursue to help finance
the Southeast Corridor project are P3/availability payments, Transportation Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act loan, value capture, and local option revenues. It is important to
keep in mind, however, that these strategies are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive.
Also, it is understood some of these financing techniques may require State legislative action to
implement them.
Local and regional financial support is critically important to support transit state of good repair
projects, new major transit infrastructure projects and on-going transit O&M costs. There is an
ongoing effort in the Middle-Tennessee region, as noted by the MPO, to pursue local dedicated
revenue sources for major transit projects in this and other regionally significant corridors.
Typical revenue sources include the following: (1) traditional tax- and fee-based funding
sources; (2) common business, activity, and related funding sources; (3) revenue streams from
projects; (4) new “user” or “market-based” funding sources; (5) financing mechanisms; and (6)
fare policy and strategy.
In summary, while Tennessee has relied on traditional transportation revenue sources in the
past, new revenue sources and more innovative transportation financing strategies may be
required to expand Tennessee’s transit infrastructure. This section of the report identified
several transportation financing mechanism strategies that could be implemented to help the
State as well as regional and local governmental entities realize their transit goals.
7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analyses conducted in this assessment, the following findings are offered:
 Monorail technologies are capable of providing operating speeds and passenger

capacities comparable to those of other modes of premium transit. They have a
demonstrated history of reliable operations.
 There are a number of monorail manufacturers, some of which have established a

business presence in the United States, with a proven history of operations to minimize
some of the risks associated with introducing a new technology to the regional
transportation network. In areas where at-grade transit technologies or aerial heavy rail
transit may pose serious physical impacts to a corridor, the lower impacts of monorail
systems may offset some of the costs of building such systems.
OS-17
 The side-straddle systems under development pose a service reliability issue as they are
unable to maneuver around disabled or stopped trains by “switching tracks” as rail and
straddle-system monorails do. However, if this issue can be resolved, side-straddle
monorails may offer savings in costs and impacts, since they are able to fit two
guideways on a single narrow structure.
 Although there is uncertainty about the reliability of the monorail technologies still under
development, the existing systems have demonstrated a sufficient record of reliability
and effectiveness. Because of this, monorail technologies may be considered as a
technology alternatives for new transit alignments in the Southeast Corridor.
 The MPO’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, adopted in December 2010,

recommended rapid transit but did not identify a specific technology for the Southeast
Corridor. The 2007 MPO study (Nashville Southeast Corridor High-Performance Transit
Alternatives Study) discounted the monorail technology for various reasons, including:
its aerial structural system and aerial stations are expensive on a per mile basis
compared to at-grade transit service, its track record in providing urban/suburban transit
service has not been demonstrated, and monorail is not applicable for express service
when compared to proven bus and commuter rail modes. These reasons are legitimate
in terms of the project context, namely that there is very limited application of monorail to
the daily commuter environment of suburban corridors in North America. There are
optimistic citations by some monorail developers as to the cost economy of their
technology, but these often do not include full project cost components and the
associated soft costs of projects. Cost comparisons are often apples-to-oranges
situations, causing confusion as to actual facts. Cost/mile of light rail transit, has in fact
grown significantly over recent years based on new projects which have averaged $67
million/mile, ranging from $48 to 91 million/mile (2014 $) in total project cost.
 The estimated project cost to develop a monorail transit facility in the Southwest Corridor
along the alignment described is approximately $1.63 billion in 2014 dollars and $2.06
billion in year of expenditure dollars for a 2020 revenue service opening date. These
estimated costs include both hard and soft costs. The capital costs and their allocated
contingencies account for 60% of the total project cost and soft cost account for the
balance.
 In the Southwest Corridor, along the I-24 segment, there is the opportunity to build a
premium transit line in public right-of-way in a near at-grade configuration with cuts and
fills along the transit guideway profile, significantly reducing guideway costs.
Constructing the I-24 segment of this alignment in a totally elevated configuration would
add over $550 million in 2014 and $700 million to the project cost in 2020.
OS-18
 The estimated annual operating cost for the monorail service, for the service
assumptions listed, in 2014 dollars, is approximately $17.22 million. It is noted that the
operational component of the annual operations and maintenance cost is a function of
the proposed service plan for monorail operations in terms of the hours of operation, the
service frequencies during the day, and the vehicle requirements based on the
scheduled operating speed and passenger load.
 Ridership for the year 2040 in this hypothetical corridor as initially estimated by the MPO
for a light rail transit option, with similar service characteristics to monorail, was 7,100
daily boardings, and 9,400 daily boardings with more transit supportive land uses around
station areas. Desirably, ridership estimates should be much higher to support the more
expensive transit technologies under consideration, including monorail. It is noted that
the total forecast transit ridership in the corridor is approximately 16,000 daily boardings
when the other proposed transit service components are considered. The MPO
considers this value an upper end potential volume for the corridor, on the basis that the
ridership for the other corridor services would be absorbed into the rapid transit option.
Development of a monorail transit facility in the Southwest Corridor along the alignment
identified is generally feasible, although there are a great many design details that could not be
addressed in this assessment. Moreover, an objective assessment of project impacts would
also need to be conducted to determine if this particular concept causes any significant impacts
that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
OS-19
FOR THE I-24 SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This report provides the results of a technology assessment of monorail systems. This report also
explores the feasibility of a monorail system operating in the 33.7-mile long Interstate 24 (I-24)
Southeast Corridor Regional Rapid/Urban Rail Transit Corridor (Southeast Corridor), as identified by
the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO’s 2035 Regional
Transportation Plan, adopted in December 2010, recommended rapid transit but did not identify a
specific technology for the Southeast Corridor. This report was prepared as directed under Public
Chapter 1009 (2014) and its language is provided as follows.
SECTION 1. The department of transportation is directed to conduct a preliminary study to

determine the feasibility of a monorail public transportation system along the Nashville
Southeast Corridor that connects downtown Murfreesboro to downtown Nashville along
Interstate 24. The study shall identify all public and private funding sources, including
amounts, that can reasonably be anticipated and estimated costs and revenues. The
department shall report its findings and any recommendations resulting from the study to the
transportation and safety committee of the senate and the transportation committee of the
house of representatives on or before February 1, 2015.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.
The Southeast Corridor includes the region’s largest employment destinations: downtown
Nashville, the Vanderbilt-West End area adjacent to downtown Nashville, and the Murfreesboro
area. Other destinations within the corridor include Nashville Airport, Dell, Interchange City,
Starwood Amphitheater, Nissan automobile plant, Treveca Nazarene University, Middle
Tennessee State University, and the downtowns of LaVergne and Smyrna. A map of the
Southeast Corridor is depicted on Figure 1.
This report includes the identification of monorail systems that are currently in operation and
those that are in various stages of development. The developmental status of the various
technologies has been discerned and the design and performance characteristic of each of the
technologies has been documented for comparison. Available information on existing systems
has been obtained and where commitments have been made to install new systems, these
have been noted. A limited number of the monorail vendors were also identified to present
information on their systems and provide further details on design, operation, costs and unique
features.
1
The best available information on monorail system capacities including capital and operating
characteristics, guideway, vehicle and typical station characteristics is also presented in this
report.
The intent of this monorail assessment is to assist the Tennessee Department of Transportation
(TDOT) in answering the question of whether it is feasible to construct, operate, maintain, and
finance a monorail system in the Southeast Corridor. It is important to note that this report is not
an assessment of all possible public transit technologies nor does it provide an overview and
comparison of premium transit technologies based on vehicle types, performance, stations,
alignments, amenities and costs. It is not a sufficient document for the implementation of a
monorail system, but it does provide an analysis of the conceptual feasibility of a monorail
technology as a premium guideway transit service. It is also noted that transportation planning
is a cooperative process designed to foster involvement by all users of the system, such as the
freight operators, and the general public, through proactive public participation and technical
coordination processes conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization with TDOT, local
and regional jurisdictions, area transit operators, and other partners and stakeholders.
2.0 MONORAIL TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
The Monorail Society defines monorail as a single rail that serves “as a track for passenger or
freight vehicles. In most cases rail is elevated, but monorails can also run at grade, below grade
or in subway tunnels. Vehicles are either suspended from or straddle a narrow guideway.
Monorail vehicles are wider than the guideway that supports them.” However, this rather
straightforward definition is somewhat misleading as it downplays the wide range of
technologies, operating principles and appearances the definition includes.
2
Figure 1: Southeast Corridor Study Area
3
The first generally recognized monorail was the Schwebebahn (“swaying railroad”) in
Wuppertal, Germany (see Figure 2). It is the only true “mono-rail.” A single steel rail is
suspended from an elevated structure alonle rail runs. In this instance, the vehicle weight is both
supported by the rail and guided by it. The position of the vehicle in respect to the rail is unlike
traditional dual-rail systems but the basic technology by which the vehicle operates is no
different from that of a railroad except that the wheels are double-flanged
Figure 2: Schwebebahn in Wuppertal, Germany
Modern versions of the Schwebebahn look similar in that the monorail is suspended from
above. However, instead of using a single rail for support and guidance, the single rail is
replaced by a hollowed-out concrete or steel beam, and rubber tires are used instead of metal
wheels. Although this is the most common configuration, numerous combinations of steel or
concrete running surfaces and rubber tires or steel wheels—both single- and double-flanged
arrangements have been proposed.
The Townline Monorail, in Chiba Prefecture, Japan, is currently the longest suspended monorail
system in the world (see Figure 3). The 9.4 mile long system opened in 1988 with 18 stations
and operates daily carrying over 45,500 passengers daily. Building upon the knowledge and
experience of the Shonan Monorail, in the Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan, which has been in
operation for over 30 years, the Mitsubishi Company built this dual-tracked system to connect
suburbs in the Chiba Prefecture with Chiba's main rail station downtown. It is currently the
world's only dual-beamed SAFEGE1-suspended type system. It also has a spur line off the main
1
Société Anonyme Française d'Etude de Gestion et d'Entreprises, and translated to English it means "French Limited Company for the Study
of Management and Business. The consortium consisted of 25 individuals and firms who developed the suspended monorail system.
4
line, another example that monorail switches work fine. One of the reasons Chiba officials
selected SAFEGE was because of the occasional inclement weather of the area. With
SAFEGE, the running surfaces and train bogies (the bogie supports the monorail car on the
track) are protected from the elements inside the beams. ALWEG2-straddled type monorails
need heaters in the beamway or shovels on the train fronts during heavy snow or ice conditions.
Figure 3: Townliner Suspended Monorail in Chiba, Japan
The dual beams are hollow steel boxes about 6.09 feet by 6.18 feet in size. Note that this is
much larger than the 2.2 feet by 4.0 feet used by the Bombardier Disney monorail beam. Trains
are two cars long; each car is 50.5 feet long and 8.69 feet wide. Each car has two four rubber-
tired bogies. There are two motors per bogie for a total of four per train. Power comes from a
third rail inside the beam. On each bogie are four rubber guide wheels (see Figure 4). The
gauge of the load/drive tires is about 2.85 feet. Electrical equipment and heating, ventilating,
and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment are above the cabin. This helps lessen the risks of fire,
as well as making it easy to maintain. The suspension system allows the cars to swing several
degrees, like a pendulum, which makes it easier on standing passengers in curves. Figure 5
illustrates single and twin suspension guideways.
2
ALWEG was a transportation company who developed the straddle-beam monorail.
5
Figure 4: Suspended Monorail Bogie
Figure 5: Different Ways of Suspending a Suspension Monorail
The straddle monorail is by far the most common monorail type that has been put into operation
(see Figure 6). It is visually probably the most pleasing type and fits into urban environments
better than suspended monorails which normally need to be taller to allow for the necessary
vehicular clearance under the train. The straddle monorail is composed of a train running on a
concrete or steel guideway. The train’s load bearing tires run on top of the guideway beam while
the guidance tires run along the two sides of the said beam. Proposals for high speed straddle
6
monorails that use the straddle principle use slightly different configurations but the principle is
roughly the same.
Figure 6: Seattle ALWEG Straddle Monorail
The Owen Transit Group (OTG) cantilevered or side-straddle monorail is similar in appearance
and operation to the straddle monorail (see Figure 7). However, trains going in opposite
directions can share a single (but rather large) beam since cantilevered monorails are balanced
by wheels on surfaces found on the sides of beam. While several companies promote such
monorails, they have not seen any applications as of yet.
Figure 7: OTG Transit Cantilevered Monorail
Most maglev (short for “magnetic levitation”) trains are essentially variations on the straddle
monorail. Instead of on-board motors, the interaction of magnets on the vehicle and on the track
7
moves the vehicle forward, while the vehicle itself is slightly levitated by other magnets (see
Figure 8). While maglev is an interesting technology, its complexity suggests that it is best
suited to intercity rather than intracity installations, placing it beyond the scope of this study. In
addition, maglev monorail’s dramatically different operating principles compared with other
monorail types suggest that it serves little purpose to analyze maglev alongside more
established monorails.
Figure 8: The Transrapid Levitating Monorail
The first record of a monorail was one patent in Britain in the 1820’s, around the time the steam
locomotive was first put into practical use. A motorize monorail line constructed in Ireland in
1888 carried passengers and freight over distance of about 9.3 miles and proved the feasibility
of single-rail transportation system power by an engine. The suspended monorail was invented
in Germany and put into operation in Wuppertal in 1901. By 1957, it was clear that the basic
design of the ALWEG (straddle bean) monorail was safe and effective. This was also true for
the SAFEGE (suspended) monorail by 1960.
Japan gave serious attention to the monorail when a suspended monorail was open in 1958 in
Tokyo’s Ueno Park. The Ueno Park monorail is similar to the Schwebebahn Wuppertal, but has
rubber tires rather than steel wheels. It is 0.19-miles long and has two stations and a single
track. One purpose of the project was to test monorail technology and determine how it could be
used for urban transit.
During the 1960s, monorails were developed and built in different parts of the world. A number
of Japanese companies developed their own systems, and this resulted in considerable variety
8
in Japan. In the early days, monorails were considerable only for amusement parks, but this
changed in 1964 when the 11.1 mile long, 11-station Tokyo Monorail system began running
along the edge of Tokyo Bay between Hamamatsucho and Haneda Airport. It was constructed
to serve as an urban transportation system. Research continued into making the monorail more
suitable for urban transportation and the basic design was standardized by 1967.
The straddle bean monorail became a composite type that borrowed from a number of designs,
especially ALWEG, Lockheed, and Toshiba. The suspended monorail also evolved with
improvements to the SAFEGE design.
3.0 MONORAIL SYSTEMS
3.1 Systems in Operation

