CTTP Review – Further Comments & Inputs

Hi Suhas, went through your assessment of the CTTP & the discussions that followed – various comments & many relevant, valid points have surfaced.

There are a few issues I would like to fill in :

1) Re. analysis of different MRTS options, their workability vis-à-vis Bangalore city -----

You are probably aware that many earlier studies had been made & recommendations for different types of mass transit systems were considered & debated. I had also mentioned this in parts on various posts in the past. I am including them all together again & making a new post since the CTTP-2007 report does not quote nor make references to them though Ch.6.6 has some general criteria for system selection & 6.7 summarizes the corridors with recommended systems. As you correctly indicated, a summary of past studies is relevant & clarifies system selections better, & should have been included for reference.

Click here for the summary:

http://bangalore.praja.in/blog/naveen/2008/10/27/bangalore-mass-transit-summary-past-study-reports

2) You mention that the report is not complete, & suggestions were open–ended, with no estimates on the impact on traffic & transportation statistics upon implementation – I am not entirely sure what you referred to here ----

I think the future growth scenarios with the effects, as summarized in three incremental steps are quite substantial to visualize what the outcomes would be following each action. ( The three scenarios are termed Scenario 1, 2 & 3 in this report, but in previous study reports, they were called “Do Nothing”, “Do Minimum”, & “Do Something” ).

My concern here is that even with the recommended Scenario-3, where several Mass Transit options are in place, the no. of daily trips by cars & 2-wheelers still show increases by 2025 – there are no recommendations to limit this & thus, this area has not been sufficiently addressed in the report. The only way this can be addressed is to enforce several more traffic restraining measures & very strict compliance to discourage private vehicle use – I wonder how they plan to achieve this. The other option is perhaps to include many more mass-transit additions (over & above what has already been recommended), which would really complicate the city’s core areas.

3) Suburban rail (Commuter rail) has been mentioned in some detail in Ch.7.5, recommending 10 routes totaling 204.0 km. However, this is generally not for commuters who live & travel within the city, but for commuters who live outside & travel to & from the city.

CRS would not be useful for someone wanting to commute from say, Jayanagar to Shivajinagar, or say from Koramangala to Rajajinagar – he would use the Metro or Mono as available, which cuts through the city on shorter route/s & in quicker time. Travel circumferentially on ring road or PRR for such commutes would increase travel time, obviously.

4) About developing surface rail systems around the periphery :

Along ORR, this is impossible due to all round development, in fact road-widening on the western part of ORR has been ruled out due to this & Monorail has been recommended, instead of the cheaper BRT due to narrower road width.

The PRR is being built with provisions for BRT, & also for rail tracks by way of a 12m central median (should rail tracks be necessary at some later stage). The planning of the PRR seems in order since BRT tracks will be positioned on curbside, just outside the main 4-lane carriageways each side. There are 2-lane service roads on each side that are planned on curbside of the bus-ways. Thus, the road is being customized with a focus on BRT, with curbside operations (as opposed to median operations that are usually more suitable on existing roads) & with easy access for local commuters.

I am not sure if planning & running surface Metro-rail on PRR right from the beginning is a good idea. As BRT is the most convenient, least expensive, & one which can be easily scaled up /down or withdrawn without wastage as & when required, the CTTP has recommended this & it is being followed up by BDA. Maintenance is also economical & easy. If a network of electric wires were installed, we could have trolley buses (as they are called in Europe /Russia) running with silent electric motors & cutting back on emissions, too. This should be the ideal choice. Well planned BRT systems have carrying capacities nearly the same as Metro rail (the Bogota system, Transmilano has 40,000 phpdt).

The Delhi /Pune BRT fiascos have more to do with insufficient thought, poor planning & maybe, also incorrect choice of corridors to run the service, first up. Such errors, common by many planners, does not necessarily imply that it is not suitable for India. In fact, it is an excellent low-cost solution for India – cost-efficient systems are much needed to assist the poor. The BRT concept has been ridiculed & made a casualty by the media & car lobbies. What is lacking is a process to customize the system to suit our needs. If BRT corridors can be designed without any traffic signal synchronization with other traffic, the chances for it to succeed are far higher as our road discipline & traffic signal systems are poor /unreliable when compared to those abroad. For this, busways must be physically separated to prevent intrusion, & must have exclusive passages through the signaled intersections by overhead ramps or underpasses. In Ahmadabad, these features are being planned along some lengths of the BRT corridor & we will probably see the 2nd BRT success in India here, after Indore.

