Sanity Check: A Namma Metro link to Bengaluru International Airport

Devesh --- yr proposals :

The most obvious weakness is that people living in western & southern bangalore will be disadvantaged. With these proposals, they have to first come to east bangalore (byappanahalli), proceed further east on the airport train & traverse along the eastern crescent of the ORR to go to the airport, which will add a lot of expenses & commute time to their journey/s. Many, almost a majority of airport work-staff come from these parts, not to mention air travelers from western suburbs, who will all opt out & not use this train. They will all use the BMTC bus or taxi, as is the case now.

The second question mark is that, at this stage (ph-2 construction is slated appx’ly between 2011-2015), there will not be sufficient intermediate traffic to justify a Metro alignment between ORR & airport through the Kannur-Bagalur route, whereas, there already is far higher development through the Nagavara-Thirumanahalli route, where a Metro route is much needed. Hence, the CTTP had recommended the EC-Yelahanka route passing through Nagavara-Thirumanahalli. It seems highly doubtful if they will consider a train along the Kannur-Bagalur route, almost parallel to the one already planned.

A third question – during our meeting with Namma Metro officials recently, we confirmed that luggage would be allowed on Namma Metro trains, unlike Delhi metro. So, it would be possible to take luggage on any train in the network, & the need for special luggage storage facilities become less important, except perhaps on the last leg /reach to the airport.

City check-in terminal is provided in many cities overseas by the respective airlines & in certain cases for higher classed travelers, such as 1st class or business class. In Bangalore, an effort is being made by planners to provide this service for all passengers, owing to the greater inconveniences of within-city commuting, long distance to airport & the inconveniences of towing along their luggage through all of this.

Land between Hoskote-Kannur-Bagalur-Devanahalli is conducive to agriculture, & there are many fields & farms. In fact, a lot of arable land had been taken over for the airport.

I agree that HSRL is not really needed. Patronization levels will be very poor as ticket fee would be unaffordable by daily workers & staff at the airport. To make a train justifiable, particularly Metro or HSRL (costing much higher), it must combine all possible types of commuters. A dedicated service for the airport passengers alone will have less chances of success than one that combines air passengers, airport staff, general commuters & office workers /staff coming to work into the city from devanahalli side, etc.

My take on this is as follows :

During phase-2, a line will definitely come up to Yelahanka (most likely from EC). This will have interface/s with ph-1 line at MG road, & the other ph-2 line, probably between Kathriguppe & ITPL, at Vellara jn-Richmond rd. This line upto Yelahanka itself might be sufficient to cater to the airport needs, since it will be well networked with all the other line/s.

All that is required is an equivalent, smaller 2-coach or 3-coach train running between Yelahanka & airport. The coaches would have more sitting arrangements (unlike Namma Metro, which will have a lot of standing room) & space for luggage. This can be less frequent, say once each 15-20 mins or so, with the option to expand the train lengths (up to 6 coaches, as for Namma Metro), & also with provisions to reduce lead times to about 3 minutes, should this be necessary in the future. Presently, this train can have fewer stops in-between (about every 2-2.5km), such as at Yelahanka AirForce Base, Kogilu, Chikjala, Sadahalli, Kannamangala, etc.). Later, as growth escalates, the no. of stops can be increased as for regular city Metro (about every km).

We would thus, be assuming that the city extends to Yelahanka, up to which regular & frequent Metro services would be available; & are providing a service to just cover the additional distance from Yelahanka to the Airport. This might have much better patronization levels since all classes of people can start their journeys anywhere in town by Metro, get to Yelahanka, & then transfer to the airport train.
 
Common ticketing:  If BMRC is the builder /operator for this, it will facilitate common ticketing system from “anywhere to airport” at competitive fee/s. If another operator is brought in, such as a HSRL company, the ticket fee would not be common, & it will be seen as expensive & inconvenient.

Majestic is the Transit heart of Bangalore. Is there any chance of starting it by Majetstic. Every locality from Majestic is connected through buses and will be connected by Metro in future where two arm meets.

I feel a line can run parallelly to the existing SBC - Malleshwaram - Yeshwantpur - Yelahanka - Chikkaballapur route. There is space on the sides of SBC -yeshwantpur - Yelahanka route.

Vinay, we have a big thread of Commuter rail, who are it's prospective users, etc.

