Oi... those who assume constant acceleration (despite the progressive increase in power requirement with speed) should be a little careful about casting stones about knowledge.
The assumption was that the specified acceleration was the average acceleration from a complete stop to travelling at top service speed. If you have a better suggestion on how to interpret the specs, by all means, let's hear it. I'd think that interpreting it any other way would imply the manufacturer was being dishonest.
To a first approximation, structure requirements for a vehicle travelling at a certain speed are determined by the mass of the vehicle. For the same passenger capacity (or floor area) why is the mass of a monorail vehicle so much less than a conventional vehicle?
That says very little about the width of the required structure and hence the shadow cast. Even though they have to support similar weight, an elevated metro track is wider and flatter while a monorail track is narrower and taller and incorporates more of the supporting structure into the track itself. Basically, a monorail track is more optimal for elevation than a normal steel rail track for the same reasons that monorail is more expensive than steel rail when on the ground.
Light rail vehicles tend to be a bit heavier for what they are because they usually aren't grade-separated and have to cope with potential collisions. Heavy rail vehicles are just larger and faster.
Lack of compatibility with existing systems and the uniqueness of the vehicle/guideway interface is also a disadvantage against a light rail or heavy rail solution. If you are not running at grade, then station complexity/accessibility is also not great.
Lack of compatibility with existing systems isn't a problem. Interchanging between light rail, heavy rail, monorail and metro are all about equally as difficult, and for reliability purposes it's better to have a sectorised system anyway. The not running at-grade also isn't as big a problem as you'd think, because heavy rail often requires walking up and down stairs to access anyway due to island platforms. Light rail is the odd one out here, where you're more or less always able to just walk directly up to it like a bus stop.
There are lots of public transport systems in the world. Not many of them are monorail, despite the "technology" having been around for a while. Perhaps that's because this is the dawn of a new era, but at the same time it does give cause for scepticism.
Or perhaps that's because well planned cities or those that have plenty of space along transport corridors don't usually need an elevated rail system. I did say that the primary application was when there isn't any space on the ground and tunnelling is too expensive.
Or perhaps your use of quotes around "technology" means you have an irrational bias here.
Looking at your map again I'd also think you'll find speed limits associated with the radius of curvature of the track would be significant. Map the track across into a curve diagram and then set a speed for each curve (you can use a limiting lateral acceleration (associated with passenger comfort/safety limits, not structure limits) as a guide), then run transit time calculations considering acceleration and de-acceleration.
Remember when I said there were only 3 sharp corners not near stations between Parramatta and Central? That's what I was referring to. Assuming a max cant of 10 degrees (perfectly reasonable for a monorail) and a max lateral acceleration of 0.1g, the top speed around a 46m radius curve is about 40km/h. To travel at 80km/h, the radius has to be more around 170m. Corners that I consider to be sharp are those that require radii below around 170m.