The following systems are currently in revenue operation throughout the world:
 Hitachi: The first Hitachi system was put in use in 1962. There are currently five
systems operating in Japan in a transit capacity.
 Bombardier: The first Bombardier application occurred in 1971 and the firm now has
more than 20 systems operating in Germany, England, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, United
States, and Australia.
 Intamin: Had its first application in 1986 and now has systems operating in at least eight
countries.
 Severn Lamb: Opened a system in Sunway City, Malaysia in 2000 and has a system in
Italy.
 Aerorail: First system was opened in Germany (Wuppertal) in 1901, and it now has a
system open in Japan.
 Mitsubishi: Opened its first full size system in Japan in 1988 and now has two systems
in Japan.
3.2 Systems in Development

The following systems are under development and may meet the needs of the Southeast
corridor:
 Transport Ventures: This is a consortium of international companies promoting a “New

Century Transport.” Technology. This maglev straddle technology is under consideration
by the Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority.
9
 Urbanaut: This firm is developing a straddle-type technology on which patents have
been issued. A scale model has been developed but no commitments have been made
for full sized systems.
 Owen Transport Group (OTG) HighRoad: This is a side-straddle technology on which

patents have been issued. No commitments have been made for full-sized systems.
 Futrex System 21: This is a developing side-straddle technology on which patents are
being sought. A scale model has been built but no commitments have been made for
full-sized systems.
4.0 VENDOR SYSTEM REVIEW
Four monorail technology vendor systems were studied in detail. The fours vendors are:
 Hitachi
 Bombardier
 OTG
 Futrex
4.1 Hitachi
Hitachi has been operating straddle type monorails for 37 years. There are six systems
operating and at least two more are in development stages. The longest existing system (9.2
miles) is the Osaka system which opened in 1990 and carries 50,000 people per day.
Hitachi builds small, medium and large type vehicles for different service needs. The small
vehicle systems are used in amusement park settings and the medium and large are both
meeting transit needs.
4.1.1 Existing Locations
There are four double tracked Hitachi monorail systems currently in transit service. The largest
system built for transit purposes is the Haneda Line in Tokyo. The Haneda Line opened in 1964
and carries 200,000 people per day and it serves 10 stations and operates 6-car consists.
An 8-mile system with 15 stations opened in Okinawa 2003 (see Figure 9) and a 9.3-mile KL
Line in Malaysia opened in 2002 with 21 stations.
10
Figure 9: Okinawa Monorail
4.1.2 Vehicle, Guideway, and Station Description

Hitachi systems have a variety of vehicle styles to meet various needs. A typical large sized
vehicle is approximately 45 feet long and can accommodate up to 50 seated and 60 standing
passengers. The small vehicle is 30 feet in length. The vehicle shell is made of aluminum alloy
with welded construction.
A Hitachi monorail uses the straddle beam system to carry a single direction of vehicle traffic
along the guideway. The guideway may be constructed of pre-stressed concrete for standard
spans and steel girders for both straight and curved sections over longer span lengths.
Hitachi’s standard track beam is made of pre-stressed concrete. The beam way is 33.5 feet
wide and 59 inches tall. The support structure is a T-shaped reinforced concrete column spaced
65.98 feet apart. Both the beam and the columns can be manufactured off-site and installed.
The Hitachi beam has a slim structure which makes it less of an obstruction in urban settings.
Hitachi systems have been built in many large cities and stations are often built above roads.
Typical terminal stations have 120 feet long center platforms and stairways and escalators at
each end of the station. For intermediate stations, two 180 feet long platforms are used.
11
4.1.3 Capacity
As indicated in Table 1, Hitachi offers a variety of systems, each of which has its own capacity
constraints. Passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD) is a common way of measuring the
capacity of a transit system (PPHD=Vehicle per Hour x Capacity). PPHPD is a measure of
passengers that can pass by a point at the system's maximum load, in one direction.
Table 1: System Load Capacity
4.1.4 Costs
Hitachi reports that the operation and maintenance cost for their monorail system is at the same
level as required for the light rail transit (LRT) system.
Capital costs were not available for this report.
4.1.5 Feasibility
Several of Hitachi’s monorail systems connect to heavy rail transit (HRT) systems, including
Tokyo and Osaka. The options to interface with other systems and stations is possible similar to
the interface between a transit bus and a commuter train.
12
Hitachi systems are capable of operating at speeds of approximately 50 miles per hour and at a
maximum grade of 6%. Hitachi claims the ability to achieve a minimum headway of two minutes
for a system, if required. Guideways have pier spacing of between 82 feet and 100 feet.
The only proprietary technology utilized for a Hitachi monorail is the track switching system. The
track switch designated for Hitachi monorail systems transforms the track beam itself as a
switching mechanism by way of moving one end of each beam. The switching girders are
supported firmly on the movable trucks. Fully automated electrical sequences operate in strict
accordance with the train operation schedule and are monitored from the train operation control
center.
The track switch is designed and manufactured in such a way as to ensure high reliability.
Hitachi claims there have been no service disruptions due to a switch malfunction since 1964.
Hitachi has a wide range of track switch types for the purpose of turn back, crossover,
emergency rescue and train storage. These include a two-point, three-point, five-point, or
crossover type of switching mechanism. A combination of these can also be employed. By
selecting from the various track switches offered by Hitachi, agencies may have more
operational options, as well as the ability to reduce train yard and storage size, as Figure 10
illustrates.
Figure 10: Train Yard and Storage Layout
4.1.6 Emergency Operations

Hitachi systems can be built with a minimum 180 feet turning radius along the main line and a
150 feet turning radius at the station.
Unlike other monorail vendors, Hitachi provides a walkthrough feature as a safety provision
between adjacent vehicles. This enables the passengers on board to evacuate from one vehicle
to other vehicles.
13
Hitachi guideways are supported by structures that can be spaced on average up to 75 feet
apart on a curved section and up to 90 feet on a straight section.
4.1.7 Environmental Considerations
The average pier spacing for Hitachi support structures is 90 feet. This falls within the middle of
the range for the four systems studied. The overall direct impact on land from Hitachi structures
would also be in the middle range, with approximately 49,418 square feet impacted over a 33.7-
mile corridor.
Hitachi systems are rubber tired and have lower noise levels than steel wheeled rail systems.
Hitachi reports that the target noise level for the Kita Kyushu monorail system of 70dBa at 32.8
feet was achieved.
Pneumatic springs in the vehicle provide a smoother ride and less vibration. Precast concrete
beams are cast in special molds providing high degree of accuracy which also eliminates
vibration and noise.
4.2 Bombardier
Bombardier is a company that manufactures many different types of transit and recreational
vehicles. Under the Bombardier framework there are several different types of systems that can
be developed. This study has focused on the straddle-type monorail with which Bombardier has
30 years of experience.

There are several different monorail systems currently in revenue service. Included is the
Disney World Mark VI, which is the most widely known monorail in the continental United
States. The Disney World system has 14.7 lane miles of track on 3 lines and a fleet of 12, six-
car trains.
Bombardier has also designed the four-mile Las Vegas monorail system. The Las Vegas M-VI
versions of the trains differ from the Walt Disney in both physical appearance and in that the
trains are automated. Bombardier has built monorail systems in Germany, England, Brazil,
Saudi Arabia, and Australia.

The Las Vegas M-VI vehicles are bi-directional vehicles comprised of a composite shell with a
steel truss and plate under frame. Each 4 car train has a length of 137 feet, a width of 9 feet and
height of 11 feet. They accommodate 152 standing and 62-seated passengers per train with two
dedicated wheelchair locations per train. The Las Vegas monorail has a four car train consist (a
14
consist is a group of rail vehicles which together make up a train) utilizing a double tracked
system. This system has an average line speed of 17.5 mph.
The guideway is composed of precast concrete beams as well as some pre-stressed and post-
tensioned concrete where needed. Beams are typically spaced 100 feet apart, with a maximum
span length of 120 feet where necessary.
There are seven elevated stations served by the system spaced an average of half a mile apart.
The average platform length at the station is 240 feet long.
4.2.3 Capacity
The Bombardier system is able to accommodate up to 23,200 PPHPD (passengers per hour per
direction) with a six-person per square meter density, eight-car train, and 90-second headway
traveling at 50 miles per hour.
4.2.4 Costs
The cost for the four-mile Las Vegas system with seven stations was $350 million. Up to 25% of
the cost for a system is associated with the vehicles. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
for the Las Vegas system is in the $12 to $15 million annual range. The estimated cost of each
station is $5 million.
4.2.5 Feasibility
The Bombardier systems are designed with the ability to increase capacity in stages as warranted.
The Las Vegas system operates at an average speed of 17.5 miles per hour with a maximum grade
of 6.5%. Bombardier is capable of achieving a 150-foot minimum horizontal turning radius, although a
175-foot to 200-foot turning radius is preferred. An operating speed of 53 miles per hour can be
attained.
Emergency egress from the vehicle is handled either by use of a recovery train or vehicle which
would take passengers to the next train station or by coupling a disabled train to another train
and moving the entire vehicle to the next station.
Bombardier compares favorably with the other systems studied with overall impact area equal to
approximately half of the Hitachi system. This is possible because of the small footing area
required for each support structure.
The Las Vegas system noise and vibration impact is approximately 70-75 dBa.
15
4.3 Owen Transit Group HighRoad
The OTG HighRoad Rapid Transit System is a patented side straddle system that uses each
side of a single guideway beam to provide transportation in two directions simultaneously. It
employs the use of components already being utilized by the rail industry. Each vehicle is
independently propelled which offers flexibility in station design.

There is no HighRoad system in operation.

The HighRoad system uses relatively small, single vehicles on both sides of a two-sided T-
shaped guideway beam. The vehicles have a composite body, 45 feet long by 8 feet wide by 9
feet high. Four sets of doors allow passenger ingress and egress. Windows on the guideway
side provide access to the guideway for handle emergency evacuation. Each vehicle can carry
32-seated passengers, 64 standing passengers and can accommodate four wheelchairs.
Precast, pre-stressed, and post-tensioned concrete is used to create the guideway. The
modular design allows for the guideway to be transported to the construction site, for simpler,
faster construction. The HighRoad design is comprised of independently propelled vehicles so
the number of vehicles is technically limited only by the size of the stations being serviced. The
philosophy behind HighRoad is that long trains are less efficient and require larger stations so
the recommended design would have a maximum two-car consist.
The stations are also modular in nature to allow for easy, less costly expansion when
necessary. They are designed with a platform on each side of the vehicle and initially
accommodate a single car consist.
4.3.3 Capacity
The OTG HighRoad system utilizes individual vehicles, coupled into no more than a two-vehicle
consist, in an attempt to increase the flexibility of the system. Utilizing a 15 second headway
and a two vehicle consist, the system can accommodate 46,080 PPHPD.
4.3.4 Costs
Costs information is not available for the OTG system.
16
4.3.5 Feasibility
OTG argues that because of the HighRoad size, it will be easier to integrate their system into
the existing community without degrading the quality of the area. The smaller stations are
conceivably easier to construct within neighborhoods. According to OTG a desirable station
location is a span over a street and street widths up to 200 feet can be accommodated.
It is anticipated that the peak headway would be in the 15-second range. The HighRoad system
is capable of attaining speeds of up to 70 miles per hour and has a minimum turning radius of
132 feet. The maximum attainable vertical grade is 12 % for climbing and the same grade can
be attained for descending.
The design of the beam affects pier spacing. Since the guideway beam is post-tensioned, the
post-tensioning can be varied to allow for longer spans. A span of 200 feet is considered
reasonable for this type of construction. Longer spans may be possible by increasing the depth
of the beam by use of a drop-keel on the bottom for increasing the structural moment of inertia
and providing a location for additional post-tensioning cables. Supporting columns
approximately 20 feet high could be spaced up to 200 feet apart.
The HighRoad system is to be composed of many parts that are already in existence by
manufacturers in the railroad or related industry. Proprietary elements (patented) are guideway
shape, vehicle attachment, brakes, vehicle support, column interface with guideway (seismic),
dwell/headway procedure, quiet rail, power transport arrangement, emergency egress windows,
cabin tilting, and cabin leveling.