Thing is railways is not interested to run the local train services. It wants to run only Intercity services. Some of the tracks such as the Chikkaballapur track is almost empty with very few trains.

The Malleswaram-Yeshwantpur-Yelahanka track has got plenty of space on either sides. This can be utilized well.

I was just thinking that we already have the Yeshwantpur link which eventually will be extended to Hesaragatta Cross. If Yeshwantpur to Devanahalli via Yelahanka can be served by Railways itself on the existing tracks which is underutilized currently.

Second option is new Namma Metro Standard Gauge track is laid in parallel (elevated) to the existing SWR tracks which has got space on either sides, with special airport trains starting from Majestic, chugging along the Yeshwantpur -hesargatta namma metro track, taking a diversion at Yeshwantpur. These trains should have special coaches (executive for air passengers) and normal coaches for the airport workers and people along the path. Normal Metro trains will proceed towards Hesaragatta Cross.  For crossing the down track at Yeshwantpur, an elevated 'up' track should be constructed. After Yelahanka, this train can on ground due to the space availability on the sides of the Chikkaballapur route. Please check this map below:

 

 

 

View Larger Map

The route I suggested can run few trains once in 20 or 30 minutes to BIAL starting from the Metro starting point in the first phase itself (Jarganahalli).

Reaching Majestic in Metro would be 15 minutes from south most tip Jaraganahalli,whereas Byappanahalli 35 Minutes. Same is the case from Vijaynagar line.

Travel to BIAL from Majestic would take 40 minutes + 15 minutes +buffer 10 minutes on the other hand it would be  40+35 minutes + buffer 10 minutes. 20 Minutes extra. It is OK for extra 20 minutes, but, why ?

Starting from Majestic will also help those who come from other cities like Mysore or Hassan via Bus / Train  to Bangalore.

Hiving off a seperate Bangalore Metro Zone from SWR is the best option. The lazy officials and chaprasis running SWR are only interested in their pay cheques and bribe money from railway contractors. They are not interested in developing their infrastructure. After a lot of pressure from people, the Mysore-Nanjangud-Chamarajanagar railway line was inaugurated recently on broad guage. The day it was inaugurated, it was 80% full. Seasonal tickets sold out like crazy. As usual, our dear bus mafia got hit badly and now are crying hoarse over the new rail.

We have discussed this before, but one must always remember that our pockets (govt's) are limited. SOmehow the cost effectiveness part does not get stressed enough. Is it the best use of money, anybody's money ? Can the money be put to better use instead ? The best use of money would automatically be the most financially viable. Whether the money is private or public is a secondary question.

 HSRL is not the best use of money. It is far from it.

The Byapanhalli line which Devesh's suggests is better, however as Naveen pointed out, it is too parallel to the planned Ph2 yelahanka line, to justify both lines. So instead of building a new line, put that same energy and money and start PH 2 right away, and extend the ph2 metro from Yelahanka to airport. If we can build the new line in 3 yrs, we can build this one also in 3. Thus people as far as Electronic City get into Metro and hop out at the airport. In the HSRL case, having to drive down to MG Road and not have any parking and then pay a high amount to get to the airport. Instead, with Metro, in addition to the Airport connectivity, you also reduce Bangalores traffic chaos in time for the next election.

Bottom line, more time, more money, more inconvinience with HSRL. Seems a no-brainer to me.

Suhas

Naveen, The PH2 line is planned anyway, irrespective of the airport link. The "Extra money" is only the Yelahanka-Airport link. The EC(or nearby) to Yelahanka is part of Ph2 anyway. Just expedite it, that is all. If that is too expensive, complete the MG Road to Yelahnaka to Airport part of it now and EC to MG road probably will have to wait. I am not sure how much, but Yelaahanka to Airport will not cost much and there is big advantage of not having to change trains at Yelahanka. But anyways, no: of lines and its routing is primary, how you want to stagger the development is secondary.

Suhas

Employees & Worker's perspective would be to have a service that limits transit time, costs less & avoids inconvenience - actually this would be everyone's perspective ! More so for workers who will be daily commuters & lengthy travel times, time penalty & inconveniences at interchanges would be unwelcome.

Developments in BIAAPA areas may take time, particularly with the current recession. This recession may actually help infrastructure to catch up since leap-frogging development has left many areas far behind.

