SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES
Written By Ravi_D - 2 March, 2010
Bangalore Namma Metro Citizen Reports BMRC Tracking underground Transportation public transport Metro Rail Phase1
Just noticed the numbers for land acquisition in the Feb Newsletter.
UG NS Stretch - Proposed: 14, Possession Taken: 8, Demolished: 7
UG EW Stretch - Proposed: 129, Possession Taken:0 (!), Demolished: 0 (!).
Read in DH today that the UG-EW Stretch is awarded.
If the acquisition numbers are correct, brace yourself. Contractors will have a perfect excuse for all further delays - The stretch took an additional year and a half.... because.... we couldn't get our TBM underground!
n - 5 March, 2010 - 16:53
BMTC is building TTMCs wherever they seem to have land since they need to utilize Jnnurm funds. BMRC is building stations as per approved DPR, which they state cannot be changed. Similarly, SWR will carry out extensions of railway tracks & build /extend stations wherever they have their own land. If a Monorail comes up, they will be told to build on certain given routes with specifics that similarly might not connect with other modes.
True. The SWR and BMTC using their respective lands is somewhat understandable (though definitely not justified) as they are different govt. agencies. BUT, what prevents the metro stations being integral to TTMCs (if that land is already available) or bus stops (not necessarily stations) within the footprint of metro stations? Both are run by the same state govt.
See earlier comment (summary below):
"
2) More important, do the mono (or maybe metro) routes compete with existing high-frequency BMTC bus routes and TTMCs? The metro/mono authorities need to be pressed to coordinate with using and maybe augmenting BMTC facilities unlike the first phase.
This is the important stage for prajagalu to participate - discuss it to death (with authorities and experts) for maybe a month, have another month for pre-resolving property/right-of-way/environment issues, set it in stone and finish the project on-time.
As an aside: Alignment should not be based on soil conditions alone (unless soils are poor for long stretches). It should primarily be based on traffic patterns and potential growth; of course needs to avoid politicians' lands and temples ;-)
"
and here:
"
2) was with respect to earlier discussions regarding lack of coordination. BMRC should be forced to interact with on-ground (read BMTC) reality - DMRC (from Delhi) couldn't be expected to nor did any local interaction (AFAIK) for Phase I. As mentioned above, it is much cheaper and very much flexible to augment feeder buses if roads permit than do a mono or metro. Once built, mono or metro cannot be withdrawn or the cost recovered due to dip or cycles in demand.
I reiterate - soil should not be the important factor in governing an alignment.
"
That is the reason for praja/public to vigorously participate in Phase 2. Without getting into technical details the govt. should look at the big picture and mandate (to DMRC or any other entity) that integration is one of the top priorities. Then cost, soil etc. If govt. won't /can't then praja/public should.
Now, they may appoint BMLTA as the authority when all important decisions & construction is either well underway or has already been completed. They will then try to modify things as & when complaints arise - & they sure will come up. This is assuming of course that BMLTA makes recommendations based on user needs, which seems doubtful going by present day responses to congestion.
Again, isn't praja going to nudge BMLTA? That seems be the whole philosophy of this platform, correct? ;-)
Naveen - 2 March, 2010 - 11:00
Judging by the silence about TBMs & also news reports about whole roads being taken up for construction (eg. Vidhana Veedhi), I'm beginning to suspect that the UG sections are planned to be done by cut & cover method, which will create havoc for the public.
Why is it that there have been no press announcements about TBM machine imports ? They should have been here by now. And a delay has been announced - is this coincidence ?
Vasanth - 4 August, 2010 - 11:24
Ravi_D - 2 March, 2010 - 08:46
UG Section pre-qualification tender document is silent about TBM. This 2007 July DH Article implies BMRCL may itself be importing TBMs. Latest BMRC Contractor's List does not specify who is building them. Any ideas?
Have they already been ordered and sitting ready for use? These monsters could have significant lead time, especially if custom built and shipped ocean freight from Europe.
Metro-Link Express for Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad (MEGA)
Sanjeev - 6 October, 2015 - 11:42
Expert committee views on gauge selectio for METRO.
Will Sridharan contradicts of these findings ???
http://www.gujaratmetrorail.com/images/GAUGE%20COMMITTEE%20REPORT%20%28MEGA%29.pdf
Already Delhi METRO is over crowded and has no future expansion option with standard gauge technology.
PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES
Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!