In the event of a need to evacuate the vehicle, a passenger can unlatch a guideway-side
window and pivot the window down to a horizontal position. Unlatching the window causes the
vehicle to be emergency-stopped (three braking systems) and passengers can leave the vehicle
via the windows to the top of the guideway, bridging the gap between the vehicle and the
guideway. Once on the guideway (6.6 feet wide) the passengers can walk to safety at a station,
can be picked up by a vehicle on the other side of the guideway, or can be attended by a top-of-
guideway emergency vehicle. Stanchions and guidelines on the top of the guideway allow safe
walking conditions in compliance with Federal handrail standards.
In the event of a disabled vehicle, OTG indicates that a turn back loop would be used. The
radius for a turn-back loop is 132 feet, or 264 feet diameter, measured to the centerline of the
guideway. An alternative turn-back is a rotating beam at the end of the line but OTG indicates
that this would require about one minute for a 180-degree rotation with a vehicle on it. This
would extend the headway such that the minimum headway would be at least one minute rather
than the 15 seconds allowed by the loop.
17
The OTG System requires 16 square feet of area for its foundation structures and an average
distance of 140 feet between structures. For a 33.7-mile segment, this would result in a total
impact of 20,320 square feet being impacted by the structures of the monorail.
The HighRoad system with its steel on steel and rail dampening system should have less noise
than a typical roadway. High speed trains have low aerodynamic noise but have no means to
eliminate the wheel flange squeal on the steel rails.
Noise and vibration information on the HighRoad system was not available.
4.4 Futrex
The System 21 technology uses a side straddle mono-beam system that operates on both sides
of a 6 feet wide triangular guideway supported by 16 feet columns. Both center and platform
stations are possible and train length can go as long as six cars.
Futrex has taken a deliberate phased approach to the development and marketing of its new
System 21 technology. Research, conceptual design, preliminary engineering and evaluation
have been completed under Phase I. In May 1996 Phase II was completed with the construction
and evaluation of a ¼ scale model of System 21 in Charleston, South Carolina.
Phase III involves taking the System 21 to commercial manufacturing and has been guided by a
consortium of individuals and firms.

There is currently no System 21 in revenue operations.
The System 21 vehicles are 28 feet long and made of a combination of aluminum and
composite materials. There is a maximum ten-car consist to accommodate larger volumes of
traffic. Each vehicle can accommodate 24 seated and 28 standing passengers, and there are
provisions for handicapped passengers in each car.
A triangular beam carries vehicles in both directions on a solitary structure. The guideway may
be constructed of steel, concrete, or composite. The modular nature of the guideway design
provides portability and expandability of the system. Typically, the guideway is 6 feet wide at the
base and is supported on 16 foot columns, which can be higher or lower based upon client
expectations. Piers are usually spaced at 84 feet on center.
18
The four-car typical station requires a 12 feet by 120 feet landing for an at-grade location. As
with the rest of the system, stations may be pre-fabricated off-site or built on location per client
needs.
4.4.3 Capacity
Futrex systems will be able to accommodate approximately 20,000 PPHPD.
4.4.4 Costs
Operating costs are entirely dependent on the installation and operating profile. It is anticipated
that the operating costs will be equal to or lower than that of other fixed guideway systems
carrying comparable numbers of passengers/hour /direction.
System 21 capital costs are largely dependent on the installation profile. Each “A” car is
estimated to cost $750,000 and each “B” car is estimated to cost $500,000. The two cars are
semi permanently coupled rail cars (married pairs). Married pairs have machinery necessary for
full operation of the cars split between them. Items that are typically shared include
transformers, motor controllers, dynamic braking grids, cabs, current collectors, batteries, and
air compressors. This provides significant savings in both costs of equipment and weight, which
increases performance and decreases energy consumption. The cost of operating such a pair
may be slightly higher when the extra car in such a pair is not needed to meet level-of-service
demands at a particular time.
4.4.5 Feasibility
System 21 is marketed as able to fit into an existing urban landscape due to the relatively small
footprint of the elevated guideway. The stations can be built into or adjacent to an existing
structure due to their modular nature.
A train may operate at headways as short as 90 seconds, reaching speeds of up to 70 miles per
hour. The minimum horizontal turning radius is 90 feet which could be ideal in an urban setting.
A unique branching system, based on standard railroad switching, allows for trains to form a
transit network. Switching between tracks utilizes a movable rail section for a grade-separated
branch line.
System 21 offers a unique switch mechanism that allows grade separated branching in very
compact areas. The ability of the system to make concurrent moves greatly reduces the impacts
on service as trains do not have to wait for clearance on the opposite track to make a diverging
move across oncoming traffic. It also eliminates the queuing behind the vehicle moving through
the switch. The mechanism actually takes the switching vehicle over the oncoming traffic
creating a greater degree of safety in the operation.
19
System 21 does not provide a typical crossover design to divert trains around a section of
guideway for maintenance or emergencies. In those events a turn back shuttle on the opposite
side of the guideway still in operation would be implemented to transport passengers around the
outage. Other options are to use a two level bypass station design, or emergency sidings for the
removal of disabled vehicles from active guideway.

Futrex offers numerous options for emergency evacuation including a guideway mounted
walkway, and vehicle borne stairways and emergency slides. Passengers will also be able to
move from car to car to flee a hazard or uncomfortable situation. Over water or busy highways,
Futrex may introduce an open truss beam configuration which incorporates an emergency
walkway internal to the beam.
In the event of a disabled vehicle, shuttles would be utilized since there are no crossovers in the
system. If this were to be a normal operating practice, a loop would be integrated into the
system to get the train off the main line. The minimum diameter for the loop would be 180 feet.
The area required for structures is larger for System 21 than for the other technologies studied
in detail—a total of approximately 103,760 square feet for the system’s structures. This is
primarily due to the larger land impact per structure (49 square feet per structure) and the tighter
structure spacing—an average of 84 feet between structures.
Futrex indicates that pier spacing corresponds with beam length. The maximum pier spacing
possible is 110 feet to 120 feet. Depending on the corridor, the aesthetic impacts of such a
structure could offset the benefits accrued by using a longer span.
5.0 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Monorail operates solely on exclusive right-of–way. In this respect monorail operates as a “rapid
transit” system. Monorails cannot operate in mixed traffic as buses or trams do, because the
guideway beams cannot be crossed by other vehicular or pedestrian traffic at ground level
unlike rail tracks which can be imbedded into the street. However monorail guideways placed on
aerials allow for unimpeded traffic flow below. Monorails are served by stations most commonly
elevated, but also underground or a few feet above ground level. Although stations require
considerably more investment than simple street level light rail platforms, stations do add to the
public “visibility” of the transit system. A station can also provide other services, such as retail
space that make public transportation a more pleasant and convenient method of travel.
20
5.1 Power
Like LRT vehicles, onboard electric motors power monorail vehicles. On a straddle-type monorail,
trolley wires are suspended along the side of the guideway. A shoe behind the monorail skirt picks up
electricity.
5.2 Speed
Transit monorails generally operate at maximum speeds of 40 to 55 mph, which is comparable to

most applications of rail technology within urban areas. Average operating speeds of monorails are
comparable to subways due to the fact that they are likewise grade separated and use similar station
spacing distances. Speeds are generally in the range of 20 to 30 mph, very high for urban mass-
transit.
5.3 Ride
Monorail ride is superior to cars and buses and similar to that of wielded rail. Suspension is usually
provided by air-springs. Forces exerted in curves are reduced by banking the guideway slightly in
straddle-systems. Suspended monorails can sway several degrees in curves, reducing forces. Both
straddle and suspended monorails provide passengers with the sensation of smooth flight, especially
since passenger’s visual cues support the sensation.
5.4 Switching
One of the most common misconceptions about monorails is that monorails do not, or cannot,
employ switches. In reality, switching is extremely important to monorail operations. The Shonan
suspended monorail in Japan employs switches at stations so that a single guideway between
stations can be used for bi-directional operation. Even the Disney monorails which operate in a loop
must have switches to move trains to and from the maintenance yard. There are a wide range of
switches for different purposes. For example, the straddle-type Las Vegas monorail utilizes turnout,
crossover and pivot switches in its operation. Due to the weight and size of concrete or steel beams,
the switching is slower—roughly 15 seconds compared to 0.6 seconds for traditional rail. This
increase in switching time would likely result in increased minimum headways over traditional rail if
the switching is to be used regularly in line operation.
5.5 Maintenance
Concrete monorail guideways require extremely low maintenance. Rubber tires last for approximately
100,000 miles. Monorail vehicles have a long life span, similar to trains riding on rails (30 years or
more), whereas buses have a recommended life span of only 10-15 years.
21
5.6 Safety and Evacuation
Monorails have been shown to be one of the very safe forms of transportation. Grade-separated
operation generally rules out collisions with automobiles, trucks and pedestrians. Since nearly all
monorails built since the original Schwebebahn have not used a single rail as the term “monorail”
would imply, and have instead used concrete guideways, derailment is extremely unlikely. The
straddle monorail, in particular, hugs the guideway in such a way to almost rule out such a possibility.
5.7 Evacuation
The fact that monorail is usually elevated poses some evacuation challenges. Suspended monorails
usually have doors in the floor linked to stairs or a slide as on commercial aircraft. Japanese straddle
monorail standards require fully articulated vehicles to allow longitudinal evacuation through the front
and rear of the train onto a waiting train. The Malaysian system uses lateral evacuation to a waiting
train on the guideway that supports trains in the other direction. Older American monorails use
another train to push the stranded vehicle to the next station but when that is not possible, rescue via
ladder from the ground is necessary. The Las Vegas monorail provides an emergency walkway
between dual monorail beams which is more in line with most rapid transit systems.
5.8 Seismic Codes
Monorails can be built to meet full seismic codes. In fact, monorails have a proven track record when
it comes to earthquakes. The Seattle monorail withstood that region’s 2001 earthquake and the
Osaka monorail withstood the nearby Kobe earthquake.
5.9 Rubber Tired Traction and Guidance
With few exceptions, like the Schwebebahn, monorail systems use rubber tires for traction. Aside
from the guideway, this is the main technological difference between monorail and traditional rail.
While rubber traction on steel rails is found on at least one monorail system (Aerobus), most systems
with rubber tires run on concrete surfaces. In this regard, most monorail vehicles run more like road
vehicles than railway trains. To be sure, such rubber on concrete traction can be found on the Paris,
Montreal and Sapporo Metros as well as on most Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) systems.
There are both advantages and drawbacks to this method.
5.10 Energy Consumption
Energy consumption is somewhat higher with rubber tired traction. Rubber tires on concrete (as well
as rubber tires on steel) have a greater rolling resistance and rotational inertia than steel on steel rail
technology. Common rail operation tactics such as coasting can be much less utilized by monorails.
Since energy consumption varies with the particular operating regime of a line, exact figures are not
22
possible. However, an estimate of 25 to 30 percent greater energy consumption over rail technology
is given.
5.11 Acceleration and Breaking
Rubber-tired vehicles can achieve a much higher rate of acceleration and breaking than steel tired
ones. For monorail systems, however, this is usually not a significant advantage since acceleration is
limited much more by passenger comfort, especially by the passenger comfort of standing
passengers. Also, high breaking rates are less necessary where exclusive right-of-way generally
rules out collisions with street traffic, which happens to be the case for monorail.
5.12 Gradients
Theoretically, rubber tired traction can overcome gradients of more than 15% whereas rail technology
cannot safely exceed 10%. In reality, steep gradients require very powerful motors and are
uncomfortable for standing passengers. This means that rubber tired technologies do not have quite
as strong an advantage over rail in this respect. In difficult alignments, however, monorail’s climbing
ability does stand out. An example of this is the Shonan suspended monorail in Japan, where 10 %
gradients are found. And the authority responsible for designing Seattle’s proposed system found
that steeper gradients over water crossings would shorten bridges and thus lower bridge costs
significantly.
5.13 Weather
Rubber-tired vehicles running on exposed surfaces, as with the straddle (but not with most
suspended) monorail technology are much more susceptible to cold weather conditions (ice, snow)
than rail. Under these conditions the guideway must be heated, entailing appreciable energy costs.
The few suspended monorails built in the last few years, like the Chiba monorail in Japan were
primarily built because their running surfaces are enclosed and are thus protected from the elements.
5.14 Noise
Rubber-tired systems are generally quieter in sharp curves than the best rail technology. When rail
maintenance is lacking or postponed, as is far too often the case, the benefit of rubber tires can be
appreciable. In addition, both straddle and SAFEGE-type monorail systems shield the tire noise
unlike other rubber tired applications. Straddle monorails trains shield the tires since the train side
stretches beneath the wheels to access the electric catenary, whereas SAFEGE-type monorails have
the wheels shielded within the guideway. Rubber tired vehicles produce much less vibration than
vehicles with steel tires. Furthermore, since rubber tired monorails produce basically no
electromagnetic “pollution”, they can be run near hospitals and scientific institutes without concern.
23
In general, monorail technology is suited to urban transit applications. It compares favorably to
traditional rail technology on the whole. While monorails do have several significant disadvantages
that cannot be outright dismissed—like somewhat higher energy costs (for rubber-tired systems) and
slower switching as compared with similar rail systems, it is rare that these considerations would
amount to a “fatal-flaw”. In fact, these considerations should, more often than not, be minor in the
general exercise of mass-transit planning. Indeed, it is in those very areas where monorail technology
holds the advantage over steel-rail technology—most notably in its lower noise production and
greater grade-climbing abilities—where monorail has the ability to make a fixed transit line feasible
where it would not be otherwise.
6.0 STRUCTURE
6.1 Guideway
The most important structural element of a monorail system is the monorail guideway. The straddle
monorail guideway is most often a concrete beam, occasionally a steel one. Each monorail beam
acts as a small bridge; it must be built to support the load of the vehicle (including “live” loads like
forces exerted when braking) while not buckling under its own weight. In addition, the beam’s design
must take its guidance function into account, the beam and the vehicle must fit like a hand and a
glove, so that the contact guidance wheels and the sides are maintained. The beam’s width must
also be wide enough so that the monorail train can be balanced given the small wheelbase. Logically,
wider beams allow for wider vehicles, but wider beams also make for less aesthetically pleasing
guideways. Unlike beam width, which is approximately ¼ the width of the monorail train due to
center-of-gravity and riding quality concerns, beam height and length are relatively flexible as long as
the structural integrity of the span is maintained.
Guideways are considerably more complex than their initial appearance may suggest. Straddle
monorail guideways are designed in three dimensions. In a curve, the guideway beam bends not
only on the horizontal plane but also banks in the vertical plain. The amount of bend is also
dependent on the radius of the particular curve. To allow for this variation, concrete beams are
formed individually in various molds with set radii, banking and spans. Transit-grade monorails have
a minimum curve radius of about 131.2 feet. However, such a tight radius is generally avoided, since
running tire slip angles and the forces on the guide tires mean that vehicles must operate at
significantly reduced speeds.
Modern developments in guideway design have been concerned with reducing the impact of the
guideway on its surroundings because the relatively low visual impact of the straddle monorail
structure on urban environments is perhaps its greatest potential asset.
While the weight of the vehicle would seem to be the major determinant of guideway dimensions,
weight is only a part of the picture. Gross axle loading of transit-class monorail vehicles are
24
comparable to most light rail and heavy rail rapid transit systems at 8 to 11 metric tons per axle.
However, in spite of this, straddle monorail guideways are significantly less obtrusive than elevated
rail, or AGT systems like the Vancouver Skytrain due to the distribution of the weight of the vehicle
(not to mention the steel rails placed on top of those structures).
A very effective way to reduce the visual impact of guideways and to allow longer spans (and thus
fewer columns) is to use arched guideway beams, or haunched girders. This is one of the major
positive developments in guideway design. Such beams allow longer spans, and decrease the visual
impact of the beams especially at the center point. Furthermore, any visual impact is much more
likely to be perceived positively given the gracefulness of the arched design.
6.2 Columns
Columns are usually essential elements of a straddle monorail system. While guideways can run at
ground level, or in a tunnel, the ability to use public right-of-way over streets requires that columns be
used.
In general, column size and guideway length are inversely related to each other, with longer spans
requiring less frequent but more massive columns, and shorter spans requiring frequent and lighter
columns. While this may suggest many possible combinations, the matrix of column/guideway
proportions in use is rather limited; a rough “golden” ratio based on visual appeal and the properties
of concrete seems to exist. The agency responsible for designing Seattle’s new monorail believes
that current technology and good design sense makes 120-foot spans supported by 36-inch
diameter, 30-foot tall columns ideal.
The column profile is another important element. Rounded columns create a softer streetscape and
allow for better sight lines. Another approach is to use rectangular columns. The short side of such a
column would be visible to those on either side of the aerial, i.e. to those likely to be closest, while the
long side is prominent only to observers standing directly under the guideway or looking further down
the street. The Bombardier system makes very good use of this approach.
A third approach is to treat columns as sculptural elements. The Hitachi design for Kuala Lumpur
takes this approach. The graceful, rectangular but curved columns create an elegant colonnade.
Where there is vehicular traffic under monorail guideways, the recommended minimum column
height is approximately 16 feet. However, there is a trend towards using significantly taller columns in
the range of 33 to 40 feet to reduce the visual impact of the guideway by placing it farther overhead.
This approach also has a pleasant side-effect: it improves the view for monorail passengers but may
be costs impacts.
25
“Straddle bents” are occasionally used in place of single columns, for example when crossing very
wide streets, to allow vehicular passage underneath when a standard column would act as an
obstruction. However, because of their size, they are avoided whenever possible.
7.0 AUTOMATION
While all straddle-class monorail systems share a basic set of operating principles and are all built
using advanced composite materials and have state-of-the-art variable voltage, variable frequency
motors (VVVF), there is a wide range of design features among monorail vehicles.
Just as automation has always needed a monorail-like system on which to be implemented, monorail
can benefit greatly from automation. Whereas monorail’s relatively costly, “inflexible” guideway made
it appear inferior to light rail for the majority of medium capacity applications, light rail will not be able
to benefit from automation due to its non-exclusive right-of-way.
What exactly are the benefits of automation? Automation allows transit operators to provide shorter
headways between trains. Since drivers are not necessary, running two small trains every two
minutes instead of one large train every four minutes is possible with equal, if not lesser resources.
The benefits of automation are especially significant in providing high-quality service in off-peak times
when transit economics do not usually allow frequent service. A reduction in headways from 15 to 5
minutes, for example, can encourage many more choice passengers to use public transit.
The ability to eliminate vehicle operators, normally the single greatest transit operating cost, means
that transit subsidies or ticket prices can be reduced and services such as security and maintenance
can be supplemented. The ability of automated guideway transit can operate with reduced
employees and thus reduced operating costs. AGT systems such as the Vancouver Skytrain require
no operating subsidies primarily because it can operate with just one employee per 150,000 annual
passengers.
Automation also enables a slightly more efficient driving regime and greater passenger comfort for
starts and stops. While this is not nearly as significant as operating at greater frequencies, it is
nevertheless an advantage. Automated operating regimes have been shown to be extremely reliable
and offer very high levels of safety.
While monorail transit has always had significant public support, drawbacks like slightly higher
operating costs due to rubber-tired traction is partly to blame for transit operators’ traditional
skepticism of monorail technology. That automation addresses the operating costs in particular,
thereby greatly improving system productivity, bodes well for future implementation of monorail rapid
transit.
From an engineering point of view, the basic characteristics of a straddle monorail’s guideway and
support have undergone little drastic change over a 40-year period. Computer aided design, and
26
improvements in concrete constructions have helped somewhat. Much more significant is the
appreciable amount of attention that has been paid to mapping out the tradeoffs involved with
monorail aerials that will undoubtedly make this transit mode much more competitive.
Likewise, while monorail vehicles have benefited from modern transit technology and are built to
standards comparable to heavy and light rail vehicles, progress in design have been as impressive
as improved technical standards.
Monorails have benefited from one major technological breakthrough: automation. While Asian
monorails have increased automation tremendously since the monorails of the 1960’s, they still have
an operator on board. Full monorail automation is incorporated into the Las Vegas Monorail system.
8.0 GENERAL CONCERNS REGARDING MONORAIL TECHNOLOGIES
There are concerns usually expressed about monorail systems when undertaking a corridor
study and attempting to identify the “ideal mode” for a specific corridor. Those concerns are
noted below with a brief description of the nature of the concern followed by a response to the
concern.
8.1 Proprietary Nature of Monorail Technology