Abt the EC-Yel line, you are right : It will involve a large underground component (probaby from Langford rd cross on Hosur rd till past Ligarajpuram, passing UG  through Shivajinagar-Frazer town areas).

I dont think the BIAL connection is very urgent, as of now. BMTC buses are managing fine, & air traffic has slowed down. By abt 2015, it might be required if air traffic increases & the planned airport city materializes.

I think the line from Yelahanka to BIAL must pass through Yelahanka new town, existing railway station, & thence along NH-7, passing several catchment points previously mentioned (Yelahanka AirForce Base, Kogilu, Chikjala, Sadahalli, Kannamangala, etc.)., to increase ridership & make it more viable to run the long service.

There is no news about the expressway that was planned..no problem..but there is something that we can reuse from the expressway plan.. This has both elevated and at grade stretches.. I guess Devesh's plan is on the same lines.. The land owners will also not be too upset in parting less land than what the expressway would have taken..

Naveen, you missed me. No need to goto Yeshwantpur.  A BIAL special train starting from Jaraganahalli on Namma Metro track will go upto Yeshwantpur and continue to travel towards Yelahanka and BIAL.

No need to change trains. For example, I can get into this train in National College Station and go till BIAL. No need to change train.

People from Vijaynagar or Byappanahalli can come to Majestic in special BIAL coaches equipped trains. There can be trolleys like airport in Majestic station to change the east west train to BIAL bound train.

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.

         I definitely agree with Devesh that the HSRL will be a bloated investment. I also do agree that Metro is the right alternative. But, I do not subscribe to Devesh’s opinion on the alignment of the metro link.
Vasanth makes the case for the BIA metro to be starting from Majestic (or at least connected to Majestic). I greatly agree with this viewpoint. But, then Majestic is already a congested place, and Metro will not reduce the load on Majestic. Hence, I propose the below solution.

           A metro from Byappanahalli (BYP) to BIA will be costly (in terms of the long distance) and the utility will be low, since south bangaloreans may not prefer to take the long route through BYP. Instead, we can build a line from Malleshwaram (or Yeshwantpur, depending on the land availability for an interchange station) which passes through Hebbal, Yelahanka and then to BIA.
The biggest advantage of this solution will be that the line will not be ‘dedicated’ for BIA travellers. Presently, there are a large number of bus commuters from Yelahanka (both the new town and ‘old’ town) and Hebbal. These busses have high occupancy rates even late in the night, and do not suffer from low occupancy during the afternoon hours. Hence, there is enough market (rather commuters) for this line from Malleswaram to Yelahanka.

            Also, if the BMRC agrees to this solution, they can make a decision the alignment of this line between Hebbal and Malleshwaram. One option will be to take the ring road. Another alternative will be to take the Bellary Road/Palace Road route. That will connect Gangenahalli  and nearby areas to the metro. But then, that its best left to authorities to assess the cost and value for money.

Yelahanka - BIA
Beyond Yelahanka, we can run separate trains with 2-4 coaches every 10-20 min, depending on the load, as proposed by Naveen. In fact, this is the approach taken by SMRT in Singapore (I take this example, as the model has already been referred to in this thread). There, the Metro line from airport connects to the main East-West line, which has just one intermediate stop for a distance of around 7-8 kms. This distance can be covered in no time, since there are not many stops in between.

Ticketing: While all metro users pay the fare proposed by BMRC, the users of the Yelahanka-BIA metro line can be made to pay a small surcharge. (BMTC charges more for the ‘red-board’ busses which travel to the outskirts of the city. So, BMRC can charge this surcharge for providing metro facilities in under-developed areas.) This surcharge may tilt the opinion in favour of the BIA line and its financial viability.

Extension of line 3 (EC- Yelahanka)
Also, there is already the third line proposed from EC to Yelahanka. So, my proposal can be seen as the extension of this line (on the Yelahanka side) to Malleshwaram. This will actually make the line more complete, since it will integrate the third line(EC-Yelahanka-Malleshwaram) with the existing Metro lines increasing the value/utility of the third line, and hence that of the metro.

Now, considering the point that Vasanth makes about airport users from other parts of the state (Hassan,Hubli etc), I have question. Are there any regional trains coming to Yeshwantpur railway station? If such travellers indeed come to Yeshwantpur, then it makes sense to extend the EC-Yelahanka line to Yeshwantpur, instead of Malleshwaram.

