COMMENTS

Devesh,

If you cud convince planners about the route you propose, I would only be too happy as it will add another additional line northwards !

I am trying to focus on feasibility & viability of the line/s as also commuter convenience, which is what the planners will concentrate on when you put forward a proposal. We are not even sure that the Yelahanka line proposed by BMRC would pass the test for viability - a DPR is required, first, & several authorities are involved (State & Central govts, Planning Commission, JBIC or bank/s that would lend & finanace the project, etc.).

I am more confident about the Yelahanka line being extended to BIAL since it looks far more feasible as it includes many daily passengers to & from the area north of Yelahanka (along NH-7), in addition to BIAL personnel & air travellers. It also takes care of commuter needs better than the line proposed by you does for the reasons already mentioned (which is that it passes from appx'ly midway in town, & not from too far east or west, which would inconvenience one set of commuters).

Yr proposed line passes thro' much less developed areas that will result in meagre passenger pickups en-route - the main pickup points will generally be confined upto ORR & a few kms northwards. I can say this because I know the area fairly well. Thus, it will more or less be a sort of dedicated airport service train, with very few other passengers. This will not be the case if you run it along NH-7 past Yelahanka, as the train will have much higher patronage from areas that are more developed than areas along Kannur-Bagalur rd. I will also add here that Metros worldwide are usually planned on routes that are already fully developed & where there is sufficient travel demand, & not on less developed areas, awaiting development to take place, since the anticipated development may never happen !

What I meant by duplication was that since the tracks have to rise up again from Byappanahalli eastwards, towards Whitefield when the extension is being done, it might not leave enough room for another set of tracks for Metro trains in the same direction, unless as you say, lines are shared - I am not sure if such is possible.

As regards travellers from Jayanagar - the same will be true with yr proposed line too, only they would have to go further east to take the train, resulting in more commute time. They will not have 3 interchanges as you state if the Yelahanka train itself is extended up to BIAL, as Suhas proposed (& I also had agreed).

In Ph-2, there are proposals for interchanges (underground) at City market & at Vellara Jn. So, from Jayanagar, the commuter will change at City Mkt & then change again at Vellara Jn & get on to the BIAL line, saving on commute time. If he had to take the train from Byappanahalli as you propose, he would have to proceed further to change at Majestic, & travel all the way east to Byappanahalli & then interchange, which will add more time to his commute.

The major pickup & dropoff point at Vellara Jn would all be underground as this second N-S line is expected to have UG section from Langford rd to past Laingrajpuram, as I had already mentioned (This is yet to be confirmed, though). No churches or other structures will need to be knocked off as you mentioned !

The EC-Yel line will come up by 2015 - the alignment DPR is under progress, now. Feasibility is no problem as all routes that it covers have already been recommended for mass transits in the CTTP report, though viability is dependent on the DPR.

If your proposal has to be considered, it will also have to follow the full procedure - feasibilty /viability studies (particularly land acquisition as this had already been a non-starter earlier for the expressway), DPR, funding options, approvals, etc. No such capital intesive project will get off on a quick start & be ready within 3 years, for sure ! Not just in India, but anywhere, as it costs hugely & must be fully investigated & found justifiable.

• thumb_up 29 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

Suhas,

BMRC officials had tried to explain what I had also described, but since you ask for data, I will try to answer what I can :

Land cost in the proposed area :  Varies from Rs.6500/- (ORR) to abt Rs.1000/- (BIAL area) - Average would be, say 3500/- per/sqft, assuming fare compensation based on market rates.

How much land would an elevated system need/km length : Initially, for Ph-1 comprising 33km, 228.62 acres was the land requirement, which included 6.9km underground, where land requirement is much lesser. Ignoring this, & going by the same ratio, for 24km of elevated section (appx distance Byp~BIAL via ORR), the area required would roughly be about 166.3 acres, assuming that the section is fully elevated. 1 Acre = 45,000 sq.ft appx’ly. So, cost of land acquisition for elevated section would be about 2,619crs, which itself is very steep since land costs have gone up considerably.

How much land would an at grade system need/km length : No estimates are available - my guess is that the area would roughly be two to three times more than for elevated sections since all stations will be on ground + width of the corridor itself would be larger due to double-track lines.  Thus, costs would appx’ly be 6,547crs, assuming land required is 2.5 times that required for elevated sections. It is incorrect to assume that 10m strip is all that is needed. A depot will likely be needed at BIAL + stations are involved, including entry & exit arrangements, lay-bys, power sub-stations, generator rooms, etc.