 Concern: It was believed that the specialized components needed for monorails would
be hard to find or only available from a limited number of distributors. The operator of
such a system would be tied to that supplier or manufacturer. Introducing new
technology into the study area would require a new, specialized work force or additional
training for existing workers. Maintenance shops already in place would possibly not be
able to provide service to the new technology if it required different parts than the
existing systems.
 Response: It appears Hitachi and other vendors proprietary system used in their
monorail systems is limited, i.e., Hitachi’s track switching system. While this is a
significant element of the total system, the fact that the remaining portions of the system
are nonproprietary indicates that the availability of parts and support for the system may
not be as great as feared.
8.2 Incompatibility with Existing Systems
 Concern: There were concerns about the idea of introducing another transit mode in a
region - where other rail modes already exist.
 Response: While the introduction of a new technology to the regional transit network will
require an investment in new systems, vehicles, and maintenance resources, similar
investments would be required to expand any of the existing rail systems.
27
With regards to the compatibility of monorail technologies with existing stations: where a
transit line is being extended, it does make more sense to extend the existing mode
rather than introducing a second mode to the line. However, where a new transit service
is being used to provide an intermodal link between two or more existing transit lines, the
reduced guideway requirements of monorail technologies may make it easier to
integrate a new service into the site design of existing stations.
8.3 Limited Capacity of Monorails

 Concern: Monorails have much smaller capacity than what might be needed.
 Response: The systems reviewed have demonstrated passenger capacities of up to

49,000 passengers per hour per direction. Used in the appropriate corridors, a monorail
system should be ample for the needs of ridership demand in most transit corridors.
8.4 Safety and Reliability

 Concern: The safety and reliability of monorail systems has not been proven. A concern
about monorail technology involved the ability of trains to execute a track switch when
necessary. This raised questions about the safety of passengers in the event of an
emergency and the reliability of the system in the event of a vehicle breakdown.
 Response: The National Fire Protection Association 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway
Transit and Passenger Rail Systems code must be met in order to operate a rail system in
the United States. Additionally, there are other standards that must be met in the United
States.
Existing monorail technologies may require additional research and development in order to
adapt them to federal, state, and local safety requirements. The reliability of monorail services
varies considerably among the technologies reviewed. The side straddle systems on the
market today may require additional right-of-way for turn back loops in order to preserve
service around disabled vehicles. As with other conventional rail services, the ability to
preserve service will be dependent on the availability of crossovers and other system
elements necessary to move around disabled vehicles.
In addition to the regulatory safety requirements of a system, there are two other practical
issues which need to be taken into consideration:
 Evacuation Procedures: Both the vehicle and the guideway must allow passengers to
exit the system in the case of emergency. This is an especially important point with
automated systems since there may not be transit personnel on board a vehicle during
the time of an accident.
28
 Operating Recovery Plans: In case of a disruption of service, it is crucial for a system to
have mechanisms and procedures in place which would allow regular service vehicles to
bypass the affected section of the system.
8.5 Weather Related Reliability

 Concerns: There are concerns that monorails are not proven to be reliable in adverse
weather.
 Response: The presence of monorail systems in Germany, England, and Korea

indicates that it is feasible to operate a monorail technology under a variety of climatic
conditions.
9.0 MONORAIL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR
The Nashville Area MPO provided certain relevant data for incorporation into this study. That
information included the following:
 List of relevant reports, studies and plans available on the MPO website.
 Digital files providing information on travel demand model coding for analysis of
hypothetical transit service in the Southeast Corridor being studied as part of the
ongoing Southeast Area Transportation and Land Use Study, including alignment and
station coding files, and transit ridership output files.
9.1 Prior Planning Relevant to the Southeast Corridor

As a frame of reference, it is useful to summarize prior transportation planning relevant to the
Southeast Corridor running generally along I-24. These studies were led by the Nashville Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
 Nashville Southeast Corridor High-Performance Transit Alternatives Study

(August 2007): The MPO conducted this study to address the future transportation
needs of this growing corridor. The study considered initially a broad range of transit
technologies, including: bus rapid transit – light, bus rapid transit, light rail transit, heavy
rail/subway transit, monorail, commuter rail and high speed rail. The study steering
committee screened alignment and technology combinations to a reduced set of options
which included commuter rail, light rail transit and bus rapid transit. Alignment options
considered from downtown Nashville to Murfreesboro Road were Lafayette
Street/Murfreesboro Road, I-24 and the CSX rail line. Monorail was determined to not
be applicable to the Southeast Corridor for the following reasons: its aerial structural
system and aerial stations are expensive on a per mile basis compared to at-grade
transit service, its track record in providing urban/suburban transit service has not been
29
demonstrated, and monorail is not applicable for express service when compared to
proven bus and commuter rail modes. Further screening deleted the light rail transit
option due to its relatively high capital cost compared to the other final options.
Estimated ridership on the three final alternatives ranged from 770 to 1,690 daily
boardings in 2030. The Locally Preferred Alternative selected for the corridor was a
combination of phased bus service enhancements, including development of express
bus and skip stop bus services on I-24 and Murfreesboro Road (US 41) and extended
local bus service on Murfreesboro Road. Other improvements include bus stations at
key locations, queue jump and signal improvements at intersections and interchanges,
and ultimately short sections of busways to enhance transit operating speeds. The
study area and potential transit alignments considered are shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: 2007 Study Area and Transit Alignments
30
 Nashville Area MPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (December 2010): This plan
contained an expanded vision for public transportation in the greater Nashville region. This
plan is the result of a cooperative process designed to foster involvement by all stakeholders,
such as the business community, community groups, environmental organizations, the
traveling public, freight operators, and the general public, through a proactive public
participation process conducted by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, TDOT, and the
area transit operators. The plan identified a range of potential transit technologies and
service configurations, but did not include the monorail technology. The long-range vision for
transit incorporated commuter rail, rapid transit (either BRT or LRT), and express bus, in
addition to standard fixed route bus service and supporting transit circulator services. For the
Southeast Corridor, the plan called for in the short-term to develop express coach service
from Murfreesboro to downtown Nashville using the I-24 High Occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, in the mid-term for enhanced and bus rapid transit service as delineated in the prior
2007 study, and in the long-term for further upgrading of bus services, and the reevaluation of
the corridor within 5-10 years for possible fixed-guideway transit investments.
 The Regional Transit Vision was an integral component of the 2035 transportation
plan. It included supporting documentation and a stylized depiction of future transit
services across the region. The map was not intended to depict exact alignments and
station locations, but rather convey a sense of the transit coverage and hierarchy of
transit services that conceivably could serve the Nashville region of the future. For the
long-range vision of the Southeast Corridor, the map (see Figure 12) identified a Bus
Rapid Transit – Lite line extending from downtown southeasterly to the Hickory Hollow
district, and a Rapid Transit Line (either LRT or BRT) extending from downtown to
Murfreesboro.
31
Figure 12: Regional Transit Vision
 Southeast Area Transportation and Land Use Study (Ongoing): The charge of this
study is to develop a preferred vision for growth and development in the area paralleling
I-24 between I-40 and I-65 in Davidson, Rutherford, Williamson, and Wilson counties.
Based on the shared vision for future growth identified through this planning process, the
study's key outcomes will include general land use and multi-modal transportation
recommendations that the Nashville Area MPO, cities and counties, transit agencies,
and community partners can use to guide their own respective planning efforts.
The study initially focused on land use trends and alternative land use scenarios, arriving
at a consensus for an alternative land use configuration that would be more supportive
of transit. The study is now engaged in examining premium transit service alternatives,
continuing to look at rapid transit service – either light rail transit or bus rapid transit
service in the corridor. Preliminary transit ridership forecasts to the year 2040 for
Southeast Corridor transit service, including rapid transit service along a hypothetical
32
alignment and a 13-station configuration traversing from downtown Nashville to
Murfreesboro along Murfreesboro Pike, Bell Road, and I-24 have been developed and
are reported elsewhere in this document.
 High Speed Rail: Finally, it is noted that there have been high-level corridor studies of an
Atlanta-to-Chattanooga high speed rail service (HSR), with a potential connection to
Nashville along the I-24 corridor. HSR technology has not been and should not be
considered for commuter-type service within the Southeast Corridor. HSR is intended for
long-distance, intercity travel, and the proximity of stations within a suburban commuter
corridor would defeat the intended benefit of high speed travel, as well as the economic and
societal benefit expected from an HSR project.
9.2 Southeast Corridor Demographics and Land Use
The Nashville Area MPO service area, including Davidson, Maury, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner,
Williamson, and Wilson Counties, has a population of nearly 1.6 million, per the US Bureau of the
Census 2013 estimate. Population in Davidson and Rutherford Counties along the Southeast
Corridor was estimated by the US Bureau of the Census as 939,631 persons in 2013, and is
forecasted to grow to 1,163,312 persons by 2035, according to the 2035 Regional
Transportation Plan, continuing a trend of growth over recent decades. The MPO is in the
process of updating regional demographic forecasts as part of updating the 2035 Regional
Transportation Plan, adopted in December 2010, to the year 2040.
Figure 13 presents the existing and projected (2040) distribution of households and jobs across
the southeast area of the Nashville region according to the ongoing Southeast Area
Transportation and Land Use Study. It is seen that the I-24 corridor and its fringes are projected
to continue to grow significantly in the years to come.
33
Figure 13: Existing and Projected Households and Jobs
34
9.3 Potential Transit Alignments and Stations
The prior 2007 Southeast Corridor transit study considered three final options, each coupled
with a unique transit technology (along with a lower cost Transportation Systems Management
phased bus service alternative). Those options were commuter rail on the CSX rail line, bus
rapid transit along I-24, and bus rapid transit along Murfreesboro Road. The ongoing Southeast
Area Transportation and Land Use Study is initially investigating a hypothetical Rapid Transit
Service that extends southeasterly from downtown Nashville along Lafayette Street and
Murfreesboro Road to Bell Road, where the path turns south along Bell Road and Mountain
View Road to I-24, and thence southeasterly along I-24 to Murfreesboro.
To reiterate, the Rapid Transit Service being studied would be either bus rapid transit or light rail
transit. In its travel demand modeling work thus far for the current corridor study, the MPO has
coded this premium transit service corridor as “urban rail/light rail transit”. It is also noted that
the MPO has not addressed at this time the configuration of light rail transit that would be
utilized to insert the service into the arterial street segments of the hypothetical alignment. That
is to say, it is not yet been analyzed if portions of the light rail transit alignment would be at-
grade or elevated, in the median of the street or to the side, in mixed traffic flow or segregated
from vehicular traffic. These are considerations of some importance as they can affect station
configuration, extent of street reconstruction, need for right-of-way, utility impacts (both
underground and overhead), and ultimately the capital cost of the facility.
The hypothetical Southeast Corridor alignment and hypothetical station locations in the MPO
travel demand modeling work are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. The hypothetical station
locations are listed in Table 2. In Table 3, the proposed configuration of a monorail technology
lying within the hypothetical alignment for Rapid Transit Service in the Southeast Corridor is
described across 12 corridor segments defined by the hypothetical station locations. This
configuration of hypothetical alignment and station locations is assumed for the monorail
technology scenario for consistency with current MPO transit corridor planning, including initial
transit ridership forecasting.
35
Source: Nashville Area MPO
36
Downtown Inset
37
Table 2: Hypothetical Southeast Corridor Station Locations
Station Location
1 Fogg Street at Railroad