Also, a monorail from Yeshwantpur to Hebbal along the ring road is being planned. Since this will be redundant after the proposed extension, we can divert the funds for the mono-rail to this extension, so the additional cost of this extension will not be exorbitant.

 -Srivatsava V

http://srivatsava-vajapeyam.blogspot.com/

Devesh,

One thought on making your proposal compelling.

What I understand is the North Eastern corridor is not well developed. Now if we make the proposed METRO run on the surface, you get a cost advantage of 3 times to 6 times ! (depending on where you read up), which is HUGE. Suppose you assume the land cost at Rs 1000/sq. ft, that would translate to Rs 10 crores/km for a 10m wide strip, which is still far lesser than the Rs 150 cr/km for the elevated line.

Every 500m, you could have a 10m wide two lane + footpath underbridge, and all major roads can have bridges over/under the METRO line. Assume we need 20m width for every odd bridge, that translates to the METRO having to be elevated 30m in a 1km strech, which means its on surface still 97% off the time. Still keeps it cheap. And at any given point, the maximum distance to a crossing is only 250m, so it does not divide the city into halves.

If you can make the cost come down to 1200-1400 crores, now it is a completely different ballgame. Compared to the Ph1 cost of the METRO, for what looks like some additional change, you have connected vast areas of the North East AND helped allievate the BIAL connectivity issue.

With this, you can have Naveen's solution AND your solution. When Ph 2 comes up, we can go ahead with the Yelahanka - BIAL link and the Tumkur Rd-Yelahanka link to give very good connectivity from across all Bangalore.

Before somebody says METRO should not run on the surface, reason I am proposing is that the area is not developed. Once it becomes very dense, and this becomes a hindarance, say 25-35 yrs from now,  on the same route we can elevate the tracks. No additional land acquisition at that time and build can be smooth since infrastructure is in place. 

Suhas

Suhas, Srinidhi,

If an "At Grade" metro is constructed on existing roads or on government lands & kept on the surface throughout, with only the odd bridge or two , it will be cheaper than elevating it, no doubt.

However, in this case, "At Grade" means land acquisition that will add to the costs, if at all land acquisition is possible in the NE - an earlier attempt to acquire land for an expressway was scuttled by landowners in the area with support from the court.

The 10cr/km is only a conservative estimate for land costs. Costs for trackage, rolling stock, construction, etc. are not included, as also the maze of bridges each 500m.

Further, the estimation of 30m /km elevated for bridges /pedestrian crossovers is grossly incorrect - ramps to ride up & down over the bridge will result in the actual figure being about 600mtrs (150 mtrs ramp each side, for each bridge). Hence, costs will be high for such construction if such is possible - it may actually run up to nearly the same cost as for elevated.

Also, the train journey will end up being a roller-coaster ride. Running costs (power consumption, wear & tear, parts, etc) with such frequent rises & falls will also be much higher & uncomfortable for passengers, if at all such construction is admissible.

Suhas,

The path to BIAL thro' Kannur-Bagalur is what is being discussed here - the route is the same as an earlier proposed road expressway route (that was planned partly elevated, too) & had been stiffly opposed by landowners with help from the court/s. This is again being put forward by devesh & will only be met with even more opposition & very high land costs, even if land acquisition were possible, as all the landowners know now that they are holding prime real estate that will become valuable in the years to come, & of course do not want to give it up now.

We have already been thro' this before – If the area is under-developed, it does not justify a Metro that is designed to transport tens of thousands per hour, with trains running every 3-5 minutes. An ordinary train should be sufficient, running at low frequencies with only manual signaling & without sophisticated gear that is used for a metro system. The initial construction costs would also be much cheaper for suburban rail. If you put up an ordinary suburban rail, it has to be broad gauge as per Indian railways standards & SWR will have to operate it as none of the state agencies has the expertise to do this. The tracks & other rail gear will not serve the purpose for a Metro later, & will need to be re-laid to Metro specs if & when travel demand increases, in say 15-20 years, if the area does develop highly, but the real estate can of course be reused.

Thus, land costs are not going to be reasonable, as you have estimated, even with the due diligence that you state. If we go by yr recommended fair process that one whose land is taken away profits more than his neighbors who kept their land, land acquisition will be even more expensive than perhaps going elevated ! So, eventually, you would have spent more to put it on the surface than to sensibly have gone overhead, that involves lesser land, for sure.

