Skip to Content

Mono vs LRT vs METRO vs Commuter vs Suburban vs ...

This is something I have been dying to understand better. What is the real difference between the various rail based transport systems ? That is, the engineering aspect. Fundamentally arent they all wheels on a track.

Is it just a question of capacity ? Just scaling the strength of the supporting civil infrastructure ? Do we call a higher capacity LRT a METRO ?

I am not talking about grade here. Almost all (exception of Mono) can be made to run at grade (on surface), elevated or underground. Mono too, there is no reason why it cannot be run very close to the ground to be called at grade (well almost)

 Any gyan is welcome


BuckC's picture

Mass transit in Bangalore


 Why not integrate all of the rail transit plans within the city and design it so that all sections of the city and the suburbs are served by one type of rail system, viz. Metro rail?


blrsri's picture

std metro is the way!

 About laying new tracks and running LRT/monorail/brt, there has been prior discussions on it..

to reiterate..allignment, route, passenger density should play a factor for deciding the mode and not the mode itself.

A retrofit like..

'mono is cool, lets have it from kattariguppe to national college!' or

'they(private cos) are anyways monorail for free, so whats the harm' etc.. is stupid!

LRT on the  other hand is ideal but I have come to  a conclusion that it is not practical for Bangalore!

regards to commuter rail..there are also many blogs/comments on praja already discussing this..however karnataka is not in good terms with the centre (railways) and they dont have time/resources to cater to local taffic in bangalore...or local anything..benniganahalli!


silkboard's picture

cost to build vs revenue from operations

Whats a few hundred coreres? If half the population of Bangalore pays 10 rupees a month, we pool 420 crores.

When I find discussions on Mono/Metro/LRT etc going to the details of per km cost, I think that's a wrong line to take. These things are meant to serve the city for half a century. The stress should be on revenues that usage will generate, and not on one time cost, which may look to be huge, but is still one time.

So, to me, Metro, mono LRT skybus etc = all are almost even on that front. Some say skybus is half or a third the cost of Metro, but there is no deployed proof yet.

About talk safety/security, that one is less safe than other - this is a bit much. There are standards meant to ensure the safety aspect. Its only with relatively unproven technologies (skybus) where this is an issue.

Sometimes, these debates happen because folks try to think one solution may fit all areas. The temptation use a standard mode all across the city is a valid one, because then you have one thing to maintain and integrate, and costs would be lower there than maintaining Metro/mono etc.

Lets talk the two separately. Integration first.

Even if you lay Metro on or under every other road in Bangalore, the routes will not be point to point. You will have to change trains once or twice to get to your destination. This change can happen across different modes of transport as well. The BMTC way of thinking (lots of point to point routes, resulting in very high number of routes) lays undue stress on integration.

Now about maintenance.

The costs of maintaining a metro, or a mono, or BRT could be brought down if government can lay down national standards for these. Costs are high if you get locked down to a proprietary technology. But if there are standards for everything, right from track width, to size of A/c vents to thickness, width and length of seat cushions, I bet maintenance costs would be a lot lower.

Revenue calculations depend on data collection about transportation patterns and sane assumptions. This should be the most important input to mode decision. Any mode that can guarantee 30-40 kmph end-to-end avg speed is probably good enough, but I assume there would be need for long distance (so high speed) vs short haul (so lower) routes, and mode decision may depend a bit on speed aspect of technology. But the key is - chase the market, not the technology.

Vasanth's picture

Sustainable Transport is what we need

Std Metro is every planner says. But, what we need is a sustainable transport. A Metro system although highly attractive and fast is not sustainable in terms of the investment it calls.

Most of the cities are going to BRT since it is sustainable. There are many critics about BRT , and many critics on the Monorail, many on the light rail (lot many cities have dismantled it and are going to BRT instead of LRT (since BRT is lot faster and easier to maintain and can be self feeder).

A city in Canada ( I think Ottawa) which built a Metro for the Olympics become bankrupt since people were not using it after the Olympics and it proved costly to the Government.