2 Ash Street at Lafayette Street
3 Lafayette Street at Fairfield Avenue
4 Murfreesboro Pike at East Thompson Lane
5 Murfreesboro Pike at Donelson Pike
6 1900 Murfreesboro Pike
7 Murfreesboro Pike at Bell Road
8 Bell Road at Mountain View Road
9 I-24 at Sam Ridley Parkway West
10 I-24 at Lee Victory Parkway
11 I-24 at TN 840
12 I-24 at Old Fort Parkway.
13 I-24 at Shelbyville Highway
38
Table 3: Potential Southeast Corridor Monorail Configuration
39
Mention had been made of the monorail technology being applied to the I-24 corridor in an elevated
configuration within the median of that roadway. It is noted that from I-40 southward to Rock Springs
Road just south of the Sam Ridley Parkway, a distance of 14.6 miles, the median of I-24 is
approximately 21 feet wide with a separating barrier. Conceivably, monorail could be installed in the
median of I-24 either in an elevated configuration, or at-grade in the median area of the freeway.
Construction of the monorail in the median would require a reduction in the inside shoulder widths
due to placement of monorail support columns. This change would require review and approval by
TDOT and FHWA. Construction of monorail would also be complicated due to the presence of high
speed, high volume traffic and the inaccessibility of this area for construction activities and movement
of construction materials. In addition, placement of stations in the freeway median would involve
additional structural components adding to cost and connecting pedestrian bridges across the I-24
roadway to transit stations along the side of the roadway providing connecting transit service and
potentially park-and-ride lots. Another factor for consideration is that where there are crossing
roadways or intersecting roadways along I-24, the monorail guideway profile would have to be further
elevated to pass over the upper of the two intersecting roadways; stations could not be practically
located on the sloped approaches to these monorail overcrossings. The presence of several
freeway-to-freeway interchanges and their multilevel ramps along this pathway would also
complicate guideway geometry and increase cost. Since monorail would typically need to be
elevated in urban settings, adopting the hypothetical MPO alignment for the corridor would not alter
the overall project capital cost estimate significantly.
Alternatively, the monorail could be constructed in the area occupied by the I-24 interior shoulders,
but this would require outward shifting and reconstruction of the I-24 roadways and structures over
the affected distance which could be cost-prohibitive. Some overpasses might require reconstruction
as well due to the reconfigured I-24 roadways. The outward shifting of travel lanes would be greater
at station locations to accommodate the added width of station platforms and vertical circulation.
In addition the benefits of transit-oriented development in station areas would likely be lessened with
station placement in the freeway median.
For a monorail installation in this alignment, it is presumed that the guideway will be in an elevated
configuration for those segments with an urban or suburban setting with intersecting streets and
driveways. All crossings of a monorail facility must be grade-separated either over or under the
monorail guideway.
Consequently, the monorail will be elevated above the street between its downtown origin and the
point at which it enters the I-24 corridor just south of the Hickory Hollow interchange. South of this
point, the monorail could carry an alignment profile along the east border of the I-24 right-of-way that
would generally follow the existing embankment profile. The monorail would require a vertical
alignment of curves and tangents within its acceptable parameters, but this appears feasible along
40
I-24. Where there are cross roadways at interchanges or roadways crossing I-24 between
interchanges, the monorail guideway profile would need to be elevated over these roadways, and at
locations near these roadways at the hypothetical station locations.
In its at-grade configuration, the monorail would occupy a typical 25-foot minimum width section
to include the two guideways, a central walkway, dynamic envelope clearance, and outside
security/safety fences. The profile would follow the I-24 side slope longitudinal profiles in
general, with cuts and fills to maintain reasonable grades. Special structures would be needed
for crossing the Stones River near the south end of the alignment and other such situations.
In terms of placement of the monorail structure along arterial street segments, a position in the
central median would likely be most feasible, as this location would reduce conflicts with aerial
utilities on one or both sides of the street. Supporting columns would be located approximately
100 to 150 feet apart depending on final design parameters, and their placement would need to
be coordinated with location of left turn lanes in the median area. Some modifications of the
street access management and street reconstruction may be needed as a result of the column
placements. Straddle bents would likely be needed in some locations due to conflicts in locating
support columns, where the alignment turns through intersections, or were other conditions
preclude columns in the median. Conflicts and relocations can be expected with various
underground utilities near support columns and overhead power lines, traffic signal installations
and other features crossing the arterial roadway.
It is assumed that stations will be elevated with center platform configurations. The monorail system
requires a continuous separation from other crossing movements, whether vehicular or pedestrian.
Transit users cannot cross the monorail guideway at-grade, so grade separation with the monorail
and transit users is necessary. This need is generally better accommodated with the monorail
elevated as that is a general condition for this technology. A center platform configuration allows for a
single set of vertical circulation elements - stairways, elevators, and possibly escalators – to serve
both directional guideways. Figure 16 shows center platform and side platform station configurations.
41
Figure 16: Station Configurations
42
Where the guideway is traversing Lafayette Street, Murfreesboro Road, and Bell Road, the stations
could be located in either the street median, or the monorail alignment could deviate slightly from the
street centerline to one side of the street on property to be acquired for the station site.
For stations within the street median, it is likely that the directional roadways would need to be flared
approximately 15-25 feet further apart toward the outside of the roadway to create sufficient room in
the median for supporting columns as well as vertical and horizontal pedestrian circulation. From this
median station location, users would pass to the outside edge of the roadway by way of crosswalks
at signalized intersections. Connecting buses would utilize bus bays on the side of the roadway at the
station locations. This configuration could require right-of-way acquisition along the roadway in the
station vicinity.
For stations to the side of the street, acquisition of land would be needed. At these sites the elevated
station configuration would remain. On the acquired land, there could be areas for kiss-and-ride
parking as well as bus bays for interconnecting transit service. If appropriate, park-and-ride spaces
could also be provided. In this configuration for the station, pedestrian movements would occur within
the station area footprint for connections to other modes, with on-foot access occurring by way of
sidewalks and crosswalks along the surface streets.
Along the I-24 right-of-way, since the alignment would be elevated over crossing roads and the five
hypothetical stations would be located at crossing roads; these stations would also be elevated.
However, it is expected that they would not be located within street medians but rather in
freestanding sites with kiss-and-ride spaces as well as bus bays for other interconnecting transit
services. Some stations would also have relatively large park-and-ride lots.
There are two particular locations along the potential monorail alignment that require further
attention: 1) The crossing of I-40 near downtown, and 2) The underpass of Murfreesboro road at
the Nashville International Airport runway and taxiway, which is approximately 1,000 feet long.
These two locations are shown in Figures 17 and 18.
43
Figure 17: View Northbound on Lafayette Avenue at I-40
Figure 18: View Southbound on Murfreesboro Road at Airport Runway Underpass
Along the proposed alignment at I-40, options are to pass under the roadways within Lafayette
Street, flyover the elevated I-40 mainline roadway with a very high structure, or shift the alignment
slightly west and cross I-40 where it is closer to ground level. The latter option makes the most
sense for monorail. To do so, the monorail could turn westerly from Lafayette Street and run along
the south edge of the I-40 freeway, and then cross I-40 in the vicinity of 5th Avenue South or 6th
Avenue South, returning to Ash Street and continuing to the end station on Fogg Street.
44
Approaching the airport runway underpass, the monorail guideways would be elevated in the
median of Murfreesboro Road. However, between McGavock Pike to the north of the runway
and Dell Parkway to the south, the monorail guideways would need to profile to existing grade
and follow the roadway profile under the runway. It may be necessary to profile the guideway
underneath McGavock Pike on the north side of the underpass due to glide slope clearances for
the other parallel runway, and underneath the Dell Corporation warehouse access drive on the
south side of the underpass due to its proximity. Detailed profiles were not developed but
geometric resolution appears feasible. Vertical clearance in the underpass is adequate to
accommodate the monorail as its power takeoff is under the vehicle along the guide beam. A
typical monorail vehicle would have a dynamic clearance envelope 8.5 feet in width, and
allowing for another 1 foot of clearance on both sides as well as for a separating barrier, each
monorail guideway would have a horizontal clearance envelope of approximately 10.5 feet
excluding a separating barrier and emergency walkway which would add another 4 to 4.5 feet.
The existing roadway under the runway consists of two 3-lane roadways 36 feet in width, a
median of 12 feet which includes two narrow shoulders and the central support column of the
underpass, and two outer unpaved shoulders of 10 feet in width. The monorail guideways could
be configured near the median on either side of the middle column, shifting the roadway lanes
outward, or could be positioned in the outer shoulder areas, and likewise adjusting the roadway
travel lanes. Roadway travel lanes would either need to be restriped for very narrow lanes, or
one travel lane in each direction would be given over to the monorail guideways. As the
roadway in this area has six through traffic lanes passing through traffic signals which reduce
the throughput, four traffic lanes through the tunnel operating in free flow condition would
provide sufficient capacity.
It is noted that there may be issues with underground utilities, drainage and subsurface
foundation systems for the underpass that could affect the viability of this proposal. All
associated issues with this configuration of the monorail through the existing airport runway
underpass would need to be examined and approved by TDOT, the Federal Highway
Administration (FTA), the Federal Aviation Administration, the Nashville International Airport and
others.
The use of TDOT highway right-of-way for public transportation is guided by provisions in the
Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 810) entitled Mass Transit and Special
Use Highway Projects. This guidance indicates that such use may be possible, provided that the
use does not restrict future needed highway improvements nor impair highway safety. For the
purposes of this analysis, it is noted that the alignment geometry of the hypothetical Rapid
Transit Service being examined by the MPO follows US 41 and I-24 corridors, and it is assumed
that such use of public highway right-of-way for mass transit projects can be achieved.
45
9.4 Corridor Transit Ridership
The current Southeast Area Transportation and Land Use Study has initiated examination of
potential premium transit services in the Southeast Corridor. The estimates of transit ridership
in 2040 for the Southeast Corridor are tentatively based on hypothetical transit service
alignments and hypothetical station locations selected based on perceived ridership potential to
test initial results and are expected to lead to various further refinements as the transit
alternatives analysis process continues. At this point in time, only the initial transit ridership
forecasts are available; for the Southeast Corridor Rapid Transit Service concept, the MPO has
tested only the “urban rail/light rail transit” technology thus far. In addition to Rapid Transit
Service in the corridor, the study is also examining several other transit service elements,
including:
 BRT Lite service from downtown Nashville to the Hickory Hollow district,
 Route 15 standard bus service to be continued,
 Route 96 Express bus service, and
 Route 96 Community Circulator bus service.
The initial results from the current MPO study for projected 2040 ridership on these various
services is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: Projected Transit Ridership for “Urban Rail” Technology
2040 Daily Transit Boardings