However, yr argument will make sense for PRR or even further out, where land is available very cheap & can be easily acquired in large tracts for rail systems & left for many decades before a rail (or metro system) may become necessary there, if ever the city develops so far in that direction & a rail or metro becomes justifiable. Govts (& civilians, too) do not work with such ideas as it might turn out to be unnecessary locked up money for too long that becomes questionable, & after all that, most of the anticipated development may never occur – development is hard to predict, & may take it’s own course & direction.

Land acquisition for road widening within the city & for new roads on the exteriors is quite different. Land within city is obviously a huge expense, whilst on the outskirts, it is lesser priced. Thus, land acquisition on the outskirts (such as PRR & also ORR, earlier) are being acquired without much resistance & at much lower costs, whereas land within is being paid for heavily since roads need to be widened with heavy growth - the costs here are justifiable, to some extent, similar to the Metro system under construction - you would remember that the BMRC MD had stated that an amount of 53crs was paid for a single parcel of land on Mysore rd.

As you say, if underpasses are positioned every 500m along the track, what about the costs of real estate & construction of the approach & exit road & pedestrian ramps to the underpasses ? Rain & storm drainage for these underpasses will have to be arranged where drainage is perhaps non-existent now, else they would all be flooded in rains. These will involve recurring costs for pumping out & maintenance of pump stns, power, etc. Also, we must also remember that road /underpass expansions may come up in the future that will cause inconveniences & will again incur recurring costs. Inconveniences to pedestrians with so many underpasses will also have to be borne in mind. Good designing has to include all this & costs substantially, besides the inconveniences.

Metro systems are hence designed mostly elevated since they typically operate in very dense areas with very high travel demand, allow free movements beneath, permit any possible eventuality, whilst also being relatively safer from saboteurs & flooding.

Other than tracks & stations, land would be required for these underpasses & also for arranging road access & road widening to stations at intervals along the tracks, since in most cases, they would not be readily available.

Naveen,

Let us see where we agree. We agree that there is a context space where an at grade solution is optimum. The decision on where it is optimal should be based on data. Without numbers, we are just story telling.

For a quick sanity check back of the envelope calculation, we need the following numbers

1. What is the land cost in the proposed area

2. How much land would an at grade system need/km length.

3. How much land would an eleveatd system need/km length.

4. What is the cost of an underpass 10m wide and 10m long, drainaige et al.

5. What is the fully loaded cost of a METRO (rolling stock, tracks et al - minus land) of an Elevated and at Grade per km.

If we have these numbers, we both will agree quickly what is an optimal solution.

As I said, otherwise we can discuss forever, with both giving great reasoning but it is a fruitless discussion.

Suhas

There appears to be atleast four major trains (no pun intended) of thought here:

1. Link from BYP
2. Elevated extension of Ph2 line
3. Surface extension of Ph2 line
4. Link from Majestic

I think as suhas says we can argue this for no end which we don't need to... that's the beauty of a democracy. All these are valuable and valid suggestions that can be made to those concerned. Next stop... a compliation of all these into one document (maps, benefits, pitfalls etc.) that can be hosted here. What say?

transmogrifier

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.

I agree with Naveen, Suburban trains are not as good and as comfortable with Metros and will not be preferred by Air Travellers. Air Travellers are very particular about the comfort, say for example the Suvarna buses started by BMTC to BIAL was not used much and everyone preferred Vayu Vajras. Same is the case here. 

Technical point is most of the suburban tracks in Bangalore are laid in some congested areas with lot many sharp curves. One can observe this very much in Bangalore-Mysore track within Bangalore. Trains which are travelling at 100+ kph outside Bangalore will reduce to 50 kmph due to the curves, as well as the people crossing the tracks hapazardly, the stiffness of the land below which will vibrate to hold the heavy weight of the normal trains.

On the other hand, Metro trains are lighter alluminium structures. Going elevated will prevent all the pedestrain and vehicle crossings, those stone throwing incidents (which still occurs).

This can cater in the absence of Metro and solve the long commute such as the whitefield commute, but, can cater to suburbs such as Bidadi, Kolar, Hosur effectively. Our chief minister told the extension of Metro to Kengeri, it is really waste and should be addressed by commuter rail. Mumbai local like crowd and the chaos, no way we can take. It happens only in Mumbai since it is linear and Local  trains serve most of the city.