We see lot of BMTC Vajras and Vayu Vajras running empty burning 1 litrle of diesel every 1.5 km with 2 or 3 passengers in it due to routing problem of BMTC. We cannot afford to have a Metro running like that because of the routing problems.

BRT is fastest,cheapest to implement and maintain. It can be self feeder to itself. People need not change modes of transport. Problem is it depends too much on how organized the implementation is. BRT buses has to wait in signals.

LRT comes second since it runs at grade.  This also depends lot on how organized the implementation is since people have to cross the roads to access LRT stations. LRTs too have to wait in signals. Carrying capacity of one train of LRT can be higher than that of one BRT bus - but trailer BRT buses too has got excellent carrying capacity.

Problem with both these technologies is it needs road space equivalent to 2 buses / Train + 3-5et as buffer. Space is more needed near BRT or LRT stations.

Monorails are having shortest turning radius, suits very well for narrower roads. It runs on rubber tyres, so less wear and tear. Have smaller foot print since the piers are smaller since monorails are lighter than their counterparts metro.  There are monorails built to run on solar energy as well.  This is more expensive in terms of investment compared to BRT or LRT, but faster since it runs on rubber track. Does not depend on the traffic signals since it runs elevated. Has a carrying capacity raning from 5,000 - 30,000 PHPDT.

Metros elevated are expensive than Mono to implement since the Piers needs to be wider and larger in area. Needs straight lines preferrably since the turning radius is larger which needs land acquisitions thereby increasing the cost. We know the problems in Bangalore for land acquisition like the CMH Road where the shop keepers were telling 'Discard Metro and Implement Mono' since they were at the receiving end. There is a case filed against the namma metro project itself.

Underground Metro is the most expensive and highly time consuming because of the viaduct construction. People say why elevated Metro, it blocks the vision of the sky and damages the city look. But, at the cost of 1 km of underground Metro, 3-4 kms of elevated Metro can be constructed.

I would suggest Sustainable Transport is what we need. Wherever road width permits, BRT is a good candidate because of its nature of self feeding plus quick implementation. As Naveen suggested many routes to BMTC which can be quickly implemented within a year, but, not moving forward with our planners. 

BRT not possible? Elevated Metro or Mono depending upon the PHPDT volumes. No biasing towards any technology please. Underground Metro only at the busiest places.

ramesh_mbabu's picture

Re: cost to build vs revenue from operations

Bangaloreans have been paying 1 Rupee per Petrol and Diesel for last one decade. Looks like no one knows who has gobbled that huge amount of money. AFAIK the funding for Namma Metro comes from Japan Bank & Govt. Of Karnataka, none one talks about the special pool raised out of this petrol/diesel surcharge.


Ravi_D's picture

Talking of BMRTL Cess...

here are some stats...

28/July/02 - TOI:

From 1995, Bangaloreans have been paying ELRTS cess — later renamed infrastructure cess, which has now accrued to Rs 360 crore.

05/May/03 - Hindu:

Around Rs 430 crore that has been raised as BMRT cess since 1995 will form part of the State's equity. Another Rs 350 crore is expected to come in by 2007. 

16/Feb/05 - TOI:

Bangalore Metro’s cess account witnessed inflows of Rs 729 crore in 2003-04 ....

First two links confirm a number close to Rs 430 cr from '95 thru '03. Last link adds Rs 729 cr to the total during just one year (03-04). Somehow doesn't sound right...

Praja Post in 2007:

I'm sure someone out there knows what the number today is... Will we ever find out its fate?



srkulhalli's picture

Not an engineering perspective


 Not exactly what I was looking for. I had gone through the previous threads. I wanted to have a dedicated thread looking purely from an engineering perspective, not from end user or application or financial angle

 Most of my doubts are unanswered. For eg : What exactly is the difference in engineering of an LRT at grade and a METRO at grade. Is it just the number of bogies ?

 Most of you seem to assume an LRT means it runs at grade. Can it not be elevated. What is the difficulty ? In which case again what is the difference with other modes of transport

 Anyway, will read up in my free time and post anything worthwhile





srkulhalli's picture

An LRT Idea

Heres one, and I would be interested in knowing why it wouldnt work.