Transit Service
Component Trend Land Use Alternative Land
Difference
Scenario Use Scenario
Murfreesboro Rapid
7,107 9,420 +32.5%
Transit
BRT Lite 3,431 3,556 +3.6%
Route 15 Standard
936 947 +1.2%
Bus Route
Route 96 Express Bus 1,555 1,212 -22.1%
Route 96 Community
3,021 2,353 -22.1%
Bus
Southeast Corridor
16,050 17,488 +9.0%
Subtotal
Region-wide 84,145 94,332 +12.1%
Market Share of
19.1 % 18.5% -3.1%
Southeast Corridor
46
Because monorail transit service parameters for Rapid Transit Service in the Southeast Corridor
can be considered similar for the purposes of this analysis, it is therefore assumed that ridership
on a monorail technology in this corridor would be very similar. To clarify, monorail can match
the Rapid Transit Service option in terms of service frequency and schedule, station locations,
corridor capacity, available park-and-ride facilities, and vehicle operating speed, such that it is
equally attractive to prospective transit users in terms of the mode choice decision (auto vs.
premium transit). It is also assumed that fares between Rapid Transit Service and monorail
would also be comparable.
From the summary in Table 5, it is seen that the premium transit service in the Southeast
Corridor in the form of the Rapid Transit Service (to date modeled as urban rail/light rail transit)
attracts approximately 7,100 daily boardings in 2040 under the trend land use scenario, and
9,400 daily boardings, or about 32% higher, under the alternative land use scenario that was
tested. It is noted that the total forecast transit ridership in the corridor is approximately 16,000
daily boardings when the other transit service components are considered. The MPO considers
this value an upper end potential volume for the corridor, on the basis that the ridership for the
other corridor services would be absorbed into the rapid transit option. This level of ridership
would roughly double the vehicle requirement for an additional cost of $38 million, an
incremental added cost for capacity at the maintenance facility, and would roughly double the
annual operating cost.
To further characterize projected transit ridership for the Rapid Transit Service element,
projected daily 2040 boardings by station as developed using the regional travel demand model
for the trend land use scenario are listed in Table 6 and depicted graphically in Figure 19. It is
noted that in the ridership forecasting, the MPO incorporated park-and-ride lots at several
locations to support the drive access mode to transit stations.
47
Table 5: 2040 Projected Rapid Transit Service Ridership by Hypothetical Station Location
for Trend Land Use Scenario
2040 Daily
Station Location
Boardings
1 Fogg Street at Railroad 1,144
2 Ash Street at Lafayette Street 633
3 Lafayette Street at Fairfield Avenue 498
4 Murfreesboro Pike at East Thompson Lane 314
5 Murfreesboro Pike at Donelson Pike 990
6 1900 Murfreesboro Pike 94
7 Murfreesboro Pike at Bell Road 421
8 Bell Road at Mountain View Road 582
9 I-24 at Sam Ridley Parkway West 833
10 I-24 at Lee Victory Parkway 218
11 I-24 at TN 840 416
12 I-24 at Old Fort Parkway. 649
13 I-24 at Shelbyville Highway 315
TOTAL 7,107
Figure 19: 2040 Projected Rapid Transit Service Ridership by Hypothetical Station
Location for Trend Land Scenario
1,200
1,000
2040 Daily Boardings
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Station Number from Downtown (1) to Murfreesboro (13)
48
From this ridership summary it is seen that boardings vary by station, ranging from 94 to over 1,140
daily boardings. As noted, it is expected that the MPO will continue to review corridor transit service
planning assumptions and travel demand modeling to refine and enhance ridership forecasts.
A review of light rail transit service corridors around the country indicates that most established
urban/suburban light rail transit lines on mature routes produce 1,000 or more daily boardings per
mile of route service. For the 33.7 mile long Southeast Corridor, the ratio is approximately 211
boardings per mile for the trend land use alternative, and 280 boardings per mile for the alternative
land use scenario. Continued refinement of travel demand modeling in the corridor considering
station locations, feeder bus service, park-and-ride lots will hopefully yield further improvement in
projected transit ridership levels in this corridor.
10.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS COSTS
10.1 Capital Costs
Capital cost estimates were developed for a monorail system in a configuration within the
Southeast Corridor parameters as described previously. It is noted that this estimate was
developed at the conceptual level of project definition where many aspects of inserting a
monorail facility into the Southeast Corridor have not yet been developed in much detail. The
estimating process uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Standard Cost Categories
(SCC) worksheet tables which include 10 general cost categories, each with two or more cost
line items. Allocated cost contingencies were added to each individual cost line item; these
contingencies were set at 20% except for utilities which was 30% and right-of-way which was
50%. A standard general unallocated contingency of 15% was added to all cost category
subtotals. It is noted that these costs are conceptual in nature as the monorail technology
concept has not been articulated in any significant detail at this stage of discussion. Each of the
SCC elements are described below along with pertinent assumptions:
 SCC Category 10 – Guideway and Track Elements: Includes all portions of the transit
guideway and supporting structure if applicable, including costs associated with
excavation, fill retaining walls and other elements related to the guideway.
For the monorail technology, these costs include conceptual level estimates of basic
guideway elements based on the identified broad assumptions regarding alignment and
profile, including sections along I-24 where the system would be in a partially at-grade
configuration.
 SCC Category 20 – Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal: These costs include work
associated with transit stations, including platforms, finishes, equipment, and
mechanical, electrical and safety systems.
49
These costs include basic station configurations with center platforms, vertical
circulation, canopies, ticketing machines, furnishings, lighting, security and information
systems, pedestrian access and lighting. This category also includes park-and-ride lots
at four stations.
 SCC Category 30 – Support Facilities (Yards, Shops, Administrative Buildings: Includes

all associated construction costs for all support facilities, such as storage and
maintenance facilities and administration buildings.
This item includes an allowance for a maintenance and storage facility sized for the size
of the monorail vehicle fleet.
 SCC Category 40 – Sitework and Special Conditions: Includes site civil elements
associated with the project, including clearing and demolition, utilities relocation, and
other miscellaneous project requirements.
This cost category includes an allowance for utility relocation for guideway installation,
traffic signal adjustments, and modification of median areas along arterial street
segments.
 SCC Category 50 – Systems: Includes all systems related elements such as

communications and security systems, transit signal priority equipment, traffic signal
modifications, train control and signaling, and traction power supply substations and
distribution.
This category includes the above as well as train controls, power supply, and fare
collection equipment.
 SCC Category 60 – Right-of-Way, Land, Existing Improvements: Includes the purchase

or lease of real estate, relocation of businesses or households, and associated
professional services.
This category includes allowances for land to site maintenance and storage facility, and
land acquisition near stations.
 SCC Category 70 – Vehicles: Includes the cost of the transit vehicles to be used on the
project, both peak service requirement vehicles and spare vehicles (at 20% of the peak
need).
This category includes the number of required monorail vehicles based on initial MPO
ridership forecasts.
50
 SCC Category 80 – Professional Services: Includes all professional, technical and
management services related to the design, construction and implementation of the
project, such as preliminary and final engineering, project management, construction
administration, liability insurance, legal/permits/fees, survey/testing/inspection, and start-
up.
For this project, a collective allowance of 34% was used, matching the total and
individual percentages of total project construction cost (SCC 10 to 50).
 SCC Category 90 – Unallocated Contingency: Includes a standard unallocated

contingency to account for undefined project items in early stages of project planning
and design. This contingency is in addition to specific allocated contingencies for
individual cost line items.
An unallocated contingency factor of 15% was collectively applied to SCC Cost

Categories 10 to 80.
 SCC Category 100 – Finance Charges: Includes finance charges expected to be paid by
the project sponsor/grantee prior to the completion of the project.
Given the unknown approach to financing the project costs, no finance changes are
included in the project cost estimates.
A conceptual level cost estimate was prepared for a monorail system in the Southeast Corridor,
and summarized for project budget purposes. Unit costs used to develop the estimates were
based upon recently completed transit systems and modified as required for the monorail transit
investments envisioned for the Southwest Corridor. Source information was derived from recent
available comparable project cost estimates. The cost estimate was developed using 2014 base
year costs and escalated to 2020 (presumed opening year) at a rate of 3.0 % per year based on
recent construction cost trends. The FTA SCC spreadsheet includes an inflation worksheet that
addresses this calculation step.
Unit costs for specific project components were drawn from data available to the consultant for
project estimates for other similar recent projects. Certain costs associated specifically with
monorail are not commonly available, and reasonable unit costs were identified by the
consultant based on research and in-house estimates.
51
Basic assumptions include the following:
General
 The alignment is 33.7 miles long between downtown Nashville Station at Fogg
Street/CSX rail line and the last station in Murfreesboro, with additional length for
guideway extension at corridor terminal stations (0.1 mile at each end, for a total length
of 33.9 miles of twin directional guideway.
 No alignment extension (0.7 miles in length) from Fogg Street station northward along
CSX rail line to a station connecting with the proposed Regional Rapid Transit lines
(South and Northwest Corridors).
 13 passenger station stops.
 4 park-and-ride lots with capacity for 500 vehicles each, and a bus terminal.
 8 peak 2-car consists, with 2 spare consists, for a total of 20 peak vehicles required.
 Base ridership in 2040 of 7,100 daily boardings.
Service
 All days from 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.,
 Weekday peak periods: from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.,
 Headways – 15 minutes weekday peak periods; 20 minutes the rest of the service day,
except 30 minute headways from 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.; 30 minute headways
Saturdays and Sundays.
Features Included
 Allowance for street median reconstruction for segments in arterial streets,
 Station stops include ticket vending machines and real-time vehicle arrival information,
 Allowance for typical utilities relocations,
 Streetscape improvements and landscaping near stations,
 Property acquisition (generally minor takings near stations as needed),
52
Guideway Facilities
Construction of monorail in the typical elevated configuration is similar to a roadway bridge,

requiring support columns with suitable foundations and guide beams spanning from column to
column. A safety pathway would be installed between the two guideway beams along the length
of the project. Where the monorail would be constructed in an at-grade configuration, the
guideway beams would be installed on a prepared bed with the required foundation. Retaining
walls would be constructed on either side of the guideway path to accommodate cut or fill
conditions based on the lay of the land. This work would include the necessary excavation and
fill work as well as basic drainage elements. The guideway would be fenced for security
purposes. For the purposes of this analysis, a straddle beam monorail configuration was
assumed.
Utilities
A reasonable allowance is included in this estimate for relocation of public and private utilities
features that could be expected to be in conflict with the monorail improvements, especially
along arterial streets. Utilities may include storm drains, sanitary sewers, electric power, water,
gas, communications conduits, television cable conduit, and others.
Systems
The electrical power system will deliver electric power to the transit guideway from nearby
locations from the area electrical grid. Electrical substations are assumed to be small facilities
located at approximately 1 to 1-½-mile intervals depending on system design requirements.
Systems include switching, protection, rectifier-transformers, feeder, grounding and bonding
systems, batteries and chargers, local and/or remote controls, and equipment supervision.
Estimates include minimal ductbank length for power feed to monorail substations.
Communications equipment includes a simple GPS vehicle location system that provides “next
bus” information via a variable message sign (VMS) system at passenger station stops. Radio
equipment is installed on all vehicles and at a central dispatch center located within the
storage/maintenance facility.
Stations
It is assumed that station platforms will be 150 feet long, and in a center platform configuration
between the two guide beams. It is suggested that a door system for entry and exit movements
with the monorail vehicles be employed for passenger safety reasons. Station platforms would
be approximately 25 feet wide. Construction costs include signage, lighting, seating, and
overhead weather canopy. The station design would be part of the service branding in terms of
53
logos, colors and design aesthetic. Allowance is made for special finishes, custom pavers, and
landscaping nears the stations. Fare collection equipment is assumed to include full service,
heavy duty ticket vending machines at all station stops.
Miscellaneous Items
An allowance for maintenance of traffic during construction includes temporary signage, electric
sign boards, barrels, separation fencing, safety barricades, movable “Jersey barriers,” etc. and
occasional use of traffic control officers. The estimate does not specifically include potential
environmental mitigation items such as hazardous materials remediation (soil and/or water) or
special noise-control measures.
Vehicles
For the purposes of this analysis, vehicles are assumed to be compatible with a straddle beam
monorail configuration. Vehicle capacity is taken at 66 patrons sitting and 110 maximum
capacity with standees.
Other Project Costs
Selected property acquisition costs are included in this estimate, including an allowance for
additional street right-of-way station stops and the maintenance facility. Preliminary engineering,
final design, construction phase professional services are included in the costs, with the
assumption that the project will be a conventional design-bid-build project. The cost estimate
includes allowances for liability and accident insurance policy coverage, as well as for other
insurance, legal services, permits, and review fees.
Contingencies
A general (unallocated) cost contingency factor of 15% was applied to all project costs given the
early stage of the project and to account for market fluctuations and unforeseen features and
occurrences related to construction. Construction items contain standard allocated contingency
factors. These are rated at 20% for all items except for utilities (30%) and right-of-way (50%).
The conceptual level cost estimate is a summarized format derived from the SCC worksheets
and suitable for conceptual project budget purposes. Table 6 provides a summary of estimated
capital costs, including both hard and soft costs. The estimated cost of the monorail system as
described for the Southeast Corridor including all hard and soft costs for the 2014 base year is
approximately $1.63 billion ($48.0 million/mile) and $2.06 billion ($60.6 million/mile). It is noted
that the northern 40% of the defined alignment is completely elevated while the remainder is
mostly near-grade with intermittent overpasses and retained earth embankment sections.
54
Constructing the I-24 segment of this alignment in a totally elevated configuration would add over
$550 million in 2014 and $700 million to the project cost in 2020.
Table 6: Summary of Monorail Capital Costs
Assuming the upper end potential volume per the corridor of 16,000 daily boardings in 2040, the
capital costs would be increased by the need for twice the fleet of vehicles and an incrementally
larger maintenance facility.
10.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs

There is limited data for the operations and maintenance costs for monorail systems in North
America. Information secured from selected manufacturers suggests that the operations and
maintenance costs for monorail are similar to those for light rail transit (LRT). It is noted that
this estimate presumes an operator for each train consist.
It is noted that the operational component of the annual operations and maintenance cost is a
function of the proposed service plan for monorail operations in terms of the hours of operation,
the service frequencies during the day, and the vehicle requirements based on the scheduled
55
operating speed and passenger load. This estimate is based on a ridership forecast of 7,100
daily boardings in 2040.
The MPO corridor travel demand modeling for the Urban Rail option in this corridor as LRT was
coded in the model with an overall operating speed of 44 mph. This speed is assumed to be the
scheduled operating speed which needs to take into account the optimum technology operating
speed adjusted for deceleration and acceleration time losses as well as dwell time losses at transit
stations, as well as adjustments for horizontal curves and vertical curves which may affect operating
speed. Typically achievable scheduled operating speeds for guideway transit in an urban and
suburban environment given station spacing distances and common alignment curvatures is in the
30-35 mph range. The northern third of this hypothetical corridor alignment and station location layout
is in the realm of prototypical corridor layouts, but the southernmost two-thirds of this corridor is a
relatively straight alignment with widely separated station locations which are more widely spaced.
Based on this corridor characterization, the northern one-third of the corridor should operate near a
30 mph scheduled speed with its more closely spaced stations. To satisfy the overall scheduled
operating speed of 45 mph, the southern two-thirds of the corridor would need to operate at a
scheduled speed of 52.2 mph. This would require an average operating speed of 57.4 mph allowing
for station stopping delays. For the purposes of this analysis, an overall corridor schedule operating
speed of 35 mph was assumed.
This value was applied to the calculated revenue hours of service and adjusted to an annual
basis, for an estimated operating cost of $17.22 million per year in 2014 dollars. It is noted that
the operational component of the annual operations and maintenance cost is a function of the
proposed service plan for monorail operations in terms of the hours of operation, the service
frequencies during the day, and the vehicle requirements based on the scheduled operating speed
and passenger load. For the upper end potential corridor ridership of 16,000 daily boardings as
considered by the MPO, the estimated annual operating cost would be approximately double, or
about $34.44 million per year in 2014 dollars.
The capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs estimates for the monorail system in
this corridor are all inclusive. There may be some economies of scale by having all premium
transit corridors served by the same transit technology in terms of facilities, vehicle fleet and
employee training. To ascertain these potential differences would require analysis of
hypothetical network scenarios in greater detail, which was not possible within the scope of this
study.
11.0 FINANCING THE PROJECT
Project finance refers to specially designed techniques and tools that supplement traditional transit
financing methods, improving governments' ability to deliver transportation projects. Project finance
56
typically entails borrowing money, either through bonds, loans or other financing mechanisms.
Borrowing money for project implementation helps accelerate implementation of needed
infrastructure. But just like borrowing money for a mortgage, project finance tools require a
repayment source. In many instances, using project finance tools requires the development and
imposition of new revenue streams to pay back bonds or loans issued to support investment.
Project finance is typically used for large capital projects in cases where using "pay-as-you-go" does
not make good planning and programming sense; that is, because the project's capital needs would
consume most if not all available funding - and still often fall short of being fully funded. Further, given
long-term benefits of transportation infrastructure, it can be economically sound to spread the project
costs over the asset's life-cycle. However, project finance comes at a cost, because interest is paid
over the long-term for the money that is borrowed today. But the additional cost of financing might be
justified if it is less than the potential project cost increase due to inflation, or it is outweighed by the
benefits of having the project available in the near-term.
Project finance has evolved at the federal level as a product of dialogue between policy and
administrative officials at United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and partners at the
state and local levels. Most of the programs and tools have been enabled by legislative changes to
the U.S. Code, Title 23. As transportation finance needs evolve, new tools and programs are likely to
add to the field of project finance.
11.1 Federal Funding
Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) New Starts competitive grant program is the primary source of
federal funding for fixed guideway transit projects. Individual projects from throughout the country
compete against each other for limited funding. Also, the availability of New Starts program funding
may decline in the near future due to overall program funding reductions as a result of federal
spending pressures and new program funding limits.
Specifically, the New Starts program is funded out of the federal general fund. Just as the State’s
projects will need to compete against other projects across the country, New Starts funding will need
to compete with other federal government priorities. With Congress focusing on reducing federal
government spending, federal funds for New Starts projects could be reduced. As a result, fewer
projects may receive federal matching funds. The FTA website link
(http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FY15_Annual_Report_3_3_14_final.pdf) presents FTA’s FY 2015
New Starts Core Capacity and Small Starts project funding recommendations to Congress.
Assuming the federal funds are approved for the Southeast Corridor project (whether it is a LRT
or monorail project) the federal contribution for the Southeast Corridor would be in the range of
$1.03 billion (2020 year of expenditure cost) and the remainder of $1.03 billion would fall to
57
State, regional, local and other funding sources. It is noted that any Southeast Corridor
premium transit project seeking FTA New Starts funding would first need to be listed in the
currently adopted MPO long range transportation plan as cost-feasible.
While motor fuel taxes have been the primary revenue source at both the state and federal level for
transportation, the buying power of this revenue source has eroded significantly with inflation and will
continue to as fuel efficiency standards increase. Other traditional transportation revenues, such as
the titling tax or registration fees, have declined or stagnated in recent years due to the recession. In
response to increasing demands for new projects and maintenance of aging systems, and declining
availability of state and federal funds, state and local governments across the country are considering
a variety of alternative strategies to finance transit project development. Transportation financing
strategies that involve public-private partnerships (P3) continue to receive significant attention.
The following section summarizes information about four broad transportation revenue generation
strategies the State could pursue to help finance the Southeast Corridor project specifically:
P3/availability payments, federal loans, value capture, and local option revenues. It is important to
keep in mind, however, that these strategies are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive. In
addition, a short case study of how Denver, Colorado is trying to integrate alternative financing with
more traditional financing tools is provided.
11.2 Public-Private Partnerships Utilizing Availability Payments
Public-Private Partnerships (P3) are long-term agreements in which the public sector assigns to a
private sector company the right to design, build, finance, operate, and/or maintain an infrastructure
asset for a defined period per some type of financial arrangement. Although the private sector may
finance the project up front, it receives a return on its investment through project revenues or
payments from the public sector over the life of the contract. If project revenues are nonexistent or
insufficient to provide an appropriate return on investment, the public sector may make payments
directly to the private partner. These payments may take the form of availability payments.
Availability payments provide compensation to the private sector on a periodic basis (e.g. quarterly or
annually) based on the project being available for use and performance standards being met as per
the contract. Availability payments may be used for capital costs, ongoing operating costs, or both
depending on the contract.
Advantages
The public sector makes periodic, pre-established payments to the private sector, thus providing
predictability in budgeting. Payments typically do not begin until the facility construction has been
completed and operations begin. Availability payments are useful for projects that have unpredictable
revenue streams or where service quality is more important than revenue maximization. Availability
58
payments for capital construction costs are similar to debt service on bonds, in that in exchange for
an upfront amount of cash, repayment of funds takes place over time at a set, predicable payment
level; however, the key difference with availability payments is that payment levels are performance-
based. Deductions to the operating portion of the payment may be made as necessary if the facility is
not available or the quality of service does not meet established standards. By providing availability
payments to the private sector rather than pledging project revenues, the public sector retains the
ability to set user fee levels, such as transit fares or toll rates. P3s utilizing availability payments are
typically for a shorter term (25 to 30 years) than P3s utilizing project revenues or concessions (50
years).
Disadvantages
The use of P3s is simply an alternative financing technique; it is not a source of revenue. Like other
debt, availability payments require annual appropriations, and the source of funding for those
availability payments still needs to be identified. Existing funding in the Transportation Trust Fund
(TTF) is not sufficient to make these availability payments without severely curtailing spending on the
capital program. Thus, a revenue increase would be necessary to make such payments.
Currently, state legislative action is required to permit P3 transit project financing in Tennessee. Also,
the impact of availability payments on Tennessee State debt is unclear at this time. If the State’s debt
capacity is constrained, the use of availability payments in Tennessee may be a nonstarter issue if it
is determined that it must be limited to 15 years and will be factored into the State’s debt affordability
guidelines.
When structured properly, P3s can provide substantial risk sharing benefits. Risk should be assigned
to the party best able to control or mitigate that risk. For example, design-build contracts often move
the risk of construction cost overruns and time delays to the private sector. However, this risk sharing
comes at a premium; the private sector will want to be compensated for sharing this risk, thus
increasing project costs. Rates for private sector financing are typically higher than for traditional tax-
exempt financing; however, these additional costs may be somewhat mitigated by whole life-cycle
cost efficiencies provided by the private sector.
11.3 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Credit Assistance
The federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program provides credit
assistance at below market rates through direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. The TIFIA
program targets large projects, generally in excess of $50 million. To date, 27 projects nationwide
have been partially funded with TIFIA credit assistance, including 4 intermodal projects, 18 highway
projects, and 5 transit projects.
59
Under the recently passed federal transportation authorization, several significant changes were
made to expand the TIFIA program. First, the amount of funding available to the program increased
significantly, from $120 million in federal fiscal 2012, to $750 million in federal fiscal 2013, and $1
billion in federal fiscal 2014. Second, the percent of TIFIA financing that may cover total project costs
increased from 33 to 49%. Finally, the project selection criteria, which were previously used to select
projects for funding, have been eliminated. Projects will now be funded on a first come, first served
basis.
Advantages
The TIFIA program provides various credit products, improved access to capital markets, favorable
interest rates, flexible repayment terms, and supplemental and subordinate debt. Thus, projects that
might have been delayed or not constructed at all because of difficulty in obtaining financing can
move forward. TIFIA credit assistance is useful for projects that have unpredictable revenue streams
and, therefore, may have difficulty obtaining financing in traditional capital markets. For example,
TIFIA loans allow for maximum loan maturities of 35 years after completion of a project and flexibility
to begin repayment up to five years after substantial completion to allow time for facility construction
and ramp-up of operations and revenue. In addition, the ability to make TIFIA credit assistance
supplemental and subordinate to other debt allows additional project financing flexibility. Interest rates
for TIFIA credit assistance are fixed and are equivalent to Treasury rates, often providing more
favorable rates than may be obtained in private markets.
Disadvantages
TIFIA loans and lines of credit are an alternative form of borrowing money, and thus must still be
repaid. Federal law requires dedicated revenue for repayment, but State law goes one step further
stating that the revenue must come from the facility constructed. Under federal law, it is likely that the
TTF would qualify as a dedicated revenue source; however, a transit facility would not generate
enough funding to cover the repayment costs. It is likely that State law would need to be changed
given the revenue flow of a transit project being less than a toll project.
Historically, demand for the TIFIA program has far exceeded available funding, so obtaining funding
has been difficult; however, with the recent increase in funding for the program, demand and
available resources may equalize. Additionally, it is unclear at this time how recent changes to the
process of selecting projects for funding, moving from selection criteria to a first come, first served
basis, will impact the program. Projects eligible for assistance are restricted to larger projects
(generally $50 million) and must meet several federal requirements, including meeting transportation
and highway standards established in federal law, National Environmental Policy Act requirements,
Buy America provisions, and others. Another potential is that if a TIFIA loan is a junior lien and the
project defaults, the TIFIA springs forward to a senior lien. While this has never occurred, the
60
possibility exists. Finally, depending on how a TIFIA loan is structured or issued, it may count towards
the State’s debt limit and be subject to the 15-year constitutional limit on the maturity.
11.4 Value Capture
Value capture generally refers to the concept of using the increase in land value from the
construction of a transit line/station to pay for the construction of that transit line/station. Many
mechanisms are used to capture the increase in land value including special taxing districts and tax
increment financing. Typically, debt is issued for the capital costs and backed by the additional
revenue generated in property tax revenues from construction.
Mechanisms used for value capture include:
 Developer Fees: A one-time fee paid by a developer based upon the relationship
between the construction of a project and the projected increases in land values.
 Tax-Increment Financing (TIF): A designated area around a project where the existing
tax base is frozen and the additional increase in property values from the project are
used to pay debt service on bonds used to pay for the construction of a project.
 Special taxing district: An area is designated around a project and property owners pay
an additional tax on the value of their property.
 Joint development: An agreement between the public and private sector where the public
sector leases or sells an asset to the private sector to assist in the construction of a project.
Advantages
Value capture strategies allow those individuals or properties that benefit from the construction of a
transit line to contribute to the construction costs. This reduces the State’s need to invest limited
revenues for the construction of the transit lines.
Disadvantages
Current use of value capture techniques to fund transportation infrastructure is fairly limited. TIF has
been used on the local level in some cases to assist in redevelopment but has limited use for
transportation construction.
Estimating what the potential benefit, or increase in land value, resulting from transportation
infrastructure is difficult; therefore, if value capture strategies are utilized but revenues are not
sufficient, the State may need to backfill the revenue loss.
61
11.5 Local Option Revenues
Local governments throughout the United States are using a variety of funding sources including:
Traditional taxes and fees, such as the local option sales tax, vehicle registration fees,
advertising revenues, and the motor fuel tax; less common business, activity, and related
sources such as the income/payroll/employer tax, hotel/lodging tax, real estate transfer tax,
mortgage recording tax, and car rental fees; and
Revenue streams from projects such as Transit Oriented Development, land value capture,
impact fees, and special assessment districts.
Local governments are also using a variety of long-term debt instruments to help finance major local
and regional transit projects and programs, including general obligation bonds, Grant Anticipation
Revenue Vehicle bonds, and State infrastructure bank loans. In addition, local governments are
partnering with each other to develop transportation authorities that manage local transportation
planning and funds.
The following are examples of local revenue options funding techniques:
 Sales Taxes: In 1987, San Diego County residents approved the 20-year TransNet
program, a one-half cent sales tax to fund a variety of transportation projects. In
November 2004, voters approved an extension to 2048 that is expected to generate
approximately $14 billion for highway, transit, and local road projects. The San Diego
Association of Governments administers TransNet funding.
 Motor Fuel Tax: The Northern Virginia Transportation District (NVTD) in Virginia is a
multijurisdictional agency representing Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudoun counties and the
cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church. NVTD provides funding for the Virginia
share of WMATA’s costs. NVTD’s member jurisdictions rely on a 2.1% motor fuels tax to
meet their respective local subsidy obligations.
 Payroll Taxes: The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet) provides bus,
light rail, and commuter rail transit services in the Portland, Oregon metro area. Payroll
and self-employment taxes provide operating revenue for TriMet and are collected and
administered by the Oregon Department of Revenue on behalf of TriMet and the Lane
County Mass Transit District. TriMet has the authority to increase the tax rate over 10
years to help pay for new transit service throughout the region.
62
Advantages
Local option transportation taxes often produce highly visible results and reassure voters that funds
will be used only for specified projects. In addition, locally funded projects (1) may be able to
circumvent expensive labor requirements that State and federally funded projects must abide by; and
(2) use more flexible and innovative contracting process that expedites project implementation.
Another advantage of local option revenue is that the primary beneficiaries of the transit project are
contributing to the cost of the project. In doing so, local jurisdictions and citizens are financially
invested in the projects.
Disadvantages
Focusing resources and decision making at the local level may serve to undermine the influence and
authority of metropolitan planning organizations, which are nominally charged under federal law with
coordinating the development of regional transportation plans. Also, local option transportation taxes
(1) may limit the authority of local officials by requiring them to fund projects only in the manner
specified in a ballot measure, usually over a long period of time; and (2) may be used to fund projects
that are locally favored but do not reflect extensive analytical work by transportation planners and
engineers to determine, among other things, the most cost effective projects.
11.6 Case Study: Eagle P3 Project
In 2004, Denver’s RTD embarked on a major transit expansion program. The program, called
FasTracks, is a $7.4 billion, 12-year program to build 122 miles of new commuter and light rail
service, 18 miles of bus rapid transit service, 21,000 new parking spaces at rail and bus stations,
enhanced bus service, and new and expanded maintenance facilities. Most of the funding is
generated from a voter-approved sales tax increase of 0.4%. In addition, RTD has utilized several
innovative financing techniques, including the use of TIFIA loans and P3s. The
FasTracks program includes several different projects, each with their own funding mechanism. The
Eagle P3 project consists of a concession agreement to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain
the 22.8-mile East Corridor, the 11.2-mile Gold Line, the electrified segment of the Northwest Line,
and a commuter rail maintenance facility. The $2 billion project has received substantial attention
because it is the country’s first transit project to use an availability-based payment stream and
because of the mix of financing sources that was used to fund the project. Availability payments allow
RTD to repay the private capital and pay for ongoing operations and maintenance while still retaining
control over fare policies and revenues.
The P3 winning bid was from Denver Transit Partners and was $300.0 million lower than RTD’s
estimated project cost. The agreement spans 34 years, which includes a five-year design and build
63
period followed by 29 years of operation and maintenance. Financing the construction of the project
will come from a variety of sources including: federal, state, local, or private sources, it is important to
note that both the $280.0 million federal TIFIA loan and the $397.8 million private debt both require
repayment from state and local sources.
Sources of funding include:
 Just over one-half of construction funding comes from a $1.0 billion federal grant from
the New Starts program and a $62.1 million grant from the federal Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement program. These funds are federal grants and, therefore, do
not require repayment.
 $280.0 million are from a federal TIFIA loan. TIFIA loans from the federal government
offer favorable interest rates and flexible repayment terms. RTD estimates that it saved
$164.0 million in financing costs by using the lower interest rate of the TIFIA loan rather
than revenue bonds. Repayment of the TIFIA loan will come from RTD’s sales tax
revenues.
 $487.8 million are in private equity and debt, including $397.8 million in private activity
bonds and $91.7 million in private equity. Private activity bonds are tax-exempt bonds
issued by a state or local government with the proceeds passed through to a private
entity. Private activity bonds typically receive more favorable interest rates than private
debt, but less favorable rates than municipal bonds. The private activity bonds will be
repaid with sales tax revenues and mature in 30 years.
Over the next 34 years of the term of the contract, RTD will make $5.3 billion in payments to Denver
Transit Partners. Approximately $1.2 billion of these payments are for construction and occur in the
first 8 years of the contract. The majority ($1.0 billion) of these funds will come from federal New
Starts grant money. In years 6 through 34 of the contract, RTD will make service payments that will
repay the private activity bonds and pay for operations and maintenance of the transit lines. In
addition to making these construction and service payments, RTD is also responsible for paying the
debt service on the TIFIA loan.
By utilizing several different financing techniques, RTD was able to move forward on this $2 billion
project much sooner than if it had waited for traditional funding. However, as noted previously, it is
important to remember that P3s, TIFIA loans, and private activity bonds are simply alternative
methods of financing; they are not forms of funding. Although these alternative financing sources
may allow governments to make payments over extended periods of time, tax revenues ultimately
pay for these projects.
64
Local and regional financial support is critically important to support transit state of good repair
projects, new major transit infrastructure projects and on-going transit O&M costs. There is an
ongoing effort in the Middle-Tennessee region, as noted by the MPO, to pursue local dedicated
revenue sources for major transit projects in this and other regionally significant corridors. Typical
revenue sources include the following: (1) traditional tax- and fee-based funding sources; (2)
common business, activity, and related funding sources; (3) revenue streams from projects; (4) new
“user” or “market-based” funding sources; (5) financing mechanisms; and (6) fare policy and strategy.
Summary
While Tennessee has relied on traditional transportation revenue sources in the past, new revenue
sources and more innovative transportation financing strategies may be required to expand
Tennessee’s transit infrastructure. This section of the report identified a number of transportation
financing mechanism strategies that could be implemented to help the State as well as regional and
local governmental entities realize their transit goals.
12.0 FINDINGS
Based on the analyses conducted in this assessment, the following findings are offered:
 Monorail technologies are capable of providing operating speeds and passenger