Disclaimer: this thread can itself remain a pipe dream..

theres no doubt that some sections need to be elevated..like they had planned for the expressway..but major part can be at grade..
I guess, if there is already a two way road with a wide median..building a elevated metro is a breeze..no land acqusition needed etc..

However the route Devesh was talking was max 30 ft road..with probably nice trees on the sides..ok..that makes it 40 ft?
We carve out a median there and make it 15 ft two lanes with a 10 ft median..cutting the trees..what gud that road will be?
Hence a limited aqusition for at grade line should be viable! Did we hear third rail? If yes, then we need good fencing all the way!
costs will not be low..but having traveled on elevated monorail and other metro rails..metro at grade is the best option..shd say!

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.

 

The London Underground (also most other European metros) do not follow the road alignments since most were built underground a long time ago. Our Metros are being planned mostly elevated over roads for the reasons mentioned.

There is a lot of difference in comfort levels between our suburban & long distance trains & Trains /Metros overseas. I had recently used the eurorail pass for travel within europe, particularly deustsche bahn & had also travelled on the Inter-city in UK + Amtrak in USA previously - these are far superior to any of our trains with noiseless, smooth operation. The train system in Japan is also a great experience. I recently read a report about the new train in China to Lhasa (Tibet) from the eastern shore, built to international specs before the Beijing olympics to satisfy protestors from worlwide - the report was by a british author, who had stated that it was the best train in China & comparable to Inter-city !

The Metros in India are being planned as per the latest international specs & would offer the same comfort levels - Delhi Metro being the first such, with Bangalore & other Metros to follow.

Our present trains are quite uncomfortable - they vibrate, there is noise, the coaches are of rudimentary design, etc.

The coaches on Mumbai locals do not have automatic doors for safety, no PA system, no vestibules, the electric motors are very noisy, no inetriors panelling, no AC, no WifFi, no station display or PA announcements within coaches, etc. But then as you say, the excessive crowds do not permit any of these.

Most users of the int'l airport are from bangalore - many from within the state (as also some from outside) use them as it is the only international airport with many connections to overseas destinations in the state. Even these users from outside the city will mostly use bangalore city as a transit point, though how they commute to the airport is a different question - at present, there are volvo buses & also suvarna buses, costing lesser operating between city & airport from various city pickup points. Cabs /taxis also operate. Auto-rickshaws are not permitted within the airport.

Other than these air travellers, there is a huge cargo complex & many other airport related facilities (airport city) that are coming up. Thus, there are already many daily commuters. Added to this, there are many developing suburbs en-route along the highway. A high-speed airport train with limited stops is being planned, but will be hugely expensive & may never materialize, & may remain just a thought.

A metro train is not immediately required, but with further developments, it may become a necessity & will have large patronage, of course if it includes the suburbs en-route that are also developing fast.

Normal 0

ASJ,

Let’s not contest or challenge one another. Keeping praja’s objectives in mind first, this should be a useful discussion from which we could learn from each other as also involve others reading in – & I am sure you are in agreement.

1)      The needs & wants of different sections of society differ. The poorer sections of course want low ticket prices & punctuality, which the Mumbai local trains offer to them. Comfort /cleanliness are not too important for this group. The upper classes want clean surroundings, AC in hot climate & more advanced features on the trains, in addition to punctuality. A higher fee for travel is not much frowned upon by this group that has grown steadily now to very large numbers.

Having spent 5 years in Mumbai earlier, I know the city very well & I visit the city quite often even now in the course of my employment. The existing local trains there do cater to millions of people at very low cost, & they are referred to as the lifeline of the city. For decades, the punctuality of these trains was what made Mumbai what it is – the largest city economy of the country, as you say.

However, times have changed. With improved affordability now, many people have been buying cars as these trains had reached saturation. They are now overcrowded & have become very uncomfortable. The city had tried to overcome this by building new roads & widening existing ones to cater to the increasing no. of cars, but realization dawned on them that they needed to address the aspirations of this group that is quality conscious. Since road construction cannot go on for long, they now plan a Metro system with all the quality standards that this group seeks. Accordingly, the new Mumbai Metro system, planned in 3 phases, would connect most parts of the city from North to South & East to West, with 9 new lines.