 Take an existing road. Dig up the footpath, go 12 feet deep and lay a single LRT track. On the top, cover it with cement concrete, so that the top becomes a pedestrian/bicycle track. Some reduction in road, but right of way acheived with minimum cost. The supporting structure of a pedestrian/bycycle will be much cheaper. Laying LRT track at grade is dirt cheap, and this should be similar cost. Since its a single track, my take is we should be able to get done in by loosing around 10ft of road space, not too much.

 For the return, take a different road, so that the two meet only at stations. That way coverage is increased (more people can easily access the track) and you dont take too much of road space.

 I am no train expert and this may not work out as well. Could anyone tell me why ?




blrsri's picture

some thoughts on lrt

wish digging up - place - cover was that easy task..itz very evident from the magic underpasses that we wanted to put in place..remember it was a 3-5 mts width

many things to be taken care of - 

high cost

soil quality

water table

existing utility lines etc

LRT  like the green line in Boston run at different grades, goes undergorund at Boston college and when its at park line(metro) criss corsses below it..this was layed in the early 19th century!

The best advantage for going underground is, as you mention, nothing is disturbed on top..and speed is not that case its more economical for planning a metro rather than a LRT underground!


LRT at grade is a good idea for Bangalore but needs tremendous dicipline from road users (vehicles/pedestrians)..we lack here and I dont see we improving anywhere in the near future..

Metro is the only way to go!

tsubba's picture


quick comment.

conceptually, with Right of way(RoW) not much different. LRT = Metro. Some weight & width distinctions. and perhaps Metro comes with standardized guage and technology. LRT only distinction is it can potentially be designed to be part of mixed traffic without RoW. I dunno if that is a good thing.

i think overall, to make an impact, exclusive RoW systems are needed.

silkboard's picture

okay got it

was waiting for folks like you to have an engineering talk on this. I will be reading this up too. Lets share our notes via a wikipedia like article. will mail you the details.
srkulhalli's picture

LRT response

blrsri, Why do you think it is costly ? What I am proposing is not an underground rail system, rather let me call it sub-surface. The METRO is hugely expensive when it goes underground. Rs 20 crores per km on surface to Rs 250 crore per km when it goes underground. What I am proposing is essential a surface rail, however built 12 ft below. Then it is covered, and the structure has enough strength to accomdate pedestrians and bicyclist only. Do you get the difference ? It serves a dual purpose of also providing tracks for bicyclists/pedestrians. Building a supporting structure for bicyclists is not going to be that expensive. My guess would be it should be within 10 to 15 crore per km, but would like some civil engineer to comment. The key is we are not allowing heavy traffic except at crossings. We need right of way without the $700 billion from the goverment. (we could of course create a financial company and loan recklessly and then threaten to declare ourselves bankrupt to get there ! but then we need MBA degrees from Wharton and Harvard to get that scheme to work !) But short of that, are there any engineering ideas to get right of way - cheaply. Suhas


Vasanth's picture

Without Width There is no speed-Trucks may be parked on footpath

Problem with LRT systems is the lack of speed. Wider the tracks are, greater the speed the train can acquire. It would be harder to even reach 40kmph on a LRT track which is the width of a footpath. Also, we rarely see cyclists in Bangalore to have cycle track. A track which is meant for cycles and pedestrains will be used for car or even a truck parking weight of which may even result in collission of the footpath resulting in danger to the train. There needs to be space for evacuation too. On the other hand BRT is an easier option which can be easily implemented on a 3 Lane Road such as the Residency Road, JC Road which Government is not considering.
idontspam's picture

showpiece toy train?