In general, costs for rail systems are far higher & when this is added to the fact that investments have to stay committed for single-valued outcomes with little or no re-use for tracks /coaches, signals & other rail infrastructure (should it be unsuccessful), the whole exercise makes it unattractive for planners as financial risks are too great.

About the failure of MRTS, Chennai please click below link :

http://praja.in/blog/naveen/2008/04/01/urban-rail-chennai-experience

You mentioned that suburban rails have a good track record in India – this is only true for Mumbai. Kolkata, Chennai & Hyderabad have seen failures & are just about managing to stay afloat. For that matter, even the Metro rail systems (Delhi & Kolkata) have not fared well so far.

5) Re. Average speed for Metro – this is estimated by BMRC at 32km per hour (maximum speed 80 km/hr). For BRT, average speeds are about 22-25km per hour on prioritized & exclusive routes (estimates from BRTs elsewhere, such as Bogota – this is lesser than Metro due to more frequent stops). No forecast estimates have been made for speed of private vehicles movement, probably because this becomes less important. Metro ridership estimates are on the BMRC website (10.2 lakhs in 2011 & 16.1 lakhs per day in 2021) – there had been a separate study by RITES for Metro previously. Maximum load /unload stations would be Majestic, City Railway station, Vijayanagar & Toll gate, as estimated by BMRC & reported in the press some time back.

6) The airport rail link, if & when planned will be a dedicated express (hi-speed) service exclusively for the airport, inclusive of city check-in facilities. Thus, it would involve additional infrastructure such as security scanners for baggage & airline check-in facilities at two stations (MG Rd & Hebbal). At Yelahanka, only hand baggage will be allowed as baggage check-in facilities will not be made available. The train has only four stations along it’s track, & all commuters will be seated, with sufficient space to store luggage, unlike city Metro where most would be standing. This service is therefore distinct & quite different from the city Metro service. Funding for this through private means should also be easier since business is more or less assured.

However, with current air passenger volumes around 10 million, this dedicated train does not make any sense, & volumes must cross some 25 million before such a service is needed. It is good that plans are afoot for this now – If & when we require it, we already have a backup plan ready, for once ! Traveling by taxi around PRR will increase time /costs enormously (PRR is some 116km long, thus one half would be nearly 60km !). Instead, travel by Hi-speed airport link & transfer to taxi /autorickhshaw or car will be much more efficient, as it is elsewhere in most cities.

7) I thought that the extension of Metro to PRR along Kanakapura road was basically to connect the IT hubs in the south east & EC to the parts that lie to it’s west & north through NICE & PRR & then Metro. Though, at present this may look unnecessary, with time, it might need a second look. Already, an extension till Jarganahalli (near Metro Cash & Carry) has been announced. Thus, in a few years, when further growth takes place, we may again see a further extension, till PRR.

After providing BETL to EC along Hosur road, it is somewhat unlikely that a Metro line will be planned along Hosur road. EC may be linked by Metro from the western side, via Bannerghatta road.

8) About Monorail – actually, they did not make sense to me too, earlier since they had been primarily designed for zoos & amusement parks. Now, since there are many private manufacturers who might offer good deals, such as bearing all installation & maintenance costs for fixed periods, Monorails may be worth a fresh look with BOOT options. In this context, it makes sense to also pursue this option & use it if required, as funding options are better.

9) As you have rightly mentioned elsewhere, I found a lot of variation in cost/s for Metro-rail, Light-rail or Monorail. These variations, I presume are probably due to varying costs of land acquisition, the type of soil (depth of the foundation piers, tunneling difficulties, etc.) & due to the varying prices between different manufacturers – the European ones are the most expensive followed by the Japanese, then American /Canadian & the lowest are Korean /Malaysian companies. Further, rolling stock makers were all from overseas initially for DMRC & they had imported coaches from S.Korea, but for phase-2, they have now placed an order with BEML. So, costs may have come down, which is a positive development.