What is the cost of an underpass 10m wide and 10m long, drainaige et al. :  As per CTTP table 9.10, the average cost for Rail Over Bridge /RUB is 24crs (width & length have not been specified). Thus, for 24 of these, the cost would be 576crs. For Pedestrian underpasses of narrow width, the cost may be lesser, say half, which will add another 288crs.

What is the fully loaded cost of a METRO (rolling stock, tracks et al - minus land) of an Elevated and at Grade per km. :  Out of the total cost of 6395crs for Metro Ph-1, 2593crs was for civil works & the remaining for various other heads, including 600crs for land acquisition based on 2005 rates (see table below).

Thus, it is clear that it is better to go elevated as land costs are too high + for other benefits previously mentioned.

• thumb_up 32 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

The CTTP report has quoted Rs.15crs per km for augmentation /improvements for Commuter Rail System (not a new system) to run on existing tracks, with few additions. This estimate probably includes station improvements, additional coaches, some new tracks, etc. Land requirement of 62 hectares (153.2 acres) for running about 62kms, mostly within ORR has also been quoted, but has not been included in the cost estimate.

Another 142km of CRS has also been recommended to connect exterior areas & nearby towns (outside ORR), which does not involve land requirements.

In Mumbai, trains are run appx'ly every 3-5 mins during peak hours & about 15-30 mins during other times on the Western railway (Churchgate to Borivli – 34km) & on Central railway (CST to Kalyan – 54km). Trains on the other line (Harbor line) are not as frequent during peak hours.

The trains have some 13 coaches & are very long & carry over three times their capacity regularly. Punctuality is good, though comfort levels are very poor – conditions within coaches & stations is quite depressing with overcrowding, & people frequently get pushed around at stations & also within trains by those boarding or alighting. It is unsuitable for quality-seekers - AC buses have begun services & these are far better.

Compared to this low-quality service, Metro is far superior & much more comfortable. This is the best choice for BIAL, in my opinion, provided that it is run from Yelahanka onwards to include all possible types of users, & since it can include air travellers also.

Another likely option is elevated Monorail along centre or at the side of existing roads, but since the builder /operator may be different, ticketing will be separate with increased costs for commuters. Also, maintenance & operation would be a separate issue.

• thumb_up 35 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

Continued from the Commuter Rail Service thread

Guys

A couple of clarifications to filter the numerous ideas floating around Yelahanka.

1. Yelahanka station is choked. So please do not look at ANY solution that relies on Yelahanka station. Indian Railways is willing to give track BEYOND Yelahanka.

2. Forget CRS as a high frequency solution. By the GoK letter, we should realise that Railways can at best provide a high volume (not high frequency) solution for peak hour. This is ideally suited for shift based industries which will have a massive movement at a fixed time. i.e. industrial estates including the IT dominated ones.

3. Standard rail services have a much larger block size (larger trains) when compared to metro rail services, and world over railways use a block system (one train on one block of track). Which is also a reason why Mumbai cannot increase the frequency of trains.

4. Security. We cannot always assume as the crow flies and put all our eggs in one basket. One strike and the airport gets completely cut off.

5. There is a BMRC long term plan to put in a central line that will come up NH7 from Bommasandra/EC side, through Vellara junction, to Hennur Road junction (which is where my airport track proposal cuts to Hennur Road from ORR) and thenon to Yelahanka via Nagavara and Sanjay Nagar. I have discussed this earlier. Trust me on the route I have seen the proposals. But this plan is at least 5, more likely 10 years away.

. . . . . . .

Coming to the Namma Metro link proposal I made.

Keeping these in mind, I had proposed the start point at BYP, since this will be ready by 2010. Other reaches of Metro will take another 2 years.

Another aspect to keep in mind is traffic penetration and peak hour flows. One the best HSRL in the world is HKIA express, and even that has only 26% passenger penetration. This is with high levels of safety HKG is famous for. Metro is not yet know, but let us give benefit of the doubt.

This is an old graph. I am sure the peaks and valleys have become more radical.

What that translates to :

10 million pax per year x 26% = 2.6 MPPA. Divide by 52 = 50K pax per week or about 8K pax per day. Dividing by 6 to balance out non peak days. At 8K ppd, no rail system on god's green earth will work out economically. Putting in airport workers is essential. At present that is around 8K workers.