Disclaimer - This is not engineering talk We need to keep in mind that we need a mass people mover. You are going to have people pile into these trains like bombay local. Showpiece toy trains will not help. To me monorail/LRT looks just that, showpiece toy train. Another thing, what we spend on infrastructure is peanuts, Let us not nitpick on a few crores today and repent later. If dont build it for ourselves the money is going to go elsewhere unproductive, yes the politician/beuracrats pocket or NCR/New Delhi.
srkulhalli's picture

LRT .. contd

Vasanth, I am not saying width of footpath. Maybe 10 ft or more which is a rather wide footpath. Just seeing how to reuse that space better. We all complain about lack of pedestrian facilites/facilites for bicyclists. In that context, your statement "we rarely see cyclists .." is really retrograde and it is precisely the attitude we are trying to fight against. Its easy to design it such a way that motorised vehicles cannot use it. We can always have a sharp elevation from the road of 2 ft or so and bars at entry/exit points. At all turns there will be roads, so I dont understand the access problem. idontspam May not be engineering talk, but we must use numbers to discuss, otherwise we are just talking in the air. I am going to copy paste another thread which I posted somewhere else - As per your mail, the Delhi Phase I cost 10,500 crores. But the point is phase I by itself is very insufficient, as the commuters and the fellow bloggers itself have commented. Hence we have a phase 2. From the DMRC site itself, it says that for a population of 16 million, we need a Metro of at least 300 km length to have sufficient reach and service across the city. That would roughly translate to 2km per lakh or 20 km per million population. Phase 1 is 65km (ph2 is 120km). At that, the cost per km is around 10500/65 is Rs 161 crores/km on an average. The aggregate population of Indian cities having a population of 2 million or more is around 100 million. To service them with the same conviniences that Delhi would have, would need around 100 x 20 = 2000 km of Metro. At the above average cost, that would translate to 2000 x 161 = Rs 3,22,000 crores or $ 80 billion ! Does India have that kind of money ? Answer is NO. Not when 25% of the population does not have decent food or education. Yes of course I would like to have a METRO. But with it I would like my fellow countryment to have it too, not at their cost. Yes there are hidden benefits to a METRO, but still this is toooo expensive. Suhas


blrsri's picture

little more complex..

I dont build underground transit systems but of what little I can analyze, going underground for an LRT system is not going to save much..compared to metro underground! Taking the 12 ft you mention for the train..we will need to dig to accommodate at least 2 feet on top as clearance and 4 ft at the bottom to bed the tracks which comes close to the metro needs..also there are other issues to be taken care of like the vibrations if its too close to the surface..there will be chances that the surrounding existing structures will get affected by this constant rumbling and can develop cracks! Also, did you know that the sewage and water lines of most buildings here run at about 6-10 feet underground, all these need to be shifted and then ofcourse the reliance guys like the others have laid their optic fibre everywhere and anywhere! About surface LRT without right of way..this is something we can expect every other day ..also we are good at setting fire to things very fast during strikes and hartals or say even mourning! Also coming to the number talk on metro needs of Delhi, we should stop expecting metro stations within 1 Km of any place we stand in the city..guess Sridharan plans for this. Instead we can make optimal use of the metro's park and ride facility to get around..first we need to prioritize with the routes, like our work places ITPL/EC/Peenya etc and get them connected and get ready for a park and ride spot even 3-4 kms away! I am sure everyone agrees that a 1 hour stress free ride is still way better than the 1.5 hrs self driven hell!
idontspam's picture

Re: LRT...contd

Suhas, why did you conclude we dont have all that money? We do have that kind of money we should know how to get to it. JNNURM has 50,000 crores to spend in 5 years. Put up the case and get the money. There are international banks which lend you that kind of money. In the hyderabad model of metro development the govt spends close to nothing. why did you conclude this was at the cost of somebody else? PPP models have evolved to have the private players put up infra and only the beneficiaries of that infra gets to pay. Think BIA, Toll roads, Hyd metro etc. linking any development to the level of poverty in the nation is a sure way of ensuring neither the poor benefits nor the city dwellers.
srkulhalli's picture