CTTP review comments

General background

Structuring of report is good. Conceptually clear flow of thinking. Starts with a good background of Bangalore. Then gives a background of the study itself. What is the data collected and how it is collected is dealt in Chapter 3. Using this data to create a model for travel and transport is discussed in Chapter 4. The next chapter gives a general background on the guiding principles for transport planning. Then (in Ch 6) is discussed on how to extrapolate the data to do an analysis of future demand. Based on the strategy and the future demand developed with the help of the modeling, a travel and transportation plan is proposed, which involves, Metro rail, LRT, BRT among others is presented in Ch 7. The next chapter(8) discussed the importance of seamless integration of the various modes. Then the cost estimates, how to generate the money, and how to phase the transport network is discussed in CH 9. The last chapter talks about institutional development that is required to run the city effectively.

Two biggest lacunae, no serious analysis of different MRTS options, their workability vis-à-vis Bangalore city. The second is the report is not complete. That is, the suggestions are open-ended. The loop should have been closed, by estimating the impact on the traffic and transportation statistics of implementing the proposals. More in the detailed comments below.

In general, data collection has been good. Can be used for other studies as well

In chp 4 it is mentioned that there is not much information of trip attraction points, such as work places, colleges etc. This could be a very important exercise and data collected on this basis, especially since most of the trips are for work or education basis. At least to find the major hotspots in Bangalore and identify the daily trips to/from that conglomerate. For eg: Electronic city, ITPL, Airport, Majestic, Peenya Industrial area are obvious high I/O points. This data should be relatively easier to collect and use in their modeling.

Model should have been validated on previous data. Ie, if similar analysis was carried in 2001 or the RITES in 1994 and similar modeling was done, how accurate has it been in estimating the traffic today. Based on that the accuracy of the forecast could have been estimated.

Talks about street design but needs to be more comprehensive. Aspects mentioned includes space for bus lanes, bicycle and pedestrians, para transit passengers to mass transport facility. I believe street design should also incorporate space for hawkers, which would make the city more economically inclusive. Bus-stops, street lights, parking, forestation (tree-lining), turning lanes are some of the other things that should be added.

The desire line diagrams as well the peak hour diagrams are not readable. It comes across as blotch of colour. Some suggestions for improving them would be - Spread the diagrams across multiple sheets. They could be segregated by point of origin or by quantum of traffic.

Not much info from an engineering perspective on the various MRT options, their cost, their speeds, quality of service etc. A thorough study of the mass transport alternatives, their relative advantages and disadvantages is not part of the study. Suburban rail, or rail at grade is not mentioned at all, and no reason why this has been dropped has been given.

This is very critical and obvious to an extent. How could one give proposals without understanding the pros and cons of each in depth ?

My pet peeve – Does not talk sufficiently on cost effectiveness other than mention BRT. Laying surface lines, avoiding commute through central areas by laying rail tracks in the periphery is not mentioned. BRT is the lowest cost, however the next best thing would be a suburban or metro system at grade but with ROW (right of way). Talks about diverting through traffic on PRR. But in the same light, if we could divert people traffic through circular rail routes and not have them commute through the centre would help, both reduce commute time as well reduce the load on the centre.

The suggestions are open-ended, ie the report doesn’t talk about what to expect once the proposal has been implemented. Such as, what would be the percentage of ridership on the Metro at completion of each phase ? What would be the ridership along each route ? How much would use Public Transport , (updation of table 3.7/ Fig 3.8)? How would the density of road traffic compare (update Table 3.1, 3.2 etc)? What would be the average speed (speed and delay study - Table 3.16)comparison between now and once these suggestions are implemented. Average commute time if the transport network is utilized. None of these are addressed, as the study missed this crucial point altogether.

Regarding the plan itself - West Bangalore seems to have a lot of monorail and east has none, but seems to have a lot of BRT. This could result in imbalance, specially if BRT does not work as well.

Specific Suggestions:

1. Convert the Hebbal to J.P. Nagar (Bannerghatta Road) along the eastern portion of outer ring road also to Monorail/LRT. This way the LRT corridor would be a complete circle along outer ring road.

Currently, proposal is to have Mono/LRT along eastern section and BRT along western section.

Efficacy of BRT in Indian context is a serious question. How would the buses on the BRT corridor be free flowing. Would they be signal free ? How would that be achieved without grade separation ?

Compared with Monorail/LRT which has grade separation and would thus be extremely predictable and quick, BRT would be mixed with the heavy regular traffic with all the turns, signals and highly heterogeneous and non-compliant traffic which is characteristic of Bangalore. As I mentioned, this has to be proven in the Indian context.