45% of an airports passengers travel during the 6 peak hours. 6am - 10am and 5pm - 7pm. Balance 50% will travel during non-peak hours 10am - 5pm, and 7pm to 12 midnight (assuming the running hours of Metro). 5% will travel outside the metro hours.

So PHP (peak hour passengers) = 3,600 passengers during 6 hours = 600 PHP per hour. Non PHP = 4,400 during 12 hours or 365 non PHP.

We will expect a train to BIA every 20 minutes during peak and 30 minutes during non peak. But as you can see, there is a significant dip in passengers during the middle of the day. A metro can fill capacity with commuters who are more prevelant during the non peak times.

Yes, initially, the Metro proposal will appear to favour passengers in the east, and I do not mean this as a justification, but most air passengers are based in the South to East quadrant of the city, and in any case this is a mute point. Once the Metro is completed, it will take only 30 minutes to cover the metro end to end (as per BMRC). Add another 5 minutes max to change over between NS and EW line. Add another 5 minutes to change over to BIA line and 40 minutes to BIAL. Total 80 minutes from the furthest point on the Metro is most definitely a good transit time to the airport.

We also need to look at this line beyond the narrow confines of an airport link, and more in service of a city grid. As my proposal shows, there will be a stop at HBR. At that location is a BMTC depot so there will be multi-modal connectivity. Also, when the Central line comes, it will come to HBR before going left to Nagavara. So the BIA line will also service to the airport from the NH7 corridor, as well as provide a link from Yelahanka to Whitefield and ITPL.

I think I will stop now. Have gone on enough. :)

-----------------------

Regards

Devesh R. Agarwal

Visit my aviation blog at http://aviation.deveshagarwal.com

• thumb_up 16 Likes
• · login or register to post comments

ASJ, Yr questions ---

There is already a huge 6-lane road (NH7) going towards the airport in the north (abt 35km from city) that has numerous suburbs that are partially developed. A Ph-2 Metro line is planned to an important suburb (Yelahanka), which is on this rd & is about halfway to the airport. Devesh had proposed a Metro line along a previously planned expressway route that had to start from the east of the city & also required the route to be longer (abt 24km), passing through lesser developed areas.

I had suggested that it was better to continue the route coming up in Ph-2 from Yelahanka to the airport. My point was that this would reduce the length & of course, costs for construction + there would be many daily commuters coming to the city + also the question of a city-airport rail connection would be accomplished, perhaps making the extension more viable.

I agree that an airport catering to just 10 million users does not warrant a separate Metro system for the airport. I also agree that comparison to London etc is rather useless (See my earlier post/s above).

There is nothing wrong in running trains on grade, no doubt, but it has to be less expensive than going elevated. Many old European & American Metros (London, Berlin, Munich, Paris, Bilbao, etc.) do have portions on the ground, generally in the suburbs (they are mostly underground within the city), but the problem with Bangalore (& other larger Indian cities) is really the relatively very high cost of land & stiff opposition by land owners.

Using central medians or on sides with some road widening on existing roads is the only option to erect pillars for the metro & run it elevated - Mumbai & Hyderabad are planning the same, & also, this was what was done in Delhi, except for a small on ground section outside the city. Kolkatta's Metro runs entirely underground. Costs for tunnelling for underground sections are much higher, so the general focus is on elevated sections.

As regards space consumption, the elevated sections will allow traffic underneath as has been done in Chinese cities & also in New York. There is also the possibility for commercialization of the space beneath along some sections which is another revenue stream that can subsidize ticket costs & running of the Metro. Designing stations is also less complicated as a floor is built overhead, covering wider parts of the road, without the requirement for large land parcels, except for entry /exits & for providing parking for park & ride facilities.

I have also travelled by the underground in London & on the New york subway, & I know that in peak hours, they are quite full, but not like in Mumbai. Mumbai's locals are possibly the worst as regards commuter comforts with all the pushing & shoving & I had stopped using them a long time ago.

Srinidhi - If the tracks have to be laid on the ground, much more land would be needed & perhaps more trees will have to be cut, instead of the single row of trees along one side of the road, if the alignment is at the side. The Kannur-Bagalur route has been widened now & it may be possible to run an elevated metro on it, limiting land requirements, but since the area is less developed, the no. of commuters will be fewer.

• thumb_up 32 Likes
• · login or register to post comments