LRT .. money is all that matters

blrsri, Your points are the kind I was looking for. I am not sure how much money it will save (assuming all the points you have raised are taken care of)but I just wish somebody had the knowhow to tell me how much exactly it would cost and how it would compare with a METRO system. idontspam, Yes - I am assuming we dont have that kind of money. But that assumption I think is well grounded. For one, the amount I mentioned is 8 times the JNURM and this is only for transport and only for one form. And this is assuming a METRO at an average distance of 5 km for a user (not 1 km). Also this is a signficant percentage of our GDP (8%), greater than our defence budget, much bigger than our education + health etc etc.. so we are talking real big money here. Basically our capacity to pay up should be taken into account. Once that is established, how that is financed is secondary. Even the real rich american cities go for LRT, as you may have observed. You have to know whats in your pocket before you go and shop. Look at it this way. If there was a solution for all our transport problems for Bangalore, which cost us Rs 200 crore, we would close our eyes and get it done right away. The only thing stopping us now is that the solution is too expensive .. think about it. This post, your cellphone and a thousand other things would not have been possible if not for the dramatic innovations that have taken place, which have made communications technology as a whole lot lot more affordable. But the same has not happened in Transport engineering - probably not enough bright people are doing research there. Sure, if somebody goes and builds all the METRO lines required, I will support them wholeheartedly, and its money better spent than going into somebodys pocket, but till then, we shouldnt not stop looking for a cheaper but equally effective alternative. Suhas



idontspam's picture

Missing the point

1) The fact that Metro should be reachable within 1Km of anywhere is utopian. I am surprised that should be a goal in itself. Metro should be complemented by cheaper alternative modes of travel like it is done in singapore. LInk up buses to stations 2) Ph1 of metro cost approx 10K crore for 60km. Ph2 is 120km and will cost approx 20Kcrore. Assume it will be expanded with an additional 20K crore. That makes it a total of 50K crore for one of indias largest cities. 3) Consider about 10 cities that will need a metro. This makes it 500K crore and not 3 lakh crore that you have come up with. 4) 4K crore for an airport looked expensive until we stumbled upon PPP. We need to consider these options. But this is the point, What is the alternative you have "today" which can move the same or larger set of people without looking like a toy train. LRT has not scaled up anywhere in the world. I havent seen monorail move so many people. So if you are trying to convince everybody into giving up the Metro quest because it sounds expensive I am saying you are looking at it the wrong way. If you are saying wait and dont pump in the money till we figure out cheaper means, thats a no go too. If you are saying lets just have an engineering discussion, go right ahead but dont stop facilitating using existing technology till the engineers have built their LHC and done their helium bashing.
Vasanth's picture

Good Website on Different Modes of Transport

http://www.citytransport.... is a good website on different transport modes used in different countries.
srkulhalli's picture

"Mass" Transport = do we really need the "mass"

idontspam, Forget the 1 km access. It is just distracting the discussion. I am OK with 5 km access. Lets drop this totally Your figure "This makes it 500K crore and not 3 lakh crore that you have come up with." of 500k crore is actually 5 lakh crore = $120 billion, so your number is higher than my estimate. It is even more money. One thing that needs a little better clarity. Suppose I have a METRO-A option of 100 crore/km which has say 10,000phpd capacity, and another METRO-B option of 50 crore/km why has 5000 phpd capacity, which is better ? All other things remaining the same (both have right of way, same speeds etc) I would say the METRO-B wins hands down, always. Because I can get double the coverage in the same amount of money, meaning I can get closer to the citizen, thus improving its utilisation , convinience, point to point speed for citizen et al. I dont think we have to be so stuck up on capacity. If we can start getting people of their cars and into the public transport system, then that is worthwhile looking at. I am in agreement with you in your last point. I have been emphasising this from the beginning, that this is an engineering discussion, and I agree that city planners should be limiting their choices to what is available today, till a proven alternative is thrown at them. Maybe this can act as a feeder to the METRO, so as I have been saying, we just need to understand its pros and cons. Somebody meanwhile needs to be working out how to raise the 5 lakh crore :)



silkboard's picture

coverage, and predictability

Seeing that this didn't turn into engineering chat, I return to and argue another point. Lets borrow from the BMTC related surveys (M N Srihari's 'paper') and polls (right here, from Vasanth) that tell us that people want two things first

- reliability, as in predictablity if time. Point A to Point B in a given range of time. Say, Indiranagar to Madivala in 20-30 minutes, that type of range.