capacities comparable to those of other modes of premium transit. They have a
demonstrated history of reliable operations.
 There are a number of monorail manufacturers, some of which have established a

business presence in the United States, with a proven history of operations to minimize
some of the risks associated with introducing a new technology to the regional
transportation network. In areas where at-grade transit technologies or aerial heavy rail
transit may pose serious physical impacts to a corridor, the lower impacts of monorail
systems may offset some of the costs of building such systems.
 The side-straddle systems under development pose a service reliability issue as they are
unable to maneuver around disabled or stopped trains by “switching tracks” as rail and
straddle-system monorails do. However, if this issue can be resolved, side-straddle
monorails may offer savings in costs and impacts, since they are able to fit two
guideways on a single narrow structure.
 Although there is uncertainty about the reliability of the monorail technologies still under
development, the existing systems have demonstrated a sufficient record of reliability
and effectiveness. Because of this, monorail technologies may be considered as a
technology alternatives for new transit alignments in the Southeast Corridor.
65
 The MPO’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, adopted in December 2010,
recommended rapid transit but did not identify a specific technology for the Southeast
Corridor. The prior 2007 MPO study (Nashville Southeast Corridor High-Performance
Transit Alternatives Study of the Southwest Corridor) discounted the monorail
technology for various reasons, including: its aerial structural system and aerial stations
are expensive on a per mile basis compared to at-grade transit service, its track record
in providing urban/suburban transit service has not been demonstrated, and monorail is
not applicable for express service when compared to proven bus and commuter rail
modes. These reasons are legitimate in terms of the project context, namely that there
is very limited application of monorail to the daily commuter environment of suburban
corridors in North America. There are optimistic citations by some monorail developers
as to the cost economy of their technology, but these often do not include full project
cost components and the associated soft costs of projects. Cost comparisons are often
apples-to-oranges situations, causing confusion as to actual facts. Cost/mile of light rail
transit, has in fact grown significantly over recent years based on new projects which
have averaged $67 million/mile, ranging from $48 to $91 million/mile (2014 $) in total
project cost.
 The estimated project cost to develop a monorail transit facility in the Southwest Corridor
along the alignment described is approximately $1.63 billion in 2014 dollars and $2.06
billion in year of expenditure dollars for a 2020 revenue service opening date. These
estimated costs include both hard and soft costs. The capital costs and their allocated
contingencies account for 60% of the total project cost and the balance are soft costs.
 In the Southwest Corridor, along the I-24 segment, there is the opportunity to build a
premium transit line in public right-of-way in a near at-grade configuration with cuts and
fills along the transit guideway profile, significantly reducing guideway costs.
Constructing the I-24 segment of this alignment in a totally elevated configuration would
add over $550 million in 2014 and $700 million to the project cost in 2020.
 The estimated annual operating cost for the monorail service, for the service
assumptions listed, in 2014 dollars, is approximately $17.22 million. It is noted that the
operational component of the annual operations and maintenance cost is a function of
the proposed service plan for monorail operations in terms of the hours of operation, the
service frequencies during the day, and the vehicle requirements based on the
scheduled operating speed and passenger load. For the higher upper end potential
ridership of 16,000 daily boardings per the MPO, operating costs would be
approximately doubled.
66
 Ridership for the year 2040 in this hypothetical corridor as initially estimated by the MPO
for a light rail transit option, with similar service characteristics to monorail, was 7,100
daily boardings, and 9,400 daily boardings with more transit supportive land uses around
station areas. Desirably, ridership estimates should be much higher to support the more
expensive transit technologies under consideration, including monorail. It is noted that
the total forecast transit ridership in the corridor is approximately 16,000 daily boardings
when the other proposed transit service components are considered. The MPO
considers this value an upper end potential volume for the corridor, on the basis that the
ridership for the other corridor services would be absorbed into the rapid transit option.
Continued refinement of travel demand modeling in the corridor considering station
locations, feeder bus service, park-and-ride lots will hopefully yield further improvement
in projected transit ridership levels in this corridor.
Development of a monorail transit facility in the Southwest Corridor along the alignment
identified is generally feasible, although there are a great many design details that could not
be addressed in this assessment. Moreover, an objective assessment of project impacts
would also need to be conducted to determine if this particular concept causes any
significant impacts that cannot be reasonably mitigated.
67

SE Corridor Monorail Revised Final Report 020215

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SE Corridor Monorail Revised Final Report 020215

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SE Corridor Monorail Revised Final Report 020215

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONORAIL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Tennessee Department of Transportation

MONORAIL ASSESSMENT REPORT.........................................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

SECTION 1. The department of transportation is directed to conduct a preliminary study to

Table OS.1: Summary of Public Chapter 1009 (2014) Provisions

Public Chapter 1009 (2014) Location Where Provision Is Comments

2.0 MONORAIL TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

3.0 KEY OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS

Transit-grade monorails generally operate at maximum speeds of 40 to 55 mph, which is comparable

3.4 Safety and Evacuation

3.6 Rubber Tired Traction and Guidance

3.7 Energy Consumption

3.8 Acceleration and Breaking

In general, monorail technology is suited to urban transit applications. It compares favorably to

4.0 GENERAL CONCERNS REGARDING MONORAIL TECHNOLOGIES

4.1 Proprietary Nature of Monorail Technology

4.2 Incompatibility with Existing Systems

4.3 Limited Capacity of Monorails

 Response: The systems reviewed have demonstrated passenger capacities of up to

4.4 Safety and Reliability

 Operating Recovery Plans: In case of a disruption of service, it is crucial for a system to

5.0 MONORAIL IN THE SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR

5.1 Prior Planning and Corridor Growth

As a frame of reference, it is useful to summarize prior transportation planning relevant to the

The Nashville Southeast Corridor High-Performance Transit Alternatives Study (August

5.2 Alignment Considerations

5.3 Projected Ridership

5.4 Capital Costs

5.5 Operations and Maintenance Costs

6.0 FINANCING THE PROJECT

7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Monorail technologies are capable of providing operating speeds and passenger

 There are a number of monorail manufacturers, some of which have established a

 The MPO’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, adopted in December 2010,

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

SECTION 1. The department of transportation is directed to conduct a preliminary study to

2.0 MONORAIL TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

Figure 2: Schwebebahn in Wuppertal, Germany

Figure 3: Townliner Suspended Monorail in Chiba, Japan

Figure 5: Different Ways of Suspending a Suspension Monorail

Figure 6: Seattle ALWEG Straddle Monorail

Figure 7: OTG Transit Cantilevered Monorail

Figure 8: The Transrapid Levitating Monorail

3.0 MONORAIL SYSTEMS

3.1 Systems in Operation

3.2 Systems in Development

 Transport Ventures: This is a consortium of international companies promoting a “New

 Owen Transport Group (OTG) HighRoad: This is a side-straddle technology on which

4.0 VENDOR SYSTEM REVIEW

4.1.1 Existing Locations

4.1.2 Vehicle, Guideway, and Station Description

Table 1: System Load Capacity

Capital costs were not available for this report.

Figure 10: Train Yard and Storage Layout

4.1.6 Emergency Operations

4.1.7 Environmental Considerations

4.2.1 Existing Locations

4.2.2 Vehicle, Guideway, and Station Description