It is quite unfair that train systems costing thousands of crores are being provided for the richer classes whilst the poor will continue in low cost trains, but this is part of a much larger problem that our country has to somehow cope with over the next few decades.

The story is no different in Bangalore - the city can have a network of low-cost commuter trains too, but South-Western Railways are not interested, probably after the failures of Chennai & Hyderabad MRTS. The bus system, under the circumstances, is performing satisfactorily, but has become inefficient & very inadequate due to increasing traffic. With these new upper classes in very large numbers, the city desperately needs a mass transit to get them off their cars. Hence, after almost 20 years of debate, they are now building a modern metro system, but the bus will continue to be indispensable. Migrants will keep pouring in, but if controls are exercised on roads to keep traffic volumes low, the bus system & the metro should be able to cope.

Bangalore metro will finally have 6 coaches (not 4) that can accommodate over 2000 passengers. The capacity is larger as standing space is more & seating space is made fewer with longitudinal row of seats on the two sides, with an open middle left for increased standing room.

2)      Re. the break-up of BIAL users, I have not come across any such stats, & doubt if they are available. The transport survey (CTTP) has recommended a BRT up to the international airport, & in my opinion, this would have been the least expensive & the best choice. Differences between NHAI (the road is NH-7) & the city authorities as also rejection of BRT by the airport connectivity infrastructure committee, probably under pressure from industry, has resulted in more attention to a hi-speed rail system, that will cost heavily. This is being pursued without any notion of risk, & is wasteful, in my opinion.

3)      Trains are noisy on the outside anywhere, no doubt. What I was referring to was that noise levels within were very low on trains in Europe, USA, etc, with increased comfort for travellers.

4)      Tubes did not happen before roads – the older subway systems in Europe happened a long time ago & did not probably follow the roads as routes for guidance of travel patterns, but were probably based on connecting different points effectively (this should be so even today). This was also before excessive motorization took place. London’s Metro is called the ‘Underground’ because much of it is buried deep.

The London route that you took may not have elevated sections. The pictures below show that elevated sections are very common in Asian cities as also elsewhere (NewYork, etc). It is not that India is the only country opting for this.

Bangkok

    

Manila; & NewYork

   

NewYork

   

Taipei

        

 

Yr first picture of Delhi Metro shows that when tracks are elevated above the road, it reduces land acquisition when compared to surface rail since the road is already public land, as you stated. It may not demonstrate that roads have been widened for building the Metro since the road may have already been wide enough. In Bangalore, roads are not as broad. Some of the roads along which the Metro is aligned are being widened to accept the pillars, either along medians or along the sides. So, the construction process involves land acquisition at very high cost along these roads for road widening.

Yr second picture of Delhi Metro may show a large station structure that does not demonstrate that land on the surface for the elevated station was saved. How about the designs in the pictures below – use of land can certainly be saved with proper designs for stations.

 

 

 

And some land-saving station designs for Bangalore Metro ---

  

  

  

5)      Maintenance costs would certainly be higher for elevated sections when compared to surface rail, but lesser than underground since lighting & ventilation would be necessary continuously for underground, as in London tubes.

As regards safety, elevated routes have been in use & the development of safety standards has probably been progressing, undoubtedly, though I am not aware of the technical details. Elevated tracks are safer than underground against sabotage & flooding. A walkway path on both sides along elevated & also underground sections is being provided throughout.

 

No one is prescribing anyone anything. Its a fair debate, although some seem to take slight at the idea of anyone asking a question - if that is the case, it is pointless.

To clarify, I did say, I was commenting with the intent of you and others leveraging the outsiders perspective. Its not for me to decide what anyone chooses to do with the feedback on the thread. Nobody is stupid enough to think I am saying go the London way (that was an alternative cleraly not looked at), nor am I suggesting there have not been any studies. Those who read enough, will get past the concrete sense some seem to have derived.

The idea of a road being replaced by a rail track at grade is not absurd - all one needs to imagine is how one connects two cities across a river (if we presume the river in this case is the rail track).  Those images of two elevated rail tracks and packed roads below hardly make me feel optimistic.

Suhas did make an effort to get this across but like him I do not wish to be subjected to what seems to be getting close to a personal attack. Hence I too will bow out of this thread.

ASJ