- coverage. How far is the nearest point of commute, and can I easily walk or drive up to it?

- comfort, speed etc come a bit later, and enter the debate indirectly, at least for the majority

Suhas, with these two being most important, I will buy your argument that Metro B (whatever it may be - elevated LRT, Railway's DEMU with bird cage like fences, Dedicated bus lanes on elevated roads - design your cost and space affective technology here) would be better option that 120 Cr/km Metro because you want "coverage" over speed.

These talks always tilts in favor of Metro due to speed. Speed is about how fast multiplied by how many. You can do with a high capacity, high speed mode for high density corridors. If the Metro corridors are not dense, you can make them high density by two means:

1) Selectively raise FAR around the Metro corridor

2) Design each Metro station as a hub for catchment area

Which of the two is easier for government to do? Yes, #1, and they have already done it! (Recently raised FAR around Metro corridor to 4)! However, the same high FAR thing is now hurting because its become harder to acquire land near the stations for the purpose of building them up as local transportation hubs (source: a recent chat with those in the know).

One metro station every 1 km may never happen, it probably doesn't deserver to as well. But transportation design for catchment areas for Metro needs to happen, and happen fast.

Its not good to hear that BMTC and BMRC are arguing over who should pay for and maintain (as in acquire) areas for buses to pick up passengers near the station. detailed plans for stations are not public (at least I haven't seen the plans, I am talking the full station area, not just the show peice building, which really doesn't matter). Catchment area, and station sorrounding area design will make or break the Metro.

Now, about catchment, I am with asj's philosophy here. Existing bus system, with some re-tuning to add local shuttles to extend the reach to deeper residential areas can do it. I would like us to exhaust that option before going into Monorail or Skybus or whatever.

But its sad to see no talk happening in public media and forums on this topic. Metro is going to be like BIAL, we will likely be disappointed because we are ot paying attention to details and scrutiny right now.

Sorry for the Metro heavy talk - will probably copy-paste it into a new Metro only thread.

[Suhas - did you read the PM?]

Vasanth's picture

That is why Sustainable Transport is everyone is looking for

Every city is now looking for sustainable transport with Right of the way in terms of BRTS. After reading the comparison between Metro-A & Metro-B where Metro-B is cheaper, but can have more coverage. Here comes the BRTS with almost 1/60 the cost of Metro. If designed properly can have 60 times the coverage of a Metro at the same cost. That is where city like Bogota and Curitiba having studied a lot have gone for BRTS. Mono can be like Metro B and not Metro A. Somehow BRT is failing to please the mass in India, so is the mono and available Commuter Rails. People want hifi Metro and many planners like Mr.Sreedharan thinks that way, whereas DIMITS thinks the other way.
Naveen's picture

Risk is the Key

Many questions have been raised about the Metro & other forms of mass transport), but in my opinion, the key question really is how best to cover risk/s that go with such hugely capital intensive projects. Without the notion of financial risk/s & some backup planning to shield from possible financial losses, discussions will remain mere speculations & investments will be hard to find, unless prospective builders are assured of profits. Public transport has, the world over remained a state subject since there is very little money to be made out of the meagre revenues - rather, benefits are for the city as a whole, such as other business investments, image, etc. The hyderabad story is more about rights to develop attractive commercial space adjacent Metro stations & tracks & this is why some private capital maybe chasing the idea of building the Metro, but this is just the beginning. Already, there are controversies & let's see how it shapes up. The key questions are - Who will run & maintain the system ? What if passenger shortfalls are experienced ? Will the state have to guarantee some minimum ridership or revenue each day to the promoters ? What happens to the system after the BOT period ? The city may be left with a huge capital outflow to run & maintain the system with poor revenues, having already lost prime commercial spaces ! The airports were conceived & made successes because they are a sort of monopoly (each city would have just one or two airports) & revenue streams are more or less guaranteed. The situation is quite different with Metro or any Mass transit system. Because such grave risks exist, most cities have usually opted for a small 'spinal' mass transport system backed up by less expensive ones feeding it, & the least expensive is BRT, utilising readily available road space, & one which can be dismantled easily if revenues fall.
srkulhalli's picture