Usage of a Mass transport depends heavily on convenience and even perceived convenience. Having to change modes, and especially to Bus would be a serious hindrance to increasing usage. Even for the agency laying the Monorail/LRT, having access to the high density tech corridor along the outer ring road would greatly improve their financial viability.

Given the above, strongly advised to have a circular monorail/LRT corridor along the entire outer ring road.

2. Convert the BRT corridor along the PRR (peripheral ring road) to a ‘at grade’ suburban rail system.

As mentioned, any at grade rail system would be very cheap and has potential of much higher passenger throughput than a BRT. A BRT would saturate at 15,000 to 20,000 phpdt whereas a heavy suburban system can go far beyond. The convienience of a rail, is perceived much better. Also, suburban rail systems have been hugely successful in India. The key is to incorporate the suburban system in the planning stage, before significant densification has happened and this would make it extremely cost effective. Actually, the 1977 document also proposes a ring railway.

This circular suburban rail would be hitting significant trip attraction points of Bangalore, such as Electronic City, ITPL, the Bangalore International Airport , Peenya Industrial area, and Kengeri satellite town. Even the desire line diagram (Fig 3.5), shows considerable traffic between these points. It would reduce the traffic congestion inside Bangalore city. Also, this would thus help alleviate the current hot problem of Airport connectivityJ. It has been observed that people are willing to switch personal transport for rail, but very rarely for Bus. This was borne out even in the recent Times of India survey. Converting to a high quality at grade Metro or suburban rail is thus imperitave.

This should also be taken with immediate effect, as at a lower cost, its potential benefits are significant. Also there is a huge opportunity cost, if this is delayed.

3. Cancel the Metro corridor from Yelahanka via Nagvara

Metro is extremely expensive. None of the data justify two Metro corridors so close to each other. (Devanhalli Airport to MG road and Yelahanka to MG Road). The Airport to MG Road corridor can also take the traffic of Yelahanka/ Nagvara.

In this context, the high speed Airport rail link is really a no-no. While being extremely expensive, the amount of Airport traffic does not justify it. Assuming 12 million passengers annually, that would be 1400 phpdt. A number of passengers, especially international travelers, prefer taking a taxi. In addition, this high speed link only drops them to MG Road and not to the final destination. How much would it help the IT folks working in ITPL or Electronic City for eg:? Would this be an alternative to a cab along the PRR or ORR ?

Instead, one could run special airport trains on a regular METRO corridor

Note : This suggestion is to consolidate the two METROS in the NORTH (Bangalore Airport and Yelanhanka till MG Road). The M.G. Road to Electronic city is useful and needs to continue to exist.

4. Push out the Kanakapura Rd extension of the METRO

The desire line Fig 3.5, as well as Table 3.3 do not show very heavy traffic movement through Kanakapura road. Traffic is much higher on the Hosur Road, Tumkur road and Bellary Road sections. From these charts, as well as our experience in Bangalore, we know the congestion of Hosur Road through to Electronic city. Thus the Electronic City MG Road should be taken up as a priority or the JP Nagar should be extended to Electronic City.

The Kanakapura rd extension could be converted to Monorail.

5. Completing the interconnects, creating a grid to have good coverage across the city.

If the above are carried out, and some of the corridors may need to be extended to hit the suburban ring railway, we will have a grid of Mass Transit which ensures a good coverage across the city. The usage of Mass Transit increases exponentially with coverage.

[Did some minor formatting change, did hide the email address to prevent spam and promoted to front page - {blr_editor}]

Part I: BRTS

Part I: Monorail

Part I: Airport Rail Link - The Monorail Option

Part I: Commuter Rail System

Part II: Non-Motorised User Facilities

Part II: Traffic Restraining Measures

Part III: South East CBD areas not connected

A possible way to address this problem is to extend the Monorail /Light rail route (Kathriguppe to National College) past National college to pass through Sajjan-Rao circle, Minerva, JC road, Corporation, Hudson circle, RRM road, Richmond circle & Residency road to terminate at Rex cinema & have an interchange with the proposed NE–SE Metro route (Phase-2). This routing had been proposed earlier for ELRTS, which had since been abandoned. At sometime in the future, loads may become heavy during peak hours on the E–W line as it is the only line planned to connect the two N–S lines & the extension will also provide another much needed connection between the two N–S lines through the core area.

Part III: ITPL and surrounding areas not covered