BRTS - Not proven technology

Vasanth, I think you expanded on the coverage point very well and yes, Buses always have very good coverage, hence they are here to stay. However, as I mentioned in my previous post - city planners should be considering proven technologies. I do not consider BRTS as a proven technology in India. Show me one place where it has been successfully implemented, with predictable times as much as any right of way / grade seperated transport ? Maybe I am missing something, but how the hell are you going to get it work on the narrow roads with so many intersections , such heterogenous traffic in India, with no clear lanes, changing road widths et all. At least show me a comprehensive design for say a 15 km route (to make it meaningful) and I promise I will find holes in the scheme :). In the TransInnova summit, on a survey, the number one consideration for public transport useres was PREDICTABLE Travel times. THat makes sense, if I am sure that I will take the same times every time(which are decent of course) I would jump to the Public Transport bandwagon. BRTS would get as stuck in jams as anybody else. And if you can get BRTS to work, you can also lay a couple of lines on those lanes and get the LRT to work, with even better traffic segregation, more efficient, less polluting, more capacity with a relative less increase in cost.



srkulhalli's picture

coverage, predictablity and planning, planning and planning

I think I give up on the engineering part :) - but an interesting discussion neverthless I think what SB is getting at on the FAR basically boils down to lack of planning, lack of foresight. Land aquisition should be done before the FAR was raised, they should have thought the whole thing through before they started, starting from the stations, approach, catchment areas et al. They lay out an implementation strategy and then rigorously execute it. What we consistently do is plan half-heartedly and then go back and forth and eventually create a mess. The retrospective fit is never a good thing, especially regarding architecture/ town planning. Imagine building a house with everything done and then say, you know what, I dont like this layout, lets change the position of the rooms. Similarly, once the urban densification has happened, very difficult to change anything. I will be happy if they have a bus stop and parking facility at every METRO station - in the summit, I remember the METRO man saying parking will be only at interchange stations. There goes the park and ride, and its one user less for sure. Could we narrow your list to a Bus stop and parking facility at each station ? and pressure METRO to give at least that much Put our energy on currently undeveloped areas, like the Peripherial ring roads. Have a surface METRO there (dirt cheap, relatively), have a few acres at every station for very dense development and spread out the BDA kind residential layouts, lakes et al inbetween. As regards the catchment area, if you go through the CTTP comments, I had emphasised a GRID. You need a backbone of mass transport which kinda covers the city geographically. And then connect to that GRID at its nearest point. If Mono is much cheaper than a METRO, we could use it instead as part of the mass transport backbone else we dont need it. Bus (even a 15 -seater mini variety) can do very well to connect surrounding geographical areas to each station.



silkboard's picture

Naveen, Murali - want to help Suhas organize a Metro meeting?

Clearly, we are not satisfied with whatever plans we have seen for Metro so far. Aam aadmi may not be thinking beyond the most visible part - construction work, tracks, rail coaches, station designs. I am pretty sure BMRCL discusses and plans things like catchment area, and would be discussing bus route planning with BMTC. But we need to know more, and got to demand some analytical details and backings for the plan around each station.

Expected load at each station - peak passenger arrival departure rates?

Bus frequencies in tune with these peak passenger rates? Who owns the parking and waiting area for busses?

Any revenue sharing or single ticket arrangement (or incentives) for combined BMTC+BMRC travel?

Murali, Naveen - do you guys want to join in with Suhas and organize one such meeting. Can't wait for newspapers to carry all these details.

srkulhalli's picture

Meeting with Namma Metro

I am OK to co-ordinate one. I am actually interested in getting a good hang of the technical details as well, if somebody is interested and somebody from METRO is willing to explain, that would be nice. Maybe that can be a seperate meeting. Does anybody have contact details or should we start from the METRO website



about seo | forum